The president is also using his power to protect Elon Musk, as he does not have to be questioned in a high-stakes federal lawsuit over the collapse of USAID.
Court documents obtained by Cryptopolitan reveal allegations that Musk operated outside his advisory capacity and was aggressive in matters related to the agency’s disbanding while he worked in the White House.
The Justice Department is seeking a judge’s order in Maryland to prevent efforts to overthrow Musk and to include two former USAID officials in the case.
DOJ moves to block Musk’s testimony
According to reports given by the Justice Department to the court, compelling Musk to appear during a deposition hearing would violate long-standing legal safeguards against senior executive advisers. Government lawyers contend that such testimony endangers the division of powers since it draws an impressive presidential consultant into a court battle.
The accusers are both the former federal employees and contractors who allege that Musk and other individuals then destroyed USAID by firing their masses and abandoning grants.
The Biden administration has fought the lawsuit at the initial stage, but the White House under Trump is now spearheading the fight to prevent Musk from testifying.
The court turned down a motion to dismiss the case in August, and discovery could proceed. Plaintiffs allege that Musk exercised the power of an official subject to Senate confirmation and abused that power by permitting the agency to be shut down when it was formed by Congress.
DOJ argues Musk had no policy-making power
Musk resigned his position in the spring but was strongly associated with the Trump Department of Government Efficiency, aka DOGE. The DOJ still represents Musk in other cases directly connected to it and insists that he never had formal power to make any policy. Lawyers argue that he has just advised Trump and cannot be held responsible for the acts committed by federal officials.
The plaintiffs do not agree and refer to internal testimony and gathered files to prove their point. According to them, Musk made decisions that transformed the programs of foreign aid and violated the federal law.
The DOJ indicates that the plaintiffs have not depleted other alternatives like written queries or the testimony of junior officers.
Musk’s public comments cited as evidence
One of the key pieces of evidence is a post made by Musk in February. He wrote that we spent the weekend hosing USAID into the wood chipper, which, according to the court, could indicate he took credit for the collapse of the agency.
Another concern that was created by the message was the closeness to presidential power. The administration of Trump has also undertaken the same action in another DOGE fight. An order to compel the DOGE administrator, Amy Gleason, to provide testimony in another public records issue was blocked by the Supreme Court.
That matter remains active. The court now has to determine whether the position of Musk, his rhetoric, and activity in the White House warrant the elimination of the customary safeguarding of senior advisors. The decision will define the extent to which the plaintiffs can go in any attempt to contest the activities of DOGE in dismantling USAID.
