Musk is the volunteer head of DOGE, a new position in a brand new department created by President Donald Trump. According to the White House Office of Administration, Musk has only been advising the president and “has no actual or formal authority to make government decisions himself.”

“Mr. Musk can only advise the President and communicate the President’s directives,” said the director of the Office of Administration, Joshua Fisher, in the filing. “The U.S. DOGE Service Temporary Organization is within the U.S. DOGE Service. Both are separate from the White House Office. Mr. Musk is an employee in the White House Office. He is not an employee of the U.S. DOGE Service or the U.S. DOGE Service Temporary Organization. Mr. Musk is not the U.S. DOGE Service Administrator.”

This clarification comes after New Mexico, one of 13 states challenging DOGE’s reach into government agencies filed a lawsuit against Musk. Musk was credited for the decision to shut down the U.S. Agency for International Development headquarters a few weeks ago.

However, many concerns the attorneys general have voiced in these lawsuits concern what DOGE will do next. Rumors of dismantling the Department of Education gained momentum last week during the hearing of Secretary of Education nominee Linda McMahon, though DOGE has only recently begun its investigation into the department’s spending.

At the same time, former and current employees with USAID are suing Musk for wielding “significant governmental” influence without being nominated to his position.

The employees cite the Constitution’s Appointments Clause in their suit disputing Musk’s actions, using the same argument as the attorneys general. This clause details that there are certain governmental actions that are “exercised only by persons who are ‘Officers of the United States’” who are confirmed most often by the Senate.

U.S. District Judge Tanya Chutkan said she aims to rule within 24 hours of hearing the case from the attorneys general on Monday. A speedy ruling could come as the case, according to Chutkan, demonstrated imminent harm required for a temporary restraining order against Musk.