A U.S. court has temporarily sided with Tesla CEO Elon Musk, who leads the Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE), in a lawsuit filed by 14 Democratic states against him. Despite this, ongoing disputes concerning Musk’s role and the department’s status are likely to persist.
According to AP News and others, Tanya Chutkan, a judge from the Washington D.C. federal court, rejected a request to halt Musk’s authority in a lawsuit filed by the attorneys general of 14 Democratic states, including New Mexico. The lawsuit challenges Musk’s authority with regard to access to government data and the firing of public officials in relation to the Department of Government Efficiency.
Judge Chutkan cited the failure to present a compelling reason to urgently suspend Musk’s and the department’s authority at this stage. However, she deemed it reasonable for the plaintiffs to question Musk’s authority.
Previously, the 14 state attorneys general had filed a lawsuit alleging that President Trump established the unofficial government body, the Department of Government Efficiency, without Congressional approval, granting extensive power to Musk, its head, without Senate confirmation through a hearing.
Prior to the decision, Joshua Fisher, the White House’s Chief Administrative Officer, informed the court in a written statement that Musk’s official status is that of a White House advisor. He clarified that Musk, as a presidential advisor, does not possess the substantive or official authority to make government decisions, but rather provides counsel or communicates directives.
Major government positions like cabinet secretaries require presidential appointment and Senate confirmation. The White House’s statement emphasized that Musk is a “special government employee,” exempt from Senate confirmation requirements.
However, the White House’s stance contradicts the Trump administration’s previous policies. Yahoo Finance noted that White House spokeswoman Karoline Leavitt had previously mentioned that President Trump directed Musk to initiate the Department of Government Efficiency. The publication also reported that the White House did not clarify who, besides Musk, manages the department.
David Super, a law professor at Georgetown University, remarked that insisting Musk is merely serving as a presidential advisor seems somewhat hypocritical, given repeated claims regarding his operational role. He emphasized that under the Constitution, simply changing names does not allow one to circumvent regulations. If Musk is a major official, simply assigning a formal title to someone else does not typically absolve constitutional obligations.
Professor Super also mentioned that the White House’s claim regarding Musk’s advisory role might be a strategy to protect conversations between President Trump and Musk under executive privilege, as such dialogues may not be subject to public information laws.