Legal proceedings have been complicated by difficulties in establishing basic facts, such as Musk's role, the identities and formal powers of his associates, and the unclear relationship among Musk, DOGE, and political appointees backed by Musk. There have also been questions about how many of Musk's associates have been detailed to specific agencies, whether they act as employees of those agencies or of the White House, and what formal powers they have to demand access to agency computer systems.[6][7]
Multiple lawsuits accuse DOGE and Musk of having broken thePrivacy Act of 1974.[10] DOGE has given conflicting testimonies on the data it has accessed, the identity of the DOGE members who have accessed it, and the reasons why they did.[11]
On February 4, three federal employee unions—theAlliance for Retired Americans, theAFGE, and theService Employees International Union (SEIU)—filed a lawsuit against the Treasury Department,[a] alleging that Treasury SecretaryScott Bessent unlawfully granted DOGE access to sensitive data. The White House defended Musk's role, stating he had followed all federal laws.[16][17][18] On February6, JudgeColleen Kollar-Kotelly agreed to a proposal filed by theJustice Department to temporarily limit DOGE to "read-only" access of Treasury data until a hearing for a preliminary injunction could be held on February24.Department of Justice lawyers struggled to explain how DOGE plans to use sensitive taxpayer data.[19] In the hearing, Kollar-Kotelly said that she had "concerns about the constitutionality of U.S.D.S.'s structure and operations". She also questioned the government's lawyer about who the DOGE administrator is and what Musk's specific role is in DOGE, but the lawyer said that he didn't know.[20]
On February7, theACLU filedFreedom of Information Act requests with over 40 federal agencies "for any records that reveal whether DOGE or its representatives have sought or obtained access to databases containing personally identifiable information, financial records, healthcare data, or other sensitive government-held records of Americans".[25]
Alliance for Retired Americans v. Bessent (D.D.C.), 1:25-cv-00313[27]
American Civil Liberties Union v. Social Security Administration (D.D.C.), 1:25-cv-01217[28]
American Federation of Government Employees v. Office of Personnel Management (S.D.N.Y), 1:25-cv-01237[29]
American Federation of Labor and Congress of Industrial Organizations v. Department of Labor (D.D.C.), 1:25-cv-00339[30]
American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees, AFL-CIO v. Social Security Administration (D. Md.) 1:25-cv-00596,[31] appealed to the 4th Cir., 25-1411,[32] appealed to the Supreme Court,Social Security Administration v. American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees, 24A1063[33]
American Federation of Teachers v. Bessent (D. Md.), 8:25-cv-00430,[34] appealed to the Fourth Circuit, 25-1282[35]
Center for Taxpayer Rights v. Internal Revenue Service (D.D.C), 1:25-cv-00457[36]
Electronic Privacy Information Center v. U.S. Office of Personnel Management (E.D.V.A.) 1:25-cv-00255[37]
On February12, aclass action suit[d] was filed against Musk, Office of Personnel Management,Department of the Treasury and Secretary of TreasuryScott Bessent.[44]Gribbon v. Musk claims that taxpayers, federal employees and those receiving benefits should be compensated for DOGE's access to their personal and financial data.[44] It has been assigned to judgeChristopher R. Cooper.
