对他的批评者来说，埃隆·马斯克是一个未经选举、不负责任的政府官员扩张的行政权力违反了美国宪法。
对于唐纳德·特朗普总统来说，这位世界上最富有的人是一位值得信赖的顾问和授权代表，领导着一场非常规但完全合法的精简联邦机构的运动。
现在a一对诉讼让人们开始关注马斯克作为谷歌实际管理者的合法性政府效率部联邦法院-可能是最高法院-很快将决定他的角色是否符合宪法的任命条款。
法律专家告诉美国广播公司新闻，这些案件有可能使马斯克边缘化，至少暂时撤销他似乎授权的涉及联邦机构、财产、人事和政策的变化。但结果还远未确定。
任命条款规定，总统可以任命美国官员，如大使、内阁秘书和最高法院法官，但只能通过确认投票“根据参议院的建议和同意”。马斯克尚未得到证实。
该条款还规定，总统可以任命“下级官员”而无需参议院批准，但前提是国会已经通过了明确授权这些职位的法律。特朗普在没有国会参与的情况下，通过行政命令创建了总督。
“马斯克显然只对特朗普负责。霍夫斯特拉大学(Hofstra University)宪法学者詹姆斯·萨姆特(James Sample)说:“只对总统负责，同时掌握巨大的权力，这基本上是主要官员的柏拉图式形式，因此需要参议院的确认。”
白宫表示，马斯克被归类为无薪的“特别政府雇员”，这是国会在1962年为临时行政部门雇员设立的一种身份，以履行不超过130天的有限职责。
但是起诉马斯克的原告——14个州的联盟一个由20多名联邦公务员组成的团体声称，总督实际上一直在充当“美国官员”，行使的权力远远超出了“雇员”的范畴
诉讼声称，马斯克直接做出了有关机构支出、合同、政府财产和法规的决定。他们还声称他已经获得了大量的敏感的政府数据。
“鉴于马斯克的接触、权威和自主权的深度和广度，尽管他名义上被指定为‘特别政府雇员’，但他只是作为一名雇员运作的任何说法都是不可信的，”Sample说。
最高法院在1976年的决定将“美国官员”定义为总统任命的“根据美国法律行使重要权力”的人。二十多年后，一种观点由已故保守派大法官安东宁·斯卡利亚撰写，他肯定了官员要么必须得到参议院的确认，要么由已经确认的人监督。
“我认为他们有很好的理由，”特朗普第一个任期内的前司法部官员、美国广播公司新闻法律撰稿人莎拉·伊斯古尔说。“他显然是一名‘美国官员’。”
伊斯古尔说，马斯克的“特别政府雇员”头衔——从未经过宪法测试或由法院定义——可以为他的法律辩护提供一些缓冲。
政府还援引了一项新法律理论也就是说，总统实际上拥有不受限制的权力，可以在整个行政部门中雇用和解雇他选择的任何人。
白宫新闻秘书卡罗琳·莱维特上个月为马斯克的顾问工作辩护说:“有一个伟大的团队在他们周围，我们将看看这个联邦政府的收据，并确保它对美国纳税人负责。”
一些法律学者表示，马斯克幕后确切行动的模糊性也可能使他的批评者的法律挑战复杂化。
“我认为这种早期的诉讼将会爆发，因为我们真的不知道马斯克在做什么。南德克萨斯大学法学院的宪法教授乔希·布莱克曼说。“只要有一名真正的政府官员按下‘取消’按钮，我就不知道马斯克是否拥有任何实际的实质性权力。”
几位法律专家表示，针对马斯克的任命条款案件处于非常早期的阶段，可能需要几个月才能结束。不管结果如何，实际影响可能微乎其微。
“到2026年7月4日，马斯克将离任，然后类似‘事实上的官员’主义的东西可以挽救马斯克所做的任何工作，”布莱克曼指出。“我认为这些案件不会有任何进展。”
样本表明，如果法院认定马斯克符合“美国官员”的资格并需要得到确认，白宫可以“改造”已经采取的行动，以获得另一名高级官员的批准，或者迅速让共和党控制的参议院确认马斯克本人。
“事实上，我认为政府正在计算，即使有一丝马基雅维利式的天才，马斯克或多或少是碰不得的，除非被监禁，”Sample说。“即使他们在法庭上败诉，这些干扰在现实世界中的后果也将是巨大的。总统考虑的是事务，而不是宪法条款。不幸的是，这种做法的长期影响远远超出了任何一任总统的任期。”
Is Elon Musk's government role unconstitutional? What the Supreme Court might say.
