When firewalls are correctly configured, DNS is our way into and out of the network. Depending on your security level, blocking DNS where it is not needed can be useful hardening.
As a security consultant, it is not that uncommon to find yourself in a system with a limited server-side request forgery or some other server-side vulnerability. Some customers have very well-configured firewalls which prevent us from using it to get much further, but through DNS we can typically still learn more about the network and sometimes setup useful data tunnels. In such a case, disabling DNS would be the final nail in the coffin.
it's causing me issues
That is the risk: if you disable DNS and someone does need it (for example for
apt update), you risk that sysadmins use ugly workarounds, making the network less secure instead of more secure. If you can't do your work properly, then disabling DNS altogether is not the right choice.
Might a limited resolver be a solution? It could run on localhost or perhaps on a dedicated system, and it could be configured to only resolve a whitelist of domains. Since you mention you're moving your data and applications to other people's computers ("the cloud"), it sounds like you might only need to resolve the domains belonging to whatever SaaS/*aaS service your company uses.
The pitfall there is that whitelisting something like
*.cloudCorp.example.com probably allows an attacker to buy a VPS at cloudCorp and get a matching domain name. That would be something to watch out for. But even if this is unavoidable (and that's not a given), it's better than allowing all DNS queries.