2026-04-13T10:00:55.725Z / 美国有线电视新闻网（CNN）
去年春天，埃隆·马斯克在华盛顿无处不在，他 wielded 前所未有的权力，帮助特朗普政府重塑乃至在某些情况下解散联邦政府各机构。
但如今，他的法律对手无法找到他，让他在宣誓后回答有关他在唐纳德·特朗普总统执政头几个月里，在所谓的“政府效率部”（DOGE）中所扮演角色的问题。
在一起案件中，得克萨斯州的治安官等人试图向他送达原告方的传讯作证请求，先后前往他的多处房产达14次，却都被拒之门外或被告知马斯克不在场。
政府律师辩称，这位全球首富应当免受作证要求的约束——即便他已不再是政府雇员。
在一起质疑DOGE解散联邦机构合法性的诉讼中，取证程序——即双方交换证据、确定证人的审前程序——已暂停一年多。此前，司法部成功上诉了一项要求马斯克书面回答其角色相关问题的命令。
DOGE带来的变革重塑了触及日常生活方方面面的公共机构。尽管该部门称其为政府节省了大量开支，但它也耗费了纳税人的资金，并导致数万个工作岗位流失。
但在质疑DOGE行动合法性的诉讼中，迫使马斯克回答问题的努力屡屡受挫。与此同时，司法部已第二次请求最高法院介入一起有关取证的纠纷，该案将决定DOGE是否受联邦公开记录法约束。
所有这些案件都提出了一个根本性问题：马斯克会被迫解释他在联邦政府内部行使如此广泛权力的行为吗？
最能说明让马斯克接受询问有多困难的典型案例，源于一起针对DOGE解散美国国际开发署（USAID）的法律挑战。
在这起民事诉讼中，现任和前任USAID员工及承包商指控，马斯克是关闭该机构决策的幕后推手，这违反了美国宪法的任命条款。根据最高法院的先例，该条款要求行使“重大权力”的官员须经参议院确认。目前该案正处于取证阶段，原告方正在寻求政府方面的信息，以证明是谁下达了解散该机构的关键决定。
法庭文件以惊人的细节描述了为向马斯克送达传票、强迫他从去年年底开始作证所付出的非凡努力。
得克萨斯州的治安官和原告方的私人送达人员试图向他在得克萨斯州西湖山的住宅——法庭文件中称这是他的主要居所——送达文件。他们还在得克萨斯州布朗斯维尔靠近他太空探索技术公司（SpaceX）总部的房产处额外尝试了四次。
这些行动始于2025年11月中旬，持续了约三个月。送达人员在法庭文件中称，他们屡次遭遇阻挠。
送达人员被拒绝进入带门禁的物业。有时，通过对讲系统应答的人员表示他们“无法提供任何协助或信息”。还有几次，工作人员告诉送达人员马斯克不在家，且无人有权代他接收文件，法庭文件显示。
有一次，一名男子通过对讲系统回应称，“这里没有叫这个名字的人”。还有几次登门完全无人应答，文件称。
原告方表示，他们试图通过马斯克的律师联系他，但也没有成功。
“埃隆·马斯克曾公开吹嘘摧毁了USAID，但如今他们的违宪行为被曝光，他和政府却躲进了保密的壳里，”代表原告方的民主捍卫基金副法律总监安德鲁·沃伦告诉CNN。
“你可以某天庆祝解散一个政府机构，隔天就藏起相关证据。”
马斯克的律师未回复置评请求。
尽管马斯克躲过了传票送达，但特朗普政府在法庭上请求法官阻止这场作证。
在USAID原告方提起的案件中，司法部称马斯克不应被传作证，其依据的判例法保护高级政府官员不因作证而分心于职责。
这一论点援引自最高法院一起涉及时任副总统迪克·切尼的案件所确立的先例。去年，在民主党总检察长针对马斯克据称参与 overhaul 各联邦机构的大规模诉讼中，司法部也使用了这一论点。
在那起案件中，司法部在2025年3月获得了上诉法院的命令，暂停了马斯克书面回答问题并提供与DOGE工作相关的内部文件的计划。
但在马斯克离开政府后，政府方面还辩称，他的离任意味着诉讼核心的任命条款主张应因无实际争议而被驳回，因为他已不再是公职人员。
在这些案件中，负责监督诉讼日常进程的初审法院曾表示，马斯克应当回答问题，但高等法院却多次暂停了这些计划。
今年2月，负责审理USAID诉讼案的美国地区法官西奥多·庄驳回了政府的立场，即传唤马斯克作证会“干扰白宫活动和总统履行宪法职责”，因为原告方关注的是马斯克在DOGE期间的行为，而非他对总统的建议。
但联邦上诉法院推翻了庄法官的命令，该命令原本允许马斯克和其他官员接受作证。上诉法院称，原告方在要求马斯克作证之前，并未充分尝试从其他渠道获取相关信息。
原告方寻求的信息之一，是谁去年指示美国总务管理局关闭USAID总部。
庄法官对上诉法院的命令表示有些困惑，他在上个月的听证会上表示，“不清楚”原告方还需要做些什么，才能向上诉法院证明只有马斯克和其他高级官员拥有他们所寻求的信息。
“我认为上诉法院并不真正清楚，因为他们不了解实际情况，但他们需要证明，确实没有其他人能够提供这些信息，”庄法官说。
马斯克本人在涉及其商业利益的案件中也曾抵制或拖延宣誓作证，包括在联邦监管机构就他收购推特（现名为X）引发的纠纷中。
马斯克在证券交易委员会调查其收购推特一案中临阵脱逃，拒绝作证，甚至促使该机构在2024年请求法院对其实施制裁。（该请求被驳回，因为马斯克最终还是接受了作证。）