Gribbon v. Musk (D.D.C.), 1:25-cv-00422[45] (voluntary dismissal)
Federal deferred resignation program ("Fork in the Road" memo)
A lawsuit, filed[e] on January 27 in theDistrict Court for the District of Columbia by two federal employees against the Office of Personnel Management (OPM), alleges that it failed to conduct a federally mandated assessment to evaluate and mitigate privacy risks associated with the alleged new email system's data collection on federal employees.[46][47] On February 3, four unions representing 800,000 federal employees filed suit[f] against the Treasury Department, arguing that OPM violated the Administrative Procedure Act by failing to provide a legal basis for the buyout offer.[48] On February 6, JudgeGeorge O'Toole Jr. temporarily blocked Trump and DOGE from engaging in any further action related to the buyout until further arguments were heard.[49] On February 12, Judge O'Toole ruled that the plaintiffs lacked standing to challenge the buyout offer because they were not directly affected.[50]
Jane Does 1-2 v. Office of Personnel Management (D.D.C.), 1:25-cv-00234[51]
American Federation of Government Employees, AFL-CIO v. Ezell (D. Mass), 1:25-cv-10276[52]
American Council of Learned Societies v. McDonald (S.D.N.Y.), 1:25-cv-03657[56]
The Authors Guild v. National Endowment for the Humanities (S.D.N.Y.), 1:25-cv-03923[57] (case consolidated withAmerican Council of Learned Societies v. McDonald)
Nichols held a telephone hearing on February19. After Trump-appointed USAID leaderPeter Marocco initially told the court that overseas USAID employees would be given a choice as to whether remain abroad while on administrative leave, but days later told the court otherwise, Nichols called the government's contradictions "a mess" and ordered the DOJ to clarify its stance by February20.[63]
American Federation of Government Employees v. Trump (D.D.C.), 1:25-cv-00352[64]
With the signing ofExecutive Order 14158, Trump renamed theU.S. Digital Service (USDS) the U.S. DOGE Service (also USDS), and established the U.S. DOGE Service Temporary Organization, both under the authority of an administrator. Trump referred toElon Musk as being in charge of DOGE.Amy Gleason was later identified as the acting administrator.
A lawsuit by 26 USAID employees and contractors claims Elon Musk’s role as DOGE head violates theAppointments Clause, alleging he wields significant government authority without Senate confirmation.
On February13, fourteen state attorneys general filed suit[h] against Musk, DOGE, and Trump in the District of Columbia, arguing that although Musk had been designated aspecial government employee, he was acting as a principal officer of the United States, and that the Appointments Clause required him to be confirmed by the Senate.[73] They requested atemporary restraining order preventing Musk and DOGE from firing employees or accessing information from multiple federal agencies. In its response, the Trump administration argued that Musk was a senior advisor to the president and had no formal authority.[74] On February18, JudgeTanya Chutkan denied the request for the temporary restraining order, though she wrote that the states "legitimately call into question what appears to be the unchecked authority of an unelected individual and an entity that was not created by Congress and over which it has no oversight."[75]
Does 1-26 v. Musk (D. Md.), 8:25-cv-00462-TDC,[76] appealed to the 4th Cir.,25-1273[77]
Japanese American Citizens League v. Musk (D.D.C), 1:25-cv-00643[78] (consolidated withState of New Mexico v. Musk (D.D.C.), 1.25-cv-00429)
State of New Mexico. v. Musk (D.D.C.), 1.25-cv-00429,[79] petitioned the court of appeals for the District of Columbia circuit (D. Cir.), In re: Elon Musk, 25-5072[80]
On January20, the day of Trump's inauguration,The Washington Post learned of a pending lawsuit to be launched against DOGE minutes after Trump was to be sworn in, questioning whether DOGE is apresidential advisory commission obeying federal transparency rules about certain practices, such as disclosure and hiring.[81][82] The same day, three more lawsuits were filed against Trump, DOGE, and theOffice of Management and Budget (OMB), alleging violation of theFederal Advisory Committee Act (FACA), which requires that "the advisory committee have a fair balance in viewpoints represented, that they do not meet in secret, and that their records and work product be made available for public inspection".[83] All four lawsuits were filed in the District of Columbia.
Public Citizen,Lentini, andAmerican Public Health Association were all assigned to JudgeJia M. Cobb; the government filed a motion toconsolidate the cases on February 4, 2025, and they were consolidated on February 18.[84][85] Public Citizen dismissed its case without prejudice, but the other two cases continue.[1]Center for Biological Diversity v. U.S. Department of the Interior has been assigned to JudgeBeryl A. Howell.
