Elon Musk has called for the impeachment of U.S. District Judge Paul Engelmayer after the judge issued an order temporarily blocking Musk and his Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE) team from accessing the U.S. Treasury Department's payment systems. The ruling, issued Saturday, came in response to a lawsuit filed by attorneys general from 19 states, who allege that President Donald Trump violated constitutional law by granting Musk nearly unrestricted access to Treasury data.
Musk, 52, took to X, the social media platform he owns, to voice his anger over the decision. "A corrupt judge protecting corruption," he posted. "He needs to be impeached NOW!" Musk later elaborated on his position, stating, "This ruling is absolutely insane! How on Earth are we supposed to stop fraud and waste of taxpayer money without looking at how money is spent?"
The lawsuit argues that Trump, in giving Musk and his team access to sensitive Treasury data, has failed to "faithfully execute the laws enacted by Congress." The plaintiffs contend that DOGE's role in reviewing government spending exceeds the administration's authority and threatens data security and privacy.
Judge Engelmayer, an Obama appointee, ruled that DOGE staff-many of whom hold temporary "special government employee" designations-could not access Treasury systems beyond what is necessary for official civil servants to perform their duties. He further ordered that any DOGE member who had already accessed the system must destroy any downloaded information.
Musk's DOGE initiative was created to identify and eliminate wasteful government spending. One of its first major efforts targeted the U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID), with Musk's team reportedly seeking access to Treasury records to stop funding flows to the agency. The move sparked concern among critics who argued that the billionaire entrepreneur's increasing influence over government functions was troubling.
New Jersey Attorney General Matthew Platkin, one of the plaintiffs in the case, dismissed Musk's remarks as an attempt to circumvent legal oversight. "What's shady is a tech billionaire breaking the law to try to steal millions of Americans' sensitive data," Platkin said in a statement.
The ruling has reignited broader political debates over judicial oversight and executive power. Vice President J.D. Vance defended Musk and Trump's initiative, posting on X, "If a judge tried to tell a general how to conduct a military operation, that would be illegal. If a judge tried to command the attorney general in how to use her discretion as a prosecutor, that's also illegal. Judges aren't allowed to control the executive's legitimate power."
Legal scholars, however, counter that the judiciary has long had the authority to restrain executive overreach. Joyce White Vance, a law professor at the University of Alabama, noted that "centuries of precedent establish the role of the courts in checking overreach by the executive branch." She pointed to Youngstown Sheet & Tube Co. v. Sawyer, a 1952 Supreme Court case that curtailed presidential authority when President Harry Truman attempted to seize control of the steel industry during the Korean War.
Marin K. Levy, a law professor at Duke University, emphasized that Engelmayer's ruling was not a final decision on the case but rather a temporary restraining order. "This is done in cases in which there is concern that irreparable harm will occur before a court can even decide the merits of the case," she said.
Musk has a history of clashing with the judiciary when rulings go against him. He previously denounced a Delaware Chancery Court judge after the court found his $56 billion Tesla compensation package had been granted improperly. More recently, he publicly attacked a Brazilian Supreme Court justice for imposing social media regulations that affected X.
Meanwhile, Musk's allies have floated broader judicial reforms. One X user proposed a "three-strike rule," suggesting that judges who are overturned three times a year should lose their bench. Musk responded with "It's time," signaling his agreement.
The DOGE case is set for a hearing next Friday, where the court will determine whether the temporary ban should be extended. Other lawsuits targeting DOGE's access to additional federal agencies, including the Department of Education and the Department of Health and Human Services, are also expected to advance in the coming weeks.
