Elon Musk’s role overseeing the Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE) could violate the U.S. Constitution’s appointments clause, a federal judge ruled on Tuesday.
Theodore Chuang, a judge in the U.S. District Court for the District of Maryland, stated in his opinion that there is significant evidence, particularly from statements made by Musk and President Donald Trump, showing that Musk is essentially acting as the head of DOGE. This contradicts the government’s claim that Musk is only a “special advisor to the president.”
Chuang issued the opinion following a case brought against Musk and DOGE by anonymous employees of the United States Agency for International Development (USAID). The judge noted that actions Musk has taken in his role, such as reportedly shutting down USAID—something Musk allegedly referred to as putting the agency into the “wood chipper”—are likely unconstitutional.
Judge’s Orders and Political Backlash
“Musk has exerted actual authority at USAID that only a properly appointed Officer can exercise,” Chuang wrote, referring to the legal distinction set out by the appointments clause in the Constitution.
The judge’s opinion came more than 50 days after Trump took office and permitted Musk to begin reducing the number of government agencies with DOGE’s team. The opinion is one of the most direct legal challenges yet to Musk’s actions and the operations of DOGE, following a wave of lawsuits over the past two months.
Chuang’s opinion also ordered that some operations at USAID be restored and imposed restrictions on Musk and DOGE to prevent further actions dismantling the agency.
It is uncertain whether Musk and DOGE will comply with Chuang’s orders. Recently, both Musk and President Trump have taken to social media, suggesting that judges who rule against their actions should be impeached. This rhetoric has been so controversial that Chief Justice of the Supreme Court, John Roberts, issued an unusually public statement rebuking Trump’s stance.
“For more than two centuries,” Roberts said, “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.”
What The Author Thinks
The suggestion of impeaching judges for disagreeing with executive decisions poses a dangerous threat to the integrity of the judicial system. If allowed to continue, this rhetoric risks undermining the separation of powers that is crucial to maintaining a fair and balanced government. The judiciary must remain free from political interference to uphold the rule of law and protect citizens’ rights.
Featured image credit: FMT
Follow us for more breaking news on DMR