Another federal judge — this one for the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia — granted a temporary restraining order to block President Donald Trump’s freeze on all agency grants and loans.
The order stems from a lawsuit filed by Democracy Forward and a coalition of nonprofits, public health organizations and small businesses seeking to block guidance from the Trump administration that effectively pauses all federal funding via agency grants and loans. Marc Elias and Paige Moskowitz discuss.
Transcript
[Marc Elias] In a blockbuster decision a federal judge in Washington DC has blocked Donald Trump's effort to freeze federal spending and loans. Welcome back to democracy docket. I'm Marc Elias ... and I'm Paige Moskowitz .
[Paige Moskowitz] This all started a week ago when the Office of Management and Budget, or OMB, issued a memo basically telling all the federal agencies to stop spending money while the Trump Administration tried to root out "woke ideology, DEI, the Green New Deal," which is not a law; it's just proposed legislation, and do all these things. And Marc, I don't want to undercut the breaking news here but it also kind of feels like a broken record, because this is what, like the third time we're saying that this memo has been blocked? So explain to us kind of the state of litigation at play.
[Marc Elias] Yeah, so you're right. It may feel repetitive, but this is the biggest one yet, okay? So when this freeze was put in place by OMB, this case was filed, and the judge put a temporary halt on that freeze pending the adjudication of the claims. Then another case was filed in the district of Rhode Island by the various States Attorneys General, and that Court also ordered it blocked. But it only ordered it blocked for those States. And after that order was entered there still clearly was activity going on within the federal government, as if this memo was still in effect. In other words, yes, the Rhode Island Court had blocked it for the 20 some odd states that have been involved [in the case], but it was clearly still the case that agencies were not dispersing funds. They were not making the loans. They were not doing the things they were supposed to do.
And so in now comes the Democracy Forward case back into federal court today, before a federal judge that had a few choices. Number one, she could say, you know what? You're right, government. This has already been sort of mooted, because it's all worked itself out, and there's no harm. Or, the Federal Judge could do exactly as she did and say look, whether you are trying to play games, or whether you are operating in good faith, clearly this memo is still having an impact, because I am looking at the testimony and the statements of real life plaintiff organizations that are saying they're not getting their grants, they're not getting their loans, and this was never a problem, but now all of a sudden there is a freeze. So I want to be 100% clear. The Judge basically said this memo is suspended. Agencies are to act as if it was never issued. And this applies to all federal agencies. It applies to grants in all 50 states. So enough with the nonsense.
So it is a very broad relief that this judge entered. And now we're going to see whether the games end. I kind of suspect they won't. I think that we'll now have a game of cat and mouse. But here's my message to the people working in these federal agencies, whether their career, or their political. You've now got two federal judges who have issued blocks of this order, and this federal judge clearly means business. And she's located in your backyard. She's in Washington DC. So if I were you, I would turn on the spigot for those grants and loans that were authorized by Congress, and stop playing games. Otherwise, you may find yourself on the losing end of a contempt citation.
And by the way, Donald Trump may have immunity, but no one else in the federal government does from criminal contempt and civil contempt. No one has immunity from that.
So we'll see whether this ends. Like I said, I'm not naive. I'm not saying it won't. But this gives a powerful new tool to the people who are trying to rightfully turn the spigot back on.
And let me say one more word about this, Paige. You know Democracy Docket has been all over this from the very first filing, through this order. And you know the Legacy Media has been on and off while it focuses on a bunch of other stuff. So please, if you're not already, subscribe to Democracy Docket, and it's free daily and weekly newsletters. Click on the link above, or in the show notes below, because that is where you're going to get the most unadulterated, honest coverage of this. It is fiercely independent, unabashedly pro-democracy. So sign up now.
[Paige Moskowitz] Marc, and in the middle of all this litigation you had an interesting development from the White House itself. So last week, last Monday, the OMB issues this memo. Litigation was filed, and the first temporary block goes into effect, blocks the memo. The next day, the OMB rescinds the memo, and said and takes it away that act like it never happened. Shortly thereafter, you have White House Press Secretary Karoline Leavitt post on Twitter, saying that the memo may be rescinded, but everything's still in effect: the president still has the power to control spending as he wishes. And that sent off a new flurry of Court activity, right? The Judge in Rhode Island said, you're telling me this memo is rescinded, but I have a tweet from the press secretary saying it's basically still in effect. You have the judge in DC today also citing this tweet from Karoline Leavitt saying the memo itself may be gone, but the intention is still there. Which leads to this very specific wording from the Judge saying that the defendants are enjoined from implementing, giving effect to, or reinstating under a different name the directives in OMB memorandum M-25-13 with respect to the disbursement of federal funds under all open awards.
[Marc Elias] Yeah, that's exactly right. And so I'm glad you mentioned this. Because this is what I described as the game of cat and mouse, right ? Here, a federal judge had blocked this memo, and what does the White House do? It sends its press secretary out, just as you described, to tweet and say, oh yeah, that may have been rescinded, but it's still in effect over here. And there is no way to read this Court's order other than to say, "Cut it out. Cut it out!"
And look, this judge went out of her way to say, in pretty direct terms, that what's going on here is "disingenuous." That's her word, not mine. And when you are disingenuous with a Judge, and you're a lawyer, you face one set of consequences when you are working at a federal agency, and you face a whole bunch more problems.
And like I said, I doubt that the gamesmanship is over, but I do believe we have a committed federal judge right now who is going to see to it that it doesn't continue.
[Paige Moskowitz] So Marc, this order today is from the Washington DC case. Now we have in the second lawsuit in Rhode Island a very interesting update happening there today. The DOJ filed a brief in the Rhode Island case basically saying it doesn't think that the judge's order to freeze the memo has any effect, and that they don't have to implement it.
[Marc Elias] Yeah, and again, I think this judge read that, and took that into account in this order. I mean, this judge makes clear, as as you have said that whatever name they put to this memo, if they try to implement the policy in the memo, they're going to be in contempt of this court. This judge ordered that the government must provide written notice of the Court's order to all agencies that received it, right? So part of what the Department of Justice did in the Rhode Island case, they said, well, we assume we only have to send it to places that were sued. And here the judge is saying nope, it goes to everybody who got your OMB memo, which is basically the entire federal government, and that the written notice shall instruct the agencies that they may not take any steps to implement, or give effect to, or reinstate under a different name the directives in that OMB memo. And that the agencies are to release disbursements on open awards that were paused during the memo.
Finally it tells them that they have to file a status report on or before February 7th showing that they've complied with it. And this is the Court's way of saying, all right, you got to send this out, and I expect you back in my courtroom in a week -- less than a week -- to explain that you've done, what I've ordered you to do. And boy, I don't want to be a lawyer for the government who has to show up and explain, if the other side says that there were violations, why the hell there were violations.
This is really good news. I cannot state enough the tremendous work that Democracy Forward did in pursuing this like a dog with a bone. Paige, you may or may not know this. I helped create and found Democracy Forward. I am the chair of their board. And I'm very proud of them today. So good work everybody. Let's take a moment to celebrate this!
Unfortunately, this is not the only case going on. And Paige, we're going to be following a lot of them at Democracy Docket.
[Paige Moskowitz] Right, Marc. And we follow all of these cases, because the impact of these laws and decisions by the Trump Administration are real. As the judge noted in her order today, the potential scope of the freeze is as great as $3 trillion dollars. And its effects are difficult to fully grasp. Plaintiffs point to news reports detailing far-reaching effects: preschools could not pay their staff; Los Angeles and North Carolina were denied disaster relief aid, and elderly Americans who relied on subsidized programs for food did not know if their next meal would come. The importance of lawyers showing up in court to fight these memos, these executive actions issued by the Trump Administration, are not just to help our big picture Democracy, but really make sure that the everyday lives of Americans are not interrupted by these anti-democratic forces.
[Marc Elias] That's exactly right. And I'm glad you mention that. Because it's too easy sometimes to look at what Donald Trump is doing around the federal government and say, this is him seizing power. And it's easy to say that this is him empowering oligarchs, and it is. But at the other end of this, the people who will lose when that happens are the people who don't get the payments they deserve, the communities that are not getting the money they deserve, the people whose citizenship is being threatened by his unconstitutional Birthright Citizenship order. You know, I can go on and on down the line. And believe me: Paige and I, we read your emails. We read your comments. We know how worried you are. And we take that seriously. It is one of the jobs of Democracy Docket to cover what's happening to democracy in courts, because of the fear that this has engendered, because of the concern that this has created, because of the real world consequences it has created for everyday Americans, including so many of you who are watching.
So keep keep sending us your comments. Keep sending us your emails. And please, make sure you are subscribed to Democracy Docket. There is a free option.
It is again in the show notes below, and a link above.
Quakers Sue to Block ICE Agents from Houses of Worship This Weekend by Marc Elias and Paige Moskowitz Democracy Docket Jan 31, 2025
A group of Quaker meetings, represented by Democracy Forward, have filed a lawsuit challenging the Department of Homeland Security's plan to enable federal immigration enforcement officials to enter houses of worship for their immigration enforcement actions. Now, the plaintiffs are seeking emergency relief to pause ICE enforcement on all houses of worship across the country in advance of weekend services. Marc Elias and Paige Moskowitz discuss.
Transcript
[Marc Elias] If you had any doubt about the depravity of the Trump Administration consider this the Quakers have had to go to Federal Court to prevent DHS from raiding houses of worship this weekend welcome back to democracy doet I'm Mark Elias and I'm Paige mosites let's get started Paige I I have to say that I am rarely shocked by anything that Donald Trump is capable of I you know I understand that he's an election denier I understand his appointments or election reers I understand that you know some of his nominees don't believe in vaccines even though they're going to oversee vaccines they have you know sucked up to Vladimir Putin even though they're going to be you know potentially in charge of the nation's intelligence but page this one seems too far even for Republicans Mark I agree wholeheartedly now for decades US policy has been that immigration wouldn't enforce their actions at what was called sensitive locations or protected locations these are places like schools houses of worship uh hospitals shelters things of that nature the Trump Administration has revoked that memo and said that DHS and I would be enforcing immigration laws at places like schools and houses of worship yeah Paige and you know what's really unbelievable about this you know during covid we were constantly being lectured by Republicans and their right-wing allies about how terrible it is and how constitutional it it it is for States and localities that were trying to control the spread of that deadly virus putting in place restrictions on public Gatherings and one of the things they said is churches and synagogues and mosques well maybe they were mostly talking about churches but places of worship have to be allowed to continue to meet in person because of religious freedom and we are constantly lectured page also in the context of of uh employers uh providing Health Care to women about the sensitive nature of of religious rights and how religious institutions should not be burdened with having to provide basic health care to women well here we are and you have uh one of the oldest denominations in the United States saying we are concerned that when we hold our religious uh meetings ice could break down the doors and that would infringe on our constitutional rights to practice our religion and you know where where is the rightwing standing up for the for the Quakers today right Mark one of the Quaker groups involved in this lawsuit the Baltimore yearly meeting said in a statement the very threat of government officials wearing ice and blazoned jackets outside of our religious service will have a significant impact on our communities and ability to practice our faith we remain committed to our religious command and will use the tools available to defend our membership and Faith yeah Paige and you know the hypocrisy of this is just unending I mean here is a political party that has built itself around the notion of protecting religious liberty uh and of making sure that Christians in particular can practice their faith you know as you know Paige there was a long-standing war on Christmas apparently um but in any event uh you know this is what they the propaganda that they that they spew on Fox News and elsewhere and yet when it comes to immigration enforcement as terrible as the Trump Administration wants to be in a number of contexts. Did they really have to start by targeting places of worship schools and hospitals? I mean really, really? There was no other place for them to start with executive orders than in their first round to target schools, places of worships, and hospitals?
[Paige Moskowitz] Mark, and to your point defending religious freedom and freedom of religion is a core American value right like we have seen con we have seen lawsuits come up again and again about how the government has infr has infringed on religious freedom now in this lawsuit the Quaker groups and democracy forward are asking for emergency relief to block all ice activities at all houses of worship across the country this weekend so that everyone could be able to go to their own house of worship this weekend and practice their Faith freely without fear of interference from the government and you know PA I think this brings up another really important issue that I want everyone to focus on which is the role of of lawyers in the courts you know there was a lot of bowing down in advance of Donald Trump taking office there has been a lot of bowing down to Donald Trump since he's been in office but it has really been the lawyers and the legal organizations like democracy forward that have been at the Forefront of pushing back and they have had some success I mean democracy forward itself is the same organization page that you and I talked about uh in the context of the um anti- impoundment of funds you know the the OMB effort to freeze federal grants and uh uh and Loans uh they and others also uh successfully challenged the uh Birthright citizenship order so I know that it is very it is very um popular uh on the left for people to bash the courts and Bash the Supreme Court but I think we also have to give do where it is earned and so far Donald Trump for all of his alleged competence coming in this time they have not look that competent and they have actually been losing case after case after case right Mark in the case of the birthright citizenship order we saw multiple lawsuits filed very quickly both by Democratic State Attorneys generals as well as private civil and immigrants rights groups that executive order was blocked very quickly the OM funding memo that you mentioned that was blocked it's now been rescinded but you know thanks to Caroline L it it's kind of unclear what the status is so the courts are ready to get involved there toed then there she like tweeted but back to this you know it's going to be very interesting to see whether the the the cons the Christian conservative organizations that are usually very litigious and are usually very organized to file amicus briefs and to otherwise get involved in cases it'll be very interesting to see what they do here whether they sit on the side lines uh and act like they don't know that the case is going on right which is like a classic Republican politician response right they they're like oh did Donald Trump tweet something right like we'll see whether these interest groups these conservative groups take that approach whether they show an ounce of principle and actually stand with the Quakers uh I wouldn't hold your breath for that or whether they find some way to say oh no no we as As Leaders of religious institutions we want uh federal law enforcement to be kicking down our doors and uh searching our back rooms our basements and our attics so we're going to have to wait and see their page I also think it's really interesting how states are responding or have already gotten involved in this ice and immigration enforcement business Texas for example before the Trump Administration came back into Power had passed a law requiring Health Care settings to ask for immigration status of patients and you're like why would that matter they're there to receive Healthcare it it's not it's not an institution that would deal with immigration in that way in Oklahoma reportedly the state has plans there to have schools ask their students about their immigration status and again citizenship status in those places shouldn't matter because it's not a government entity regulating and enforcing immigration laws right and this though goes even further than that and nobody should should and this page goes much fur further than that and everyone needs to be paying attention to this case specifically because you know we have talked over and over again how little spine there is to stand up against Donald Trump in the Republican part how Republican Senators Republican house members have turned over their constitutional rights and obligations to to Donald Trump's WIS and how much of the conservative movement has compromised itself in terms itself into pretzels to accommodate Donald Trump but page this one just have to wonder if it's a bridge too far our Christian conservatives our Republicans go our evangelicals going to say we're fine with this we're fine with an executive order that allows the violation of houses of worship on the weekends when houses of worships are having uh their various Services uh at meetings and celebrations so everyone needs to pay attention to this make sure you're subscribed to democracy. free daily and weekly newsletters where you'll be kept up to date on this and all of the pro-democracy news going on in America we'll see you next time [Music]
Topline: Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent ordered the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau to halt work Monday, following months of anti-CFPB sentiment from President Donald Trump’s billionaire backers, including Mark Zuckerberg and Elon Musk, with Musk advocating for “deleting” the agency in his efforts to cut government spending.
• Key Facts: Bessent told agency staff in an email that it must stop all regulatory work and “public communications of any type,” citing the need to ensure operations are consistent with Trump’s executive orders, according to multiple reports. • Staff were also reportedly instructed not to pursue enforcement actions or litigation. • The move comes after work at the U.S. Agency for International Development was also halted over the weekend following an executive order during Trump’s first week in office ordering a temporary pause in U.S. foreign assistance. • Reining in the CFPB has long been a target of Republicans and tech executives after the Biden administration implemented new regulations to address predatory lending and credit card and banking fees. • Trump appointed Bessent to take over the agency after firing Biden-era director Rohit Chopra over the weekend.
What Has Elon Musk Said About Cfpb?
The world’s wealthiest person, Elon Musk, has attacked the CFPB, joining a chorus of tech and finance titans who claim the agency has taken a heavy-handed approach to regulation. Musk, who is advising Trump on ways to scale back the size of the federal government, said in November he wanted to “delete CFPB” because “there are too many duplicative regulatory agencies,” shortly after the agency announced a new rule to enhance oversight of big tech companies and others offering digital funds transfers and payment wallet apps.
What Have Mark Andreessen And Mark Zuckerberg Said About Cfpb?
Billionaires Marc Andreessen and Mark Zuckerberg also lashed out at the agency, which threatened to sue Meta last year over allegations it improperly used financial data in its advertising business. Zuckerberg told Joe Rogan in a podcast interview the CFPB “found some theory they wanted to investigate” and questioning whether there was “a quiet consensus” among regulators that they wanted to punish the tech industry. Andreessen—who has advised some members of the Trump administration—also alleged in an interview with Rogan the agency is “terrorizing anybody who tries to do anything new in financial services.”
What Have Republicans Said About Cfpb?
Republicans have sought to defund the CFPB and praised Chopra’s termination. Rep. French Hill, R-Ark., vowed Monday in a statement to help Bessent “finally rein in this unaccountable agency by putting the CFPB under the appropriations process, making it a bipartisan commission and providing appropriate statutory guardrails.” The CFPB receives its funding directly from the Federal Reserve, rather than through the congressional appropriations process, a mechanism designed to preserve its impartiality.
Key Background
The CFPB was formed in 2011, in the aftermath of the 2008 financial crisis, by the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act. Trump previously sought to limit the CFPB’s authority during his first term, appointing former Rep. Mick Mulvaney, R-S.C., as its acting director. Mulvaney subsequently sent a budget request for the CFPB to the Federal Reserve for $0, ordered a hiring freeze and halted new enforcement actions, according to The New York Times. Former President Joe Biden subsequently hired Chopra to undo the deregulatory actions, and the agency under Chopra’s direction repeatedly clashed with big banks as Chopra spearheaded rules to limit overdraft fees, credit card late fees and eliminate medical debt from credit reports.
Secretary of State Marco Rubio is visiting Latin America on his first foreign trip in his new post. One of his stops is Panama, where President Trump has threatened to invade and take over control of the critical trade route of the Panama Canal in response to its growing ties to China. It is a deeply unpopular proposition in Panama, seen as a “reversion to the mid-20th century imperial encroachment that Panama so intentionally confronted over the course of the Canal transition.” It is also, “on a logistical level,” essentially “impossible,” according to Panama City-based scholar Miriam Pensack. In what Pensack calls a “troubling” development, Panama has announced it will more closely cooperate with Trump’s policing of migration from Central America to the United States as a diplomatic concession to his threats.
