Here's my concern with DOGE. I haven't been able to really see a good explanation of their process because all the reporting on it is sensationalized either left or right.
Every March-ish, the President releases his "budget" which is basically funding requests for every agency. After that, the House Subcommittees associated with each agency pick through these budget requests and make changes they see appropriate. These then make their way into the major budget bills for the upcoming FY. Sometimes, dollar amounts are earmarked for specific initiatives, sometimes the language is vague.
When/if Congress actually get around to passing a budget, the funding is allocated. Even in years that there is a CR, there are budget lines for specific initiatives.
When DOGE arrives at an agency and hones in on a contract, I'd like to know if there a cursory review to determine whether that contract was put in place specifically using earmarked money by Congress.
IF these contracts were executed as a result of earmarked dollars, then I'm concerned about it holding up in court. Not to mention, these old contracts are already in progress, meaning that cancellation will still cost the taxpayers some percentage of the contract value. IF contracts were awarded using agencies' general funds, perhaps they are more "fair game".
If the shoe was on the other foot and Bill Gates or Mark Zuckerberg was running around under President Harris canceling contracts that Republicans cared about, I think the news would look a little different.
Bottom line for me, I love the idea of DOGE in spirit, but I am hoping it's being done correctly and I'm uncomfortable with someone with obvious political bias being the figurehead.
