Latest news with #HealthCare.gov
Epoch Times
27-05-2025
- Health
- Epoch Times
Get What You're Owed From Your Health Insurance Plan
By Kimberly Lankford From Kiplinger's Personal Finance Depending on your health insurance policy, you may have noticed that you need to get permission from your insurer before it will pay for a medication, treatment or procedure your doctor prescribes—even if it's covered by your plan. This extra step, called prior authorization, is becoming more common with most types of health insurance, including Medicare Advantage, employer coverage, and individual plans sold through or your state health insurance marketplace. When your health plan requires prior authorization, your doctor must provide evidence that the specific care is medically necessary and is the best course of action in your situation. Prior-authorization requirements have increased significantly over the past few years. For example, virtually all enrollees in Medicare Advantage plans are required to obtain prior authorization for some services, and these insurers made nearly 50 million prior-authorization determinations in 2023, up from 37 million in 2021, according to health policy research organization KFF. Insurers don't always approve these requests. In 2023, for example, Medicare Advantage insurers fully or partially denied 3.2 million prior-authorization requests, according to KFF. Insurers say that prior authorization provides a vital screen to ensure patients receive safe, evidence-based care and to reduce low-value and inappropriate services so that coverage is as affordable as possible. The American Medical Association, however, calls prior authorization 'an overused process that interferes with patients receiving timely care, or even any care at all.' More than one in four physicians report that delays or denials related to prior authorization have led to a serious adverse event, such as hospitalization, disability or even death for a patient in their care. And prior authorization isn't the only obstacle you may encounter. You may face a denial of your claim after you receive a procedure or treatment if the insurer decides that your coverage doesn't include it or you didn't get the necessary prior authorization first. Related Stories 5/1/2025 1/13/2025 But you don't have to take no for an answer, and perseverance often pays off. Less than 12 percent of Medicare Advantage prior-authorization denials were appealed in 2023, but more than 81 percent of the appealed denials were partially or fully overturned, KFF found. Only 1 percent of in-network denials were appealed for policies sold on but 44 percent of the denials were overturned at the first level of appeal, KFF found. You may also be able to successfully appeal denials from employer health insurance plans or traditional Medicare—whether for prior authorization or for a service you already received—although few people know their appeal rights. 'Never accept the first denial letter you get, because it is often just the default reaction to treatment protocols, especially if it's something new,' says Suzanne Garner, 47, of San Diego, who was first diagnosed with breast cancer seven years ago. 'It doesn't matter if the treatment is fully FDA-approved and, in the case of oncology care, even if the National Cancer Coalition and ASCO [the American Society of Clinical Oncology] have endorsed it to be a piece of standard of care,' she says. 'If it's new, for a while, it's likely to be denied.' By appealing, Garner has successfully reversed more than 20 prior-authorization denials and five denials for claims after receiving a bill. 'At the beginning, I was very intimidated when I would get these denials and big cost estimates, and I remember crying and saying to my husband that we would have to go into our daughter's college fund or our retirement fund,' Garner says. 'For the most part, we figured it out, but it took being brave, advocating for myself and waiting on hold a lot. Don't be afraid to appeal, and don't be afraid to ask a lot of questions.' Here's what you need to know to appeal a health insurance denial, whether it involves a prior authorization request or a big bill following a procedure or treatment that you believe your insurance should cover. Help From Your Doctor The procedure for appealing a denial varies depending on the type of health insurance. 'You have to follow the timeline and the instructions on the explanation of benefits or the Medicare summary notice,' says Tatiana Fassieux, education and training specialist for California Health Advocates. Whatever the appeals process, you should contact your doctor's office right away after you receive a denial. 