Transcript
This is a rush transcript. Copy may not be in its final form.
AMY GOODMAN: U.S. Secretary of State Marco Rubio is traveling to Costa Rica and Guatemala City today before heading to the Dominican Republic as part of his first foreign trip in his new post. Rubio was just in Panama and El Salvador.
After meeting with Rubio on Monday, El Salvador’s President Nayib Bukele announced in a statement his country would receive immigrants and asylum seekers of any nationality deported from the United States. He also offered to jail U.S. citizens who are convicted of crimes for a fee in El Salvador’s troubled maximum-security mega-prison complex. Bukele said the fee would be, quote, “low for the U.S. but significant for us, making our entire prison system sustainable,” he said. Rubio spoke on Monday.
SECRETARY OF STATE MARCO RUBIO: He has agreed to accept for deportation any illegal alien in the United States who is a criminal, from any nationality, be they MS-13 or Tren de Aragua, and house them in his jails. And third, he has offered to house in his jails dangerous American criminals in custody in our country, including those of U.S. citizenship and legal residence.
AMY GOODMAN: Secretary of State Rubio praised Salvadoran President Bukele, who’s been accused of gross human rights abuses and of violating Salvador’s constitution by remaining in power for a third presidential term. Bukele has been enforcing a state of emergency for nearly three years, leading to the detention of over 83,000 people without access to due process. Human rights groups estimate hundreds of people have died in Bukele’s prisons since March 2022.
This comes after far-right immigration hard-liner, White House Deputy Chief of Staff for Policy Stephen Miller said last week Bukele could become one of the strongest partners in the Central American region.
STEPHEN MILLER: The president, Bukele, has graciously offered tremendous degrees of cooperation with the United States on all things migration. And we’re hoping that will provide a framework for migration cooperation all throughout the region. And I think it’s very clear that President Bukele is going to be a very great and strong partner for this administration and for the United States.
AMY GOODMAN: Trump has long admired El Salvador’s prisons. The Trump administration is working with El Salvador on what is known as a safe third country agreement that would allow the U.S. to block migrants from requesting asylum in the U.S. and deport them to El Salvador, which would be designated a safe third country where they could seek asylum.
Rubio’s began his trip in Panama, though, as Trump reiterated his threat to retake the Panama Canal, claiming it’s being operated by China.
PRESIDENT DONALD TRUMP: China is running the Panama Canal. That was not given to China. That was given to Panama, foolishly. But they’ve violated the agreement, and we’re going to take it back, or something very powerful is going to happen. … I don’t think troops will be necessary in Panama. What Panama has done is terrible for national security for this part of the world. And, you know, 70% of the signage on the Panama Canal was written in Chinese. That’s not right. It wasn’t meant for China.
AMY GOODMAN: Speaking to reporters, Panama’s President José Raúl Mulino said he may expand an existing agreement with the U.S. to begin direct deportations of non-Panamanian migrants who make the dangerous journey through the Darién Gap jungle along Panama’s southern border with Colombia.
PRESIDENT JOSÉ RAÚL MULINO: [translated] On the aspect of immigration, we agreed to explore the possibility of expanding the memorandum of understanding that we signed on July 1st along with United States Department of Homeland Security to better articulate the issue of repatriation from the Darién. Anything that is going to be done, I’ve offered the area of the Nicanor track, the Metetí, Darién, so that it is from where the process of repatriation of people from different parts, such as Venezuela, Colombia, Ecuador, among other nationalities, is supplied.
AMY GOODMAN: All of this comes as one country is not on Rubio’s itinerary, Cuba, which he was asked about on Fox News, as the State Department website now outlines a plan for, quote, “Restoring a Tough U.S.-Cuba Policy.”
SECRETARY OF STATE MARCO RUBIO: I have no intention of going to Havana with his regime in place, other than to discuss when they’re going to leave.
AMY GOODMAN: But Trump has announced plans to hold some 30,000 immigrants and asylum seekers in a mass detention camp at Guantánamo Bay in Cuba on the U.S. naval base there.
For more, we’re joined by two guests. Roman Gressier is a French American journalist based in Guatemala City, where he’s the editor of El Faro English and host of the podcast Central America in Minutes. And in Panama City, we’re joined by Miriam Pensack, postdoctoral fellow in the History Department at Princeton University, historian of modern Latin America.
We welcome you both to Democracy Now! Miriam, let’s begin with you. You’re in Panama City. Rubio was just there. He’s saying he’s taking Panama Canal back, essentially, from China. Can you talk about the threats and what the Panamanian president agreed to?
MIRIAM PENSACK: Hi, Amy. Thank you for having me.
Yes, so, Rubio was here. He arrived Saturday night. He had a two-hour meeting, one hour privately with Mulino and then another hour with his ministers. Afterwards, Mulino gave a press conference in which he essentially said, “Don’t worry. We won’t be invaded” — which the fact that that was one of the first things he had to say is, of course, a bit troubling, to say the least.
What Panama has agreed to, effectively, is to further collaborate on immigration, or, rather, deportation and repatriation for migrants moving through the Darién Gap. There has already been a pretty extensive degree of collaboration between the United States government and the Panamanian equivalent of the Border Patrol, which is called SENAFRONT. There’s an ICE office in the U.S. Embassy here in Panama City. So, that collaboration has been underway for a long time.
Something that Rubio did mention and Mulino agreed to is this use of this airstrip in the Darién, which has a certain degree of, I suppose, geographic utility insofar as Panama is this infrastructural hub for the Americas in general. On Monday, yesterday, Rubio oversaw a deportation flight leaving from the former U.S. base at Albrook in Panama City to repatriate — or, deport, rather, upwards of 40 Colombians who came from the United States.
So, that’s what we’ve seen so far. There’s still a lot of pressure in terms of undoing the relationship with China that Panama has forged since it took up formal diplomatic relations with Beijing in 2017.
JUAN GONZÁLEZ: And, Miriam, could you talk to us more about the current president of Panama, Mulino? Because there were mass protests not only to Rubio’s visit, but against Mulino’s administration, as well. How is he seen among the Panamanian people in terms of his connection or relations to the U.S.?
MIRIAM PENSACK: Sure. So, Panama, in general, it should be stated — and Rubio mentioned this — Panama is, you know, extremely friendly to the United States and to U.S. interests. It’s very pro-business. There’s really no meaningful articulation of the left in terms of electoral politics here.
Something that has happened with Mulino’s government, you know, he’s amidst a reform of the Social Security and pension system here, which will be unpopular. So these threats from the United States have, I think, to a certain degree, united the country behind him, which he can probably use to push through legislation and pension reforms and things of that nature.
Now, that being said, sovereignty has long been, understandably, because of the former Panama Canal Zone here that was operated exclusively by the United States for the majority of the 20th century — Panama has long been concerned with the question of sovereignty. So, kowtowing to the United States on these issues is not popular, shall we say? Some of the protests that you saw, the burning of American flags, posters of Rubio with swastikas over his face, things like that, most of that is carried out by a syndicalist group, a sort of union conglomerate, if you will, called SUNTRACS. They shut down the city, many streets on Friday. They protested in front of the U.S. Embassy. And there is just this notion that this is a reversion to the sort of mid-20th century imperial encroachment that Panama so intentionally confronted over the course of the canal transition in the last two decades of the 20th century.
President Trump, Fascist
Marco Rubio, Fascist
JUAN GONZÁLEZ: And this whole issue of Chinese alleged control of the canal, the reality is, Panama became the first country in Latin America to sign on to the Belt and Road Initiative of infrastructure projects of China, but there are now 22 countries in Latin America who are part of the Belt and Road Initiative. The importance of Mulino saying that they’re going to review and possibly withdraw from the Belt and Road Initiative? And how expensive is Chinese investment in Panama, given the fact that the United States has largely ignored major investments in much of the region?
MIRIAM PENSACK: Sure. So, yes, the question of China. In 2017, under the government of Juan Carlos Varela, Panama did what a lot of the region has done in recent years, which is to cut ties with Taiwan and to formalize relations with Beijing, at which point there was certainly an uptick and entrance into this Belt and Roads Initiative that you mentioned, so an uptick in Chinese investment, a sort of movement towards greater trade with China.
Something that bears mentioning is that following the election of Donald Trump, the U.S. ambassador, then-ambassador, departed not long after. And in fact, the Trump administration and the State Department appointed no ambassador to Panama for, effectively, the entirety of the first Trump administration. So, this really left — as Mulino said in his speech, his press conference following his meeting with Rubio, this left a lot of empty chairs, into which China slid.
So, this Belt and Roads Initiative, Mulino said that he will not renew the agreement. That was one of the concessions that he offered Rubio and the United States. He also sort of got ahead of things. This happened in early January. So, maybe after the first or second time that Trump mentioned that he was going to, quote, “retake the Panama Canal,” he began auditing the — Mulino, excuse me — Mulino began auditing the Hong Kong-based company that won concession bids to operate these two ports on the Atlantic and Pacific side of the canal. So, that audit was, I think, a sort of preemptive attempt to hopefully find — you know, hopefully for the Panamanian government, it would be a fortuitous out to their current predicament — to hopefully find some degree of wrongdoing in the bookkeeping, something to that effect, so that there would be a reason to annul the contracts and potentially open up bids to U.S. companies to take control of those ports.
AMY GOODMAN: Miriam Pensack, very quickly, what would it take for the U.S. to, quote, “take back” — what Trump keeps threatening — take back the Panama Canal?
MIRIAM PENSACK: On a logistical level, it’s impossible, because the entity that runs the Panama Canal, an autonomous — effectively, a state within a state of Panama, the Panama Canal Authority, operates the lock system and the pilot system, which moves — you know, it sort of leads these large container ships through the canal. It’s run by roughly 8,800 Panamanian employees. So, the notion that the United States could take over that — you know, the transition to have Panama take over that operation required 23 years of collaboration between the two governments. So the notion that that can be done overnight with something like, say, an executive order, or something to that effect, on a logistical level, is quite impossible.
As Secretary of State Marco Rubio visits Latin America on his first foreign trip in his new post, we look at the Trump administration’s policy orientation toward the right-wing government of El Salvador and the left-wing government of Guatemala with journalist Roman Gressier. Rubio is visiting both countries during his trip, which is expected to cement Trump’s ties to Salvadoran strongman enthusiast Nayib Bukele and to the conservative opposition in Guatemala. Rubio’s top agenda items are anti-immigration enforcement and U.S. competition with China.
Transcript
This is a rush transcript. Copy may not be in its final form.
AMY GOODMAN: We want to bring Roman Gressier into this conversation. He’s in Guatemala City, where Secretary of State Rubio will be. Roman, first we want to talk about what happened in Salvador. President Trump made his first call to a foreign leader, Saudi Arabia. His second was to Bukele in El Salvador. And now Bukele, as Rubio was just leaving there, has promised to imprison American prisoners for a fee at the much admired, by Trump, but horrified by human rights groups, prison system in El Salvador and also to take deportees from any country. The significance of this?
ROMAN GRESSIER: Hi. It’s great to be back with you.
Look, I think, in terms of the legal U.S. courts question and international law, I’m not sure how that latter promise will play out. But what we can observe is that a — look, Bukele was close to Trump in his first term, and this is a way of cementing that closeness into a migration-driven alliance in his second term.
From the rhetorical, where we saw a couple months ago, last June to be exact, we saw Trump Jr., we saw Tucker Carlson and other figures in the MAGA sphere at Bukele’s unconstitutional inauguration of his second term, and that was already on the rhetorical end. And then there’s the anti-woke discourse that they share and a certain affinity rhetorically again. And then, now they’re moving more formally into the realm of migration cooperation.
Now, in 2019, the Trump administration had negotiated with El Salvador a safe third country agreement. And this would clearly, at least on the rhetorical end, go much further than that. We’ll have to see what actually — parsing the language a little bit, Rubio said that Bukele had “offered” to receive U.S. citizens convicted of crimes and incarcerated in the United States. But the other things were “Bukele agreed to.” So I think that the Tren de Aragua and MS-13 deportees are perhaps more immediately likely or possible than the latter.
JUAN GONZÁLEZ: And, Roman, I wanted to ask you — of the five countries that Rubio is visiting, all of them have relatively conservative governments, and with the exception of Guatemala. What do you expect — what’s your sense of what Rubio hopes to get out of Guatemala and how that government may respond?
ROMAN GRESSIER: I think migration is the item of the day. Rubio will be arriving this afternoon, and he’ll be here tomorrow — excuse me. And tomorrow afternoon, he’ll be giving a press conference summing up his Guatemala trip.
The Arévalo administration, since the transition, has been meeting with Trump officials and the Heritage Foundation to promote the idea that they can get along and that, as they told the U.S. press on background — I don’t think they wanted to put a name to it, perhaps for optics, but they told the U.S. press on background that the Arévalo administration would be open to discussing the possibility of receiving regional return deportees. So, I think, on that plane, that will be a topic of discussion, and it’s certainly of interest to Marco Rubio.
But there’s a broader political issue where the Arévalo administration has been trying to send the signal that they can get along, in part because the public prosecutor’s office, which has been working to — which first worked to prevent Arévalo from taking office in January 2024, has now been working to put him on trial, remove him from office, etc. And just last week, the Supreme Court decided to move forward with a probe of Arévalo that could possibly lead to the revocation of his immunity from prosecution. Anyhow, it’s a very drawn-out process, but the Supreme Court kicked the ball forward on that last week. So I think that domestic context is very important, given that the attorney general and her office have been eagerly courting Trump’s support and trying to promote the idea that they defend a conservative agenda.
JUAN GONZÁLEZ: And I’m wondering if you could — if we could look back at the broader picture of this indication of the Trump administration focusing on Latin America in its first days in office, ostensibly over the migration crisis and fentanyl, but also over China’s growing influence. Isn’t the reality already that China has become the main economic partner of South America? It’s the largest trading partner with South America and the second largest with Latin America as a whole. So, really, the United States has been for now decades losing control of the markets of Latin America for its goods. Your sense of whether this has any impact on how the Trump administration is approaching the region?
ROMAN GRESSIER: Yeah, I think you’re right about that. It does have Marco Rubio’s fingerprint on it. And even in his recent Senate hearings during the Biden administration, he would frequently talk about Chinese influence in the region. Honduras broke relations with Taiwan two years ago. And Guatemala and Belize, which is part of the Commonwealth, the British Commonwealth, are the only two remaining countries now. Guatemala has kind of a balancing act, where they maintain historic relations with Taiwan while also having informal commercial ties to China. And I think that that could possibly be a topic of discussion for the visit, too, especially given that Marco Rubio is very interested in China policy as it pertains to Central America and the broader region, as you pointed out.
AMY GOODMAN: And very quickly, Roman, Latin America and particularly Central America, a place for the Trump administration to actually make money. You have President Trump’s nominee to be secretary of commerce, Howard Lutnick, also has ties to El Salvador. He’s the billionaire CEO of the Wall Street firm Cantor Fitzgerald, which is a major backer of Tether, a cryptocurrency firm that recently announced it’s relocating to El Salvador. Bloomberg recently ran an article headlined “Commerce Nominee Lutnick Is Backer of Outlaws’ Favorite Cryptocurrency.” The article states that Tether is used by, quote, “drug traffickers, terrorists and scammers to move money around the world.” Your response, Roman?
ROMAN GRESSIER: I don’t want to get in over my head on that. I wasn’t aware of Lutnick’s relationship, but it is true that Tether does have a presence in El Salvador. And an array of cryptocurrency companies, major players on the global scale, have had some type of presence in El Salvador since 2021, when the bitcoin law was passed, though I would note that the bitcoin law was basically gutted in recent days. And, for example, any language referencing bitcoin as moneda, or currency, was struck from the law, among others, as part of an IMF financing deal. So, I’m not sure what exactly the political implications would be of Lutnick’s appointment, but we’ll have to watch and see.
President Trump’s executive order paving the way to convert potentially tens of thousands of merit-based civil servants to at-will employees, enabling political appointees to fire and replace them with loyalists, is unlawful and exceeds the president’s authority, according to a lawsuit filed today in Maryland federal court by Public Employees for Environmental Responsibility (PEER). PEER is represented in the suit by Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington (CREW) and Democracy Forward.
“Donald Trump’s executive order reverses course on 140 years of civil service reform meant to ensure federal employees have the required skills and expertise to best serve the American people and protect the civil service from dangerous nepotism and cronyism,” said CREW President Noah Bookbinder. “With one of his first acts in office, Donald Trump put the country on a path toward getting rid of merit-based hiring and staffing crucial government functions with unqualified loyalists.”
Trump’s order, nearly identical to his previous Schedule F executive order in 2020, would lay the groundwork to convert a huge percentage of the federal civil service from employees who can only be fired for cause to at-will employees who can be fired for any reason at all. Thousands of employees—including those who protect our public health, the environment and our food and water—who were hired for their expertise and serve in non-partisan positions could be stripped of vested job protections in one fell swoop, in violation of their due process rights and in excess of the president’s constitutional authority.
“The American people rely on non-partisan and professional civil servants to serve the public. There are 2.2 million civil servants that work in every community across our country to, among other things, make sure that our communities and our nation are protected, our food and medicine are safe, our air and water are clean, and our children have access to education.
“The Administration’s efforts, outlined in Project 2025, to decimate the ability of our government to do work for the people will harm everyday Americans. We are challenging these actions in court,” said Skye Perryman, President and CEO of Democracy Forward.
For more than 30 years, PEER has provided pro bono legal services and other support to scientists, public health professionals and other civil servants who seek to uphold high standards of scientific integrity within their agencies, including by defending whistleblowers and shining a light on illegal government actions. The renewed Schedule F order has already directly impacted PEER’s clients and PEER’s ability to fulfill its mission.
“This profoundly troubling move advances efforts by the administration to politicize policymaking by removing scientists and experts and inserting, instead, those who will follow the wishes of political leaders,” said Tim Whitehouse, PEER Executive Director. “It would allow political leaders to reach deep into federal agencies to remove and replace unknown and unheralded civil servants whose work is critical to keeping our country safe but whose viewpoints may run afoul of the prevailing political narrative of the day.”
