Judge Faces High-Stakes Decision as Trump Administration Shields Elon Musk from DOGE Testimony

The Trump administration is deploying executive power to prevent Elon Musk from being deposed in a federal lawsuit challenging the dismantling of USAID. In a filing reviewed by Cryptopolitan, the Department of Justice petitioned a Maryland federal judge to block testimony from Musk and two former USAID officials—Peter Marocco and Jeremy Lewin—who are central to the case.

The DOJ contends that forcing Musk to sit for questioning would violate constitutional protections afforded to senior executive advisers and undermine presidential authority. However, the plaintiffs—former government employees and contractors—paint a starkly different picture, claiming Musk wielded unconstitutional power when USAID was effectively dismantled through mass layoffs, grant cancellations, and institutional collapse.

The Evidence Against Musk

The strongest ammunition in the plaintiffs’ arsenal comes from Musk’s own words. In a February social media post, the billionaire wrote: “We spent the weekend feeding USAID into the wood chipper.” The judge determined this statement was probative enough to suggest Musk wasn’t merely an adviser but someone actively directing decisions that destroyed the agency.

This post directly contradicts the DOJ’s central argument—that Musk held no formal policy-making authority and therefore cannot be held responsible for constitutional violations. According to court records, the judge found sufficient basis to allow the case to proceed, rejecting an earlier DOJ motion to dismiss the entire lawsuit in August.

The Role Dispute Continues

Musk stepped down from his formal advisory position in spring, though he remains synonymous with Trump’s Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE). The administration now argues his contributions were limited to informal counsel, not policy execution. DOJ lawyers told the judge that deposing Musk would “necessarily intrude on White House activities and the president’s constitutional duties.”

The plaintiffs counter that Musk functioned as a Senate-confirmed official despite never receiving Senate confirmation—effectively operating beyond his legal authority. They argue he breached the constitutional separation of powers by facilitating the shutdown of an agency Congress had established.

A Broader Pattern

The Trump administration isn’t stopping with Musk. In a separate proceeding from May, the U.S. Supreme Court intervened to prevent Amy Gleason, DOGE’s administrator, from being compelled to testify. That case concerns whether DOGE must comply with federal records disclosure requirements and remains unresolved.

What’s Next for the Judge

The central legal question now rests with the federal judge: Are Musk’s social media statements, his documented White House access, and his publicly visible involvement enough to penetrate the shield of executive privilege typically protecting those closest to the president? The answer could redefine how courts treat informal advisers who wield substantial influence over major policy decisions.