• Donald Trump continues to call Elon Musk DOGE's leader.
• Trump's latest comments came during his joint address to Congress.
• The White House and the Justice Department have said Musk is not leading DOGE.

During his record-setting joint address to Congress, President Donald Trump continued calling Elon Musk the leader of the White House DOGE office.

"I have created the brand-new Department of Government Efficiency, DOGE, perhaps you've heard of it, which is headed by Elon Musk, who is in the gallery tonight," Trump said in his speech Tuesday night.

Trump's habit of saying Musk is in charge of the group has already created legal headaches for his administration, which has repeatedly said the Tesla CEO is not actually leading DOGE.

A group of plaintiffs challenging DOGE's constitutionality immediately alerted a Washington, DC, federal judge to Trump's comments almost as soon as the president finished his speech.

"At approximately 9:46 PM, President Trump stated the following in his Joint Address to Congress," the plaintiffs wrote in their filing.

The plaintiffs, who include two attorneys, quickly filed a lawsuit against the Trump administration on the day Trump was sworn into office, arguing that the creation of DOGE violates the transparency requirements of the 1972 Federal Advisory Committee Act. The lawsuit declares DOGE a federal advisory committee that should be subject to the FACA law.

The law, which was designed to boost public accountability, covers advisory committees that are either formed or utilized by the president.

An amended lawsuit filed by the plaintiffs says "Musk continues to speak for DOGE and take credit for DOGE's activities, while not being" the administrator for the US DOGE Service.

DOGE was birthed out of a rebrand of the United States Digital Service — a technology unit housed in the executive office of the president.

"DOGE continues to take actions which are completely unrelated to the USDS mandate set forth" in Trump's day one executive order that formally established DOGE, the amended complaint says.

US District Judge Jia Cobb has since consolidated the case with two other similar cases.

Trump's joint address comments were cited in another court filing in a Maryland case brought against Musk and DOGE by 26 current and former USAID employees or contractors.

Attorneys for the plaintiffs on Wednesday filed a letter to the federal judge overseeing the case asking the court "to take judicial notice of these relevant admissions."

"Plaintiffs respectfully write to bring to the Court's attention additional relevant admissions made last night. Defendants consent to providing these facts to the Court," the letter read. "During his joint address to Congress, President Donald Trump twice identified Defendant Musk as DOGE's leader."

The plaintiffs' lawsuit alleges that Musk's actions in the Trump administration are "unconstitutional."

And a new lawsuit filed on Wednesday in Washington, DC, federal court against Musk and the Trump administration also cites Trump's joint address speech.

"Mr. Musk is acting as a principal officer of the United States. However, Mr. Musk has not been appointed to a position as an officer of the United States, in accordance with the Appointments Clause," says the lawsuit, which was brought by a group of nonprofits, including the Japanese American Citizens League.

Meanwhile, a top White House official previously said in federal court that Musk was neither the DOGE office administrator nor even an employee of the group. The White House has also repeatedly stressed that Musk is just a senior advisor to the president. After weeks of refusing to name DOGE's administrator publicly, the White House said that Amy Gleason, a US Digital Service employee, was the acting administrator of the DOGE office.

Multiple signs suggest that Musk remains DOGE's de facto leader, dating back to Trump's initial creation of "The Department of Government Efficiency," when he named the billionaire as its co-leader.

Just days ago, a Department of Justice lawyer struggled to answer questions from a district court judge about DOGE's structure. Anna Bower, a Lawfare editor, posted part of the exchange on X.

"Who was the head of DOGE before Amy Gleason?" Judge Theodore Chuang asked the DOJ attorney, Joshua Gardner.

"I can't answer that. I don't know," Gardner responded.

Trump is no stranger to making public statements that create headaches for the Justice Department.

During his first term, Trump's tweets were repeatedly used as evidence in various lawsuits brought against his administration.

At one point, the DOJ said that Trump's tweets were not presidential actions.

The White House didn't immediately return a request for comment from Business Insider.

• The Supreme Court ruled against the Trump administration over USAID's funding.
• The decision upholds a lower court's ruling to release funds to USAID contractors.
• Justice Samuel Alito dissented, saying he was "stunned" by the high court's ruling.

The US Supreme Court on Wednesday sided against the Trump administration and upheld a lower court's decision to force the release of nearly $2 billion in foreign aid funds.

The nation's high court ruled 5-4 in rejecting the Trump administration's request to cancel the foreign aid money from the US Agency for International Development.

Justice Samuel Alito, in his dissenting opinion, wrote that he was "stunned" by the court's decision that ultimately forces the Trump administration to pay out the billions to USAID contractors.

"Does a single district-court judge who likely lacks jurisdiction have the unchecked power to compel the Government of the United States to pay out (and probably lose forever) 2 billion taxpayer dollars? The answer to that question should be an emphatic 'No,' but a majority of this Court apparently thinks otherwise. I am stunned," Alito wrote in his dissenting opinion.

The opinion was joined by Justices Clarence Thomas, Neil Gorsuch, and Brett Kavanaugh.

Alito wrote that the government has "shown that it is likely to suffer irreparable harm" if a lower court's decision "is not stayed."

"The Government has represented that it would probably be unable to recover much of the money after it is paid because it would be quickly spent by the recipients or disbursed to third parties," Alito wrote.

Alito added in his dissent that the Supreme Court made a "most unfortunate misstep that rewards an act of judicial hubris and imposes a $2 billion penalty on American taxpayers."

The relief ordered by the Supreme Court, Alito said, "is, quite simply, too extreme a response."

"A federal court has many tools to address a party's supposed nonfeasance. Self-aggrandizement of its jurisdiction is not one of them. I would chart a different path than the Court does today, so I must respectfully dissent," Alito wrote.

The Supreme Court did not provide details about when the funds should be released, but said that the district court judge who issued the temporary restraining order that halted the freeze of USAID funding "should clarify what obligations the Government must fulfill to ensure compliance with the temporary restraining order, with due regard for the feasibility of any compliance timelines."

Last month, two nonprofits — the AIDS Vaccine Advocacy Coalition and Journalism Development Network — filed a lawsuit against the Trump administration over President Donald Trump's executive order calling for a 90-day pause of all US foreign assistance programs.

The nonprofits argued in their lawsuit that the order was "unlawful."

District Judge Amir Ali of Washington, DC, issued a temporary restraining order in the case, which the Trump administration appealed. The Trump administration petitioned the Supreme Court on February 26.

Lauren Bateman, an attorney with Public Citizen Litigation Group who represents the plaintiffs, cheered the Supreme Court's decision.

"Today's ruling by the Supreme Court confirms that the Administration cannot ignore the law," Bateman said in a statement. "To stop needless suffering and death, the government must now comply with the order issued three weeks ago to lift its unlawful termination of federal assistance."

This story was updated to add more details from the ruling.

• In a new lawsuit, Jay-Z unloads on a woman who said he raped her at age 13 at a Diddy party.
• She has since admitted to Jay-Z's camp that her rape accusation was false, the new lawsuit alleges.
• Jay-Z is the latest celebrity to hit back against their accusers with allegations of defamation.

Rap superstar Jay-Z on Monday filed a hotly-worded defamation lawsuit against a woman who last year accused him of raping her at age 13 at a party hosted by Sean "Diddy" Combs.

In his lawsuit, Jay-Z alleges that the Alabama-based accuser, identified only as Jane Doe, has admitted to the rapper's own reps that her rape accusation, made in her own now-abandoned lawsuit, had been false.

Jay-Z, whose real name is Shawn Carter, is the latest in a line of celebrities that includes Johnny Depp, Justin Baldoni, Bill Cosby, and Marylin Mason to fight back against their accusers with their own allegations of defamation over the years.

Lawyers told Business Insider these kinds of lawsuits are becoming more common — even though they're especially hard to win.

High-profile defendants may bring a defamation lawsuit in an attempt to clear their names and deter other potential accusers from coming forward, said Neama Rahmani, the president and cofounder of West Coast Trial Lawyers.

"It's a different world right now. People are getting canceled left and right, so the way to fight back, whether you're Johnny Depp, Baldoni, or Jay-Z, is to file these defamation lawsuits to give the accusers pause," said Rahmani.

Jay-Z's endgame, the former federal prosecutor speculated, may be to leverage some kind of public retraction out of the accuser.

"Jay-Z obviously doesn't need the money, so he's not trying to get millions of dollars from Jane Doe," said Rahmani.

In order to win the lawsuit, Rahmani said Jay-Z would need to prove actual malice.

"Malice means that Jane Doe knew the statements were untruthful, or acted in reckless disregard for the truth, so it's a higher standard," said Rahmani, adding, "It's not easy to prove malice."

Celebrities can fight sexual assault accusations through their publicists and the court of public opinion, but a lawsuit takes that effort to a level beyond "just bluster," defamation attorney Dustin Pusch, a cofounder of Meier Watkins Phillips Pusch LLP, told BI.

Defamation plaintiffs must prove not only malice but falsity, said Pusch, who in 2023 helped win a $787.5 million defamation settlement for Dominion Voting Systems against Fox News.

"By filing a lawsuit, defamation plaintiffs are telling the world that not only are the claims about them false, but they can prove it — and they are willing to put themselves under a microscope to do it," he said. "That is a powerful message."

Courtney Caprio, a partner at Florida-based firm Caldera Law, told BI that the dueling lawsuits between Baldoni and Blake Lively — who accused him of sexual harassment — highlight how "celebrities will file suit to protect their reputations, as their fame and marketability can be destroyed when facts are deemed optional."

"Celebrity defamation lawsuits are on the upswing for a reason: they provide a celebrity with the benefit of our American judicial system to be the final arbiter of the truth to vindicate their hard-earned reputations," Caprio said in an email.

Jay-Z's lawsuit alleges that his accuser 'voluntarily admitted' that her accusations were 'false'

Jay-Z's lawsuit says that his Jane Doe accuser "has now voluntarily admitted directly to representatives of Mr. Carter that the story brought before the world in court and on global television was just that: a false, malicious story."

The woman is described in the lawsuit as financially bankrupt, suffering from mental health and drug issues, and "desperate to obtain a payday."

She has "made three other sexual assault allegations which were either dropped or dismissed by courts," Jay-Z's lawsuit alleges.

The woman's lawyers, Texas-based civil attorneys Tony Buzbee and David Fortney, also come under heavy fire in the lawsuit, which was filed in federal court in Alabama.

Jay-Z alleges that the lawyers and their client "were soullessly motivated by greed, in abject disregard of the truth and the most fundamental precepts of human decency."

Buzbee had filed the Jane Doe's lawsuit last year knowing that the accusations against Jay-Z were false, the lawsuit alleges.

"That assertion is absolute hogwash," Buzbee told Business Insider of the claim on Tuesday morning.

