Anti-Anti-Nazi Barbarian Hordes are Knocking Down the Gates

[admin]

Part 1 of 2

https://www.justsecurity.org/107087/tra ... istration/

Litigation Tracker: Legal Challenges to Trump Administration Actions
by Just Security
Accessed: 2/19/25
https://www.justsecurity.org/107087/tra ... istration/

This public resource tracks legal challenges to Trump administration actions. If you think we are missing anything, you can email us at [email protected]. Special thanks to Just Security Student Staff Editors Anna Braverman, Isaac Buck, Rick Da, Charlotte Kahan, and Jeremy Venook, and to Matthew Fouracre and Nour Soubani.

The Tracker is part of the Collection: Just Security’s Coverage of the Trump Administration’s Executive Actions. Readers may also be interested in signing up for our free Early Edition roundup of news and our end-of-day newsletter with Just Security articles from the day (We respect your privacy. We do not use your email address for any other purpose except to automatically send you the requested email.)

The Tracker was first published on Jan. 29, 2025 and is continually updated. Last updated Feb. 18, 2025.

Case Name / Complaint / Date Filed / Case Summary / Last Update

Immigration and Citizenship

Executive Action: Birthright Citizenship (Executive Order 14160)

New Hampshire Indonesian Community Support v. Donald J. Trump (D.N.H.); Case No. 1:25-cv-38 / Complaint / Jan. 20, 2025 / Trump’s executive order seeks to revoke birthright citizenship for the children of undocumented immigrants on the basis that people in the United States illegally are not “subject to the jurisdiction thereof.” The ACLU sued the Trump administration on behalf of individuals in New Hampshire who would have their childrens’ citizenship revoked. The ACLU argues that the plain text of the 14th Amendment, as confirmed in U.S. v. Wong Kim Ark (1898), explicitly grants birthright citizenship for all people born in the United States. Update 1: On Feb. 10, 2025, Judge Joseph N. Laplante issued a preliminary injunction. / 2025-02-10

O. Doe; Brazilian Worker Center, Inc; La Colaborativa v. Donald J. Trump et al (D. Mass.); Case No. 1:25-cv-10135-LTS / Complaint / Jan. 20, 2025 / Trump’s executive order seeks to revoke birthright citizenship for the children of undocumented immigrants on the basis that people in the United States illegally are not “subject to the jurisdiction thereof.” A group of pregnant women whose children would not receive citizenship sued; the plaintiff identified as “O. Doe” lives in Massachusetts and has temporary protected status in the United States. The suit argues that the plain text of the 14th Amendment, as confirmed in U.S. v. Wong Kim Ark (1898), explicitly grants birthright citizenship for all people born in the United States. Update 1: On Feb. 13, Judge Leo T. Sorokin issued an opinion granting a preliminary injunction enjoining the government from implementing and enforcing Executive Order No. 14,160, “Protecting the Meaning and Value of American Citizenship,” against plaintiff O. Doe, or any member of La Colaborativa or Brazilian Worker Center. / 025-02-13

State of New Jersey et al v. Donald J. Trump et al (D. Mass.); Case No. 1:25-cv-10139 / Complaint / Jan. 21, 2025 / Trump’s executive order seeks to revoke birthright citizenship for the children of undocumented immigrants on the basis that people in the United States illegally are not “subject to the jurisdiction thereof.” The attorneys general of 22 states, the District of Columbia, and the City of San Francisco sued to protect residents who would lose their citizenship under the executive order. The suit argues that the plain text of the 14th Amendment, as confirmed in U.S. v. Wong Kim Ark (1898), explicitly grants birthright citizenship for all people born in the United States. Update 1: On Feb. 13, Judge Leo T. Sorokin issued an opinion granting a preliminary injunction enjoining the government from implementing and enforcing Executive Order No. 14,160, “Protecting the Meaning and Value of American Citizenship.” / 2025-02-13

Casa v. Donald Trump (D. Md.); Case No. 8:25-cv-00201-DLB / Complaint / Jan. 21, 2025 / Trump’s executive order seeks to revoke birthright citizenship for the children of undocumented immigrants on the basis that people in the United States illegally are not “subject to the jurisdiction thereof.” The plaintiffs, including immigrant rights organizations CASA and ASAP, as well as individual immigrant parents, argue that the Executive Order violates the Fourteenth Amendment and federal statute 8 U.S.C. § 1401(a), both of which guarantee citizenship to all persons born in the U.S. The complaint asserts that the executive order exceeds presidential authority and causes irreparable harm by stripping constitutionally protected rights from children born to immigrants​ (e.g., the right to remain in the United States, access public benefits, and participate fully in civic life) and destabilizes their families, potentially leaving children stateless and separating them from their parents​. Update 1: On Feb. 5, 2025, Judge Deborah Boardman issued an opinion granting the plaintiffs’ motion for a preliminary nationwide injunction blocking implementation of the birthright citizenship Executive Order. / 2025-02-05

Franco Aleman et al. v. Trump et al. (W.D. Wash.); Case No. 2:25-cv-00163-JCC / Complaint / Jan. 24, 2025 / Plaintiffs are non-citizen pregnant women whose due dates are after the implementation date of the Executive Order eliminating birthright citizenship. Plaintiffs bring this suit as a class action on behalf of all others similarly situated. They allege that the EO is a violation of the Fourteenth Amendment and seek an injunction to enjoin Defendants from enforcing the EO. Update 1: On Jan. 27, State of Washington et al v. Donald J. Trump (complaint) was consolidated with this case. / 2025-01-27

State of Washington et al v. Donald J. Trump et al (W.D. Wash.); Case No. 2:25-cv-00127-JCC / Complaint / Jan. 21, 2025 / Trump’s executive order seeks to revoke birthright citizenship for the children of undocumented immigrants on the basis that people in the United States illegally are not “subject to the jurisdiction thereof.” Four states sued to protect residents who would lose their citizenship under the executive order. The suit argues that the plain text of the 14th Amendment, as confirmed in U.S. v. Wong Kim Ark (1898), explicitly grants birthright citizenship for all people born in the United States.
Update 1: On Jan. 23, 2025, Judge John Coughenour of the Western District of Washington issued a temporary restraining order against the Executive Order. Update 2: On Jan. 27, Franco Aleman v. Trump (complaint) was consolidated with this case. Update 3: On Feb. 6, Judge Coughenour issued an opinion granting the plaintiffs’ motion for a preliminary injunction enjoining implementation of the Executive Order. Update 4: On Feb. 6, defendants appealed to the Ninth Circuit Court (case no. 25-807). Update 5: On Feb. 12, defendants made an emergency motion to stay the district court’s injunction. / 2025-02-12

OCA–Asian Pacific American Advocates v. Marco Rubio et al (D.D.C.); Case No. 1:25-cv-00287 / Complaint / Jan. 30, 2025 / Trump’s executive order seeks to revoke birthright citizenship for the children of undocumented immigrants and for the children of parents on lawful temporary visas on the basis that they are not “subject to the jurisdiction” of the United States. OCA sued Marco Rubio and the heads of other departments and agencies on behalf of at least two pregnant women expected to give birth to children denied citizenship by the order. Both women reside in the United States on lawful, temporary, nonimmigrant visas. OCA argues that the order violates the plain text of the Fourteenth Amendment, statutes (8 U.S.C. § 1401 et seq.), and the Administrative Procedure Act, 5 U.S.C. § 706(2). The suit identifies an injured “subclass” of “Targeted Children” denied the privileges and public benefits afforded to U.S. citizens, seeking declaratory and injunctive relief. / 2025-01-31

County of Santa Clara v. Trump, et al (N.D. Cal.); Case No. 5:25-cv-00981 / Complaint / Jan. 30, 2025 / Trump’s executive order seeks to revoke birthright citizenship for the children of undocumented immigrants and for the children of parents on lawful temporary visas on the basis that they are not “subject to the jurisdiction” of the United States. The County of Santa Clara sued to protect residents who would lose their citizenship or whose U.S.-born children will not receive citizenship and to prevent administrative burdens and loss of tax revenues associated with that prospective loss of citizenship. Santa Clara argues that the order violates the plain text of the Fourteenth Amendment, statutes (8 U.S.C. § 1401 et seq.), and the Administrative Procedure Act, 5 U.S.C. § 706(2), and seeks declaratory and injunctive relief. / 2025-01-31

Le v. Trump (C.D. Cal.); Case No. 8:25-cv-00104 / Complaint (under seal per Privacy Act) / Jan. 20, 2025 / A birthright citizenship case under seal. On Jan. 24, 2025, Judge Maame Ewusi-Mensah Frimpong, upon joint agreement by the parties, held briefing in abeyance pending the TRO and preliminary injunction litigation in Washington v. Trump. / 2025-01-24

New York Immigration Coalition v. Trump et al. (S.D.N.Y.); Case No. 1:25-cv-01309 / Complaint / Feb. 13, 2025 / Plaintiffs are a nonprofit organization as well as a Venezuelan national, J.V., who has Temporary Protected Status and a pending asylum petition. She is five months pregnant. Plaintiffs allege that the EO violates 8 U.S.C. § 1401(a) and the Citizenship and Equal Protection Clauses of the Fourteenth Amendment. Plaintiffs also seek a permanent injunction against enforcement of the EO. / 2025-02-13

Executive Action: Immigration policy — punishment of sanctuary cities and states (Executive Order 14159) (DOJ “Sanctuary Jurisdiction Directives” (Feb. 5, 2025))

Organized Communities Against Deportations et al v. Benjamine Huffman (Acting Secretary of Homeland Security) et al (N.D. Ill.); Case No. 25-cv-868 / Complaint / Jan. 25, 2025 / Acting Attorney General Benjamine Huffman issued policy guidance that, among other immigration-related policies, instructs the Civil Division of the Department of Justice “to identify state and local laws, policies, and activities that are inconsistent with Executive Branch immigration initiatives and, where appropriate, to take legal action to challenge such laws.” The plaintiffs, Chicago-based immigrant-advocacy organizations, allege that the guidance, and subsequent raids “specifically for the purpose of ending the Plaintiffs’ Sanctuary City advocacy and movement building,” violate the Administrative Procedure Act and the First Amendment. The lawsuit seeks an injunction against the Department of Justice’s guidance. / 2025-01-31

City and County of San Francisco v. Donald J. Trump, et al (N.D. Cal.); Case No. 3:25-cv-01350 / Complaint / Feb. 7, 2025 / Trump’s executive order directed the Departments of Justice and Homeland Security to withhold federal funds from sanctuary cities, which the Department of Justice implemented through a Feb. 5, 2025 “Sanctuary Jurisdiction Directives” memorandum. The plaintiffs include various cities and counties. They sued on the grounds that the executive order and DOJ memo violate the Tenth Amendment’s reservation of unenumerated power to the states, separation of powers, the spending clause, the Fifth Amendment’s due process clause, and the Administrative Procedure Act. The lawsuit seeks a declaration that the executive order is unconstitutional and a permanent injunction on any effort to enforce the provisions withholding funding. / 2025-02-07

Executive Action: Immigration Policy – “Expedited Removal” (Executive Order 14159)

Make the Road New York v. Benjamine Huffman (Acting Secretary of Homeland Security) et al (D.D.C.); Case No. 1:25-cv-00190 / Complaint / Jan. 22, 2025 / Trump’s executive order directed the Department of Homeland Security to expand the use of expedited removal under the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA) to include noncitizens located anywhere in the U.S. who cannot prove they have been continuously present for more than two years​. The plaintiff, Make the Road New York (MRNY), argues the rule violates the Fifth Amendment’s Due Process Clause, the INA, and the Administrative Procedure Act (APA) by subjecting individuals to summary deportation without adequate procedural safeguards. The suit claims the rule is arbitrary, exceeds statutory authority, and disregards legal and constitutional protections against wrongful removal​. / 2025-01-31

Executive Action: Immigration Policy – Discontinuation of CBP One app (Executive Order 14165)

Las Americas Immigrant Advocacy Center et al v. U.S. Department of Homeland Security (D.D.C.); Case No. 1:24-cv-01702; Motion for TRO: 1:24-cv-01702-RC - Dkt. No. 71 / Complaint Motion for TRO (underlying case filed June 12, 2024) / Jan. 23, 2025 / The Trump administration executive order directs the Department of Homeland Security to cease operation of the CBP One app, which was created by the Biden administration to enable asylum seekers to schedule appointments to request asylum. The Las Americas Immigrant Advocacy Center and the ACLU had previously sued to challenge a Biden administration rule that limited asylum access to those presenting at a port of entry or falling under another narrow exception. In response, the government argued that the CBP One app remained as a pathway by which asylum-seekers could request appointments. In light of the discontinuation of the CBP One app, Las Americas, et al, filed a motion for a temporary restraining order and requested an immediate status conference and leave to file supplemental briefings to address the government’s position. / 2025-01-31

Executive Action: Access of Lawyers to Immigrants in Detention (Executive Order 14159)

Amica Center for Immigrant Rights et al. v. U.S. Department of Justice (D.D.C.); Case No. 1:25-cv-00298 / Complaint / Jan. 31, 2025 / In 2024, Congress appropriated funds for two immigration programs, the Legal Orientation Program (LOP) and Immigration Court Helpdesk (ICH). On Jan. 22, 2025, the Department of Justice Executive Office for Immigration Review (EOIR) issued a stop-work order that halted funding for four programs providing legal resources to unrepresented people facing deportation. The EOIR action was taken purportedly to “audit” the programs pursuant to the Trump administration executive order. Nine advocacy and immigrant legal services organizations sued, arguing that terminating funding for the programs is arbitrary and capricious, an abuse of discretion, or otherwise not in accordance with the law under the Administrative Procedure Act (APA); violates the Appropriations Clause in the case of the LOP and ICH; and violates the First Amendment by denying the plaintiffs access to courthouses and immigration detention centers. The suit seeks a temporary restraining order and preliminary injunction and to enjoin the government from stopping the programs, refusing to spend appropriated funds, preventing the plaintiffs from accessing immigration courts houses and detention centers, and removing materials and posters the plaintiffs have posted in those locations. / 2025-01-31

Executive Action: Proclamation Prohibiting Non-Citizens from Invoking Asylum Provisions” (Proclamation 10888)

