# Lawsuits involving the Department of Government Efficiency

The actions of the Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE), informally headed by Elon Musk, are the subject of ongoing lawsuits.
Complications include establishing facts about Musk's role, the identities and formal powers of his associates, and the unclear relationship between Musk, DOGE, and political appointees backed by Musk. The White House and the Republican Party have defended DOGE, Musk, President Trump, and other plaintiffs, stating they are in full compliance with federal law.
Legal experts have described many of DOGE's actions as illegal, breaking multiple privacy, security, and congressional laws and regulations. It has been described as taking a "move fast and break things" approach. Legal analysts have alleged breaches of law regarding aspects of the Privacy Act, Internal Revenue Code, and Federal Information Security Modernization Act. Forcing workers out of their offices and claims of "deleting" agencies and seizure of funds authorized by Congress have been described as breaking Article 1 of the United States Constitution and constituting a potential "constitutional crisis".
Legal proceedings have been complicated by difficulties in establishing basic facts, such as how many of Musk's associates have been detailed to specific agencies, whether they act as employees of those agencies or of the White House, and what formal powers they have to demand access to agency computer systems. The relationship of Musk-approved agency appointees to DOGE is also unclear, with DOGE sometimes claiming credit for appointees' actions, resulting in unclear authorship of official actions.

## January 2025
### Federal Advisory Committee Act (FACA) lawsuits

On January 20, the day of Trump's inauguration, The Washington Post learned of a pending lawsuit to be launched against DOGE minutes after Trump was to be sworn in, questioning whether DOGE is a presidential advisory commission obeying federal transparency rules about certain practices, such as disclosure and hiring. The same day, three more lawsuits were filed against Trump, DOGE, and the Office of Management and Budget (OMB), alleging violation of the Federal Advisory Committee Act (FACA), which requires that "the advisory committee have a fair balance in viewpoints represented, that they do not meet in secret, and that their records and work product be made available for public inspection". All four lawsuits were filed in the District of Columbia.
The first suit was filed by Public Citizen, State Democracy Defenders Fund, and the American Federation of Government Employees (AFGE) against Trump and the OMB. The Center for Biological Diversity next filed suit against the OMB. National Security Counselors sued DOGE, OMB, Office of Personnel Management, and multiple Trump administration officials, while a coalition of non-government organizations filed suit against OMB and DOGE.
Public Citizen, Lentini, and American Public Health Association were all assigned to Biden-appointed judge Jia M. Cobb; the government filed a motion to consolidate the cases on February 4, 2025, and they were consolidated on February 18. Center for Biological Diversity has been assigned to Obama-appointed judge Beryl A. Howell.

### Treasury payments lawsuits
#### District of Rhode Island

On January 28, twenty-two state attorneys general filed suit against Trump and the Treasury Department in the District of Rhode Island for a temporary retraining order (TRO) barring Trump from pausing any further federal aid. On January 31, Judge John J. McConnell Jr., appointed by President Barack Obama, granted the TRO, effectively blocking Trump's federal aid freeze. On February 10, finding that the Trump administration had failed to fully comply with the order, Judge McConnell directed the Trump administration to immediately end any federal funding pause and restore previously frozen funds until a final ruling was made on a permanent injunction to be heard at a later time.
The Trump administration appealed to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the First Circuit. Harrison Fields, a White House spokesman, said that "every action of the Trump-Vance administration is completely lawful". The First Circuit refused to hear the appeal.
Republican US Representative Andrew Clyde (GA-9) announced plans to file articles of impeachment against McConnell, calling him a "partisan activist weaponizing our judicial system to stop President Trump's funding freeze on woke and wasteful government spending".

#### Southern District of New York

On February 7, nineteen state attorneys general, largely the same from the Rhode Island federal case, filed suit against Trump and the Treasury Department in the Southern District of New York over DOGE's actions within the Bureau of the Fiscal Service (BFS). In the early morning on February 8, Judge Paul A. Engelmayer, appointed by Obama, issued a preliminary injunction barring DOGE members from accessing Treasury data and ordering all existing unauthorized copies to be deleted immediately.
The White House called the ruling "absurd and judicial overreach" and referred to Engelmayer as an "activist"; Musk posted similar sentiments on X and claimed Engelmayer was protecting scammers. Conservative activist Charlie Kirk encouraged the Trump administration to defy the order should it become permanent. That weekend, JD Vance posted on X that "judges aren't allowed to control the executive's legitimate power". Arkansas senator Tom Cotton called Engelmayer an "outlaw".
The case was transferred, as is standard, to Biden-appointed judge Jeannette Vargas, who on February 11 adjusted Engelmayer's ruling by allowing Treasury secretary Scott Bessent and other senior department leaders whose roles required Senate confirmation to access Treasury data. A hearing was held before Vargas on February 14; she extended the injunction and said she would rule shortly on whether it would remain in place throughout the proceedings. The case is expected to last months.

