WASHINGTON (AP) — A federal judge raised questions on Monday concerning the authority of billionaire Elon Musk and his Department of Government Efficiency, expressing skepticism about a request aimed at prohibiting DOGE from accessing sensitive information and terminating employees at several federal agencies.
U.S. District Judge Tanya Chutkan conducted a hearing on a request from 14 states for a temporary restraining order intended to limit Musk’s influence in President Donald Trump’s initiative to downsize the federal government. Chutkan stated that she would deliver a decision within 24 hours.
Trump appointed Musk to spearhead DOGE, with the goal of reducing the federal workforce and eliminating unwanted programs. The administration let go of probationary employees, and Trump, through an executive order, instructed agency leaders to prepare for “large-scale reductions.”
Democratic attorneys general from 14 states have initiated a lawsuit contesting what they refer to as Musk’s “unchecked power.” These states are seeking to prevent DOGE from dismissing employees and accessing data at the federal Office of Personnel Management, as well as six other federal agencies responsible for health and human services, education, energy, transportation, labor, and commerce.
During the hour-long Zoom hearing, Chutkan indicated she did not believe the states had provided sufficient evidence of imminent harm to justify court intervention at this time.
The attorneys general contended that Musk’s actions with DOGE should be executed by an officially nominated and Senate-confirmed official as stipulated by the Constitution. They also expressed concerns over the secure management of sensitive data. In response, the federal government argued that DOGE serves in an advisory capacity and is not required to have Senate confirmation for data access, asserting that the states had not demonstrated any harm from Musk’s efforts to identify waste and fraud.
“Nowhere have my colleagues provided a shred of evidence to show that Elon Musk possesses any formal or actual authority to make governmental decisions himself,” stated Justice Department lawyer Harry Graver.
The judge appeared to challenge that claim.
“I think you stretch too far. I disagree with you there,” Chutkan replied, noting that this was part of the merits of the case. While she appeared doubtful regarding the need for a temporary restraining order, she also showed some sympathy towards the claims raised by the states.
“One of the issues with the plaintiffs’ motion is that this effectively involves a private citizen directing an organization that is not a federal agency to access the entire operations of the federal government, hire, fire, slash, contract, and terminate programs, all without any apparent oversight from Congress,” the judge described, reiterating the states’ claim.
She remarked that DOGE does not seem to operate in a systematic or predictable manner, making it hard for the states to anticipate future actions. Chutkan requested the Justice Department to provide information regarding past and forthcoming employment terminations.
“DOGE’s actions in this domain have been quite unpredictable and haphazard, and I am uncertain whether this is intentional or simply a result of the breadth of their responsibilities,” Chutkan commented.
