The Legal Battles Over DOGE's Powers and Federal Spending
The power President Trump has given to the Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE) has led to several lawsuits. One such lawsuit, filed by 14 state attorneys general, claims that DOGE's actions violates the Appointments Clause of the U.S. Constitution. Recently, the attorneys general had their request for an emergency stay denied. However, that determination is not a ruling on the merits of the lawsuit, which will continue.
Led by New Mexico Attorney General Raul Torrez, the lawsuit looks to block Elon Musk and DOGE workers from continuing their access to data and ability to order firings in departments across the federal government. It is one of several current lawsuits that question the scope of authority under which DOGE and President Trump are seeking to curb government spending.
Expanding Power of the Executive
The legal battle centers on the separation of powers and the ability to designate government spending. The U.S. government operates under a system of checks and balances designed to keep any branch from abusing its power. One of the primary methods the Framers used to withhold power from the executive branch is under Article I, Section 9 of the U.S. Constitution, the so-called "power of the purse."
In addition to this power, only Congress has the ability to create new federal agencies. Congressional approval is also required for any principal officers the president wishes to appoint. The president can appoint inferior officers without Senate confirmation, but in theory those positions have limited jurisdiction and powers.
What is a principal officer? It is a question that has been debated in courts, and there is no simple answer. In general, principal officers act as agents for the president. Principal officers that the president wishes to appoint must go through the Congressional confirmation process, which includes a hearing with the Senate Judiciary Committee. Numerous principal officers have done so in recent weeks, such as recently appointed Secretary of State Marco Rubio and Department of Health and Human Services Secretary Robert F. Kennedy, Jr.
Once approved by a Senate vote, the president can then award them the commission. The president also has the power to choose to not award a commission to a candidate the Senate has approved.
At first, it appeared that the Trump administration might argue Musk was an inferior officer. However, in a recent court filing, the Trump administration has instead claimed that Musk is not a DOGE employee and has no formal authority to make government decisions.
When writing on X that "we spent the weekend feeding USAID to the wood chipper" for example, the Trump administration argues Musk was broadly using the word "we", and actually played only a very limited role in the dismantling of the agency. It is not clear if anyone, from the Trump administration's point of view, is officially in charge of DOGE.
Concern About DOGE's Power
Musk was initially thought to have been put in charge of DOGE by Trump and is referred to by the administration as a "Special Government Employee." In their lawsuit, the 14-state coalition alleged that the power Elon Musk and DOGE have to affect the disbursement of public funds, government control, and the defunding or eliminating of federal departments is in violation of the Appointments Clause. They also protested Musk and DOGE's access to and altering of federal data systems, some of which have privileged information.
The lawsuit claimed that without Congressional confirmation, Musk and DOGE are exceeding the limits of their power through a Trump appointment. The case is currently before U.S. District Judge Tanya Chutken. Her recent 10-page opinion denying the request for an emergency stay held that the potential damage the coalition warned of is "merely speculative" at this stage.
Despite this victory, additional lawsuits are questioning DOGE's authority and actions to date. DOGE has made personnel and funding decisions for at least 17 government agencies.
Pushback has come from unions, states, and current and former federal employees. The United States Agency for International Development (USAID), hit particularly hard by DOGE, saw 26 workers file suit. The Treasury Department has a temporary block against DOGE accessing their records while a judge decides whether to issue an injunction.
Meanwhile, a federal judge has similarly held that students suing over DOGE's access to Department of Education information involving student loans did not demonstrate enough harm to justify an emergency restraining order, although again the lawsuit itself will continue.
President Trump also recently signed an executive order attempting to give himself greater control of independent agencies, such as the Securities and Exchange Commission, and to allow Office of Management and Budget head Russel Vought to control their spending. This EO is also likely to be immediately challenged in court.
Further Developments Await
Considering the amount of lawsuits over DOGE's role, legal developments are sure to come rapidly. Whether federal spending cuts and firings remain permanent or if some funding and government employees will return remains unclear for now.
Related Resources
- Implied Executive Powers (FindLaw's U.S. Constitution Center)
- Separation of Powers Under the U.S. Constitution (FindLaw's U.S. Constitution Center)
- USAID Grants and Agreements (FindLaw's U.S. Codes)
