A federal judge on Tuesday rejected an urgent request to temporarily halt mass firings and data access by the Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE), led by Elon Musk, as part of President Donald Trump’s sweeping efforts to reshape the federal workforce.
U.S. District Judge Tanya Chutkan ruled that the 14 state attorneys general who filed the motion failed to demonstrate immediate and irreparable harm. She noted that while reports of DOGE’s actions were concerning, the court could not base its decision solely on media accounts.
“Plaintiffs ask the court to take judicial notice of widespread media reports that DOGE has taken or will soon take certain actions, such as mass terminations,” Chutkan wrote. “But these reports cannot substitute for specific facts in an affidavit or a verified complaint that clearly show that immediate and irreparable injury, loss, or damage will result.”
The attorneys general sought to prevent DOGE from terminating employees or accessing sensitive records from agencies including the Departments of Education, Labor, Health and Human Services, Energy, Transportation, Commerce, and the Office of Personnel Management. Their lawsuit challenges Musk’s authority, arguing that his expansive role violates the Appointments Clause of the U.S. Constitution, which requires principal officers of the government to be confirmed by the Senate.
During Monday’s hearing, Chutkan expressed skepticism about issuing a broad restraining order without clear evidence of harm. “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,” she said.
She also questioned government attorneys about the scope of DOGE’s actions, asking whether thousands of employees had already been dismissed. “The firing of thousands of federal employees is not a small or common thing. You haven’t been able to confirm that?” she pressed.
Chutkan acknowledged the difficulty in proving immediate harm due to DOGE’s “unpredictable and scattershot” approach but criticized the lack of congressional oversight. “This is essentially a private citizen directing an organization that’s not a federal agency to have access to the entire workings of the federal government—fire, hire, slash, contract, terminate programs—all without apparently any congressional oversight.”
The lawsuit is one of at least 73 legal challenges filed against Trump’s executive actions in his first month back in office. Courts have already issued temporary restraining orders blocking DOGE from accessing Treasury Department data, dismantling public health databases, implementing a 90-day foreign aid freeze, and cutting funding for gender-affirming medical care.
Despite setbacks, Trump and his allies, including Musk and Vice President JD Vance, have begun pushing back against the courts. Over the weekend, Trump wrote on social media, “He who saves his Country does not violate any Law.”
The administration has appealed to the Supreme Court, arguing that judicial rulings are obstructing Trump’s ability to manage the executive branch. “The district court’s order exemplifies a broader, weeks-long trend in which plaintiffs challenging President Trump’s initiatives have persuaded district courts to issue TROs that intrude upon a host of the President’s Article II powers,” Solicitor General Sarah Harris wrote.
With at least eight court hearings scheduled this week, the legal battles over Trump’s executive actions and DOGE’s authority are far from over.