Refugee and Immigrant Center for Education and Legal Services v. Noem (D.D.C.); Case No. 1:25-cv-00306 / Complaint / Feb. 3, 2025 / Trump’s proclamation bars immigrants who arrive after the date of the proclamation from invoking provisions of the Immigration and Nationality Act that would permit them to remain in the United States while pursuing asylum claims. The plaintiffs, three nonprofit organizations in Texas and Arizona providing legal services and assistance to undocumented individuals or asylum seekers, argue that the order violates the following statutory and constitutional provisions: 1. the Asylum Statute in the INA, 8 U.S.C. § 1158(a)(1) (by barring noncitizens from applying for asylum in direct contradiction to congressional protections); 2. the Withholding of Removal Statute, 8 U.S.C. § 1231(b)(3) (by preventing noncitizens from seeking protection from persecution based on race, religion, nationality, membership in a particular social group, or political opinion); 3. the Foreign Affairs Reform and Restructuring Act (FARRA), 8 U.S.C. § 1231, and the Convention Against Torture (CAT) (by depriving noncitizens of a meaningful opportunity to present CAT claims and shielding them from potential torture); 4. the Trafficking Victims Protection Reauthorization Act (TVPRA), 8 U.S.C. § 1232(a)(5)(D) (by denying unaccompanied children from non-contiguous countries their statutory right to regular removal proceedings); 5. the INA’s procedural protections for removal, 8 U.S.C. §§ 1101, 1229a, 1225(b) (by overriding mandated removal proceedings and eliminating procedural protections, including credible fear screenings); 6. the Administrative Procedure Act (APA), 5 U.S.C. § 706(2)(A) (by implementing policies that are arbitrary, capricious, and contrary to law) and § 706(2)(D) (by failing to follow the required rulemaking process before enacting sweeping changes to statutory protections); and 7. the constitutional separation of powers (by exceeding presidential authority and unlawfully overriding congressionally enacted immigration protections). The Plaintiffs seek a declaratory judgment that the proclamation is unlawful and an injunction stopping its implementation. / 2025-02-04

Executive Action: Migrant Transfers to Guantanamo (Presidential Memorandum)

Perez Parra v. Castro (D. N.M.); Case No. 1:24-cv-00912-KG-KRS; Dkt. No. 43 / Complaint / Feb. 9, 2025 / Trump’s Presidential Memorandum orders the Secretary of Defense and the Secretary of Homeland Security to prepare the Migrant Operations Center at Naval Station Guantanamo Bay to function at full capacity as a detention center for undocumented migrants. Three Venezuelan men, already part of an existing habeas lawsuit from September 2024 in the District Court of New Mexico, sought to block the administration from transferring them to the Guantanamo facility. Based on their similarities to those previously relocated, the men anticipated being moved as well. The challenge is specific to three specific individuals, under the All Writs Act to preserve the ongoing jurisdiction of the court, and does not seek to block other transfers. On Feb. 9, Chief District Judge Kenneth J. Gonzales granted a temporary restraining order, barring the U.S. government from transferring the three men. Update 1: On Feb. 13, Judge Gonzales issued a 1-page Memorandum Opinion and Order noting that the Defendants had filed a Notice that all three petitioners were removed to Venezuela on Feb. 10; and vacated the upcoming status conference. Update 2: On Feb. 14, the docket reflected a Notice of voluntary dismissal of the case by the three petitioners. / 2025-02-14

Las Americas Immigrant Advocacy Center v. Noem (D.D.C.); Case No. 1:25-cv-00418 / Complaint / Feb. 12, 2025 / Trump’s Presidential Memorandum orders the Secretary of Defense and the Secretary of Homeland Security to prepare the Migrant Operations Center at Naval Station Guantánamo Bay to function at full capacity as a detention center for undocumented migrants. Plaintiffs are suing on behalf of the families of four Venezuelan nationals who are believed to have been transferred to Guantánamo. Plaintiffs allege the government’s action violates habeas corpus rights, Fifth Amendment Due Process rights, and the Immigration and Naturalization Act’s guarantee of the right to counsel. Plaintiffs further allege that the government’s alleged restriction of information in and out of Guantánamo violates both the plaintiffs’ and the detainees’ First Amendment rights. They seek court orders declaring that the government’s actions violate those rights, permitting access to lawyers, requiring the government to identify the location of detainees held at Guantánamo, requiring the government to provide 72-hours notice prior to any transfer to a foreign jurisdiction, and requiring the government to provide 72-hours notice prior to any transfer of additional noncitizens to Guantánamo. / 2025-02-12

Executive Action: Suspension of the U.S. Refugee Admissions Program (Executive Order No. 14163) and Refugee Funding Suspension (Dept of State Notice)

Pacito v. Trump (W.D. Wash); (2:25-cv-255) / Complaint / Feb. 10, 2025 / On Jan. 20, 2025, President Trump issued an executive order indefinitely suspending refugee admissions and processing. The State Department issued a Jan. 24 notice suspending federal funding for resettlement programs. Ten plaintiffs — individual refugees, U.S. citizens, and resettlement organizations (HIAS, Church World Service, and Lutheran Community Services Northwest) — filed a proposed class action seeking injunctions to block implementation of the orders, declaratory judgments that the actions are unlawful, maintenance of refugee processing and resettlement services consistent with the status quo, and confirmation of compliance with such remedies if granted. The lawsuit alleges that the orders have left approved refugees stranded internationally, denied recent arrivals statutorily-mandated support services, and forced layoffs at resettlement institutions. The complaint asserts that the executive orders violate the Refugee Act’s comprehensive statutory scheme for refugee policy, are arbitrary and capricious under the Administrative Procedure Act for circumventing notice-and-comment requirements and failing to establish a reasoned basis for the change in policy, and breach agency regulations at 8 C.F.R. § 207.7 governing the Follow-to-Join process in violation of the Accardi doctrine requiring government officials to follow the agency’s own rules and procedures. The lawsuit further argues that the orders violate the Fifth Amendment due process rights of U.S. citizens petitioning for family reunification, and violate fundamental separation of powers principles by attempting to redistribute or withhold congressionally appropriated funds to achieve policy objectives. / 2025-02-10

United States Conference of Catholic Bishops v. Department of State et al. (D.D.C.); Case No. 1:25-cv-00465 / Complaint / Feb. 18, 2025 / On Jan. 20, 2025, President Trump issued an executive order indefinitely suspending refugee admissions and processing. The State Department issued a Jan. 24 notice suspending federal funding for resettlement programs. Plaintiff, the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops (USCCB), is part of a public-private partnership with the federal government through the U.S. Refugee Admissions Program, and was providing transitionary resettlement services to more than 6,700 refugees when the State Department suspended funding. USCCB brought suit, arguing the government policy suspending funds for the Refugee Admissions Program is unlawful under the Administrative Procedure Act because it (1) violates the Immigration and Naturalization Act, the Refugee Act of 1980, and the Impoundment Control Act; (2) is an arbitrary and capricious abuse of discretion; and (3) is a substantive role promulgated without required notice-and-comment rulemaking. They seek a declaratory judgment that the suspension is unlawful, and temporary, preliminary, and permanent injunctions prohibiting the government from implementing the suspension and requiring the government to make reimbursements pursuant to the terms of its cooperative agreements. / 2025-02-18

Structure of Government/Personnel

Executive Action: Reinstatement of Schedule F for Policy/Career Employees (Executive Order 14171)

National Treasury Employees Union v. Donald J. Trump et al (D.D.C.); Case No. 1:25-cv-00170 / Complaint / Jan. 20, 2025 / Trump’s executive order authorizes the Director of the Office of Personnel Management to reclassify thousands of members of the civil service and strip them of their civil-service protections, enabling the president or heads of agencies to fire them at will. The National Treasury Employees Union sued to block implementation of the order on behalf of the union’s members. The lawsuit argues that the executive order violates laws Congress passed to provide civil-service protections to the vast majority of civil servants, with only limited exceptions for Senate-confirmed political appointees. / 2025-01-31

Government Accountability Project v. Office of Personnel Management (D.D.C.); Case No. 1:25-cv-00347 / Complaint (Feb. 6, 2025) / Feb. 6, 2025 / On Jan. 27, Director of the Office of Personnel Management (OPM) Charles Ezell issued Guidance implementing the president’s executive order, which aims to reclassify thousands of members of the civil service and strip them of their civil-service protections, enabling the president or heads of agencies to fire them at will. Plaintiffs—independent nonprofits representing whistleblowers, federal employees, retirees and their survivors—allege that the OPM Guidance did not go through proper procedure under the Administrative Procedure Act, violates the Civil Service Reform Act’s protections for career employees, and violates civil servants’ Fifth Amendment Due Process rights. They seek a declaratory judgment that the executive order and the OPM Guidance are unlawful and an injunction enjoining the administration from implementing the executive order and the OPM Guidance. / 2025-02-06

Public Employees for Environmental Responsibility v. Donald Trump et al (D. Md.); Case No. 8:25-cv-00260-PX / Complaint / Jan. 28, 2025 / Trump’s executive order authorizes the Director of the Office of Personnel Management to reclassify thousands of members of the civil service and strip them of their civil-service protections, enabling the president or heads of agencies to fire them at will. PEER, represented by Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington and Democracy Forward, sued to enjoin implementation of the executive order. The lawsuit argues that the executive order violates the Administrative Procedure Act and deprives civil servants of due process by stripping them of protections guaranteed under the Civil Service Reform Act of 1978. / 2025-01-31

American Federation of Government Employees, AFL-CIO and American Federation of State, County And Municipal Employees, AFL-CIO v. Donald Trump et al (D.D.C.); Case No. 1:25-cv-00264 / Complaint / Jan. 29, 2025 / On Jan. 27, Director of the Office of Personnel Management (OPM) Charles Ezell issued guidance implementing the president’s executive order, which aims to reclassify thousands of members of the civil service and strip them of their civil-service protections, enabling the president or heads of agencies to fire them at will. The AFGE and AFSCME – labor organizations representing federal, state and local employees – assert that the Trump administration failed to follow proper notice-and-comment procedures under the Administrative Procedural Act in issuing the order, which renders “inoperative or without effect” existing regulations, 5 C.F.R. 210.102(b)(3), 5 C.F.R. 210.102(b)(4), and 5 C.F.R. § 302.601-603. The plaintiffs sued, seeking a declaratory judgment to that effect, as well as an injunction enjoining the Defendants from enforcing the order without first complying with the APA’s notice-and-comment requirements. / 2025-01-31

Executive Action: Establishment of “Department of Government Efficiency” (DOGE) (Executive Order 14158)

Public Citizen Inc et al v. Donald J. Trump and Office of Management and Budget (D.D.C.); Case No. 1:25-cv-00164 / Complaint / Jan. 20, 2025 / Trump’s executive order renames the U.S. Digital Service as the U.S. DOGE Service (Department of Government Efficiency) and reestablishes the office under the Executive Office of the President. Two advocacy organizations and the American Federation of Government Employees sued, arguing that the order violates the Federal Advisory Committee Act, which bars the delegation of decision-making authority to private citizens without public access. The suit asks the court to enjoin the operation of DOGE unless and until it complies with the FACA’s requirements. Update 1: On Feb. 18, 2025, Judge Jia M. Cobb (D.D.C.) granted defendants’ motion to consolidate two cases with this case. Parties in Lentini v. Department of Government Efficiency (complaint), and American Public Health Association v. Office of Budget and Management (complaint) must make all future filings in this case. / 2025-02-18

Jerald Lentini, Joshua Erlich, and National Security Counselors v. Department of Government Efficiency, Office of Management and Budget, Office of Personnel Management, Executive Office of the President, Elon Musk, Vivek Ramaswamy, Russell Vought, Scott Kupor, and Donald Trump (D.D.C.); Case No. 1:25-cv-00166 / Complain / Jan. 20, 2025 / Trump’s executive order renames the U.S. Digital Service as the U.S. DOGE Service (Department of Government Efficiency) and reestablishes the office under the Executive Office of the President. The advocacy organization National Security Counselors, Inc., sued, arguing that the order violates the Federal Advisory Committee Act, which bars the delegation of decision-making authority to private citizens without public access. The suit asks the court to enjoin the operation of DOGE unless and until it complies with the FACA’s requirements. Update 1: On Feb. 18, 2025, Judge Jia M. Cobb (D.D.C) granted defendants’ motion in Public Citizen, Inc. v. Trump to consolidate three cases. Parties in Lentini v. Department of Government Efficiency and American Public Health Association v. Office of Budget and Management must make all future filings in Public Citizen. / 2025-02-18

American Public Health Association et al v. Office of Management and Budget, Acting Director of the Office of Management and Budget, and the Department of Government Efficiency (D.D.C.); Case No. 1:25-cv-00167 / Complaint / Jan. 20, 2025 / Trump’s executive order renames the U.S. Digital Service as the U.S. DOGE Service (Department of Government Efficiency) and reestablishes the office under the Executive Office of the President. Several advocacy organizations sued, arguing that the order violates the Federal Advisory Committee Act, which bars the delegation of decision-making authority to private citizens without public access. The suit asks the court to enjoin the operation of DOGE unless and until it complies with the FACA’s requirements. Update 1: On Feb. 18, 2025, Judge Jia M. Cobb (D.D.C) granted defendants’ motion in Public Citizen, Inc. v. Trump to consolidate three cases. Parties in Lentini v. Department of Government Efficiency and American Public Health Association v. Office of Budget and Management must make all future filings in Public Citizen. / 2025-02-18

Center for Biological Diversity v. Office of Management and Budget (D.D.C.); Case No. 1:25-cv-00165 / Complaint / Jan. 20, 2025 / Trump’s executive order renames the U.S. Digital Service as the U.S. DOGE Service (Department of Government Efficiency) and reestablishes the office under the Executive Office of the President. The Center for Biological Diversity sued the Office of Management and Budget under the Freedom of Information Act, demanding records related to communications between OMB and DOGE’s leadership or those acting on its behalf. / 2025-01-31

J. Doe 1-26 v. Musk (D. Md); Case 8:25-cv-00462-TDC / Complaint / Feb. 13, 2025 / Trump’s executive order renames the U.S. Digital Service as the U.S. DOGE Service (Department of Government Efficiency) and reestablishes the office under the Executive Office of the President. Twenty-six current and former USAID employees or contractors filed a lawsuit claiming that Elon Musk’s constitutional authority to exercise significant government powers as the head of DOGE without Senate confirmation violates the Appointments Clause. The complaint alleges that Musk and the DOGE staff are exercising “significant authority” by controlling agency operations, making personnel decisions, and directing federal spending, all powers the plaintiffs claim can be wielded only by properly appointed officers of the United States. The lawsuit argues that Musk is functioning as a principal officer while evading the constitutional requirement for Senate confirmation. The plaintiffs also claim that Musk’s actions would be unconstitutional even if he were considered merely an inferior officer, as Congress has not authorized the President to directly appoint anyone to his position. The plaintiffs also argue that DOGE’s structure violates separation of powers by creating a “shadow chain of command” that undermines Congress’s power to create agencies and their authorities through statute, confirm appointed officers, and conduct oversight. The suit asks the court to declare Musk and DOGE to be acting unlawfully, enjoin Musk and DOGE from exercising government authority unless appointed by proper process, and set aside their actions taken to date. / 2025-02-13

New Mexico et al. v. Musk (D.D.C.); Case No. 1.25-cv-00429 / Complaint / Feb. 13, 2025 / Trump’s executive order renames the U.S. Digital Service as the U.S. DOGE Service (Department of Government Efficiency) and reestablishes the office under the Executive Office of the President. Fourteen states filed a lawsuit claiming that Elon Musk’s constitutional authority to exercise significant government powers as the head of DOGE without Senate confirmation violates the Appointments Clause. The complaint alleges that Musk and the DOGE staff are exercising “significant authority” by controlling agency operations, making personnel decisions, and directing federal spending, all powers they claim can only be wielded by properly appointed officers of the United States. The suit asks the court to declare Musk and DOGE to be acting unlawfully, impose a temporary restraining order barring Musk and DOGE from exercising government authority (including a specific list of official actions) while awaiting preliminary and permanent injunctions to the same effect, and set aside their actions taken to date. Update 1: On Feb. 17, the government submitted a declaration by Joshua Fisher, Director of the Office of Administration, stating that Musk is not the head of DOGE nor an employee of DOGE. Update 2: On Feb 18, Judge Tanya Chutkan denied the Plaintiffs’ request for a temporary restraining order but also indicated a potentially favorable view of the Plaintiffs’ argument on the merits (pp. 8-9). / 2025-02-18

