A new survey shows the U.S. is sharply divided over many actions so far, particularly regarding Elon Musk’s Department of Government Efficiency (aka DOGE).
The actions of U.S. presidents during their first 100 days in office have historically served as a precursor of what’s to come over the next four years, and so far, what it’s meant is rapid-fire change.
To gauge where Americans stand on the legality of some of the changes and proclamations since Trump took office, Michael & Associates, an Austin-based criminal defense law firm, surveyed 600 Americans:
- 37% voted for President Donald Trump
- 35% voted for former Vice President Kamala Harris
The remainder were a mix of non-voters, third-party voters, and people who preferred not to specify how they voted.
Here’s what we learned:
Key Takeaways
Split down party lines: About 37% (including more than 70% of Trump voters) said they believe DOGE’s actions while auditing the government are legal, while 34.5% (including 73% of Harris voters) believe they are not. 31.5% are split, thinking that some actions are legal and others are not.
DOGE disapproval: While 29% said they trust DOGE unequivocally, the others express some concern about the audits. About 68% say they oppose them outright, while others say lack of experience and/or security clearances raise concerns.
Most and least popular actions: The most popular action so far was mandating that federal workers return to the office five days a week, which 37% approved. The least popular was rescinding or reducing National Institutes of Health grants to hospitals and universities, which 8.5% approved.
Legality
Americans show a partisan divide when asked whether they believe DOGE’s actions are legal:
- 36.74% of Americans believe DOGE’s actions are illegal
- 33.5% believe the actions are legal
- 31.5% believe some actions are legal and some are not
A significant majority (95%) of those who believe some or all of DOGE’s actions are legal voted for Trump. About 93% of those who believe some or all actions are illegal voted for Harris.
Constitutionality
About 60% of the group as a whole said they believe that at least some of DOGE’s actions are potentially unconstitutional. This includes 32.5% of Trump voters and 87.5% of Harris voters. Additionally, 57% of nonvoters and 81% of third-party voters question the constitutionality of some of DOGE’s moves.
Trust
More than 70% of respondents raised at least some concerns about the security of the DOGE audits, and an additional 18% said that while they agreed with the audits in general, they believed that all auditors should be required to have security clearance. Trump voters were far more likely to trust Musk without any safeguards in place.
Least and Most Popular Actions
When asked to select which of the following Trump administration/DOGE actions they support, the three actions with the most support were:
- Making federal employees return to the office five days a week (37.08%)
- None of the above (32.38%)
- Restricting transgender medical care for anyone under age 19 (30.5%)
The three least supported actions are:
- Rescinding or reducing grants by the National Institutes of Health to hospitals and universities for medical research, including cures and treatments for cancer, heart disease, and diabetes (8.56%)
- Declaring that only the attorney general or the president can speak for the U.S. when interpreting the meaning of laws (9.23%)
- Cutting National Parks Service staff (10.07%)
Here is the total breakdown:
Privacy
45% of respondents said that DOGE should not be allowed to access financial records through the U.S. Treasury Department and the Internal Revenue Service. An additional 36% said that records should only be accessible to people with the appropriate security clearances. Even the majority of Trump voters, 59%, said they believe Musk should not have unrestricted access to sensitive records without the appropriate security clearances.
53.66% of nonvoters believe DOGE should not be allowed to access this information.
Security Risks
About 68% said they’re worried about the security of their data during these audits, either due to overall security concerns (35%), because they’re worried about missing benefits payments such as Social Security checks (19.3%), or that system codes are being altered, which could lead to errors (13.26%).
55.86% of Trump voters said data security is not a concern. However,
- 17.12% said they’re worried about the security of their data
- 17.57% are concerned about missing benefits payments (Social Security, etc.)
- 9.46% said they’re afraid that system codes are being altered
37% of nonvoters said they’re not concerned with their data.
Doxxing
While Trump, Elon Musk, a senior advisor to the president and head of the Department of Government Efficiency, and other prominent Trump supporters have all been cited in news reports for efforts to publicly call out opponents and their family members on social media, many Americans don’t support “doxxing” judges, federal appointees and government workers.
70% overall disapprove of “doxxing” and believe this is a legitimate fear for government workers, while more than 50% of Trump voters said they disapprove. About 67% of nonvoters said they disagree with doxxing.
Here is the breakdown of their responses:
It’s important to note that doxxing is a criminal act in 11 states:
California, Colorado, Connecticut, Illinois, Louisiana, Nevada, New Jersey, Oregon, Rhode Island, Texas, and Washington.
The Law Still Matters
66% said they disagree with Trump’s tweet, “He who saves his Country does not violate any Law,” (a quote often attributed to French Emperor Napoleon Bonaparte). This includes 38.7% of Trump voters and 67.5% of nonvoters.
