Legal battles surrounding the Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE) have intensified following President Donald Trump’s recent remarks during a joint session of Congress. In a surprising admission, Trump publicly stated that Elon Musk is in charge of DOGE, a claim that has already been cited in court filings challenging the agency’s legitimacy and authority.
Trump’s statement directly contradicts previous administration efforts to remain vague about DOGE’s structure and leadership. For weeks, officials had deflected questions about the agency’s hierarchy, even after naming Amy Gleason as the acting administrator of the U.S. DOGE Service (USDS). However, Trump’s identification of Musk as the head of DOGE has now been entered into the court record, potentially influencing ongoing litigation.
Multiple lawsuits have been filed challenging DOGE’s authority and Musk’s role within it. A group of plaintiffs in Washington, D.C., federal court has already submitted a motion arguing that Trump’s remarks provide new evidence warranting expedited discovery. They contend that the president’s statement confirms their concerns about DOGE’s relationship with the USDS and the administration’s efforts to consolidate power.
Another lawsuit, filed in Maryland, focuses on constitutional concerns, particularly regarding the Appointments Clause and the separation of powers. Plaintiffs in that case argue that Musk’s leadership over a government agency violates legal principles governing federal appointments. This legal strategy is similar to the argument that previously derailed Special Counsel Jack Smith’s authority in the Mar-a-Lago case.
Unlike in other disputes, the government has not opposed the submission of Trump’s statements into the court record. Plaintiffs in the Maryland case have requested judicial notice, asserting that Trump’s remarks are undeniable facts, given that they were made publicly before Congress and broadcast to millions. The administration has consented to these facts being considered by the court.
The legal implications remain uncertain, but Trump’s words could carry weight in the ongoing litigation. While district courts may scrutinize his statement regarding Musk’s role, precedent suggests that presidential remarks do not always determine legal outcomes. In the 2018 case of Trump v. Hawaii, the Supreme Court largely dismissed Trump’s campaign statements about a so-called “Muslim ban” when evaluating the legality of his travel policy, focusing instead on the formal text of the executive order.
Despite this precedent, plaintiffs hope that Trump’s recent statement will bolster their cases against DOGE, arguing that the agency operates outside constitutional limits. With lawsuits mounting and court scrutiny increasing, the administration may soon be forced to provide clearer answers about DOGE’s true structure and Musk’s role within it.