"Jane Doe has never wavered and certainly has never recanted. Jay Z's team made that up. We intend to address these lies in due course," Buzbee added.

The woman had first told her story in an explosive October lawsuit that was amended in December to also name Jay-Z.

She described being a 13-year-old girl who'd hoped to see celebrities as she waited outside Radio City Music Hall in New York City during the 2000 Video Music Awards show.

Her lawsuit described being invited and then driven by a limo driver to a party hosted by Combs in "a large white house." There, she alleged, she signed an NDA, was given a drink by "waitstaff," and was then raped by Combs and Jay-Z while "Celebrity B," a female unnamed in the lawsuit, watched.

Her lawsuit was dropped last month, with Buzbee declining to comment at the time. Representatives for Jay-Z and Combs had steadfastly denied any sexual assault took place.

The woman's description of events was an "impossibility" and an "absurdity," Jay-Z's lawsuit said Monday.

Her legal efforts amounted to extortion by "malevolent, soulless lawyers," the lawsuit also alleged, and started with a "menacing" November 5 private demand letter.

Only after Jay-Z's reps refused this demand for an "extortionate payoff," was the rapper then publicly named, it says.

"Buzbee then went forward with naming Mr. Carter, with full knowledge by him, as imparted to him by Doe, that Mr. Carter had never assaulted Doe, and Doe's entire story as it related to Mr. Carter was completely fabricated," Monday's lawsuit said.

Compounding matters, on Friday the Buzbee firm "threatened Mr. Carter's counsel to double-down with yet another false public statement by Doe" if her admissions of lying were revealed, the lawsuit said.

The lawsuit seeks unspecified monetary damages.

Buzbee, meanwhile, is unbowed.

"We intend to seek a restraining order for Jay Z's team to leave this poor woman alone," he told BI. "She has been harassed and threatened and we intend to make them stop."

• A judge sided with Justin Baldoni in a phone records fight amid his legal battle with Blake Lively.
• Lively sought to subpoena Baldoni and his associates' phone records going back to 2022.
• The judge called the subpoenas "overly intrusive and disproportionate to the needs of the case."

Justin Baldoni scored a win in his fight to keep his phone records out of the ongoing legal battle with his "It Ends With Us" costar Blake Lively.

The Manhattan federal judge overseeing Lively's sexual harassment lawsuit against Baldoni and Baldoni's defamation countersuit against Lively and her husband, Ryan Reynolds, ruled Friday that Lively cannot subpoena Baldoni and his associates' phone records going back to 2022.

In a written order, US District Judge Lewis Litman called Lively's subpoenas for the phone data "overly intrusive and disproportionate to the needs of the case."

"Lively mainly argues that the Subpoenas will help to identify 'the larger network of individuals' who perpetuated a negative media campaign against her," the judge wrote. "But according to Lively's complaint, this negative campaign did not begin until approximately August 2024."

"It is therefore unclear how communications to and from" Baldoni and his associates "in 2022 and 2023 would reveal individuals who participated in the campaign," Litman wrote.

Baldoni's lawyer, Bryan Freedman, hailed the judge's order as a "big win" for his client in a statement to Business Insider.

"The Court put a stop to Ms. Lively's egregious attempt to invade our clients' privacy," Freedman said, adding, "No matter how the Lively Parties may try to spin this decision, the Court saw their efforts for what they really are: a desperate fishing expedition intended to salvage their debunked claims long after they already savaged our clients' reputations in the New York Times."

A spokesperson for Lively questioned what Freedman is "hiding" in a statement to BI.

"After promising to release all the 'receipts,' Freedman ran into court to keep secret the phone records of who" Baldoni and the co-defendants named in Lively's suit, "were calling during their retaliatory campaign" against Lively, the spokesperson said.

"So, instead of getting these records from the phone carriers the way we initially requested, the judge has ruled that if we simply submit more specific requests, we will be able to get the records we are seeking. Today we will do that, we are submitting those requests directly to defendants involved and we look forward to seeing the records," the spokesperson said.

Lively's legal team first issued subpoenas earlier this month to AT&T, Verizon, and T-Mobile for incoming and outgoing calls or texts messages going back to December 2022, but Baldoni's team quickly tried to block it. Lively narrowed the scope of those subpoenas, but Baldoni's team said it didn't go far enough.

The judge agreed, saying in his Friday ruling that the subpoenas issued by Lively's lawyers "implicates legitimate privacy interests."

Litman wrote that even though Lively has adjusted her requests "the phone records themselves would still contain sensitive information regarding which doctors, psychologists, or even acquaintances" Baldoni and his co-defendants "spoke to, and when."

Lively's lawsuit accuses Baldoni, who is also the director of "It Ends With Us," of sexual harassment on the set of the 2024 movie and of engaging in a retaliatory online smear campaign against her. Baldoni has denied the allegations.

The judge noted in his ruling that Lively's complaint already identifies "many individuals who allegedly participated in a negative media campaign."

Litman wrote that Lively's legal team "may make discovery requests tailored to those individuals" and that Lively "is permitted to use the tools of discovery to identify the contact information or telephone numbers for those individuals."

"Even assuming additional individuals participated in the alleged campaign, the hope that discovery will turn up information on such participants does not justify the broad scope of the Subpoenas," Litman wrote.

Though Litman ordered that the subpoenas "must be quashed to the extent they seek the phone records" of Baldoni and his codefendants — which include his production company, Wayfarer Studios, his fellow producers, and his publicists — the judge denied Baldoni's motion involving the portions of the subpoenas that seek the phone records of people not named as defendants in the lawsuit.

Baldoni's attorneys told the judge in a Friday letter that the subpoenas seek the phone records of employees of Wayfarer Studios.

"The Wayfarer Employees object to the Subpoenas for the same reasons set forth by the Wayfarer Parties," the letter read.

Litman ordered that Lively's legal team respond by March 4, saying no action would be taken while the motion is pending.

• The Trump administration already faces more than 85 lawsuits.
• Some lawsuits challenge President Donald Trump and Elon Musk's moves to shrink the federal government.
• Below are some lawsuits corporate America, as well as consumers, may want to keep tabs on.

President Donald Trump's executive orders and actions by his administration have already spurred more than 85 lawsuits since he was sworn into office for a second term.

A chunk of those legal challenges has emerged in response to Trump and Elon Musk's push to shrink the federal government through the work of DOGE.

Here are some high-stakes lawsuits related to the moves of the Trump administration and DOGE that corporate America, as well as consumers, may want to keep tabs on.

Lawsuit over the dismantling of the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau

It did not take long before the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau — a federal watchdog agency designed to oversee financial institutions and protect people from scams — became a target of the Trump administration.

On February 1, Trump fired Rohit Chopra, the CFPB director under former President Joe Biden, and on February 7, Musk wrote on X, "CFPB RIP."

Shortly after, Russell Vought, the bureau's acting director, sent an email to employees ordering them to "not perform any work tasks this week." The agency's Washington, DC, headquarters was also ordered closed.

The National Treasury Employees Union and other workers' unions quickly filed a lawsuit against the Trump administration in Washington, DC, federal court, alleging that the move to "dismantle" the CFPB is unlawful since the agency was created by Congress.

US District Judge Amy Berman Jackson, who is overseeing the case, said in a ruling on February 14 that the Trump administration could not terminate any CFPB employee without cause. She also ordered that the defendants not "delete, destroy, remove, or impair any data or other CFPB records covered by the Federal Records Act."

In a February 24 court filing, Justice Department attorneys argued against the plaintiffs' motion for a preliminary injunction and said that the Trump administration plans to streamline the CFPB.

Jay Kesten, a law professor at Florida State University who researches securities regulation and corporate law, called the CFPB "one of the few governmental watchdogs for our financial markets."

"In the short-term, while litigation is pending, this is very likely to disrupt the ability of consumers to hold bad-actors in the banking and credit markets to account," Kesten told BI.

Lawsuit challenging Trump's termination of DEI programs

A lawsuit brought earlier this month against the Trump administration by the city of Baltimore, Maryland, higher education groups and a restaurant workers' organization challenged Trump's executive orders targeting diversity, equity, and inclusion programs in the federal government.

One executive order calls for federal agencies to terminate all "equity-related" grants or contracts, while another requires federal contractors and grant recipients to "certify" that they do not operate any illegal DEI programs.

The plaintiffs — which include the National Association of Diversity Officers in Higher Education, the American Association of University Professors, and the Restaurant Opportunities Centers United —argued in their lawsuit that the orders are "unconstitutionally vague."

US District Judge Adam Abelson issued a preliminary injunction on February 21 temporarily blocking the Trump administration from enforcing parts of the orders.

In his written opinion, the judge added that the plaintiffs "have shown they are unable to know which of their DEI programs (if any) violate federal anti-discrimination laws, and are highly likely to chill their own speech."

The Trump administration has moved to appeal the ruling.

Peter Woo, a California lawyer specializing in corporate diversity practices at the firm Jackson Lewis, told BI that though the case does provide some temporary reprieve at least to federal contractors and private entities that receive federal grants, the court's ruling does not prevent the Department of Justice or other federal agencies from launching a probe over DEI initiatives.

"The only thing that it blocks the AG from doing is to use the term 'illegal DEI' as the basis to conduct those investigations," Woo said.

One of Trump's executive orders encourages the private sector to end "illegal DEI discrimination and preferences." As part of that plan, the order tasks each federal agency to "identify up to nine potential civil compliance investigations" of enterprises including publicly traded corporations and large nonprofits.

The Head of the Office of Special Counsel sued the Trump administration over his termination

Hampton Dellinger, the head of an independent government watchdog agency that protects federal whistleblowers, sued the Trump administration, including US Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent, after he was fired through a one-sentence email this month.

In his lawsuit filed in Washington, DC, federal court, Dellinger argued that his termination from the Office of Special Counsel was unlawful and the president may only cut his five-year term short "for inefficiency, neglect of duty, or malfeasance in office."

US District Judge Amy Berman Jackson granted a temporary restraining order on February 12, reinstating Dellinger to his post for 14 days. The case reached the Supreme Court after the Trump administration filed an emergency petition, and the court left Jackson's order in place for now.

Jackson, on February 26, extended the temporary restraining order reinstating Dellinger by three days before she rules on the motion for a preliminary injunction.

Also on February 26, Trump administration's acting solicitor general urged the Supreme Court to take up the case, arguing in part that a "fired Special Counsel" shouldn't be allowed to continue "wielding executive power."

Roderick Hills, a New York University School of Law professor, told BI that the case could be consequential for the business world. That's because, he said, it appears the Trump administration wants to use the case as a vehicle to try to get the nation's high court to overrule a 1935 legal precedent called Humphrey's Executor, which says Congress can insulate agency chiefs from presidential removal.

