• Judge Theodore Chuang rejected Musk's claim that high-ranking official status shields him from deposition in USAID lawsuit
• Anonymous USAID employees allege Musk made shutdown decisions without proper authority or congressional approval
• Depositions will examine who authorized dismantling of the 63-year-old agency that handled $43 billion in appropriations

BALTIMORE (TDR) — U.S. District Judge Theodore D. Chuang ruled Tuesday that Elon Musk must sit for sworn depositions alongside senior State Department officials over their roles in dismantling the U.S. Agency for International Development, rejecting the billionaire's argument that high-ranking government officials are shielded from such questioning. The ruling represents a significant procedural victory for anonymous USAID employees who allege Musk illegally shuttered the foreign aid agency while leading the now-disbanded Department of Government Efficiency.

In an eight-page order issued Tuesday, Chuang denied motions for protective orders that sought to prevent depositions of Musk, former acting USAID deputy administrator Peter Marocco, and State Department official Jeremy Lewin. The plaintiffs, represented anonymously due to fears of retaliation, claim Musk exercised significant governmental authority without proper appointment or Senate confirmation, violating constitutional separation of powers and the Appropriations Clause.

Why Did the Judge Reject the Apex Doctrine Defense?

Musk's legal team argued that the so-called "apex doctrine"—which protects high-ranking officials from depositions absent extraordinary circumstances—should shield him from questioning. Judge Chuang disagreed, noting that it was "at best unclear" whether Musk, Marocco, and Lewin qualified as high-ranking officials during the USAID dismantling, particularly given that many DOGE roles were informal or acting positions and that Musk has since left government service.

"Defendants notably have never, in relation to that Order or otherwise, identified any lower-ranking officials who were present when such decisions were made. Accordingly, the Court finds that there is no alternative to the proposed depositions of Musk, Marocco, and Lewin." — Judge Theodore D. Chuang, U.S. District Court for the District of Maryland, Feb. 4, 2026

Freedom-Loving Beachwear by Red Beach Nation - Save 10% With Code RVM10

The court found that plaintiffs demonstrated a specific need for testimony regarding Musk's role in DOGE, the timing of appointments, and the identity of decision-makers for key actions—including the shutdown of USAID headquarters and its website—where defendants had not produced documentary evidence identifying authorizing officials. Chuang concluded that plaintiffs showed a need for testimony "beyond what is already in the public record" and that the information sought was not obtainable from other sources.

What Are the Allegations Against Musk and DOGE?

The lawsuit centers on actions taken between February and July 2025, when DOGE—tasked by President Donald Trump with slashing federal spending—moved to dismantle USAID, a 63-year-old agency created by Congress under President John F. Kennedy that managed approximately $43 billion in appropriations and assisted some 130 countries with disaster relief and economic development.

In March 2025, Secretary of State Marco Rubio announced cancellation of 83% of USAID programs, citing failure to serve "the core national interests of the United States." The funding cuts led to closure of health clinics and food kitchens in underserved countries, delaying distribution of lifesaving medicine, malaria bed nets, nutritional supplements, and water purification tablets.

"USAID is a criminal organization. Time for it to die." — Elon Musk, post on X, February 2025

Research published in The Lancet in July 2025 warned that dismantling USAID could cause more than 14 million additional deaths by 2030, including 4.5 million children under age 5. The study found that between 2001 and 2021, USAID programs prevented approximately 92 million deaths across 133 countries, including 25 million from HIV/AIDS and 8 million from malaria.

What Do Legal Experts Say About the Ruling?

Legal scholars note that Chuang's ruling creates significant precedent regarding the scope of presidential advisors' authority and their accountability to congressional appropriations. The Fourth Circuit, which covers Maryland, has not formally adopted the apex doctrine, allowing Chuang greater latitude to order depositions of senior officials when plaintiffs show specific need.

CLICK HERE TO READ MORE FROM THE THE DUPREE REPORT

The judge previously ruled in March 2025 that Musk and DOGE likely violated the Constitution by shutting down USAID without congressional authorization, finding that Musk—who was neither appointed nor confirmed by the Senate—had no authority to dismantle an agency created by Congress. That preliminary injunction was later stayed by an appeals court pending litigation, but the underlying constitutional questions remain central to the current discovery dispute.

"The court finds that extraordinary circumstances justify the depositions... due to the plaintiffs' allegation that Musk made certain decisions relating to the shutdown and dismantling of USAID at times when he lacked the authority to do so." — Judge Theodore D. Chuang, Feb. 4, 2026

Other defendants in the case include Secretary Rubio, State Department official Kenneth Jackson, and DOGE administrator Amy Gleason. The depositions will seek to establish who specifically authorized the dismantling of USAID headquarters, the termination of contracts, and the absorption of remaining functions into the State Department.

Representatives for Musk, USAID, and the State Department did not immediately respond to requests for comment following the ruling. Musk stepped back from his DOGE leadership role in May 2025 amid public disputes with administration officials, later describing his work as only "somewhat successful" during a podcast appearance.

The ruling advances discovery in a case that could redefine the boundaries of presidential advisory power and the ability of unelected officials to restructure congressionally created federal agencies without legislative approval.

Will the depositions reveal a coordinated plan to bypass congressional authority, or simply document the chaotic implementation of a controversial cost-cutting mandate?

Sources

This report was compiled using information from Law360, Business Insider, Axios, Newsweek, Benzinga, Government Executive, American Federation of Government Employees, The Mirror, AOL, The Indiana Lawyer, U.S. Agency for International Development, and Wikipedia.

Freedom-Loving Beachwear by Red Beach Nation - Save 10% With Code RVM10