Elon Musk's Role in DOGE Clarified by White House
Summary
In a sworn affidavit submitted to federal court, the Trump administration has claimed that tech billionaire Elon Musk is not in charge of the Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE). This contradicts prior statements made by the White House and public evidence suggesting Musk's involvement.
Musk as "Senior Adviser"
The affidavit states that Musk is a "senior adviser" to the president with no formal authority to make government decisions independently. He advises the president and communicates his directives. This designation aims to undercut arguments that Musk has been given vast decision-making power without congressional confirmation.
Contradictions with Previous Statements
The affidavit contradicts earlier statements made by the White House. President Trump initially announced that Musk would lead DOGE alongside Vivek Ramaswamy, who later withdrew from the project. White House press secretary Karoline Leavitt had also acknowledged that Trump tasked Musk with establishing DOGE.
Legal Status of DOGE
The legal status of DOGE has been debated. The Justice Department has argued that it qualifies as an agency for some purposes, including granting employees access to sensitive data, but not others, such as compliance with open records laws. The affidavit does not clarify who is running DOGE if not Musk.
Expert Perspective
Georgetown University law professor David Super questions the White House's position, given prior statements suggesting Musk's leadership. He notes that constitutional rules cannot be circumvented by renaming or reassigning titles.
Advantages for the White House
Treating Musk as an adviser rather than a department head has potential advantages for the White House. It avoids the need for confirmation hearings and could allow Trump to claim executive privilege over communications with Musk, shielding them from Freedom of Information Act requests.
Court Ruling
Judge Tanya Chutkan declined to issue a temporary restraining order halting DOGE's work. However, she acknowledged the "strong" questions raised by the states about the constitutionality of Musk's role and its implications.