In a related legal challenge, multiple current and former employees of the United States Agency for International Development (USAID) also filed a lawsuit against Musk on Thursday.
The plaintiffs in that case argue that Musk’s appointment should have required Senate confirmation, given his level of authority over the agency’s operations.
The Trump administration, with Musk’s assistance, has sought to significantly scale back USAID’s functions, restricting the distribution of foreign aid and moving to reduce the agency’s workforce both domestically and abroad.
USAID has historically played a critical role in delivering humanitarian assistance, economic development, and disaster relief worldwide.
However, under Musk’s oversight, the agency has faced severe funding limitations and mass layoffs, part of a broader effort to reshape America’s role in global aid distribution.
The lawsuit from USAID employees contends that these changes were enacted without legal justification and in direct contradiction to congressional mandates.
The legal battle over Musk’s role within the Trump administration is expected to intensify in the coming weeks, as additional challenges to his authority emerge.
Legal experts suggest that the case could set a precedent regarding the extent to which private citizens can wield governmental powers without official confirmation.
Trump has consistently defended Musk’s involvement in government affairs, arguing that his background in business and technology makes him uniquely qualified to lead efficiency reforms.
Supporters of Musk’s government role claim that traditional bureaucratic structures have long been inefficient and that DOGE’s restructuring efforts are necessary to modernize federal operations.
However, critics argue that the unprecedented nature of Musk’s influence, combined with his lack of accountability to voters or legislative oversight, creates significant constitutional concerns.
“The fact that an unelected billionaire can make sweeping decisions about government funding, staffing, and data access without any congressional oversight is deeply troubling,” said constitutional law professor Michael Stein.
The lawsuit has reignited broader debates over the role of private industry in government and whether figures like Musk should have direct influence over federal policies.
While business leaders have historically played advisory roles in government, Musk’s position at DOGE goes far beyond traditional advisory capacities, giving him direct control over critical functions.
The outcome of the lawsuit could have far-reaching implications, potentially limiting or redefining the extent to which private citizens can assume governmental authority.
For now, Musk remains in control of DOGE, continuing efforts to reshape federal agencies despite mounting legal challenges.
With both state attorneys general and federal employees challenging his authority, the case could mark a significant turning point in the structure of government oversight and constitutional governance.