Ask the Experts
To gain more insight on DOGE’s actions and the law, we consulted a panel of experts and asked them to share their insights:
-
Christopher Kutz
C. William Maxeiner Distinguished Professor of Law at U.C. Berkeley School of Law
In your opinion, is it constitutional to censor health and medical websites due to the use of specific words (including gender and LGBT)?
It’s certainly wrong. Whether it is constitutional in the eyes of our Extreme Court is a harder question, having to do with the muddled doctrine on unconstitutional conditions, but I think it’s pretty inconsistent with the spirit of the 1st Amendment.
Do you believe it’s ethical for government officials to “dox” or otherwise publicly identify family members of their adversaries on social media?
Obviously not. It’s disgusting.
“He who saves his Country does not violate any Law.” Do you agree with this social media post from the president? Why or why not?
Of course not. It’s a recipe for tyranny. There may be occasions of grave national emergency when some specific laws are appropriately broken (the equivalent of speeding to get to the hospital for someone bleeding out), but as a general slogan it’s preposterous. And Napoleon almost certainly never said it.
-
Jonathan Simon
Lance Robbins Professor of Criminal Justice Law at U.C. Berkeley School of Law
In your opinion, is it constitutional to censor health and medical websites due to the use of specific words (including gender and LGBT)?
Absolutely not
Do you believe it’s ethical for government officials to “dox” or otherwise publicly identify family members of their adversaries on social media?
Absolutely not
“He who saves his Country does not violate any Law.” Do you agree with this social media post from the president? Why or why not?
It should always be open to a defendant in a criminal case to argue that their conduct was necessary to prevent a greater harm but surely it cannot be the actor whose assessment of the relative choice of evils governs the outcomea<script id=”infogram_0_7df8e9f8-21a8-4d10-85b6-c9b7f3f5a33a” title=”poll 9″ src=”https://e.infogram.com/js/dist/embed.js?HN8″ type=”text/javascript”></script>
-
Donald Dripps
Warren Distinguished Professor of Law at University of San Diego School of Law
In your opinion, is it constitutional to censor health and medical websites due to the use of specific words (including gender and LGBT)?
If these websites are operated by private parties, that would violate the First Amendment, of course. As I understand it these search-and-censor policies only apply to websites operated by the government itself. I don’t see a constitutional problem with that, although there may be some arguments I’m not considering.
Do you believe it’s ethical for government officials to “dox” or otherwise publicly identify family members of their adversaries on social media?
Whether it is legal to post that sort of information or not, it isn’t “ethical” in the sense of “moral.” Whether it violates various ethics laws I can’t say. That it deserves the strongest condemnation of decent people in all parties, that I can say. Even the Mafia doesn’t go after families.
“He who saves his Country does not violate any Law.” Do you agree with this social media post from the president? Why or why not?
That’s what Bonaparte is supposed to have said, against the lawless background of absolute monarchy and revolutionary terror. Chief Justice [John] Marshall said something very different: “The government of the United States has been emphatically termed a government of laws, and not of men.” They were contemporaries. Which country would you choose, Napoleon’s France or John Marshall’s America?
-
Elizabeth Deakin
Professor Emerita of City and Regional Planning and Urban Design at University of California, Berkeley
In your opinion, is it constitutional to censor health and medical websites due to the use of specific words (including gender and LGBT)?
I believe in free speech and am opposed to censorship. I think people should speak up and speak out against harmful policies. I believe in equal rights for everybody.
Do you believe it’s ethical for government officials to “dox” or otherwise publicly identify family members of their adversaries on social media?
I think it is dangerous to dox people (if by that you mean publicly release private information about them). While I believe we should be free to criticize public servants sharply, I don’t see that extending to putting their lives at risk.
I think those who take public positions should expect their names to be known (though not necessarily their home addresses or family details.)“He who saves his Country does not violate any Law.” Do you agree with this social media post from the president? Why or why not?
I would not quote Napoleon or recommend it.
Methodology
Michael & Associates surveyed a statistically significant sample of Americans via Pollfish from February 18-20. 37.25% of respondents said they voted for Trump in November, while 35.74% said they voted for Harris. 3.6% preferred not to say who they voted for, 2.7% said they voted for a third-party candidate, and 20.64% said they did not vote at all. 53.5% of respondents were female, while 46.5% were male. All were U.S. residents aged 18 or older.
Rebecca Stumpf manages content research and editing for Michael & Associates. She is an award-winning journalist with 30+ years of experience working for daily newspapers. Her work has appeared on CNN, CNBC, Business Insider and DallasNews.com.
Rebecca Stumpf manages content research and editing for Michael & Associates. She is an award-winning journalist with 30+ years of experience working for daily newspapers. Her work has appeared on CNN, CNBC, Business Insider and DallasNews.com.