*****************
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF MARYLAND
PUBLIC EMPLOYEES FOR ENVIRONMENTAL RESPONSIBILITY 962 Wayne Avenue, Suite 610 Silver Spring, MD 20910 Plaintiff, v. DONALD J. TRUMP, in his official capacity as President of the United States of America, 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W. Washington, DC 20500,
CHARLES EZELL, in his official capacity as Acting Director of Office of Personnel Management, 1900 E Street, N.W. Washington, D.C. 20415,
And
OFFICE OF PERSONNEL MANAGEMENT, 1900 E Street, N.W. Washington, D.C. 20415 Defendants.
COMPLAINT FOR DECLARATORY AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF
Case No. 8:25-cv-00260-PX
Plaintiff Public Employees for Environmental Responsibility (PEER) hereby sues Defendants Donald J. Trump, Charles Ezell, and the Office of Personnel Management (OPM) and alleges as follows:
1. Selecting and removing federal career employees on the basis of merit—their ability to do the jobs for which they are hired—is neither a new concept nor, until recently, a controversial one. For more than 140 years, meritocratic principles have been essential to the efficient and continuous operation of the career civil service.
2. Before that, a “spoils system” reigned and each successive president simply filled federal jobs with political allies. Under this patronage system, positions were not filled based on qualifications or merit, and when presidential administrations changed, employees were regularly dismissed from government regardless of how well they had performed their duties. The spoils system was rife with corruption. By 1832, Senator Henry Clay called it
a detestable system. . . And if it were to be perpetuated—if the offices, honors, and dignities of the people were to be put up to public scramble, to be decided by the result of every presidential election—our Government and institutions, becoming intolerable, would finally end in despotism.
Jay M. Shafritz et al., Personnel Management in Government: Politics and Process (5th ed. 2001).
3. Congress eventually repudiated the spoils era and created the modern civil service on which this country depends and under which it has thrived. Today, civil servants
print and mint; our money, control narcotics, regulate immigration, and collect taxes and duties. They help to conserve land and revitalize land that is unproductive, bring electricity into rural homes, enforce Federal laws, and administer Social Security. They operate the atomic energy program, forecast the weather, and protect national parks and forests. They conduct research—in physics, electronics, meteorology, geology, metallurgy, and other scientific fields—which has far-reaching effects on the health, welfare, economy, and security of our Nation. They control our airways, standardize our weights and measures, develop flood-control measures, and perform hundreds of other services required by the American people.
U.S. Civ. Serv. Comm., Pub. Info. Off., Biography of an Ideal: A History of the Federal Civil Service 2 (1974).
4. Congress’ requirement of merit-based hiring and its attendant protections were initially limited to a small number of federal jobs, but the share of the federal workforce that Congress has determined should be selected on the basis of merit grew steadily, now comprising the vast majority of the country’s 2.3 million federal workers. Over decades, merit-based selection and retention of employees have produced a stable and successful civil service that effectively carries out the ordinary and continuous work of the federal government and has effectuated the president’s policies and Congress’ programs regardless of political party.
5. To ensure accountability to the president, new administrations appoint approximately 4,000 noncareer employees to direct their agendas’ implementation. These appointees direct and work in concert with career civil servants, whose expertise, experience, and skills allow them to effectively carry out policy direction while completing the nonpartisan work of government. Without these talented career employees’ expertise, presidential administrations would be significantly limited in their ability to implement their agendas, and the operations of the federal government—everything from Social Security to national parks—would grind to a halt.
6. Now, however, the President seeks to do just that by way of an Executive Order, “Restoring Accountability to Policy-Influencing Positions Within the Federal Workforce” (Jan. 20, 2025) (“the Executive Order,” or “E.O.”), which would undermine the meritocratic system Congress enacted and return to a spoils system, with all the dangers it entails.
7. PEER, a nonprofit provider of legal services to federal employees and whistleblowers, brings this suit to challenge the E.O. as ultra vires and as directing agency action contrary to the Administrative Procedure Act.
SUMMARY OF THE CASE
8. Since the Pendleton Act ended the spoils system and created the competitive civil service in 1883, subsequent congressional and executive actions have consistently moved the federal civil service in one direction: toward greater protections and political insulation for members of the career civil service, and toward a greater proportion of the federal workforce being covered by these protections. This progress has been charted for one purpose: to improve the efficiency and effectiveness of the federal government as it works for the American people. The civil service system was intended to eliminate the myriad ills of the spoils system: the inefficiency of quadrennial patronage scrambles, the inferior quality of civil servants selected for reasons besides merit, the loss of expertise attendant to regular purges of the civil service ranks, and the perils of a civil service loyal to an individual president or administration.
9. The creation of a robust, professional civil service began with a commitment to competitive, merit-based hiring. It expanded with a commitment to retention of civil servants and then insulation of civil servants from demands of party or personal allegiance that could interfere with the non-partisan workings of government. Along the way, limited exceptions to these principles were defined to shape a federal workforce that is directed by political appointees at the top, managed by a small cadre of career, non-partisan employees with executive skills, and populated by a large force of career, non-partisan employees. Security from arbitrary and politically-motivated termination for career employees was written into law with the encouragement of numerous presidents. The sharpest departure from that historical trend was the unprecedented attempt by the first Trump Administration to establish “Schedule F” of the excepted service, which the Executive Order reinstated nearly identically as “Schedule Policy/Career” (“renewed Schedule F”).
10. The longstanding policies now being reversed have been codified in the Civil Service Reform Act and other enactments as well as regulations issued by OPM. They are well supported by social science, empirical research, and historical experience.
11. Statutory adverse action rights—the rights of civil servants to challenge removals from service, suspensions, or demotions—allow civil servants to serve the nation without fear of political reprisal and allow the agencies they serve to rely on their continued expertise and diligence, including through and during periods of presidential transition.
12. The procedural and substantive protections of civil servants against adverse employment actions are a key safeguard against partisan influence in civil service employment decisions. Absent such protections, there is no barrier to a presidential administration simply clearing the career ranks of subject matter experts and putting in place political cronies who lack requisite experience to perform critical jobs on behalf of the American public.
13. The Executive Order now seeks to eliminate those protections for many federal employees without due process of law, as well as eliminate merit-based hiring requirements.
14. The Executive Order is contrary to law in several respects. It exceeds the President’s authority under the Civil Service Reform Act, purports to deprive federal employees of property rights without due process required by the Fifth Amendment, and requires federal agencies to violate the Administrative Procedure Act.
PARTIES
15. Plaintiff PEER (Public Employees for Environmental Responsibility) is a nonprofit, non-partisan organization headquartered in Maryland. PEER provides direct services to environmental and public health professionals, land managers, scientists, enforcement officers, and other civil servants dedicated to upholding environmental laws and values. PEER provides pro bono legal services to current and former public employees who hold government accountable to environmental ethics, compliance with environmental laws, and scientific integrity standards. PEER represents and defends federal whistleblowers, investigates and exposes improper or illegal government actions, and works to improve laws and regulations impacting PEER’s clients.
16. Defendant Donald J. Trump is the President of the United States. He is sued in his official capacity.
17. Defendant Office of Personnel Management (OPM) is a federal agency that serves as the chief human resources agency and personnel policy manager for the Federal government.
18. Defendant Charles Ezell is the Acting Director of OPM. He is sued in his official capacity.
JURISDICTION AND VENUE
19. This Court has jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1331. This Court has further remedial authority under the Declaratory Judgment Act, 28 U.S.C. §§ 2201 and 2202 et. seq and the Administrative Procedure Act, 5 U.S.C. §§ 701 et seq.
20. Venue properly lies within the District of Maryland because Plaintiff resides in this judicial district. 28 U.S.C. § 1391(e)(1).
BACKGROUND
The Transition from the Spoils System to a Modern, Professional Civil Service
21. Since 1870, Congress and the presidents have consistently sought to ensure that selection and retention of federal career civil servants are based on merit, and isolated from the risk of undue partisan influence. These efforts grew out of the failures and corruption of the spoils system, and have all been directed at the improvement and professionalization of the civil service for the benefit of the government and the nation.
22. In 1870, President Ulysses S. Grant asked Congress to undertake “a reform in the civil service of the country,” recognized that the spoils system “does not secure the best men, and often not even fit men, for public place. The elevation and purification of the civil service of the Government will be hailed with approval by the whole people of the United States.” Ulysses S. Grant, Second Annual Message (Dec. 5, 1870).
23. Congress obliged, authorizing the formation of a commission to study rules and regulations concerning civil service hiring that would “best promote the efficiency” of the civil service. George William Curtis, U.S. Civ. Serv. Comm., The Reform of the Civil Service: A Report to the President, U.S. Gov’t Printing Off. 5 (1871).
24. The commission concluded that, under the prevailing spoils system, “both selection and removal are largely determined, not by the welfare of the service, but by political stress and exigency.” Id. at 16.
25. The inevitable result of such a system was that civil servants of the time were generally not the best people for their jobs. Indeed, “[t]he doctrine of rotation in office implies that merit should not be considered.” Id. at 17.
26. Nor did the damage end there. Besides suffering from an inferior workforce, government was derailed by staff turnover following each administration change.
In obedience to this system, the whole machinery of the government is pulled to pieces every four years . . . The business of the nation, the legislation of Congress, the duties of the Departments, are all subordinated to the distribution of what is well called “the spoils.” . . . Presidents, Secretaries, Senators, Representatives, are pertinaciously dogged and besought on the one hand to appoint, on the other to retain subordinates.
Id. at 6.
27. To protect career Federal employees from undue partisan influence and ensure that the public would benefit from a professional and competent civil service regardless of political affiliation, civil service advocates and then Congress sought to establish a federal nonpartisan career civil service selected on the basis of merit rather than political affiliation. The reform movement culminated in 1883 when Congress passed the Pendleton Civil Service Reform Act. The Pendleton Act established merit-based hiring for federal positions “as nearly as the conditions of good administration will warrant,” 22 Stat. 403 (Jan. 16, 1883), and provided some employment protections to employees hired in those positions.
28. In 1897, President William McKinley issued Executive Order 101, mandating that “[n]o removal shall be made from any position subject to competitive examination except for just cause and upon written charges filed with the head of the Department, or other appointing officer, and of which the accused shall have full notice and an opportunity to make defense.”
29. Congress subsequently codified similar protections in 1912’s Lloyd-La Follette Act, prohibiting removal of employees in the “classified [i.e., competitive] civil service” “except for such cause as will promote the efficiency of said service,” and mandating an opportunity for an employee to respond to the basis for removal. See 37 Stat. 555 (Aug. 24, 1912).
30. The Lloyd-La Follette Act was motivated, in part, by an effort to “do away with the discontent and suspicion which now exists among [civil service] employees and . . . restore that confidence which is necessary to get the best results from the employees.” 48 Cong. Rec. 4654 (1912) (remarks of Rep. Calder).
31. As time went on, Congress continued to bolster civil service protections. In 1944, Congress passed the Veterans’ Preference Act, providing additional procedural protections to veterans serving in the civil service.
32. In 1962, President John F. Kennedy issued Executive Order 10988, extending Veterans’ Preference Act rights and protections to non-veteran competitive service employees.
33. Despite these advances in civil service protections, the Nixon administration undertook a “concerted and concealed endeavor ‘to politicize’ the executive branch,” Senate Aides See Bureaucracy Use For Political Gain, N.Y. Times (June 8, 1974), and to populate the government with loyalists. U.S. Cong., Subcomm. on Manpower & Civ. Serv., Final Report on Violations and Abuses of Merit Principles in Federal Employment, Together with Minority Views, at 147 (Dec. 30, 1976).
34. As part of that effort, Nixon’s White House Personnel Office sought to gain greater “accountability” throughout the executive branch, including by “reorganiz[ing] sections of an agency and, in doing so, eliminate the jobs of” employees the administration wanted to purge. Id.
35. Even for positions that were “technically nonpartisan civil service posts, the White House team [looked] not only for ability to perform the task but also ‘political compatibility’ with the Nixon administration.” Id. Unsurprisingly, the head of the White House Personnel Office “realized some [patronage] referrals ended up in career jobs.” Id. at 148.
36. Whistleblowers at the Senate Watergate hearings later showed that the Nixon Administration tried to implement the “Malek Manual,” a secret blueprint to replace the civil service merit system with a political hiring scheme that would have begun by purging all Democrats from federal employment. See Joseph D. Gebhardt et al., Blueprint for Civil Service Reform, Fund for Constitutional Government (1976).
37. Following Nixon’s resignation, President Gerald R. Ford distanced himself from the Nixon White House Personnel Office’s disregard for the merit system, reaffirming the importance of the federal civil service and the merit principles that underpin it. President Ford wrote to department and agency heads that the federal government’s ability “to function and move ahead even under the most difficult circumstances . . . is due chiefly to more than two million career civil servants who, day-in and day-out, give of themselves in a thoroughly dedicated and efficient manner.” Gerald R. Ford, Memorandum on the Career Civil Service (Sep. 20, 1974).
38. He instructed agency heads “to see to it that the merit principles contained in the [Pendleton] Act and the personnel laws and regulations are fully and effectively carried out.” Id.
The Creation of a Comprehensive Merit-Based Civil Service System
39. Faced by what he called the “bureaucratic maze” created by the patchwork of authorities governing the civil service and the rights of civil servants, President Jimmy Carter proposed a “comprehensive program to reform the Federal Civil Service system,” intending:
To strengthen the protection of legitimate employee rights; To provide incentives and opportunities for managers to improve the efficiency and responsiveness of the Federal Government; To reduce the red tape and costly delay in the present personnel system; To promote equal opportunity; [and] To improve labor management relations.
Jimmy Carter, Federal Civil Service Reform Message to the Congress (Mar. 2, 1978).
40. In response, Congress recognized that a system of federal employment “consistent with merit system principles and free from prohibited personnel practices” would best “provide the people of the United States with a competent, honest, and productive Federal work force reflective of the Nation’s diversity” and enacted the Civil Service Reform Act of 1978 (“CSRA”). 92 Stat. 1111-12. The CSRA “comprehensively overhauled the civil service system,” Lindahl v. OPM, 470 U.S. 768, 773 (1985), strengthening civil service protections in the process.
41. The CSRA’s comprehensive “new framework,” id. at 774, protected career federal employees from undue partisan political influence, and extended adverse action rights to a larger cohort of employees, so that the business of government could be carried out efficiently and effectively, in compliance with the law, and in a manner that encourages individuals to apply to participate in the civil service. It is the principal foundation of the modern merit system.
42. The CSRA makes clear the paramount place of meritocracy in the selection and retention of federal civil servants. It provides that “[f]ederal personnel management should be implemented consistent with [nine] merit system principles.” 5 U.S.C. § 2301(b).
43. The CSRA’s merit system principles apply to all executive agencies, and include: a) “All employees and applicants for employment should receive fair and equitable treatment” without regard to a range of personal characteristics, including political affiliation; b) “The Federal work force should be used efficiently and effectively;” c) “Employees should be retained on the basis of the adequacy of their performance, inadequate performance should be corrected, and employees should be separated who cannot or will not improve their performance to meet required standards;” and d) Employees should be “protected against arbitrary action, personal favoritism, or coercion for partisan political purposes.” See 5 U.S.C. §§ 2301(a), (b)(1)-(8).
44. Giving teeth to these principles, Congress barred federal employees from engaging in certain prohibited personnel practices in the civil service. Federal employees are prohibited from, inter alia: a) discriminating “for or against any employee or applicant for employment . . . on the basis of . . . political affiliation;” b) coercing “the political activity of any person” or taking “any action against any employee or applicant for employment as a reprisal for the refusal of any person to engage in such political activity;” c) granting “any preference or advantage not authorized by law, rule, or regulation to any employee or applicant for employment;” d) retaliating against lawful disclosure of information that an employee reasonably believed evinces “any violation of any law, rule, or regulation,” or “gross mismanagement, a gross waste of funds, an abuse of authority, or a substantial and specific danger to public health or safety” (whistleblowing); e) discriminating “for or against any employee or applicant for employment on the basis of conduct which does not adversely affect the performance of the employee or applicant or the performance of others;” and f) taking or failing “to take any other personnel action if the taking of or failure to take such action violates . . . the merit system principles.” 5 U.S.C. §§ 2302(b)(1)-(12).
45. In addition to the codification of the merit system principles and the enumeration of the prohibited personnel practices, the CSRA created a “‘new framework for evaluating adverse personnel actions against’” federal employees. United States v. Fausto, 484 U.S. 439, 443 (U.S. 1988) (quoting Lindahl, 470 U.S. at 774).
46. That framework includes rights and procedures by which civil service employees may challenge adverse actions, including those resulting from prohibited personnel practices.
47. In the 142 years since the Pendleton Act, Congress has further modified the selection criteria and the specific protections available to members of the civil service, including via the Civil Service Due Process Amendments Act of 1990, which, among other things, extended appeal rights to a large swath of excepted service employees. Pub. L. 101-376, 104 Stat. 461.
48. Throughout these enactments, the basic principles of the federal civil service have remained the same: career civil servants are selected on the basis of merit and are not removed simply on account of their political views or those of the president.
The Civil Service Today
Classifications of Employees
49. Federal law generally classifies civil service employees into three categories – the competitive service, the excepted service, and the Senior Executive Service (“SES”), each with distinct selection, compensation, and adverse action rights. See generally Cong. Rsch. Serv., Categories of Federal Civil Service Employment: A Snapshot (March 26, 2019), https://tinyurl.com/akrc8hs6 (“CRS Categories”).
50. Roughly 70% of all federal workers are in the competitive service. Id. at 4.
51. Congress made the competitive service the default for civil service employees in the executive branch; all federal employees are presumed part of the competitive service unless specifically excluded. See 5 U.S.C. §§ 2102(a)(1), 2103; 5 C.F.R. pts. 213, 302; Upholding Civil Service Protections and Merit System Principles, 89 Fed. Reg. 24982-01, 24988 (April 9, 2024) (“OPM Final Rule” or “Final Rule”).
52. By statute, the president possesses authority to exclude employees from the competitive service under specific circumstances. The president is permitted to “prescribe rules governing the competitive service,” but may make only “necessary exceptions of positions from the competitive service” when warranted by “conditions of good administration.” 5 U.S.C. § 3302.
53. Prior to the E.O., there were five categories of positions, or schedules, excepted from the competitive service: Schedules A-E. 5 C.F.R. § 6.2. Schedules A, B, and D provide an exception for positions where it is “not practicable” or “impracticable” to impose a hiring condition. 5 C.F.R. § 6.2. Schedules C and E are for the special and limited categories of political appointees and administrative law judges. See, e.g., 5 C.F.R. §§ 6.2, 734.104.
