Who's Running DOGE? White House Affirms It's Not Elon Musk
According to a sworn statement submitted to a federal court, a Trump administration official has stated that tech mogul Elon Musk is not the head of the Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE). DOGE has overseen substantial layoffs in federal agencies and gained access to vast amounts of sensitive data.
The Department of Justice (DOJ) attorneys filed the affidavit, which seemingly contradicts public evidence about Musk's role, including prior statements made by the White House itself. The affidavit was submitted in response to a lawsuit filed by several state attorneys general challenging DOGE's actions.
The states contend that the Trump administration has violated the Constitution's appointments clause by allowing Musk extensive decision-making power without seeking congressional confirmation for his position. The affidavit aims to rebut this argument.
It asserts that Musk is not employed by DOGE and holds no formal authority over other agencies. Instead, he is claimed to be a "senior adviser" to the president with limited advisory responsibilities.
However, previous statements from the administration have presented a different picture. When DOGE was first established, Trump announced that it would be led by Musk and former presidential candidate Vivek Ramaswamy. Leavitt, the White House press secretary, also acknowledged that "President Trump tasked Mr. Musk with starting up DOGE."
Under the Constitution, "principal officers" with substantial authority, such as Cabinet secretaries, must be appointed by the president and confirmed by the Senate. The administration claims that Musk has been designated only as a "special government employee."
The legal status of DOGE itself has been debated. In court, the DOJ has argued that it qualifies as an agency for specific purposes but not others.
The affidavit does not explicitly identify who is running DOGE in Musk's absence. Georgetown University law professor David Super expressed skepticism about the administration's position, given previous statements by Musk and others claiming his leadership.
Super emphasized that renaming an entity to avoid constitutional obligations may not be legally acceptable if the individual still exercises significant authority.
Classifying Musk as a mere adviser rather than a department head could benefit the White House, potentially avoiding the need for confirmation hearings and allowing Trump to assert executive privilege over communications with Musk.
A U.S. District Court judge declined to issue a temporary restraining order halting DOGE's activities. However, she acknowledged "strong" questions about the constitutionality of Musk's involvement and the potential implications.
The states continue to challenge the constitutionality of Musk's role, and further legal developments are likely.