Establishing and Implementing the President’s “Department Of Government Efficiency” (Trump EO Tracker)

14 State Attorneys General sued Elon Musk, U.S. Department of Government Efficiency (“DOGE”) Service, U.S. DOGE Service Temporary Organization, and President Trump, seeking declaratory and injunctive relief to enjoin Musk from acting as an officer of the United States and to declare his actions to date as legally invalid. The AGs contend that Elon Musk, with President Trump’s approval, has been given unchecked authority within the federal government without proper legal authorization or Senate confirmation, in violation of the Appointments Clause of the U.S. Constitution. The AGs argue that Musk’s actions and access to sensitive data pose a threat to democracy and the separation of powers. They also argue Musk’s actions exceed the authority of a government employee.  

On February 18, Judge Chutkan denied the Plaintiffs’ request for a temporary restraining order but indicated a potentially favorable view of their argument on the merits. 

Several related cases were consolidated on February 18, 2025:

• Public Citizen Inc. et al. v. Donald J. Trump and Office of Management and Budget, Case No. 1:25-cv-00164 (D.D.C.) (Lead case).
• Lentini et al. v. Department of Government Efficiency et al., Case No. 1:25-cv-00166 (D.D.C.).
• American Public Health Assn. et al. v. Office of Management and Budget et al., Case No. 1:25-cv-00167 (D.D.C.).

Other related cases:

• Center for Biological Diversity v. Office of Management and Budget, Case No. 1:25-cv-00165 (D.D.C.) (FOIA complaint demanding records related to communications between OMB and DOGE’s leadership).
• Project on Government Oversight, Inc. v. Trump et al., Case No. 1:25-cv-00527 (D.D.C.) (Challenge to Defendants’ recordkeeping policies and practices that treat federal agency records of DOGE as presidential records under the Presidential Records Act and beyond the scope of the FOIA).
• J. Doe 1-26 v. Musk, Case No. 8:25-cv-00462-TDC (D. Md.).