If that precedent — which is cited in Dellinger's lawsuit — gets overruled for all independent agencies, that means that even the Federal Reserve Board could be placed under presidential control, said Hills, who researches administrative and constitutional law.

"If the Federal Reserve Board served at the pleasure of the president, you can just imagine the chaos that Trump could reap," Hills said.

Lawsuit over DOGE's access to sensitive taxpayer data at the IRS

Following reports that DOGE was seeking broad access to sensitive taxpayer data at the Internal Revenue Service, a group of watchdog organizations and workers unions filed a lawsuit against the Trump administration. In it, they allege that DOGE's efforts to gain access to the confidential information is illegal.

The data in question includes individuals' social security numbers, income and net worth, bank account information, tax liability, deductions and charitable donations as well as confidential business information like profit and loss statements and payroll lists, the lawsuit says.

The plaintiffs — which include the advocacy groups Center for Taxpayer Rights and Main Street Alliance, along with workers' unions National Federation of Federal Employees and Communications Workers of America — argue that Congress has not granted DOGE the authority to view the data and that such sweeping access violates the Tax Reform Act, the Privacy Act, and the Administrative Procedure Act.

The White House and the Treasury Department later agreed to block DOGE's full access to the IRS's payment systems, instead granting read-only access to anonymous taxpayer data.

Kesten, the law professor at Florida State University, told BI that lawsuits involving alleged privacy violations like this one could fuel greater cybersecurity concerns within the business community.

"This may be a very novel kind of problem that they face where privacy information, data leaks, come not from hackers or other folks trying to obtain access, but coming from leaks through governmental sources," Kesten said.

Lawsuit over the Trump administration's firing of Inspectors General

In Trump's first few days in office, the Trump administration fired more than a dozen inspectors general, telling them in a two-sentence email they were being terminated because of "changing priorities."

After their termination, eight inspectors general from the departments of defense, veterans affairs, health and human services, state, education, agriculture, labor, and the Small Business Administration sued the Trump administration, arguing that their firings "violated unambiguous federal statutes" designed to protect them from "interference" in their nonpartisan oversight duties.

Inspectors general — who conduct audits, investigate reports of misconduct, and look for waste and fraud in federal agencies and government contractors — are expected to be independent of the president.

The plaintiffs also argue that the Trump administration violated the Inspector General Act of 1978 by not notifying Congress of their terminations 30 days in advance, and not giving a reason for their removal.

On February 14, US District Judge Ana Reyes, who is overseeing the case, denied the inspectors' general request to be immediately reinstated in their roles, saying that their emergency request was not necessary. The judge, however, allowed for the case to proceed, just on a slower timeline.

Joseph Slater, a law professor at the University of Toledo and an expert in labor and employment law, told BI that while this case directly involves rules specific to the federal sector, it could have downstream effects on the business world.

"The question will be how much an agency without traditional checks and with a decidedly partisan slant can abuse its authority in terms of regulating/not regulating and rewarding/punishing private sector businesses for what previously would have been seen as improper reasons," Slater said in an email.

Federal workers' unions sue over Trump administration's buyout offer

Trump and Musk's plan to root out federal employees with buyout offers was allowed to move forward.

In late January, the Trump administration gave just over 2 million government workers the chance to resign and maintain full pay and benefits until September 30. Employees originally had until February 6 to accept the buyout.

Federal workers' unions, including the American Federation of Government Employees and the National Association of Government Employees, then sued the Trump administration, arguing that the country "will suffer a dangerous one-two punch" if the federal employees "leave or are forced out en masse."

The lawsuit said that the "fork in the road" deferred resignation offer was "arbitrary," "capricious," and unlawful.

US District Judge George O'Toole Jr. of Massachusetts initially issued a temporary restraining order to extend the deadline on the offer, but ultimately ruled on February 12 that the program could proceed. The judge wrote in his order that the labor unions who sued did not have standing to bring the lawsuit because they were not "directly impacted by the directive."

In a statement to Business Insider after the judge issued his order, Everett Kelley, the president of the American Federation of Government Employees called the ruling "a setback in the fight for dignity and fairness for public servants," but said, "it's not the end of that fight."

About 75,000 federal employees have accepted the buyout offer, the Trump administration has said.

The White House did not immediately respond to a request for comment for this story.

• A federal judge indefinitely blocked the Trump administration's attempt to freeze federal funding.
• The Trump administration's actions were "irrational" and "precipitated a nationwide crisis," a judge said.
• The funding freeze prompted lawsuits from nonprofits and state attorneys general.

A Washington, DC, federal judge on Tuesday sided with a band of nonprofit groups and issued a preliminary injunction blocking the Trump administration's attempt to freeze hundreds of billions of dollars in federal grants and loans.

In her written opinion indefinitely blocking the administration's move to freeze federal funding, US District Judge Loren AliKhan wrote that the freeze "was ill-conceived from the beginning."

"Defendants either wanted to pause up to $3 trillion in federal spending practically overnight, or they expected each federal agency to review every single one of its grants, loans, and funds for compliance in less than twenty-four hours. The breadth of that command is almost unfathomable," the judge wrote.

She said the Trump administration's actions were "irrational, imprudent, and precipitated a nationwide crisis."

The judge said that the groups that brought the lawsuit "have marshaled significant evidence indicating that the funding freeze would be economically catastrophic — and in some circumstances, fatal — to their members."

"The pause placed critical programs for children, the elderly, and everyone in between in serious jeopardy," AliKhan wrote. "Because the public's interest in not having trillions of dollars arbitrarily frozen cannot be overstated, Plaintiffs have more than met their burden here."

The White House did not immediately respond to a request for comment.

Skye Perryman, the president and CEO of Democracy Forward, the group that's representing the nonprofits, said in a statement that the preliminary injunction "will allow our clients to continue to provide services to people across this country."

"We are pleased that the court issued this ruling, halting the Trump administration's lawless attempt to harm everyday Americans in service of a political goal," Perryman said.

AliKhan and another federal judge in Rhode Island previously issued a temporary restraining order against the administration's federal funds freeze after a group of nonprofits and Democratic state attorneys general filed separate lawsuits last month, arguing that the freeze was unlawful.

US District Judge John McConnell Jr. of Rhode Island, who is overseeing the lawsuit brought by 22 states and the District of Columbia, found earlier this month that the Trump administration was violating his court order by continuing to freeze funding for federal programs.

McConnell had ordered the administration to immediately restore and resume the funding. The White House appealed that order to the 1st US Circuit Court of Appeals but was denied.

The case in DC was brought by the advocacy groups the National Council of Nonprofits, American Public Health Association, Main Street Alliance, and SAGE.

At a court hearing last week, Kevin Friedl, an attorney with Democracy Forward who is representing the nonprofits, said that AliKhan's temporary restraining order has "shown value" even though the administration's unfreezing of funds "in response to that order has not always been smooth."

Friedl said the temporary restraining order has had "a real effect" and helped his clients, but added that continued relief remained "necessary."

Department of Justice attorney Daniel Schwei argued that the plaintiffs' claims were moot since President Donald Trump's budget office had already rescinded the memo ordering the freeze on federal spending.

"Plaintiffs now agree that the funding that they would receive under their grant awards is available to them, and they say that there's still a need for continued preliminary relief from this court," Schwei said. "That is an inherently speculative proposition."

Schwei said that it was "speculative" to assume that the Office of Management and Budget "might reimplement some pause in the future."

"Certainly we don't think there's a need for emergency preliminary relief from this court to enjoin such hypothetical future pauses," Schwei said.

The Trump administration set off a wave of mass confusion after the Office of Management and Budget dropped a memo on January 27 ordering the temporary freezing of "all federal financial assistance" beginning 5 p.m. the following day, so that the spending could be reviewed.

"The use of Federal resources to advance Marxist equity, transgenderism, and green new deal social engineering policies is a waste of taxpayer dollars that does not improve the day-to-day lives of those we serve," the acting OMB director, Matthew Vaeth, wrote in the memo.

OMB rescinded the memo on January 29.

• Blake Lively has filed an amended lawsuit against her "It Ends With Us" costar Justin Baldoni.
• The amended complaint alleges Lively was not the only woman to complain about Baldoni's on-set behavior.
• "Mr. Baldoni acknowledged the complaints in writing at the time," the newly filed court papers say.

Blake Lively alleges in an amended lawsuit against Justin Baldoni that she was not the only woman on the "It Ends With Us" set to complain about his behavior.

The amended 163-page complaint — which is 52 pages longer than the original sexual harassment complaint that Lively filed in December — says that Baldoni made other women "uncomfortable" on the set of the summer box-office hit.

It also says Baldoni — Lively's costar and director in "It Ends With Us" — and his production company, Wayfarer Studios, knew about it.

"Ms. Lively brought this lawsuit because she was one of the 'women or two' that Mr. Baldoni 'one million percent' made 'made uncomfortable' on the set of the Film," the amended complaint, filed late Tuesday in Manhattan federal court, says.

The amended complaint says that the "false narrative" by Baldoni and the other defendants, which includes Wayfarer Studios, his fellow producers, and his publicists, "crumbles under the indisputable truth that Ms. Lively was not alone in complaining about Mr. Baldoni and raised her concerns contemporaneously as they arose in 2023."

Those complaints by Lively and other cast members were documented at the time they began in May 2023, the amended suit alleges.

"Importantly, and contrary to the entire narrative Defendants have invented, Mr. Baldoni acknowledged the complaints in writing at the time," the court papers say. "He knew that women other than Ms. Lively also were uncomfortable and had complained about his behavior."

The additional women that the amended lawsuit refers to are not named in the court documents. However, the newly-filed complaint says that those "witnesses" have given Lively "permission to share the substance of their communications" and it says they will "testify and produce responsive documents in the discovery process."

Bryan Freedman, an attorney representing Baldoni and his film studio, called Lively's amended complaint "underwhelming" in a statement to Business Insider on Wednesday.

"Our clients have been transparent in providing receipts, real time documents and video showing a completely different story than what has been manipulated and cherry picked to the media. Our clients have taken this matter and these issues very seriously notwithstanding the jokes made publicly by the plaintiff and her husband," Freedman said, referencing the recent "Saturday Night Live" bit by Lively's husband Ryan Reynolds.

Freedman said that Lively's "underwhelming amended complaint is filled with unsubstantial hearsay of unnamed persons who are clearly no longer willing to come forward or publicly support her claims."

"Since documents do not lie and people do, the upcoming depositions of those who initially supported Ms. Lively's false claims and those who are witnesses to her own behavior will be enlightening," Freedman said. "What is truly uncomfortable here is Ms. Lively's lack of actual evidence."

