Recently, the White House clarified in a document submitted to a federal court that tech giant Musk is not the head of the "Department of Government Efficiency" (DOGE), countering earlier claims that Musk held a significant position in the Trump administration. In the document, White House Executive Office Director Joshua Fisher clearly stated that Musk is not employed by DOGE and holds no official government authority, merely describing him as a "senior advisor" to President Trump without actual power in governmental decision-making.

This clarification was made in response to a lawsuit filed by attorneys general from 14 states questioning whether Musk's "extensive authority" within DOGE violates the U.S. Constitution. Earlier public statements and evidence suggested that Musk's role in DOGE exceeded that of an advisor, including participating in and updating the department's progress in multiple instances, and even leading discussions with the President at a White House press briefing. These issues have raised questions about his role from both legal circles and the public.

The latest document from the White House emphasized that Musk did not participate in the formal management of government departments nor did he possess decision-making power similar to that of a cabinet member. Initially, the Trump administration indicated that Musk co-led the department with former presidential candidate Ramaswamy, who eventually left the team. Furthermore, White House Press Secretary Caroline Levitt acknowledged that Trump tasked Musk with initiating the DOGE project.

It is worth noting that DOGE's legal status remains unclear, with the Department of Justice arguing in court that it might be considered a federal agency in certain situations but may not meet federal standards in others, such as being subject to open records laws. The court documents do not disclose who is actually responsible for managing DOGE, adding to speculation about the legal and functional nature of this newly established agency.

During the litigation, the White House might intend to position Musk as an advisor rather than a head of a government department to avoid him undergoing questioning in nomination confirmation hearings, and possibly shield communications with Musk from the Freedom of Information Act's requirements through executive privilege.

Although U.S. District Court Judge Tanya Chutkan in the District of Columbia on Tuesday rejected the request for a temporary restraining order on DOGE, she also noted that questions regarding the legality of Musk's role still persist and could have far-reaching implications for the functioning of the U.S. government. The further development of this case could significantly impact the power structures and legal provisions within and outside the U.S. government.

The market carries risks, and investment should be cautious. This article does not constitute personal investment advice and has not taken into account individual users' specific investment goals, financial situations, or needs. Users should consider whether any opinions, viewpoints, or conclusions in this article are suitable for their particular circumstances. Investing based on this is at one's own responsibility.