A federal judge in Washington signaled on Monday that she is unlikely to immediately block Elon Musk’s Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE) from continuing its sweeping overhaul of the federal workforce, despite an urgent legal challenge from 14 state attorneys general. The lawsuit, one of many filed against President Donald Trump’s aggressive executive actions in his first month back in office, claims that Musk’s authority violates the U.S. Constitution and bypasses necessary congressional oversight.
During a nearly hour-long virtual hearing, U.S. District Judge Tanya Chutkan questioned the plaintiffs' request for a temporary restraining order, expressing skepticism that they had demonstrated the kind of “extreme” and “imminent harm” required for emergency relief.
While acknowledging the concerns surrounding DOGE’s broad authority, she noted that the attorneys general had yet to present concrete evidence of damage that could not be reversed, such as mass layoffs that could not be undone.
“The court can't act based on media reports,” Chutkan stated. “The things that I'm hearing are concerning indeed and troubling indeed, but I have to have a record, and I have to make a finding on the facts before I issue something.”
Her reluctance to intervene immediately could give Musk and DOGE a temporary green light to continue their restructuring efforts, which include eliminating positions, cutting programs, and reviewing federal data access across multiple agencies. The lawsuit alleges that these efforts overstep legal boundaries, as DOGE is not an officially designated federal agency, yet has been granted significant operational power within the executive branch.
Despite her inclination to deny the restraining order, Chutkan did challenge government lawyers on the opacity of DOGE’s actions, particularly regarding the scale of federal employee terminations. “The firing of thousands of federal employees is not a small or common thing. You haven’t been able to confirm that?” she pressed. The lack of clear data on firings, she suggested, made it more difficult for the states to argue their case but also raised red flags about the administration’s transparency.
The controversy surrounding DOGE is just one piece of a broader legal battle over Trump’s sweeping administrative changes. In the past week alone, federal courts have issued rulings temporarily halting DOGE’s access to sensitive Treasury Department records, ordering the restoration of public health data repositories, and blocking certain foreign aid freezes. However, the Trump administration has also secured victories, including permission for DOGE to proceed with select data reviews and execute a federal employee buyout program.
Trump and his allies, including Vice President JD Vance and Musk, have responded to the legal pushback with increasing frustration, portraying the wave of lawsuits as an attempt to paralyze the administration’s efforts to streamline government operations. Over the weekend, Trump took to social media to defend his administration’s actions, writing, “He who saves his Country does not violate any Law.”
At the same time, the administration has taken its fight to the Supreme Court, arguing that the recent spate of restraining orders undermines the president’s constitutional authority to manage the executive branch. Solicitor General Sarah Harris framed the issue in stark terms, stating in a court filing that these legal challenges “irreparably harm the Presidency by curtailing the President’s ability to manage the Executive Branch in the earliest days of his Administration.”