Civil Service Protections
54. As detailed above, Congress determined it was imperative to protect career federal employees from partisan and other improper influences to ensure a competent, effective, and professional workforce. Accordingly, Congress enacted statutes, including the CSRA, to ensure that hiring, removal, and other employment actions would be based on merit.
55. Hiring into the competitive service is conducted by examinations, which are designed to be “practical in character and relate to matters that fairly test the relative capacity and fitness of the applicants for the appointment sought.” CRS Categories at 2 (internal quotations omitted). See also 5 U.S.C. § 3304; 5 C.F.R. § 332.101.
56. Employees in the competitive service may be subjected to adverse personnel actions only for good cause, where the adverse action will promote “the efficiency of the service.” 5 §§ U.S.C. 7503(a), 7513(a). See also 5 C.F.R. §§ 752.102(a), 752.202(a).
57. To protect employees from adverse actions without good cause, Congress created procedural protections and a structure to ensure that agencies provide reasons for adverse actions.
58. For minor adverse actions, competitive service employees who have completed probationary periods have notice and appeal rights and receive written notice that identifies the reason for the action, a reasonable time to respond, and a written decision. See 5 U.S.C. § 7503(b).
59. For more significant adverse actions, such as termination, reduction in pay or grade, or long suspensions, employees may also appeal to the Merit Systems Protection Board (“MSPB”), which reviews and adjudicates actions against qualifying federal employees. See 5 U.S.C. § 7513. Employees may appeal MSPB decisions to federal court. See 5 U.S.C. §§ 7513(d), 7701-7703.
60. The MSPB will not sustain an adverse employment action that is unsupported by a sufficient evidentiary basis, 5 U.S.C. § 7701(c)(1), is not accordance with law, or is based on a “prohibited personnel practice.” 5 U.S.C. § 7701(c)(2).
61. Prohibited personnel actions include discrimination on the basis of political affiliation or activity, granting any preference “not authorized by law, rule, or regulation” to an employee or applicant, discrimination “on the basis of conduct which does not adversely affect” performance, or any other personnel action, “if the taking or failure to take such action violates … the merit system principles,” including whistleblower protections. 5 U.S.C. § 2302(b). Under 5 U.S.C. § 7515, supervisors are subject to penalties for retaliation against whistleblowers.
62. Hiring works differently for the excepted service, and applicants for excepted positions are not subject to an examination process. However, excepted service applicants are still to be considered “solely on the basis of relative ability, knowledge, and skills, after fair and open competition which assures that all receive equal opportunity.” 5 U.S.C. § 2301(b)(1). See also 5 U.S.C. § 3320.
63. In general, excepted service employees have the same notice and appeal rights for adverse personnel actions, though they typically must satisfy longer durational requirements before they become entitled to these rights. See CRS Categories at 5; 5 U.S.C. § 7511(a)(1).
64. As with the competitive service, members of the excepted service who meet the requisite durational requirements may only be terminated for cause. See 5 U.S.C. §§ 7503(a), 7513(a); 5 C.F.R. § 752.102(a); 5 C.F.R. § 752.202(a).
65. And so long as an excepted service member is in a “covered position,” they likewise have protections against “prohibited personnel practices” like discrimination on the basis of political affiliation. See OPM Final Rule, 89 Fed. Reg. at 24987-88; 5 U.S.C. §§ 2302(a)-(b).
66. The vast majority of federal workers, whether in the competitive or excepted service, are entitled to the robust protections outlined above once they have been in service for a period of 1 or 2 years and are beyond any probationary period.
Civil Service by the Numbers
67. The modern federal workforce consists of approximately two million civilian employees. See Elizabeth Byers & Kennedy Teel, A Profile of the 2023 Federal Workforce, P’ship for Pub. Serv. (2024), https://tinyurl.com/bddbn8mz.
68. Roughly 20% of the federal workforce is located inside the Washington, D.C. metropolitan area, with the rest of the federal civilian workforce spread across all fifty states. For example, 5.7% of the federal civilian workforce, or more than 110,000 employees, are located in Texas; 4.2% (or more than 84,000) in Florida; 6.6% (or more than 131,000) in California. Id.
69. The federal workforce is a diverse one, with nearly 40% of employees comprised of individuals who identify as part of a racial or ethnic minority group. Id. Veterans comprise roughly 30% of the federal civilian workforce; more than 20% of the workforce identifies as having a disability or serious health condition. Id.
70. Roughly 53% of the federal civilian workforce possesses a bachelor’s degree or beyond, and 27% has a high school or equivalent education, or less. Id.
71. Public sector jobs have long been a source of opportunity and security that help individuals and families, particularly from historically marginalized groups, build economic security and move into the middle class. See, e.g., Michael Madowitz et al., Public Work Provides Economic Security for Black Families and Communities, Ctr. for Am. Progress (2020), https://tinyurl.com/5fuuncfx.
ALLEGATIONS
The Creation of Renewed Schedule F Upends Longstanding Law and Practice
72. Renewed Schedule F would run contrary to the core principles of the federal civil service established by Congress.
The Executive Order Discards Protections Requested by Previous Executives, Enacted by Congress, and Accepted by All Three Branches of Government
73. This E.O. will, in effect, reinstate a spoils system, untethered from merit.
74. The E.O. purports to amend 5 C.F.R. § 6.2 to create a new, broad category: “Positions of a confidential, policy-determining, policy-making, or policy-advocating character not normally subject to change as a result of a Presidential transition.” E.O. § 2 (reinstating Exec. Order 13957 § 4(i) in relevant part).
75. The purpose of this broad, new category of renewed Schedule F is plain from the text of the E.O. – it will make it easier to fire career civil servants. See E.O. § 1.
76. The E.O. purports to except these positions from the protections that Congress set forth in Chapter 75. See E.O. § 2 (reinstating Exec. Order 13957 in relevant part).
77. Under the terms of the E.O., these career civil servants would, if terminated, no longer have the right to receive notice or any reason at all as to why they are being terminated, and would no longer be provided an opportunity to be heard or to appeal their termination.
78. At the same time, the E.O. purports to remove competitive hiring processes which ensure that positions are filled by merit. See E.O. § 2, § 1 (reinstating E.O. 13957 in relevant part).
79. The workers subject to reclassification under the E.O. were chosen on the basis of merit but will now face the specter of demotion, disciplinary actions, or dismissal on the basis of political allegiance or for other improper reasons.
80. Disciplinary actions or dismissals of employees for ideological or political loyalty reasons will deprive the federal government of experienced, expert workers and undermine the efficient administration of government operations.
81. The E.O. claims that civil servants in “policy-influencing positions” must be “accountable” to the president. It further asserts, without evidence, that there have been “numerous and well-documented cases of career Federal employees resisting and undermining the policies and directives of their executive leadership,” and concludes that there is a need to “restore accountability” to the civil service. E.O. § 1. The E.O. implies that the alleged difficulty in removing employees who are insubordinate, perform poorly, or commit serious misconduct is an obstacle to this “accountability.” See id.
82. The CSRA, however, already provides for well-established and robust processes to remove federal employees who are insubordinate, perform poorly, or commit serious misconduct. See 5 U.S.C. §§ 4303; 7511-15; 5 C.F.R. part 432; 5 C.F.R. part 752.
83. The provisions to remove employees who are insubordinate, perform poorly, or commit serious misconduct already allow removal of employees who resist or undermine policies and directives of political leadership. But the E.O. does not seek to remove procedural protections based on poor performance or failure to enact policy directives; it instead solely seeks to streamline terminations based on the type of work the employee performs, and does not require any showing of poor performance, misconduct, or insubordination. But an employee’s work portfolio – including whether they work on policy – has nothing to do with their performance or conduct.
84. Indeed, the E.O. purports to exclude affected workers from the purview of chapter 23, which prohibits officials from, inter alia, making personnel recommendations based on political connections or influence, coercing employees into engaging in political activities, engaging in nepotism, or retaliating against whistleblowers. See 5 U.S.C. § 2302(b).
85. The E.O. directs agencies to establish rules similar to those in Chapter 23 regarding prohibited personnel practices, E.O. § 6, but provides no timeline for agencies to do so, nor any recourse for employees denied such protections. And since the Executive Order permits agencies to terminate renewed Schedule F employees without providing any basis, agencies are effectively free to fire workers for prohibited reasons – they just need not give any reason at all.
86. Congress provided that workers should not be subject to discipline for “refusing to obey an order that would require the individual to violate a law, rule, or regulation.” 5 U.S.C. § 2302(b)(9)(D). But far from recognizing employees’ ultimate obligation to uphold the rule of law, the E.O. instead threatens employees with dismissal for failing to “faithfully implement administration policies to the best of their ability.” E.O. § 2 (reinstating Exec. Order 13957 § 6 in relevant part and adding section § 6(b)).
87. This carte blanche to fire federal employees defies congressional mandates, leaving “innumerable ways for politics to factor into these traditionally merit-based decisions in a manner that would be difficult to detect or remedy.” 89 Fed. Reg. at 24994.
88. In short, the E.O. unilaterally abrogates protections that Congress created to protect against partisan encroachment into hiring and firing decisions.
The Executive Order Dramatically Expands Congress’ Narrow Exclusions From Civil Service Protections
89. Congress has crafted narrow exclusions from civil service protections for limited categories of employees, including those who are Senate confirmed; whose positions are “of a confidential, policy-determining, policy-making or policy-advocating character” (who are listed on Schedule C); were appointed directly by the president; members of the Foreign Service, the Central Intelligence Agency and several other specifically identified agencies; non-citizens who occupy positions outside of the United States; and some retired annuitants. 5 U.S.C. §§ 7511(b)(1)- (10). See also 5 U.S.C. § 2302(a)(2)(B).
90. Since the CSRA was enacted in 1978, administrations have limited Schedule C exceptions to fewer than 2,000 employees, less than 0.1 percent of the federal workforce. See U.S. Civ. Serv. Comm’n, Maintaining the Integrity of the Career Civil Service, 10 (1960); U.S. Off. Of Pers. Mgmt., General, Questions and Answers, https://tinyurl.com/y8wtp9yk (last visited Jan. 16, 2025) (detailing different political appointment types); Ctr. for Presidential Transition, Frequently Asked Questions About the Political Appointment Process, P’ship for Pub. Serv., https://tinyurl.com/ycyph42y (last accessed Jan. 16, 2025) (estimating there are 1,200 PAS positions, 750 noncareer SES positions, 450 PA positions, and 1,550 Schedule C positions).
91. Schedule C consists of “confidential, policy-determining, policy-making or policy-advocating” positions not directly appointed by the president but brought on by the incoming administration to serve in supporting roles like policy advisors, deputy counsels, and special assistants. See, e.g., S. Rept. No. 118–27 (2024).
92. Just 0.02% of the federal workforce, roughly 4,000 people, serve as political appointees, including Senate-confirmed, presidentially appointed, and Schedule C officials.
93. The exception for employees whose positions are “of a confidential, policy-determining, policy-making or policy-advocating character” in 5 U.S.C. § 7511(b)(2) is limited to employees who do not have an expectation of continued employment after the presidential administration in which they serve.
94. Were positions “of a confidential, policy-determining, policy-making or policy-advocating character” expanded to include career employees, it would undercut the CSRA, which establishes protections for both competitive and excepted service employees.
Renewed Schedule F Is Not Warranted by Good Administration
95. The E.O. asserts that the removal of civil service protections is necessary and warranted by good administration as required by 5 U.S.C. § 3302, but the opposite is true.
Prior Government Actions Reflect that Only Narrow Exceptions to the Competitive Service are Necessary to Promote Good Administration
96. Prior determinations to except narrowly-defined groups from the competitive service demonstrate that renewed Schedule F is an aberration—it is neither necessary nor warranted by good administration. In prior exceptions to the competitive service, the president or OPM carefully considered the necessity of such exceptions, tailoring new schedules and exceptions to the specific factual circumstances that required deviating from the default of competitive service.
97. For example, in 2009, OPM conducted a review of the government’s ability to recruit and hire students and recent graduates. This review included an interagency team to examine relevant federal recruiting and hiring processes, a roundtable to explore relevant barriers to hiring, a public hearing and invitation for comments on the necessity for an exception to competitive service, review of scholarly literature and empirical data, and expert analysis. See generally Excepted Service, Career and Career-Conditional Employment; and Pathways Programs, 76 Fed. Reg. 47495, 47496-97 (Aug. 5, 2011) (describing review).
98. OPM then prepared a report for the president, concluding that, inter alia, barriers to hiring students and recent graduates, combined with the value of such hiring to effective governing, necessitated an exception to the competitive service. Id. at 47497.
99. President Obama subsequently issued Executive Order No. 13562, creating Schedule D, which excepted certain students and recent graduates temporarily from the competitive service. Relying on OPM’s report, the President articulated the necessity of these new exceptions in light of identified barriers to employment, the benefits recent graduates provide to the federal workforce, and the merit system principle set forth in 5 U.S.C. § 2301(b)(1) for the federal government “to achieve a work force from all segments of society.” See Executive Order No. 13562, 75 Fed. Reg. 82,585 (Dec. 30, 2010). In addition to narrowly tailoring the new schedule to the needs identified by an extensive factual record, the Schedule D exceptions included a pathway to conversion to the competitive service. See 5 C.F.R. § 362.107.
100. Other competitive service exceptions were tied to specific and narrow factual circumstances that made deviating from competitive service necessary. The first Trump Administration made such an exception in response to the COVID-19 pandemic. See Michael J. Rigas, U.S. Off. of Pers. Mgmt., OPM Memorandum Coronavirus Schedule A Hiring Authority (March 20, 2020), https://tinyurl.com/mutxdp6h; see also Nat’l Treasury Emps. Union v. Helfer, 53 F.3d 1289, 1294 (D.C. Cir. 1995) (detailing OPM’s history of occasionally approving (excepted hiring authorities for the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation when hiring demands caused by the burgeoning number of bank failures made competitive examination impracticable).
101. In 2023, OPM engaged in notice-and-comment rulemaking to ascertain how best to “enhance the efficiency of the Federal civil service and promote good administration.” Upholding Civil Service Protections and Merit System Principles, 88 Fed. Reg. 63862-01 (Sept. 18, 2023) (“OPM NPRM”).
102. As part of this process, OPM received and reviewed extensive submissions, including by Plaintiff. More than 4,000 commenters weighed in, including from “a variety of individuals (including current and former civil servants), organizations, and Federal agencies.” OPM Final Rule, 89 Fed. Reg. at 24984.
103. In addition to carefully considering these comments, OPM reviewed scholarly literature and empirical studies, analyzed the history of the civil service, and examined Congress’ frequent statutory actions in this space. See generally id.
104. Following this comprehensive process, OPM concluded that strengthening and clarifying civil service protections—not removing them, as proposed by the E.O.—would promote good administration.
105. For example, the Final Rule cataloged existing and effective mechanisms for “appropriate management oversight” of employees. 89 Fed. Reg. at 24990; id. at 24995-96.
106. The Rule also evaluated empirical studies and literature relating to state and international efforts to remove civil service protections, concluding that removing civil service protections did not improve performance or the delivery of government services. See 89 Fed. Reg. at 24998, 25002-03. The Rule concluded that instead of ensuring accountability and effective government, the evidence confirmed that Schedule F would open the door to partisan hiring and firing that risks ushering in the return of the spoils system that Congress has long sought to stamp out. By converting positions to at-will employment, career employees would lose their entitlement to written notice of the reasons for adverse action and other procedural protections. Removal of civil service protections would therefore make employees unable to
protect themselves from actions based on political beliefs or party allegiance because no cause (or evidence) would be required prior to such an action. Under Schedule F, because such an employee would be at-will, the employer would need to give little or no reason prior to a termination. In short, Schedule F leaves innumerable ways for politics to factor into these traditionally merit-based decisions in a manner that would be difficult to detect or remedy.
89 Fed. Reg. at 24994.
107. In sum, despite the Administration’s contention that removing civil service protection is necessary for good administration, OPM’s recent and careful consideration of a voluminous administrative record shows the opposite. Civil service protections are strongly associated with better government administration, including improved government performance, more effective delivery of services, and reduced corruption. Id. at 25002-05. Excepting such workers from the competitive service would “inject[] politicization into the nonpartisan career civil service” and “would not only harm government employees, agencies, and services, but also the American people that rely on them.” Id. at 24995.
Social Science Confirms that the Merit Protections and Procedural Safeguards Targeted by the Executive Order Promote Government Performance
108. Extensive social science research confirms that renewed Schedule F is neither necessary nor warranted by good government administration.
109. For example, a meta-analysis looking at the impact of merit principles examined nearly 100 peer-reviewed studies across more than 150 countries. The analysis showed that use of merit principles and tenure protection for civil servants was positively and consistently associated with government performance and negatively associated with corruption. See Eloy Oliveira et al., What Does the Evidence Tell us about Merit Principles and Government Performance?, 102 Pub. Admin. 668, 683 (2023), https://tinyurl.com/2xcpf7x9.
110. Other studies confirm the importance of civil service protections for the effective delivery of government services, including that adopting civil service reforms reduced errors and increased productivity. See Abhay Aneja & Guo Xu, Strengthening State Capacity: Civil Service Reform and Public Sector Performance during the Gilded Age, 114 Am. Econ. Rev. 2352 (2023), https://tinyurl.com/mn8jcnu4.
111. Social science research confirms reduced merit protections drive experts out of the government and make it harder to recruit motivated, effective workers. See Mark D. Richardson, Politicization and Expertise: Exit, Effort, and Investment, 81 J. Pol., 878-891 (2019).
History Reflects that Renewed Schedule F is Neither Necessary Nor Warranted by Conditions of Good Administration
112. Since 1883, career civil servants have conducted the business of government for the American people in a non-partisan manner.
113. They have advised incoming administrations regardless of party affiliation, carried out presidential priorities and Congress’ programs, all while ensuring the timely delivery of public benefits to the countless Americans who depend on them.
114. And they have led some of the largest and most influential undertakings in modern times; American civil servants have both figuratively and literally put men on the Moon.
115. The smooth and continuous operation of the United States government has depended on the continuity and qualifications of its career civil service.
116. Across seventeen switches in party control of the White House since the Pendleton Act, American civil servants have dutifully carried out the work of the government and given effect to the policies of each president under whom they have served.
