The Trump administration told a judge Elon Musk does not head DOGE. Huh?

Elon Musk in the Oval Office of the White House, on February 11, 2025. | Aaron Schwartz/CNP/Bloomberg via Getty

As Elon Musk has rampaged around the federal government for four weeks, canceling contracts and dismantling whole departments, he’s claimed all the actions of his Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE) were “maximally transparent.”

Yet there’s been nothing transparent about the details of Musk’s actual job in the administration, which has been a murky mystery that’s only deepened of late.

For some time after Trump was sworn in, it was unclear whether Musk even was officially working for the government. Two weeks in, the administration confirmed he was indeed a “special government employee,” but declined to give further details.

Late Monday, White House aide Joshua Fisher finally provided an answer of sorts. As part of court proceedings in a lawsuit, Fisher made a declaration about Musk’s role under penalty of perjury — though that answer was rather curious.

Fisher revealed that Musk is a White House senior adviser to the president with “no greater authority than other senior White House advisers.” That means, he continued, that “Musk has no actual or formal authority to make government decisions himself.” Musk can only “advise the President and communicate the President’s directives.”

But what about DOGE, which Trump established in the executive branch as the “US DOGE Service”? Well, Fisher said, Musk is not the head of the US DOGE Service, or even an employee of it. As for who does run it: the administration hasn’t said.

All this is, uh, strange. Trump announced in November that Musk would lead DOGE, and both Trump and Musk have certainly been presenting Musk as in charge of DOGE. But the administration is now claiming that, legally, on paper, he is not — even though he obviously is.

The “pay no attention to that billionaire behind the curtain” caginess likely is part of an effort to shield Musk from ethics and court scrutiny. It also serves to put his actions on firmer legal footing by claiming they fundamentally just amount to the president running the executive branch — through Musk, his instrument. 

A defensible claim — and a dubious one

In the declaration, Fisher made two claims about Musk’s role — one that’s defensible, and one that seems far more dubious.

The first claim is that Musk is a White House adviser accountable to the president and acting with his authority. This is the defensible claim.

Every recent administration has had powerful White House aides who advise on policy and tell agencies what to do to some extent. Stephen Miller became informally known as the “president of immigration” in Trump’s first term, because he told all the immigration-related agencies what to do. Other White House aides, like the national security adviser, play roles that involve both coordination of various agencies and direct setting of policy. And the chief of staff effectively helps manage the executive branch as a whole. 

Musk is essentially a very powerful White House adviser like these. He serves at the pleasure of the president and can be dismissed at any time. The reason he’s been so effective at getting various agencies to do what he wants is because people perceive him — correctly — as acting with Trump’s approval. (“Elon can’t do and won’t do anything without our approval,” Trump said two weeks ago. “And we’ll give him the approval where appropriate; where it’s not appropriate, we won’t.”)

As I’ve written, many of the policies advanced by DOGE are likely illegal, and there are questions about whether Musk’s appointment complies with ethics laws. But it seems extremely unlikely that the courts will declare it illegal for a president to have a very powerful White House adviser or to delegate substantial policymaking influence to such an adviser.

DOGE’s structure tries to make informal loyalty to Musk supersede loyalty to agencies

Fisher’s second claim — the much more questionable one — is that Musk does not head DOGE or even work for it. This seems like a claim that is true “on paper” but quite misleading in practice.

To understand how it can be true on paper, it’s worth understanding how DOGE works. There’s the US DOGE Service — a rebranding of the previous US Digital Service — in the Executive Office of the President. But there are also mini-DOGE teams being established inside every agency to go through their data, evaluate their personnel, and so on.

According to the executive order that set up this structure, those mini-DOGE teams must “coordinate” with the main DOGE, but they’re actually employees of their respective agencies, meaning they formally report upward in those agencies.

Informally, though, the mini-DOGE teams are being staffed with Musk allies who will want to work with him and do what he wants — even if he is not technically their boss. 

The traditional saying about government is that “where you stand depends on where you sit” — meaning, once someone works for an agency, they tend to see the world through the eyes of that agency, and start representing its interests. The mini-DOGE team setup is essentially an attempt to make appointees’ informal loyalty to the richest man in the world supersede any institutional considerations.

So that is how Musk can “run DOGE” without actually officially heading DOGE. Technically, he’s just “advising” them. Practically, his advice is not really optional. But ultimately, his authority stems from the president, and can be revoked by him.

And yet there’s something rather brazen about suggesting to a judge that Musk does not head an operation he is obviously heading. Judge Tanya Chutkan, who is overseeing the lawsuit in question, has not sounded eager to rein in DOGE just yet. But presented with a declaration so seemingly incomplete and evasive, she may well have some more questions.

Related articles

Candace Owens Targets Jewish Conservative in Latest Charlie Kirk Conspiracy Theory

Candace Owens is targeting conservative Jewish commentator Josh Hammer in her latest conspiracy theory about the assassination of Charlie Kirk.

The post Candace Owens Targets Jewish Conservative in Latest Charlie Kirk Conspiracy Theory first appeared on Mediaite.

