A federal judge questioned the Trump administration’s claim that Elon Musk has no formal role in the Department of Government Efficiency (U.S. DOGE Service), which has resulted in significant layoffs at the U.S. Agency for International Development (U.S.A.I.D.). Judge Theodore D. Chuang expressed skepticism over the government’s lack of clarity regarding leadership. Despite Musk claiming influence over initiatives, government lawyers denied his involvement. Plaintiffs in a lawsuit argue Musk’s actions violate the Constitution’s appointments clause, asserting he wields exceptional power without Senate approval. The judge discussed U.S.A.I.D.’s drastic changes amidst continued legal scrutiny and emergency appeals regarding funding.
On Friday, a federal judge remarked that it appeared “factually inaccurate” for the Trump administration to continue claiming that Elon Musk holds no official role in an endeavor causing significant layoffs of federal employees and negatively impacting the nation’s foreign aid agency.
The judge, Theodore D. Chuang of the U.S. District Court for the District of Maryland, pressed government attorneys for further insight into Mr. Musk’s involvement in a case disputing the constitutionality of the task force known as the Department of Government Efficiency, or the U.S. DOGE Service.
Up until this week, government representatives had been reluctant to disclose who was formally leading the task force, only stating that Mr. Musk was not involved. (The government also clarified that Mr. Musk is not an employee of the task force.) On Tuesday, a White House official revealed that Amy Gleason, a prior health care investment executive, was the acting administrator.
On Friday, Joshua E. Gardner, a lawyer from the Justice Department’s civil division, refuted any suggestion that Mr. Musk had a connection to the Department of Government Efficiency. This claim stood in contrast to Mr. Musk’s active role in its initiatives, notably highlighted by an email sent out the previous weekend demanding all federal employees submit a list of five achievements from the past week. While the email originated from the Office of Personnel Management, which handles human resources for the federal government, Mr. Musk stated on Wednesday that he had proposed it and received presidential approval.
Judge Huang inquired of Mr. Gardner regarding who had been at the helm of the agency prior to Ms. Gleason’s appointment. Mr. Gardner initially said he had not inquired, then quickly amended his answer, stating that he had asked but “didn’t receive an answer” other than that it was not Mr. Musk. The judge expressed skepticism, finding it “very suspicious” that the government lacked a clear response.
The three-hour hearing was part of an ongoing lawsuit filed in mid-February by 26 unidentified current and former employees or contractors of the U.S. Agency for International Development. Targeted by Mr. Musk, the foreign aid agency has seen significant reductions in resources since Mr. Trump took office. Recently, Trump administration appointees have dismissed hundreds of personnel critical for managing global humanitarian crisis responses, resulting in uncertainty regarding the agency’s future.
On Friday, the plaintiffs’ attorneys contended that Mr. Musk’s involvement was fundamentally unconstitutional given he was neither appointed by the president nor approved by the Senate, as mandated for high-level officials by the Constitution’s appointments clause.
Mr. Musk is “the most powerful principal officer currently in the government alongside the president, and one of the most powerful in our country’s history,” asserted Norm Eisen, one of the attorneys.
He further stated that historically, no one in the executive branch, not even the White House chief of staff, has wielded as much authority as Mr. Musk. This meant that Mr. Musk’s actions regarding U.S.A.I.D.—sending teams to terminate programs, revoking access for employees and contractors, and inspecting sensitive agency data—constituted “a grave violation of the separation of powers,” according to Mr. Eisen.
Mimi Marziani, Mr. Eisen’s co-counsel, labeled Mr. Musk’s position as a “made-up role” leading a “made-up super-agency.”
Court documents from numerous lawsuits challenging Mr. Musk and his associates’ interventions in federal agencies have provided a vital, though limited, perspective on the Department of Government Efficiency. They present a narrative of a closely managed effort where small groups of government employees have systematically entered and exited agencies, collecting data seemingly in pursuit of broader political objectives.
Mr. Gardner argued that there was no effort by the Department of Government Efficiency to eliminate U.S.A.I.D., claiming instead that it was going through a “reorganization in consultation with Congress.” He expressed disbelief that the president possessed the authority to entirely abolish the agency.
Judge Chuang challenged that assertion, referring to a letter sent to Congress by Secretary of State Marco Rubio, which stated he had taken over as acting administrator of U.S.A.I.D. and indicated that the agency “may be abolished consistent with applicable law.”
“The wood chipper isn’t usually a reorganization,” Judge Chuang responded, seemingly referencing a post from Mr. Musk on social media in early February where he remarked, “We spent the weekend feeding U.S.A.I.D. into the wood chipper.”
“I don’t even know what that means, your honor,” Mr. Gardner replied.
Last week, Judge Chuang approved a motion to advance Friday’s hearing to decide whether to prevent Mr. Musk’s team from continuing its alterations at the agency. This hearing occurred amidst significant downsizing efforts at the agency, which has sought to terminate thousands of contracts and grants, impacting around 90 percent of U.S.A.I.D.’s operations.
Earlier this week, a federal judge in Washington imposed a midnight deadline on Thursday for the agency to disburse payments to a range of programs and organizations it has historically funded. The administration also lodged an emergency appeal with the Supreme Court, resulting in Chief Justice John J. Roberts issuing a temporary administrative stay on Wednesday night.
On Friday, the plaintiffs urged Judge Chuang to bar DOGE representatives from accessing U.S.A.I.D. data and systems as a form of immediate relief. They indicated that their clients, many stationed overseas, experienced “physical and psychological harm,” missed payments, and were disconnected from the agency’s systems and other potentially “lifesaving services” as they awaited further guidance.
The judge opted not to render an immediate decision.