Jia Lissa
As midterm election polls suggest a potential Democratic takeover of both the US House of Representatives and possibly the Senate, lawmakers are actively preparing to launch a series of investigations into the Trump administration. However, a recent report from the Government Accountability Office (GAO) underscores a significant challenge: executive branch agencies are increasingly refusing to cooperate with congressional oversight, making accountability a difficult and potentially protracted endeavor, even with a legislative majority. This escalating resistance, highlighted by the conduct of the so-called Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE), raises critical questions about the legislature’s capacity to enforce transparency and access fundamental information about government operations.
The DOGE Report: A Catalyst for Concern
In late September, the GAO, Congress’s primary investigative body, released a damning report titled "DOGE: Congress and the Public Lack Assurance That Systems and Data Were Protected at Multiple Agencies." This report detailed extensive non-cooperation from several executive branch agencies regarding the scope and nature of DOGE’s access to sensitive government systems and information. DOGE, spearheaded by prominent tech figure Elon Musk and a key initiative of the Trump administration’s second term, was ostensibly created to streamline federal operations. However, the GAO’s findings indicate a troubling pattern of obstruction that undermines the very principles of governmental accountability.
One of the most vocal examples of defiance came from the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB), an agency that had reportedly been "gutted" by DOGE and the Trump administration in the early months of the president’s second term. The CFPB responded to the GAO’s findings with a letter that accused investigators of bias and outright labeled the report "misleading." This direct challenge to the integrity of a non-partisan investigative body signals a deepening chasm between the executive and legislative branches, particularly concerning oversight.
Emily Berman, a law professor at the University of Houston, articulated the severity of the situation, stating, "In a world where there is no shame, it’s hard to think of what Congress can do that doesn’t involve some coercion of some kind, like withholding money or going to court." Her observation cuts to the heart of the dilemma facing a potentially incoming Democratic majority: traditional mechanisms of oversight appear to be losing their deterrent power in an environment where executive branch officials are increasingly willing to defy congressional demands.
A Pattern of Non-Cooperation Across Agencies
The GAO, despite its independence and nonpartisan mandate, found itself facing unprecedented levels of resistance during its DOGE investigation. While agencies are not legally bound to enact the GAO’s suggestions, they are statutorily required to cooperate with its requests for information and auditing. Yet, according to GAO spokesperson Sarah Kaczmarek and a Democratic congressional aide who spoke anonymously to WIRED, multiple agencies investigated for the DOGE report systematically failed to comply.
The list of recalcitrant agencies includes the CFPB, the Department of Veterans’ Affairs (VA), the Department of Education, the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC), and the Small Business Administration (SBA). Each, in varying degrees, refused to provide the requested information. Kaczmarek elaborated on the broader trend: "We have experienced increased challenges in obtaining information from agencies over the past year and a half. As this report demonstrates, when agencies do not provide requested information, it can limit GAO’s ability to provide Congress and the public with assurance that federal programs, systems, and information are appropriately managed and protected."
Specific Instances of Obstruction and Secrecy
The level of agency non-cooperation detailed in the report was striking. For instance, every agency involved in the DOGE investigation refused to even name the DOGE operatives they had hosted, despite some of this information already being in the public domain. The CFPB, in particular, declined to identify all six DOGE members detailed to its operations, even though WIRED had previously identified three of them in February 2025: Nikhil Rajpal, Chris Young, and Gavin Kliger. Subsequent reporting also linked Jeremy Lewin and Jordan Wick to the DOGE team at the CFPB, underscoring the administration’s reluctance to confirm even widely known facts.
Further examples illustrate the depth of the obstruction. Both the SBA and the VA "did not respond to requests for information needed to determine the access DOGE team members had to their systems." Previous investigative journalism by WIRED revealed specific activities of DOGE affiliates within these agencies. At the VA, Sahil Lavingia reportedly sought to implement AI for writing code for agency systems, raising questions about data security and operational integrity. Meanwhile, at the SBA, DOGE affiliates Edward "Big Balls" Coristine and Donald Park were granted extensive access to the agency’s crucial financial and loan systems, a level of access that, without proper oversight, could pose significant risks. Both the VA and SBA did not respond to requests for comment on these specific allegations, further perpetuating the climate of non-transparency.
The Democratic aide characterized the resistance as "surprising," noting that while some reluctance to provide information is common, agencies usually seek accommodations. "Normally, an agency might be reluctant to provide as much information as the GAO requests, but then they try to find accommodations," the aide explained. "If they can’t provide X, they provide Y. If they can’t provide Y, maybe they could walk investigators through something, or show different things. But there’s just a complete lack of willingness to kind of get to yes." This shift from negotiation to outright stonewalling marks a troubling evolution in executive-legislative relations.
