A federal judge is expected to make a swift decision regarding the Justice Department’s request to allow Elon Musk’s Department of Government Efficiency to again access Treasury Department records that contain personal information for millions of American citizens.
Judge Jeannette A. Vargas has instructed the legal teams to discuss and agree on any modifications needed to a prior ruling issued by another judge that prohibited Musk’s department from accessing these records. If no consensus is reached, they were ordered to submit written arguments for the judge’s consideration. The previous ruling will remain effective until a hearing scheduled for Friday.
Legal representatives resumed submitting their arguments late Monday, with the outcome now depending on the judge’s ruling regarding the federal government’s assertion that blocking Musk’s access was unconstitutional and hindered his operations. Vargas has mandated that both parties finalize their submissions so she can potentially issue a ruling as early as Tuesday.
The controversy began last Friday when 19 Democratic state attorneys general, including New York’s Letitia James, initiated a lawsuit against President Donald Trump. They argued that Musk’s “DOGE” team consists of “political appointees” who should not be granted access to sensitive Treasury records that are typically managed by trained civil servants equipped to handle protected information, such as Social Security numbers and banking details.
In a court filing on Sunday, attorneys for the Justice Department from both Washington and New York asserted that the prohibition was unconstitutional and a significant overreach into Executive Branch functions. They argued that there was no legitimate way to separate the roles of “civil servants” from those of “political appointees.”
While they acknowledged their adherence to the order made by Judge Paul A. Engelmayer, they claimed it was overly broad, potentially implying that even Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent was restricted by it. They also expressed frustration that they had limited opportunity to present their case before the judge made a ruling.
The legal team contended that maintaining accountability within executive agencies requires that their activities be overseen by individuals who are politically answerable and ultimately accountable to the President. According to them, barring Musk’s team from accessing the records disrupts the constitutional need for supervision.
Over the weekend, both Musk and Vice President JD Vance leveraged Engelmayer’s ruling to criticize the framework of judicial oversight, which is a crucial element of American democracy based on the principle of separation of powers. Musk expressed strong opinions on social media, labeling the judge as corrupt and demanded impeachment.
Meanwhile, on Air Force One while traveling from Florida to New Orleans for the Super Bowl, Trump remarked that no judge should have the authority to make such decisions.
Experts have voiced concerns regarding the implications of Musk’s attempt to access Treasury records, citing potential security risks to personal data of Americans.
Late on Monday, the attorneys general responded to the Justice Department’s arguments, suggesting that while some minor amendments to Engelmayer’s order may be needed, the core purpose of the directive should remain in place. They argued that access to Treasury systems should be reserved solely for career Treasury employees who have cleared the necessary background checks and obtained security clearances.
Musk’s Department of Government Efficiency was established with the goal of identifying and eliminating unnecessary government expenditures. However, its efforts to access sensitive Treasury records and examine government bodies have drawn criticism from opponents, while supporters commend the initiative for attempting to reduce wasteful government spending practices.