DOGE称其工作为政府节省了数十亿美元，并在其网站上列出了通过裁员、合同重新谈判和其他方式实现的效率提升——尽管这些数据的准确性饱受争议。
根据美国人事管理办公室的最新数据，自特朗普就职以来，已有超过40万名联邦员工离职，早期的大规模离职在很大程度上是由DOGE及其在政府初期的决定推动的。
随着机构被掏空、拨款被取消、员工被裁减、办公室被关闭，其后果开始以具体形式显现，专家警告称，这些影响可能会持续数年。
在诉讼中，USAID的员工辩称，“这种未经授权解散USAID的行为，对美国和全球公众造成了灾难性后果，实际上瘫痪了提供救生援助的运作。”
律师兼人权倡导者拉齐娅·苏尔塔纳在孟加拉国实地见证了其影响。自2017年以来，美国一直是孟加拉国逃离缅甸种族暴力的罗兴亚难民的最大援助提供者。医疗服务的空白导致了她向CNN描述的案例：一名孕妇出现并发症，发烧疼痛了数日却“没有医生可用，也没有急诊护理”，最终失去了孩子。
其他诉讼则由DOGE削减预算的连锁反应引发。
在环境保护署（EPA），根据工会的数据，员工人数减少了约30%。环保倡导者称，裁员导致一些社区监测污染或追究工业企业责任的工具更少。
例如，在北卡罗来纳州梅克伦堡县——一个长期饱受烟尘污染和呼吸系统疾病高发困扰的地区——一项用于安装空气质量监测仪的EPA拨款在DOGE的削减中被终止。将获得该拨款的组织是一起针对EPA取消气候和环境正义拨款诉讼的原告方之一。
“这些社区完全不知道空气中有什么，”该组织社区战略总监安德鲁·惠兰告诉CNN。“如果你不知道自己在呼吸什么，就无法知道采取什么行动来保护家人的健康。”
EPA的一位发言人告诉CNN，该机构不对未决诉讼置评。但一位官员将梅克伦堡县被扣留的这类拨款归类为“浪费的多元化、公平与包容（DEI）项目和‘环境正义’优先事项”，称其不应属于EPA的核心使命。
在住房和城市发展部（HUD），自特朗普就职以来，该部门约34%的员工离职。公平住房倡导团体告诉CNN，大规模裁员与住房歧视调查的延误和混乱同时出现，导致租房者和代金券持有者获得救济的途径更少。
田纳西州公平住房委员会执行主任马蒂·拉弗蒂表示，她的组织转交给HUD的公平住房案件无人跟进，有时甚至因HUD人手不足而在未通知提交人的情况下结案。
“你得不到确认你的投诉已被收到，没有员工跟进，你也永远得不到回复，”拉弗蒂说。
HUD的一位发言人表示，特朗普政府“继承了一个存在严重缺陷和效率低下的系统”，在“特朗普总统和[斯科特·]特纳部长的领导下，执法工作现在专注于帮助遭受住房中故意非法歧视的真正民众”。
拉弗蒂的组织曾参与一起集体诉讼，迫使HUD发放国会拨款给公平住房项目。尽管她的组织和其他一些团体最终获得了资金，但并非所有拨款都已发放。
尚未解决的问题是，作为解散和精简这些机构行动代表的那个人，是否会被要求在宣誓后解释其执行方式以及留下的后果。
司法部历来在法庭上积极争取让知名政府官员免于作证。但鉴于马斯克最初的角色定义模糊不清，且他现已不再担任该职务，其为马斯克争取保护的论点尤其令人费解。
最初为保护官员免于作证而适用于切尼的先例，后来被扩大到领导其他行政部门机构的官员，包括前官员——如今在DOGE的诉讼中，甚至延伸到一名没有明确职责描述的临时政府雇员。
“这几乎意味着终身豁免权，还意味着为低级官员提供通常仅为总统和副总统所享有的豁免级别，”曾任职于司法部、后来代表包括涉及DOGE诉讼在内的政府监督团体的律师安妮·韦斯曼说。
司法部未回复置评请求。
案件仍在继续。USAID案件的原告方正在传唤其他可能了解谁下达了关闭该机构关键决定的官员作证。
由州总检察长提起的案件，在州官员撤诉后，现由称DOGE削减预算影响其工作的私人组织继续推进。一名美国地区法官缩小了案件范围，但保留了任命条款的主张。
原告方必须提交一份新的取证计划，地区法官坦尼娅·查特坎说。
代表该案原告方的竞选法律中心律师布伦特·弗格森表示：“我们准备迅速推进，以获取我们需要的信息，为我们的客户争取救济。”他补充道：“我们预计这一过程将揭示更多关于马斯克和DOGE如何非法摧毁对数百万美国人至关重要的联邦项目的细节。”
CNN的安妮特·崔对本报道亦有贡献。
Will Musk ever be forced to explain what he did inside DOGE?
2026-04-13T10:00:55.725Z / CNN
Elon Musk was ubiquitous in Washington last spring, wielding unprecedented power helping the Trump administration reshape and, in some cases, dismantle federal agencies across the government.
But now, his legal adversaries can’t find him to answer questions under oath about the role he played at the so-called Department of Government Efficiency in the first months of President Donald Trump’s administration.