Executive Action: Solicitation of information from career employees

Jane Does 1-2 v. Office of Personnel Management (D.D.C.); Case No. 1:25-cv-00234 / Complaint / Jan. 27, 2025 / The Office of Personnel Management announced it was testing a new system to email all civilian federal employees from a single email address, [email protected]. Individuals claiming to be OPM employees subsequently posted online that the emails were being stored on an unsecure server at OPM. Plaintiffs, employees of executive-branch agencies who received “test” emails from [email protected] requesting information, sued. The lawsuit alleges that the new procedure violates the E-Government Act of 2002 and asks the court to require the Office of Personnel Management to conduct a Privacy Impact Assessment before collecting any data from employees, as required under the law. Update 1 and 2: On Feb. 4, 2025, the plaintiffs requested a temporary restraining order. On Feb. 6, Judge Randolph D. Moss denied the TRO request and said an opinion will follow. Update 3: On Feb. 11, OPM moved to dismiss the Complaint on the grounds that Plaintiffs lack Article III standing and failed to state a claim upon which relief can be granted. Update 4: On Feb. 17, 2025, in a Memorandum Opinion and Order, Judge Moss denied plaintiffs’ most recent motion for a TRO on the ground that they had not shown they were likely to have standing or face irreparable injury without emergency relief. / 2025-02-17

Executive Action: Disclosure of personal and financial records to DOGE

Alliance for Retired Americans v. Scott Bessent et al (D.D.C.); Case No. 1:25-cv-00313 / Complaint / Feb. 3, 2025 / The complaint alleges that the Treasury Department granted DOGE-affiliated individuals access to sensitive personal and financial information maintained by the Treasury Department. The plaintiffs sued on behalf of members whose records may have been transmitted from the Treasury Department to DOGE employees, thus allegedly depriving the members of privacy. The lawsuit seeks an injunction and declaratory relief, as well as a temporary restraining order, for alleged violations of the Administrative Procedure Act and actions in excess of legal authority under the Privacy Act. Update 1: On Feb. 6, 2025, the parties in the suit mutually proposed an order that Judge Colleen Kollar-Kotelly adopted. It limits access to Treasury Department payment records and systems to two (Musk-affiliated) Special Government Employees in the Department (“read-only” access), other employees who need to access the record to perform their duties, or individuals who are already entitled to access the records under statute. / 2025-02-11

New York et al v. Donald J. Trump (S.D.N.Y.); Case No. 1:25-cv-01144-JAV / Complaint / Feb. 7, 2025 / The complaint alleges that the Treasury Department granted DOGE-affiliated individuals access to sensitive personal and financial information maintained by the Treasury Department. The plaintiffs, attorneys general of 19 states, sued on the ground that the policy of giving expanded access to political appointees and “special government employees” to Treasury’s Bureau of Fiscal Services violated the Administrative Procedure Act (APA). The plaintiffs claim the policy violates the APA by exceeding authority conferred by statute for the unauthorized purpose of impeding payments and accessing private information; for failure to conduct a privacy impact statement; for violation of the Privacy Act; and for violating ethics statutes on conflicts of interest. The plaintiffs also assert the policy usurps congressional authority and is ultra virus. The plaintiffs requested an emergency temporary restraining order, as well as preliminary and permanent injunction to bar access to political appointees, special government employees, and government employees detailed from other agencies as well as to any person who has not received a background check, security clearance, and information security training. Update 1: The case is before Judge Jeannette A. Vargas. On Feb. 8, 2025, after midnight, Judge Paul A. Engelmayer issued an emergency temporary restraining order until Judge Vargas holds a hearing on Feb. 14. Judge Engelmayer’s order prohibits access to the Treasury Department’s systems and also requires prohibited persons to immediately destroy any material already downloaded from the Treasury Department’s systems. / 2025-02-11

AFL-CIO v. Dep’t of Labor (D.D.C.); Case No. 1:25-cv-00339 / Complaint / Feb. 5, 2025 / On Feb. 5, 2025, DOGE sought access to internal information systems at the Department of Labor. Plaintiffs sued, arguing DOGE’s attempt to direct the agency and access internal information systems are an unlawful exercise of power beyond its authority; and unlawful under the Administrative Procedure Act as a prohibited personnel practice, violation of the Confidential Information Protection and Statistical Efficiency Act, violation of the Privacy Act, rulemaking without proper procedure, and arbitrary and capricious abuse of discretion. They seek temporary, preliminary, and permanent injunctive relief to prevent the Department of Labor from granting access to DOGE, from taking adverse action against employees who refuse to cooperate with DOGE, and from providing any person with non-public Department of Labor information regarding that person’s business interests or direct competitors. On the same day as the complaint was filed, judge John Bates issued an Order which stated, “Defendants represented to the Court that DOL [Department of Labor] will not allow DOGE access to any DOL data until after this Court rules on the TRO motion on Friday.” Update 1: On Feb. 7, Judge Bates denied the petition for a temporary restraining order on the ground that the plaintiffs lacked standing. Update 2: On Feb. 12, Plaintiffs submitted a renewed request for a TRO enjoining agency defendants from granting members of DOGE access to their systems of records, except as consistent with applicable federal law. Update 3: On Feb. 14, Judge Bates denied the renewed request for a TRO, but added, “On the Economy Act question, which is the most important for this denial of a TRO, the Court will benefit from further briefing and analysis on a motion for preliminary injunction."/ 2025-02-14

University of California Student Ass’n v. Carter et al; Case No. 1:25-cv-00354 / Complaint / Feb. 7, 2025 / On Feb. 3, 2025, reportedly 20 people affiliated with DOGE were working with the Department of Education, some of whom obtained access to sensitive internal information systems, including systems related to federal student aid. Plaintiffs sued, arguing DOGE’s access is unlawful under the Administrative Procedure Act in that it is contrary to law in violation of the Privacy Act and Internal Revenue Code; arbitrary and capricious; and in excess of statutory authority. They seek a declaratory judgment that DOGE officials are not authorized to access Department of Education records that contain personal information, and temporary, preliminary, or permanent injunctive relief preventing the Department of Education from continuing to provide access to DOGE, ensuring there is no further dissemination of data, and requiring recovery of unlawfully transferred information. Update 1: On Feb. 10, Plaintiff moved for a TRO, requesting Defendants be enjoined from disclosing information about individuals to individuals affiliated with DOGE, and required to retrieve and safeguard any such information that has already been obtained by and shared or transferred by DOGE or individuals associated with it. Update 2: On Feb. 17, Judge Randolph Moss denied the TRO on the grounds that mere “access” to data by government employees who are not formally authorized to view it, without more, does not create an irreparable injury. He wrote that courts find dissemination of information to be an irreparable injury where highly sensitive information will be made public or is given to someone with no obligation to keep it confidential. He also wrote that irreparable harm was not present because plaintiffs would have a private right of action and money damages for certain unauthorized disclosures. / 2025-02-17

National Treasury Employees Union v. Russell Vought (D.D.C.); Case No. 1:25-cv-00380 / Complaint / Feb. 9, 2025 / DOGE “special government employee” entered CFPB. On February 7, 2025, Chris Young, Nikhil Rajpul, and Gavin Kliger—none of whom is or has been a CFPB employee—were added to CFPB’s staff and email directories as “senior advisers.” Russell Vought, as Acting Director of CFPB, instructed CFPB staffers to grant this DOGE team access to all non-classified systems. Plaintiffs maintain that CFPB has a statutory obligation to protect its employee information under both the Privacy Act and CFPB regulations (5 C.F.R. Part 1070). Plaintiffs claim that CFPB violated that obligation by granting DOGE access to employee information without satisfying an exception in the Privacy Act. Plaintiffs seek a judgment declaring that CFPB violated the law by granting DOGE access to CFPB systems, that CFPB’s disclosure of employee information to DOGE is unlawful, and request an injunction to prevent CFPB from disclosing employee records to DOGE. / 2025-02-09

American Federation of Teachers et al v. Bessent et al (D. Md.); Case No. 8:25-cv-00430 / Complaint / Feb. 10, 2025 / The complaint alleges that the Treasury Department, Office of Personnel Management, and Department of Education have provided DOGE “special government employees” with access to information systems that contain records of private citizens' sensitive personal information (including Social Security numbers, financial records, and more). Plaintiffs sued, arguing DOGE access is unlawful under the Administrative Procedure Act as (1) not in accordance with the Privacy Act; (2) an arbitrary and capricious abuse of discretion; and (3) in excess of statutory authority. They seek a declaratory judgment that disclosing records to DOGE is unlawful and temporary, preliminary, or permanent injunctive relief to bar defendants from allowing DOGE to access sensitive information; ensure there is no further unauthorized disclosure; ensure records improperly disseminated are retrieved or destroyed; and ensure future disclosures will only occur in accordance with the Privacy Act. Update 1: On Feb. 12, Plaintiffs moved for a TRO enjoining Defendants from providing DOGE access to their records systems and ordering any records housed outside government information systems be retrieved or destroyed. / 2025-02-12

Electronic Privacy Information Center v. U.S. Office of Personnel Management (E.D.V.A.); Case No. 1:25-cv-00255 / Complaint / Feb. 10, 2025 / The complaint alleges that the Treasury Department granted DOGE-affiliated individuals access to sensitive personal and financial information maintained by the Treasury Department. The plaintiffs, Electronic Privacy Information Center (EPIC) and Doe 1 (a federal employee), sued, claiming that the transmission of these records violated the plaintiffs’ right to privacy and puts plaintiffs at risk of identity theft and financial crimes. Plaintiffs also argue that the transmission of these records was not compliant with the Federal Information Security Modernization Act (FISMA) and other privacy and security requirements. The lawsuit seeks injunctive and declaratory relief curing the release of information and halting further sharing by OPM and Treasury, alleging violations of the Administrative Procedure Act, Privacy Act, the Fifth Amendment, 26 U.S.C. § 6103, and actions beyond the scope of authority—primarily by the DOGE defendants. Doe 1 also seeks an award of statutory and punitive damages.
Update 1: On Feb. 12, Plaintiffs moved for a TRO to enjoin Treasury and OPM defendants from providing DOGE access to information systems, to enjoin DOGE defendants from accessing information systems, and to require status reports. / 2025-02-12

American Federation of Government Employees, et al. v. Office of Personnel Management et al (S.D.N.Y); Case No. 1:25-cv-01237 / Complaint / Feb. 11, 2025 / Plaintiffs allege the Office of Personnel Management (OPM) has given DOGE access to OPM information systems that contain sensitive personal and employment records of government employees (including Social Security numbers, demographic information, job performance information, health records, and more). Plaintiffs, current and former federal employees and unions representing them, sued, arguing OPM’s disclosure of this information to DOGE violates the Privacy Act and the Administrative Procedure Act; and that DOGE’s actions are ultra vires. They seek a declaratory judgment that the government’s actions are unlawful; temporary, preliminary, or permanent injunctive relief; and an order for the impoundment and destruction of copies of improperly disclosed personal information. / 2025-02-11

Nemeth-Greenleaf, et al. v. Office of Personnel Management, et al. (D.D.C.); Case No. 1:25-cv-00407 / Complaint / Feb. 11, 2025 / Plaintiffs are federal employees from various government departments who filed suit as a proposed class action. They allege that DOGE workers unlawfully accessed their private information from OPM and the Treasury Department. They argue that Defendants are engaged in an “unlawful ongoing, systemic, and continuous disclosure of personal, health, and financial information” to Elon Musk and DOGE in violation of the Privacy Act, 5 U.S.C. § 552a. They seek injunctive relief and damages. / 2025-02-11

Gribbon et al. v. Musk (D.D.C.); Case No. 1:25-cv-00407 / Complaint / Feb. 12, 2025 / Plaintiffs filed a proposed class action lawsuit. They are recipients of federal benefits, student loans, or have filed tax return information with the federal government. The complaint alleges that “Defendants [are] liable for their willful failure to ensure the security of Plaintiffs’ and Class members’” private information. Plaintiffs allege Defendant Elon Musk violated the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act and that Defendants OPM and Treasury violated the Privacy Act of 1974. Plaintiffs are suing for injunctive relief and monetary damages “resulting from Defendants’ unlawful ongoing, systematic, and continuous disclosure of personal and financial information.” / 2025-02-12

Center for Taxpayer Rights v. IRS (D.D.C); Case 1:25-cv-00457 / Complaint / Feb. 17, 2025 / Plaintiffs filed a lawsuit challenging the U.S. Department of Government Efficiency’s access to information from the Internal Revenue Service. Plaintiffs are organizations that represent low-income taxpayers, immigrants, domestic abuse survivors, small businesses, and public and private sector employees. They allege that by allowing DOGE to access private citizens’ tax information, the IRS has violated the Federal Information Security Act, the Privacy Act, and the Administrative Procedure Act. Plaintiffs also allege that DOGE has engaged in “ultra vires” actions by “directing and controlling the use and administration of Defendant IRS’ systems.” They seek declaratory and injunctive relief to stop allegedly “wrongful provision of access, inspection, and disclosure of return information and other personal information in the IRS system to members of DOGE.” They also seek other forms of relief such as ordering Defendants to disgorge all unlawfully obtained information. / 2025-02-17

[admin]

Part 2 of 2

https://www.justsecurity.org/107087/tra ... istration/

Case Name / Complaint / Date Filed / Case Summary / Last Update

Executive Action: “Fork Directive” deferred resignation offer to federal employees (OPM Directive)

American Federation of Gov’t Employees, AFL-CIO v. Ezell (D. Mass) / Case No. 1:25-cv-10276 / Complaint / Feb. 4, 2025 / On January 28, 2025, the Office of Personnel Management sent an email to career federal employees presenting what it described as a deferred resignation program, an offer to receive compensation until September 30, 2025 if they resign now (“Fork Directive” email). A deadline for the offer was set for February 6, 2025. Plaintiffs filed suit, arguing the directive violates the Administrative Procedure Act (APA) because it is “arbitrary and capricious” and not in accordance with the Antideficiency Act. They seek a declaratory judgment that the directive violates the APA and that the directive be vacated; they also seek an preliminary and permanent injunction of the February 6, 2025 deadline and an order that OPM submit for court approval a corrected communication for all employees who received the directive. Update 1: On Feb. 5, 2025, the plaintiffs requested a temporary restraining order and that within 24 hours of the TRO, the Government provide written notice of the TRO to all federal employees who have received the directive. Update 2: On Feb. 6, 2025, Judge George O’Toole issued an order to pause the program and extend the deadline until Monday when a hearing is scheduled. Update 3: On Feb. 10, 2025, Judge O’Toole ordered that the stay of the Feb. 6 deadline will remain in effect “pending the completion of briefing and oral argument on the issues.” Defendants notified the Court of their compliance with the order. Update 4: On Feb. 12, 2025, Judge O’Toole dissolved the TRO and denied further preliminary injunctive relief, finding that the plaintiffs lacked Article III standing and that the court lacked subject matter jurisdiction over the claims asserted. / 2025-02-12

