Federal Judge Likely to Deny Request to Halt DOGE’s Large-Scale Dismissals and Data Access

A federal judge in Washington signaled on Monday that she is leaning toward rejecting an urgent request to temporarily prevent Elon Musk’s Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE) from executing sweeping layoffs of federal employees and accessing sensitive government records across multiple agencies.



During a virtual hearing that lasted nearly an hour, U.S. District Judge Tanya Chutkan indicated that she would issue a ruling within the next 24 hours regarding the petition filed by 14 state attorneys general. Their request sought to impose a temporary restraining order (TRO) that would bar DOGE from continuing its actions at key federal institutions, including the Departments of Education, Labor, Health and Human Services, Energy, Transportation, Commerce, and the Office of Personnel Management. This initiative is part of President Donald Trump’s broader commitment to significantly reduce the size of the federal government, an agenda he campaigned on as a cornerstone of his administration’s policy.

State Attorneys General Challenge DOGE’s Authority

The legal challenge, formally submitted last Thursday, argues that DOGE’s expansive influence over federal employment and data access is unconstitutional. The states contend that Musk’s authority within this new department violates the Appointments Clause of the U.S. Constitution, which mandates that any principal officer of the federal government must be nominated by the President and confirmed by the Senate before assuming such a role.

The controversy surrounding DOGE’s sweeping influence has escalated as reports surfaced suggesting that Musk and his team have requested access to IRS taxpayer data, raising further alarms among legal experts and government watchdogs. The plaintiffs argue that these developments underscore the urgency of their request to halt DOGE’s operations until the courts can fully evaluate its legality.

Judge Expresses Skepticism Toward Restraining Order

Despite the concerns raised, Judge Chutkan displayed clear reluctance to grant the temporary restraining order sought by the states. She described their request as prophylactic—a precautionary measure rather than a response to an immediate and proven harm. Throughout the hearing, she repeatedly pressed the plaintiffs to provide concrete evidence that DOGE’s actions have caused, or will imminently cause, irreparable damage that cannot be reversed.

The court cannot act based on media reports alone, Chutkan emphasized. While the concerns raised are indeed troubling, I need an established factual record before I can take such a significant step.

She further elaborated that to justify an urgent restraining order, the plaintiffs must demonstrate a clear and immediate threat of extreme and imminent harm—one that cannot be undone through later legal remedies.

Although the attorneys general warned that firing large numbers of government employees would create chaos and irreversibly disrupt government functions, Chutkan countered that rehiring those employees—while difficult—would still be possible, meaning the harm may not be as irreversible as claimed.

At this point, I’m not seeing it, Chutkan said, signaling that the plaintiffs’ case may not meet the high legal threshold required for emergency judicial intervention.

Potential Green Light for Musk and DOGE

Should Judge Chutkan ultimately deny the restraining order, it would effectively grant Musk and his department a temporary green light to continue their aggressive restructuring efforts within the federal government. This would allow DOGE to proceed with additional layoffs, departmental budget cuts, and internal data reviews without immediate legal barriers.



Although she appeared poised to reject the attorneys general’s motion, Chutkan did repeatedly question government attorneys about their apparent lack of transparency regarding DOGE’s actions. She expressed frustration over the government’s inability to provide a clear accounting of how many federal employees have been dismissed so far.

The termination of thousands of federal employees is not a minor event. Yet, you can’t confirm how many have been let go? Chutkan pressed the government’s legal team. It is highly relevant to this case whether thousands of employees lost their jobs last Friday.

She also criticized what she referred to as DOGE’s unpredictable and scattershot approach, suggesting that its lack of clear structure or oversight makes it more challenging for the plaintiffs to present an organized legal challenge. However, she acknowledged that the attorneys general’s allegations, if substantiated, could have significant constitutional implications.

This situation involves a private citizen directing an organization that is not officially a federal agency, yet it has been given sweeping authority over hiring, firing, budget allocation, contract terminations, and program cuts—all seemingly without proper congressional oversight, Chutkan noted.

DOGE’s Legal Battles Multiply as Trump Defends His Agenda

This lawsuit is just one of at least 73 legal challenges filed against President Trump’s executive actions in his first month back in office. Many of these cases have already resulted in temporary restraining orders against key components of his administration’s policies.

In recent days, federal courts have issued rulings that:

– Temporarily blocked DOGE from accessing Treasury Department records and payment systems.
– Ordered public health agencies to restore previously taken-down data and online databases.
– Paused the implementation of Trump’s 90-day freeze on foreign aid and the dismantling of the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau.
– Prohibited the National Institutes of Health from cutting funding caps for indirect research expenses.
– Barred the federal government from denying funding to healthcare providers who offer gender-affirming services to minors.

Despite these setbacks, Trump has secured some legal victories. Last week, courts ruled that DOGE could continue accessing certain federal records and granted authorization for an unprecedented federal buyout initiative.

Trump and Allies Push Back Against Courts

In response to these legal battles, President Trump and his key allies, including Elon Musk and Vice President JD Vance, have suggested they may challenge the judiciary’s power to block executive actions. Over the weekend, Trump posted a cryptic message on social media:

He who saves his Country does not violate any Law.

Additionally, the Trump administration has petitioned the Supreme Court to overturn several lower court rulings. In a formal filing, Solicitor General Sarah Harris argued that the judicial branch is overstepping its bounds by interfering with the President’s constitutional authority to manage the Executive Branch.

The district court’s ruling is just one example of a broader, weeks-long trend, Harris wrote. Plaintiffs challenging President Trump’s initiatives have repeatedly persuaded courts to issue broad restraining orders that intrude upon the President’s Article II powers.

More Court Battles Ahead

With at least eight separate legal challenges scheduled for hearings this week, the legal battle over DOGE’s actions and Trump’s executive authority is far from over. The rapid pace of litigation underscores the unprecedented nature of this administration’s policies and the strong opposition they have provoked from various legal and political entities.

As Judge Chutkan’s final decision looms, all eyes remain on whether Musk’s controversial restructuring of the federal government will continue unhindered—or face yet another legal roadblock.