Trump’s Nod to Musk in Speech to Congress Swiftly Cited in Court

Less than 24 hours after Donald Trump’s remarks to Congress praising Elon Musk’s leadership of his “government efficiency” effort, federal workers suing over the billionaire’s role cited the comments in court as the latest instance of the president’s statements bolstering their case.

Trump said twice on Tuesday night that the Tesla Inc. chief executive officer, who he tapped to help reshape the federal bureaucracy and slash spending, “headed” the Department of Government Efficiency. The administration has said in court papers that Musk isn’t the department’s administrator, doesn’t work for DOGE and “has no actual or formal authority to make government decisions himself.”

In a letter Wednesday, attorneys for current and former federal workers who are alleging Musk is exercising unconstitutional power to direct cuts to US spending and staff said that Trump’s comments were “relevant admissions.” The letter went to US District Judge Theodore Chuang in Maryland, who is weighing the plaintiffs’ request to immediately undo any steps DOGE has taken to wind down operations at the US Agency for International Development.

Read More: Judge Calls DOJ Answers About Musk DOGE Role ‘Highly Suspicious’

“Indeed, President Trump made these remarks before a joint session of Congress and on live television before millions of Americans; the full transcript is readily available,” lawyers for the plaintiffs with State Democracy Defenders Fund wrote.

In earlier court filings, the plaintiffs quoted Trump saying that he put Musk “in charge” and the businessman saying that his role was to make sure the president’s executive actions “are actually carried out.” The White House later confirmed the identity of the person serving as DOGE’s administrator, Amy Gleason, but the lawyers for the workers argued that regardless of Musk’s formal title, he is serving as the “de facto” leader in practice.

A Justice Department spokesperson didn’t immediately respond to a request for comment.

A senior official who requested anonymity to discuss the litigation said that the Trump administration’s position was that there could be a designated administrator for DOGE and that Musk, as a special government employee, also could oversee the work that DOGE is doing at the White House. The official disputed that the administration is breaking the law.

The Justice Department has argued that Musk “may carry sway or influence within the Executive Branch, even significant influence,” but that is not the same as exercising authority that the Constitution’s Appointments Clause says is reserved for “officers” of the US. The government contends that Musk’s role as a “senior advisor” is more like a White House chief of staff, not a Senate-confirmed agency head.

At a Feb. 28 hearing, Chuang called the administration’s handling of questions about DOGE’s leadership and Musk’s role “highly suspicious.”

The case is Does 1-26 v. Musk and DOGE, 25-cv-462, US District Court, District of Maryland (Greenbelt).

To contact the reporter on this story:
Zoe Tillman in Washington at ztillman2@bloomberg.net

To contact the editors responsible for this story:
Sara Forden at sforden@bloomberg.net

Steve Stroth, Elizabeth Wasserman

© 2025 Bloomberg L.P. All rights reserved. Used with permission.