Lively's attorneys Esra Hudson and Mike Gottlieb told BI in a statement on Wednesday that their client's amended lawsuit "provides significant additional evidence and corroboration of her original claims."

"The complaint includes significant contemporaneous evidence that Ms. Lively was not alone in raising allegations of on-set misconduct more than a year before the Film was edited; as well as evidence detailing the threats, harassment, and intimidation of not just Ms. Lively, but numerous innocent bystanders that have followed defendants' retaliatory campaign," Hudson and Gottlieb said.

Lively's amended complaint adds Texas crisis consultant Jed Wallace and his PR firm Street Relations as defendants. Wallace sued Lively earlier this month for defamation. Attorneys for Wallace did not immediately respond to a request for comment by BI.

Lively initially sued Baldoni in December, accusing him of sexual harassment on the "It Ends With Us" set and of engaging in a retaliatory online smear campaign against her after she made the accusations.

Baldoni, who has denied the allegations, then countersued Lively and Reynolds, in a defamation complaint seeking $400 million in damages. The two cases have since been consolidated into one.

Lively's attorneys, Hudson and Gottlieb, told BI on Wednesday that over the next several weeks the legal team will move to dismiss the "utterly meritless lawsuits brought against Ms. Lively and Mr. Reynolds."

The lawyers said they will "move full speed ahead with discovery that we expect will reveal shocking details about the depth to which the Defendants have sunk in their unending efforts to 'bury,' 'ruin,' and 'destroy' Ms. Lively and her family."

• A federal judge rejected a bid to block Elon Musk's DOGE from federal data access.
• Democratic state AGs filed a lawsuit against Musk and President Donald Trump last week.
• In her ruling, the judge wrote that Musk's power in the administration appears to be "unchecked."

In a win for the Trump administration, a Washington, DC, federal judge on Tuesday rejected a bid by a group of state attorneys general to block Elon Musk's DOGE from accessing data systems across seven federal agencies.

US District Judge Tanya Chutkan wrote in a written order that the more than a dozen Democratic attorneys general who filed a lawsuit against Musk and President Donald Trump "have not carried their burden of showing that they will suffer imminent, irreparable harm absent a temporary restraining order."

In her 10-page ruling, Chutkan, who was appointed by former President Barack Obama, wrote that the court is "aware" that the Department of Government Efficiency's "unpredictable actions have resulted in considerable uncertainty and confusion for Plaintiffs and many of their agencies and residents."

Even though Chutkan also said in the ruling that Musk's power in the Trump administration appears to be "unchecked," she said she could not issue the temporary restraining order sought by the band of AGs.

"Plaintiffs legitimately call into question what 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," Chutkan wrote.

"In these circumstances, it must be indisputable that this court acts within the bounds of its authority. Accordingly, it cannot issue a TRO, especially one as wide-ranging as Plaintiffs request, without clear evidence of imminent, irreparable harm to these Plaintiffs," the judge wrote. "The current record does not meet that standard."

Last week, the state attorneys general filed the lawsuit, accusing the tech billionaire Musk of an "unlawful assault" on the federal government through his work with DOGE.

The AGs alleged in the lawsuit that Trump has given "virtually unchecked authority" to Musk in violation of the US Constitution.

"As a result, he has transformed a minor position that was formerly responsible for managing government websites into a designated agent of chaos without limitation and in violation of the separation of powers," the lawsuit said.

Since Trump was sworn into office last month for a second presidential term, his administration, along with Musk, has wasted no time in its efforts to shrink the federal government.

The lawsuit alleged that Musk's "seemingly limitless and unchecked power to strip the government of its workforce and eliminate entire departments with the stroke of a pen or click of a mouse would have been shocking to those who won this country's independence."

The attorneys general said in the lawsuit that Musk's "officer-level" actions are unconstitutional since the SpaceX and Tesla CEO has not been nominated or confirmed by the Senate.

• In an "SNL" appearance, Ryan Reynolds nodded to the drama surrounding him and Blake Lively.
• Baldoni's attorney, speaking on a podcast, took a shot at Reynolds over the apparent reference.
• Lively sued Baldoni, alleging sexual harassment, and he countersued her and Reynolds.

An attorney for "It Ends With Us" director and star Justin Baldoni ridiculed Ryan Reynolds over his veiled reference on "Saturday Night Live" to his and his wife Blake Lively's ongoing legal drama.

Baldoni's lawyer, Bryan Freedman, took the shot at Reynolds during a Monday appearance on Billy Bush's "Hot Mics" show.

"I'm unaware of anybody, frankly, whose wife has been sexually harassed and has made jokes about that type of situation," Freedman told Bush, adding, "I can't think of anyone who's done anything like that, and so it surprised me."

Freedman was reacting to the joke Reynolds made during "SNL's" star-studded 50th anniversary show on Sunday.

During a question-and-answer bit hosted by "SNL" veterans Tina Fey and Amy Poehler, the "Deadpool" star, who was seated in the audience next to Lively, stood up to ask a question as a part of the skit.

"Ryan Reynolds! How's it going?" Fey said from the stage to which Reynolds replied, "Great, why, what have you heard?" prompting laughter from the audience.

Reynolds and Lively — who starred opposite Baldoni in the summer box-office hit — have been embroiled in a contentious legal fight with Baldoni since December.

Lively initially sued Baldoni in Manhattan federal court, accusing him of sexual harassment on the "It Ends With Us" set and of engaging in a retaliatory online smear campaign against her. Defendants in Lively's lawsuit include Baldoni's production company, Wayfarer Studios, his fellow producers, and his publicists.

Baldoni, who has denied the allegations, then countersued Lively and Reynolds in a defamation complaint seeking $400 million in damages. The two cases have since been consolidated into one.

Freedman, while speaking on Bush's podcast, called Reynolds' "SNL" joke "the latest move" in the legal feud. Representatives for Reynolds and Lively did not respond to a request for comment from Business Insider on Freedman's podcast appearance.

Meanwhile, this comes as Baldoni's attorneys are trying to block Lively and Reynolds' lawyers from subpoenas for years worth of phone records from Baldoni and his associates.

In a February 14 letter to the judge overseeing the case, attorneys for Baldoni called the subpoenas issued by Lively and Reynold's lawyers to cellular providers AT&T, Verizon, and T-Mobile "flagrantly overbroad."

The subpoenas seek "all documents concerning ingoing and ongoing calls or text messages" related to certain numbers "over a period of multiple years, in most cases spanning from December 1, 2022 to the present," the letter says.

"It is hard to overstate how broad, invasive, and atypical these Subpoenas truly are. This is civil litigation, not a criminal prosecution, and the Lively Parties are not the FBI," the letter continues. "Yet the Subpoenas seek not only the complete call and text history of each of the targets over a period of several years (no matter the sender, recipient, or subject matter) but also, over the same period, real-time location information and data logs reflecting, among other things, web browsing history."

Attorneys for Lively and Reynolds said in a letter to the judge the next day that Baldoni sued the couple for a "preposterous sum" of $400 million for claiming that a "retaliatory campaign existed, yet now appear to fear having third parties turn over the actual evidence that would document the who, what, when, where, and why of that campaign."

"The Lively-Reynolds parties have not sought (and do not seek here) anything other than non-content records as permitted by law," the letter says.

A spokesperson for Lively told BI on Tuesday, "If they have so many receipts why are they so afraid to produce them."

"Now they want to block the very discovery that would expose them. If they didn't do it, they would have nothing to hide," the spokesperson said of Baldoni's team.

Attorneys for Baldoni did not immediately respond to a request for comment.

• State attorneys general have filed a new lawsuit against Elon Musk and President Donald Trump.
• The lawsuit accuses Musk of an "unlawful assault" on the federal government through his DOGE work.
• The suit also takes aim at Musk's access to the Defense Department, which has contracts with SpaceX.

A band of state attorneys general has sued Elon Musk and President Donald Trump, accusing the tech billionaire of an "unlawful assault" on the federal government through his role as the head of DOGE.

The more than a dozen Democratic attorneys general allege in the lawsuit, filed Thursday in Washington, DC, federal court, that Trump has given "virtually unchecked authority" to Musk in violation of the US Constitution.

"As a result, he has transformed a minor position that was formerly responsible for managing government websites into a designated agent of chaos without limitation and in violation of the separation of powers," the lawsuit says.

Since Trump was sworn into office last month for a second presidential term, his administration, along with Musk, has wasted no time in its efforts to shrink the federal government.

The attorneys general, from states including Oregon, New Mexico, California, Rhode Island, Massachusetts, and Maryland, say they want the court to "restore constitutional order" and block Musk from issuing orders to anyone in the executive branch outside DOGE.

They also want the court to declare that Musk's actions are not legally binding in addition to ordering him to "identify all ways in which any data obtained through unlawful agency access was used, including whether it was used to train any algorithmic models or create or obtain derivative data."

Musk launched an AI startup called xAI in 2023.

Lawsuit takes aim at Musk's access to Defense Department

The Department of Defense is now among Musk's slew of targets as Trump has directed Musk's Department of Government Efficiency to investigate whether the Pentagon is wastefully spending. The lawsuit takes aim at Musk's access to the department, noting it "has billions of dollars in contracts with Mr. Musk" through his SpaceX company and others.

"The Defense Department relies on SpaceX to get most of its satellites into orbit and works closely with his companies on a variety of other initiatives," the lawsuit says, adding: "This authority over the Defense Department, including its contracts, management of personnel, its funding decisions, programs, and systems, may only be exercised by a duly appointed officer."

Records from the federal site USAspending.gov say Musk's SpaceX had been awarded at least $6 billion from the Department of Defense since 2003.

Musk and the White House did not immediately respond to requests for comment on the lawsuit. The Department of Defense declined to comment.

The lawsuit alleges that Musk's "seemingly limitless and unchecked power to strip the government of its workforce and eliminate entire departments with the stroke of a pen or click of a mouse would have been shocking to those who won this country's independence."

It says: "There is no office of the United States, other than the President, with the full power of the Executive Branch, and the sweeping authority now vested in a single unelected and unconfirmed individual is antithetical to the nation's entire constitutional structure."

The attorneys general say in the lawsuit that Musk's "officer-level" actions are unconstitutional since the SpaceX and Tesla CEO has not been nominated or confirmed by the Senate.

"Mr. Musk is far more than an adviser to the White House," the lawsuit says. "He executes the President's agenda by exercising virtually unchecked power across the entire Executive Branch, making decisions about expenditures, contracts, government property, regulations, and the very existence of federal agencies."

Attorney General Dan Rayfield of Oregon said in a statement, "Elon Musk's attempt to demolish key government systems has thrown everything into chaos."

"This power grab puts people's privacy and security at risk. No one should be able to mess with the systems that keep our country running," said Rayfield.

