Congress

They’re not just suing to stop DOGE. They’re suing Elon Musk himself.

Published

1 year ago

February 15, 2025

Elon Musk’s efforts to disrupt and dismantle the federal government at the behest of Donald Trump have already sparked a legion of lawsuits. Now the legal challengers are setting their sights on a new target: Musk himself.

Two new cases accuse the ultra-wealthy CEO of illegally amassing too much government power without the accountability typically required of high-level executive branch officials. They are seeking court orders that would force Musk to halt the cost-cutting and information-gathering activities he has been spearheading through his U.S. DOGE Service.

The lawsuits rest on a provision of the Constitution that says powerful federal officers must be “established by law,” must be formally appointed by the president and must be confirmed by the Senate. Musk, of course, has not been confirmed by the Senate, and his role is amorphous and ill-defined. He has been operating out of the White House as the head of the newly created DOGE enterprise, which stands for Department of Government Efficiency but is not a formal government department. It was established by a Trump executive order, not by Congress.

Many lawsuits have challenged DOGE’s early initiatives. But the two suits filed Thursday — one brought by state governments and the other by federal employees — are the first to take on Musk personally.

“His power includes, at least, the authority to cease the payment of congressionally approved funds, access sensitive and confidential data across government agencies, cut off systems access to federal employees and contractors at will, and take over and dismantle entire independent federal agencies,” the government employees argue in a lawsuit filed by longtime Trump nemesis Norm Eisen.

Similarly, the states say Musk’s little-understood role has stoked “mass chaos and confusion for state and local governments, federal employees, and the American people.”

U.S. District Judge Tanya Chutkan held a hearing on the states’ case Friday and agreed the states showed legitimate reasons for concern about the prospect that Musk and DOGE officials are improperly accessing or compromising federal databases.

But Chutkan stopped short of ordering an emergency halt to DOGE’s access to those systems, saying that would be an extraordinary remedy that could only be deployed with specific evidence that improper action against another federal agency was imminent.

A lawyer for the states lamented, “We’re playing Whac-A-Mole here,” and said it was hard to pinpoint where Musk would train his DOGE allies next. Chutkan acknowledged that DOGE has been rampaging through the federal government swiftly and unpredictably, but she said “bad things could happen” was not enough to justify an emergency restraining order.

Musk — who is the CEO of X, SpaceX and Tesla, and is estimated to be the world’s richest person — has done little to illuminate his precise role in the Trump administration. His job appears to entail Oval Office meetings with Trump, trolling critics on X and assailing judges who have clipped both his and Trump’s early ambitions over questions about their constitutionality.

Musk has attacked reporters for identifying the employees he has helped embed in many federal agencies. And he agreed to reinstate a DOGE employee who abruptly resigned last week after reporters surfaced racist social media posts he made under a pseudonym. (Court documents suggest, however, that the employee, Marko Elez, has not resumed his previous duties.)

Trump has made clear he endorses what Musk and his DOGE team are doing, setting out in executive orders that the group’s mission is to modernize systems and databases across the federal government.

The direct legal attack on Musk’s unappointed position will play out in courtrooms in Washington, D.C., and Maryland, where the two suits have been filed. But the issue could escalate as far as the Supreme Court and determine just how much power a president has to designate a roving budget-cutter to access the government’s most sensitive systems and databases.

At the heart of the fight is the Constitution’s “appointments clause,” which requires most powerful executive branch officials to be confirmed by the Senate. Though department leaders can hire employees who don’t need Senate approval, anyone wielding executive power must face vetting by Congress.

That principle was at the heart of a ruling last year by a Florida federal judge — Aileen Cannon — that derailed special counsel Jack Smith’s prosecution of Trump for storing classified documents at Mar-a-Lago. Smith’s role as a special prosecutor, Cannon concluded, violated the appointments clause — a ruling that contradicted a long line of judicial decisions upholding the authority of the Justice Department to name special counsels without getting Senate confirmation.

Trump, at the time, celebrated the ruling and praised Cannon as a “brilliant” judge. Now, Trump’s detractors — who railed against Cannon’s decision in the context of special counsels — want to apply the same reasoning to Musk.

But Musk’s role has no historical comparison. Never before has a president empowered a private CEO to come into the government and take a hacksaw to systems governed by intricate laws and policies meant to insulate them from political manipulation.

Congress

Jack Smith invited to testify before Senate next month

Published

3 hours ago

August 3, 2026

Blue Light Newsroom

Jack Smith, the former special counsel who brought criminal charges against President Donald Trump, has been invited to testify Sept. 22 before the Senate Judiciary Committee, according to an invitation from Chair Chuck Grassley reviewed by Blue Light News.

Smith previously testified before the House Judiciary Committee in January, but Grassley (R-Iowa) and his team have been probing Smith and his investigations for months.

Grassley recently revealed that Smith obtained text messages that 44 members of Congress sent to White House officials during the waning months of Trump’s first term leading up to and around the Jan. 6, 2021, Capitol attack.

Grassley’s texts were among those accessed by Smith’s team, along with Sens. Mike Lee (R-Utah), Cory Booker (D-N.J.) and Tom Cotton (R-Ark.).

“In the process of a deeply flawed, weaponized investigation, Jack Smith subpoenaed phone toll records from a dozen senators, scooped up text messages from over 40 members of Congress, and subpoenaed the private communications and financial records of hundreds of other Republican entities and individuals,” Grassley said in a statement.