'There's a certain amount of time to appeal—sometimes it's 30 to 60 days, depending on your insurance plan. But we might not be alerted to that denial until 21 days have passed, and sometimes it's a fight against time,' says Michelle Vanderwaall, who spent more than 20 years as an operations manager for several surgical specialties in a San Diego hospital system. Your medical team may regularly deal with appeals, developing expertise in navigating them. The staff at the office of Garner's oncologist were instrumental in overturning denials for PET scans, breast MRIs, an oophorectomy (ovary removal surgery) and other procedures. Several of the denials were reversed after her oncologist got on the phone with a doctor at the insurance company and explained her specific needs, a step called a peer-to-peer review. Bruce A. Brod, a physician and clinical professor of dermatology at the University of Pennsylvania Perelman School of Medicine, says that he sometimes can get a denial reversed through a peer-to-peer review. But the conversation isn't necessarily with other dermatologists, so he may need to take extra time to explain the patient's needs. Other Sources of Assistance Some doctor's offices are more helpful with appeals than others, and you may need to advocate for yourself. But that can be difficult to do when you're learning new medical terminology while dealing with a major diagnosis. Garner learned a lot from other cancer survivors in support groups, and she shares the knowledge she has collected, too. For example, she helped a neighbor who was diagnosed with breast cancer get 14 months of coverage for an infusion her oncologist recommended. The insurance company wanted to pay for only eight months. Garner used Outcomes4Me, a cancer-support app that aggregates medical research for patients based on their specific diagnosis (Garner now works for Outcomes4Me), and they looked through PubMed (a resource of medical literature from the National Institutes of Health) and Google Scholar to find newer studies. 'We were able to pull together a compelling case with numerous studies that showed it was more effective to have the full 14 months,' she says. You may get help from a nurse navigator or a social worker at the hospital or your doctor's office. Additionally, nonprofits and advocacy groups specializing in your disease may provide resources and help with claims. You may also get help from organizations such as Triage Cancer ( 'I think one of the major challenges is that there is an overarching lack of awareness about the appeals process,' says Monica Bryant, a cancer-rights attorney and chief operating officer for Triage Cancer. Bryant has helped reverse denials in a variety of situations. She helps gather the evidence to build the patient's case, which can include medical records, test results, literature, clinical trial results, a personal narrative or a letter from the doctor. ©2025 The Kiplinger Washington Editors, Inc. Distributed by Tribune Content Agency, LLC. The views and opinions expressed are those of the authors. They are meant for general informational purposes only and should not be construed or interpreted as a recommendation or solicitation. The Epoch Times does not provide investment, tax, legal, financial planning, estate planning, or any other personal finance advice. The Epoch Times holds no liability for the accuracy or timeliness of the information provided.
Yahoo
22-04-2025
- Business
- Yahoo
Billions of pretax healthcare funds go to waste each year. Retailers want to cash in.
This story was originally published on Retail Dive. To receive daily news and insights, subscribe to our free daily Retail Dive newsletter. If potential consumer spending dollars are going unused, retailers would like to know about it. But for retailers selling products eligible for medical flexible spending and health savings accounts in the United States, getting consumers to spend this allocated money is harder than it seems. Flexible spending accounts and health savings accounts allow people to set aside pretax money, sometimes straight out of their paycheck, to pay for certain medical expenses, per the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau. Both accounts can be offered by employers in the United States to help offset healthcare costs for employees, according to While FSAs and HSAs can be employer and/or employee-funded, an HSA is an employee-controlled savings account, is coupled with enrollment in a high-deductible healthcare plan, offers higher contribution limits than an FSA, and allows funds to carry over to the next year indefinitely. An FSA, on the other hand, is usually controlled by an employer (though they aren't required to contribute in addition to an employee), has lower contribution limits and has restrictions on annual carry-over limits (a largely use-it-or-lose-it approach). 'In November 2024, our research indicated that 77% of FSA funds had already been depleted,' Numerator analyst Shawn Paustian said in emailed comments. 'Given this rate of expenditure, we could anticipate that roughly a tenth of FSA funds, amounting to several billion dollars, will go unused by the end of the year.' According to a May 2024 report from the Employee Benefit Research Institute, roughly half of FSA account holders forfeited funds to their employer in 2022, with the average forfeiture being $441. As money goes unused, retailers are starting to pay more attention to this consumer group – and how to raise shoppers' awareness. Some consumers might be surprised to learn that they can use these pretax dollars on more than doctor appointment copays, prescription drugs and sudden medical service costs. There's a variety of eligible home healthcare products. Online retailer FSA Store — which declined an interview for this story — has an entire webpage dedicated to 'Surprisingly Eligible' products. On there, consumers can buy everything from a $455 light therapy mask from skin care brand Dr. Dennis Gross targeting acne to a $1,599 full-body recovery compression bundle from HyperIce. It also maintains a large eligibility list for customers to read through. What these products have in common is that they meet the IRS' determination of what is a covered medical expense. This makes a wide variety of products eligible, such as menstrual care products, sunscreen, hand sanitizers, allergy medicines, breast pumps and more. Consumer awareness around what is and isn't eligible is a major obstacle for companies looking to capitalize on those spending funds, though, Paustian said. Research from Numerator showed that 'when presented with a list of eligible products, consumers were only able to correctly identify less than half,' Paustian noted. 