Some of Trump and Musk's boldest moves have so far been challenged in lawsuits, resulting in judges either blocking or temporarily halting them.

• Thomson Reuters scored an early victory in an AI-related copyright case against Ross Intelligence.
• The ruling highlights fair use limits. Fair use is at the center of ongoing AI copyright lawsuits.
• Legal experts say the case differs from other litigation involving generative AI firms.

Content and technology conglomerate Thomson Reuters this week scored the first big win in a US artificial intelligence-related copyright case.

A federal judge's Delaware ruling in favor of Thomson Reuters on the legal doctrine of "fair use," however, does not mean that the slew of authors and publishers who have sued generative AI companies like OpenAI for copyright infringement can expect to have the same kind of success, tech law experts told Business Insider.

The ruling, though, could have an influence on the outcome of those cases that are currently winding through the courts, one of the tech law experts said.

Thomson Reuters sued the now-shuttered legal AI startup Ross Intelligence in 2020, arguing that Ross infringed its copyrights when the startup used content from Thomson Reuters' Westlaw legal research database to create a competing platform that uses artificial intelligence.

In his revised ruling Tuesday, US District Court Judge Stephanos Bibas shot down Ross' fair use defense and instead granted a summary judgment for Thomas Reuters on fair use.

"None of Ross's possible defenses holds water. I reject them all," Bibas wrote in the ruling, in which he explained that in his 2023 opinion in the case, he denied summary judgment on fair use.

The question of fair use is at the heart of major ongoing copyright lawsuits against generative AI firms. Companies like OpenAI have pointed to the fair use exemption to copyright laws in order to justify their use of copyrighted material to train AI models.

Legal experts told BI that there are key nuances in Thomson Reuters' case against Ross and the blockbuster litigation involving generative AI firms — one being that the Thomson Reuters case doesn't have to do with generative AI technology.

Bibas made that distinction in his ruling, writing, "Ross was using Thomson Reuters's headnotes as AI data to create a legal research tool to compete with Westlaw. It is undisputed that Ross's AI is not generative AI (AI that writes new content itself). Rather, when a user enters a legal question, Ross spits back relevant judicial opinions that have already been written."

Mark Bartholomew, a University at Buffalo law professor, told BI that he does not think the ruling will have a dramatic effect on the other major AI-related copyright cases since it's just one opinion of a lower court and "neglects some of the most important fair use case law."

"Still, the plaintiffs in those upcoming cases, like The New York Times, have to be happy with the outcome here," Bartholomew said, adding that those plaintiffs will likely "trumpet this decision in their legal briefs."

The New York Times sued OpenAI for copyright infringement in 2023. The New York Times declined to comment for this story. OpenAI did not immediately respond to a request for comment.

One of the other ways that the Thomson Reuters case is different from other ongoing AI-related copyright infringement litigation is that Ross Intelligence was a direct competitor of Thomson Reuters, Bartholomew pointed out.

"In many of the other copyright AI cases to be decided, the defendant is accused of copying to train the AI for an arguably new purpose that does not directly compete with the original," Bartholomew said. "That may allow this case to be distinguished, allowing the AI platforms to argue they still satisfy the fair use defense regardless of the holding in Thomson."

Harry Surden, a professor at the University of Colorado Law School, said that he fears judges overseeing other AI copyright lawsuits may not take into account the differences between the cases.

The ruling is "likely to confuse judges and others on the issue of generative AI, but there are significant differences that are very subtle and most people will miss," Surden said, explaining, "It's both a different technology and the company was acting kind of duplicitously here."

For those reasons, Surden said the ruling should not have much influence on the ongoing AI copyright cases. He thinks it will anyway.

"Judges tend not to be experts in copyright law or generative AI, so I think they're likely to miss a lot of these nuances, and I think it will, unfortunately, have an effect on other cases," said Surden.

James Gatto, a partner at the law firm Sheppard Mullin who co-leads the firm's AI industry team, told BI it remains to be seen what kind of ripple effect, if any, the ruling in favor of Thomson Reuters will have.

"Fair use is a fact-specific inquiry unique to each case," said Gatto.

Though the judge's decision does not address generative AI, Gatto said it "reinforces the limits of fair use, particularly in cases where copyrighted material is used for non-transformative purposes to develop a competing product."

"The court easily determined that Ross's use was commercial, as Ross sought to profit from the copyrighted material without paying the customary price," said Gatto.

Meanwhile, Thomson Reuters hailed the legal win, saying in a statement to BI: "We are pleased that the court granted summary judgment in our favor and concluded that Westlaw's editorial content created and maintained by our attorney editors, is protected by copyright and cannot be used without our consent. The copying of our content was not 'fair use.'"

Representatives for Ross did not immediately respond to a request for comment.

• Sean "Diddy" Combs has sued NBCUniversal for $100 million.
• The lawsuit accuses NBCUniversal of defamation by airing falsehoods in a documentary about him.
• The "Diddy: The Making of a Bad Boy" documentary is streaming on Peacock.

Sean "Diddy" Combs has filed a defamation lawsuit against NBCUniversal over the media company's recent documentary "Diddy: The Making of a Bad Boy."

The lawsuit, filed in New York state court on Wednesday, accuses NBC of "shamelessly" airing "falsehoods," including that Combs sexually assaulted minors — an allegation in the documentary that Combs says was "based entirely on a false claim by an anonymous interviewee."

Combs also says in the lawsuit that the documentary "maliciously" accuses him of murdering a series of rivals and close friends, including longtime partner Kimberly Porter, rappers Christopher "Biggie" Wallace, and Heavy D, given name Dwight Arrington Myers.

"In the Documentary, Defendants accuse Mr. Combs of horrible crimes, including serial murder and sexual assault of minors — knowing that there is not a shred of evidence to support them," the lawsuit says.

The lawsuit also names Peacock TV and Ample Entertainment as defendants. Peacock, an NBC subsidiary, streamed the documentary, and Ample was the production company responsible for producing it.

Representatives for NBCUniversal didn't immediately return a request for comment by Business Insider. Ample couldn't immediately be reached.

The defendants worked together to "line their own pockets at the expense of truth, decency, and basic standards of professional journalism," the lawsuit says of the documentary, which first aired in January.

"As described in today's lawsuit, NBCUniversal Media, LLC, Peacock TV, LLC, and Ample LLC made a conscious decision to line their own pockets at the expense of truth, decency, and basic standards of professional journalism," Combs' attorney, Erica Wolff, said in a statement. "Grossly exploiting the trust of their audience and racing to outdo their competition for the most salacious Diddy exposé."

Combs is awaiting trial in Manhattan on federal charges including racketeering and sex trafficking. He has pleaded not guilty and has repeatedly denied allegations of sexual abuse in his criminal case and in multiple lawsuits accusing him of drugging and assaulting men and women over the past two decades.

The lawsuit Combs filed on Wednesday takes aim at portions of the documentary he says make false allegations against him, addressing each in strong language and lengthy detail.

Combs accuses the documentary of implying he had sex with minors — an allegation he says is based on a single interviewee who falsely claimed he saw two girls follow him into a room. The documentary includes the interviewee's "groundless speculation that 'for sure they were underage.'," the lawsuit says.

The allegation was likely "rehashed from a baseless lawsuit seeking $30 million," Combs' lawsuit says, in a reference to a February, 2024, lawsuit filed against the rapper by music producer Rodney Jones, Jr.

That lawsuit "has already been discredited by those adult women in their 30s referenced in that lawsuit who have come forward to say that they were adults at the time," Combs argues.

The rap entrepreneur takes special issue in his lawsuit with a suggestion in the documentary that Combs was responsible for Porter's death.

He calls Porter the mother to four of his children, his romantic partner for more than a decade, and "the love of his life." Porter died in 2018 at the age of 47 from lobar pneumonia.

"The Los Angeles County Coroner's Office has confirmed that her death was from natural causes and that there has never been any evidence of foul play," Combs' lawsuit says.

"The Documentary advances the false narrative that it cannot be a 'coincidence' that Ms. Porter and others in Mr. Combs's orbit have died, in a malicious attempt to insinuate that Mr. Combs murdered them."

Of Biggie — who died in a drive-by shooting in 1997 — Combs says in his lawsuit, "There has never been a hint of evidence to suggest that Mr. Combs was involved in the tragic murder of his friend."

Two other friends' deaths were addressed in the documentary — those of music executive Andre Harrell, who suffered heart failure in 2020, and Dwight Arrington Myers, a rapper and producer who had a fatal pulmonary embolism in 2011, Combs' lawsuit says.

People interviewed in the documentary, including Porter's ex Al B. Sure, speculate without evidence that Combs must have been involved with the deaths of Porter, Biggie, Harrell, and Myers, the lawsuit says.

"Defendants Ample and NBCU knew those statements were false or published them in reckless disregard for the truth," the suit says.

This story is breaking and will be updated.

• A highly visible campaign against DEI is underway against companies like Costco.
• Political pressure is putting execs into a delicate balancing act over how to run their businesses.
• Experts said diversity and inclusion are more baked into corporate culture than ever.

Costco has found itself in the political crosshairs over DEI, and now some corporate leaders are left wondering who could be next.

In the meantime, some are choosing to make tweaks or changes.

On Tuesday, Disney's HR chief told employees the company is rebranding its DEI metrics and programs, as well as changing the language of some content advisories.

And last week, Google linked changes to its DEI initiatives to concerns over compliance with executive orders, as the tech giant is a federal contractor.

Although many lawsuits and shareholder proposals against diversity, equity, and inclusion have failed, experts told Business Insider that the highly publicized challenges, including executive orders from the White House, could still have a chilling effect.

Companies are walking a line. They don't want to get into legal hot water, and yet they likely don't want to be seen as retreating from the values they've espoused for years.

At the same time, the experts — two lawyers and a business researcher — say the growing pressure on CEOs to eliminate their DEI practices might ultimately amount to little practical change in some workplaces.

While some companies, most notably Costco, are digging in their heels in defense of DEI, others, like McDonald's, are taking a more conciliatory approach to the issue.

DEI policies get a facelift

The main changes companies make will likely boil down to how they communicate about their policies, both internally and externally, said Michael Thomas, a California attorney specializing in corporate diversity practices at the law firm Jackson Lewis.

Thomas said his firm has seen an increase in requests from companies to review their DEI initiatives for legal risks from clients who are also concerned about how they are perceived by employees and customers.

A major piece of the firm's legal review is examining how companies communicate about their policies and practices in websites, reports, and other filings, he said.

Indeed, some of the changes at Disney appear to be more about how the company talks about DEI.

"What won't change is our commitment to fostering a company culture where everyone belongs and everyone can excel," Disney's chief human resources officer, Sonia Coleman, said in a memo obtained by BI.

