Editor’s Note: This article is part of the DOGE Files, a series of CRC investigations into federal grants to nonprofits.
This article examines some of the many lawsuits filed against Trump Administration to stop DOGE efforts.
Dozens of Lawsuits Against the Trump Administration Filed by Government Employee Unions, Left-Wing Activists, and Democratic Politicians
(full series)
General Challenges to DOGE | Does Bureaucracy Equal Democracy?
Don’t Quit … but Don’t Do Your Job Either! | Say “Bye, Bye” to DEI
The main function of American trade unions is collective bargaining. It is impossible to bargain collectively with the government.
—AFL-CIO president George Meany, December 1955
Last week, U.S. District Judge Tanya Chutkan refused to grant an emergency temporary restraining order (TRO) to halt the work of the Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE). The underlying lawsuit, State of New Mexico v. Musk, was filed by 14 Democratic state attorneys general (AGs) who have alleged that creating DOGE without congressional approval violated the Constitution’s appointments clause. The AGs argued an immediate TRO was needed to pause DOGE’s work while the merits of their case were decided.
But Judge Chutkan decided they had failed to prove the “clear evidence of imminent, irreparable harm” needed to impose an emergency halt. The status of the TRO notwithstanding, Judge Chutkan ruled the case is legitimate and will proceed. (Perhaps relevant: She was appointed by President Obama and is not a stranger to lawsuits involving Trump.)
State of New Mexico is just one of dozens of lawsuits on multiple issues that were filed against the Trump administration during its first month in office. Many of them target DOGE or are DOGE-adjacent. Others involve the new administration’s crackdown on border security; diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) programs; and federal transgender policies.
The status of these legal challenges changes daily, sometimes hourly. What follows is an effort to explain what the fights are about, not where they stand at the time this is posted.
General Challenges to DOGE
National Council of Nonprofits v. OMB was the first attack on DOGE. It challenged a Trump administration memo that required federal agencies to pause federal grants and payments, pending a review. At the end of January, a federal judge temporarily lifted the moratorium, and the Trump administration rescinded the memo.
The lead plaintiff in the case, National Council of Nonprofits, represents the supposedly “non-governmental organizations” (NGOs) that have paradoxically been major recipients of government loot and account for many of the plaintiffs suing the Trump administration. (Perhaps, we should begin calling these “basically governmental organizations”?)
Co-plaintiffs in National Council include the Main Street Alliance (a cabal of businesses initially built to promote ObamaCare and other Democratic agenda items), the American Public Health Association (a group of health professionals that reliably supports Democratic Party positions on issues such as climate), and Services and Advocacy for Gay Lesbian Bisexual and Transgender Elders.
State of New York v. Donald J. Trump is another direct attack on DOGE, this one from 19 Democratic state attorneys general. It seeks to halt the DOGE team’s access to the federal payment system. If successful, this would be an exceptionally efficient way to render DOGE inefficient.
The Trump administration’s pauses and moratoriums directed at the U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID) and National Institutes of Health (NIH) have been challenged by at least four federal lawsuits:
In each of these four cases judges have granted TROs or other requests to delay implementation of the orders while the lawsuits work their way through the system.
Another employment case, Public Citizen, Inc v. Trump, is the merger of several cases that argue DOGE violates the Federal Advisory Committee Act (FACA). The Trump administration does not believe FACA applies to DOGE, while the plaintiffs argue among other points that DOGE should be subjected to FACA’s requirement to be “fairly balanced” in its leadership.
Plaintiffs in Public Citizen include Public Citizen, the State Democracy Defenders Fund, the American Federation of Government Employees, the American Public Health Association, the American Federation of Teachers (AFT), the VoteVets Action Fund, the Center for Auto Safety, and the Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington (CREW).
The consolidated Public Citizen case repeatedly references Musk as a “billionaire” and “the world’s richest individual.” The jealousy appeal against Musk’s money isn’t relevant to the dispute any more than the hefty combined annual revenue of his accusers, which exceeds $340 million:
The other Public Citizen co-plaintiff, State Democracy Defenders Fund, was created in 2024 by Democratic Party zampolit Norm Eisen. Suffering from a potentially fatal case of Trump Derangement Syndrome, Eisen recently partnered on a new media venture with former Washington Post columnist Jen Rubin. Another TDS sufferer, Rubin quit her newspaper job because the Post wouldn’t endorse Kamala Harris.
In the next installment, federal bureaucrats sue to keep their jobs.