“He needs to answer directly to Congress for his actions,” Grassley added. “Smith has requested to testify before the Senate Judiciary Committee, and our committee looks forward to hearing from him as part of Congress’ investigation into Arctic Frost and his time as Special Counsel. Smith must be honest and forthcoming in his answers, because the American people deserve nothing less than full transparency and accountability.”

Lawyers for Smith did not immediately respond to a request for comment.

During the January hearing, Republicans focused on technicalities of how Smith investigated the probe into Trump’s election interference, such as whether he properly signed his oath of office and whether he was sufficiently versed on the Constitution’s “speech or debate” clause that protects members of Congress from criminal investigation for their lawmaking actions.

Congress

Chuck Edwards recommended for censure by House Ethics Committee

Published

3 hours ago

August 3, 2026

Blue Light Newsroom

The House Ethics Committee recommended Monday that lawmakers censure Rep. Chuck Edwards for engaging in “persistent unprofessional and inappropriate conduct towards two young female staffers” — cataloguing multiple episodes of sexual harassment by the married lawmaker.

Censure is the most severe punishment the panel can recommend short of expulsion, requiring targeted members to submit to a public shaming on the floor. The bipartisan panel said it plans to bring a privileged resolution to a vote once the House returns to session later this month.

A spokesperson for Edwards, 65, did not immediately respond to a request for comment.

In a 15-page rebuttal, lawyers for Edwards said that the Ethics Committee “failed to demonstrate that either of the two staffers expressed discomfort to Representative Edwards regarding his conduct with them.” They also rejected the need for censure, noting that it has been used “sparingly in this context and directed only at matters of severe sexual misconduct.”

The panel itself released a trove of evidence including emails, text messages and photographs showing how Edwards had insinuated himself into intimate aspects of their lives.

Edwards, the committee found, made comments on the appearance of two young female staffers in his congressional office, telling them they looked “pretty” or “breathtaking” and made a comment on one staffer’s weight. He also lavished the young women with gifts, including purses valued at more than $1,000, as well as guns, shoes, flowers and one-on-one dinners.

Text messages from one of the women showed Edwards at one point sent her more than 20 containers of ice cream because, he said, she needed “a lot of cheering up!”

Sexual harassment is prohibited by House rules and federal law, and the committee found that Edwards violated “the spirit of the House’s prohibitions on sexual harassment and unwanted advances, as well as the requirement to act in a manner that reflects credibly upon the House.”

The report found Edwards brought one of the staffers to a holiday event at the White House, gave her flowers and texted her how he was “so excited about tonight” and that he pressured her to continue the night with him after the event. Edwards told the committee he accompanied that staffer to her home in Virginia because he “felt uncomfortable dumping a young lady on the street.”

Edwards also talked to that staffer and others about going to strip clubs in Washington, the report says.

The panel concluded that Edwards did not engage in sexual activity with either of the women, nor did he explicitly proposition them or other staff members for sex. Edwards, who is facing a competitive race for reelection in his western North Carolina district, cooperated with the probe, the committee said.

In one instance, the panel found, Edwards skipped House votes one night to decorate the second staffer’s Christmas tree. He also went out drinking and gambling with her. On another occasion, he recited a poem at her going-away party in his office and cried during that incident, making his staff noticeably uncomfortable.

When the second staffer left his office, Edwards helped her move back to North Carolina and sent her a handwritten letter in which he described her as “the most amazing woman” and that she had “written a complex chapter in my heart that I will never stop reading.”

Edwards told the committee that letter was not romantic.

“It was only to imply that we had a relationship on so many different levels — on a congressional level, on a professional level, on a friendship level, on a helping-one-another-out-with-our-chores-and-responsibility level,” he said.

Congress

Cornyn, Tillis confirm they will vote for Blanche

Published

7 hours ago

August 3, 2026

Blue Light Newsroom

Acting Attorney General Todd Blanche has a clear path to the Senate Judiciary Committee advancing his nomination to the permanent job after two GOP holdouts confirmed Monday they would vote for him.

The statement from Sens. John Cornyn (R-Texas) and Thom Tillis (R-N.C.) comes after the late-night announcement Sunday of a Justice Department agreement to clarify a controversial May settlement agreement between President Donald Trump and the IRS.

A successful Judiciary vote Tuesday would set Blanche up for confirmation on the Senate floor later this week, before the chamber breaks for August recess.

“We want to express our gratitude to Mr. Blanche and his staff for working with us on this, and we look forward to voting to advance his nomination out of the Senate Judiciary Committee soon,” Cornyn and Tillis said in a joint statement.

The senators suggested their agreement with Blanche also satisfies the concerns of several other Republican senators off the Judiciary Committee who have raised concerns about the “Anti-Weaponization Fund” created in the original settlement, as well as provisions immunizing Trump and his family from some tax audits.

“We are pleased that the Department of Justice has issued a formal order terminating the anti-weaponization fund. Additionally, the Department has acknowledged in a binding written order that the audit settlement is limited to the plaintiffs and the scope does not extend beyond the defendants in the lawsuit, the IRS and the Treasury, addressing concerns that multiple of our Republican colleagues share,” Cornyn and Tillis said.

Sens. Bill Cassidy of Louisiana, Susan Collins of Maine, John Curtis of Utah and Lisa Murkowski of Alaska are among the other Republicans who have expressed concerns about the payout fund. Blanche recently visited Alaska and announced a flurry of settlements benefiting Alaska as he courts Murkowski’s vote.