Elon Musk's cost-cutting efforts face legal scrutiny

[UNITED STATES] On May 27, a U.S. federal judge ruled that a coalition of 14 states may move forward with a lawsuit challenging Elon Musk’s efforts to drastically reduce federal spending in his role as head of the Trump administration’s new government efficiency agency. The ruling rejected an attempt by the administration to dismiss the case.

U.S. District Judge Tanya Chutkan, however, dismissed the claims brought directly against former President Donald Trump, stating that her court would not interfere with “the performance of his official duties” as president.

The lawsuit against Musk and the agency known as Doge can proceed, Judge Chutkan said, because the states had plausibly alleged that Musk’s aggressive cost-cutting actions were “unauthorized by any law.”

Musk’s appointment to lead the agency has triggered a broader constitutional debate over the separation of powers and the proper procedures for assigning significant authority over federal expenditures. Critics argue that his appointment sidesteps the constitutional requirement of Senate confirmation for high-level federal officials.

The suit, filed in February by attorneys general from New Mexico, Oregon, and 12 other states, alleges that Trump granted Musk “unchecked legal authority” without congressional approval. The plaintiffs seek to block Doge’s efforts to dismantle agencies disfavored by the administration and implement widespread federal spending cuts.

“The court is right: The Constitution says Musk can’t run the federal government unless the Senate confirms him,” Oregon Attorney General Dan Rayfield said on May 27.

Proponents of Musk’s role maintain that his position is advisory and temporary, and that his initiatives to streamline operations and eliminate waste are critical to improving government efficiency. They argue the lawsuit is politically driven and that Musk’s actions fall within the executive powers granted to the president.

Neither the White House nor attorneys general representing the states involved in the lawsuit responded immediately to requests for comment. Musk also did not respond to an email seeking his remarks.

The outcome of the legal battle could have significant ramifications for executive authority. A ruling against Musk could reaffirm the constitutional requirement for Senate confirmation and restrict the president’s ability to appoint officials without legislative oversight. A ruling in Musk’s favor, on the other hand, may mark a shift in the scope of executive power.

The states contend that Musk exercises authority reserved for confirmed officers of the government and that Doge itself lacks congressional authorization. Since being appointed in January following Trump’s return to office, Musk has led Doge in slashing thousands of federal jobs and dismantling various programs as part of a sweeping effort to curb what the administration calls excessive spending.

The effects of these measures have become increasingly visible, with multiple federal agencies reporting major staffing reductions and the suspension of key initiatives. Lawmakers and advocacy groups have voiced alarm over the potential consequences for public services and economic stability. Roughly 20 lawsuits have been filed in federal courts across the country contesting Musk’s authority, yielding mixed outcomes thus far.