In a recent judicial order issued by U.S. District Judge Theodore Chuang, a legal directive requires Elon Musk to sit for a deposition regarding his purported role in the reorganization and operational contraction of the United States Agency for International Development (USAID). This order reverses a prior motion from Musk's legal counsel, which invoked the apex doctrine to seek exemption from such questioning due to Musk's high-level status within the organization.
The apex doctrine typically shields the highest-ranking officials from being compelled to testify, under the premise that their testimony can generally be obtained through other sources. However, Judge Chuang's eight-page ruling, released on Tuesday, concluded that Musk's position at the relevant time, alongside former acting USAID director Peter Marocco and State Department official Jeremy Lewin, did not sufficiently qualify for such protection. Therefore, all three individuals are required to undergo depositions as part of ongoing legal proceedings.
Judge Chuang emphasized uncertainties regarding whether Musk and the other named parties were properly classified as high-ranking government officials in the critical period during which USAID experienced substantial downsizing. This scrutiny extended to the lack of evidentiary support offered to explain the rationale behind the shutdown of the agency's headquarters and the official disbandment of USAID's web presence.
The litigation that precipitated this judicial intervention was filed anonymously by current and former USAID staff members contesting the actions taken by Musk and officials of the Defense Office of Government Enterprises (DOGE). DOGE has been identified as the entity responsible for instituting staffing cuts and potentially restructuring USAID operations. Additional defendants named in the suit include Secretary of State Marco Rubio, State Department official Kenneth Jackson, and DOGE administrator Amy Gleason.
Legal controversies surrounding Musk have extended beyond this matter, as seen in disputes with other technology figures such as Sam Altman, linked in part to Musk’s public criticism of OpenAI and allegations of corporate governance failures. Musk and Altman's disputes also featured allegations related to Tesla order cancellations and executive management issues disclosed during prior legal depositions involving OpenAI’s leadership.
Concurrent with the USAID-related legal actions, concerns have been raised regarding USAID's management of Starlink satellite internet terminals provided to Ukraine. Approximately 5,175 units were dispatched, with reports indicating that close to half were detected in territories controlled by opposing forces. An internal USAID report acknowledged elevated risks of equipment misuse due to the complexities of wartime operations but admitted that mitigation strategies were incomplete. Notably, the agency's partnership with SpaceX facilitated the procurement and delivery of 1,508 purchased and 3,667 donated Starlink terminals. However, the inquiry did not extend to evaluating if these terminals were employed for military objectives.
The judge's imposition of depositions for Musk and accompanying officials signals a judicial insistence on thorough fact-finding regarding the decisions that led to the contraction of USAID and questions surrounding leadership accountability. While Musk and his team sought judicial relief based on his purported senior executive role, the court's ruling underscored deficiencies in evidentiary backing to sustain this defense, necessitating Musk's direct testimony under oath.