Executive Action: Removal of independent agency leaders

Gwynne A. Wilcox v. Donald J. Trump et al (D.D.C.); Case No. 1:25-cv-00334 / Complaint / Feb. 5, 2025 / This case challenges President Trump’s removal of Gwynne A. Wilcox from her position on the National Labor Relations Board. The suit alleges the removal is in violation of the National Labor Relations Act (29 U.S.C. § 151 et seq.), which allows the president to remove Board members only in cases of neglect of duty or malfeasance and only after notice and hearing. The Plaintiff is seeking relief under the Declaratory Judgement Act, 28 U.S.C. §§ 2201 and 2202, to establish that she remains a rightful member of the Board and that the President lacks authority to remove her. She also seeks an injunction against the Chairman of the National Labor Relations Board, who oversaw the termination. Update 1: On Feb. 10, Plaintiff moved for expedited summary judgment. 2025-02-10

Cathy A. Harris v. Bessent et al (D.D.C.); Case No. 1:25-cv-00412 / Complaint / Feb. 11, 2025 / Plaintiff Cathy A. Harris challenges her removal from the Merit Systems Protection Board (MSPB), an independent federal agency. Plaintiff alleges that she received a one-sentence email from Trent Morse, Deputy Assistant to the President and Deputy Director of the White House Presidential Personnel Office, stating that Plaintiff had been terminated, effective immediately. Plaintiff, whose term on the MSPB was set to expire in 2028, alleges that she was unlawfully removed from her position without justification, despite the statutory requirement that MSPB members may only be removed for “inefficiency, neglect of duty, or malfeasance in office.” She alleges the action was ultra vires and violated the Administrative Procedure Act. She seeks a declaratory judgment and injunction as well as an emergency temporary restraining order to reinstate her position on the MSPB. Update 1: On Feb. 11, Plaintiff moved for a temporary restraining order declaring that her removal is unlawful and that she is a member of the MSPB, and enjoining obstructing her access to the office. Update 2: On Feb. 18, Judge Rudolph Contreras granted the temporary restraining order and ordered that Harris continue to serve as Chair of the MSPB until the court rules on a preliminary injunction. / 2025-02-18

Executive Action: Dismantling of USAID (Executive Order 14169)

American Foreign Service Association v. Trump (D.D.C.); Case No. 1:25-cv-00352 / Complaint / Feb. 6, 2025 / On Jan. 20, 2025, the Trump administration issued an executive order including a 90-day pause in “foreign development assistance,” and the Secretary of State then issued stop-work orders for United States Agency for International Development (USAID) foreign assistance grants. Later, Secretary of State Rubio was named as acting USAID Administrator and USAID contractors were laid off or furloughed. On Feb. 3, Elon Musk posted that he had spent the previous weekend “feeding USAID to the woodchipper,” and USAID headquarters in Washington, D.C. was closed. On Feb. 4, a message was posted on the USAID website that all directly-hired USAID staff would be placed on administrative leave as of 11:59pm EST on Friday, Feb. 7, 2025. Plaintiffs sued, arguing executive actions either to dissolve USAID or merge it with the State Department are unconstitutional violations of the separation of powers and the Take Care Clause; and unlawful under of the Administrative Procedure Act by exceeding statutory authority, violating the Further Consolidated Appropriations Act, and involving arbitrary and capricious abuses of discretion. Plaintiffs seek a declaratory judgment that the administration’s actions are unlawful and unconstitutional; a temporary restraining order and preliminary injunction directing the administration to halt efforts to shut down the agency, including by appointing an independent administrator, restoring grant funding, recalling furloughs, and halting efforts to place more employees on administrative leave, among other actions. Plaintiffs also seek court supervision, and a permanent injunction barring the administration from taking action to dissolve USAID absent congressional authorization. Update 1: On Feb. 7, 2025, Judge Carl J. Nichols issued a temporary restraining order preventing USAID from placing employees on administrative leave or evacuating them. He rejected the plaintiffs’ request for a restraining order on the funding freeze on the ground that the plaintiffs (USAID employees) could not show sufficient harm to themselves. Update 2: On Feb. 13, the court extended the TRO until Friday, Feb. 21, at 11:59 PM. Judge Nichols also amended the TRO’s statement to clarify that no USAID employees can be involuntarily evacuated from their host countries while the TRO remains in place. Update 3: On Feb. 14, the Government submitted a declaration by Pete Marocco, who performs the duties and functions of both Deputy Administrators of USAID; the declaration responds to the court’s questions about government actions to protect USAID employees abroad subject to administrative leave or in the event of employees staying voluntarily beyond the time of an evacuation. / 2025-02-18

AIDS Vaccine Advocacy Coalition v. United States Department of State(D.D.C.); Case No. 1:25-cv-00400 / Complaint / Feb. 10, 2025 / On Jan. 20, 2025, the Trump administration issued an executive order including a 90-day pause in “foreign development assistance,” and the Secretary of State then issued stop-work orders for United States Agency for International Development (USAID) foreign assistance grants. Plaintiffs, AIDS Vaccine Advocacy Coalition (AVAC) and Journalism Development Network (JDN), sued for declaratory and injunctive relief to stop the implementation of the Executive Order and the stop-work order. Plaintiffs are two nonprofit organizations that receive federal grants from USAID to support their work. Both AVAC’s and JDN’s funding was appropriated by Congress through the Further Consolidated Appropriations Act. Plaintiffs allege the Executive Order and stop-work order have been detrimental to their work, forcing them to lay off staff, slashing their budgets, and impacting their ability to carry out their missions. They allege the President acted ultra vires and usurped legislative authority. They also allege the President has violated the Take Care Clause. Plaintiffs’ claims against the State Department, USAID, Secretary of State Marc Rubio, Office of Management and Budget (OMB), and OMB Director Vought are that the stop-work orders are arbitrary and capricious in violation of the Administrative Procedure Act, the Anti-Deficiency Act (as an “unlawful reserve”), and the Impoundment Control Act. Plaintiffs seek a declaration from the court that the suspension of foreign aid is unlawful, an injunction stopping defendants from enforcing the Executive Order, and an order to immediately reinstate foreign assistance funding. Update 1: On Feb. 12, Plaintiffs moved for a TRO enjoining Defendants from enforcing the Executive Order and State Department policy, enjoining stop-work orders, and reinstating foreign assistance funding and administration. Update 2: On Feb. 13, the court granted a TRO in this case and Global Health Council v. Trump on narrower terms than originally requested. The order enjoins implementation on the blanket suspension of foreign aid funding, but does not enjoin enforcement or implementation of Executive Order 14169, individual personnel decisions, or termination of individual contracts. / 2025-02-13

Global Health Council v. Trump (D.D.C.); Case No. ​​1:25-cv-00402 / Complaint / Feb. 11, 2025 / A group of for-profit and nonprofit organizations that contract with USAID sued the Trump administration over its recent actions to defund USAID, lay off or furlough employees, and transfer the Agency to be under the State Department. Plaintiffs provide a detailed chronology of the actions, memoranda, and statements that the Administration has issued. In addition to imperiling future projects by freezing future funds, plaintiffs also allege that there is money unpaid for services already performed. ($3,376,832 for Democracy International, approximately $120 million for DAI, $103.6 million for Chemonics, and tens of millions for SBAIC’s members.) Plaintiffs allege that neither the President, nor the Secretary of State, nor the USAID Administrator have the authority to unilaterally withhold already-appropriated funds, citing the Constitution and statutory law prohibiting the unilateral withholding: the Impoundment Control Act and the Anti-Deficiency Act. Plaintiffs also claim violations of the Administrative Procedure Act; that the Executive’s actions were arbitrary and capricious, and contrary to statutory and constitutional law. Plaintiffs ask the court to vacate and set aside all of the defendants’ actions to implement Executive Order 14169 and seek injunctions to prevent defendants from continuing to implement EO 14169 and from “dismantling USAID.” Update 1: On Feb. 11, Plaintiffs moved for a TRO enjoining implementation of the Executive Order and State Department Memorandum. Update 2: On Feb. 13, the court granted a TRO in this case and AIDS Vaccine Advocacy Coalition v. United States Department of State on narrower terms than originally requested. The order enjoins implementation on the blanket suspension of foreign aid funding, but does not enjoin enforcement or implementation of Executive Order 14169, individual personnel decisions, or termination of individual contracts. / 2025-02-13

Executive Action: Dismantling of Consumer Financial Protection Bureau

National Treasury Employees Union v. Russell Vought (D.D.C.); Case No. 1:25-cv-00381 / Complaint (Feb. 6, 2025); Amended Complaint (Feb. 13, 2025) / Feb. 9, 2025 / The Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB) was created by Congress in the aftermath of the 2007–2008 great recession, to support and protect American consumers in the financial marketplace. On Feb. 7, 2025, Elon Musk posted “CFPB RIP” with a tombstone emoji on his X account. On Feb. 8, Russell Vought, the Acting Director of the CFPB, posted on X that he had notified the Federal Reserve that CFPB would not take “its next draw of unappropriated funding because it is not ‘reasonably necessary’ to carry out its duties.” In an email to CFPB employees, Vought directed the CFPB workforce to “cease all supervision and examination activity,” “cease all stakeholder engagement,” pause all pending investigations, not issue any public communications, and pause “enforcement actions.” He also notified the CFPB workforce that the Washington headquarters would be closed for the coming week. Plaintiffs allege that preventing CFPB from drawing down more funding and ordering a halt on enforcement activities constitutes an unlawful attempt to thwart Congress’s decision to create CFPB, which would be a violation of the separation of powers. They seek a declaratory judgment that Vought’s directives are unlawful and an injunction that prevents him from further attempts to dismantle CFPB’s supervision and enforcement work. Update 1: On Feb. 13, Plaintiffs moved for an administrative stay and TRO enjoining defendants from taking action to terminate CFPB staff, requiring that cease work directives be lifted, and enjoining further efforts to suspend operations at CFPB. Update 2: On Feb. 14, 2025, the court ordered that the defendants not delete, destroy, remove, or impair records; terminate any employee other than for cause or issue any notice of reduction-in-force to any CFPB employee; or disburse any funds, except to satisfy CFPB’s operating obligations, pending the resolution of plaintiffs’ motion for a TRO. The order also reclassified plaintiffs’ motion for a TRO as a motion for a preliminary injunction. / 025-02-14

Mayor and City Council of Baltimore et al. v. CFPB (D. Md.); Case No. 1:25-cv-00458-ABA / Complaint / Feb. 12, 2025 / On Feb.7, 2025, President Trump named OMB Director Russell Vought as the Acting Director of the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB). On Feb. 8, Vought instructed CFPB employees to stop performing any work tasks and notified the Federal Reserve Board of Governors that he was requesting $0 for the third quarter of fiscal year 2025. Plaintiffs allege that these and other statements and actions by Vought, President Trump, and Elon Musk indicate that the CFPB will be deprived of operating funds and will be unable to perform its statutorily mandated functions. Plaintiffs allege that the Baltimore City Law Department has an active account with the CFPB and uses the CFPB customer complaint database and attends trainings put on by the CFPB. Plaintiffs also claim injury because their constituents will be deprived of the CFPB’s enforcement actions against predatory business practices. The second plaintiff, Economic Action Maryland Fund, is a direct services nonprofit that operates in Maryland. For part of its work, the organization relies on the CFPB complaint databases and other resources CFPB publishes under the Home Mortgage Disclosure Act. Plaintiffs claim that defendants’ actions violate the Administrative Procedure Act (including that Vought’s actions allegedly violate the statutory requirement for the Director to request transfer of an amount “reasonably necessary to carry out the authorities of the Bureau under Federal consumer financial law.” Plaintiffs seek a declaratory judgment saying as much, as well as an injunction that would prevent defendants from defunding CFPB. Update 1: On Feb. 12, Plaintiffs moved for a TRO enjoining defendants from defunding the CFPB. / 2025-02-12

Executive Action: Termination of the Special Counsel of the Office of Special Counsel

Dellinger v. Bessent (D.D.C.); Case No. 1:25-cv-00385-ABJ / Complaint / Feb. 10, 2025 / Plaintiff Hampton Dellinger has been the Special Counsel in the Office of the Special Counsel (OSC) since Mar. 6, 2024, when he was nominated by the President and confirmed by the Senate for a five-year term. The OSC is an independent federal agency founded by Congress as part of the Civil Service Reform Act of 1978. Its primary function is to protect federal employees and others who come forward as whistleblowers. Once confirmed, the Special Counsel serves a five-year term and “may be removed by the President only for inefficiency, neglect of duty, or malfeasance in office.” On Feb. 7, 2025, Dellinger received a two-sentence email from Sergio Gor, informing Dellinger that he was terminated, effective immediately, and stating no cause for such termination. Dellinger is suing under six different counts and seeks a declaratory judgment that President Trump’s decision to fire him was unlawful, that the Special Counsel may only be removed for cause; and seeks an order that Dellinger may not be removed and is entitled to backpay. As precedent for the constitutionality of the statutory for-cause protection, Dellinger cites to Humphrey’s Executor. Update 1: On Feb. 10, 2025, Judge Amy Berman Jackson issued an administrative stay on Dellinger’s termination through midnight on February 13, 2025, while the parties submit their briefs. Update 2: On Feb. 11, 2025, defendants appealed to the D.C. Circuit (case no. 25-5025), making an emergency motion to stay the district court’s administrative stay. Update 3: On Feb. 12, 2025, the D.C. Circuit dismissed the appeal for lack of jurisdiction. Update 4: On Feb. 12, 2025, Judge Amy Berman Jackson of the D.C. District Court granted a temporary restraining order, ordering that Dellinger shall continue to serve as Special Counsel and prohibiting defendants from denying him the resources and materials of his office. Update 5: On Feb. 13, Defendants filed an appeal to the D.C. Circuit (case no. 25-5028). In the District Court, their motion for a stay pending appeal was denied. Update 6: On Feb. 15, the D.C. Circuit rejected the Defendant’s appeal in a 2-1 opinion. Update 7: The Government petitioned the U.S. Supreme Court asking the Justices to freeze and vacate the district court order that had temporarily reinstated Dellinger. / 2025-02-15

Executive Action: Termination of Inspectors General

Storch et al. v. Hegseth et al. (D.D.C.); Case No. 1:25-cv-00415 / Complaint / Feb. 12, 2025 / On Jan. 24, 2025, the White House sent two-sentence emails to several Inspectors General (IGs) of federal departments and agencies informing them that they had been terminated from their positions. Plaintiffs, eight IGs, subsequently lost access to their government email accounts and computer systems, and were barred from entering their offices, among other actions. They filed suit, arguing their removal violates the Inspector General Act, which requires Congressional notification 30 days before an IG is removed and substantive, case-specific rationale for removal. The suit also argues defendants’ actions are ultra vires; and that plaintiffs are entitled to a writ of mandamus compelling defendants not to obstruct them in the exercise of their duties. They seek a declaratory judgment that the termination emails are legally ineffective and that plaintiffs remain lawful IGs in their agencies; and an injunction to prevent defendants from taking action to prevent plaintiffs from carrying out their duties as IGs. Update 1: On Feb. 14, the judge reportedly told lawyers representing the fired inspectors general to withdraw their motion for a temporary restraining order. / 2025-02-14