'In fact, 25% of consumers report difficulty determining whether products they see on store shelves are FSA/HSA eligible. … The list of eligible products continues to expand, which naturally increases potential usage.' With more items becoming eligible, companies are vying to showcase them to consumers. Plenty of brands now have web pages or blogs dedicated to showcasing FSA and HSA-eligible products. Examples include premium sunscreen brand Supergoop, menstrual product brand Thinx and skin care company Shiseido, to name just a few. The move comes as beauty retailers have increasingly mingled with the health and wellness categories over the past few years. Ulta previously expanded its wellness-related inventory in 2023 when it announced its in-store wellness spaces — called 'The Wellness Shop' — would launch into more than 1,330 locations nationally. In January, Target too announced plans to add over 2,000 wellness related items to its offerings, including digestive health and wellness tech products. 'One of the most exciting aspects of FSA/HSA spending in beauty is its potential to redefine how consumers think about their beauty routines as long-term wellness,' Laura Unger, vice president of digital client experience at Sephora, told Retail Dive in emailed responses. The prestige beauty retailer launched its FSA and HSA initiative in October 2023, according to Unger, and has a web page dedicated to highlighting eligible products. Eligible items regulated by the IRS, such as sunscreen with SPF 15 and above, and certain acne treatments, are already part of many beauty enthusiasts' routines and Sephora aims to make these items even more accessible to them, she added. Ulta Beauty also has an FSA and HSA buying guide web page that launched in November 2024, Ulta Beauty Vice President of Merchandising Lisa Tamburello told Retail Dive via email. That shopping guide is one of the highest-performing guides across Ulta's app and website, but Tamburello said the retailer's FSA and HSA awareness campaigns haven't been reserved to just online marketing. 'We launched cash register takeovers starting in 2023 and are introducing out-of-home placements featuring top eligible items, including SPFs, acne treatments, and hand sanitizers,' Tamburello said. 'These actions help raise awareness and educate our customers on the many ways they can use their FSA/HSA funds.' The market for acne treatment products in the U.S. is projected to grow from about $5 billion in 2023 to around $7 billion by 2030, according to data from Fortune Business Insights. Meanwhile, the market for sun protection products in the U.S. generated about $2 billion in 2025, per Statista data. So what type of consumer has access to these forms of pretax accounts and how much money is really at stake through them? 'FSA/HSA holders typically reflect the white-collar working class,' Paustian said. 'They are often Gen Z to Gen X families with college educations and high-paying jobs. This demographic represents a crucial consumer group for many brands and retailers.' The contributions for both accounts are tax-free, but a core difference is that medical FSA funds are immediately available for use, while HSA funds are available as contributions are made. Contributions for accounts, carry-over limits for FSAs, and eligibility of products or services are regulated by the IRS. Some FSAs also offer a grace period of a few months each year to spend unused funds from the previous year. For the 2025 plan year, individuals can contribute $3,300 for FSAs (with the maximum carry-over amount to 2025 being $660) and an individual maximum contribution of $4,300 for HSAs. Account holders sometimes get access to a debit card directly tied to their HSA or FSA accounts, while some might need to first spend the money on their own and submit receipts for reimbursement. Numerator's research found that 55% of HSA/FSA users prefer to use their debit card over getting reimbursed later for submitted expenses. Over the years, the IRS has increased contribution limits and even temporarily halted its FSA carry-over limit during the onset of the COVID-19 pandemic. In his first term, President Donald Trump advocated for policies increasing contribution limits. However, these policies were never passed by the Senate, per Paustian. The contribution hikes were part of a larger effort to repeal and replace the Affordable Care Act. 'Given the current Republican majority, these discussions could be revisited in 2025 and may have a greater chance of success and expansion,' Paustian added. That could open the possibility for FSAs and HSAs to drive even more sales to retailers. First, however, the industry must educate its customer base on what they can use their funds for under existing contribution limits. Recommended Reading Every room in the house is 'where the customer wants us to go': Bath & Body Works CEO
Yahoo
05-03-2025
- Business
- Yahoo
Digging into claim that Obama created DOGE and Trump just renamed it