To his critics, Elon Musk is an unelected and unaccountable government official wieldingexpansive executive powerin violation of the U.S. Constitution.
To President Donald Trump, the world's richest man is a trusted adviser and authorized deputy, leading an unconventional -- but entirely legal -- campaign to downsize federal agencies.
Now apair of lawsuitshave put a spotlight on the legality of Musk's status as de facto administrator of theDepartment of Government Efficiency, or DOGE, with federal courts -- potentially the Supreme Court -- soon to decide whether his role complies with the Constitution's appointments clause.
The cases have the potential to sideline Musk and, at least temporarily, undo changes he has appeared to authorize involving federal agencies, property, staffing and policy, legal experts told ABC News. But the outcome is far from certain.
The appointments clause says that a president may appoint officers of the U.S. – like ambassadors, Cabinet secretaries and Supreme Court justices -- but only "by and with the advice and consent of the Senate" through a confirmation vote. Musk has not been confirmed.
The clause also says that a president may appoint "inferior officers" without Senate confirmation, but only if Congress has passed a law explicitly authorizing the positions. Trump created the DOGE by executive order without involvement from Congress.
"Musk manifestly answers only to Trump. Answering only to the President while wielding vast and enormous power is basically the Platonic form of a principal officer, thus requiring Senate confirmation," said James Sample, a constitutional law scholar at Hofstra University.
The White House has said Musk is classified as an unpaid "special government employee," a status Congress created in 1962 for temporary executive branch hires to perform limited duties for no more than 130 days.
But the plaintiffs in the lawsuits against Musk –a coalition of 14 statesand a group of two dozen federal civil servants -- claim the DOGE leader has in practice been acting as an "officer of the U.S." and exercising authority well beyond an "employee."
The suits allege that Musk has directly made decisions about agency expenditures, contracts, government property, regulations. They also allege he has acquired vast troves ofsensitive government data.
"Given Musk's depth and breadth of access, authority, and autonomy, any assertion that, despite his nominal 'special government employee' designation, he is operating as a mere employee is simply not credible," Sample said.
The Supreme Court ina 1976 decisiondefined "officer of the U.S." as a presidential appointee "exercising significant authority pursuant to the laws of the U.S." More than two decades later,an opinionauthored by the late conservative Justice Antonin Scalia affirmed that officers either had to be confirmed by the Senate or supervised by someone who had been confirmed.
"I think they have a good case," said Sarah Isgur, a former Justice Department official during Trump's first term and ABC News legal contributor. "He's obviously an 'officer of the U.S.'"
Isgur said Musk's "special government employee" title -- which has never been constitutionally tested or defined by a court -- could, however, provide some buffer in his legal defense.
The administration has also invoked anovel legal theorythat says the president has virtually unchecked authority to hire and fire whomever he chooses within the entirety of the executive branch.
"With a great team around them, we're going to look at the receipts of this federal government and ensure it's accountable to American taxpayers," White House press secretary Karoline Leavitt said last month defending Musk's job as an advisor.
Some legal scholars say ambiguity about Musk's precise actions behind the scenes could also complicate his critics' legal challenges.
"I think these sorts of early lawsuits will flame out because we truly don't know what Musk is doing. We are mostly left with conjecture and speculation," said Josh Blackman, a constitutional law professor at South Texas College of Law. "So long as an actual government official is pushing the 'cancel' button, I don't know that Musk is holding any actual substantial authority."
The appointment clause cases against Musk are at a very early stage and will likely take months to play out, several legal experts said. And regardless of the outcome, the practical impact could be minimal.
"By July 4, 2026, Musk will be out of office, and then something like the 'de facto officer' doctrine could save whatever work Musk did," Blackman pointed out. "I don't see these cases as going anywhere."
Sample suggested that if a court concluded Musk qualifies as an "officer of the U.S." and needs to be confirmed, the White House could either "retrofit" actions already taken to be approved by another top official, or quickly work to have the GOP-controlled Senate confirm Musk himself.
"I actually think the administration is calculating, even with a hint of Machiavellian genius, that Musk is more or less untouchable by consequences short of imprisonment," Sample said. "Even if they lose in the courts, the real-world consequences of the disruptions will nonetheless be substantial. The president thinks in transactional, as opposed to constitutional terms. Unfortunately, such an approach has long-term ramifications that extend far beyond any one presidency."
