14 US States Sue Trump, Elon Musk Over 'Unchecked Power' In Government Efficiency Role

Fourteen states have launched a federal lawsuit against President Donald Trump and Elon Musk, challenging Musk’s leadership of the newly created Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE) and accusing him of being a "designated agent of chaos" with unconstitutional "sweeping authority." The lawsuit, filed Thursday in federal court in Washington, D.C., claims Musk’s role violates the U.S. Constitution’s Appointments Clause, which requires significant government officials to be formally nominated by the president and confirmed by the Senate.  

Led by New Mexico Attorney General Raúl Torrez, the coalition of states—including Arizona, Michigan, Maryland, Minnesota, California, Nevada, Vermont, Connecticut, Rhode Island, Massachusetts, Oregon, Washington, and Hawaii—argues that Musk’s "limitless and unchecked power" poses a grave threat to democracy. "There is no greater threat to democracy than the accumulation of state power in the hands of a single, unelected individual," the lawsuit states. "Although our constitutional system was designed to prevent the abuses of an 18th-century monarch, the instruments of unchecked power are no less dangerous in the hands of a 21st-century tech baron."  

The lawsuit highlights Musk’s authority to "strip the government of its workforce and eliminate entire departments with the stroke of a pen, or a click of a mouse," calling it "shocking to those who won this country's independence." It also argues that the Constitution prohibits the president from overriding existing laws about the structure of the executive branch and federal spending. This includes creating or dismantling federal agencies, slashing programs, or offering severance packages to reduce the federal workforce—a nod to the Trump administration’s "deferred retirement" offers to government employees.  

The states are asking a federal judge to temporarily block Musk from cutting or overhauling federal agencies and to declare his actions, including those of his subordinates, unlawful. "Musk is far more than an adviser to the White House," the lawsuit claims. "He executes the President's agenda by exercising virtually unchecked power across the entire Executive branch, making decisions about expenditures, contracts, government property, regulations, and the very existence of federal agencies."  

In a separate lawsuit filed Thursday in Maryland, 26 current and former USAID employees and contractors made similar constitutional claims, asking a judge to halt Musk’s budget-slashing efforts unless he is formally nominated and confirmed by the Senate. That lawsuit describes Musk’s authority as "unprecedented in U.S. history," citing his ability to cease payments of congressionally approved funds, access sensitive data across agencies, cut off systems access to federal employees and contractors, and dismantle entire independent agencies.  

DOGE, led by Musk as part of Trump’s campaign promise to trim the federal government, has faced multiple legal challenges. Federal judges have temporarily blocked DOGE from accessing sensitive data at the Treasury Department, and the Department of Education recently limited DOGE’s access to student loan records. Another lawsuit challenging the dismantling of USAID resulted in a temporary order preventing the agency from placing over 2,000 employees on leave.  

The White House has defended Musk, with spokesperson Karoline Leavitt stating that he is "complying with all applicable federal laws" and describing him as a "special government employee." However, the states argue that Musk’s role goes far beyond that of an adviser. "Musk is wielding the power of a principal officer, a principal officer that has never previously existed," the lawsuit says.  

The lawsuit also claims that DOGE has "inserted itself into at least 17 federal agencies" and that Musk has the authority to "direct and veto the staffing decisions" of multiple agencies. "As a result, all of Musk's actions are [beyond his authority] and contrary to law," the suit concludes.