117. This was as true under President Trump as it was for his predecessors.
118. Among hundreds of “Trump Administration Accomplishments” on the White House’s website as of January 2021, the first Trump Administration touted that it: a) effectuated a deregulatory agenda, undertaking the expert and technical work necessary to repeal eight regulations for every new regulation; b) distributed record amounts of aid to American farmers; c) implemented numerous new or expanded tax credits; d) distributed 125 million face masks to school districts to help combat COVID-19; e) expanded Veterans Administration services; f) distributed over $300 million in grants to support programs focused on career development services for formerly incarcerated people; and g) launched multiple initiatives to combat drug abuse. Trump Administrative Accomplishments, https://tinyurl.com/38yprasx (last accessed Jan. 14, 2025). The list does not reflect the full scope of the first Trump Administration’s initiatives, many of which were complicated, time-intensive, resource-intensive, or otherwise difficult.
119. President Trump and his political appointees did not do these things alone. The career civil servants who constitute most of the federal workforce were responsible for the vast majority of the work needed to effectuate President Trump’s decisions and priorities—as they were for his predecessors.
120. If this E.O. stands, future administrations are unlikely to retain employees chosen on the basis of political loyalty to a predecessor and will likely seek to replace them. “[W]hen a man has not been appointed by reason of his fitness, he must not ask that he be retained on account of his merit. . . . It treats the public service as a huge soup-house, in which needy citizens are to take turns at the table, and they must not grumble when they are told to move on.” The Reform of the Civil Service, 17.
121. The E.O. will resurrect quadrennial “public scrambles” for appointment to a vast swath of federal posts, undermining government efficiency at times of presidential transition.
The Executive Order is Aimed at Politicizing the Civil Service, and Any Claimed Benefits to Good Administration are Pretext
122. President Trump and his surrogates have made clear that renewed Schedule F, far from being a tool to drive effective government and improve performance, is based on a desire to drive out career civil servants, including those who may not share his politics, and to expedite the process of hiring political loyalists into positions previously staffed on the basis of merit.
President Trump Has Previously Attempted to Politicize the Civil Service
123. This is not the first time that a Trump Administration has attempted to gut civil service protections from the career workforce.
124. On October 21, 2020, President Trump issued Executive Order No. 13957, “Creating Schedule F in the Excepted Service,” excepting from the competitive service “positions of a confidential, policy-determining, policy-making, or policy-advocating character not normally subject to change as a result of a Presidential transition.” 85 Fed. Reg. 67631, 67632 (Oct. 26, 2020).
125. Executive Order No. 13957 included a bald assertion that “conditions of good administration,” specifically “the need to provide agency heads with additional flexibility to assess prospective appointees without the limitations imposed by competitive service procedures,” made the creation of Schedule F necessary. 85 Fed. Reg. at 67631.
126. Executive Order No. 13957 further asserted that conditions of good administration made it necessary to except Schedule F positions from certain adverse action protections. In other words, Schedule F sought to radically alter federal hiring and firing of career civil servants in a manner at odds with the CSRA and its amendments.
127. Because the first Trump Administration ended shortly after Executive Order No. 14003 was signed, no position in the federal civil service was ever moved to Schedule F. The Trump Administration’s Office of Management and Budget, however, provided a preview of what was expected, designating 68 percent of its employees as Schedule F, including lower-level GS-9 and 10 positions. U.S. Gov’t. Accountability Off., GAO-22-105504, Agency Responses and Perspectives on Former Executive Order to Create a New Schedule F Category of Federal Positions, at 14, 19 n.14 (2022), https://tinyurl.com/ycxbj56d.
128. On January 22, 2021, President Biden issued Executive Order No. 14003, Protecting the Federal Workforce, revoking Executive Order No. 13957. 86 Fed. Reg. 7231 (Jan. 22, 2021).
129. Executive Order No. 14003 determined that the creation of Schedule F “not only was unnecessary to the conditions of good administration, but also undermined the foundations of the civil service and its merit systems principles.” 86 Fed. Reg. at 7231.
President Trump and His Surrogates Have Expressly Admitted Their Desire and Intent to Illegally Politicize the Civil Service
130. President Trump stated that he seeks to make “every executive branch employee fireable by the president of the United States. The deep state must and will be brought to heel.” Donald J. Trump, Speech at Political Rally in Florence, South Carolina (March 12, 2022), https://tinyurl.com/3k6km35w.
131. The President has pledged to fire wide swaths of civil servants, promising to “throw off the political class that hates our country.” Donald J. Trump, Speech at Conservative Political Action Conference (March 4, 2023), https://tinyurl.com/2hjrs5ah. As he explained, “you’ll see that on the first day of my presidency, the deep state which is destroying our nation. The tables will turn and we will destroy the deep state. We’re going to destroy the deep state.” Donald J. Trump, Speech at South Carolina GOP Dinner (Aug. 5, 2023), https://tinyurl.com/36uhbe74.
132. President Trump has singled out Democrats and so-called “RINOs” (Republicans In Name Only) for termination. For example, in one video post from May 2023, Trump told a reporter that he will make “very big changes” to the FBI in a potential second term. Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump), Truth Social (May 15, 2023, 11:04 PM ET), https://tinyurl.com/bdesuz3w. The DOJ and FBI, Trump said, personify the “deep state” as they are filled with “thousands and thousands” of “RINOs and with Democrats” that have been there for decades. Rebecca Jacobs, Trump Has Said He Wants to Destroy the “Deep State” 56 Times On Truth Social, CREW (Aug. 1, 2024), https://tinyurl.com/36z27phm. In another speech, he criticized the “deep state” workers who “work with the with the Democrats and the Republicans, and those are the Republicans I don’t like.” Donald Trump, Speech at Political Rally in Sarasota, Florida (July 3, 2021), https://tinyurl.com/58r46v4a.
133. Vice President Vance reiterated that President Trump should “[f]ire every single midlevel bureaucrat, every civil servant in the administrative state, replace them with our people.” Andrew Prokop, J.D. Vance’s Radical Plan to Build a Government of Trump Loyalists, Vox (July 18, 2024), https://tinyurl.com/4rsvn7xv.
The President Lacks Authority to Strip Procedural Protections from Civil Servants Without Due Process
134. The E.O. purports to strip due process protections from current career civil servants, allowing employees placed onto renewed Schedule F to be fired at will and without procedural protections such as notice and an opportunity to be heard.
135. But once federal employees obtain tenure protections, they retain them—even if their positions are reclassified into positions no longer eligible for those protections, as the Constitution prohibits the government from stripping that interest without due process of law. See Cleveland Bd. of Educ. v. Loudermill, 70 U.S. 532, 541 (1985); U.S. Const. amend. V.
136. Here, Congress created conditions under which excepted and competitive service employees with the requisite satisfactory tenure earn a property interest in that continued employment. For such employees, Congress has mandated that removal and the other actions described in title 5 may be taken only “for such cause as will promote the efficiency of the service.” See 5 U.S.C. §§ 7503(a), 7513(a); 5 C.F.R. §§ 752.102(a), 752.202(a).
137. This property interest in continued employment has existed in the civil service since at least 1912, when the Lloyd-La Follette Act required just cause to remove a federal employee. See Bd. of Regents of State Colleges v. Roth, 408 U.S. 564, 576-77 (1972); 89 Fed. Reg. at 24987.
138. The Constitution divests the president of authority to terminate employees’ accrued property interests in continued employment, and their concomitant due process protections, simply by converting them from one federal civil service category to another. See Roth v. Brownell, 215 F.2d 500, 502 (D.C. Cir. 1954). “Neither the formula of ‘excepting’ the kind of position a person holds, nor any other formula, can obviate the requirements” for firing a civil servant. Id.
The Executive Order Disregards Foundational Tenets of Administrative Law and Would Require Agencies to Violate the Administrative Procedure Act
139. The E.O. purports to simply disregard prior legal restraints against its implementation by nullifying regulations enacted pursuant to the Administrative Procedure Act following notice and comment.
140. Specifically, the E.O. provides that 5 C.F.R. part 302 and 5 C.F.R. § 210.102(b)(3) and (4) “shall be held inoperative and without effect” until OPM rescinds all portions of the Final Rule which would interfere with the E.O.
141. This circumvents Congress’ requirement in the Administrative Procedure Act that rulemakings and resulting regulations be promulgated, delayed, or rescinded through procedures designed “(1) to ensure that agency regulations are tested via exposure to diverse public comment, (2) to ensure fairness to affected parties, and (3) to give affected parties an opportunity to develop evidence in the record to support their objections to the rule and thereby enhance the quality of judicial review.” Int’l Union, United Mine Workers of Am. v. Mine Safety & Health Admin., 407 F.3d 1250, 1259 (D.C. Cir. 2005).
142. Congress expressly subjected OPM to the rulemaking requirements of the Administrative Procedure Act. See 5 U.S.C. §§ 553, 1103(b)(1), 1105; see also 5 C.F.R. § 110.101.
143. As described above, pursuant to its statutory authority, OPM previously engaged in comprehensive notice-and-comment rulemaking that implicated many issues relevant to the E.O. and ultimately issued final regulations that became effective on May 9, 2024.
144. The operative regulations, among other things, define the phrases “confidential, policy-determining, policy-making, or policy-advocating” and “confidential or policydetermining,” as terms of art throughout OPM’s Civil Service Regulations to describe positions of short-term, political character generally excepted from chapter 75’s protections. 5 C.F.R. § 210.102(b)(3), (b)(4). The regulations detail specific procedures that federal agencies must follow when moving individuals or positions from the competitive service to the excepted service, or from one excepted service schedule to another, including providing advance written notice and notice of appeal rights to impacted employees, see 5 C.F.R. § 302.602(c), (d), set forth a process by which employees involuntarily moved to a new schedule may file an appeal with the MSPB, including on the basis that a “facially voluntary move was coerced or otherwise involuntary,” 5 C.F.R. § 302.603, and requires agencies to identify the types, numbers, and locations of positions that the agency proposes to move and document the basis for determining that such moves are consistent with relevant standards set forth by the president, Congress, or OPM. 5 C.F.R. § 302.602(a), (b).
145. The May 9, 2024 OPM regulations are “legislative” because they were adopted “pursuant to properly delegated authority, ha[d] the force of law, and impose[d] new rights or duties.” Children’s Hosp. of the King’s Daughters, Inc. v. Azar, 896 F.3d 615, 620 (4th Cir. 2018).
146. Where the executive branch seeks to delay or rescind a legislative rule adopted through notice-and-comment rulemaking, the government must act through notice-and-comment. See, e.g., Nat’l Fam. Plan. & Reprod. Health Ass’n, Inc. v. Sullivan, 979 F.2d 227, 235 (D.C. Cir. 1992) (“It is a maxim of administrative law that . . . an amendment to a legislative rule” is “itself . . . legislative” and “notice and comment rulemaking must be followed” (internal quotations and citation omitted)); Clean Air Council v. Pruitt, 862 F.3d 1, 8-9 (D.C. Cir. 2017) (agency seeking to “brief[ly] stay” a final rule must go through notice-and-comment rulemaking).
147. Indeed, the E.O. tacitly acknowledges that OPM must rescind and amend existing regulations to effectuate the Executive Order. See E.O. § 4 (directing the Director of OPM to “promptly amend the Civil Service Regulations to rescind all changes made” by the OPM Final Rule that impact the effort to create renewed Schedule F).
148. But prior to OPM completing the process to rescind and amend, “including the resolution of any judicial review,” the E.O. declares that the existing regulations are nonetheless “inoperative and without effect.” Id. (purporting to render inoperative 5 C.F.R. part 302, subpart F, 5 C.F.R. § 210.102(b)(3), and 5 C.F.R. § 210.102(b)(4)).
149. The E.O. thus directs agencies to disregard the procedures and protections set forth in operative regulations now, without abiding by the notice-and-comment requirements of the Administrative Procedure Act.
150. On January 27, 2025, OPM Acting Director Charles Ezell issued a Memorandum to heads and acting heads of departments and agencies regarding the E.O. (“Ezell Mem.”).
151. The Ezell Memorandum acknowledged that the Executive Order “broadly directs OPM to rescind” OPM’s Final Rule and asserted that the E.O. “directly nullified some portions of that rule.” Ezell Mem. at 4. OPM directed agencies to “disregard the provisions of 5 CFR part 302, subpart F, 5 CFR 210.102(b)(3), and 5 CFR 210.102(b)(4).” Id.
152. The E.O., and OPM’s subsequent action, thereby deprive individuals, organizations, and other interested parties – including Plaintiff – from providing OPM important perspectives and data through the notice and comment process prior to subsequent final rulemaking.
153. By directing agencies to ignore regulations even before they have been properly revoked, the E.O. also mandates that agencies violate the Administrative Procedure Act, which requires courts to hold unlawful and set aside any agency action taken “without observance of procedure required by law.” 5 U.S.C. § 706(2)(D).
PEER Has Been and Will Continue to Be Harmed by the Illegal Executive Order
154. Plaintiff PEER’s mission is to protect civil servants who protect our environment and public health. The Executive Order has already caused PEER to expend additional resources and impeded its ability to fulfill its mission. Until the Executive Order and its effects are enjoined or invalidated, it will continue to frustrate PEER’s ability to fulfill its mission and will directly cause PEER to spend additional time and money addressing the impacts of the E.O.
The Executive Order Has Already Required PEER to Expend Significant Resources
155. PEER currently employs seven attorneys, who spend the bulk of their time providing legal services to federal civil servants. These employees are often whistleblowers who reveal environmental or public health abuses and other violations within their agencies and face retaliation as a result.
156. PEER represents these employees before the MSPB and the Department of Labor, assists them with the preparation of Office of Special Counsel or Inspector General complaints and disclosures, and advises them on legal matters connected to their employment. In some instances, PEER collects fees after successfully representing a client.
157. When a potential client contacts PEER, PEER spends significant time taking information from the potential client, conducting initial evaluations, and evaluating whether PEER will represent each potential client. This process can take hours, even for potential clients that PEER does not ultimately represent.
158. PEER also provides counseling, information, and referrals to civil servants that PEER ultimately chooses not to represent in litigation. PEER regularly represents and works with civil servants who are now at high risk of being reclassified under the E.O. For example, about half of PEER’s clients and potential clients review rulemakings, help write rules, or are otherwise involved in policy-related work.
159. Since January 24, 2025 alone, at least three individuals reached out to PEER because they were advised by their supervisors that they were likely subject to the E.O.
160. Since the Executive Order was promulgated on January 21, 2025, PEER has received at least fifteen inquiries from clients or potential clients who have identified Schedule F or renewed Schedule F as the reason for their outreach. That number is increasing rapidly. These inquiries have required PEER to expend additional resources counseling and advising, both because of increased call volume and lengthier counseling sessions due to new fears and concerns related to the Executive Order.
161. Since January 21, 2025, PEER has spent approximately 32 hours performing work for clients or potential clients in response to these concerns. That number is increasing rapidly since President Trump’s inauguration as PEER spends more time conducting intakes and providing legal services in connection with renewed Schedule F.
162. Because of the repeated outreach on this topic from the public and from potential clients, PEER has devoted significant communications resources to educate the public and civil servants about renewed Schedule F’s threatened revocation of legal protections, including a resource page, webinars and trainings, and blog posts on these topics.
163. Since January 21, 2025, numerous media outlets have contacted PEER seeking comment or information related to the Executive Order and its implications; this number continues to rise. PEER staff have expended time responding to these inquiries.
The Executive Order Has Already Impeded PEER’s Ability to Fulfill Its Mission
164. PEER also engages in public advocacy on behalf of civil servants and in defense of environmental ethics, public health, and integrity. For example, PEER works with whistleblowers when an agency engages in malfeasance or disregards the best available scientific evidence.
165. Several of PEER’s clients and potential clients have already indicated that they are reluctant to speak to the media or to make confidential whistleblower reports due to fear of retaliation given renewed Schedule F. For example, PEER spoke to one individual after the Executive Order was promulgated who was afraid to give even their name and hesitant to give any information because they feared summary termination due to the Executive Order.
166. These employees’ fears and hesitations are consistent with their perception that the E.O. removes or weakens protections for whistleblowers and renewed Schedule F employees.
167. This hesitation to make permitted disclosures of information impedes PEER’s ability to learn of agency practices that may impede environmental ethics, public health, and/or scientific integrity, and to take action to fulfill its mission based on that knowledge.
168. This will prevent PEER from learning about potentially dangerous policies or decisions and advocating for sound environmental and public health policies.
169. As potential whistleblowers lose protections from termination – or perceive that they have lost those protections – fewer whistleblowers will decide to participate in filing claims before the MSPB or other tribunals, undermining PEER’s core activities of representing and supporting agency whistleblowers.
170. Fewer clients willing to bring whistle-blower claims will also result in lower attorneys’ fees from MSPB proceedings accruing to PEER.
The Executive Order Will Continue to Cost PEER Time and Money and Frustrate PEER’s Fulfillment of its Mission
171. Given the increase in outreach from clients and potential clients since the E.O. was issued, PEER anticipates being flooded with new client intake and counseling requests as renewed Schedule F is actually implemented.
172. PEER has begun the process to hire a new in-house attorney to address the increased need for legal services caused in part by the planned implementation of renewed Schedule F. This hire will be a significant expenditure for a 12-employee organization that currently employs seven attorneys.
173. Because Schedule F implicates the rights of whistleblowers—the core group with whom PEER works—and because PEER has already received numerous inquiries and questions about the Executive Order from its constituents, PEER will need to conduct additional communication and training activities in response to the Executive Order.
174. Responding to the increased demand for legal services and other Schedule F-related activities requires PEER staff to divert resources from other mission-critical tasks. Time spent by PEER staff on work related to renewed Schedule F would otherwise be spent on PEER’s other work, including intake unrelated to renewed Schedule F, advocacy, education, or environmental litigation.
175. The purported rescission of OPM’s regulations also harms PEER.
176. For example, the 2024 OPM regulations require agencies to publish in the Federal Register information that OPM’s publication of this data would give PEER notice of: agencies where whistleblowers will be particularly vulnerable (and help PEER defend its clients accordingly); the need to prepare appeals of renewed Schedule F reclassifications on behalf of clients; and potential clients in need of PEER’s services. See 5 C.F.R. § 302.602(b)(6).
177. Second, the 2024 OPM regulations requiring 30-days’ advance notice would give PEER time to consult with clients and to appeal any such reclassification before it goes into effect and increases the likelihood that such clients will timely consult with PEER to protect their legal rights and assert those rights. See 5 C.F.R. § 302.602(c).
178. Third, the 2024 OPM regulations make clear that many reclassified employees would retain MSPB appeal rights. See 5 C.F.R. § 302.603. PEER’s ability to effectively defend its clients’ interests often depends on the MSPB appeals process.
179. Had the E.O. not declared substantial portions of the 2024 OPM regulations immediately “inoperative and without effect” and instead allowed for OPM to rescind the regulations through notice-and-comment rulemaking, PEER would have submitted a comment urging OPM not to rescind the regulations for the reasons outlined above.
