By John Q. Hosedrinker 
Three lawsuits were filed on January 20th, challenging President Trump’s Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE), led by Elon Musk, alleging violations of the Federal Advisory Committee Act due to a lack of open meetings. The plaintiffs, including the American Federation of Government Employees and the American Federation of Teachers, seek to halt DOGE’s operations and prevent further actions regarding federal worker hiring and spending cuts. The lawsuits name Trump, the Office of Management and Budget, and DOGE itself as defendants. These legal challenges target DOGE’s advisory role to the President and its potential impact on federal employees.
Read the original article here
The Federal Union’s lawsuit against Trump, filed mid-inauguration, centers around the controversial “DOGE” plan. This plan, allegedly conceived by Elon Musk as a reward for a substantial campaign contribution, is far-reaching in its potential impact, aiming to drastically reshape American policy.
The core of the DOGE plan appears to be a systematic dismantling of crucial regulatory bodies and social safety nets. Proposed cuts to the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) and the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB) are particularly alarming. Simultaneously, the plan reportedly targets benefit programs for the poor, framed as riddled with fraud and inefficiency. The intended result seems to be a significant shift of wealth upwards, justifying tax cuts for the wealthy under the guise of “trickle-down economics”—a theory widely discredited.
The lawsuit highlights the problematic connections between Musk and the Chinese Communist Party (CCP). Tesla’s extensive manufacturing operations in China, representing a significant portion of its global production, raise serious concerns about undue influence. This influence is alleged to extend to Musk’s positions on various issues, such as TikTok, Taiwan, H-1B visas, and tariffs, mirroring the CCP’s interests rather than those of the United States. The suit suggests Musk’s actions are not merely business decisions but rather part of a broader strategy to serve Beijing’s agenda. This raises serious national security concerns, especially considering the existing precedents concerning ByteDance (TikTok) and its obligations under Chinese law to cooperate with intelligence gathering.
The timing of the lawsuit, filed during the inauguration, underscores its urgency. It comes after President Biden’s farewell address warned of a rising oligarchy threatening the nation’s future, a warning that the lawsuit implicitly echoes. The plaintiffs seem to view DOGE as the embodiment of this threat, a tool designed to concentrate power and wealth in the hands of a few. The complaint argues that Musk’s enormous increase in wealth since the alleged purchase of the presidency, an increase that’s seemingly disproportionate to the initial investment, is further evidence of undue influence and corruption. The filing advocates for the immediate dismantling of DOGE, proposing a legal battle as the most effective means of opposition.
The lawsuit is not simply about policy disagreements; it also touches upon legal technicalities. The argument appears to hinge on whether DOGE should be classified as a federal advisory committee, and therefore subject to existing laws regarding open meetings and transparency under the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA). The plaintiffs apparently believe that DOGE’s actions contravene these laws, offering a relatively non-partisan argument that could even resonate with certain conservative judges. The emphasis here is on adherence to legal processes rather than purely ideological battles, making the case potentially more legally sound.
Furthermore, the lawsuit seems to anticipate the challenges posed by the current political climate and the composition of the Supreme Court. The plaintiffs recognize the potential for partisan bias, but are nonetheless determined to press forward. The idea seems to be to exhaust the legal system, creating multiple layers of appeals and delays to impede the implementation of DOGE’s potentially harmful policies. The strategy reflects a realistic assessment of the limitations of judicial redress but highlights the importance of continued legal action as a means of slowing or preventing the worst impacts of the DOGE plan.
Interestingly, the underlying narrative also incorporates accounts of federal employees’ experiences facing difficulties in their work environment. Anecdotes about inadequate office space, legionella outbreaks in government buildings, and a push towards a return-to-office mandate are interspersed throughout the narrative. These accounts, while not directly part of the legal arguments, lend a human element to the situation, illustrating the wider impact of governmental dysfunction and potentially highlighting the disregard for employee well-being that underlies the DOGE plan.
The lawsuit’s focus on Musk’s alleged ties to China and the potential national security risks adds another layer of complexity to the ongoing controversy surrounding DOGE. The legal challenge appears to be strategically designed to engage multiple aspects of the situation, from the more obvious policy implications to subtle legal loopholes and even the workplace realities of federal employees. The outcome remains uncertain, but the lawsuit itself signifies a determined effort to combat what its proponents view as a grave threat to American democracy and the well-being of its citizens. The inclusion of accounts from Tesla’s safety and quality control issues—including multiple vehicle fires and crashes—further underlines the lawsuit’s argument that Musk’s interest in weakening the NHTSA goes beyond political maneuvering.