Attorneys general from Hawaii and 13 other states have sued to halt Elon Musk’s efforts to slash federal spending as head of President Donald Trump’s new government efficiency agency, escalating the legal fight over the billionaire’s influence in the White House.

The lawsuit filed Thursday in a Washington, D.C. federal court alleges Trump has given Musk “unchecked legal authority” without authorization from the U.S. Congress.

Hawaii Attorney General Anne Lopez said in a news release Thursday that Trump has violated the Appointments Clause of the U.S. Constitution, which ensures that executive appointments are subject to congressional oversight and Senate confirmation.

“The Appointments Clause of the U.S. Constitution is an important safeguard in our system of government,” she said. “Granting Musk sweeping powers over the entire federal government without seeking the advice and consent of the Senate is unconstitutional.”

Musk’s team has swept through federal agencies since Trump became president last month and put the CEO of carmaker Tesla and the world’s richest person in charge of rooting out wasteful spending as part of a dramatic overhaul of government.

“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, is unprecedented,” the suit states. “The sweeping authority now vested in a single unelected and unconfirmed individual is antithetical to the nation’s entire constitutional structure.”

Musk and his Department of Government Efficiency, or DOGE, have been hit with several privacy lawsuits over their access to government computer systems. The new lawsuit alleges Musk was illegally appointed and seeks an order barring him from taking any further government action.

“Oblivious to the threat this poses to the nation, President Trump has delegated virtually unchecked authority to Mr. Musk without proper legal authorization from Congress and without meaningful supervision of his activities,” the states said, calling Musk an “agent of chaos” in the government.

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

This lawsuit argues that Musk has unraveled federal agencies, accessed sensitive data, and caused widespread disruption for state and local governments, federal employees, and the American people, according to Lopez.

The plaintiffs contend that the Trump administration and DOGE threaten the financial and operational stability of the states by disrupting billions of dollars in federal funding for law enforcement, healthcare, education, and other services. The attorneys general also alleged that Trump’s stated intention to eliminate the U.S. Department of Education would strip away federal civil rights oversight in schools, including for students with disabilities.

Hawaii is joined in the lawsuit by the attorneys general of Arizona, California, Connecticut Maryland, Massachusetts, Michigan, Minnesota, Nevada, New Mexico, Oregon, Rhode Island, Washington and Vermont.

Meanwhile, two federal judges overseeing ongoing privacy cases against DOGE will consider today whether the agency will have access to Treasury Department payment systems and potentially sensitive data at U.S. health, consumer protection and labor agencies.

In Manhattan, U.S. District Judge Paul Engelmayer considered a request by Democratic state attorneys general to extend a temporary block on DOGE that he put in place on Saturday, which prevented Musk’s team from accessing Treasury systems responsible for trillions of dollars of payments.

The states allege that Musk’s team has no legal power to access the payment systems that contain sensitive personal information on millions of Americans.

The lawsuit also argued Musk and his team could disrupt federal funding for health clinics, preschools, climate initiatives and other programs, and that Trump could use the information to further his political agenda.

In Washington, U.S. District Judge John Bates declined today to block the access of DOGE to records systems containing personal information at the Health and Human Services Department, the Labor Department and the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, a setback for unions and nonprofits trying to fight Musk’s effort to cut and reshape government.

In an 11-page ruling, Bates wrote that he had grave concerns about the privacy issues raised by the case, particularly because the data in question “includes information on all Americans who rely on Medicare and Medicaid, as well as countless consumers.”

But, he added, the case made by the plaintiffs — led by the AFL-CIO, an umbrella group of unions that represent many federal workers — did not meet the high legal bar necessary for him to immediately block the initiative’s access while the case proceeded.

Most of Trump’s initiatives that have been legally challenged have been blocked by the courts, which has prompted Musk and other Trump allies to call for judges to be impeached, although the president said he would obey court orders.

Despite some initiatives being blocked in court, Trump’s administration has pushed ahead with mass firings of government workers and has sharply curtailed America’s foreign aid program.