American Public Health Association v. Office of Management and Budget (D.D.C.), 1:25-cv-00167[86] (consolidated with case no. 1:25-cv-00164,Public Citizen v. Trump)
Center for Biological Diversity v. U.S. Department of Interior (D.D.C.), 1:25-cv-00612[87]
Lentini v. Department of Government Efficiency (D.D.C), 1:25-cv-00166[88] (consolidated with case no. 1:25-cv-00164,Public Citizen v. Trump)
Public Citizen, Inc. v. Trump (D.D.C.), 1:25-cv-00164[89] (case consolidated withLentini v. DOGE andAmerican Public Health Association v. OMB; Public Citizen dismissed its case without prejudice, but the other two cases continue[1])
Freedom of Information Act (FOIA), public records and record-keeping requirements
On February 11, watchdog organizationAmerican Oversight filed a lawsuit to gain access to all of Musk's communications involving the termination of employees across the federal government. Its lawsuit states that DOGE is subject to theFreedom of Information Act (FOIA).[90][91]
On February 19, the nonpartisan watchdog groupProject on Government Oversight sued Trump, DOGE, and the DOGE administrator over the claim that DOGE records are subject to thePresidential Records Act, and therefore not subject to public records requests. The lawsuit argues that DOGE is subject to theFederal Records Act since it is acting like a federal agency.[91]
On February 20, watchdog organizationCitizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington (CREW) sued DOGE to produce documents via theFreedom of Information Act (FOIA).[92] On March 10, the presiding judge,Christopher R. Cooper, ordered DOGE to produce the documents for CREW, finding that DOGE's "secrecy" and "rapid pace" warranted "quick release of information about its structure and activities".[93][94] While making his ruling, Cooper concluded that "the authority exercised by [DOGE] across the federal government and the dramatic cuts it has apparently made with no congressional input appear to be unprecedented".[93][95] Cooper found that DOGE "obtained unprecedented access to sensitive personal and classified data and payment systems across federal agencies" and "appears to have the power not just to evaluate federal programs, but to drastically reshape and even eliminate them wholesale".[92][95] In mid-April, Cooper ordered additional discovery and ruled thatAmy Gleason, DOGE's acting administrator, would have to sit for a deposition. The Department of Justice (DOJ) then petitioned theCourt of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit for awrit of mandamus to prevent the deposition.[96] The appeals court stayed Cooper's ruling while it considered the petition, but on May 14, it rejected the petition.[97] On May 21, the DOJ appealed to the Supreme Court, asking it to stay Cooper's order and claiming that it was inappropriate to allow discovery before the court had determined whether DOGE was subject to FOIA.[98]
American Oversight v.U.S. Department of Government Efficiency (D.D.C.), 1:25-cv-00409[99]
Center for Biological Diversity v. Office of Management and Budget (D.D.C.), 1:25-cv-00165[100]
Citizens For Responsibility And Ethics In Washington v. Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (D.D.C.), 1:25-cv-01768[101]
Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington v. U.S. DOGE Service (D.D.C.), 1:25-cv-00511,[102] petition for a writ of mandamus (D.C. Cir.),In re: U.S. DOGE Service, 25-5130,[103] appealed to the Supreme Court asU.S. DOGE Servicev.Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington, 24A1122[104]
Democracy Forward Foundation v. U.S. Department of the Treasury (D.D.C.), 1:25-cv-00684[105]
Democracy Forward Foundation v. U.S. Marshals Service (D.D.C.), 1:25-cv-00749[106]
The Intercept v.U.S. Department of Government Efficiency (S.D.N.Y.), 1:25-cv-02404[107]
Project on Government Oversight, Inc. v. Trump (D.D.C.), 1:25-cv-00527[108]
Thousands of federal employees have joined class action suits challenging the layoffs.[109]
On February 21, theOffice of Special Counsel, an independent agency that investigates federal workers' complaints, decided that, in a case involving six probationary government workers at six different agencies, the workers had been illegally fired. The decision was revealed on February 24.[110]