American Oversight v. Department of Government Efficiency (D.D.C.); Case No. 1:25-cv-00409 / Complaint / Feb. 11, 2025 / The complaint seeks declaratory and injunctive relief compelling DOGE and OMB to comply with FOIA requests pertaining to communications by Elon Musk and other staff concerning the dismissal of Inspectors General. American Oversight submitted a FOIA request to DOGE and OMB for records from Jan. 20, 2025 to Jan. 28, 2025 for all email, text, and messaging communications from Elon Musk, key staff at DOGE, and a number of external parties in the Senate, related to the removal of inspectors general from 17 federal agencies on Jan. 24, 2025. American Oversight submits that “Defendant U.S. DOGE Service is a department or agency subject to FOIA.” The Plaintiff alleges that DOGE and OMB have failed to notify them of a final determination regarding their FOIA request and asks the court for expedited review, attorneys fees, and other proper relief. / 2025-02-11

Executive Action: Large-scale reductions in force (Executive Order 14210)

National Treasury Employees Union v. Donald Trump (D.D.C.); Case No. 1:25-cv-00420 / Complaint / Feb. 12, 2025 / On Feb. 11, 2025, President Trump issued an executive order instructing agency heads to “undertake preparations to initiate large-scale reductions in force (RIFs).” Plaintiffs allege that the executive order, along with the Office of Personnel Management’s “deferred resignation program,” violates separation of powers principles by undermining Congress’s authority, and the Administrative Procedure Act by imposing RIFs contrary to regulations. They seek a declaration that mass firings and the deferred resignation program are unlawful, along with injunctions to prevent agency heads from implementing RIFs and OPM from extending, expanding, or replicating its deferred resignation program. / 2025-02-12

Government Grants, Loans and Assistance

Executive Action: “Temporary Pause” of grants, loans, and assistance programs

National Council of Nonprofits v. Office of Management and Budget (D.D.C.); Case No. 1:25-cv-00239-LLA / Complaint / Jan. 28, 2025 / The Acting Director of the Office of Management and Budget issued a memorandum purported to “require every federal agency to temporarily pause” any agency activities “that may be implicated by [President Trump’s] executive orders.” The plaintiff organizations, represented by Democracy Forward, are small businesses and nonprofits that receive federal funds. The suit sought a temporary restraining order to allow the Court “an opportunity to more fully consider the illegality of OMB’s actions,” alleging violations of the Administrative Procedure Act and the First Amendment. Update 1: On Jan. 28, 2025, Judge Loren AliKhan of the District Court for the District of Columbia issued a temporary restraining order against the OMB policy to allow arguments from the plaintiffs and the government. Update 2: On Jan. 29, 2025, the Government submitted a Notice that the OMB had rescinded the challenged memo. On the same day, the White House Press Secretary stated, “This is not a rescission of the federal funding freeze. It is simply a rescission of the OMB memo. Why? To end any confusion created by the court's injunction. The President's EO's on federal funding remain in full force and effect, and will be rigorously implemented.” Update 3: On Feb. 3, 2025, Judge Alikhan issued a temporary restraining order blocking the OMB from implementing its funding freeze, finding that the Plaintiffs are likely to succeed in their claim that the directive was arbitrary and capricious under the APA, and that the post-complaint rescission of the memorandum was “disingenuous” and still causing irreparable injury. The order directed the OMB to release the frozen funds, notify agencies of this TRO, and file a status report on compliance by Feb. 7, 2025. / 2025-02-04

New York et al v. Donald J. Trump et al (D.R.I.); Case No. 1:25-cv-00039 / Complaint / Jan. 28, 2025 / The Acting Director of the Office of Management and Budget issued a memorandum purported to “require every federal agency to temporarily pause” any agency activities “that may be implicated by [President Trump’s] executive orders.” The attorneys general of 22 states and the District of Columbia filed a lawsuit seeking preliminary and permanent injunctions against enforcement of the policy. The suit alleges that the policy violates the Administrative Procedure Act and the First Amendment. Update 1: On Jan. 28, responding to National Council of Nonprofits v. Office of Management and Budget, Judge Loren AliKhan of the District Court for the District of Columbia issued a temporary restraining order against the OMB policy to allow arguments from the plaintiffs and the government. Update 2: On Jan. 29, the Government submitted a Notice that the OMB had rescinded the challenged memo. On the same day, the White House Press Secretary stated, “This is not a rescission of the federal funding freeze. It is simply a rescission of the OMB memo. Why? To end any confusion created by the court's injunction. The President's EO's on federal funding remain in full force and effect, and will be rigorously implemented.” Update 3: On January 31, Judge McConnell issued a temporary restraining order against the OMB policy to allow the states to file their motion for a preliminary injunction. Judge McConnell’s order notes that the case is not moot because “the alleged rescission of the OMB Directive was in name only and may have been issued simply to defeat the jurisdiction of the courts.” The judge also wrote, "the States are likely to succeed on the merits of some, if not all, their claims." Update 4: On Feb. 10, Judge McConnell granted Plaintiffs’ motion to enforce the temporary restraining order. Judge McConnell noted the Plaintiff States presented evidence suggesting that Defendants “have continued to improperly freeze federal funds and refused to resume disbursement of appropriated federal funds” (citing three exhibits). Judge McConnell emphasized that this is a violation of the TRO and ordered Defendants to immediately restore frozen funding. Update 5: On Feb. 14, the First Circuit issued a voluntary dismissal of defendants’ motion to appeal the decision. / 2025-02-14

Shapiro et al. v. Department of Interior et al. (E.D. Pa.); Case No. 2:25-cv-00763 / Complaint / Feb. 13, 2025 / The Plaintiffs—Governor Josh Shapiro of Pennsylvania and four Pennsylvania governmental departments—allege that five Executive Orders and a subsequent OMB Directive froze funds already appropriated to various departments and projects in Pennsylvania. The complaint describes five different communications from EPA, HHS, and DOE after the Jan. 27 OMB Directive. None of these communications identified specific programs or funds that would be terminated, and none cited any legal authority. Much of this funding was appropriated under either the Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act (IIJA) or the Inflation Reduction Act (IRA). The plaintiffs allege that, in total, the funding freeze jeopardizes at least $5.5 billion that had been committed to Pennsylvania, and over $1 billion of which had already been obligated. The plaintiffs note the ongoing litigation on the funding freeze, but they claim that, despite the court action – Jan. 31 TRO (D.R.I.), the Feb. 3 TRO (D.D.C.), the Feb. 7 motion to enforce the TRO (D.R.I.), and the Feb. 11 denial of the defendants’ motion for an administrative stay (1st Cir.) – as of Feb. 13, over $1.2 billion in grant funding is suspended and more than $900 million is marked as requiring further federal review before being approved. Plaintiffs claim that defendants’ actions violate the Administrative Procedure Act because they are contrary to law (contrary to the IRA and the IIJA) and are arbitrary and capricious. Plaintiffs also claim that defendants’ actions are unconstitutional, violating both the Take Care Clause and the Spending Clause. Plaintiffs seek a declaratory judgment that defendants’ actions are illegal and seek an injunction to prevent defendants from freezing or interfering with congressionally appropriated funds. / 2025-02-13

Government Grants, Loans and Assistance

Executive Action: Reduction of indirect cost reimbursement rate for research institutions (NIH Guidance)

Commonwealth of Massachusetts v. National Institutes of Health (D. Mass.); Case No. 1:25-cv-10338 / Complaint / Feb. 10, 2025 / The National Institutes of Health’s guidance imposes an across-the-board 15 percent reimbursement rate for “indirect costs” of medical research, which research institutions have historically negotiated on an individual basis. Plaintiffs, 22 state governments whose public research institutions will face hardship under the policy, allege that the policy violates the Administrative Procedure Act – including as an “arbitrary and capricious” change that failed to weigh reliance interests and that involves a reversal of fact-finding and as an action in excess the NIH’s statutory authority and in violation of Congress’s express directives in appropriating NIH funding. They seek declaratory judgment and a temporary restraining order and preliminary and permanent injunctions against implementing the policy in the plaintiff states.
On Feb. 10, 2025, Judge Angel Kelley granted the plaintiffs emergency motion for a temporary restraining order and imposed a regular reporting requirement on the part of the administration to confirm compliance. / 2025-02-10

Association of American Universities, et al. v. Department of Health and Human Services, et al. (D. Mass.); Case No. 1:25-cv-10346 / Complaint / Feb. 10, 2025 / National Institutes of Health (NIH) guidance imposes an across-the-board 15 percent reimbursement rate for “indirect costs” of medical research, which research institutions have historically negotiated on an individual basis. Plaintiffs, including associations representing universities and college and individual universities, allege the reduction in indirect cost rate to 15% will have immediate destructive effects on NIH-funded research. They sued, arguing the policy is unlawful under of the Administrative Procedure Act in that it (1) is contrary to law in that it departs from the Continuing Appropriations Act of 2024; (2) is contrary to law as it violates the Constitution’s Appropriation Clause; (3) is contrary to law as it departs from negotiated cost rates provided by 45 C.F.R. 75.414 and NIH Grants Policy Statement; (4) is an arbitrary and capricious abuse of discretion; (5) is contrary to law as it departs from HHS cost recovery regulations and policy guidance; (6) fails to observe required notice-and-comment procedures; (7) is contrary to law violates the Public Health Service Act; and (8) is in excess of statutory authority as a retroactive action. Plaintiffs seek a declaratory judgment that the policy is unlawful and preliminary and permanent injunctive relief. Later on Feb. 10, Plaintiffs filed a motion for a Temporary Restraining Order to prohibit Defendants from implementing the policy. / 2025-02-10

Association of American Medical Colleges v. National Institutes of Health (D. Mass.); Case No. 1:25-cv-10340 / Complaint / Feb. 10, 2025 / The National Institutes of Health’s guidance imposes an across-the-board 15 percent reimbursement rate for “indirect costs” of medical research, which research institutions have historically negotiated on an individual basis. Plaintiffs, including associations representing universities, hospitals, and health systems across the country, allege that the Rate Change Notice is invalid under the Administrative Procedure Act (“APA”) and seek to enjoin any actions taken to implement its directives. They argue that the Rate Change Notice is contrary to Health and Human Services’s (HHS) existing regulations and the 2024 Further Consolidated Appropriations Act. Moreover, they contend that it is arbitrary and capricious and failed to undergo required notice and comment rulemaking. Update 1: On February 10, 2025, Judge Angel Kelley issued a nationwide temporary restraining order against the NIH policy. / 2025-02-10

Civil Liberties and Rights

Executive Action: Housing of transgender inmates (Executive Order 14168)

Maria Moe v. Donald Trump, et al (D. Mass.); Case No. 1:25-cv-10195-GAO / Complaint / Jan. 26, 2025 / Trump’s Executive Order mandates that federal inmates be housed according to sex defined as “immutable biological classification,” regardless of gender identity, and directs the Bureau of Prisons not to expend federal funds on gender-affirming care. The plaintiff, Maria Moe, is a transgender female federal inmate who was placed in a Special Housing Unit to await transfer to a men’s facility. The suit seeks to enjoin the Executive Order on the basis that it violates the 5th Amendment by discriminating against transgender individuals on the basis of sex and gender identity; the 8th Amendment by subjecting Moe to risk to life and dignity; the Rehabilitation Act by failing to accommodate Moe’s gender dysphoria; and the Administrative Procedure Act by doing so in an arbitrary and capricious manner. Update 1: On Jan. 26, the judge reportedly issued a temporary restraining order requiring prison officials to maintain Moe's medical care and not to transfer her from the general population of the women's facility. Update 2: On Feb. 7, the judge issued an order transferring the case “to the United States District Court for the district in which [Moe] is currently confined” and terminating proceedings in the District of Massachusetts. The order does not identify the District, noting that “[t]he parties are familiar with the proper district based on the sealed documents previously filed in this matter.” / 2025-02-07

Doe v. McHenry (D.D.C.); Case No. 1:25-cv-00286-RCL / Complaint / Jan. 30, 2025 / Trump’s Executive Order mandates that federal inmates be housed according to sex defined as “immutable biological classification,” regardless of gender identity, and directs the Bureau of Prisons not to expend federal funds on gender-affirming care. The plaintiffs are three transgender women federal inmates, have been diagnosed with gender dysphoria, and are housed in female facilities. All have been informed that they will be transferred imminently to men’s facilities. The suit seeks a declaratory judgement that the executive order violates the plaintiffs’ rights under the 5th Amendment by discriminating on the basis of sex; the 8th Amendment by failure to protect through exposing plaintiffs to risk of serious harm and by cruel and unusual punishment by refusing necessary medical care; the Rehabilitation Act by failing to accommodate plaintiffs’ gender dysphoria and disability discrimination; and the Administrative Procedure Act by doing so in an arbitrary and capricious manner. The complaint seeks a preliminary and permanent injunction prohibiting the government from carrying out the executive order and requiring it to maintain the plaintiffs’ housing and medical treatment consistent with the status quo prior to the order. Update 1: On Feb. 4, 2025, Judge Royce Lamberth issued a temporary restraining order and enjoined the government blocking it from transferring the plaintiffs or from discontinuing the plaintiffs’ medical care. / 2025-02-04

Jones v. Trump (D.D.C); Case No. 1:25-cv-00401 / Complaint / Feb. 10, 2025 / Trump’s Executive Order mandates that federal inmates be housed according to sex defined as “immutable biological classification,” regardless of gender identity, and directs the Bureau of Prisons not to expend federal funds on gender-affirming care. Plaintiff is a transgender woman who had previously been transferred from a women’s to a men’s unit of a BOP facility. She has since been transferred back, but she “now fears at any moment she will again be transferred to a men’s prison pursuant to Executive Order 14166[sic].” Plaintiff alleges that she is unsafe in any men’s prison, and she is also at imminent risk of losing access to medical care to treat her gender dysphoria. She brings claims alleging violations of the Fifth Amendment, Eighth Amendment, Rehabilitation Act, and Administrative Procedure Act, and she seeks declaratory and injunctive relief to enjoin enforcement of the EO. / 2025-02-10

Executive Action: Ban on transgender individuals serving in the military (Executive Order 14183)

Nicolas Talbott, et al. v. Donald Trump, et al. (D.D.C.); Case No. 1:25-cv-00240 / Complaint / Jan. 28, 2025 / On January 27, 2025, the Trump administration issued an executive order banning transgender individuals from serving in the military. The order rescinds prior policy allowing transgender individuals to serve openly if they meet military standards. This order categorically prohibits both enlistment and continued service, deeming transgender individuals incompatible with military standards of “troop readiness, lethality, cohesion, honesty, humility, uniformity, and integrity.” The plaintiffs are a group of active duty transgender service members and prospective or current enlistees. They argue that the categorical exclusion of this class of individuals from military service violates equal protection under the Fifth Amendment’s Due Process Clause because the policy is arbitrary and lacks a legitimate government interest. Update 1: On Feb. 3, Plaintiffs moved for a preliminary injunction against implementation of the Executive Order. Update 2: On Feb. 4, Plaintiffs moved for a TRO against implementation of the Executive Order. Update 3: On Feb, 5, the court ordered the Government to notify plaintiffs and the court of any Department of Defense policy or guidance implementing the Executive Order. If any such action is taken, the court will entertain Plaintiffs’ motion for a TRO. / 2025-02-05