In one case, Texas constables and others attempting to serve a plaintiffs’ deposition request went to his various properties 14 times, only to be turned away or told Musk wasn’t there.
Government lawyers have argued that the world’s richest man should be shielded from demands to answer questions — even though he is no longer a government employee.
The discovery process — a pretrial procedure in which both sides exchange evidence and identify witnesses — has been paused for more than a year in a lawsuit challenging DOGE’s dismantling of federal agencies, after the Justice Department successfully appealed an order requiring Musk to answer written questions about his role.
Changes brought about by DOGE transformed public institutions that touch on vast swaths of daily life, and though it said it found broad government savings, it has also cost taxpayer dollars and tens of thousands of jobs.
But efforts to compel Musk to answer questions in the lawsuits challenging the legality of DOGE’s actions have been met with repeated frustration. Meanwhile, the Justice Department, for a second time, has asked the Supreme Court to intervene in a dispute over discovery in a case that will determine whether DOGE is covered by federal open records law.
All these cases have raised a fundamental question: Will Musk ever be forced to explain his exercise of such sweeping power inside the federal government?
One of the most dramatic examples of how difficult it has been to get Musk to sit for questions grew out of a legal challenge to DOGE’s dismantling of the US Agency for International Development.
In the civil suit,current and former USAID staffers and contractors allege Musk was behind the decision to shutter the agency, violating the Appointments Clause of the US Constitution, which under Supreme Court precedent requires officials who wield “significant authority” to be confirmed by the Senate. The case is in the discovery phase, as the plaintiffs seek information from the government that would show who issued the key decisions that dismantled the agency.
