Billionaire Elon Musk’s involvement in the Trump administration is to seek cost-cutting measures through the newly established Department of Government Efficiency, known as DOGE. However, a recent court filing from the White House clarifies that Musk is not an employee of DOGE, asserting that he “has no actual or formal authority to make government decisions himself.”
This filing brings to light uncertainties regarding Musk’s role within the Trump administration and at DOGE, a cost-reduction initiative launched by Mr. Trump on Jan. 20, which is actively examining various agencies, including the Treasury Department and the IRS, aiming to identify fraud and waste. The White House did not promptly respond to inquiries about Musk’s position at DOGE.
Last week, Musk — the wealthiest individual globally, with a net worth of $398 billion — stood alongside Mr. Trump in the Oval Office, characterizing DOGE’s initiatives as undertaking “very simple and basic” steps to decrease federal expenditures. Concurrently, DOGE’s activities have prompted several lawsuits and raised concerns from Democratic lawmakers and consumer advocates due to its reported access to the personal data of millions of Americans and businesses.
The White House’s filing on Feb. 17 was made at the request of U.S. District Judge Tanya Chutkan, who is presiding over a case concerning the constitutionality of Musk’s actions since Mr. Trump’s presidency began. Fourteen states, from Arizona to Washington, are suing Musk, DOGE, and Mr. Trump, claiming that Musk is overstepping his authority and implementing “actions that can only be undertaken by a nominated and principal officer of the United States.”
The legal action contends that Musk “does not occupy an office established by law and lacks the authority to wield the powers of a principal officer or any other officer.”
“There is no greater threat to democracy than the consolidation of state power in the hands of a single, unelected individual,” the lawsuit argues. “In recent weeks, defendant Elon Musk, with President Donald J. Trump’s endorsement, has been navigating through the federal government dismantling agencies, accessing sensitive data, and creating widespread chaos and confusion for state and local governments, federal employees, and the American populace,” the lawsuit additionally states.
During a Feb. 17 hearing, Justice Department attorney Harry Graver informed Chutkan, “There is not a single instance of Musk or USDS commanding these actions,” referencing the extensive firings of government employees across numerous agencies last week. Instead, he noted, the dismissals were carried out by officials within their respective departments.
“No actual or formal authority”
The filing from Feb. 17 indicates that Musk serves as a “senior adviser to the president,” likening his position to that of Anita Dunn in the Biden administration. Dunn acted as a special government employee while advising former President Biden, as the filing pointed out.
“Similar to other senior White House advisers, Mr. Musk has no actual or formal authority to make government decisions himself,” the filing asserted. “Mr. Musk can solely advise the president and convey the president’s directives.”
Musk’s designation as a special government employee (SGE), confirmed by the White House earlier this month, signifies that he is permitted to work for the Trump administration for 130 days or less within a year. The SGE role was instituted in 1962 to allow the government to leverage outside expertise, according to the publication Government Executive.
As Musk is not compensated for his activities at the White House, his financial disclosure report will remain confidential, as informed by a White House official speaking anonymously to CBS News.
When asked in the Oval Office last week about potential conflicts of interest between his businesses, including Tesla and SpaceX — which receive billions in federal contracts — and DOGE, Musk stated that the task force’s operations are transparent. He remarked, “So you can see everything that’s going on, and then you can see, am I doing something that benefits one of my companies or not? It’s totally obvious.”
—With reporting by Melissa Quinn.
