Washington, D.C. — A federal district court has ruled against the attempt by the White House to dismiss a lawsuit involving Elon Musk, President Donald Trump, and the Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE). The lawsuit, filed by a coalition of 14 states led by New Mexico, claims that Musk’s role in the federal government is overreaching and unauthorized.
The states’ attorneys general argue that Musk lacks the necessary legal authority to implement drastic changes within the federal government. They contend that as he is not a Senate-confirmed official, any cuts he presides over, particularly those affecting federal offices, are invalid. Furthermore, they assert that DOGE was never granted permission by Congress to exercise its powers.
Legal representatives for the White House sought to portray Musk’s involvement in Trump’s administration as an advisory position with limited duration. However, Judge Tanya Chutkan found that Musk’s influence extends far beyond mere advisory duties, effectively granting him significant authority throughout the executive branch.
In her order issued Tuesday, Judge Chutkan noted that the states have presented a credible argument, suggesting that Musk now occupies a persistent position with extensive powers, all without proper formal appointment by Congress. She indicated that the allegations concerning DOGE’s unauthorized access to sensitive information provide sufficient grounds for the case to continue.
Musk has focused on stringent fiscal measures through DOGE, aiming to eliminate certain federal roles, reduce regulations, and significantly decrease the federal workforce. Additionally, he has been involved in the reprogramming or removal of various government software and online systems.
Addressing President Trump’s role in the case, Judge Chutkan stated that the court cannot restrict the President’s actions concerning his official responsibilities. She emphasized that Trump possesses considerable discretionary authority under the U.S. Constitution’s Appointments Clause, which enables him to select and nominate federal officers.
As the legal battle progresses, it remains to be seen how the case will unfold, particularly concerning the implications of Musk’s participation in government operations without formal congressional sanction.
This article was automatically written by Open AI, and the people, facts, circumstances, and story may be inaccurate. Any article can be requested for removal, retraction, or correction by writing an email to contact@publiclawlibrary.org.