American Association of People With Disabilities v. Dudek (D.D.C.), 1:25-cv-00977[111]
American Federation Of Government Employees, AFL-CIO v. Office of Personnel Management and Ezell (N.D. Cal.), 3:25-cv-01780,[112] appealed to the Ninth Circuit, 25-1677,[113] andOffice of Personnel Management v. American Federation of GovernmentEmployees (Supreme Court), 24A904[114]
On January28, twenty-two state attorneys general filed suit[m] against Trump and the Treasury Department in the District of Rhode Island for atemporary retraining order (TRO) barring Trump from pausing any further federal aid.[126][127] On January 31, JudgeJohn J. McConnell Jr., granted the TRO, effectively blocking Trump's federal aid freeze.[128][129] On February10, finding that theTrump administration had failed to fully comply with the order, McConnell directed the Trump administration to immediately end any federal funding pause and restore previously frozen funds until a final ruling was made on a permanent injunction to be heard at a later time.[130][131]
The Trump administration appealed to theU.S. Court of Appeals for the First Circuit. Harrison Fields, a White House spokesman, said that "every action of the Trump-Vance administration is completely lawful".[132] The First Circuit refused to hear the appeal.[133]
Republican US RepresentativeAndrew Clyde (GA-9) announced plans to file articles of impeachment against McConnell, calling him a "partisan activist weaponizing our judicial system to stop President Trump's funding freeze on woke and wasteful government spending".[134]
On February7, nineteen state attorneys general, largely the same from the Rhode Island federal case, filed suit[n] against Trump and the Treasury Department in the Southern District of New York over DOGE's actions within theBureau of the Fiscal Service (BFS).[135][136] It was initially assigned to JudgePaul A. Engelmayer for an emergency ruling,[137] and early the next morning, he issued apreliminary injunction barring DOGE members from accessing Treasury data and ordering all existing unauthorized copies to be deleted immediately.[138]
The White House called the ruling "absurd and judicial overreach" and referred to Engelmayer as an "activist". Musk posted similar sentiments on X and claimed Engelmayer was protecting scammers.[139] Conservative activistCharlie Kirk encouraged the Trump administration to defy the order should it become permanent.[139] That weekend,JD Vance posted on X that "judges aren't allowed to control the executive's legitimate power". Arkansas senatorTom Cotton called Engelmayer an "outlaw".[140]
The case was taken on by the judge assigned to the case,Jeannette Vargas, who on February11 adjusted Engelmayer's ruling by allowing Treasury secretaryScott Bessent and other senior department leaders whose roles required Senate confirmation to access Treasury data.[141] A hearing was held before Vargas on February14; she extended the injunction and said she would rule shortly on whether it would remain in place throughout the proceedings.[142][143][144] The case is expected to last months.[145]
On April 11 the judge allowed one DOGE staffer access, and on May 27 allowed four more DOGE staffers and cleared the way for the entire DOGE team to get access.[146]
On February 22, the Office of Personnel Management (OPM) sent an email to all federal employees, asking them to respond with "what you accomplished last week" by midnight EST on February 24. Shortly before the email went out, Musk posted about it on X, saying that "Failure to respond will be taken as a resignation." A claim that this action was unlawful was added to a pending lawsuit against the OPM for themass layoffs of probationary workers. Some agencies instructed their employees not to respond to the email.[149] On February 24, the OPM announced that employees were not required to respond to the email.[150]
Democratic National Committee v. Trump (D.D.C.), 1:25-cv-00952[151] (consolidated withLeague of United Latin American Citizens v. Executive Office of the President)
League of United Latin American Citizens v. Executive Office of the President (D.D.C.), 1:25-cv-00946[152]
League of Women Voters Education Fund v. Trump (D.D.C.), 1:25-cv-00955[153] (consolidated withLeague of United Latin American Citizens v. Executive Office of the President)
