WASHINGTON (AP) — A federal judge on Monday questioned the authority of billionaire Elon Musk and his Department of Government Efficiency but was skeptical of a request to block DOGE from accessing sensitive data and firing employees at half a dozen federal agencies.
U.S. District Judge Tanya Chutkan held a hearing on a request from 14 states for a temporary restraining order seeking to curtail Musk’s power in President Donald Trump’s quest to downsize the federal government. Chutkan said she would rule within 24 hours.
Trump appointed Musk to lead DOGE in a push to slash the federal workforce and reduce or end disfavored programs. The administration dismissed probationary employees and Trump in an executive order told agency leaders to plan for “large-scale reductions.”
Democratic attorneys general from 14 states had filed a lawsuit challenging what they called Musk’s “unchecked power.” The states are seeking to block DOGE from firing employees and accessing data at the federal Office of Personnel Management along with six federal agencies that oversee health and human services, education, energy, transportation, labor, and commerce.
During the hourlong hearing held over Zoom, Chutkan said she didn’t think the states had shown necessary evidence of imminent harm to merit court intervention at this stage.
The attorneys general argued that Musk’s actions at the helm of DOGE can only be taken by a nominated and Senate-confirmed official under the Constitution. They also said citizens have concerns about the secure handling of sensitive information. The federal government countered that DOGE is acting in an advisory role, they don’t need Senate confirmation to access data, and that the states hadn’t shown Musk’s hunt for waste and fraud had harmed them.
“Nowhere have my friends offered a shred of anything, nor could they, to show that Elon Musk has any formal or actual authority to make any government decision himself,” Justice Department lawyer Harry Graver said.
The judge appeared to question that assertion.
“I think you stretch too far. I disagree with you there,” Chutkan replied but added that was what the merits of the case were about.
While Chutkan seemed skeptical if a temporary restraining order was merited, she seemed sympathetic to some of the states’ claims
“One of the challenges in plaintiff’s motion is that this is essentially a private citizen directing an organization that’s not a federal agency to have access to the entire workings of the federal government, fire, hire, slash, contract, terminate programs all without apparently any congressional oversight,” the judge said in describing the states’ claim.
She noted that DOGE doesn’t seem to be moving in any kind of orderly or predictable fashion, making it difficult for states to know what is coming next. Chutkan asked for the Justice Department to submit information about past and upcoming employment terminations.
“DOGE’s actions in this arena have been very unpredictable and scattershot, and I have no idea whether that is by design or simply by virtue of the scope of their remit,” Chutkan said.