Shilling v. Trump (W.D. Wash.); Case No. 2:25-cv-00241 / Complaint / Feb. 6, 2025 / On Jan. 27, 2025, the Trump administration issued an executive order banning transgender individuals from serving in the military. The order rescinds prior policy allowing transgender individuals to serve openly if they meet military standards. Plaintiffs, including active and prospective trans service members and an organization representing transgender military members, argue that the ban violates the equal protection and due process guarantees of the Fifth Amendment and the free speech guarantee of the First Amendment. They seek declaratory judgment and a permanent injunction against enforcement of the executive order. / 2025-01-27

Executive Action: Ban on gender affirming care for individuals under the age of 19 ( Executive Order 14168; Executive Order 14187)

PFLAG, Inc. v. Trump (D. Md.); Case No. 1:25-cv-00337-BAH / Complaint / Feb. 4, 2025 / On January 20, 2025, the Trump administration issued an executive order prohibiting the federal government from expending federal funds to promote “gender ideology,” the idea that gender identity can differ from biological sex. On January 28, 2025, the Trump administration issued an executive order directing the federal government to bar medical institutes that receive research and education grants, including medical schools and hospitals, from administering gender affirming care to individuals under the age of 19. The order also ended coverage for gender affirming care in government-provided medical benefits, and ordered the Office of Management and Budget to instruct private health insurers that government employee plans were barred from covering such care. Finally, the order directs the Department of Justice to prioritize enforcement against female genital mutilation and develop legislation for a private right of action against medical professionals performing gender-affirming procedures, pursuant to an older statute against female genital mutilation. PFLAG and other plaintiffs filed suit, arguing the orders constitute unconstitutional presidential action in excess of Article II authority; discriminate on the basis of sex and disability in violation of statutes; violate the Fifth Amendment’s equal protection and substantive due process guarantees; and abridge the First Amendment’s free speech clause. Plaintiffs seek to have the orders declared unconstitutional and unlawful, and asking for temporary, preliminary, and permanent injunctive relief. Update 1: On Feb. 5, Plaintiffs moved for a TRO against implementation of the Executive Order. Update 2: On Feb 13, Judge Brendan Abell Hurson issued a two-week TRO, blocking enforcement of the Executive Order. / 2025-02-13

State of Washington et al. v. Donald J. Trump et al. (W.D. Wash); Case No. 2:25-cv-00244 / Complaint / Feb. 7, 2025 / On Jan. 28, 2025, the Trump administration issued an executive order directing the federal government to bar medical institutes that receive research and education grants, including medical schools and hospitals, from administering gender affirming care to individuals under the age of 19. The order also ended coverage for gender affirming care in government-provided medical benefits, and ordered the Office of Management and Budget to instruct private health insurers that government employee plans were barred from covering such care. Finally, the order directs the Department of Justice to prioritize enforcement against female genital mutilation and develop legislation for a private right of action against medical professionals performing gender-affirming procedures, pursuant to an older statute against female genital mutilation. Three states and three physicians filed suit, arguing that Executive Order 14187 violates Fifth Amendment equal protection by creating classifications and facially discriminating on the basis of transgender status and sex without sufficient government interest. Plaintiffs also allege that the order violates separation of powers by imposing conditions on the receipt of funding by the plaintiff states’ medical institutions, whereas Congress never authorized such a provision and explicitly barred medical institutions from denying individuals access to federally funded services based on gender dysphoria under 29 U.S.C. § 794. Finally, the plaintiffs allege that the order violates the Tenth Amendment by regulating and threatening criminal prosecution against certain consensual medical practices, thus unlawfully intruding on the states’ traditional police powers over local public health. Update 1: On Feb. 7, Plaintiffs moved for a TRO against implementation of the Executive Order. Update 2: On Feb. 14, Judge Lauren King issued a two-week TRO, blocking enforcement of Section 4 and Section 8(a) of Executive Order 14187 within Plaintiff States; on Feb. 16, the court issued an Opinion in the matter. / 2025-02-16

Executive Action: Passport policy targeting transgender people (Executive Order 14168)

Orr v. Trump (D. Mass); Case No. 1:25-cv-10313 / Complaint / Feb. 7, 2025 / On Jan. 20, 2025, the Trump administration issued an executive order stating that there are only two sexes, male and female, and that they are determined by immutable biological factors at conception. The order directed the Secretary of State to change policies related to documents like passports to align with the order’s definition of sex. The State Department subsequently stopped processing passport applications of individuals seeking to change their sex designation, or who selected an “X” designation. Plaintiffs, represented by the ACLU, sued, arguing the policy is unconstitutional and violates the 5th Amendment’s equal protection guarantee by discriminating on the basis of sex and transgender status; violates the Fifth Amendment by restricting the right of free movement and travel; violates the Fifth Amendment by forcing disclosure of private and intimate information; and violates the First Amendment by compelling the speech of transgender applicants through their passports. Plaintiffs also argue the policy is unlawful under the Administrative Procedure Act, as contrary to constitutional rights, powers, and immunities; as an arbitrary and capricious abuse of discretion; and by failing to observe procedures as required by law in instituting the policy without a comment period. They seek a declaratory judgment that the policy is unconstitutional and unlawful; preliminary and permanent injunctions stopping the policy from being implemented; and an order vacating agency actions already taken under the policy. / 2025-02-07

Executive Action: Ban on transgender athletes in women’s sports (Executive Order 14168; Executive Order 14201)

Tirrell v. Edelblut (D.N.H.); Case No. 1:24-cv-00251 / Complaint; Amended Complaint (underlying case filed Aug. 16, 2024) / Feb. 12, 2025 / On Jan. 20, 2025, the Trump administration issued Executive Order 14168, stating that there are only two sexes, male and female, and that they are determined by immutable biological factors at conception. On Feb. 5, the administration issued Executive Order 14201, directing the federal government to interpret and enforce Title IX under the sex definitions provided in Executive Order 14168, which would bar transgender women and girls from competing in women’s sports. Plaintiffs, two transgender teenage athletes in New Hampshire, previously filed suit against the state, arguing a state law banning transgender women from competing in school sports was unconstitutional under the 14th Amendment and a violation of Title IX. On Sept. 10, 2024, the court ordered a preliminary injunction against the state law. Following the Trump administration’s executive order, Plaintiffs filed a motion for leave to file a second amended complaint, seeking to add federal defendants to the suit. The amended complaint argues the executive order (1) unconstitutionally violates Fifth Amendment equal protection rights; (2) is an ultra vires action in conflict with Title IX; and (3) is an ultra vires action to withhold Congressionally appropriated funds. They seek a declaratory judgment that the executive order is unconstitutional and unlawful; and a permanent injunction enjoining its enforcement. / 2025-02-12

Executive Action: Immigration enforcement against places of worship and schools (Policy Memo)

Philadelphia Yearly Meeting of the Religious Society of Friends, et al. v. U.S. Department of Homeland Security (D. Md.); Case No. 8:25-cv-00243-TDC / Complaint (Jan. 27, 2025)
Amended Complaint (Feb. 5, 2025) / Jan. 27, 2025 / On January 20, 2025 the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) issued a directive rescinding the Biden Administration’s guidelines for ICE and CBP enforcement actions that restricted agents from conducting immigration enforcement in or near “sensitive” areas, such as places of worship, schools, and hospitals. Under the new policy guidance, immigration enforcement in such areas would only be subject to the enforcement officers’ “common sense.” The plaintiffs, a coalition of Quaker congregations, seek to enjoin enforcement of this policy change and request a court declaration that any government policy permitting immigration enforcement based solely on subjective common sense is an unconstitutional violation of the freedom of expressive association under the First Amendment. Their complaint also claims that the new policy violates the Religious Freedom and Restoration Act and the Administrative Procedure Act. Update 1: On Feb. 4, Plaintiffs moved for a TRO and preliminary injunction against implementation of the Executive Order. / 2025-02-05

Mennonite Church USA et al. v. United States Department of Homeland Security et al (D.D.C.); Case No. 1:25-cv-00403 / Complaint / Feb. 11, 2025 / On January 20, 2025 the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) issued a directive rescinding the Biden Administration’s guidelines for ICE and CBP enforcement actions that restricted agents from conducting immigration enforcement in or near “sensitive” areas, such as places of worship, schools, and hospitals. Over two dozen Christian and Jewish religious denominations and associations sued for a preliminary and permanent injunction prohibiting DHS from effectuating the directive. The complaint asserts that DHS’s authorization of immigration enforcement action at plaintiffs’ places of worship in the absence of exigent circumstances or a judicial warrant violates their rights under the Religious Freedom Restoration Act (RFRA) and the First Amendment. In addition, the complaint alleges that DHS’s manner of recission of the “sensitive locations policy” violates legal constraints on agency action. / 2025-02-11

Denver Public Schools v. Noem (D. Colo); Case No. 1:25-cv-00474 / Complaint / Feb. 12, 2025 / On January 20, 2025 the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) issued a directive rescinding the Biden Administration’s guidelines for ICE and CBP enforcement actions that restricted agents from conducting immigration enforcement in or near “sensitive” areas, such as places of worship, schools, and hospitals. Denver Public Schools filed a suit challenging the recission of the policy, alleging that DHS implemented this major policy change through internal memoranda that have never been publicly released, with the shift announced only through a press release. According to the complaint, the new policy allegedly replaces three decades of formal protections with vague guidance that agents should use "common sense" in deciding whether to conduct enforcement actions at sensitive locations. The Plaintiff argues that this reversal of a decades-old policy constitutes final agency action subject to review under the Administrative Procedure Act, and that DHS failed to meet the basic requirements for changing established policy — including the need to provide reasoned explanation for the change, consider reliance interests, and examine alternatives. The Plaintiff further alleges that DHS’s failure to publish the policy memoranda violates FOIA disclosure requirements. The suit asks the court to enjoin and vacate the new policy and require the 2025 policy to be made public. Update 1: On Feb. 12, Plaintiffs moved for a TRO and preliminary injunction against enforcement of the Executive Order. / 2025-02-12

Diversity, Equity, Inclusion, and Accessibility

Executive Action: Ban on DEIA initiatives in the executive branch and by contractors (Executive Order 14151; Executive Order 14173)

Nat’l Association of Diversity Officers in Higher Ed. v. Trump (D. Md.); Case No. 1:25-cv-00333-ABA / Complaint / Feb. 3, 2025 / On January 20, 2025, the Trump administration issued an executive order directing the OMB Director, assisted by the Attorney General and OPM, to terminate DEI programs, offices and positions, and “equity-related” grants and contracts. On January 21, 2025, the administration issued another executive order revoking an Equal Employment Opportunity executive order in place since 1965; requiring federal grant recipients and contractors to certify that they do not operate DEI programs that violate anti-discrimination laws; and requiring each executive agency to identify up to nine corporations or nonprofit entities or associations to target with civil investigations to deter DEI programs. Plaintiffs argue the first order is an unconstitutional violation of the Spending Clause and the 5th Amendment’s due process guarantee for vagueness. They argue the second order unconstitutionally violates 5th Amendment due process for vagueness; the 1st Amendment’s free speech clause; and the separation of powers. They seek declaratory judgments that both orders are unlawful and unconstitutional, and preliminary and permanent injunctions against both. / 2025-02-04

Doe 1 v. Office of the Director of National Intelligence (E.D.Va.); Case No. 1:25-cv-00300-AJT-LRV / Complaint / Feb. 17, 2025 / On Jan. 20, 2025, the Trump administration issued an executive order directing the OMB Director, assisted by the Attorney General and OPM, to terminate DEI programs, offices and positions, and “equity-related” grants and contracts. Plaintiffs are U.S. intelligence officers who were assigned to diversity, equity, inclusion and accessibility (DEIA) initiatives at ODNI and CIA. The complaint alleges that Defendants placed Plaintiffs on administrative leave “apparently only because of [Plaintiffs’] temporary assignments to personnel functions involving DEIA.” Plaintiffs bring several causes of action. First, they claim that Defendants violated the Administrative Leave Act by placing Plaintiffs on leave for more than ten work days, despite the fact that no worker misconduct had been alleged. Second, Plaintiffs maintain that Defendants violated the Administrative Procedure Act, because Plaintiffs’ “imminent termination” is “arbitrary, capricious, an abuse of discretion, not in accordance with [Intelligence Community] regulations, and unsupported by any evidentiary record whatsoever.” Third, Plaintiffs allege that Defendants violated the First and Fifth Amendments by firing Plaintiffs on the basis of “their assumed beliefs about a domestic political issue [DEIA]” and causing them to lose “their property interest in their employment without due process of law.” The plaintiffs seek injunctive relief. The plaintiffs also submitted a request for a temporary restraining order. Update 1: On Feb 18, the court issued an administrative stay blocking the termination of plaintiffs’ employment or placing plaintiffs on leave without pay. / 2025-02-18

Removal of Information from Government Websites

Executive Action: Removal of information from HHS websites under Executive Order on “Gender Ideology Extremism” (Executive Order 14168; Policy Memo)

Doctors for America v. Office of Personnel Management et al (D.D.C.); Case No. 1:25-cv-00322 / Complaint / Feb. 4, 2025 / On January 31, 2025, agencies within the Department of Health and Human Services, including the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) and Food and Drug Administration (FDA) removed health-related data and other information from publicly-accessible websites in response to an Office of Personnel Management memorandum enforcing Executive Order 14168, “Defending Women from Gender Ideology Extremism and Restoring Biological Truth to the Federal Government.” Plaintiffs, suing on behalf of doctors and scientists who rely on the data, allege that the removal constitutes an arbitrary and capricious act, thus violating the Administrative Procedure Act, and fails to comply with notice requirements under the Paperwork Reduction Act. They seek declaratory judgments that the OPM memorandum is unlawful and that the relevant agencies have violated the law; injunctions on further removal of information from agency websites; notice of any further modifications to webpages; and restoration of previously publicly-available datasets. Update 1: On Feb. 11, 2025, Judge John D. Bates issued a temporary restraining order and memorandum opinion. The TRO includes a requirement that Defendants restore webpages and datasets identified by the Plaintiffs. / 2025-02-11

Actions Against FBI/DOJ Employees

Executive Action: Department of Justice review of FBI personnel involved in January 6 investigations (Executive Order 14147)

