^{Photo: AOL.com}

Elon Musk’s Government Role Under Scrutiny as Federal Judge Allows Lawsuit to Move Forward

A federal judge in Washington, D.C., has ruled that Elon Musk holds a “continuing and significant” position within the federal government, rejecting the White House’s claim that his role is purely advisory and temporary. The ruling sets the stage for a constitutional showdown over the controversial Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE), which Musk leads.

Background: 14 States Challenge Musk’s Federal Authority

In February, a coalition of 14 states, spearheaded by New Mexico, filed a lawsuit against Musk, the DOGE, and President Donald Trump. The states argued that Musk lacks the constitutional authority to implement drastic structural and personnel changes across the federal government. Their core contention: Musk was never confirmed by the Senate, nor was DOGE ever created through Congressional legislation—two constitutional pillars for executive power.

According to court documents, the states allege that DOGE's actions have included:

• Dismantling multiple federal offices
• Eliminating or rewriting regulations without oversight
• Shrinking the federal workforce by tens of thousands
• Reprogramming federal software and systems
• Gaining unauthorized access to sensitive government and private data

White House Attempt to Dismiss Falls Short

The Biden administration, in a motion to dismiss the case, attempted to characterize Musk as merely an unpaid, informal advisor without executive authority. However, U.S. District Judge Tanya Chutkan ruled that this defense doesn’t align with the reality of Musk’s expansive influence within the executive branch.

Judge Chutkan’s decision emphasized that:

• Musk’s authority appears to extend across multiple federal departments.
• He exercises real power over decisions that impact the structure and efficiency of federal agencies.
• His position is not just advisory; it is “continuing and permanent,” a designation that legally requires Senate confirmation or legislative backing.

“The plaintiffs have presented sufficient evidence that Musk occupies an influential position without proper appointment,” Chutkan wrote. She also noted that the alleged unauthorized data access by DOGE constitutes a tangible injury, giving states the legal standing to sue.

Trump Removed as Defendant

Although the court allowed the lawsuit to continue against Musk and DOGE, President Trump was removed as a defendant. Judge Chutkan clarified that courts may not restrict a sitting president’s official duties under the U.S. Constitution, even if they are related to appointments and delegations of authority.

Trump retains “highly discretionary” powers under the Appointments Clause, including the right to nominate or delegate roles. However, the court maintained that unchecked delegation to a private citizen without legal vetting crosses constitutional lines.

Broader Implications and Government Response

The decision is likely to set off waves across both the legal and political spheres. If the states succeed, it could challenge the foundation of Musk’s and DOGE’s power, impacting regulatory decisions, federal employment structures, and the future role of private individuals in government operations.

Since 2008, SpaceX—Musk’s aerospace firm—has received over $19 billion in federal funding, according to FedScout. Critics argue that DOGE could serve as a vehicle to reshape government functions in ways that benefit Musk’s business interests, especially in defense and infrastructure contracts.

Notably, DOGE and its operations have raised red flags among federal oversight agencies, including the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and Federal Aviation Administration (FAA)—many of which have experienced deep budget cuts under Musk’s tenure at DOGE.

The next hearing in the case is expected in the coming weeks, and legal experts suggest it could set a precedent regarding the role of private tech executives in federal power structures.

Summary:
This case highlights growing concerns about the blurring of public and private power in federal governance. With Musk’s role now legally acknowledged as “continuing,” the court has opened the door to a deeper examination of how much authority one unelected individual can wield over government operations—and whether that crosses constitutional boundaries.

‍