Court documents describe, in striking detail, the extraordinary effort to serve Musk with a subpoena to compel him to sit for a deposition startig at the end of last year.
Constables in Texas and private plaintiffs’ process servers tried to present Musk papers at his home in West Lake Hills, Texas, described in court filings as his primary residence. They made four additional attempts at Musk’s property in Brownsville, Texas, near his SpaceX headquarters.
The efforts spanned about three months, beginning in mid‑November 2025, and the servers said in court papers they were met with repeated resistance.
Servers have been denied entry into gated properties. At times, individuals speaking through a call box said they could not “provide any assistance or information.” On other visits, staff told servers that Musk was not home and that no one was authorized to accept paperwork on his behalf, according to court documents.
On one occasion, a man responded over the call box saying, “There is no one here by that name.” Other visits went unanswered entirely, the documents said.
Plaintiffs say they attempted to reach Musk through his attorney, also without success.
“Elon Musk publicly bragged about destroying USAID, but he and the administration have retreated into secrecy now that their unconstitutional actions are being brought to light,” Andrew Warren, deputy legal director of Democracy Defenders Fund, which is representing the plaintiffs, told CNN.
“You can’t celebrate dismantling a government agency one day and hide the receipts the next.”
A lawyer for Musk did not return a request for comment.
While Musk avoided service of the subpoena, the Trump administration was in court asking for a judge to block the deposition.
In the case brought by the USAID plaintiffs, the DOJ has said Musk should not have to be deposed by pointing to case law that protects senior government officials from being distracted from their duties by depositions.
The argument leans on a precedent set in a Supreme Court case involving then-Vice President Dick Cheney. It was also used by the Justice Department in another case brought by Democratic attorneys general last year as a sprawling challenge to Musk’s alleged role in overhauling various federal agencies.
In that case, the Justice Department secured a March 2025 appeals court order that paused plans for Musk to answer questions in writing and provide internal documents related to DOGE’s work.
But after Musk left the government, the administration also argued that his departure meant that the lawsuit’s central Appointments Clause claim should be dismissed as moot because he is no longer a public employee.
In these cases, the trial courts that are overseeing the day-to-day of the lawsuits have said that Musk should have to answer questions, only for higher courts to pause those plans.
In February,US District Judge Theodore Chuang, who is presiding over the USAID lawsuit, rejected the administration’s position that deposing Musk would “intrude on White House activities and the president’s performance of constitutional duties” because plaintiffs were focused on the actions Musk took while he was at DOGE, not his advice to the president.
But a federal appeals court reversed Chuang’s order that would have allowed Musk and other officials to be deposed. The appeals court said the plaintiffs had not done enough to seek the relevant information from other sources before demanding that Musk sit for questions.
Among the pieces of information the plaintiffs are chasing is who directed the Government Services Administration to shut down the USAID headquarters last year.
Chuang expressed some confusion about the appeals court’s order, remarking at hearing last month that “it’s unclear” what else the plaintiffs must do to show the appeals court that only Musk and the other top officials have the information they are seeking.
“I don’t think the Court of Appeals really knew because they don’t know the facts on the ground, but they need a showing of there’s really no one else who can provide this information,” Chuang said.
Musk himself has resisted or delayed sworn questioning in cases concerning his businesses, including in disputes involving federal regulators over his acquisition of Twitter, now known as X.
Musk’s move to bail last minute on a deposition in the Securities and Exchange Commission’s investigation of his Twitter takeover even prompted a 2024 request by the agency for court sanctions. (The request was denied because Musk ultimately did sit for the deposition.)
DOGE has said that its work saved billions of dollars for the government, keeping a list on its website of the efficiencies it has found through cuts, contract renegotiations and other methods — though the accuracy of these has been heavily disputed.
According to the latest figures from the Office of Personnel Management, over 400,000 federal workers have left since Trump took office, and much of the early exodus was driven by DOGE and its decisions in the early days of the administration.
With agencies hollowed out, grants canceled, staff cut and offices shuttered, the consequences are beginning to surface in tangible ways, and experts warn they could last for years.