John and Jane Does 1-9 v. Department of Justice (D.D.C.); Case No. 1:25-cv-00325 / Complaint / Feb. 4, 2025 / After President Donald Trump’s second inauguration, the Department of Justice terminated employees who were involved in investigations into the January 6, 2021 attack on the U.S. Capitol and President Donald Trump’s alleged mishandling of classified documents. On February 2, FBI leadership, pursuant to a directive from the acting deputy attorney general, instructed agents to fill out a survey identifying their specific roles in those investigations. Plaintiffs in this class action suit, employees or agents of the FBI who participated in the investigations and expect to be terminated for their roles, allege that such termination would violate protections against political retaliation under the Civil Service Reform Act, First Amendment protections for political expression, and Fifth Amendment Due Process protections. Plaintiffs also allege that publication or dissemination of the surveys regarding their roles in the investigations would violate the Privacy Act and place them at risk of serious harm. They seek an injunction against “the aggregation, storage, reporting, publication or dissemination” of information identifying FBI personnel involved in the relevant investigations. The plaintiffs also requested a temporary restraining order to stop the defendants from “aggregating and disseminating information” to any person not subject to the Privacy Act, including the President, Vice President, and members of their staff. Update 1: On Feb. 6, 2025, Judge Jia Cobb ordered consolidation of this case and Federal Bureau of Investigation Agents Association v. Department of Justice. Update 2: On Feb. 7, 2025, Judge Jia Cobb issued a temporary restraining order, which had been mutually proposed by the parties. The TRO prohibits the government from publicly releasing any list before the court rules on whether to grant a preliminary injunction. The briefings for a preliminary injunction will be filed by March 21, 2025. / 2025-02-07

Federal Bureau of Investigation Agents Association; John Does 1-4; Jane Does 1-3 v. Department of Justice (D.D.C.); Case No. 1:25-cv-00328 / Complaint / Feb. 4, 2025 / On January 31, 2025, Acting Deputy Attorney General Emil Bove issued a memo ordering the resignation or firing of FBI agents who had participated in the investigations into the January 6, 2021, insurrection at the U.S. Capitol. On February 2, 2025, FBI leadership, pursuant to a directive from Bove, instructed agents to fill out a survey identifying their specific roles in those investigations. Plaintiffs, the union that represents FBI agents and several agents who worked on investigations related to January 6, allege that the Department of Justice intends to use this survey for public disseminate identifying information about the FBI personnel and/or for firing and demoting agents who participated in the investigations, violating the Privacy Act, the Administrative Procedure Act, First Amendment protections, and Fifth Amendment Due Process protections. They seek injunctive relief against “any further collection or dissemination” of personally identifiable information and a writ of mandamus as necessary to compel rescission of any unlawful termination orders. The plaintiffs also requested a temporary restraining order to prevent the public disclosure of the identities of the FBI agents. Update 1: On Feb. 6, 2025, Judge Jia Cobb ordered consolidation of this case and John and Jane Does 1-9 v. Department of Justice. Update 2: On Feb. 7, 2025, Judge Jia Cobb issued a temporary restraining order, which had been mutually proposed by the parties. The TRO prohibits the government from publicly releasing any list before the court rules on whether to grant a preliminary injunction. The briefings for a preliminary injunction will be filed by March 21, 2025. / 2025-02-07

[admin]

Cypherpunk
by Wikipedia
Accessed: 2/19/25
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cypherpunk

A cypherpunk is one who advocates the widespread use of strong cryptography and privacy-enhancing technologies as a means of effecting social and political change. The cypherpunk movement originated in the late 1980s and gained traction with the establishment of the "Cypherpunks" electronic mailing list in 1992, where informal groups of activists, technologists, and cryptographers discussed strategies to enhance individual privacy and resist state or corporate surveillance. Deeply libertarian in philosophy, the movement is rooted in principles of decentralization, individual autonomy, and freedom from centralized authority.[1][2] Its influence on society extends to the development of technologies that have reshaped global finance, communication, and privacy practices, such as the creation of Bitcoin and other cryptocurrencies, which embody cypherpunk ideals of decentralized and censorship-resistant money. The movement has also contributed to the mainstreaming of encryption in everyday technologies, such as secure messaging apps and privacy-focused web browsers. The cypherpunk ethos has had a lasting impact on debates around digital rights, surveillance, and personal freedoms in the 21st century. The movement has been active since at least 1990 and continues to inspire initiatives aimed at fostering a more private and secure digital world.[3][4]

History

Before the mailing list

Until about the 1970s, cryptography was mainly practiced in secret by military or spy agencies. However, that changed when two publications brought it into public awareness: the first publicly available work on public-key cryptography, by Whitfield Diffie and Martin Hellman,[5] and the US government publication of the Data Encryption Standard (DES), a block cipher which became very widely used.

The technical roots of Cypherpunk ideas have been traced back to work by cryptographer David Chaum on topics such as anonymous digital cash and pseudonymous reputation systems, described in his paper "Security without Identification: Transaction Systems to Make Big Brother Obsolete" (1985).[6]

In the late 1980s, these ideas coalesced into something like a movement.[6]

Etymology and the Cypherpunks mailing list

In late 1992, Eric Hughes, Timothy C. May, and John Gilmore founded a small group that met monthly at Gilmore's company Cygnus Solutions in the San Francisco Bay Area and was humorously termed cypherpunks by Jude Milhon at one of the first meetings—derived from cipher and cyberpunk.[7] In November 2006, the word was added to the Oxford English Dictionary.[8]

The Cypherpunks mailing list was started in 1992, and by 1994 had 700 subscribers.[7] At its peak, it was a very active forum with technical discussions ranging over mathematics, cryptography, computer science, political and philosophical discussion, personal arguments and attacks, etc., with some spam thrown in. An email from John Gilmore reports an average of 30 messages a day from December 1, 1996, to March 1, 1999, and suggests that the number was probably higher earlier.[9] The number of subscribers is estimated to have reached 2,000 in the year 1997.[7]

In early 1997, Jim Choate and Igor Chudov set up the Cypherpunks Distributed Remailer,[10] a network of independent mailing list nodes intended to eliminate the single point of failure inherent in a centralized list architecture. At its peak, the Cypherpunks Distributed Remailer included at least seven nodes.[11] By mid-2005, al-qaeda.net ran the only remaining node.[12] In mid-2013, following a brief outage, the al-qaeda.net node's list software was changed from Majordomo to GNU Mailman,[13] and subsequently the node was renamed to cpunks.org.[14] The CDR architecture is now defunct, though the list administrator stated in 2013 that he was exploring a way to integrate this functionality with the new mailing list software.[13]

For a time, the cypherpunks mailing list was a popular tool with mailbombers,[15] who would subscribe a victim to the mailing list in order to cause a deluge of messages to be sent to him or her. (This was usually done as a prank, in contrast to the style of terrorist referred to as a mailbomber.) This precipitated the mailing list sysop(s) to institute a reply-to-subscribe system. Approximately two hundred messages a day was typical for the mailing list, divided between personal arguments and attacks, political discussion, technical discussion, and early spam.[16][17]

The cypherpunks mailing list had extensive discussions of the public policy issues related to cryptography and on the politics and philosophy of concepts such as anonymity, pseudonyms, reputation, and privacy. These discussions continue both on the remaining node and elsewhere as the list has become increasingly moribund.[citation needed]

Events such as the GURPS Cyberpunk raid[18] lent weight to the idea that private individuals needed to take steps to protect their privacy. In its heyday, the list discussed public policy issues related to cryptography, as well as more practical nuts-and-bolts mathematical, computational, technological, and cryptographic matters. The list had a range of viewpoints and there was probably no completely unanimous agreement on anything. The general attitude, though, definitely put personal privacy and personal liberty above all other considerations.[19]

Early discussion of online privacy

The list was discussing questions about privacy, government monitoring, corporate control of information, and related issues in the early 1990s that did not become major topics for broader discussion until at least ten years later. Some list participants were highly radical on these issues.[citation needed]

Those wishing to understand the context of the list might refer to the history of cryptography; in the early 1990s, the US government considered cryptography software a munition for export purposes. (PGP source code was published as a paper book to bypass these regulations and demonstrate their futility.) In 1992, a deal between NSA and SPA allowed export of cryptography based on 40-bit RC2 and RC4 which was considered relatively weak (and especially after SSL was created, there were many contests to break it). The US government had also tried to subvert cryptography through schemes such as Skipjack and key escrow. It was also not widely known that all communications were logged by government agencies (which would later be revealed during the NSA and AT&T scandals) though this was taken as an obvious axiom by list members[citation needed].[20]

The original cypherpunk mailing list, and the first list spin-off, coderpunks, were originally hosted on John Gilmore's toad.com, but after a falling out with the sysop over moderation, the list was migrated to several cross-linked mail-servers in what was called the "distributed mailing list."[21][22] The coderpunks list, open by invitation only, existed for a time. Coderpunks took up more technical matters and had less discussion of public policy implications. There are several lists today that can trace their lineage directly to the original Cypherpunks list: the cryptography list ([email protected]), the financial cryptography list ([email protected]), and a small group of closed (invitation-only) lists as well.[citation needed]

Toad.com continued to run with the existing subscriber list, those that didn't unsubscribe, and was mirrored on the new distributed mailing list, but messages from the distributed list didn't appear on toad.com.[23] As the list faded in popularity, so too did it fade in the number of cross-linked subscription nodes.[citation needed]

To some extent, the cryptography list[24] acts as a successor to cypherpunks; it has many of the people and continues some of the same discussions. However, it is a moderated list, considerably less zany and somewhat more technical. A number of current systems in use trace to the mailing list, including Pretty Good Privacy, /dev/random in the Linux kernel (the actual code has been completely reimplemented several times since then) and today's anonymous remailers.[citation needed]

Main principles

The basic ideas can be found in A Cypherpunk's Manifesto (Eric Hughes, 1993): "Privacy is necessary for an open society in the electronic age. ... We cannot expect governments, corporations, or other large, faceless organizations to grant us privacy ... We must defend our own privacy if we expect to have any. ... Cypherpunks write code. We know that someone has to write software to defend privacy, and ... we're going to write it."[25]

Some are or were senior people at major hi-tech companies and others are well-known researchers (see list with affiliations below).

The first mass media discussion of cypherpunks was in a 1993 Wired article by Steven Levy titled Crypto Rebels:

The people in this room hope for a world where an individual's informational footprints—everything from an opinion on abortion to the medical record of an actual abortion—can be traced only if the individual involved chooses to reveal them; a world where coherent messages shoot around the globe by network and microwave, but intruders and feds trying to pluck them out of the vapor find only gibberish; a world where the tools of prying are transformed into the instruments of privacy. There is only one way this vision will materialize, and that is by widespread use of cryptography. Is this technologically possible? Definitely. The obstacles are political—some of the most powerful forces in government are devoted to the control of these tools. In short, there is a war going on between those who would liberate crypto and those who would suppress it. The seemingly innocuous bunch strewn around this conference room represents the vanguard of the pro-crypto forces. Though the battleground seems remote, the stakes are not: The outcome of this struggle may determine the amount of freedom our society will grant us in the 21st century. To the Cypherpunks, freedom is an issue worth some risk.[26]

The three masked men on the cover of that edition of Wired were prominent cypherpunks Tim May, Eric Hughes and John Gilmore.

Later, Levy wrote a book, Crypto: How the Code Rebels Beat the Government – Saving Privacy in the Digital Age,[27] covering the crypto wars of the 1990s in detail. "Code Rebels" in the title is almost synonymous with cypherpunks.

The term cypherpunk is mildly ambiguous. In most contexts it means anyone advocating cryptography as a tool for social change, social impact and expression. However, it can also be used to mean a participant in the Cypherpunks electronic mailing list described below. The two meanings obviously overlap, but they are by no means synonymous.

Documents exemplifying cypherpunk ideas include Timothy C. May's The Crypto Anarchist Manifesto (1992)[28] and The Cyphernomicon (1994),[29] A Cypherpunk's Manifesto.[25]

Privacy of communications

A very basic cypherpunk issue is privacy in communications and data retention. John Gilmore said he wanted "a guarantee -- with physics and mathematics, not with laws -- that we can give ourselves real privacy of personal communications."[30]

Such guarantees require strong cryptography, so cypherpunks are fundamentally opposed to government policies attempting to control the usage or export of cryptography, which remained an issue throughout the late 1990s. The Cypherpunk Manifesto stated "Cypherpunks deplore regulations on cryptography, for encryption is fundamentally a private act."[25]

This was a central issue for many cypherpunks. Most were passionately opposed to various government attempts to limit cryptography—export laws, promotion of limited key length ciphers, and especially escrowed encryption.

Anonymity and pseudonyms

The questions of anonymity, pseudonymity and reputation were also extensively discussed.

Arguably, the possibility of anonymous speech, and publication is vital for an open society and genuine freedom of speech—this is the position of most cypherpunks.[31]

Censorship and monitoring

In general, cypherpunks opposed the censorship and monitoring from government and police.

In particular, the US government's Clipper chip scheme for escrowed encryption of telephone conversations (encryption supposedly secure against most attackers, but breakable by government) was seen as anathema by many on the list. This was an issue that provoked strong opposition and brought many new recruits to the cypherpunk ranks. List participant Matt Blaze found a serious flaw[32] in the scheme, helping to hasten its demise.

Steven Schear first suggested the warrant canary in 2002 to thwart the secrecy provisions of court orders and national security letters.[33] As of 2013, warrant canaries are gaining commercial acceptance.[34]

Hiding the act of hiding

An important set of discussions concerns the use of cryptography in the presence of oppressive authorities. As a result, Cypherpunks have discussed and improved steganographic methods that hide the use of crypto itself, or that allow interrogators to believe that they have forcibly extracted hidden information from a subject. For instance, Rubberhose was a tool that partitioned and intermixed secret data on a drive with fake secret data, each of which accessed via a different password. Interrogators, having extracted a password, are led to believe that they have indeed unlocked the desired secrets, whereas in reality the actual data is still hidden. In other words, even its presence is hidden. Likewise, cypherpunks have also discussed under what conditions encryption may be used without being noticed by network monitoring systems installed by oppressive regimes.

Activities

As the Manifesto says, "Cypherpunks write code";[25] the notion that good ideas need to be implemented, not just discussed, is very much part of the culture of the mailing list. John Gilmore, whose site hosted the original cypherpunks mailing list, wrote: "We are literally in a race between our ability to build and deploy technology, and their ability to build and deploy laws and treaties. Neither side is likely to back down or wise up until it has definitively lost the race."[35]

Software projects

Anonymous remailers such as the Mixmaster Remailer were almost entirely a cypherpunk development.[36] Other cypherpunk-related projects include PGP for email privacy,[37] FreeS/WAN for opportunistic encryption of the whole net, Off-the-record messaging for privacy in Internet chat, and the Tor project for anonymous web surfing.

Hardware

In 1998, the Electronic Frontier Foundation, with assistance from the mailing list, built a $200,000 machine that could brute-force a Data Encryption Standard key in a few days.[38] The project demonstrated that DES was, without question, insecure and obsolete, in sharp contrast to the US government's recommendation of the algorithm.

Expert panels

Cypherpunks also participated, along with other experts, in several reports on cryptographic matters.

One such paper was "Minimal Key Lengths for Symmetric Ciphers to Provide Adequate Commercial Security".[39] It suggested 75 bits was the minimum key size to allow an existing cipher to be considered secure and kept in service. At the time, the Data Encryption Standard with 56-bit keys was still a US government standard, mandatory for some applications.

