A new federal lawsuit is challenging the legitimacy of the Elon Musk-led Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE), arguing that it is operating beyond the law. The lawsuit, filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia, claims that DOGE is merely an advisory committee and not a formal government entity, making its actions unlawful under the Federal Advisory Committee Act (FACA) of 1972.
The central argument in the complaint is that DOGE is distinct from the U.S. Digital Service (USDS), the federal agency it is supposedly tied to. Plaintiffs argue that this distinction is significant, as it means DOGE is functioning outside established legal frameworks, without the oversight and transparency required of advisory committees.
The lawsuit alleges that DOGE, despite its high-profile government efficiency efforts, has not adhered to FACA’s legal requirements. The act mandates advisory committees to file an official charter, maintain a balanced membership representing different perspectives, and hold meetings with transparency measures in place. The complaint states that DOGE has failed to meet these requirements, instead operating behind closed doors.
An executive order established DOGE as a temporary organization within USDS, charged with advancing a federal efficiency agenda over an 18-month period. However, according to the plaintiffs, Musk is not actually the head of USDS, which means he is leading something separate an advisory group acting without proper legal authorization.
The lawsuit further argues that DOGE’s membership is imbalanced, consisting solely of individuals with backgrounds in the tech industry or Republican politics. This allegedly violates FACA’s requirement that advisory bodies include a diverse range of viewpoints to prevent undue influence from special interests.
Two lawyers filed the lawsuit after unsuccessfully applying to join DOGE, citing their legal expertise and experience with federal governance. One applicant emphasized his union background, while the other highlighted his work defending government employees. Neither received a response.
The filing contends that DOGE is an unofficial body exercising significant influence over government operations while avoiding the accountability mechanisms required by law. It describes Musk’s role as that of a private citizen making sweeping federal decisions without the transparency and oversight that FACA was designed to enforce. The plaintiffs argue that such unchecked power over federal efficiency measures raises serious legal and ethical concerns.
A key argument in the case is that DOGE is not an official government agency but an idea repackaged as an organization with real authority. The lawsuit asserts that Musk and his team are making major policy decisions without following federal guidelines, undermining public trust in government accountability. The case seeks to establish that DOGE must comply with FACA’s regulations, ensuring that advisory committees operate with transparency and fairness rather than functioning as private entities shaping government policy in secrecy.
