Elon Musk Not DOGE Administrator, White House Says: New Court Filing

Controversy Surrounds Elon Musk’s Role in Trump’s Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE)

In recent weeks, questions have emerged about Elon Musk’s role in the Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE), a task force established by President Donald Trump. Despite Trump and his allies claiming that Musk is leading DOGE, new court documents reveal that Musk may not hold the position of leadership as suggested. Instead, he is reportedly serving as a "special government employee" without a formal role in decision-making. Newsweek reviewed these documents, which were submitted by Joshua Fisher, the director of the Office of Administration, in response to a legal challenge brought by the State of New Mexico and 13 other Democratic-led states.

What is DOGE, and Why Does It Matter?

DOGE is a nongovernmental task force that aims to reduce wasteful federal spending and has been granted access to sensitive Treasury data, including Social Security and Medicare payment systems. While Musk is not an official employee of the U.S. government, he has been working closely with the White House as a special government employee. His involvement has sparked concerns among Democratic lawmakers, who have accused Musk of orchestrating a "hostile takeover" of the federal government. However, both Musk and the Trump administration deny these claims. Fisher’s court filing emphasizes that Musk, like other senior White House advisors, does not have the authority to make government decisions on his own.

Musk’s Role and the Legal Pushback

Fisher’s court declaration clarifies that Musk is not the administrator of the U.S. DOGE Service or any other federal agency. Instead, his role is comparable to that of Anita Dunn, a senior advisor to President Joe Biden. Despite this, President Trump announced shortly after his election victory that Musk and Vivek Ramaswamy would lead DOGE, touting their roles as key to dismantling government bureaucracy, slashing regulations, and restructuring federal agencies. However, Ramaswamy left DOGE just one day after Trump took office, opting instead to pursue a gubernatorial campaign. The legal challenge, filed by 14 Democratic attorneys general, seeks to bar Musk from influencing federal policy, arguing that his power remains unchecked.

Public Reaction to DOGE and Musk’s Involvement

Public opinion on Musk’s involvement with DOGE is deeply divided. While some approve of his efforts to streamline government operations, others see his role as an overreach by a private citizen with significant influence. Protests have erupted across the country, with the "50501 Movement" organizing demonstrations in all 50 states to oppose what they describe as a "fascist" takeover of the government. Despite these concerns, a recent focus group found that a majority of participants supported Musk’s efforts to reduce government waste, highlighting the polarizing nature of his involvement.

The Legal Battle Over Musk’s Influence

The legal battle over Musk’s role in DOGE continues to unfold.Judge Tanya Chutkan expressed skepticism during a recent hearing about the plaintiffs’ request to block DOGE from accessing sensitive data and terminating employees across federal agencies. However, she acknowledged that the task force appears to be operating in a chaotic manner, leaving even its opponents scrambling to anticipate its next moves. New Mexico Attorney General Raul Torrez, representing the plaintiffs, accused DOGE of planning mass firings at civil rights and employment discrimination offices within the Education Department, a move that he argued could undermine protections mandated by law.

What’s Next for DOGE and Musk?

As the legal battle continues, all eyes are on Judge Chutkan, who has promised to issue a ruling within 24 hours. Meanwhile, Musk remains defiant, using his X platform to defend his involvement. He claims that his efforts are focused on eliminating waste and fraud, which he believes are bankrupting the country. Critics like protester Laura Olson counter that Musk lacks the democratic legitimacy to lead such sweeping changes, arguing that "nobody elected" him to overhaul the federal government. The outcome of this case will have significant implications for the balance of power between private citizens and federal institutions, raising important questions about accountability and the role of unelected officials in shaping government policy.