In February 2025, a rumor regarding the Department of Government Efficiency spread on social media — that U.S. President Donald Trump merely renamed an office created by former President Barack Obama rather than establishing the new DOGE initiative himself. Social media users credited Obama with founding the U.S. Digital Service in 2014, which Trump later rebranded as the U.S. DOGE Service. Posts on the topic appeared on X, Facebook, Instagram and Reddit, often via a copy-pasted text that in some posts stated: Obama created United States Digital Service (USDS) in 2014. It was meant as a bureaucratic patch job to fix the Obamacare website meltdown. Fast forward to 2025. Trump rebrands it DOGE (United States DOGE Service). Keeps the acronym, keeps the funding, but gives it a whole new mission: Find the Receipts […] Obama created DOGE. Trump is just capitalizing on it to Make America Great Again!! The claims originated from a Feb. 6, 2025, Substack article by Tom Renz titled "DOGE - A Lawyer's Perspective." Renz is an attorney who first gained media attention by spreading false claims and filing lawsuits challenging COVID-19 vaccines. In the article, Renz wrote: "Trump did NOT actually create a new agency. Instead what he did was repurpose an existing agency - the USDS - into something more useful." Renz also shared a thread on X stating that the "USDS was an Obamacare office created to make government software better." Tech billionaire Elon Musk — the public face of DOGE — reposted Renz's thread, writing: "We just renamed US Digital Services, created by Obama, to US DOGE Services, with a mandate to modernize all computer systems in the US government." In short, Obama did establish the USDS in 2014 and Trump renamed it the United States DOGE Service in January 2025. However, the entity under Trump's administration has a broader mission than Obama's USDS, focusing not only on modernizing federal technology but also on reducing waste, reforming bureaucracy and cutting government spending. In August 2014, Obama founded the USDS to address the 2013 launch issues. Its stated aims included creating a team of top digital talent to improve government service delivery and the digital experience for citizens and businesses. This was also emphasized on the Obama White House website. The official USDS website stated that its initial priorities were modernizing immigration, veterans' benefits and It also explained that its mission was to "deliver better government services to the American people through technology and design." According to a news release, its objectives included transforming public-facing services and expanding the use of common platforms, services and tools as well as rethinking "how the Government buys digital services." An Aug. 13, 2024, news release marking the 10th anniversary of the USDS highlighted its origins as a crisis response team addressing service delivery challenges. Over time, the USDS evolved into "a trusted partner for over 30 federal agencies – working directly with them to deliver superior services to the public and to build digital capabilities for the future." Therefore, the office was a technology-focused initiative within the Office of Management and Budget, not a regulatory or investigative agency. More details can be seen in the latest USDS impact report. On Jan. 20, 2025, Trump signed an executive order titled "Establishing and Implementing the President's 'Department of Government Efficiency.'" It stated that the USDS was being renamed as the United States DOGE Service. Both entities use the same acronym; however, the United States DOGE Service is more commonly known as DOGE. As the BBC reported, despite its full name, the Department of Government Efficiency is not an official government department and was not created by an act of Congress. The executive order also moved the USDS from the OMB to the Executive Office of the President. It broadly stated that DOGE's purpose was "to implement the President's DOGE Agenda, by modernizing Federal technology and software to maximize governmental efficiency and productivity." Trump's executive order also momentarily established the U.S. DOGE Service Temporary Organization until July 4, 2026 — a provision that applies only to this entity, not DOGE as a whole. Its stated purpose is to advance "the President's 18-month DOGE agenda." Finally, the executive order mandated the creation of "DOGE teams" within federal agencies. Each agency must establish a team of at least four members, typically including a "DOGE team lead," an engineer, a human resources specialist and an attorney. It read: "Agency Heads shall ensure that DOGE Team Leads coordinate their work with USDS and advise their respective Agency Heads on implementing the President's DOGE Agenda." The executive order establishing DOGE mandated the appointment of a "USDS administrator" to lead the "Software Modernization Initiative." While Musk has often been portrayed as DOGE's leader, the White House confirmed in late February 2025 that Amy Gleason was the acting administrator. Office of Administration Director Joshua Fisher stated under oath that Musk is a White House employee but does not hold an official position within DOGE. Other executive orders referencing DOGE highlight its role in ensuring efficiency, enforcing merit-based hiring and overseeing regulatory compliance. For instance, a Jan. 20 executive order tasks the DOGE administrator with shaping a federal hiring plan focused on bringing in "only highly skilled Americans dedicated to the furtherance of American ideals, values, and