Elon Musk’s DOGE remark to Joe Rogan appears in court papers
A court filing in the District of Columbia has drawn fresh attention to remarks made by Elon Musk about the Department of Government Efficiency, or DOGE, and how those comments may influence ongoing litigation over the initiative’s legality.Plaintiffs in the case submitted a notice on December 7 highlighting statements Musk made during an appearance on the podcast hosted by Joe Rogan, arguing they contradict the government’s position that DOGE has effectively ceased to operate.Newsweek contacted the White House Press Office and National Security Counselors for comment via email outside of normal office hours on Monday.Why It MattersThe dispute over Elon Musk’s offhand remark about DOGE become a flashpoint in a broader legal fight over whether the Trump administration allowed a network of private actors to shape federal policy outside public view.Plaintiffs challenging DOGE’s legality say Musk’s recent comments—combined with new reporting that former DOGE operatives remain embedded across federal agencies—undercut the government’s claim that the initiative has disbanded and was always staffed solely by federal employees.At issue is whether DOGE functioned as an unregulated advisory committee in violation of federal transparency laws, a question that could determine the validity of policy changes it influenced and define how far presidents may go in outsourcing government operations to outside figures.What To KnowDOGE, the Trump-era Department of Government Efficiency initially led by Elon Musk to slash regulations and reorganize federal agencies, became the subject of lawsuits after Musk stepped down but later said on a podcast that "DOGE is still happening," raising questions about whether the initiative truly ended and whether its continued influence violated federal transparency laws.Legal Challenges to DOGE’s StatusThe lawsuit—Lentini v. Department of Government Efficiency—is one of several filed after President Donald Trump’s inauguration challenging the administration’s creation of DOGE, which was initially led by Musk and framed as an effort to reduce federal regulation and restructure agencies.Advocacy organizations have asserted that DOGE functioned as an advisory body without complying with the Federal Advisory Committee Act, which requires transparency and balanced membership.In their notice, the plaintiffs pointed to a December 2025 WIRED report describing DOGE personnel continuing to work throughout the federal government in dispersed roles.The filing notes that these individuals "are in fact burrowed into the agencies like ticks," according to one unnamed source cited by the publication.The plaintiffs argue that this ongoing activity reflects a structure resembling an advisory committee operating across agencies, contrary to the government’s assertions that DOGE’s work had effectively ended.Central to the plaintiffs’ argument is Musk’s October podcast comment, highlighted in the filing: "DOGE is still happening, by the way…DOGE is still underway, there is still waste and fraud being cut by the DOGE team."According to the notice, such statements support the inference that Musk "continues to be affiliated with DOGE as a private citizen," even after resigning as a special government employee months earlier.Plaintiffs assert this undermines the government’s claim that DOGE consists solely of federal employees and reinforces the need for the court to review the initiative under FACA standards.The plaintiffs further referenced earlier judicial findings, including an August 2025 opinion in which another federal judge concluded that Musk had acted as "the de facto administrator of DOGE" during his tenure.They contend that the combination of Musk’s public statements and reporting on DOGE’s evolution suggests the initiative remains active, albeit in a transformed, less centralized state.Reuters reporting in late 2025 described DOGE as having "disbanded," citing comments from the director of the Office of Personnel Management that the entity "doesn’t exist" as a centralized body.Nevertheless, several former DOGE personnel have since taken roles elsewhere in the administration, and the government has continued to pursue modernization and deregulation initiatives originally associated with DOGE.Plaintiffs Push for Faster Court ActionIn light of what they describe as ongoing uncertainty, the plaintiffs asked the court to expedite consideration of the government’s motion to dismiss.They argue that delays could increase "the probability that evidence necessary to prosecute this case will be destroyed without judicial intervention."The court has not indicated when it will rule on the dismissal motion, leaving the future of the challenge—and of DOGE’s legal status—unresolved.What People Are SayingWIRED—on DOGE’s persistence inside government commented: "They’re keeping us in the dark,"Scott Kupo, director, Office of Personnel Management told Reuters, explaining that DOGE-era workforce-cutting rules were no longer in effect: "There is no target around reductions anymore."Jacqueline Simon, public policy director for the American Federation of Government Employees, in an interview with Democracy Docket. "Expect legal challenges, because they know what they’re doing is unlawful."What Happens NextThe next phase of the DOGE litigation hinges on whether the judge agrees to expedite the case and then rules on the government’s motion to dismiss, a decision that will determine if plaintiffs can move into discovery and obtain internal records about how DOGE operated.If the case survives dismissal, the court could require preservation and production of communications involving Musk and former DOGE personnel now embedded across federal agencies—an outcome the plaintiffs argue is urgent to prevent potential loss of evidence.The result will shape whether DOGE is legally treated as an unlawful advisory committee or a permissible government entity, a determination that carries consequences for the validity of DOGE-linked policy actions and for the limits of executive power in relying on outside figures to influence federal operations.
Comments (0)