{shortcode-c6f0d1812881d6806cde9bc6012c22d4bfe4c5cf}

Yesterday evening, the Harvard Institute of Politics invited Lord Dominic Johnson, co-chairman of the UK Conservative Party, to speak at the JFK Jr. Forum in a session titled: “Can DOGE Reduce Government Regulation? Lessons from the U.K.”

As graduate students at Harvard, we are disappointed to see the University host an event highlighting the purported merits of the recently-established Department of Government Efficiency. Doing so lends Harvard’s legitimacy to DOGE, an entity actively defying the rule of law.

Conversations about government efficiency are only productive when engaging with good-faith political actors. And DOGE has proven itself to be anything but a thoughtful and responsible steward of government spending.

Many DOGE staffers aren’t public servants — like those the Kennedy School trains — but twenty-something-year-old software engineers, including one who resigned after his racist social media activity resurfaced. Some of the entity’s actions have been kept secret from the public. And those that we do know about — like accessing a critical Treasury Department payment system and dismantling the U.S. Agency for International Development — face numerous lawsuits. The entity has no legal authority to seize the “power of the purse,” a power the U.S. Constitution vests in Congress.

Instead of reacting to this onslaught of autocratic activity, the Kennedy School innocently asks whether DOGE can “reduce government regulation” and instructs us on how to learn “lessons” about doing so. Furthermore, upon attending the event, we heard neither the speaker nor the moderator acknowledge the risk of “irreparable harm” the entity has posed in its first few weeks of existence.

With yesterday’s event, the Kennedy School has portrayed DOGE as a traditional government institution, sending the message to the public that DOGE is a trusted department rather than a rogue entity. Discussing the potential merits of DOGE and ignoring its blatant disregard for the rule of law is dangerous and irresponsible.

Some readers may wonder if we are suggesting that the University cancel all events about government efficiency. We are not. While we personally disagree with the deregulatory tactics of the current conservative legal movement, there are many more appropriate ways that Harvard could host conversations about democratically sound ways to reduce governmental regulation.

For example, a thoughtful IOP-hosted event on this topic could explore questions like: How can we enhance governmental efficiency? Is involving the private sector the best way to do so? Which democracies have the most effective regulatory practices, and how can we learn from them?

Numerous Harvard scholars have devoted their careers to exploring these questions. We would rather the IOP engage with these topics than lend legitimacy to an entity that has repeatedly broken not just democratic norms, but also — according to a lawsuit from 19 state attorneys general and many legal experts — the law.

The IOP prides itself on being a pillar of nonpartisanship within Harvard and beyond. But nonpartisanship does not mean acquiescence to clear democratic backsliding. While conversations about reducing regulatory burdens may be within the interests of the Harvard community, we need not legitimize DOGE. Hosting this event makes Harvard complicit in the entity’s antidemocratic actions.

Our nation was built on a system of checks and balances. Congress and the courts are supposed to hold the executive branch, and the groups like DOGE at its helm, in check. From its inception, DOGE has circumvented these checks.

With its focus on democracy and governance, the Harvard Kennedy School has the chance to call attention to this dangerous phenomenon, instead of treating it as lawful, normal, and legitimate. HKS can — and should — use its wealth of expertise to protect the democratic bedrock of our country.

Now more than ever, Harvard needs to work toward strengthening public policy and governance in the U.S. and around the world. We ask that the Kennedy School leverage its institutional legitimacy to strengthen democracy, not contribute to its demise.

Gabriella N. Aboulafia is a graduate of the Harvard Kennedy School and a second-year PhD student in Harvard University’s Interdisciplinary Program in Health Policy. Nadia S. Bell is a first-year PhD student in Harvard University’s Interdisciplinary Program in Health Policy. Amy L. Eisenstein is a third-year JD-MPP student at Harvard Law School and the Harvard Kennedy School.