180. The uncertainty engendered by the E.O. and renewed Schedule F will also impede PEER’s ability to provide clear and accurate answers or advice to clients and potential clients with regard to their rights and options.
CLAIMS FOR RELIEF
Count One (Ultra Vires - Violation of 5 U.S.C. § 3302)
181. Congress made the competitive service the default for civil service employees in the executive branch, as all employees are presumed part of the competitive service unless excluded. 5 U.S.C. § 2102(a)(1).
182. Congress has granted the president authority to exclude employees from the competitive service, only where “necessary” and warranted by “conditions of good administration.” 5 U.S.C. § 3302.
183. The purported exceptions set forth in the Executive Order are neither necessary, nor warranted by conditions of good administration.
184. Accordingly, the E.O. violates 5 U.S.C. § 3302.
Count Two (Ultra Vires – Due Process)
185. Plaintiff repeats and incorporates by reference each of the foregoing allegations as if fully set forth herein.
186. Congress has vested federal career civil servants with the requisite tenure with property interests in, and due process protections for, that continued employment.
187. The Fifth Amendment’s Due Process Clause provides that the government may not constitutionally authorize the deprivation of such an interest, once conferred, without appropriate procedural protections.
188. The Constitution does not give the president or OPM authority to unilaterally strip these vested rights without due process of law.
189. By purporting to do just that, the Executive Order was issued without legal authority and is ultra vires.
Count Three (Ultra Vires - Violation of 5 U.S.C. §§ 553, 1103, 1105)
190. Plaintiff repeats and incorporates by reference each of the foregoing allegations as if fully set forth herein.
191. As the Executive Order acknowledges, OPM must engage in rulemaking to rescind or amend existing regulations, including those promulgated by OPM in its 2024 Final Rule, “Upholding Civil Service Protections and Merit System Principles.”
192. Defendants lack authority to circumvent the notice-and-comment rulemaking provisions of the Administrative Procedure Act by unilaterally providing that existing regulations are “inoperative and without effect.”
193. By purporting to bypass Congress’ requirements for reasoned agency rulemaking, the Executive Order violates 5 U.S.C. §§ 553, 1103, 1105.
Count Four (Administrative Procedure Act - Violation of 5 U.S.C. §§ 553, 1103, 1105) As against Defendants Ezell and OPM
194. Plaintiff repeats and incorporates by reference each of the foregoing allegations as if fully set forth herein.
195. The Administrative Procedure Act requires courts to hold unlawful and set aside any agency action taken “without observance of procedure required by law.” 5 U.S.C. § 706(2)(D).
196. The Act requires agencies to follow public notice-and-comment rulemaking procedures before rescinding, delaying, or amending regulations. See 5 U.S.C. § 553(b), (c).
197. Defendants Ezell and OPM failed to provide notice and an opportunity for public comment prior to regarding OPM’s 2024 regulations inoperative and without effect.
198. Accordingly, Defendants Ezell and OPM are in violation of the Administrative Procedure Act. See 5 U.S.C. §§ 706(2)(D); 553, 1103, 1105.
REQUEST FOR RELIEF
WHEREFORE, Plaintiff requests that this Court:
A. Declare that the Executive Order is contrary to 5 U.S.C. § 3302 and therefore ultra vires and null and void;
B. Declare that the Executive Order is contrary to the Fifth Amendment to the United States Constitution and therefore ultra vires and null and void, and that civil servants with accrued status and due process rights retain those rights if they are involuntarily moved between Schedules;
C. Declare that the Executive Order improperly nullifies regulations in violation of 5 U.S.C. §§ 553, 1103, 1105 and therefore ultra vires and null and void;
D. Declare that the Executive Order instructs agencies to act in a way that violates the Administrative Procedure Act;
E. Preliminarily and permanently enjoin Defendant Charles Ezell, Defendant Office of Personnel Management, and their agents and successors, from (1) implementing or otherwise giving effect to the Executive Order; and (2) failing to enforce and implement 5 C.F.R. part 302, subpart F, 5 C.F.R. 210.102(b)(3), and 5 C.F.R. 210.102(b)(4) unless and until they are rescinded after providing notice and the opportunity for comment in compliance with the Administrative Procedure Act;
F. Award Plaintiff its costs, attorneys’ fees, and other disbursements for this action; and
G. Grant any other relief this Court deems appropriate.
Donald K. Sherman* Nikhel S. Sus* CITIZENS FOR RESPONSIBILITY AND ETHICS IN WASHINGTON P.O. Box 14596 Washington, D.C. 20044 Telephone: (202) 408-5565 Fax: (202) 588-5020 dsherman@citizensforethics.org nsus@citizensforethics.org *pro hac vice motion forthcoming
Paula Dinerstein^ PUBLIC EMPLOYEES FOR ENVIRONMENTAL RESPONSIBILITY 962 Wayne Ave., Suite 610 Silver Spring, MD 20910 Telephone: (202) 265-6391 Fax: (202) 265-4192 pdinerstein@peer.org ^application for admission forthcoming
"COUP!" Jamie Raskin issues TAKEDOWN of Elon Musk Brian Tyler Cohen Feb 4, 2025 Interviews with Brian Tyler Cohen
[Jamies Raskin] We need to be very clear about what's going on. And I think the easiest way to wrap your head around it is that this is a coup, which is a a seizure of state power by unelected actors by taking control over the central institutions and functions of government. So Elon Musk has essentially seized control over the financial payment systems of the US government, much of the communications systems of the United States, the data infrastructure, and of course he's got his claws also into the military infrastructure as well.
INTERVIEW - Brian interviews Jamie Raskin about his feud with Elon Musk, Trump's government overreach, and what Americans can do to fight back.
Transcript
I'm joined Now by Congressman Jamie Raskin Congressman thank you for joining me you bet I'm delighted to be with you Brian all right so we are in a constitutional crisis right now where the executive branch led by the unelected richest man in the world is basically usurping all power in government and unilaterally accessing sensitive information has access to the treasury he's shutting down agencies deciding where congressionally allocated funding can go and whe whether it can go so I I I want to start off by channeling The Voice of millions of people out there who want to know really what the hell is going on right now, and and what Democrats are doing to push back against this?
[Jamie Raskin] Well thank you Brian for putting the question so clearly I do believe that as um despondent as it is uh we need to be very clear about what's going on and I think the easiest way to wrap your head around it is that this is a coup which is a a seizure of state power by unelected actors by taking control over the central um institutions and functions of government so Elon Musk has essentially seized control over the financial payment systems of the US government, much of the communications systems of the United States, the data infrastructure, and of course, he's got his claws also into the military infrastructure as well so um you know in addition to everything that Donald Trump is doing to dismantle every part of government that doesn't profit him personally and his friends personally we have this additional problem of Elon Musk essentially trying to consolidate state power under him and transform the nature of our constitutional order.
[Brian] So as it relates to Elon I I know that the answer is that he can't do the things that he's doing but the reality is the the Practical reality is that he is doing them so given that we're beyond the point where he and Trump are respecting the law what is our recourse then here well we're going to have to fight them um in every channel and uh social context and governmental Arena that we can uh we're going to fight them in subcommittees and in the Committees of the house and of the Senate we're going to fight them in court um there have already been several setbacks dealt to the administration in court as you know Donald Trump tried to impose a new Birthright citizenship rule basically taking millions of people who are United States citizens in the country and then making them into undocumented immigrants based on who their parents were uh that was shut down by a Reagan appointed judge uh they're appealing it but that's a win uh as you know they froze uh federal spending um at the end of last week and over uh the weekend completely nullifying congressional power over Appropriations that's a central power of the legislative branch of government the power of the purse um and um again a United States district court judge in the District of Columbia shut that down and enjoined it and there were oral arguments on that uh yesterday that went very well uh for our side so uh we are going to assert the Constitution the rule of law the Civil Service rules as a blockade against what they're doing at every turn and public pressure public uh vigilance about what's happening um are going to be essential in this process Congressman among your Republican colleagues is there any red line for them I mean to to see an unelected bureaucrat basically on this on the pretense of trying to block other unelected bureaucrats even though that's what he is at this point to see him going in there and putting his his Clause into everything getting access to sensitive information putting high school graduates in charge of payment processing systems that that include Social Security numbers is there any Red Line in in public or private among your Republican colleagues well we'll see Brian I mean we weren't in session last week and we weren't in session the last couple days I think that they sent us out of session early actually because there was such popular and political rejection of their Mass pardons of The Proud boys and the oathkeepers and the insurrectionists they wanted to change the subject that's what I think gave a lot of people the impression that our leadership wasn't doing anything and people were beating up on the Democrats we weren't here I mean for someone like me whose district is right next door to Washington it's easy enough for me to go down to usaid and to protest and to object and we had a bunch of the Maryland and Virginia people there uh but in any event uh we have gotten our fight back people are ready to fight this now as for the Republicans we don't know there are one or two who have been uttering uh some of their reservations and their objections to what's going on but I've been absolutely shocked and really devastated at the way that they've fallen into line for these completely um corrupt and unqualified cabinet nominees that Trump has put through including cash Patel an election denier a j6 uh Enthusiast and supporter um and uh you know an avatar of Mega lawlessness um who is just about to become the director of the FBI I mean it's just dumbfounding to me this is taking place and Lincoln's party of Liberty and Union has become a Trump's party of chaos and dysfunction you you'd mentioned that that there were all of one or two who have been you know issuing some Rumblings behind the scenes what do you think that these same people these Republicans would say if George Soros all of a sudden was anointed some special government uh adviser and got access to every sensitive agency every sensitive piece of information all of Americans private data Social Security numbers what do you think those same Republicans all of whom are falling in line right now would say about that well Brian I used to perform that mental experiment all the time including during the impeachment crisis where I said imagine if Bill Clinton or Barack Obama had incited a mob of tens of thousands of people to go and fight and fight like hell and if you don't you're not going to have a country anymore and sat back and watched it eating hamburgers uh outside of the Oval Office and not saying anything other than my vice president didn't have the courage to do what need to be done and I would always flip it over and I would POS it to them and then I realized that that represents an obsolete mode of thinking which is that uh the GOP members will act according to principles and to principled reasons for Action they have dissolved in into complete tribalism they believe including the ones they've stuck on the Supreme Court that Donald Trump can do no wrong oras Trump you know so vividly put it you I could uh shoot somebody um in the middle of Fifth Avenue and I wouldn't lose their support he was right about that he understood the cultish dimensions of their support so I try to flip these over in the mental thought experiment that you propos but it's meaningless to them they don't understand it for them whatever Donald Trump does goes they will defend it no matter what and whatever he says about the foes or the enemies of Donald Trump uh they will believe and they will follow that too right is a complete moving Target gone are the days where there's any long-standing principles that you can pin them to at this point to your exact point it's just complete difference to whatever Trump says and does and if that changes by by the week the day the hour the minute so be it they they're just along for the ride it's a completely humiliating thing to them I mean you have members over there like Marco Rubio or Ted Cruz whom uh Trump has personally insulted he's called their lives uh ugly said Ted Cruz's father uh assassinated John F Kennedy or was in on the plot to do it I mean just outrageous things and they all come and uh uh they kiss his ring and that's not all um and so it's utterly abasing and humiliating and denigrating for them um but they do it so ours in addition to being the party of democracy and freedom now is the party of self-respect yeah you know you got into a public argument with Elon Musk over the last couple of days where you know you were standing up along with some colleagues to protect us usaid Elon came out he called it a coup because of course he's trying to to draw some false equivalency between January 6th and rightfully standing up for an agency that that Elon Musk has no power to dissolve um while you were standing up for USA ID uh Elon Musk wrote back and I'll put the Tweet right here on the screen what Raskin actually means is that he wants his kickbacks and bribes to continue. So that was obviously a defamatory statement by Elon, because Elon, and Trump, and Republicans now clearly have their marching orders, and that is to destroy everything that really doesn't serve the ultra wealthy, doesn't serve these Republican donors. And so they're on this scorched earth mission to just denigrate every agency that doesn't help them.
First off, can you very briefly explain what USAID is, and why it's important?
[Jamie Raskin] [USAID] was created originally by President Kennedy and by Congress to engage in what today we call, "soft power," or the projection of American influence, and American foreign policy objectives by rendering aid to people. And that could be anything from helping people build effective water projects, to fighting HIV AIDS, to malaria nets, and antimalaria campaigns, to building up development projects, democracy -- we're all over the world with USAID. It's less than 1% of the overall budget. The whole foreign aid budget's around $40 billion a year, compared to 900 billion that goes to the Department of Defense alone, without getting into other national security agencies and departments. So it's a a tiny fraction. But that money means something, and has helped to buy lots of goodwill for America, and also help to prevent diseases that come back and haunt us, and also prevent the disease of authoritarianism and autocracy. Which is one of the key reasons that Elon Musk and Donald Trump want to dismantle it right now.
[Brian Tyler Cohen] At the risk of getting too wonky here, on that exact point, this is a really important point I think about USAID. China has what's called the Belt and Road initiative. So why is USAID important to combat Chinese soft power, and what are the implications going to be if we cede that ground to the Chinese?
[Jamies Raskin] But we're already hearing now, with them having pulled the plug on all foreign aid projects of USAID all over the world, that China is moving in to say, "Well, they don't want to help you, but we're happy to help you.
I mean one of the things people love about America is the compassion of America, the Democratic solidarity of America, the fact that we're a country with a big heart made up of people who come from all over the world, and we stand with people. And then suddenly, we're sending the message that we are going to stop programs to help pregnant women and infants all over the world? We're going to stop programs to bring food raised by farmers in Iowa, and Louisiana, and California, to starving people in Asia and in Africa? It just makes no sense. But it is coherent from a political philosophy. Which is that America can only get its way by being a bully.
[Brian Tyler Cohen] And we're seeing that same strategy play out right now with these tariffs and these trade Wars. In your estimation Trump basically pushing all of our allies away showing them that America's word is no good anymore that if we negotiate a trade deal by the way a trade deal like the usmca which Trump himself signed into law that those are only as good as you know the person in power in the term that he's in it and maybe not even beyond that and so can you just speak on what that is what the implications are going to be what the impacts are going to be more broadly on America's standing in the world and our ability to even have alliances when even among our own closest friends we are instantly picking fights from Canada to Mexico to Panama to Greenland and on and on
[Jamie Raskin] I mean I've seen tv ads that the Canadian government and Ontario government are running in America saying, "Remember we are allies; we are closest trading partners; we are friends; we go back and forth; we were together in World War II fighting the Nazis." And so good for Canada reminding the American people of the relationship that we actually have. And that's something that obviously people who live in Michigan and Minnesota and the northern states understand better than people who live in the South, and so. But you know, the Wall Street Journal itself called this the Dumbest trade war in American history. Nobody can even understand why Donald Trump is doing it. It just makes no sense. It's incoherent. More chaos. More dysfunction.
[Brian Tyler Cohen] Can you speak on the fact that really at the end of the day what he was able to extract from the Canadians was border security that they had announced back in December and so it would seem to me that what Trump is trying to do is just create a crisis manufacture a crisis out of nowhere look for whatever vague excuse of a of a concession he can he can cast out as PR win and then and then beat his chest as some master negotiator and that that none of this is really amounting to anything they're building ill will all over the world inclus including from our closest allies and you know it may be that you're right Brian that he knew all along he was going to have to give nothing essentially or rather get nothing because right what was given by Canon and Mexico was already given I think they pulled the wool over his eyes I mean uh Mexico said they're going to put 10,000 Troop troops on the border they already had 15,000 troops on the border that been negotiated I think a year or two ago so you know he just likes a lot of rasle Dazzle and noise but the leaders of the world are laughing at him um and we can recognize what like fraudulent pretense this whole thing was and at the same time you've got Mexico and Canada's leaders who recognize that Trump really just is looking for some PR win that he's looking for anything he can slap his name on and say look I've averted crisis that by the way I created but then you look at the Chinese for example they have placed retaliatory tariffs on the US and so now this trade war is is happening we're in it because they're not they're not playing playing into his gamesmanship and so his his effort basically to Stave away uh again a crisis of his own making at least as it relates to Canada and Mexico is not going to work with the Chinese.
[Jamie Raskin] That's right, that's right. Well, In fact, Elon Musk, who's obviously pulling Donald Trump's strings now, is completely in bed with the CCP and the Chinese government. So they're not going to do anything to help people in Taiwan, or Hong Kong, or the Tibetans. They're not going to do anything to challenge the authoritarian autocrats who they emulate. They think that there might be some political mileage in having a fake trade war with China, but everybody understands the game that's being played. This is like Orwell's 1984.They basically want to cede a sphere of influence to China so China can just stomp on the human rights of anybody under them. And they want to be able to do the same thing here. I mean, to the point of ridiculousness, of saying they're going to take over Panama and Greenland. We do need two new states in America, but it's not Panama and Greenland, it's Puerto Rico and Washington DC. That's what we're fighting for.
House Democrats say GOP caved to Musk in funding bill, protecting his China interests by Lora Kolodny CNBC Published December 21, 2024 Updated on December 21, 2024 at 10:45 pm
• House Democrats Jim McGovern and Rosa DeLauro accused Republican colleagues of bending to Elon Musk's demands in sinking a bipartisan funding bill. • Congress passed a stopgap funding bill instead on Saturday, but discarded a provision to screen and regulate U.S. investments in China. • The scrapped provision "would have made it easier to keep cutting-edge AI and quantum computing tech — as well as jobs — in America," McGovern wrote on X.
House Democrats Jim McGovern of Massachusetts and Rosa DeLauro of Connecticut say their Republican colleagues in Congress caved to the demands of Elon Musk, sinking a bipartisan government funding bill that would have regulated U.S. investments in China.
Congress passed a separate stopgap funding bill over the weekend, averting a government shutdown.
In a series of posts on X, McGovern said more could have been accomplished. The scrapped provision "would have made it easier to keep cutting-edge AI and quantum computing tech — as well as jobs — in America," he wrote. "But Elon had a problem."
Tesla, run by Musk, is the only foreign automaker to operate a factory in China without a local joint venture. Tesla also built a battery plant down the street from its Shanghai car factory this year, and aims to develop and sell self-driving vehicle technology in China.
"His bottom line depends on staying in China's good graces," McGovern wrote about Musk. "He wants to build an AI data center there too — which could endanger U.S. security. He's been bending over backwards to ingratiate himself with Chinese leaders."
