State DOGEs’ next frontiers could preempt local authority

As Elon Musk’s time with the federal government drew to an acrimonious close, the federal Department of Government Efficiency’s work looks set to continue with further agency layoffs, cancelled contracts and other initiatives.

Meanwhile, government efficiency efforts at the state and local level look to be on a similar trajectory, as governments release reports, impanel task forces, start their own DOGEs and look to technology to solve some of their problems.

But one group has warned that state-level DOGEs are already taking on a new dimension: state preemption of local laws and powers, in the name of government efficiency. And they say the effort represents a dangerous new frontier in the constant push and pull between state governments and their localities.

The Local Solutions Support Center, a national organization known as LSSC that looks to raise awareness about abusive state preemption of local governments, said it has already identified more than a dozen bills from this year’s state legislative sessions that all fit the definition for state preemption, where governments look to prevent localities from enacting or enforcing their own laws, or institute more state oversight over locally-controlled bodies.

LSSC said those DOGE-inspired preemption bills include legislation that would grant state officers broad oversight over local initiatives in Florida, Indiana, Tennessee and Texas, as well as bills that target local public education systems in Kentucky and Mississippi. Bills in Indiana and Nebraska also looked to limit local governments’ ability to raise and spend tax revenue for various public programs.

Some of those bills — like Nebraska’s — have received their governor’s signature, while others died at various stages in the legislative process and others are still being debated. But LSSC warned that it is just the beginning of states’ efforts to limit local power, all in the name of government efficiency.

“There is this subset [of DOGE] that is encroaching into what local governments can do,” Leslie Zellers, LSSC’s legal team co-lead, told Route Fifty in a recent interview. “It's this suspicion or distrust of local management and authority, a presumption that state officials know better how to spend money, how to allocate resources, how to make decisions for that local population.”

Nestor Davidson, founder and faculty director of the Fordham University School of Law and Urban Law Center, said that state legislators are likely moving forward with many of these bills as they believe they are “reining in” what they see as reckless local government spending and policy. Davidson said he does not buy it, however, and that state legislators and executives are pursuing these goals for purely ideological reasons.

“There is a story that they can tell themselves about this and when they're attacking the capacity of local government to work, which is, they don't want regulation, they don't want interference with the market,” he said. “When they see that local governments are doing things like regulating public health, regulating the tobacco industry and doing things that they don't agree with, it's not a story I find very compelling, but it's a coherent story of trying to roll back there.”

Critics of state DOGEs argue that the work is mostly performative and designed to strengthen their governors while weakening agencies and legislatures, undermining government service in favor of the wealthy. In April, the nonprofit Economic Policy Institute said Republican states and governors see their DOGEs as a way of “demonstrating their loyalty to the Trump administration.”

“State policymaking over the past several decades shows that DOGE’s activities at both the federal and state levels are merely a rebranding of conservatives’ long-running project to enact a policy agenda that prioritizes business and the wealthy at the expense of working people,” EPI said at the time. “Efforts to dismantle government and suppress opposition to their agenda are a necessary first step in that project.”

For cities and counties, fighting back in their state capitals might appear to be an onerous task, but LSSC said it can be done. This is especially prevalent in states that threaten to pass so-called “Death Star” laws, which look to stop cities and counties passing all manner of policies. One was declared unconstitutional in Texas but is still subject to legal challenge two years later.

LSSC said local governments should build diverse coalitions that span multiple issues to fight against preemption bills, or look to limit the damage in the face of inevitable passage with amendments. Litigation is also a tactic, while pushing for repeal can help galvanize support further, including when done as a ballot initiative.

Zellers said these DOGE-inspired preemptions will surely only accelerate in the coming years. It’s a troubling trend, she said.

“Don't they have more important things to be doing? Aren't they supposed to be running their state government?” Zellers said. “I'm not sure where this is coming from exactly, but it's certainly going to make trouble for the local government that is fully empowered to govern their residents and make decisions for their residents.”