President Trump appeared to backtrack Thursday on the authority granted to billionaire Elon Musk in the administration’s controversial federal workforce reduction efforts, telling reporters that Cabinet secretaries—not Musk—will have final say over which employees keep their jobs. The statement marks a significant shift in messaging about who controls the sweeping cuts that have already affected thousands of federal workers.

Confusion Over Musk’s Authority Continues

Speaking to reporters in the Oval Office after a Cabinet meeting that Musk also attended, Trump stated: “I don’t want to see a big cut where a lot of good people are cut. I want the Cabinet members to keep the good people, and the people that aren’t doing a good job, that are unreliable, don’t show up to work, etc., those people can be cut.”

However, Trump added a notable caveat—”If they can cut, it’s better. And if they don’t cut then Elon will do the cutting”—suggesting Musk may still have significant authority if Cabinet members don’t meet expectations for workforce reductions.

The clarification comes just days after Trump told Congress that the so-called Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE) is “headed” by Musk, despite White House statements that Musk is merely a “special government employee” with advisory capacity and no policy-setting authority.

DOGE: Not an Actual Federal Agency

Constitutional scholars and government watchdogs have raised serious concerns about DOGE, which despite its official-sounding name, is not an actual federal agency. This unusual arrangement has created a legal gray area that has already sparked multiple lawsuits challenging the mass terminations carried out across federal departments.

The lack of transparency regarding DOGE’s structure, authority, and accountability mechanisms has alarmed good government advocates. Musk, who has extensive private business interests that could potentially benefit from certain policy decisions, appears to wield significant influence without the typical oversight mechanisms that apply to government officials.

“This administration has created an unprecedented and potentially unconstitutional power structure,” said Dr. Eleanor Hamilton, professor of public administration at Georgetown University. “Giving a private citizen with no official government position this level of control over federal operations raises serious questions about conflicts of interest and administrative law.”

Even Republicans Express Concern

The confusion over who ultimately controls federal workforce cuts has drawn criticism from across the political spectrum. Senate Majority Leader John Thune (R-S.D.) told CNN on Tuesday that while Musk’s goals are “right,” agency leaders are “probably better attuned to the individual programs.”

This rare public pushback from a key Republican ally highlights growing unease about the administration’s approach to government restructuring and Musk’s ambiguous role in the process.

Legal Challenges Mount

The uncertainty over decision-making authority comes as nearly 6,000 USDA workers who were dismissed have been ordered back to work, at least temporarily, following legal challenges to the termination process.

Labor organizations and civil rights groups have filed multiple lawsuits alleging the mass firings violated federal employment law, which requires specific procedures for reductions in force. The administration’s rushed approach and unclear chain of command has created legal vulnerabilities that could potentially undermine the entire cost-cutting initiative.

“When you have the president himself giving contradictory statements about who’s in charge, it creates a procedural nightmare that almost certainly violates established administrative law,” explained Reginald Washington, a former Department of Labor attorney. “The federal workforce isn’t a private company where executives can hire and fire at will.”

What Comes Next?

In a social media post Thursday, Trump outlined a more methodical approach moving forward, writing that he has “instructed the Secretaries and Leadership to work with DOGE on Cost Cutting measures and Staffing.” He added that as secretaries “learn about, and understand, the people working for the various Departments, they can be very precise as to who will remain, and who will go. We say the ‘scalpel’ rather than the ‘hatchet.'”

This apparent shift toward a more targeted approach comes after widespread criticism of the initial wave of terminations, which critics say included many experienced civil servants whose institutional knowledge will be difficult to replace.

The Bottom Line

As the administration continues its aggressive pursuit of government downsizing, the ongoing confusion about decision-making authority threatens to undermine not only the effort’s effectiveness but potentially its legality. The unusual arrangement with Musk—a private citizen with vast business interests—playing a central but ill-defined role in restructuring the federal government raises fundamental questions about transparency, accountability, and the proper functioning of democratic institutions.

While Trump’s latest statements suggest a greater role for Cabinet secretaries, the contradictory messaging and continued involvement of Musk through the unofficial DOGE entity ensure that legal and ethical questions will continue to surround this unprecedented approach to federal workforce management.