It’s difficult to convey the full magnitude of the legal chaos emanating from the Trump administration. It goes well beyond the violation of individual laws — much of the past month has featured what feels like an assault on the very idea of law as a binding constraint.

This has been especially acute when it comes to personnel, both hiring and firing. For the dozens of high-level officials President Trump has fired in violation of clear legal restrictions, he is likely to be at least somewhat vindicated by a Supreme Court that has been increasingly skeptical of laws limiting the president’s ability to fire at will.

But Mr. Trump is on decidedly shakier ground when it comes to how he has empowered Elon Musk, who is perhaps the most important figure in the new administration based on the efforts taken to reshape the federal government through his Department of Government Efficiency initiative. That’s most likely why the White House has tied itself in knots trying to explain to courts and to the public the nature of Mr. Musk’s role. Presumably, that’s because it seems clear that the Constitution does not allow it.

That’s true at the level of broad constitutional principles — particularly the principle that sovereignty flows from the people and that only officials selected through constitutional methods get to wield power in our name. This insight seems to undergird the growing mobilization against Elon Musk. Protesters at Tesla showrooms who are displaying signs that say “no one voted for Elon Musk” are making, intentionally or not,Milyon88 casinos a constitutionally inflected claim.

During a speech in Savannah, Ga., on Tuesday, Mr. Trump suggested he would go far beyond that initial approach and adopt what he rebranded a “new American industrialism.”

Mr. Musk’s power also is squarely at odds with concrete constitutional provisions. While the Constitution is largely silent on removal — Mr. Trump’s arguments that the Constitution gives him limitless power to fire are atextual — the document is quite specific when it comes to appointment.

Supreme Court cases make clear that individuals who serve in “continuing” positions and who exercise “significant authority” on behalf of the United States must be appointed consistent with the Constitution’s Appointments Clause. As far as I can tell, Mr. Musk hasn’t been.

We are having trouble retrieving the article content.

Please enable JavaScript in your browser settings.

Thank you for your patience while we verify access. If you are in Reader mode please exit and log into your Times account, or subscribe for all of The Times.

Thank you for your patience while we verify access.

Already a subscriber? Log in.

Want all of The Times? Subscribe.rich 888