A federal judge has declined to block Elon Musk’s Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE) from accessing government data and firing federal employees. U.S. District Judge Tanya Chutkan rejected the plaintiffs’ request for a temporary restraining order, stating that they failed to demonstrate evidence of “irreparable harm” caused by DOGE’s access.
Chutkan, an Obama appointee, raised concerns about the unchecked authority of an unelected individual and an entity not created by Congress. She emphasized the need for clear evidence of imminent, irreparable harm to the plaintiffs before issuing a wide-ranging TRO.
The decision dealt a blow to a coalition of 14 Democratic state attorneys general who had sued to restrict DOGE’s access to federal data on government employees. They argued that Musk holding a leadership role as a private citizen represented an unlawful delegation of executive power and posed a threat of widespread disruption to federal employees.
Despite acknowledging the concerns raised by the plaintiffs, Judge Chutkan emphasized the necessity of meeting a high legal standard for demonstrating imminent harm. Similar legal challenges against DOGE’s access to government data are ongoing in federal courts across the country, with plaintiffs expressing fears of privacy breaches, layoffs, and retaliation.
DOGE, established by executive order, aims to optimize the federal government’s operations over an 18-month period, sparking concerns about its broad mission and lack of specifics from outside observers. Musk and his allies have been swiftly working to fulfill President Trump’s promises of reducing federal budgets and eliminating wasteful spending.
The Justice Department argued that DOGE personnel are entitled to access government data under the Economy Act. Recent court victories have allowed DOGE to continue its operations, pending further legal proceedings. Plaintiffs must prove with clear evidence that they have suffered irreparable harm to curtail DOGE’s access.
Judge John Bates rejected a previous request to block DOGE from accessing records of three government agencies, stating that plaintiffs had not shown a likelihood that DOGE was not an agency. Plaintiffs argued that DOGE’s broad agency access violates the U.S. Constitution’s appointments clause, designed to ensure thorough vetting of high-level government officials.
While Chutkan acknowledged the troubling nature of some of DOGE’s actions, she stressed the need for specific evidence to grant the request to block their access immediately. Plaintiffs’ generalized fears about DOGE’s actions were not deemed sufficient to warrant immediate intervention.
Breanne Deppisch, a politics reporter for Fox News Digital, covers the Trump administration, focusing on the Justice Department, FBI, and national news.