Emphasizing style more than substance could suggest a likely path forward for companies that see diversity and inclusion as beneficial to their business.

"Even Walmart and McDonald's have conceded less than meets the eye," Yale School of Management's Jeffrey Sonnenfeld told BI. "They're keeping the same principles and objectives. It's just a question of nomenclature, metrics, and bureaucracies."

McDonalds, for example, said in its memo to franchisees earlier this month that it was retiring "aspirational representation goals," swapping a broad vendor DEI pledge with direct discussions with suppliers about inclusion, and changing the name of its diversity team to be the Global Inclusion Team.

Sonnenfeld pointed to the way terms like sustainability, climate change, and pollution abatement have cycled through the corporate lingo while generally sharing a common objective of protecting the environment.

Diversity and inclusion, in many cases, have been around long enough at this point that they're often deeply embedded in corporate cultures, making it significantly harder to regulate, he said.

"It's impossible to the point of insanity to try to ferret that out," he added. "So the less modular it is, the less vulnerable they are."

Some companies may pull back

Still, the anti-DEI pressure could have other companies taking a more drastic shift, said Jon Solorzano, a partner at the law firm Vinson & Elkins who advises public and private companies on areas related to ESG and risk management.

Under this new administration, companies that may have been on the fence about DEI may decide to pull back some programs, he said.

"Different companies view this differently," he said. "Those that are probably in the more consumer-facing world are particularly sensitive to the reputational risks on both sides."

Among the major companies that BI has tracked as retreating on DEI over the past year, most follow a similar pattern: ending representation goals that could be construed as quotas for hiring or sourcing, halting participation in rankings and surveys, and reassigning DEI-focused staff and resources.

More recently, BI reported that Amazon has changed the language on its website regarding DEI. A senior AWS executive told employees in her division that there would be "no changes" to key DEI-related benefits, including a transgender benefit offered by the company.

And earlier in December, Amazon's VP of inclusive experiences, Candi Castleberry, said in a memo shared with BI that while the company was ending some "outdated" programs, it was part of an "evolution to 'built in' and 'born inclusive,' instead of 'bolted on.'"

Of course, rebranding alone is not an option at federal agencies under Trump's rules, which require a deeper review of a program's history. Private companies aren't subject to that same level of government scrutiny — for now, at least.

Last Wednesday, newly sworn-in US Attorney General Pam Bondi said the Justice Department intends to "investigate, eliminate, and penalize illegal DEI and DEIA preferences, mandates, policies, programs, and activities in the private sector."

"They really need to balance those risks," Solorzano said in reference to companies' decision-making. "What's more risky, the reputational harm of dealing with one of these investigations or having a mutiny of their employees?"

Business leaders make a case for diversity

JPMorgan, like Costco, has also taken a strong stand in defense of diversity, equity, and inclusion and is now the target of political and activist pressure.

At the World Economic Forum in Davos, Jamie Dimon shrugged off an investor group's opposition to JPMorgan's DEI policies. In 2020, the bank started tracking executives' progress toward DEI goals, which affects their compensation, but it doesn't disclose publicly what proportion of executive pay is linked to DEI work.

Solorzano said he believes there will likely be a "bifurcation" of companies over DEI. While many companies in recent years have adopted DEI programs, he said, "I also don't know that for every organization it was really core to their strategy."

"For places like Costco, it actually may be," he added.

In Costco's December statement to shareholders, the board said diversity "helps bring originality and creativity" to its offerings, leading to greater satisfaction for its increasingly diverse customer base.

A group of 19 Republican state attorneys general last month wrote a letter to Costco CEO Ron Vachris expressing "concerns" about the company's compliance with changing state and federal laws. The AGs' letter doesn't identify any specific allegations of illegal practices.

Solozano said the scrutiny Costco is facing — and how Costco responds — is "definitely being watched by all other major consumer branded companies right now."

• A federal judge continued to pause President Donald Trump's buyout plan for federal workers.
• The resignation offer was challenged by a group of labor unions who argue it's unlawful.
• Last week, a judge extended the buyout deadline until Monday.

A federal judge in Massachusetts has continued his pause of President Donald Trump and DOGE-head Elon Musk's plan to root out federal employees with buyout offers.

Attorneys for the Trump administration and lawyers for a group of labor unions that sued the federal government over the "fork in the road" resignation offer faced off Monday in a Boston courtroom on the matter.

US District Judge George O'Toole Jr. said during the Monday court hearing that he was extending his deadline delay on the Trump administration's buyout deal until he issues a further ruling that could block the plan.

The judge also temporarily barred the government from seeking any more buyouts from federal workers, CNN reported. More than 65,000 federal workers have already taken the buyout, a spokesperson for US Office of Personnel Management told Business Insider earlier Monday.

"Public service on behalf of the American people is not something to be bought and sold. We are pleased that the court has continued to pause implementation of the so-called 'buy out' for non-partisan civil servants," Skye Perryman, the president and CEO of the nonprofit Democracy Forward, which filed the lawsuit on behalf of the union groups, said in a statement after the hearing.

Monday's court hearing came after O'Toole Jr. on Thursday delayed the buyout deadline until at least Monday, just hours before the actual 11:59 pm ET deadline.

"I enjoin the defendants from taking action to implement the so-called Fork directive, pending the completion of briefing and oral argument on the issues," the judge said at the time.

Following O'Toole's decision Thursday, the Office of Personnel Management — which is named as a defendant in the lawsuit — posted on X, "In compliance with the court order, the deadline for federal employees to accept the deferred resignation program is being extended to Monday, February 10, at 11:59pmET."

In the post on the social media site owned by Musk, OPM added, "The program is NOT being blocked or canceled. The government will honor the deferred resignation offer."

Late last month, the Trump administration gave just over 2 million government workers the chance to resign and maintain full pay and benefits until September 30. The resignation offer was a strategy straight out of Musk's playbook.

Days later, four government unions, including the American Federation of Government Employees, the American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees and the National Association of Government Employees, filed a lawsuit.

The unions, which represent more than 800,000 federal civil servants, said in their suit that the country "will suffer a dangerous one-two punch" if the federal employees "leave or are forced out en masse."

The lawsuit argued that the buyout offer is "arbitrary," "capricious," and unlawful.

"The Fork Directive is also contrary to law. OPM has offered no statutory basis for its unprecedented offer," the lawsuit said.

Since Trump was sworn into office three weeks ago for a second presidential term, his administration, along with Musk, the billionaire head of DOGE, has wasted no time in their efforts to shrink the federal government.

Some of Trump and Musk's boldest moves have either been blocked or temporarily halted by federal judges.

February 10, 2025: This story was updated to include more details from Monday's court hearing.

• A judge on Monday found Trump was flouting his order from last week that paused a spending freeze.
• The judge ordered the administration to restore and resume the funding immediately.
• The order was by the federal judge in Rhode Island overseeing a lawsuit brought by 22 states and DC.

The Trump administration is violating a federal court order by continuing to freeze funding for federal programs, a judge in Rhode Island found Monday.

In a sharply worded response, US District Judge John J. McConnell Jr., who's overseeing a lawsuit brought by 22 states and the District of Columbia, ordered the administration to immediately restore and resume the funding.

The order is the first major challenge after recent suggestions that if President Donald Trump, Vice President JD Vance, and the Department of Government Efficiency's leader, Elon Musk, don't like what a judge orders, one option is to ignore it, Michel Paradis, who teaches constitutional law at Columbia Law School, said.

Over the past few days, Vance wrote on X, "Judges aren't allowed to control the executive's legitimate power," and Musk posted his support of an X user's suggestion that Trump openly defy the courts. Trump, meanwhile, said over the weekend that judges shouldn't be allowed to challenge recent DOGE actions.

"That's some tough language. The judge is not messing around," Paradis told Business Insider of Monday's order.

"It's return fire, to the extent that the Trump administration has declared that neither Congress nor the courts are allowed to question his authority," he added.

McConnell said his order was a response to evidence from the plaintiff states indicating that the pause on the freeze — which he said was causing "irreparable harm" and was "likely unconstitutional" — was being flouted.

"The States have presented evidence in this motion that the Defendants in some cases have continued to improperly freeze federal funds and refused to resume disbursement of appropriated federal funds," the judge wrote.

That evidence included descriptions of funding to the plaintiff states still being disrupted, including money from the Environmental Protection Agency, the Department of Energy, the National Institutes of Health, and the Department of Health and Human Services, including funds for the Head Start program.

"The Defendants must immediately restore frozen funding" while the court weighs the states' claims and the government's arguments on behalf of the freeze, the judge wrote.

Trump's side quickly filed a notice with the court that it is appealing both the judge's original January 31 order and Monday's order.

Asked whether the Trump administration would comply with the latest order, a White House spokesperson responded by criticizing the legal challenges to the president's recent executive orders.

"Each executive order will hold up in court because every action of the Trump-Vance administration is completely lawful," Harrison Fields, the principal White House deputy press secretary, said.

"Any legal challenge against it is nothing more than an attempt to undermine the will of the American people," who elected Trump to "restore common-sense policies," he said.

Paradis said McConnell could find the defendants — who include Matthew Vaeth, the acting director of the Office of Management and Budget, and Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent — in contempt if his court order continues to be ignored.

Trump is also a defendant in the lawsuit. But holding a sitting president in contempt is a "constitutionally complex issue" and a "totally open question," Paradis said.

"There are plenty of people who say that just as you can't prosecute the president, you can't hold them in contempt because it creates a separation of powers problem," he said.

"But there's no question whatsoever that you can hold his subordinates, including Cabinet secretaries, very much in contempt of court and that he could do nothing about that," Paradis said of Trump. Contempt can be punishable by fines or jail as the judge sees fit, Paradis added.

February 10, 2025: This story was updated to include more details from the order and Trump's notice of appeal.

• President Donald Trump's executive orders have faced a slew of legal roadblocks.
• Judges have blocked orders on birthright citizenship, transgender inmate rehousing, and spending.
• Trump's tariff plans for Canada and Mexico were paused after negotiations.

Some of President Donald Trump's boldest moves during his new administration's seismic first three weeks have been grounded before ever taking flight.

The administration and its Department of Governmental Efficiency, led by Elon Musk, the world's richest man, promised a list of swift-moving changes to the US government's operations. While some of those plans have progressed, others were put on hold, either in the courts or by the administration itself.

The White House says this is all part of a long game that Trump, ultimately, will win.

"Each executive order will hold up in court because every action of the Trump-Vance administration is completely lawful," Harrison Fields, the principal White House deputy press secretary, told BI on Friday.

And as for Trump's walked-back plans to hit our closest neighbors with tariffs — that was an all-out victory, said another White House spokesman, Kush Desai, who said Trump changed course on Mexico and Canada after "critical concessions" from both countries.