## February 2025

On February 5, Republican members of the United States House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform blocked an effort by committee Democrats to subpoena Musk.
On February 7, the ACLU filed Freedom of Information Act requests with over 40 federal agencies "for any records that reveal whether DOGE or its representatives have sought or obtained access to databases containing personally identifiable information, financial records, healthcare data, or other sensitive government-held records of Americans".
On February 21, the Office of Special Counsel, an independent agency that investigates federal workers' complaints, decided that, in a case involving six probationary government workers at six different agencies, the workers had been illegally fired. The decision was revealed on February 24.

### Privacy lawsuits

On February 4, three federal employee unions—the Alliance for Retired Americans, the AFGE, and the Service Employees International Union (SEIU)—filed a lawsuit against the Treasury Department, alleging that Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent unlawfully granted DOGE access to sensitive data. The White House defended Musk's role, stating he had followed all federal laws. On February 6, judge Colleen Kollar-Kotelly, appointed by former president Bill Clinton, agreed to a proposal filed by the Justice Department to temporarily limit DOGE to "read-only" access of Treasury data until a hearing for a preliminary injunction could be held on February 24. Department of Justice lawyers struggled to explain how DOGE plans to use sensitive taxpayer data. In the hearing, Kollar-Kotelly said that she had "concerns about the constitutionality of U.S.D.S.'s structure and operations". She also questioned the government's lawyer about who the DOGE administrator is and what Musk's specific role is in DOGE, but the lawyer said that he didn't know.
On February 7, the University of California Student Association filed a lawsuit against acting secretary of education Denise Carter and the Department of Education (ED) in the District of Columbia, claiming an "enormous and unprecedented" "intrusion into individuals' privacy". The case has been assigned to Obama-appointed judge Randolph D. Moss.
On February 11, the Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF) filed its own lawsuit to prevent DOGE from accessing OPM's data.

### USAID firings and shutdown

On February 6, a lawsuit seeking to halt the shutdown of USAID was filed in the United States District Court for the District of Columbia by the American Foreign Service Association and the AFGE. The judge, Trump-appointed Carl J. Nichols, issued a temporary restraining order on February 7 against imminent plans for 2,200 employees to be placed on administrative leave and for overseas USAID workers to return to the US. After a hearing, Judge Nichols extended the freeze through February 21.
Nichols held a telephone hearing on February 19. After Trump-appointed USAID leader Peter Marocco initially told the court that overseas USAID employees would be given a choice as to whether remain abroad while on administrative leave, but days later told the court otherwise, Nichols called the government's contradictions "a mess" and ordered the DOJ to clarify its stance by February 20.

### Compensation for access to data

On February 12, a class action suit was filed against Musk, Office of Personnel Management, Department of Treasury and Secretary of the Treasury Scott Bessent. Gribbon v. Musk claims that taxpayers, federal employees and those receiving benefits should be compensated for DOGE's access to their personal and financial data. It has been assigned to judge Christopher R. Cooper.

### State attorneys general Appointments Clause case

On February 13, fourteen state attorneys general filed suit against Musk, DOGE, and Trump in the District of Columbia, arguing that although Musk had been designated a special government employee, he was acting as a principal officer of the United States, and that the Appointments Clause required him to be confirmed by the Senate. They requested a temporary restraining order preventing Musk and DOGE from firing employees or accessing information from multiple federal agencies. In its response, the Trump administration argued that Musk was a senior advisor to the president and had no formal authority. On February 18, Judge Tanya Chutkan denied the request for the temporary restraining order, though she wrote that the states "legitimately call into question what appears to be the unchecked authority of an unelected individual and an entity that was not created by Congress and over which it has no oversight."

### Lawsuits to make DOGE records public

On February 11, watchdog organization American Oversight filed a lawsuit to gain access to all of Musk's communications involving the termination of employees across the federal government. Its lawsuit states that DOGE is subject to the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA).
On February 19, the nonpartisan watchdog group Project on Government Oversight sued President Trump, DOGE, and the DOGE administrator over the claim that DOGE records are subject to the Presidential Records Act, and therefore not subject to public records requests. The lawsuit argues that DOGE is subject to the Federal Records Act since it is acting like a federal agency.
On February 20, watchdog organization Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington sued DOGE to produce documents via the Freedom of Information Act. On March 10, the presiding judge, Christopher R. Cooper, ordered DOGE to produce the documents for CREW, finding that DOGE's "secrecy" and "rapid pace" warranted "quick release of information about its structure and activities". While making his ruling, Cooper concluded that "the authority exercised by [DOGE] across the federal government and the dramatic cuts it has apparently made with no congressional input appear to be unprecedented". Cooper found that DOGE "obtained unprecedented access to sensitive personal and classified data and payment systems across federal agencies" and "appears to have the power not just to evaluate federal programs, but to drastically reshape and even eliminate them wholesale".

