Musk’s D.O.G.E Has No Rights to Fire Staff

Federal Judge William Alsup ruled against the Office of Personnel Management (OPM), ordering the agency to rescind its earlier directives from Elon Musk’s Department of Government Efficiency (D.O.G.E).

These directives had pressured agencies to quickly determine whether probationary employees should be retained or terminated.

Alsup not only halted the firings but declared the entire process illegal, asserting that it should never have occurred.

OPM had issued a memo on 20 January and a follow-up internal email on 14 February, pushing agencies to make swift decisions about the employment status of these workers.

Alsup was firm in his decision, ordering OPM to inform the Department of Defense that the terminations were invalid before any firings could take place.

He also mandated a hearing where Acting OPM Director Charles Ezell will be required to testify, though no date has been set.

He said:

“The Office of Personnel Management does not have any authority whatsoever under any statute in the history of the universe to hire and fire employees within another agency. It can hire its own employees, yes. Can fire them. But it cannot order or direct some other agency to do so.”

Alsup emphasized that OPM lacked the legal authority to force these agencies to terminate employees, referring to probationary workers as "the lifeblood of our government" — essential personnel who typically start in lower-level positions and progress over time.

The case, brought by unions including the American Federation of Labor, accuses D.O.G.E of violating the Privacy Act and the Administrative Procedure Act by attempting to access Labour Department data.

In a separate ruling, Judge John Bates of Washington, D.C., ordered that at least one D.O.G.E official testify and produce documents.

This is the first time a D.O.G.E representative has been legally compelled to provide testimony under oath.

Bates criticised D.O.G.E for its lack of transparency, describing it as “opaque,” and this ruling could shed light on how the agency operates and what data it has been accessing within the federal system.

D.O.G.E Faces Heat for Secrecy and Authority Overreach

Bates has also authorised four depositions of staff from the Department of Health and Human Services, the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, the Labour Department, and D.O.G.E.

The unions pursuing the case are seeking evidence that D.O.G.E is unlawfully accessing federal records.

While the judge limited the depositions to eight hours total, it remains uncertain whether the public will ever have access to the testimony.

The unions argue that D.O.G.E’s access to Labour Department data violates both the Privacy Act and the Administrative Procedure Act.

In addition, the Center for Biological Diversity has filed a separate lawsuit against D.O.G.E, accusing the agency of evading federal transparency laws.

The group, which advocates for environmental protection, claims that the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) has refused to release information on D.O.G.E’s activities despite the legal obligation under the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) to disclose records.

This lawsuit marks the first focused on D.O.G.E’s transparency practices, building on concerns that the agency’s actions could undermine environmental protections.

The Center argues that D.O.G.E’s rapid push to reduce government funding and staff, including cuts facilitated through agencies like the Environmental Protection Agency, poses significant risks to federal climate, land management, and public health regulations.

The lawsuit states:

FOIA was designed to ensure that monumental and consequential undertakings such as this could not take place without transparency.”

The FOIA lawsuit contends that such drastic changes should not be made in secrecy, as they could potentially reverse or damage crucial federal environmental and health safeguards.

Government Defends Action as 'Just Guidance'

A significant point of contention arose over whether the mid-February communications from OPM to federal agencies were directives or simply "requests."

Judge Alsup expressed scepticism, noting that when multiple agencies act in concert on the same issue, it tends to resemble an order rather than mere "guidance."

Alsup expressed:

“Something aberrational happens, not just in one agency, but all across the government, in many agencies on the same day, the same thing. Doesn’t that sound like to you that somebody ordered it to happen, as opposed to, ‘Oh, we just got guidance’?”

Assistant US Attorney Kelsey Helland, representing the government, disagreed, arguing that affected employees should pursue their claims with the Office of Special Counsel or the Merit Systems Protection Board rather than seeking a restraining order:

“An order is not usually phrased as a request. Asking is not ordering to do something.”

Union attorney Danielle Leonard countered, asserting that the situation warranted immediate legal intervention:

“Are they really contending to this court that all of these federal employees are lying, Your Honor? That’s what counsel is saying. I don’t think it’s credible.”