Broader Implications: Beyond DOGE
The pattern of executive branch recalcitrance extends beyond the DOGE investigation. Senator Ron Wyden (D-Oregon) revealed in a statement to WIRED that the Commerce Department is also "refusing to cooperate with my request with Sen. Welch to investigate the effectiveness of US export controls to address AI-fueled national security risks." The Commerce Department, like other agencies under scrutiny, offered no comment. Senator Wyden’s frustration was palpable: "There is no good reason to deny GAO investigators the access they need to root out corruption and waste in federal programs." This highlights that the challenges posed by the DOGE investigation are part of a broader, systemic issue affecting various aspects of government operations and national security.
Congressional Tools and Their Diminished Efficacy
For a potentially incoming Democratic-led Congress, the tools to enforce cooperation are theoretically robust but practically weakened. The most direct method is the use of subpoena power. The Democratic aide indicated that members of Congress are indeed "gearing up" to issue subpoenas, anticipating a "hostile" environment from the administration. However, the effectiveness of subpoenas hinges on the ability to enforce them.
Historically, a threat of contempt of Congress against an executive official was a powerful lever, often compelling the executive branch to reach an agreement. "It used to be that if Congress threatened to hold an executive official in contempt of Congress, that was like a huge embarrassment," Professor Berman observed. "And that imposed a lot of pressure on the executive branch to reach some agreement with Congress."
However, this dynamic has significantly eroded. In recent years, multiple attorneys general have been held in contempt of Congress since 2012 with seemingly minimal repercussions. This is largely because the ultimate enforcement of contempt charges rests with the executive branch itself, specifically the Department of Justice. If the DOJ, led by presidential appointees, chooses not to prosecute, Congress’s contempt citations become largely symbolic. A recent example is the September 2026 contempt citation against billionaire Leon Black for refusing to testify about his connections to Jeffrey Epstein. Whether Black will face legal consequences is now "out of Congress’ hands," pending a decision from the US Attorney’s Office for the District of Columbia. This illustrates the inherent weakness in Congress’s enforcement mechanisms when faced with a resistant executive branch.
The Limited Arsenal: Fines, Arrests, and Lawsuits
Without the guaranteed cooperation of executive branch agencies, Congress’s options for enforcing accountability are starkly limited. Professor Berman outlined a few extraordinary measures: imposing fines, arresting individuals and holding them in a "little jail cell in the basement of the Capitol," or filing lawsuits that could potentially ascend to the Supreme Court. Each of these carries significant practical and political hurdles. Legal cases, particularly those involving constitutional disputes over executive privilege and congressional authority, can drag on for years, often outlasting a House’s two-year term, rendering them ineffective for timely oversight. This temporal mismatch creates a "real problem" for using the courts to enforce accountability, Berman noted.
The Broader Shift in Power and the "Power of the Purse"
Professor Berman characterized the current situation as "part of a broader shift of power from Congress to the executive branch." She explained, "Over time, the way the law has moved is to give the executive branch more and more power and discretion over decisions within its own branch. So it’s had the effect of essentially broadening the scope of what the executive branch can argue they’re entitled to keep secret." This ongoing constitutional rebalancing directly undermines Congress’s constitutional mandate to oversee the executive and ensure accountability.
Faced with these constraints, some lawmakers are advocating for alternative strategies. Jamie Raskin (D-Maryland), ranking member on the House Judiciary Committee, has pointed to Congress’s "power of the purse" as a means to pressure the executive branch into compliance. This involves using Congress’s constitutional authority over federal spending to leverage cooperation.
However, wielding the power of the purse effectively is also fraught with challenges. As Professor Berman noted, the budget process often relies on "blunt tools." Congress frequently passes appropriations in large omnibus bills, bundling critical funding for essential government operations with specific administrative priorities. This makes it difficult to selectively defund non-cooperative agencies without causing widespread disruption. The perils of this approach were evident in the months-long partial government shutdown that followed Senate Democrats’ refusal to pass an appropriations bill that included funding for the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) after the killing of Alex Pretti by Customs and Border Protection (CBP) agents. While intended to pressure the administration, it resulted in unpaid TSA workers and massive delays at airports, illustrating the unintended consequences of broad budgetary actions.
Another potential avenue for leverage, should Democrats gain control of the Senate, involves refusing to confirm presidential appointments until the executive branch cooperates with investigations. This tactic, while impactful, can lead to significant governmental paralysis and might be reserved for the most egregious instances of obstruction.
Ultimately, the consensus among experts like Professor Berman is sobering: "there are no good options." The increasing defiance from the executive branch, coupled with the diminishing efficacy of traditional congressional oversight tools, signals a critical juncture for American governance. The battle for transparency and accountability in the coming years will not only shape the legacy of the Trump administration but also redefine the balance of power between the branches of government for future administrations. The stakes are profound, touching upon the very foundations of democratic checks and balances and the public’s right to know what its government is doing.