### Requirement for employees to report accomplishments

On February 22, the Office of Personnel Management (OPM) sent an email to all federal employees, asking them to respond with "what you accomplished last week" by midnight EST on February 24. Shortly before the email went out, Musk posted about it on X, saying that "Failure to respond will be taken as a resignation." A claim that this action was unlawful was added to a pending lawsuit against the OPM for the mass layoffs of probationary workers. Some agencies instructed their employees not to respond to the email. On February 24, the OPM announced that employees were not required to respond to the email.

### Access to government computer systems

On February 5, several labors unions—the American Federation of Labor and Congress of Industrial Organizations (AFL-CIO), the American Federation of Government Employees, the American Federation of State, County, and Municipal Employees, the Service Employees International Union, and Communication Workers of America—along with the Economic Policy Institute filed a lawsuit to prevent DOGE from accessing computer systems at the Department of Labor (DOL), subsequently amending the suit to also include systems at the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS), and the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB). They asked for a temporary restraining order, which was denied on February 7. On February 27, the judge, John Bates, ordered the Trump Administration to make four witnesses available for depositions, one each from DOGE and the three federal departments.

## Case summaries

| Case | Court | Case no.(s) | First filing date | Outcome | Notes |
| Public Citizen Inc., et al. v. Donald J. Trump and Office of Management and Budget | U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia | 1:25-cv-00164 | January 20, 2025 | | |
| Jerald Lentini, et al. v. Department of Government Efficiency, et al. | U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia | 1:25-cv-00166 | January 20, 2025 | | Consolidated with case no. 1:25-cv-00164 |
| American Public Health Association, et al. v. Office of Management and Budget, et al. | U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia | 1:25-cv-00167 | January 20, 2025 | | Consolidated with case no. 1:25-cv-00164 |
| Center for Biological Diversity v. Office of Management and Budget | U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia | 1:25-cv-00165 | January 20, 2025 | | |
| J. Doe 1-26 v. Musk, et al. | U.S. District Court for the District of Maryland | 8:25-cv-00462-TDC | February 13, 2025 | | |
| New Mexico, et al. v. Musk, et al. | U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia | 1.25-cv-00429 | February 13, 2025 | | |
| Alliance for Retired Americans, et al. v. Bessent, et al. | U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia | 1:25-cv-00313 | February 3, 2025 | | |
| New York, et al., v. Trump, et al. | U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York | 1:25-cv-01144-JAV | February 7, 2025 | | |
| American Federation of Labor and Congress of Industrial Organizations, et al. v. Department of Labor, et al. | U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia | 1:25-cv-00339 | February 5, 2025 | | |
| University of California Student Association v. Carter, et al. | U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia | 1:25-cv-00354 | February 7, 2025 | | |
| National Treasury Employees Union v. Vought | U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia | 1:25-cv-00380 | February 9, 2025 | | |
| American Federation of Teachers, et al. v. Bessent, et al. | U.S. District Court for the District of Maryland | 8:25-cv-00430 | February 10, 2025 | | |
| Electronic Privacy Information Center v. U.S. Office of Personnel Management, et al. | U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Virginia | 1:25-cv-00255 | February 10, 2025 | | |
| American Federation of Government Employees, et al. v. Office of Personnel Management et al. | U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York | 1:25-cv-01237 | February 11, 2025 | | |
| Nemeth-Greenleaf, et al. v. U.S. Office of Personnel Management, et al. | U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia | 1:25-cv-00407 | February 11, 2025 | | |
| Andrea Gribbon, et al. v. Elon Musk, et al. | U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia | 1:25-cv-00422 | February 12, 2025 | | |
| Center for Taxpayer Rights, et al. v. Internal Revenue Service, et al. | U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia | 1:25-cv-00457 | February 17, 2025 | | |
| American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees, AFL-CIO, et al. v. Social Security Administration, et al. | U.S. District Court for the District of Maryland | 1:25-cv-00596 | February 21, 2025 | | |
| Project on Government Oversight, Inc. v. Donald J. Trump, et al. | U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia | 1:25-cv-00527 | February 21, 2025 | | |
| Deborah Morris v. Donald Trump, et al. | U.S. District Court for the District of Maryland | 1:25-cv-00435 | February 11, 2025 | Dismissed on February 12, 2025, for lack of standing | |
| Jane Does 1-2 v. Office of Personnel Management | U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia | 1:25-cv-00234 | January 27, 2025 | | |
| Center for Biological Diversity v. U.S. Department of Interior, et al. | U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia | 1:25-cv-00612 | March 3, 2025 | | |