SpaceX, Musk's aerospace and defense contractor, has reportedly withheld its Starlink satellite internet service over Taiwan at the request of Chinese and Russian leaders. Taiwan is a self-ruling democracy that Beijing claims as its territory. Taiwan's status is one of the biggest flashpoints in U.S.-China relations.
DeLauro, the top Democrat on the House Appropriations Committee, wrote in a letter to Congress on Friday that Musk needs "Chinese government approvals for his company's projects in the country." It's concerning, that Musk "has ingratiated himself with Chinese Communist Party leadership," she wrote.
In the letter, DeLauro referred to the Tesla and SpaceX CEO as "President" Musk, alluding to the fact that the world's richest person began railing against the prior funding bill on Wednesday, before President-elect Donald Trump came out with a statement of his own.
Trump had wanted the GOP to sink the bill, and issue a new one that would raise the debt ceiling so he could avoid that fight during the start of his second term in office. The stopgap funding bill, which President Joe Biden signed on Saturday, did not include the two-year suspension of the U.S. debt limit that Trump was seeking.
Musk responded to DeLauro's concerns by calling her an "awful creature" in a post on X.
After acquiring Twitter in 2022, Musk rebranded it X and used it to help propel Trump back into the White House, becoming a close adviser and major backer to the incoming president along the way.
Musk contributed $277 million to the Trump campaign and other Republican causes during the 2024 cycle, according to Federal Election Commission filings. Since the election in November, Musk has become a nearly constant presence at Trump's side, including in meetings with foreign leaders.
Trump appointed Musk to co-lead a group that's not yet formed, but will be tasked with finding ways to cut regulations, personnel and budgets.
[Bryan Tyler Cohen] All the while, by the way, with this trade war in effect, that means prices are going to go up on Americans because we import goods ranging from clothing, to electronics, to to shoes, to toys, and everything in between from China. And so that's going to have absolutely adverse impacts on everybody in this country thanks to a President, by the way whose entire election campaign was predicated on this idea that grocery prices were too high, and that's something that he himself admitted that the cost of groceries is why he won this election. And his first act as president is to launch a trade war for no reason at all where the consequence of that is that Americans are going to be paying more money for all goods under the sun. The price of eggs by the way have never been higher in US history.
Yeah I want to end with this. What can Americans be doing right now? I I get a lot of emails from people saying look I I I understand this is what Democrats are doing in Congress this is what Democrats are doing in the Senate this is what our elected officials are doing but what can we do out here you know we we may not be having women's marches with you know millions of people taking to the streets but there are people agitating at home they're looking for some way to help what can they do well first of all we're not having marches of millions of people right now because uh Trump would undoubtedly deploy his private militia of uh pardoned oathkeepers and proud boys and 3centers and violent insurrectionist to come and clash with protesters to claim antifas there and to create Street violence so as to give Trump an excuse for imposing martial law so so uh I think that the forces of opposition which represent a majority of the American people are being far more Nimble and clever than that and there are lots of rallies and demonstrations breaking out all over the country in different ways um in different places but not allowing one to be the focus that they can uh try to go and crack down on but we need to be expressing solidarity that's the watch word solidarity with everybody who's under attack whether it's you know high school kids in the lgbtq uh Community whether it's refugees and immigrants who are under attack whether it's federal civil service workers um people who just did their jobs as FBI agents and prosecutors we are defending the whole American constitutional order so um when people say what do we need to do I say what day and what hour are you talking about because we need everybody to be vigilant uh to be awake uh to everything that's taking place because we are witnessing an attempt to replace the American constitutional order but they don't know what they're messing with on their side because every time they attack another institution another Community another person that's one more Ally for us and our forces are growing we get stronger every day well Congressman I appreciate you being in this fight and for taking some time out to talk to me today thanks for everything that you're doing Brian [Music]
FBI Agents file TWO LAWSUITS Against Trump's DOJ to Prevent Unlawful Firings of Agents by Glenn Kirschner Feb 4, 2025
In what is perhaps one of the most important developments seeking to resist the lawlessness of the Trump administration, FBI agents just filed two lawsuits against Trump's acting Attorney General and against the Department of Justice.
The FBI agents are seeking injunctive relief, asking the court to stop Trump's DOJ officials from wrongfully firing the agents who worked on the January 6 and classified document investigations.
This development also may help it make more difficult for Trump and his henchmen to plunge the nation into a constitutional crises, as this video discusses.
Transcript
So friends, FBI agents just filed a lawsuit -- two lawsuits actually -- against the acting Attorney General of the United States -- one of Donald Trump's lapdogs -- and against the Department of Justice, to put a stop to Trump's corrupt scheme to purge the FBI of the thousands of agents who worked on the January 6 cases and who worked on the classified documents in the Mar-a-Lago case. Friends, this is an enormously important development, and perhaps the strongest point of light yet. Let's talk about that, because Justice matters [Music] Hey all. Glenn Kirschner here. So friends, the men and women of our nation's preeminent law enforcement agency, the FBI, are standing up to, and pushing back against, Donald Trump's lawlessness, and the lawlessness of Trump's henchmen at the Department of Justice. Let's start with the new reporting. This from Newsweek. Headline: "FBI agents Sue Department of Justice over unlawful and retaliatory January 6 list." And that article begins:
"A group of FBI agents brought a class action lawsuit against the justice department on Tuesday accusing it of carrying out an unlawful and retaliatory directive from president Donald Trump to purge the Bureau of agents who worked on the January 6th, 2021 Capital Riot probe and the classified documents investigation into Trump. The lawsuit, brought by nine Anonymous agents, was filed as thousands of Agency personnel have been ordered to fill out questionnaires about their involvement in cases related to the deadly Capitol Riot.
On Tuesday afternoon, the FBI turned over the names of 5,000 employees who worked on January 6 cases to the Justice Department. CNN reported that's about 13% of the Bureau's workforce. Last week a top DOJ official also ordered the acting U.S. attorney in Washington DC to fire about 30 prosecutors who worked on Capitol riot cases over the last four years, prosecutors who did nothing wrong who did everything right, who followed the facts and applied the law went to trial and won convictions against January 6th defendants. But Donald Trump didn't like it. So he told the U.S. attorney to fire those people -- all my editorial addition. The article continues: "Tuesday's lawsuit was filed against the Justice Department and acting Attorney General, James McKenry, but it mentioned Trump by name multiple times: 'Upon returning to the presidency, Mr. Trump has ordered the DOJ to conduct a review and purge of FBI personnel involved in these investigations and prosecutions.' It said, this directive is unlawful and retaliatory and violates a federal law protecting government employees from unfair treatment. The Complaint said that in addition to grilling FBI personnel about their involvement with the January 6 cases, the questionnaires that were distributed last week asked them to identify if they played a specific role in the Special Counsel Jack Smith's investigation into Trump's hoarding of classified documents at Mar-a-Lago after he left office in 2021."
So friends, how absurdly transparent is Donald Trump and what he's trying to accomplish here. He says, 'I want to know all the names and the identities of the FBI agents who worked the January 6 cases, and I want to know the names, the identities of, all of the agents who worked the classified documents Mar-a-Lago case.'
This has nothing to do with the quality, or the legality, or the legitimacy of the work these FBI agents performed. It's all about revenge, retribution, retaliation. And it is unlawful. It is an obscene abuse of power by Donald Trump and his DOJ henchmen. It's because Donald Trump wants them to pay for investigating and exposing his crimes. And this is the stuff of dictators.
Now, let's turn briefly to the two new lawsuits that have been filed. The first one is Federal Bureau of Investigation Agents Association John Doe number one two 3 4 and Jane Doe number one two and three plaintiffs in the case versus the United States Department of Justice and the United States of America defendant why Jane do why John Doe why don't we know the names because the extreme danger that Donald Trump is putting putting these people in you know first he opens the doors of the prisons and lets all these violent j6 convicted defendants pour back into our streets and our communities and you've already seen some of the reporting they're out there trying to you know get together to try to find and retaliate against FBI agents that's why John Doe that's why Jane Doe and there's the other lawsuit that was just filed John and Jane those number 1-9 employees agents of the Federal Bureau of Investigation on behalf of themselves and those similarly situated plaintiffs versus Department of Justice James McKenry acting Attorney General of the United States defendant and let me read just a little bit of the opening Salvo of this lawsuit that was just filed by these FBI agents class action complaint comes now plain John and Jane Do's 1-9 on behalf of themselves and all similarly situated current and former agents Andor employees of the Federal Bureau of Investigation by and through undersigned councel with their class action complaint for injunctive Relief and States as follows plaintiffs are currently employed agents Andor employees of the FBI who during the course of their duties worked on or participated in in the investigation of persons suspected of criminal activity related to the January 6th 2021 attack on the United States capitol building at the behest of Donald Trump Andor the unlawful removal retention and storage of classified documents by Mr Trump the maralago case Upon returning to the presidency Mr Trump has ordered the doj to conduct a review and Purge of FBI person involved in these investigations and prosecutions this directive is unlawful and retaliatory and violates the civil service reform act additionally honor about February 2nd 2025 plaintiffs were instructed to fill out a survey that would identify their specific role in the January 6th and marago cases some plaintiffs were required to fill out the survey themselves others were were told that their supervisors would be filling out the form plaintiffs were informed that the aggregate information is going to be forwarded to upper management plaintiffs assert that the purpose for this list is to identify agents to be terminated or to suffer other adverse employment action plaintiffs reasonably fear that all or parts of this list might be published by allies of President Trump thus placing themselves and their families in immediate danger of Retribution by the now pardoned and at large January 6th convicted felons defendants Gathering retention and disclosure of plaintiff's activities related to the acts of former president Trump is a violation of plaintiff's rights under the First Amendment to the Constitution it is also a violation of plaintiff's Fifth Amendment substantive and due process rights such that the court has the authority to enjoin the serious harm it is likely to cause moreover the publication or dissemination of the information in these surveys would be a violation of the Privacy Act of 1974 and would place plaintiffs in immediate risk of serious harm accordingly plaintiffs seek to enjoin the publication or dissemination of the surveys or any information derived there from and who are the plaintiffs in this case plaintiffs are employees of the FBI who worked on January 6th Andor maralago cases and who have been informed that they are likely to be terminated in the very near future the week of February 3rd through 9th 2025 for such activity they intend to represent a class of at least 6,000 thousand current and former FBI agents and employees who participated in some manner in the investigation and prosecution of crimes and abuses of Power by Donald Trump or those acting at his behest and friends I'm going to stop there but I would urge you to read the rest of this 16-page lawsuit it's pretty short it's pretty digestible and it's really important but let me leave you with this one of the reasons I think this development is so important probably the most important lawsuit we have seen filed against the Department of Justice and the Trump Administration thus far is because of something that we call a constitutional crisis now that's a term of art it gets thrown around a lot and people might disagree you know with precisely what the most accurate definition of a constitutional crisis is for gosh sakes every minute Donald Trump is in power it feels like our constitution is in crisis but I think the most precise definition of a constitutional crisis is when two co-equal branches of government start budding heads and there is no other Branch or authority to break the tie so for example if a trial court judge a federal judge part of the co-equal judicial branch issues an injunction tells the Trump Administration stop you can't do it it's unlawful and the Trump Administration says we don't care we're doing it anyway that's a constitutional crisis if the Supreme Court issues a ruling that says something that a president wants to do for example in an executive order is unlawful and unconstitutional and he can't do it but that President says I don't care I'm doing it anyway maybe he would even add um why don't you judicial branch federal court judges go ahead and send your army send your law enforcement agency to try to stop me oh oh wait a minute you don't have an army you don't have a law enforcement agency only I do in the executive branch that is a true constitutional crisis and I think with the FBI standing against Trump's lawlessness formally in these lawsuits that are being filed makes it much harder for Donald Trump to disobey court orders and plunge us into a true constitutional crisis because in part he would have to turn to his law enforcement agency you know trying to Rally the FBI behind him if he was is going to act unlawfully in violation of court orders or Court rulings so I think this lawsuit goes a long way in making it much harder for Donald Trump to plunge us into a true constitutional crisis but I can already hear what you're saying friends you're probably saying to yourself uh yeah but Glenn the president has the military so you know the FBI is no match for the military and in one sense that's true but in another sense I was active dut the Army for six and a half years before I joined the Department of Justice and you know what they drill into our heads as military members one we must obey lawful orders but two even more importantly we must disobey unlawful orders just as the FBI albeit a civilian um organization as opposed to the military just as the FBI is formally standing up in court against Donald Trump's lawlessness and the lawlessness of his doj henchmen I expect our military to refuse to comply with unlawful orders if they are issued by Donald Trump or his henchmen at the Department of Defense like the Secretary of Defense I would expect them to disobey unlawful orders that is their sworn obligation to the Constitution so we're not out of the woods heck the woods are probably still well ahead of us but boy the FBI standing up to Trump's lawlessness is huge because Justice matters friends as always please stay safe please stay tuned and I look forward to talking with you all again tomorrow [Music]
************************
BREAKING: FBI agents STRIKE BACK at Trump in SHOCK move Brian Tyler Cohen Feb 4, 2025 The Legal Breakdown with Glenn Kirschner
Legal Breakdown episode 457: @GlennKirschner2 discusses FBI agents filing a class action lawsuit against the DOJ and Trump.
