Elon Musk’s role overseeing the Department of Government Efficiency is likely a violation of the United States constitution’s appointments clause, a federal judge wrote Tuesday.
Theodore Chuang, a judge in the U.S. District Court for the District of Maryland, wrote in an opinion there is more than enough evidence — mostly from statements made by Musk and Donald Trump — that shows the world’s richest man is really acting as the head of DOGE despite the government’s claim he is merely a “special advisor to the President.”
Chuang issued the opinion in a case brought against Musk and DOGE by unnamed workers at the United States Agency for International Development (USAID). The judge also wrote that the actions Musk has taken in that role, like shutting down USAID — which Musk said he threw into the “wood chipper” — are therefore likely unconstitutional, too.
“Musk has exerted actual authority at USAID that only a properly appointed Officer can exercise,” he wrote. (Officer of the United States is a legal distinction set out by the appointments clause.)
Chuang’s opinion comes more than 50 days after Trump took office and allowed Musk to start cutting government agencies with his DOGE team. His opinion is the most direct shot across the bow of Musk and DOGE among the many lawsuits filed over the past two months.
In his opinion, Chuang ordered the restoration of some of USAID’s operations and restricted Musk and DOGE from taking further steps to dismantle the agency.
It is unclear whether Musk and DOGE will follow that order; Musk and President Trump have spent the last few days posting on social media claiming that judges who rule against their actions should be impeached. Trump’s promotion of that idea is so out of line with the behavior of the presidents who’ve preceded him that Chief Justice of the Supreme Court John Roberts issued a rare public statement rebuking him.
“For more than two centuries,” Roberts wrote, “it has been established that impeachment is not an appropriate response to disagreement concerning a judicial decision. The normal appellate review process exists for that purpose.”