interests." A Feb. 11 executive order expands on this, requiring agency heads to work with DOGE team leads to prioritize hiring in high-need areas. Other executive orders give DOGE a role in financial oversight. A Feb. 19 executive order on border policy directs the DOGE administrator to help "identify all other sources of Federal funding for illegal aliens," while a Feb. 26 executive order, focused on cost efficiency, requires agencies to implement tracking systems for payments and contracts under DOGE guidance. Additionally, "DOGE" (or the term "Department of Government Efficiency") appeared on multiple White House webpages, often described as an initiative to streamline government, cut inefficiencies and shrink the workforce. Trump's Jan. 20 inaugural address and various fact sheets framed it as a way to optimize hiring and limit new positions to essential roles. Other references emphasized DOGE's role in uncovering alleged waste, fraud and abuse. Trump's remarks and fact sheets from mid-February also credited it with identifying billions in wasted taxpayer funds. A Feb. 20 post summarizing its first month reiterated DOGE's goal of maximizing government productivity. Musk's posts on X, the platform he owns, regarding DOGE also focused on its role in eliminating alleged waste and fraud. For instance, in one post, Musk wrote that DOGE "is trying to STOP your tax dollars from being stolen for WASTE and FRAUD," in another he called it "the wood chipper for bureaucracy" and in a third he said it "will greatly improve government efficiency, saving your tax dollars and ending rampant inflation." Therefore, unlike the Obama-era USDS, which focused on modernizing federal technology and digital services, Trump's DOGE is framed as a bureaucratic streamlining initiative tasked with reducing waste, fraud and inefficiency. As of now, the Trump-era USDS is undergoing restructuring, with unclear details on merging the so-called legacy USDS and the new DOGE. On Feb. 15, business news outlet Bloomberg UK reported that the DOGE team had sent termination notices to legacy USDS staff. Four days later, technology news outlet Wired noted that on Feb. 18, around 50 employees were fired while others met with DOGE representatives to discuss the future. On Feb. 25, multiple news media outlets reported that 21 USDS employees had resigned. Snopes has investigated numerous DOGE-related claims in the past. For instance, on Feb. 20, we fact-checked a claim that Musk said he would ask Trump about a proposal to use savings made by the initiative to issue a $5,000 refund to every U.S. taxpaying household. "10 Years of the U.S. Digital Service: Transforming Government for the Digital Age | OMB." The White House, 13 Aug. 2024, "Agency Information Collection Activity: United States Digital Service (USDS), Office of Management and Budget Collection of Formative Research on Agency Service Delivery." Federal Register, 1 Dec. 2021, "Alleged Spikes in Medical Conditions among the Military after COVID-19 Vaccine Rollout Are Based on Faulty Data Due to a Database Glitch - Science Feedback." 17 Feb. 2022, "America Is Back — and President Trump Is Just Getting Started." The White House, 20 Feb. 2025, Bose, Nandita. "White House Says Amy Gleason Is the Acting Administrator for Musk's DOGE Program." Reuters, 26 Feb. 2025. Check, Reuters Fact. "Fact Check: No Evidence over 48,000 People Died within 14 Days of Receiving COVID-19 Vaccine." Reuters, 8 Oct. 2021. Clarke, Amelia. "Yes, Musk Said He'd Ask Trump about $5K Checks for US Taxpayers Funded by DOGE Savings." Snopes, 21 Feb. 2025, "Delivering a Customer-Focused Government Through Smarter IT." 11 Aug. 2014, "---." 11 Aug. 2014, Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE) | Savings, Elon Musk, & Facts | Britannica. 25 Feb. 2025, "Ending Taxpayer Subsidization of Open Borders." The White House, 19 Feb. 2025, "Ensuring Lawful Governance and Implementing the President's 'Department of Government Efficiency' Regulatory Initiative." The White House, 20 Feb. 2025, "Establishing And Implementing The President's 'Department Of Government Efficiency.'" The White House, 21 Jan. 2025, "---." The White House, 21 Jan. 2025, "Fact Sheet: President Donald J. Trump Eliminates the Federal Executive Institute." The White House, 11 Feb. 2025, "Fact Sheet: President Donald J. Trump Reduces the Federal Bureaucracy." The White House, 20 Feb. 2025, "Fact Sheet: President Donald J. Trump Reins in Government Overreach and Begins Deconstruction of Unconstitutional Administrative State." The White House, 20 Feb. 2025, "Fact Sheet: President Donald J. Trump Requires Transparency for the American People About Wasteful Spending." The White House, 18 Feb. 2025, "Fact Sheet: President Donald J. Trump Works to Remake America's Federal Workforce." The White House, 11 Feb. 2025, Griffiths, Alice Tecotzky, Brent D. 'Meet the Person Officially in Charge at DOGE (Hint: It's Not Elon Musk)'. Business Insider, Accessed 26 Feb. 2025. Hernandez, Joe. 