Transcript
you're watching the legal breakdown Glenn we have some unprecedented news here as you know Donald Trump is seeking retribution against the thousands of FBI agents who participated in the prosecutions um related to January 6th we had spoken last week about the prospect of some type of class action lawsuit for example that FBI agents could take against this Administration we have a major update on that front can you explain what just happened you know Brian on the legal RoR scale between 1 and 10 this is about a 17 this is the f FBI in a class action lawsuit brought expressly against the leadership of the Department of Justice but make no mistake about it it is brought in a very real sense against Donald Trump and his Lawless cabal his administration these FBI agents just went to a federal court in Washington DC and they are seeking injunctive relief what does that mean they want a court to order Donald Trump to stop you know what he's doing which includes potentially endangering the safety of FBI agents and employees and wrongfully terminating FBI agents and employees for what what was their transgression they investigated and assisted in Prosecuting the crimes that we all saw committed at the US capital on January 6th 2021 and because apparently Prosecuting the people who committed those crimes at Donald Trump's urging remember that fight like hell you won't have a a country anymore now go to to the capital and stop the certification stop the steal because they make Donald Trump look bad not only did he pardon all of the j6 criminals but he's now trying to punish the FBI agents and the prosecutors who did the hard work of the American people abided by the rule of law were loyal to the Constitution and held those j6 criminals accountable and the FBI just said enough we're done we are taking the doj leadership and by proxy Donald Trump to court to put a damn stop to a runaway Lawless presidential administration because that's what it is now here is just a little flavor Brian and I urge all of our viewers to read the very short and digestible 16-page lawsuit that was just filed by nine FBI agents who are representative of the class in fact it says comes come now the plaintiff John and Jane do what does that mean they don't even want to put their names on this pleading for fear of retaliation retribution by Trump and his supporters including his January 6 mob that he opened the prison doors for so they could go out and continue to do his dirty and dangerous bidding comes now plaintiffs John and J Jane do 1-9 on behalf of themselves and all similar ly situated current and former agents Andor employees of the Federal Bureau of Investigation and they are asking that the court put an immediate stop to what Donald Trump has demanded the FBI agents and supervisors do which is fill out a questionnaire I want the names of every FBI agent and employee who participated in the investigation and prosecution of January 6 defendants I want to know what what they did and I want those names because there is no mistaking what Donald Trump intends to do with those names one unlawfully terminate those people from federal government employment and two distribute those names to everybody so his supporters can potentially get after those people and it is that second nefarious goal of Donald Trump and his henchmen at the Department of Justice that the plaintiffs the FBI agents who filed this suit zoom in on on page two plaintiffs assert that the purpose for this list of agents and employees who worked on January 6th cases is to identify agents to be terminated or to suffer other adverse employment actions plaintiffs reasonably fear that all or part of this list might be published by allies of President Trump thus placing themselves and their families in immediate danger of Retribution by the now pardoned and at large January 6th convicted felons and they go on to set out three different counts three different causes of action in this legal filing this lawsuit but let me tell you this is historic and we can talk in a few minutes about why this lawsuit being filed has such important implications for not only the health of our future democracy but the very viability of our democracy Glenn I want to dig into the prospect of cash Patel's impending confirmation if if these FBI agents are successful in in seeking injunctive relief and then ultimately win this case what are the implications if cash Patel becomes FBI director because of course he's going to want to be deferential to Pam Bondi and the doj and Donald Trump and so would would would these FBI agents winning this case um prevent cash Patel from doing what he so clearly wants to do by by rooting out these people from the FBI hard to say and I can't predict just how far cash Patel will go to um put into action the retribution against his enemies remember cash Patel in his book government G gangsters has a 60 person deep State list the Washington Post characterizes characterizes it as an enemies list we don't know whether this will have any deterrent effect on cash Patel's desires to do Donald Trump's dirty unlawful Revenge bidding by going after this these people I can only hope it does deter him from you know nefarious conduct moving forward in the horrific event he is confirmed as director of the FBI but I think what this tends to suggest Brian is the FBI Rank and file will not respect um a cash Patel if he insists on doing Donald Trump's dirty bidding now that the FBI agents themselves have gone to court to ask a federal judge to order Donald Trump to to effing stop it I'm really agitated right now but we can talk about why this is so important this lawsuit because let's let's remember there were already lawsuits filed When Donald Trump tried to revoke the Constitutional guarantee of Birthright citizenship and within about 24 hours a federal judge put a stop to it and when he tried to pull all federal funding I think we're up to two federal judges who have put a stop to it and what happened the Trump Administration backtracked I have a feeling that this lawsuit may not work its way through the system it may have the desired effect of having Donald Trump and his henchmen at the Department of Justice who themselves seem perfectly willing to violate the law on behalf of dear leader it may cause them to back up and say okay maybe our our criminal scheme to wrong to unlawfully terminate FBI employees who worked on the j6 cases wasn't so smart and maybe they will back up on this one as well but if they don't here is the second really important takeaway Donald Trump has already been flirting with ignoring court orders you know the I think the last move of an aspiring dictator a tyrant an autocrat is when Court order him and his administration to decline to do something a an autocratic government a dictator will say I don't care what the courts have ordered me not to do I'm doing it anyway and you know why because the courts don't have an army or a law enforcement agency to enforce their orders it is only through the goodwi of the executive branch that we abide by Supreme Court rulings or court orders and so I I have a feeling you know this is sort of the battle being met between the preeminent law enforcement agency for the United States of America the FBI and a lawless Trump Administration who is determined to wrongfully hollow out the FBI and I think it will make it much much harder for the Trump Administration if they are deprived of the law enforcement resources of the FBI because they choose to violate court orders that are put in place to protect FBI agents from wrongful termination I think it makes it much harder for Donald Trump to sort of wield the dictatorial power that I think he is dying to wield you know Glenn all of this push back Trump is going to use this as evidence that the that the the Deep state or these people against him actually exist right like he'll he'll try to do something illegal he'll brand these people as deep State operatives when there is inevitable push back because what he's doing is illegal is unlawful then that kind of feeds into the very narrative that he's been perpetuating he'll say well look there wouldn't be this much push back if if I wasn't exactly correct if I wasn't hovering over the target so I'm wondering if the fact that the acting FBI director Brian Driscoll who is a a a a trump guy right like he he is there was there's a reason that he's elevated to that position in anticipation of of course cash Patel being named FBI director but but Trump already got rid of Christopher Ray who by the way he himself appointed so that Brian Driscoll could could be elevated to acting FBI director so this is somebody who Trump viewed as acceptable to lead the FBI while we await cash Patel's confirmation does the fact that even he Brian Driscoll is pushing back against this as a republican as somebody who was palatable for these Maga folks does the fact that he's pushing back kind of undermine this this idea that Trump trying to fire all of these FBI agents is in fact not some deep State plot or deep State push back but in fact just an illegal action it's doesn't just sort of cut against or debunk Donald Trump's claim that the entire FBI apparatus that investigated the January 6 crimes they're all members of the deep state it eviscerates that that Donald Trump is forever spewing in the Public Square but here's the really good news now that this lawsuit is filed on this precise issue doesn't it breathe life into the deep State narrative that Donald Trump is always SP that narrative will not play in federal court and at this moment that's all that matters it might forever play with a certain segment of Donald Trump's hardcore supporters I mean these are the people who when they hear Donald Trump saying we're going to have to have a a necessary recession and you're going to experience a lot of pain these people say genius I'm here for it dear leader I'm Taking Liberties and I don't mean to mock all of them because it's a small segment who are just so so so sucked into the cult that they just can't seem to get themselves out of it or out of their own way once it gets into court just like he was forever spewing that he didn't do anything wrong in New York and yet a jury said yeah you're wrong Sport and promptly convicted him of 34 felony crimes so let's get these things into court where rational Minds will win the day and Donald Trump's uh scheme will be defeated in the long run Glenn let's finish off with this while this class action lawsuit is going on is this going to prevent Donald Trump from even being able to fire these people or is this just going to give them some type of platform for example to be able to collect collect back pay or collect money um after they were fired I I think the goal for us look we want to see I think you and I are aligned in wanting to see these people stay at the FBI um so that they can continue the work and won't just be replaced by Trump acolytes right Trump sick ofans but I think I think the the other possibility here is that if they are terminated then obviously this was these are retaliatory uh terminations the unlawful terminations and so they're eligible for financial compensation but that isn't going to which is which is the right thing to do to seek that kind of relief but that's not going to help our broader goal of making sure that the FBI isn't taken over by by Trump you know by by magga acolytes and so so what are we looking at here are we looking at trying to keep these people in place or are we just looking to make sure that they have some relief in the event that they are indeed terminated first we're looking for the former we want this to be stopped dead in its tracks this unlawful action by Donald Trump this Revenge this retribution this retaliation we wanted to stop this minute and I think it is likely about to stop given this injunctive relief this lawsuit that was just filed by the FBI agents because we don't want to wait for these FBI a agents to be unlawfully terminated only so that they have to spend the next year or two fighting in court they will probably win as others before them including people from the FBI have won wrongful termination suits right but but they'll be gone already and so that's not going to help the broader goal of making sure the FBI doesn't just turn turn into a a Maga loyal wing of the executive branch yeah that's exactly right and you know what it feels like an eternity but it's only been what 3 to four weeks since Donald Trump was sworn in and people were like when are when are folks going to start filing class actions well the most important class has just been assembled and filed a scorched Earth pleading I urge everybody to read it because they set out how Donald Trump virtually launched the attack on January 6th how he refused to call off the attackers who he was directing he had every power during the three plus hours to stop the damn attack against our police officers and on the United States capital he refused to it and they take the reader through chapter and verse of Donald Trump's Insurrection this is so important that the preeminent law enforcement agency for the United States of America is the one pursuing this lawsuit against the Department of Justice and by proxy Donald Trump because they are fighting back with everything they have just like James Dene who is the top FBI official in the New York field office of the FBI it was reported yesterday said to his troops when they were being told self-report tell them who you are tell them what you did so you can be wrongfully terminated he said we will not do that he said I'm a former Marine and I'm used to digging in foxholes getting in there having the back of my people and hunkering down and he said and I quote it may suck but it works and that is what the leadership of the FBI is doing not only up in New York but as you say Brian Driscoll Donald Trump's acting director of the FBI in Washington Washington DC it seems that the FBI is coming together against this lawlessness and for days now Brian I've been saying and we've been discussing how the FBI will not take this lawlessness lying down and they just Pro that in the most dramatic way well obviously this is a major story uh as you said a 17 out of 10 on the RoR scale so we will continue to cover it as we have any updates we'll bring them to you uh I will put a link to the lawsuit itself in the post description of this video for anybody who wants to read it and for those who are watching right now if you want to follow along please make sure to subscribe we are seeing over and over and over again that so many of the Legacy Media sources are just looking to defer to Donald Trump to bend the knee to him and his administration in any way they can Glenn and I will continue to cover this as soon as we have any updates so please make sure to subscribe the links to both of our channels are right here on this screen I'm Brian Tyler Cohen and I'm Glenn kersner you're watching the legal breakdown [Music]
********************
FBI Agents Sue DOJ Over 'Unlawful And Retaliatory' January 6 List by Gabe Whisnant and Sonam Sheth Newsweek Published Feb 04, 2025 at 1:04 PM EST Updated Feb 04, 2025 at 9:43 PM EST https://www.newsweek.com/doj-sued-fbi-a ... st-2026046
A group of FBI agents brought a class-action lawsuit against the Justice Department on Tuesday, accusing it of carrying out an "unlawful and retaliatory" directive from President Donald Trump to purge the bureau of agents who worked on the January 6, 2021 Capitol riot probe and the classified-documents investigation into Trump.
Newsweek reached out to the White House and Justice Department for comment via email.
Why It Matters
The lawsuit—brought by nine anonymous agents—was filed as thousands of agency personnel have been ordered to fill out questionnaires about their involvement in cases related to the deadly Capitol riot.
On Tuesday afternoon, the FBI turned over the names of 5,000 employees who worked on January 6 cases to the Justice Department, CNN reported. That's about 13 percent of the bureau's workforce.
Last week, a top DOJ official also ordered the acting U.S. attorney in Washington, D.C. to fire about 30 prosecutors who worked on Capitol riot cases over the last four years.
What To Know
Tuesday's lawsuit was filed against the Justice Department and acting attorney general James McHenry, but it mentioned Trump by name multiple times.
"Upon returning to the Presidency, Mr. Trump has ordered the DOJ to conduct a review and purge of FBI personnel involved in these investigations and prosecutions," it said. "This directive is unlawful and retaliatory" and violates a federal law protecting government employees from unfair treatment.
The complaint said that in addition to grilling FBI personnel about their involvement with January 6 cases, the questionnaires that were distributed last week asked them to identify if they played a "specific role" in the special counsel Jack Smith's investigation into Trump's hoarding of classified documents at Mar-a-Lago after he left office in 2021.
The complaint included screenshots of a three-page survey the plaintiffs said DOJ leaders plan to use to identify thousands of agents who worked on the January 6 and Mar-a-Lago cases.
"Plaintiffs were informed that the aggregated information is going to be forwarded to upper management. Plaintiffs assert that the purpose for this list is to identify agents to be terminated or to suffer other adverse employment action," the lawsuit said. "Plaintiffs reasonably fear that all or parts of this list might be published by allies of President Trump, thus placing themselves and their families in immediate danger of retribution by the now pardoned and at-large Jan. 6 convicted felons."
They were referring to the roughly 1,500 people Trump pardoned who were convicted of crimes related to the Capitol riot, as well as 14 people, some of whom were convicted of seditious conspiracy, whose sentences Trump commuted.
The plaintiffs have reason to believe the information they provide will "be used to target them for retaliatory discharge due to the Trump administration's perception of their loyalties," the suit said.
It pointed out that Trump himself has made repeated public pronouncements of his intent to exact revenge upon persons he perceives to be disloyal to him by simply executing their duties in investigating acts incited by him and persons loyal to him."
The lawsuit said that if Trump or his allies choose to publicize the information in the surveys or if it's otherwise leaked, the impact could go beyond personal consequences for the agents involved.
"Should this information fall into the wrong hands, the national security of the Unite[d] States would be severely compromised," it said.
Second Group of FBI Agents Sues The DOJ
Shortly after Tuesday's lawsuit was filed, a second group of anonymous FBI employees sued the Justice Department, accusing it of carrying out "the mass, unlawful termination of Bureau employees" involved in the Capitol riot investigation.
The lawsuit mentioned the survey that was distributed to FBI personnel over the weekend and said that "strangely, the selection of FBI agents who received this information included many who did little to no work on January 6 investigations, while others who did work January 6 investigations did not receive a survey request."
The FBI Agents Association, which represents 14,000 current and former bureau personnel, is a plaintiff in the lawsuit, as are seven anonymous FBI employees. The anonymous plaintiffs are special agents, forensic examiners, a forensic chemist and an intelligence analyst. The complaint named the Justice Department as a defendant.
In addition to accusing the Justice Department of trying to purge as many as 6,000 agents from the bureau, the lawsuit said multiple January 6 defendants who were pardoned or had their sentences commuted by Trump have since gone on to publicly call for "retribution" against agents involved in their prosecutions.
What People Are Saying
Cheri Jacobus, a former Republican turned Trump critic, celebrated the lawsuit, writing on X: "YES! FBI employees are suing Trump acting AG for violating the Constitution and their rights."
The FBI Agents Association urged Congress to protect the jobs of FBI personnel who could be fired, saying in part: The organization has "urgent concerns about recent actions taken by acting officials at the Department of Justice that threaten the careers of thousands of FBI Special Agents and risk disrupting the Bureau's essential work."
A group of Senate Democrats said in a letter to the acting AG and acting FBI director: "Retaliating against these career public servants who were simply doing the work assigned to them is outrageous and unacceptable."
What Happens Next
The FBI complied with a Tuesday deadline to turn over the names of thousands of agency personnel who worked on Capitol riot cases, even as the nine anonymous agents brought their class-action lawsuit.
The Justice Department has not yet issued a statement on the suit but will likely seek to have it dismissed.
Update 2/4/25 1:59 p.m. ET: This story has been updated with additional information. Update 2/4/25 2:05 p.m. ET: This story has been updated with additional information. Update 2/4/25 4:26 p.m. ET: This story has been updated with additional information.
STUNNING update on Trump’s conviction appeal Brian Tyler Cohen Feb 4, 2025 Democracy Watch with Marc Elias
Democracy Watch episode 247: Marc Elias discusses Trump's new legal team in his NY appeal.
Transcript
this is democracy watch Mark we've got some surprising news here that I legitimately did not expect Donald Trump was able to get representation by one of the top legal firms not just in New York but in the entire country for his appeal with his 34 criminal counts his his conviction in New York did this surprise you um it does and it doesn't I mean it surprises me in that Donald Trump has not been able to attract top tier legal Talent uh before and it's actually been notable right it was notable that uh in his various criminal cases you did not have a high-profile um National Law Firm representing him that in the post election in 2020 remember he relied on the likes of Rudy Giuliani uh Jenna Ellis and uh and Sydney pal right he did not have you know the best and the brightest even Jones day which is a big DC law firm uh that had done work for Trump did not do post-election litigation for him really in 2020 so so we become used to the fact that that big law firms are allergic to working for Donald Trump for two reasons number one he you know is not a great client he doesn't exactly follow legal advice and there's been questions whether he pays his bills but second the reputational harm the thought is that representing Donald Trump would be an anathema to a large number of your lawyers your your staff at the firm uh they might be unhappy and also to your clients right it would be it would be alienating to other clients well you know the fact that Sullivan and Cromwell is representing Donald Trump on this criminal appeal this suiv and Cromwell is one of the most prestigious law firms on Wall Street uh it is one of the you know most prestigious law firms as you say in the country the fact that they are taking on his appeal really tells you not just something about that law firm or about the big law firms in general but about their clients right what it really does is law firms are are in the service business they're they're tracking the attitudes of their clients what it means is that the business Community is now on board with Donald Trump which is sort of something we we had suspected but this is just further proof of right I mean in in a normal world and I I know that that ship is long since sailed but in a normal World there would be reputational harm by virtue of them um representing Donald Trump that would have a kind of a trickle down effect with their other clients because they wouldn't want to be repped by the same Law Firm that is also representing somebody who is that deplorable that that um that even taking him on would be enough to push these people away but that doesn't seem to be the case anymore that's right and that is particularly true given the case that they have chosen right it's not like they're representing the Trump organization in some real estate transaction right or representing Donald Trump in some ethics form filling out or something like that right they are actually taking the appeal of a criminal case now historically a lot of big law firms thought doing criminal work you know itself had some reputational uh risk to it that's that's not the case any longer and there's that that isn't true now but they are but they are taking a criminal appeal of the stormmy Daniels hush money case this is hardly the kind of case that normally a big Wall Street law firm is looking to associate itself with right yeah I mean it's like Donald Trump it's Donald Trump paying off Stormy Daniels you know it it is not it is not the thing that normally uh one would put on the front page of their website or in their client brochures how much of a difference does it make how much of an impact does it make to have such a prestigious Law Firm does this make the likelihood of the appeal succeeding that much higher look these are excellent lawyers I mean the four lawyers who are reportedly working on this are all former Supreme Court clerks so these are you know these are Elite lawyers at an elite law firm and so yeah that that could make a difference because they're excellent law for lawyers um but it I think what it really does is it sends a very very not so subtle signal to the judges who hear the cases to the other lawyers in the cases to state of the lawyers for the state of New York for example or for the City of New York uh and the broader legal community that Donald Trump is now to be embraced that you know that that the that the the the shame of this is now shifting and you know remember some of Donald Trump's lawyers in these cases had to leave their big law firms in order to work for Donald Trump because the law firms they at wouldn't work for them so this is a really really big deal again for what it means for his case yes what it means for his positioning in the legal industry for sure but to me the real story here is sou and Cromwell is not doing this if their other clients are objecting and so what it means is that the big Fortune 500 companies the Big Wall Street Banks the big tech companies the big companies that are involved in deals that they are you know they're this is like part and parcel of that uh because otherwise you would not see a law firm like this get involved in a case involving hush money to a prostitute on on an appellate basis and so what does it say to you that now we've got big Tech we've got big media and now we've got big law all of whom are perfectly willing to openly Embrace Donald Trump yeah I think it has both societal consequences and it has some real practical consequences the societal consequences are exactly as you suggest that
[Marc Elias] You know I wrote a piece for democracy docket saying we're on our own. And this is just further Evidence we're on our own. At the time I wrote it I was really focused mostly on the Legacy Media, like Legacy Media is not here to help. They are not. They are not going to be the force that is going to protect democracy. Big corporations -- yeah we're on our own there too, right? Like they are they are not going to be a force. You're not going to see CEOs standing up against Donald Trump's attack on Democracy. But I think at a very practical level, what this means is that we shouldn't count on big law either. And that has, in some ways, as big an impact as the others. So at a time where Donald Trump is engaged in a broadside against so many aspects of American society, and so many aspects of democracy, you know big law firms have historically provided the manpower, and the women power, to staff pro bono legal matters; to represent Indigent defendants; to represent immigration groups; to represent groups that are trying to uphold the rule of law against the government. And this is to me a very, very chilling sign that they may not be available that this time the legal profession, and may also be leaving behind, large chunks of the legal profession may be leaving behind, the people who need representation the most. Again, I don't know that that will be true for every Law Firm. I don't even know for sure that'll be true for Sullivan & Cromwell. But it is certainly an early signal that you are not going to see what we saw in 2017. Remember, at the airports in 2017, you saw big law firms sending their lawyers to those airports. I've been noticing over the last just week we are not seeing in any of these cases we've been talking about: the birthright citizenship case, the cases involving the the impoundment of funds through OMB. I have been noting the absence of big law firms present in taking on the Trump Administration. And this, to me, is a chilling sign that we may really be on our own.
And what do you attribute this to as far as big law is concerned because I understand why Jeff Bezos does it who who who is also being regulated in his other business entities I understand why Mark Zuckerberg is doing it who who has too much exposure it's not just Facebook he has too many other things going on in front of the government I understand why you know so many of these of these billionaires Elon Musk is doing it but big law isn't necessarily overleveraged in the same way that these that the tech billionaires are and so they they they risk Nothing by virtue of maintaining their integrity and so why why do this why take this this step and kind of and kind of bend the knee to to to somebody who it look is overtly Lawless in a in front of a profession where they literally swear an oath to uphold the law yeah and again especially in you know an appeals case involving hush money payments right to an adult film star you know like it's not like you know there's a big money in this for them there's not like this is like a a prestigious client that could lead to other things like you know there there's this this case is kind of a dog to take as an aell argument right but but they're but they're taking the dog and and I think the answer to your question is that they want the work from the people you just listed you know Jeff so's companies control a lot of legal spend uh Elon Musk has a lot of companies that hire lawyers um you know I listened uh recently to an interview that um uh Mark andreon uh the big venture capitalist out west gave um and you know these are these businessmen they employ a lot of lawyers and I think that these lawyers are are or not these lawyers specifically with these but law firms in general they are going where they see their clients go and so when they see Disney giving $15 million to Elon Musk if you're a lawyer for Disney and again I don't know that sou represents Disney but if you're a lawyer for Disney you're thinking all right well if that's what my clients want you know like that's great and if you're a lawyer for for um uh you know for uh The Washington Post or for one of bezos's you know for Amazon or for SpaceX you know like it just I think that the lawyers are are are not viewing this through the prism of what is their oath they're seeing this through the prism of who are their clients yeah well again that puts on full display how important it is to have um advocates for democracy itself and not just folks who are chasing the money um because that's where it is um so for folks who are looking to support Fearless journalism journalism that holds power to account please make sure to sign up for democracy docket it's the news Outlet Mark founded to focus on everything voting in elections I'll put the link right here on the screen and also in the post description of this video again a great way to support the invaluable work that Mark and his team are doing right now I'm Brian teller Cohen I'm Mark Elias this is democracy watch watch [Music]