Still, much of Trump 2.0 remains on ice for now.

For those who haven't been able to keep up with the firehouse of actions announced by the White House and DOGE, here are the key ones that have been held up — for now.

A 'fork in the road' resignation offer

A federal judge in Massachusetts delayed Trump's plan to root out federal employees with buyout offers.

On January 28, the Trump administration gave just over two million government workers the chance to resign and maintain full pay and benefits until September 30. The so-called "fork in the road" resignation offer was a strategy straight out of Musk's playbook.

US District Judge George O'Toole Jr. on Thursday extended the buyout deadline until at least Monday, just hours before the actual deadline. The order came in response to a lawsuit brought by labor union groups. A Trump administration official told BI that over 40,000 federal workers had taken the buyout as of Wednesday.

Musk's DOGE and the Treasury

The White House launched another fiscal bombshell on February 3 when Trump told reporters he had given Treasury data access to Musk, whose DOGE is tasked with cutting government spending.

The idea that DOGE would have access to the personal information of millions of Americans — including anyone who had ever paid taxes, taken a federal loan, or collected Social Security — resulted in another legal challenge.

On Thursday, a federal judge in California set strict interim limits on the Treasury data, banning DOGE from accessing it directly.

Then, Saturday morning, another federal judge temporarily blocked a slew of people — including special government employees (like Musk), political appointees, and government employees not assigned by the Treasury — from accessing the Treasury's payment systems. The judge also ordered those who had gained new access to the systems to destroy all copies they may have made of materials and records they downloaded.

In the order, US District Judge Paul Engelmayer cited the risk of "disclosure of sensitive and confidential information" and the "heightened risk that the systems in question will be more vulnerable than before to hacking."

A freeze on federal spending

On January 27 — the first full Monday of Trump 2.0 — Trump budget officials dropped a bombshell memo ordering the temporary freezing of "all federal financial assistance" beginning 5 p.m. the following day, so that the spending could be reviewed. In an instant, the future of billions of dollars in federal funding was thrown into question.

The shockwaves were just as swift, even in the hours before the freeze was to take place. Medicaid portals used by states to access federal reimbursement quickly shut down across the country. Head Start funds were frozen in some states. Officials in California wondered if FEMA wildfire assistance was at risk.

Judges presiding over two hastily-drafted lawsuits issued separate injunctions blocking the freeze, including a federal judge in DC whose order came down minutes before the 5 p.m deadline.

The next day, Matthew Vaeth, director of the Office of Management and Budget, sent out a second memo. It said that the first memo is no longer in effect.

Backing off from tariff threats

Trump touted his plans to impose new 25% tariffs on imports from Canada and Mexico, and they were set to go into effect on Tuesday.

The announcements were met with retaliatory plans from both countries, where leaders said they'd enforce their own tariffs on American products.

The expected trade war rattled the markets. On Monday, stocks and crypto tumbled, while the US dollar and oil climbed.

In the end, though, these tariffs that left American investors scrambling were put on hold.

Trump and Mexico's president, Claudia Sheinbaum, struck a deal on border policy, delaying the expected tariff on Mexican imports for 30 days. Similarly, Canadian Prime Minister Justin Trudeau negotiated a pause until March for that set of tariffs.

A similar threat of 25% tariffs on goods from Colombia was put on hold after the country agreed to accept all deportation flights from the US.

An additional 10% tariff on imports from China did go into effect Tuesday, and was quickly matched by retaliatory tariffs on US exports to that country.

Bid to end birthright citizenship

Trump's executive order seeking to abolish the constitutional right of birthright citizenship has been indefinitely blocked by two separate federal judges.

A judge in Washington state issued a nationwide preliminary injunction against the order on Thursday, just a day after a Maryland judge did the same. The order — one of the first signed by Trump after he was sworn into office — has been challenged in the courts by more than 20 Democratic-run states and immigrant rights advocates who have argued it violates the 14th Amendment.

Judge John Coughenour of the US District Court for the Western District of Washington temporarily halted the order on January 23, calling the move to end automatic citizenship to US-born children of parents who are in the country illegally "blatantly unconstitutional."

Coughenour issued his Thursday ruling following the decision by Maryland US District Judge Deborah Boardman. Boardman wrote that Trump's order "conflicts with the plain language of the 14th Amendment, contradicts 125-year-old binding Supreme Court precedent, and runs counter to our nation's 250-year history of citizenship by birth."

Dropping USAID into the 'wood chipper'

A federal judge on Friday temporarily blocked the Trump administration from placing 2,200 USAID employees on paid leave.

The workers, some of whom are overseas, were set to go on leave just before midnight Friday.

Musk said in an X post on Monday that he had "spent the weekend feeding USAID into the wood chipper."

The American Federation of Government Employees and the American Foreign Service Association, however, filed a lawsuit against the administration's USAID cuts on Thursday, arguing that the moves to dismantle it were made without congressional authorization.

Constitutional law experts told Business Insider that dismantling the agency without congressional approval is indisputably illegal.

Forcing transgender women inmates into men's prisons

Trump's Day One order to house transgender women into men's men's facilities at federal prisons has also been blocked in the courts.

The order says the attorney general and Homeland Security secretary shall "ensure that males are not detained in women's prisons" and calls to end gender-affirming care for transgender inmates. It was challenged in two lawsuits brought by a handful of transgender women in prison.

US District Judge Royce Lamberth in Washington, DC, granted the plaintiffs' request for a temporary restraining order on Tuesday. In his order, Lamberth wrote that the plaintiffs "have straightforwardly demonstrated that irreparable harm will follow" if the restraining order request was denied.

Lamberth's order followed a separate ruling by US District Judge George O'Toole in Massachusetts, who also issued a temporary restraining order on January 26.

• Federal courts have already trimmed Donald Trump and Elon Musk's sails.
• But judges have surprisingly little recourse if Trump and Musk defy their rulings.
• If anyone is punished for such defiance, it likely won't be the president.

Federal judges keep ruling against President Trump, but they have no real power to enforce their decisions.

"The president has much more force at his disposal than do the courts," Cornell Law School professor Michael Dorf told Business Insider.

For instance, despite a federal court order Monday barring the administration's spending freeze, numerous Environmental Protection Agency programs remain inaccessible to their intended recipients. US District Judge John McConnell said state agencies have a "rightful concern" that they still couldn't access some programs.

Constitutional law experts warn that if a president chose to defy court orders, judges would have limited options. The consequences would likely fall on lower-level officials, not the president himself, said Michael J. Gerhardt, a constitutional law professor at the University of North Carolina School of Law in Chapel Hill.

"At the very least, you would have a possible contempt citation directed at a particular official who has refused to comply with a court order," Gerhardt told BI, "If they indicate they are defying it because of his order, then the court is going to include the president in the citation of contempt."

But enforcing even that would fall to the Justice Department — which answers to Trump.

Gerhardt pointed to recent examples of Trump testing limits: The president fired inspectors general without providing Congress the legally required notification and list of reasons for dismissal.

Some in Trump's orbit have previously said the president should actively confront the judiciary. Long before he was elected last November, Vice President JD Vance argued that Trump should forge ahead with bold actions and dare federal judges who try to stand in his way.

"I think that what Trump should, like, if I was giving him one piece of advice, fire every single mid-level bureaucrat, every civil servant in the administrative state," Vance said in 2021 on a podcast. "Replace them with our people. And when the courts — because you will get taken to court — and when the courts stop you, stand before the country like Andrew Jackson did and say, 'The chief justice has made his ruling. Now let him enforce it.'" (Many historians believe Andrew Jackson likely never said that.)

Presidents have expressed their displeasure with court rulings, but fundamentally ignoring a federal judge is another matter.

Michel Paradis, who teaches constitutional law at Columbia Law School, said that judges are likely to look unfavorably on any deliberate actions to defy their rulings.

"To the extent the administration's actions are viewed as improvisational, erratic, or deliberately pushing previously settled boundaries in a haphazard way, that would make any normal judge — regardless of personal politics — skeptical," Paradis told BI.

Behind the apparent disorder, Gerhardt sees a deliberate strategy.

"Part of Trump's strategy is to manifest that defiance in many ways, so it becomes very difficult to keep track of all of them," he said, "We're not just talking about one thing, it's many things. And I think one reason why there are many things is because it overwhelms the system."

• Sam Altman has denied Elon Musk's claim that OpenAI bars investors from investing in competitors.
• "That is false," Altman said Thursday in a sworn statement to a California judge.
• He said investors were told only that they'd lose OpenAI data access if they invested in a rival.

Sam Altman has personally disputed an accusation now at the center of Elon Musk's federal racketeering lawsuit against him: Musk's claim that OpenAI investors must agree to a fund-no-competitor "edict."

"That claim is false," Altman said late Wednesday in a sworn declaration to the judge presiding over Musk's lawsuit, originally filed in February 2024.

The Tesla CEO and DOGE head is accusing Altman of colluding with Microsoft to unlawfully crush competition — including by barring OpenAI's outside investors from also investing in rival AI companies during a funding round that closed in the fall.

Altman's declaration was filed in opposition to Musk's demand for an immediate injunction against OpenAI.

If approved by the judge, the injunction would ban OpenAI from forcing investors to agree not to invest in other AI companies and would freeze the tech giant's transition from a nonprofit to a for-profit entity.

"I did not tell any investor in the October 2024 funding round that
their ability to invest in OpenAI was subject to that condition, nor to my knowledge did anyone else at OpenAI," Altman said in the page-long declaration.

There were indeed some restrictions, but those were limited and nothing like what Musk described, Altman told US District Judge Yvonne Gonzalez Rogers, who hears cases in Oakland.

Investors who had ongoing access to confidential OpenAI information were told that access would be terminated "if they made non-passive investments in OpenAI's competitors," Altman told the judge.

"That restriction is necessary to protect against the misuse of OpenAI's competitively-sensitive information, and I understand it is industry standard for that reason," Altman's statement said.

Altman added that in explaining that limited restriction, he did not tell investors that they would lose the ability to invest in OpenAI if they chose to fund Musk's xAI or any other competitor.

Musk's claim that Altman, his colleague turned rival, was forcing OpenAI investors to agree to the investment ban was raised in detail during a hearing on the lawsuit held before Gonzalez Rogers on Tuesday.

The two men helped cofound OpenAI in 2015. Musk invested $44 million in the venture before their falling out three years later.

Alleging a violation of federal antitrust laws, Musk's attorney Marc Toberoff told the judge on Tuesday that OpenAI's high-value investors were required to agree to the investment ban as a condition of investing, and "not just in the latest funding round."

The Biden administration's Department of Justice and Federal Trade Commission also said that such a ban would violate federal antitrust law, Toberoff said.