'Amy Gleason Is the Acting Administrator of DOGE, the White House Says. Who Is She?' NPR, 26 Feb. 2025. NPR, "Hiring Freeze." The White House, 20 Jan. 2025, "Implementing The President's 'Department of Government Efficiency' Workforce Optimization Initiative." The White House, 11 Feb. 2025, Kelly, Makena. "USDS Engineering Director Resigns: 'This Is Not the Mission I Came to Serve.'" Wired. Accessed 26 Feb. 2025. "Our Mission." United States Digital Service, Accessed 26 Feb. 2025. "---." United States Digital Service, Accessed 26 Feb. 2025. Rascouët-Paz, Anna. "Unpacking Claims That Elon Musk and His DOGE Team Secured Access to Treasury Payment Systems." Snopes, 4 Feb. 2025, ---. "Unpacking Claims That Elon Musk and His DOGE Team Secured Access to Treasury Payment Systems." Snopes, 4 Feb. 2025, "Reforming The Federal Hiring Process And Restoring Merit To Government Service." The White House, 21 Jan. 2025, "Remarks by President Trump after Executive Order Signing." The White House, 18 Feb. 2025, Renz, Tom. "DOGE - A Lawyer's Perspective." Tom Renz's Newsletter, 6 Feb. 2025, "The Inaugural Address." The White House, 20 Jan. 2025, "The United States Digital Service." 4 May 2016, What Is Doge and Why Is Musk Cutting so Many Jobs? 18 Feb. 2025, "Who Is Amy Gleason, the Person Named DOGE's Acting Administrator by the White House?" AP News, 25 Feb. 2025,
Yahoo
19-02-2025
- Business
- Yahoo
Opinion - Musk and Trump are blatantly violating the Constitution
Since President Trump took office just under a month ago, Elon Musk and his team of privateers have rampaged through government, demolishing agencies, rifling through private data, firing thousands of career federal employees and even changing signage on federal buildings and historic sites. The White House has justified Musk's authority under the label 'special government employee.' The media has taken the bait to an alarming degree, covering Musk and his Department of Government Efficiency as if they are legitimate agents of the federal government. This is legal window-dressing, as two lawsuits allege — one filed in federal court in Washington, D.C. and one in Maryland. Both cases claim that Musk is operating unconstitutionally and seek injunctions stripping Musk of his powers and endeavoring to undo some of the damage he has already done to the nation. Of all the lawsuits filed since Jan. 20, these two are perhaps the most important. Although it is normally Congress's job to create agencies and give them their power by statute, Trump created DOGE by executive order. He renamed an existing agency, the U.S. Digital Service, which President Barack Obama created as a sub-entity within the Executive Office of the President. That office was created in 1939 by President Franklin D. Roosevelt to give the president support to govern effectively, including assisting with messaging to the American people and promoting our interests abroad. The Digital Service's role was to improve the government's digital interfaces, including the website that launched Obamacare. As the 26 current and former government employee plaintiffs in the Maryland suit allege, Musk's authority far surpasses that of a presidential advisor within the reasonable scope of the Executive Office of the President or U.S. Digital Service. 'His power includes, at least, the authority to cease the payment of congressionally approved funds, access sensitive and confidential data across government agencies, cut off systems access to federal employees and contractors at will, and take over and dismantle entire independent federal agencies,' their complaint states. Such a delegation of power requires an act of Congress. The D.C. case was filed by a group of 19 state attorneys general, who write, 'President Trump has delegated virtually unchecked authority to Mr. Musk without proper legal authorization from Congress and without meaningful supervision of his activities.' Special government employees are supposed to be temporary — employed no more than 130 days within a 365-day period. They are also subject to conflict-of-interest laws. In a letter sent to White House Chief of Staff Susie Wiles on Monday, Sen. Adam Schiff (D-Calif.) wrote, 'Musk's compliance with federal conflicts of interest and other related obligations remains unknown to Congress and the public.' The conflict-of-interest laws have criminal implications. And Musk's conflicts are glaring, as his companies are under federal scrutiny by several agencies over which he has immense power. The Guardian reported, for example, that FDA staff reviewing Musk's brain implant company Neuralink had been fired over the weekend. Even if Musk is a compliant special government employee, Trump has no authority to give him power that the executive does not have — including the power to dismantle entire federal agencies. Again, that requires an act of Congress. In a post-hearing filing in the case before Judge Tanya Chutkan, Joshua Fisher, the director of the White House Office of Administration, declared that Musk 'has no actual or formal authority to make government decisions himself,' including personnel decisions at individual agencies; that Musk is an employee of the White House Office (not the U.S. Digital Service or the U.S. DOGE Service Temporary Organization); and that Musk only has the ability to advise the president, or communicate the president's directives, like many other senior White House advisors (citing the example of Biden advisor Anita Dunn). These assertions are plainly false. On Tuesday, Chutkan denied a temporary restraining order, finding that the plaintiffs 'have not adequately linked Defendants' actions to imminent harm to [the] States in particular' with sufficient specificity to justify such extraordinary relief. But she also wrote that their Appointments Clause claims have 'serious implications,' and that 'even Defendants concede there is no apparent 'source of legal authority granting [DOGE] the power' to take some of the actions challenged here.' Chutkan