In their lawsuit, USAID employees argued that “the impact of this unauthorized dismantling of USAID has had disastrous consequences for the American and global public, effectively paralyzing operations that delivered life‐saving aid.”
Razia Sultana, a lawyer and human rights advocate, has witnessed the impact on the ground in Bangladesh. The US had been the largest aid provider for Rohingya refugees in Bangladesh fleeing ethnic violence in Myanmar since 2017. A void in medical services has left cases like one she described to CNN in which “there was no doctor available and no emergency care” for a pregnant woman who developed complications and suffered for days from fever and pain, leading to the loss of her baby.
Other lawsuits have been spawned by knock-on effects of the DOGE cuts.
At the Environmental Protection Agency, staffing levels have fallen by roughly 30%, according to union figures. Environmental advocates say the cuts have left some communities with fewer tools to monitor pollution or hold industrial actors accountable.
For example, in Mecklenburg County, North Carolina — a region that has long struggled with soot pollution and elevated respiratory illness — an EPA grant to install air quality monitors was terminated amid DOGE cuts. The organization that was to receive the grant is a part of a lawsuit filed against the EPA over cancellation of climate and environmental justice grants.
“These communities have no idea what’s in their air,” Andrew Whelan, director of community strategy for the group, told CNN. “If you don’t have information about what it is that you’re breathing, you can’t know what actions to take to protect your family’s health.”
An EPA spokesperson told CNN the agency does not comment on pending litigation. But an official categorized the grants like the one withheld in Mecklenberg County as “wasteful DEI programs and ‘environmental justice’ priorities,” that should not be a part EPA’s core mission.
At the Department of Housing and Urban Development, which saw some 34% of its staff leave since Trump took office, fair housing advocacy groups told CNN deep staffing cuts have coincided with delays and confusion in housing discrimination investigations, leaving renters and voucher holders with fewer avenues for redress.
Martie Lafferty, executive director of the Tennessee Fair Housing Council, said fair housing cases her group has referred to HUD have gone unanswered, sometimes even being closed without notifying the filers due to lack of staffing at HUD.
“You get no confirmation your complaint has been received, there’s no staff to follow up with, and you never hear back,” Lafferty said.
A spokesperson for HUD said the Trump administration “inherited a deeply flawed and inefficient” system and that under “the leadership of President Trump and Secretary [Scott] Turner, enforcement is now focused on helping real people suffering from intentional unlawful discrimination in housing.”
Lafferty’s organization was part of a class-action lawsuit to compel HUD to release congressionally appropriated grant funding for fair housing programs. Though her group and some others eventually received the funds, not all of the grants have been released.
What remains unresolved is whether the person who was the face of the effort to dismantle and downsize these agencies will ever be required to answer, under oath, for how it was carried out and what it has left behind.
The Justice Department has historically fought aggressively in court to keep prominent government officials out of the deposition chair. But its arguments about protections that should be granted to Musk are especially convoluted, given how ill-defined his role was in the first place — and that he no longer holds it.
The precedent originally applied to Cheney to shield officials from depositions has since been stretched to officials leading other executive branch agencies, including former officials — and now, in the DOGE lawsuits, a temporary government employee who did not have a clearly described role.
“It suggests an almost lifetime immunity and suggests a level of immunity for lower officials that is typically afforded to the president and vice president,” said Anne Weismann, a former DOJ attorney who has since represented government watchdog groups, including in lawsuits involving DOGE.
The Justice Department did not return a request for comment.
The cases continue. Plaintiffs in the USAID case are deposing additional officials who could have knowledge about who made the key decisions that shuttered the agency
The case brought by state attorneys generals is now being carried forward by private organizations who say DOGE cuts have impacted their work, after the state officials dropped their lawsuit. The case was narrowed by a US district judge, but she is keeping alive its Appointments Clause claim.
The plaintiffs will have to submit a new plan for discovery, District Judge Tanya Chutkan said.
Brent Ferguson, a lawyer for Campaign Legal Center, which is representing the plaintiffs in the case, said: “We are prepared to move forward quickly to get the information we need to obtain relief for our clients,” adding: “We expect that process will uncover more details about how Musk and DOGE unlawfully dismantled federal programs vital to millions of Americans.”
CNN’s Annette Choi contributed to this report.