Judge denies states’ bid to curtail DOGE’s powers

A federal judge on Tuesday denied an effort by 14 states to immediately block Elon Musk and his advisory Department of Government Efficiency from accessing data systems or making personnel decisions at seven federal agencies.

U.S. District Judge Tanya Chutkan wrote that the “possibility” that DOGE could harm the states “is not enough” to halt its activities.

“The court is aware that DOGE’s unpredictable actions have resulted in considerable uncertainty and confusion for Plaintiffs and many of their agencies and residents,” Chutkan added, but the states haven’t linked those actions to any “imminent harm” in their states.

Follow live politics coverage here

The judge had signaled how she was likely to rule at a hearing on Monday, when she told an attorney for the states that the potential harm of DOGE’s actions was “troubling, indeed,” but that she needed specifics beyond “a generalized fear that this is going to happen.”

The wide-ranging lawsuit was brought by a coalition of Democratic attorneys general.

The ruling does not end the case, and Chutkan, who presided over the now-scuttled criminal election interference case against President Donald Trump, made clear she has concerns about DOGE’s powers and authority.

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,” she wrote.

“Musk has not been nominated by the President nor confirmed by the U.S. Senate, as constitutionally required for officers who exercise ‘significant authority pursuant to the laws of the United States,’” she said, adding that even Trump administration officials “concede there is no apparent ‘source of legal authority granting [DOGE] the power’ to take some of the actions challenged here.”

Still, the judge added, “even a strong merits argument cannot secure a temporary restraining order at this juncture.”

She ordered the two sides to “meet and confer” about how to proceed.

The White House did not immediately respond to a request for comment on the ruling by Chutkan, who Trump repeatedly claimed was “very biased” and “unfair” while she was presiding over his criminal case.