added that what Trump gave Musk 'appears to be the unchecked authority of an unelected individual and an entity that was not created by Congress and over which it has no oversight.' The legal heart of both lawsuits is the Constitution's Article II Appointments Clause, which gives the president the power to 'nominate, and by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate … appoint … all other Officers of the United States … which shall be established by Law: but the Congress may by Law vest the Appointment of such inferior Officers, as they think proper, in the President alone, in the Courts of Law, or in the Heads of Departments.' Let's unpack this. First, the Constitution says that 'officers' — which the Supreme Court has read to mean 'principal officers' who exercise 'significant authority,' such as Cabinet-level department heads — must be nominated by the president but are subject to confirmation through the advice and consent of the Senate. Musk appears to have more power right now than any single Cabinet official, because he exercises power over a range of federal agencies and their thousands of employees. But he was neither nominated by the president nor confirmed by the Senate. Second, the Constitution states that the position of 'officer' in question must be established by the Constitution itself or 'shall be established by law' — meaning through an act of Congress. Musk's job is not created by the Constitution and Congress did not even create DOGE, let alone establish by law the role that Musk is now playing. Third, the Constitution creates a lesser category of 'inferior officer.' Even if Trump's lawyers could manage to legitimately argue that Musk qualifies as 'inferior' — a notion that fails the straight-face test — it wouldn't help them get around the legal problems with Trump anointing Musk with unlimited power. The Constitution states that the appointment of inferior officers without Senate confirmation must be, once again, created by Congress. Congress can give the president the power to appoint them if it wants to, but it has not done that here. One of the disappointing — if not downright heartbreaking — aspects of the Trump-Musk takeover of government is that Congress is going along with it. Congress could defund the U.S. Digital Service and thus DOGE, although Musk likely will not miss his federal paycheck since he is forgoing it. Congress could also pass legislation specifically banning the Musk special government employee role and rolling back what he and his team have done. At the very least, Congress could hold oversight hearings — which Democrats have demanded — to find out what the heck is even going on. Or, as the Framers intended, Congress could begin impeachment proceedings on the rationale that dismantling the government as we know it violates the Constitution. Every member of Congress takes an oath to 'support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic.' The failure of Republicans in Congress to do anything about Musk — anything at all — may prove to be the most colossal violation of that sacred oath in American history. Kimberly Wehle is author of the new book 'Pardon Power: How the Pardon System Works — and Why.' Copyright 2025 Nexstar Media, Inc. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.
The Hill
19-02-2025
- Business
- The Hill
Musk and Trump are blatantly violating the Constitution
Since President Trump took office just under a month ago, Elon Musk and his team of privateers have rampaged through government, demolishing agencies, rifling through private data, firing thousands of career federal employees and even changing signage on federal buildings and historic sites. The White House has justified Musk's authority under the label 'special government employee.' The media has taken the bait to an alarming degree, covering Musk and his Department of Government Efficiency as if they are legitimate agents of the federal government. This is legal window-dressing, as two lawsuits allege — one filed in federal court in Washington, D.C. and one in Maryland. Both cases claim that Musk is operating unconstitutionally and seek injunctions stripping Musk of his powers and endeavoring to undo some of the damage he has already done to the nation. Of all the lawsuits filed since Jan. 20, these two are perhaps the most important. Although it is normally Congress's job to create agencies and give them their power by statute, Trump created DOGE by executive order. He renamed an existing agency, the U.S. Digital Service, which President Barack Obama created as a sub-entity within the Executive Office of the President. That office was created in 1939 by President Franklin D. Roosevelt to give the president support to govern effectively, including assisting with messaging to the American people and promoting our interests abroad. The Digital Service's role was to improve the government's digital interfaces, including the website that launched Obamacare. As the 26 current and former government employee plaintiffs in the Maryland suit allege, Musk's authority far surpasses that of a presidential advisor within the reasonable scope of the Executive Office of the President or U.S. Digital Service. 