‘Nightmare scenario’: Analysis warns Supreme Court may ‘clear path’ for one-party rule



A Democratic voting rights group was "sounding the alarm" Wednesday, warning of a "nightmare scenario" wherein the U.S. Supreme Court could "clear the path for a one-party system" and give Republicans control of Congress.

The high court is slated to rehear Louisiana v. Callais on Oct. 15, and in a new Politico report, Fair Fight Action and Black Voters Matter Fund signal that removing Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act could give Republicans a path to redraw up to 19 House seats to benefit their party.

The Voting Rights Act — the landmark Civil Rights-era legislation — has been targeted by Republicans, aiming to remove this particular section, Politico reports.

The move would "clear the path for a one-party system where power serves the powerful and silences the people,” Black Voters Matter Fund co-founder LaTosha Brown said in a statement.

The ruling could also ultimately remove 30% of Congressional Black Caucus seats and 11% of Congressional Hispanic Caucus seats, according to Salon.

This could leave limited options for Democrats.

"Democrats could also find ways to use any changes to the VRA to their benefit. The party could redraw maps in heavily-blue areas with VRA protections to try and expand their margins, but there will be fewer opportunities," Politico reports.

The law has been used to offer protections against racial gerrymandering in redistricting, a topic that's become a key move ahead of midterm elections amid President Donald Trump's push to maintain GOP control in Congress, putting pressure on Republicans to redraw district lines and saying "there could very well be consequences" if they don't take action.

‘Hope he’s listening’: Farmer makes dire plea to Trump as US ‘backbone’ risks collapse



An American farmer made a dire plea to President Donald Trump on Tuesday, saying "hope he's listening," as America's "backbone" risks collapse.

Arkansas farmer Scott Brown told CNN it's unclear how he or other agriculture producers will survive Trump's ongoing tariff war, especially as the fall harvest begins.

"I hope to break even, but I mean, we don't know," Brown said. "We're not cutting soybeans yet, and I don't know what the yield is. We're just finishing up corn. I'm a pretty low-debt-load farmer. I farm 800 acres. My equipment's all paid for. I do it all by myself. I'm a first-generation farmer, so I don't have as big of problems as a lot of the guys do. But, I mean, I have friends that farm thousands of acres, 5,000, 10,000, 11,000 acres. They've got worlds of problems. I mean, I don't know that there's any way to yield yourself out of this."

For his friends, the tariff fallout could mean losing everything.

"I don't think that the average American understands when you go down to the bank and get a crop loan, you put all your equipment up, all your equity in your ground, you put your home up, your pickup truck, everything up," he said. "And if they can't pay out and if they've rolled over any debt from last year, they're going to call the auctioneer and they're going to line everything up and they're going to sell it."

Trump is reportedly considering a potential bailout for farmers, a key Republican voting bloc. But that's not enough, Scott said.

"Well, the stopgap needs to come because they've kind of painted the farmer in a corner," he added. "I mean, I want trade, not aid. I need a market. I need a place to sell this stuff. I can work hard enough and make a product. If you give me someplace to sell it, I'll take care of myself, but they've painted us in a corner with this China deal and China buying soybeans. I mean, they've torn a market in half."

China — the biggest buyer — has made zero soybean orders this year. Instead, they've pivoted to purchasing soybeans from South American countries, including Argentina, Paraguay, and Bolivia. These countries plan to expand planting acreage for their crops and focus on planting soon for the 2025 and 2026 crops in the Southern Hemisphere.

The price per bushel of soybeans has also dropped, he added.

"The farmer can't continue to produce a crop below the cost of production. And that's where we're at. And we don't have anywhere to sell it. We're in a tariff war with China. We're in a tariff war with everybody else. I mean, where do they want me to market this stuff?" Scott asked.

This uncertainty also makes it hard to plan for 2026.

"Farming is done in a Russian roulette fashion to say a better set of words," Scott said. "If you pay out, then you get to go again. If you've got enough equity and you don't pay out, you can roll over debt. There's lots of guys farming that have between $400 and $700,000 worth of rollover debt. You know, and then and then you compound the problem with the tariffs. Look at this. When we had USAID, we provided 40% of the humanitarian food for the world. That's all grain and food bought from farmers, from vegetable farmers in the United States. The row crop farmers and grain and everything. So we abandoned that deal. And China accelerates theirs. So now I've got a tariff war that's killing my market."

He also wants the president to hear his message.

"I hope he's listening because, you know, agriculture is the backbone of rural America," Scott said. "For every dollar in agriculture, you get $8 in your rural community. I mean, we help pay taxes on schools, roads. We're the guys that keep the park store open, we're the guy that keeps the local co-op open, that 20 guys work at, and the little town I live in, we have a chicken plant, about 600 chicken houses, except for the school and the hospital. Almost our entire town of 7,000."

Agriculture is tied to everything in rural America, he explained.

"People's economy revolves around agriculture," Scott said. "I mean, I think he needs to listen. It's bigger than the farmer. It's all my friends. Whether they work in town or anything else. I mean, rural America depends on agriculture. And it doesn't matter if you're in Nebraska or you're in Arkansas."