Altman's company is weighing a new funding round that could hike its value to $340 billion, all the while claiming to be a charitable enterprise, Musk's lawyer told the judge.

"OpenAI — already with 70% of the market, in conjunction with Microsoft — is seeking to strangle their competitors in the crib," he said.

Responding to Musk's claim at Tuesday's hearing, attorneys for Altman and Microsoft said OpenAI's investors were never told to boycott competitors.

In fact, Altman's attorney Sarah Eddy told the judge that there were investors who put money in both xAI and OpenAI.

"Some investors in OpenAI agreed that in the event they became non-passive investors or with governance rights in other competitors, they would cease getting certain confidential information from OpenAI. That is the agreement that's established by the evidence," Eddy told the judge.

The judge did not say when she expected to rule on the proposed injunction.

Altman and his codefendants — who include OpenAI, Microsoft, OpenAI's cofounder Gregory Brockman, and the billionaire LinkedIn cofounder Reid Hoffman — are seeking a dismissal of the lawsuit. A hearing on those dismissal motions is set for May 28.

Attorneys for Musk and Altman said Tuesday that they'd be ready for trial by the end of 2026 at the earliest.

Correction: February 6, 2025 — An earlier version of this story misstated when Elon Musk's lawsuit was originally filed. It was in February 2024, not March.

• The USAID has become one of Elon Musk's top targets in his bid to cut government spending.
• Musk's moves to dismantle federal agencies like USAID are totally illegal, constitutional law experts say.
• Congressional authority is needed to shut down a federal agency, the experts said.

Elon Musk's efforts to scrap federal government agencies like the US Agency for International Development are indisputably illegal, constitutional law experts say.

Without congressional action, Musk — the billionaire tech titan who is now serving in the Trump administration — nor President Donald Trump, has the legal authority to do so, the experts told Business Insider. And so far, the Republican-controlled Congress has taken no public action to push back against the move.

The humanitarian aid agency known as USAID announced on Tuesday it was set to place nearly all of its direct-hire workforce around the globe on administrative leave at the end of the week, just a day after Musk said in an X post that he "spent the weekend feeding USAID into the wood chipper."

"Elon Musk's claim that he has President Trump's go-ahead to shut down USAID is flatly illegal and unconstitutional," said Laurence Tribe, a Harvard Law School professor.

"In our system of government, only Congress wields the power of the purse and the power to create or destroy entire agencies to disburse the money the government collects in taxes or borrows from bondholders," said Tribe.

Not even the president has the unilateral authority to take an ax to federal agencies the way Musk says he is, the legal scholar said.

"The president cannot do this directly and so he can't delegate any authority to do it to Musk or anyone else," Cornell Law School professor Michael Dorf said.

As the head of the Department of Government Efficiency or DOGE, Musk, with the backing of Trump, has made it his newfound mission to reduce spending by the federal government — and USAID has become one of Musk's top targets.

President John F. Kennedy initially created USAID through an executive order in 1961, and Congress later formally established it as an independent agency through the Foreign Affairs Reform and Restructuring Act of 1998.

"Congress could cancel it, but the president can't unilaterally shutter it," Dorf said of USAID, adding, "This is blatantly unlawful and a violation of Trump's oath to take care that the laws are faithfully executed."

Earlier this week, the US State Department announced that Trump has appointed Secretary of State Marco Rubio as the acting administrator of USAID.

The State Department said in a statement that Rubio "notified Congress that a review of USAID's foreign assistance activities is underway with an eye towards potential reorganization."

Rubio wrote in a letter to Congress: "The Department of State and other pertinent entities will be consulting with Congress and the appropriate committees to reorganize and absorb certain bureaus, offices, and missions of USAID."

As for whether the Trump administration can legally reorganize USAID, Roderick Hills, an NYU School of Law professor who researches administrative and constitutional law, told BI that is also against the law.

"Certain statutes have, from time to time, given presidents narrow and time-limited re-organization powers, but none of them give President Trump any power to reorganize the USAID," Hills said. "In fact, the statutory background to USAID makes it perfectly clear that President Trump's actions here violate federal law."

USAID was designed to operate independently

Congress designed USAID to operate independently of the State Department, Tribe told BI. "There is no legal loophole they can invoke to make their actions lawful," he said.

The legal expert said that apparent inaction by the GOP-led Congress on the matter suggests that Republicans in control of Congress are "afraid" of being confronted with Musk's "limitless riches."

On Wednesday, House Speaker Mike Johnson defended Musk's role as head of DOGE and his efforts to cut government spending, arguing that the executive branch is acting "within the scope of their authority."

Johnson said Republicans would "vigorously defend" Congress' role in government. "But what's happening right now is a gross overreaction in the media to what is happening," Johnson said.

"The executive branch of government in our system has the right to evaluate how executive branch agencies are operating," he said. "It's not a power grab."

A slew of Democratic lawmakers, on the other hand, have sounded the alarm.

"USAID was created by federal law and is funded by Congress. Donald Trump and Elon Musk can't just wish it away with a stroke of a pen — they need to pass a law," Democratic Sen. Brian Schatz of Hawaii said.

James Gardner, a professor at the University at Buffalo School of Law, told BI that Congress has given USAID many functions by statute, "and it is not up to anyone but Congress to decide that it should not perform the functions Congress has instructed it to perform."

"The Constitution designates the president as the chief enforcer of the law, not the maker of laws," Gardner said.

Though experts say the effort to disband USAID is illegal, it does not mean it can't happen.

Trump told reporters on Monday that shutting down USAID "should have been done a long time ago" and said he did not think the move would need approval by Congress.

A White House official insisted in a statement to BI on Wednesday that federal law was being adhered to.

"DOGE is fulfilling President Trump's commitment to making government more accountable, efficient, and, most importantly, restoring proper stewardship of the American taxpayer's hard-earned dollars," the official said. "Those leading this mission with Elon Musk are doing so in full compliance with federal law, appropriate security clearances, and as employees of the relevant agencies, not as outside advisors or entities."

While speaking to reporters in the Oval Office on Monday, Trump clarified Musk's power, saying the Tesla and SpaceX CEO can't make any moves without the green light from his administration.

"Elon can't do and won't do anything without our approval," the president said. "And we'll give him the approval where appropriate. Where not appropriate, we won't."

Musk did not immediately respond to a request for comment for this story. The State Department declined to comment and instead referred BI to recent statements by Rubio and the White House.

• Attorneys for Elon Musk and OpenAI's Sam Altman went head to head in a California courtroom Tuesday.
• A judge considered Musk's bid to block OpenAI's transition to a for-profit entity.
• The judge called the Tesla and SpaceX CEO's claims of "irreparable harm" a "stretch."

Calling Elon Musk's high-profile lawsuit against Sam Altman a case of "billionaires versus billionaires," US District Judge Yvonne Gonzalez Rogers pulled no punches in her California courtroom Tuesday.

The federal judge said she's not opposed to a trial being held on at least some of the claims brought by the Tesla and SpaceX CEO. In the case, Musk accuses OpenAI and Microsoft of civil racketeering and fraud.

Commenting on motions to dismiss the lawsuit filed by Altman's OpenAI and its backer, Microsoft, Gonzalez Rogers told the attorneys in an Oakland courtroom, "I've spent a lot of time with this complaint, I can tell you right now, it will be granted in part and denied in part."

"I don't know what happened, but I certainly am not throwing something out on a motion to dismiss when it is plausible that what Mr. Musk is saying is true," the judge said. "We'll find out, he'll sit on the stand, he'll present it to a jury. A jury will decide who is right. So something's going to trial."

Attorneys for Musk and Altman said they'd be ready for trial at the end of next year at the earliest.

Tuesday's hearing was held so that Gonzalez Rogers could hear arguments for and against Musk's request for a preliminary injunction to block OpenAI's ongoing transition from a nonprofit to a for-profit entity. If granted, the injunction would stall OpenAI's conversion.

Musk also wants the injunction to stop OpenAI from allegedly mandating that its investors not invest in its competitors.

"They haven't been able to demonstrate any harm they will suffer absent an injunction," OpenAI attorney William Savitt told the judge. "He asks for sweeping relief to straightjacket a competitor," Savitt said of Musk's own artificial intelligence venture, xAI.

Gonzalez Rogers did not immediately rule on the matter, but said that the kind of relief Musk seeks is "extraordinary" and "rarely granted."

The judge also called questioned Musk's ability to claim "irreparable harm" in this case.

"I have billionaires versus billionaires," said Gonzalez Rogers.

"For me to say, as a matter of law, that something that you should be granted relief in this kind of environment is a stretch," the judge told Musk's attorney, Marc Toberoff, who shot back, "I don't believe it's a stretch."

At another point the judge asked Toberoff how much Musk has raised for xAI — "How many billions at this point?"

"How can I say as a matter of law there is a likely restraint on trade when your client has raised $11 billion?" she asked.

Skepticism from the judge

At one point, the judge scoffed at the idea that Musk or investors were in the dark about OpenAI's for-profit intentions. "The notion that people don't know what's going on who are investing is incredible," she said, given that they've spent more than $300 billion in funding into the company.

And Musk is no babe in the woods, she quipped, "especially since he's running the government right now, who knows."

When Toberoff began explaining that xAI has had to build its own infrastructure "from scratch" — unlike OpenAI, which could rely on Microsoft's massive cloud servers — the judge quipped, "Well, the Chinese seem to think it's not that expensive" in a reference to the Chinese startup DeepSeek.

Musk's lawsuit against Altman and OpenAI — the company the two men helped cofound a decade ago — accuses Altman of betraying OpenAI's founding mission as a nonprofit research lab dedicated to keeping AI technology safe and freely available for the good of mankind. An amended lawsuit brought by Musk alleges fraud, breach of contract, racketeering, and violations of antitrust laws, among other complaints.

The suit — which alleges OpenAI and Microsoft violated antitrust laws by asking investors not to back competing AI firms like Musk's own xAI — accuses Altman and other OpenAI executives of deceiving Musk into cofounding the company.

"Altman repeatedly assured Musk and regulators that the nonprofit structure guaranteed neutrality and a focus on safety and openness for the benefit of humanity, not shareholder value or individual enrichment," the lawsuit says.

It adds, "But after Musk lent his name to the venture as its co-chairman, invested significant time, tens of millions of dollars in seed capital, and recruited top AI scientists for OpenAI, Inc., Musk and the nonprofit's namesake objective were betrayed by Altman and his accomplices."

The judge did not immediately rule on Musk's request for an injunction — but she voiced strong skepticism.

"It's not my job to somehow stop competition, and things are very murky still in terms of what's going on between Musk and xAI — and OpenAI and Microsoft on the other hand," she said.

"This county values competition," Gonzalez Rogers added. "You are asking me to get involved in the playing field. And this particular judge is not making the playing field uneven."