Key Takeaways:

• Fourteen states have filed a federal lawsuit against Elon Musk and Donald Trump, alleging unconstitutional authority.
• The lawsuit claims Musk's role in the Department of Government Efficiency allows for unprecedented control over federal agencies.
• The states argue that such authority violates the U.S. Constitution's Appointments Clause.

Fourteen states, led by New Mexico, have initiated a federal lawsuit against President Donald Trump and Elon Musk, challenging Musk's role as head of the newly formed Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE). The states assert that Musk's authority represents a significant threat to democratic principles and violates the U.S. Constitution. The lawsuit, filed in U.S. District Court in Washington, D.C., argues that Musk's power to overhaul federal agencies and eliminate positions is not only unprecedented but also unconstitutional, as it concentrates executive power in the hands of an unelected individual.

The lawsuit's dramatic opening statement highlights that “there is no greater threat to democracy than the accumulation of state power in the hands of a single, unelected individual.” It continues to articulate that the authority Musk now exercises—formerly just managing government websites—has been transformed into a capacity to dismantle governmental structures without oversight. Specifically, the suit focuses on the Appointments Clause, which stipulates that principal officers of the United States must be formally nominated by the President and confirmed by the Senate.

The complaints underscore a troubling disregard for constitutional protocols, alleging that Musk has been casually wielding immense power. “His seemingly limitless and unchecked power to strip the government of its workforce” is said to “foster tremendous chaos” both within federal agencies and for state-level governance, according to LA Times. The implications extend well beyond mere budget cuts; federal judges have already intervened to limit DOGE's access to sensitive information, while phase-outs of entire departments have raised alarm among a broad swath of public servants and citizens alike. Meanwhile, previous assessments of streamlining government have faced backlash, revealing a contentious environment fueled by skepticism of Musk's management style.

The lawsuit is bolstered by claims from state attorneys general that Musk’s actions have prompted widespread confusion and disarray among federal workplaces and local governing bodies. For instance, the Department of Defense has reportedly become a target amid allegations of abuse with respect to sensitive contracts Musk oversees via his interests with SpaceX. “This power grab puts people's privacy and security at risk,” Oregon Attorney General Dan Rayfield remarked, confirming the widespread concerns over Musk’s unbounded authority.Business Insider reported that the AGs, across various states including California, offer a stark warning about the overreach affecting functional governance within the Executive Branch.

Hearing for the lawsuit has been set before U.S. District Court Judge Tanya Chutkan, who has previously overseen notable cases related to the Trump administration, including those involving allegations of election interference. The states have requested a temporary restraining order to halt all actions Musk has undertaken as a principal officer, which they argue are illegal given his lack of Senate confirmation. This injunction aims to block alterations to agency operations until the court can establish lawful authority and adherence to constitutional mandates. As tensions rise, ABC News has observed that Musk's unproven methods could deeply undermine the federal structure, threatening established norms of governance.

This latest legal battle adds to a series of lawsuits that have challenged Musk and DOGE's activities in what many critics characterize as a reckless endeavor to reshape the federal landscape without legislative accountability.