'His power includes, at least, the authority to cease the payment of congressionally approved funds, access sensitive and confidential data across government agencies, cut off systems access to federal employees and contractors at will, and take over and dismantle entire independent federal agencies,' their complaint states. Such a delegation of power requires an act of Congress. The D.C. case was filed by a group of 19 state attorneys general, who write, 'President Trump has delegated virtually unchecked authority to Mr. Musk without proper legal authorization from Congress and without meaningful supervision of his activities.' Special government employees are supposed to be temporary — employed no more than 130 days within a 365-day period. They are also subject to conflict-of-interest laws. In a letter sent to White House Chief of Staff Susie Wiles on Monday, Sen. Adam Schiff (D-Calif.) wrote, 'Musk's compliance with federal conflicts of interest and other related obligations remains unknown to Congress and the public.' The conflict-of-interest laws have criminal implications. And Musk's conflicts are glaring, as his companies are under federal scrutiny by several agencies over which he has immense power. The Guardian reported, for example, that FDA staff reviewing Musk's brain implant company Neuralink had been fired over the weekend. Even if Musk is a compliant special government employee, Trump has no authority to give him power that the executive does not have — including the power to dismantle entire federal agencies. Again, that requires an act of Congress. In a post-hearing filing in the case before Judge Tanya Chutkan, Joshua Fisher, the director of the White House Office of Administration, declared that Musk 'has no actual or formal authority to make government decisions himself,' including personnel decisions at individual agencies; that Musk is an employee of the White House Office (not the U.S. Digital Service or the U.S. DOGE Service Temporary Organization); and that Musk only has the ability to advise the president, or communicate the president's directives, like many other senior White House advisors (citing the example of Biden advisor Anita Dunn). These assertions are plainly false. On Tuesday, Chutkan denied a temporary restraining order, finding that the plaintiffs 'have not adequately linked Defendants' actions to imminent harm to [the] States in particular' with sufficient specificity to justify such extraordinary relief. But she also wrote that their Appointments Clause claims have 'serious implications,' and that 'even Defendants concede there is no apparent 'source of legal authority granting [DOGE] the power' to take some of the actions challenged here.' Chutkan added that what Trump gave Musk 'appears to be the unchecked authority of an unelected individual and an entity that was not created by Congress and over which it has no oversight.' The legal heart of both lawsuits is the Constitution's Article II Appointments Clause, which gives the president the power to 'nominate, and by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate … appoint … all other Officers of the United States … which shall be established by Law: but the Congress may by Law vest the Appointment of such inferior Officers, as they think proper, in the President alone, in the Courts of Law, or in the Heads of Departments.' Let's unpack this. First, the Constitution says that 'officers' — which the Supreme Court has read to mean 'principal officers' who exercise 'significant authority,' such as Cabinet-level department heads — must be nominated by the president but are subject to confirmation through the advice and consent of the Senate. Musk appears to have more power right now than any single Cabinet official, because he exercises power over a range of federal agencies and their thousands of employees. But he was neither nominated by the president nor confirmed by the Senate. Second, the Constitution states that the position of 'officer' in question must be established by the Constitution itself or 'shall be established by law' — meaning through an act of Congress. Musk's job is not created by the Constitution and Congress did not even create DOGE, let alone establish by law the role that Musk is now playing. Third, the Constitution creates a lesser category of 'inferior officer.' Even if Trump's lawyers could manage to legitimately argue that Musk qualifies as 'inferior' — a notion that fails the straight-face test — it wouldn't help them get around the legal problems with Trump anointing Musk with unlimited power. The Constitution states that inferior officers must be, once again, created by Congress. Congress can give the president the power to appoint them if it wants to, but it has not done that here. One of the disappointing — if not downright heartbreaking — aspects of the Trump-Musk takeover of government is that Congress is going along with it. Congress could defund the U.S. Digital Service and thus DOGE, although Musk likely will not miss his federal paycheck since he is forgoing it. Congress could also pass legislation specifically banning the Musk special government employee role and rolling back what he and his team have done. At the very least, Congress could hold oversight hearings — which Democrats have demanded — to find out what the heck is even going on. Or, as the Framers intended, Congress could begin impeachment proceedings on the rationale that dismantling the government as we know it violates the Constitution. Every member of Congress takes an oath to 'support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic.' The failure of Republicans in Congress to do anything about Musk — anything at all — may prove to be the most colossal violation of that sacred oath in American history.
