Elon Musk’s DOGE faces first legal challenge within hours of Trump inauguration

The first lawsuit to challenge billionaire Elon Musk’s “Department of Government Efficiency” (DOGE) was expected to be filed in federal court Monday within hours after President Trump was sworn into office.

A 30-page complaint obtained by Fox Business ahead of its filing accuses DOGE of violating certain public disclosure requirements in federal law. The lawsuit, filed by the public interest law firm National Security Counselors, was first reported by the Washington Post.

Trump tasked Musk and biotech entrepreneur Vivek Ramaswamy with leading DOGE on a quest to identify government waste, fraud and abuse and advise the White House on how to cut spending. Musk has set an ambitious goal of $2 trillion in spending cuts for his nongovernmental agency, which has staffed up at the offices of his company SpaceX in D.C. and reportedly held preliminary meetings with representatives from dozens of federal agencies to root out waste, according to the outlet.

But DOGE was not established by Congress and its powers, if any, are undefined. The lawsuit alleges that DOGE should be considered a “federal advisory committee” and, as such, is required by law known as the Federal Advisory Committee Act (FACA) to have “fairly balanced” representation, record its meetings and open them to the public, and file a charter with Congress. It is not clear that DOGE has met these requirements. 

ELON MUSK AND VIVEK RAMASWAMY POINT TO DOGE TARGETS

“DOGE is not exempted from FACA’s requirements,” the lawsuit states. “All meetings of DOGE, including those conducted through an electronic medium, must be open to the public.”

Musk and the Trump transition team did not immediately respond to FOX Business’ requests for comment. 

In a Wall Street Journal op-ed, Musk and Ramaswamy wrote that DOGE would be “[u]nlike government commissions or advisory committees,” appearing to indicate that they do not intend for their work to be subject to FACA requirements, the lawsuit notes.

Economist Sam Hammond of the Foundation for American Innovation, who supports DOGE’s mission, told the Washington Post that Musk’s effort is likely exempt from FACA’s requirements since the body will primarily implement ideas within the executive branch and White House. 

ELON MUSK SAYS DOGE WILL ‘TRY’ TO HIT ITS GOAL OF $2T IN CUTS BUT ADMITS THEY MIGHT FALL SHORT

“DOGE isn’t a federal advisory committee because DOGE doesn’t really exist. DOGE is a branding exercise, a shorthand for Trump’s government reform efforts,” Hammond said.

However, National Security Counselors insists DOGE fits the legal definition of a federal advisory committee and that there is no representation in the body for federal bureaucrats whose jobs may be endangered if proposed cuts to government agencies are realized.

MUSK, RAMASWAMY UNVEIL DOGE FULL-TIME SALARIED ROLES THEY’RE TRYING TO FILL

The lawsuit lists as its primary co-plaintiffs Jerald Lentini, a local elected official in Connecticut and an attorney for National Security Counselors who applied to join DOGE, and Joshua Erlich, who owns an employment law firm that regularly represents federal employees. Erlich also applied to work for DOGE and noted in his application that the body “does not currently have an individual who will speak on behalf of government workers and their interests,” the lawsuit states. 

Citing reports in the New York Times and Washington Post, the lawsuit lists 17 people affiliated with DOGE, including entrepreneurs Marc Andreessen, Baris Akis and Antonio Gracias. 

“Not a single member of DOGE is a federal employee or represents the perspective of federal employees,” the lawsuit observes.

Kel McClanahan, executive director of National Security Counselors, said in a statement that FACA has broad bipartisan support and that every American should be in favor of DOGE operating with transparency.

READ MORE FROM FOX BUSINESS

“This is not about sour grapes. This is not people suing because they were not picked. This is people suing because nobody like them was picked, and as a result nobody will be in the room to make sure DOGE understands the critical perspectives they would provide,” McCLanahan said.

“Nobody disputes that there is a huge amount of wasteful spending in the federal government. Our only concern is that DOGE, as it is currently constituted, lacks the expertise to understand how its recommendations will backfire if it pushes federal workers out without understanding why they are there in the first place. Government work is not corporate work, and any recommendations made without that perspective are doomed to fail.”