Other papers were critical analysis of government schemes. "The Risks of Key Recovery, Key Escrow, and Trusted Third-Party Encryption",[40] evaluated escrowed encryption proposals. Comments on the Carnivore System Technical Review.[41] looked at an FBI scheme for monitoring email.

Cypherpunks provided significant input to the 1996 National Research Council report on encryption policy, Cryptography's Role In Securing the Information Society (CRISIS).[42] This report, commissioned by the U.S. Congress in 1993, was developed via extensive hearings across the nation from all interested stakeholders, by a committee of talented people. It recommended a gradual relaxation of the existing U.S. government restrictions on encryption. Like many such study reports, its conclusions were largely ignored by policy-makers. Later events such as the final rulings in the cypherpunks lawsuits forced a more complete relaxation of the unconstitutional controls on encryption software.

Lawsuits

Cypherpunks have filed a number of lawsuits, mostly suits against the US government alleging that some government action is unconstitutional.

Phil Karn sued the State Department in 1994 over cryptography export controls[43] after they ruled that, while the book Applied Cryptography[44] could legally be exported, a floppy disk containing a verbatim copy of code printed in the book was legally a munition and required an export permit, which they refused to grant. Karn also appeared before both House and Senate committees looking at cryptography issues.

Daniel J. Bernstein, supported by the EFF, also sued over the export restrictions, arguing that preventing publication of cryptographic source code is an unconstitutional restriction on freedom of speech. He won, effectively overturning the export law. See Bernstein v. United States for details.

Peter Junger also sued on similar grounds, and won.[citation needed][45]

Civil disobedience

Cypherpunks encouraged civil disobedience, in particular, US law on the export of cryptography.[citation needed] Until 1997, cryptographic code was legally a munition and fell under ITAR, and the key length restrictions in the EAR was not removed until 2000.[46]

In 1995 Adam Back wrote a version of the RSA algorithm for public-key cryptography in three lines of Perl[47][48] and suggested people use it as an email signature file:

# !/bin/perl -sp0777i<X+d*lMLa^*lN%0]dsXx++lMlN/dsM0<j]dsj
$/=unpack('H*',$_);$_=`echo 16dio\U$k"SK$/SM$n\EsN0p[lN*1
lK[d2%Sa2/d0$^Ixp"|dc`;s/\W//g;$_=pack('H*',/((..)*)$/)

Vince Cate put up a web page that invited anyone to become an international arms trafficker; every time someone clicked on the form, an export-restricted item—originally PGP, later a copy of Back's program—would be mailed from a US server to one in Anguilla.[49][50][51]

Cypherpunk fiction

In Neal Stephenson's novel Cryptonomicon many characters are on the "Secret Admirers" mailing list. This is fairly obviously based on the cypherpunks list, and several well-known cypherpunks are mentioned in the acknowledgements. Much of the plot revolves around cypherpunk ideas; the leading characters are building a data haven which will allow anonymous financial transactions, and the book is full of cryptography. But, according to the author[52] the book's title is—in spite of its similarity—not based on the Cyphernomicon,[29] an online cypherpunk FAQ document.

Legacy

Cypherpunk achievements would later also be used on the Canadian e-wallet, the MintChip, and the creation of bitcoin. It was an inspiration for CryptoParty decades later to such an extent that A Cypherpunk's Manifesto is quoted at the header of its Wiki,[53] and Eric Hughes delivered the keynote address at the Amsterdam CryptoParty on 27 August 2012.

Notable cypherpunks


John Gilmore is one of the founders of the Cypherpunks mailing list, the Electronic Frontier Foundation, and Cygnus Solutions. He created the alt.* hierarchy in Usenet and is a major contributor to the GNU Project.


Julian Assange, a well-known cypherpunk who advocates for the use of cryptography to ensure privacy on the Internet

Cypherpunks list participants included many notable computer industry figures. Most were list regulars, although not all would call themselves "cypherpunks".[54] The following is a list of noteworthy cypherpunks and their achievements:

• Marc Andreessen: co-founder of Netscape which invented SSL
• Jacob Appelbaum: Former Tor Project employee, political advocate
• Julian Assange: WikiLeaks founder, deniable cryptography inventor, journalist; co-author of Underground; author of Cypherpunks: Freedom and the Future of the Internet; member of the International Subversives. Assange has stated that he joined the list in late 1993 or early 1994.[7] An archive of his cypherpunks mailing list posts[55] is at the Mailing List Archives.
• Derek Atkins: computer scientist, computer security expert, and one of the people who factored RSA-129
• Adam Back: inventor of Hashcash and of NNTP-based Eternity networks; co-founder of Blockstream
• Jim Bell: author of "Assassination Politics"
• Steven Bellovin: Bell Labs researcher; later Columbia professor; Chief Technologist for the US Federal Trade Commission in 2012
• Matt Blaze: Bell Labs researcher; later professor at University of Pennsylvania; found flaws in the Clipper Chip[56]
• Eric Blossom: designer of the Starium cryptographically secured mobile phone; founder of the GNU Radio project
• Jon Callas: technical lead on OpenPGP specification; co-founder and Chief Technical Officer of PGP Corporation; co-founder with Philip Zimmermann of Silent Circle
• Bram Cohen: creator of BitTorrent
• Matt Curtin: founder of Interhack Corporation; first faculty advisor of the Ohio State University Open Source Club;[57] lecturer at Ohio State University
• Hugh Daniel (deceased): former Sun Microsystems employee; manager of the FreeS/WAN project (an early and important freeware IPsec implementation)
• Suelette Dreyfus: deniable cryptography co-inventor, journalist, co-author of Underground
• Hal Finney (deceased): cryptographer; main author of PGP 2.0 and the core crypto libraries of later versions of PGP; designer of RPOW
• Eva Galperin: malware researcher and security advocate; Electronic Frontier Foundation activist[58]
• John Gilmore*: Sun Microsystems' fifth employee; co-founder of the Cypherpunks and the Electronic Frontier Foundation; project leader for FreeS/WAN
• Mike Godwin: Electronic Frontier Foundation lawyer; electronic rights advocate
• Ian Goldberg*: professor at University of Waterloo; co-designer of the off-the-record messaging protocol
• Rop Gonggrijp: founder of XS4ALL; co-creator of the Cryptophone
• Matthew D. Green, influential in the development of the Zcash system[59]
• Sean Hastings: founding CEO of Havenco; co-author of the book God Wants You Dead[60]
• Johan Helsingius: creator and operator of Penet remailer
• Nadia Heninger: assistant professor at University of Pennsylvania; security researcher[61]
• Robert Hettinga: founder of the International Conference on Financial Cryptography; originator of the idea of Financial cryptography as an applied subset of cryptography[62]
• Mark Horowitz: author of the first PGP key server
• Tim Hudson: co-author of SSLeay, the precursor to OpenSSL
• Eric Hughes: founding member of Cypherpunks; author of A Cypherpunk's Manifesto
• Peter Junger (deceased): law professor at Case Western Reserve University
• Paul Kocher: president of Cryptography Research, Inc.; co-author of the SSL 3.0 protocol
• Ryan Lackey: co-founder of HavenCo, the world's first data haven
• Brian LaMacchia: designer of XKMS; research head at Microsoft Research
• Ben Laurie: founder of The Bunker, core OpenSSL team member, Google engineer.
• Jameson Lopp: software engineer, CTO of Casa
• Morgan Marquis-Boire: researcher, security engineer, and privacy activist
• Matt Thomlinson (phantom): security engineer, leader of Microsoft's security efforts on Windows, Azure and Trustworthy Computing, CISO at Electronic Arts
• Timothy C. May (deceased): former Assistant Chief Scientist at Intel; author of A Crypto Anarchist Manifesto and the Cyphernomicon; a founding member of the Cypherpunks mailing list
• Jude Milhon (deceased; aka "St. Jude"): a founding member of the Cypherpunks mailing list, credited with naming the group; co-creator of Mondo 2000 magazine
• Satoshi Nakamoto: Pseudonym for the inventor(s) of Bitcoin.
• Sameer Parekh: former CEO of C2Net and co-founder of the CryptoRights Foundation human rights non-profit
• Vipul Ved Prakash: co-founder of Sense/Net; author of Vipul's Razor; founder of Cloudmark
• Runa Sandvik: Tor developer, political advocate
• Len Sassaman (deceased): maintainer of the Mixmaster Remailer software; researcher at Katholieke Universiteit Leuven; biopunk
• Steven Schear: creator of the warrant canary; street performer protocol; founding member of the International Financial Cryptographer's Association[63] and GNURadio; team member at Counterpane; former Director at data security company Cylink and MojoNation
• Bruce Schneier*: well-known security author; founder of Counterpane
• Richard Stallman: founder of Free Software Foundation, privacy advocate
• Nick Szabo: inventor of smart contracts; designer of bit gold, a precursor to Bitcoin
• Wei Dai: Created b-money; cryptocurrency system and co-proposed the VMAC message authentication algorithm. The smallest subunit of Ether, the wei, is named after him.
• Zooko Wilcox-O'Hearn: DigiCash and MojoNation developer; founder of Zcash; co-designer of Tahoe-LAFS
• Jillian C. York: Director of International Freedom of Expression at the Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF)[64]
• John Young: anti-secrecy activist and co-founder of Cryptome
• Philip Zimmermann: original creator of PGP v1.0 (1991); co-founder of PGP Inc. (1996); co-founder with Jon Callas of Silent Circle
• Edward Snowden: NSA whistleblower (2013); President of The Freedom of the Press Foundation
* indicates someone mentioned in the acknowledgements of Stephenson's Cryptonomicon.

See also

• Anti-computer forensics

References

This article incorporates material from the Citizendium article "Cypherpunk", which is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 3.0 Unported License but not under the GFDL.

1. Asgari, Nikou; Chipolina, Scott (2024-01-12). "Bitcoin's Wall Street takeover frustrates crypto's true believers". Financial Times. Retrieved 2024-11-18.
2. Read, Max (2019-06-18). "Facebook's New Competition: The U.S. Dollar". Intelligencer. Retrieved 2024-11-18.
3. Jarvis, Craig (2022). "Cypherpunk ideology: objectives, profiles, and influences (1992–1998)". Internet Histories. 6 (3): 315–342. doi:10.1080/24701475.2021.1935547.
4. Beltramini, Enrico (2021). "Against technocratic authoritarianism. A short intellectual history of the cypherpunk movement". Internet Histories. 5 (2): 101–118. doi:10.1080/24701475.2020.1731249.
5. "A Patent Falls, and the Internet Dances". archive.nytimes.com. Archived from the original on 2021-03-12. Retrieved 2020-02-04.
6. Arvind Narayanan: What Happened to the Crypto Dream?, Part 1 Archived 2019-10-29 at the Wayback Machine. IEEE Security & Privacy. Volume 11, Issue 2, March–April 2013, pages 75-76, ISSN 1540-7993
7. Robert Manne: The Cypherpunk Revolutionary - Julian Assange Archived 2021-03-29 at the Wayback Machine. The Monthly March, 2011, No. 65
8. "ResourceBlog Article: Oxford English Dictionary Updates Some Entries & Adds New Words; Bada-Bing, Cypherpunk, and Wi-Fi Now in the OED". 21 May 2011. Archived from the original on 2011-05-21. Retrieved 5 September 2020.
9. Gilmore, John (13 April 1999). "Summary of cypherpunks discussion volume and participants". cypherpunks (Mailing list). Archived from the original on 4 March 2016. Retrieved 5 September 2020 – via Cryptome.org.
10. Jim Choate: "Cypherpunks Distributed Remailer Archived 2007-10-29 at the Wayback Machine". Cypherpunks mailing list. February 1997.
11. "Cypherpunk Mailing List Information". Archived from the original on 2016-03-05.
12. "Setting up a filtering CDR node for Cypherpunks". 5 December 2014. Archived from the original on 2014-12-05. Retrieved 5 September 2020.
13. Riad S. Wahby: "back on the airwaves Archived 2016-04-22 at the Wayback Machine". Cypherpunks mailing list. July 2013.
14. Riad S. Wahby: "domain change Archived 2016-04-22 at the Wayback Machine". Cypherpunks mailing list. July 2013.
15. "Re: POST: The Frightening Dangers of Moderation". 30 October 2007. Archived from the original on 2007-10-30. Retrieved 5 September 2020.
16. "Re: Re: Add To Your Monthly Income!!". 22 August 2008. Archived from the original on 2008-08-22. Retrieved 5 September 2020.
17. "Cypherpunks Date Index for 1997 04". 21 October 2006. Archived from the original on 2006-10-21. Retrieved 5 September 2020.
18. Macgregor, Jody (10 February 2020). "That time the US Secret Service mistook a cyberpunk RPG for a hacker's handbook". Dicebreaker. Archived from the original on 25 March 2023. Retrieved 28 June 2023.
19. Pagliery, Jose (2014). Bitcoin and the Future of Money. Triumph Books. p. 9. ISBN 978-1-62937-036-1.
20. "Clipper Chip: How the Government Wanted to Put a Backdoor in Your Phone". Exabeam. April 2, 2019. Archived from the original on January 25, 2021. Retrieved December 6, 2020.
21. "Re: Sandy and the Doc". Cypherpunks.venona.com. Archived from the original on 3 March 2016. Retrieved 5 September 2020.
22. "Newgroup -- distributed mailing list on the way?". Cypherpunks.venona.com. Archived from the original on 30 October 2007. Retrieved 5 September 2020.
23. "Switching to full traffic mode". Cypherpunks.venona.com. Archived from the original on 30 October 2007. Retrieved 5 September 2020.
24. "Cryptography". Mail-archive.com. Archived from the original on 2021-03-23. Retrieved 2010-08-15.
25. Hughes, Eric (1993), A Cypherpunk's Manifesto, archived from the original on 2021-03-24, retrieved 2002-02-25
26. Levy, Steven (May 1993). "Crypto Rebels". Wired. Archived from the original on 2014-03-01. Retrieved 2017-03-06.
27. Levy, Steven (2001). Crypto: How the Code Rebels Beat the Government – Saving Privacy in the Digital Age. Penguin. ISBN 0-14-024432-8.
28. Timothy C. May (1992), The Crypto Anarchist Manifesto, archived from the original on 2021-02-24, retrieved 2021-02-27
29. May, Timothy C. (September 10, 1994). "The Cyphernomicon: Cypherpunks FAQ and More, Version 0.666". Cypherpunks.to. Archived from the original on 2018-06-12. Retrieved June 12, 2018. as well as Hughes's
30. John Gilmore, home page, archived from the original on 2010-04-27, retrieved 2010-08-15
31. Emphasis on the word possibility; as Sarah Smith notes, even cypherpunks recognize the impossibility of absolute anonymity. For a range of discussion on the complexities of defending anonymity within maintaining security (against terrorism e.g.), see Sarah E. Smith, "Threading the First Amendment Needle: Anonymous Speech, Online Harassment, and Washington's Cyberstalking Statute", Washington Law Review 93/3 (Oct. 2018): 1563-1608; Julian Assange, Jacob Appelbaum, Andy Muller-Maguhn, and Jérémie Zimmermann, Cypherpunks: Freedom and the Future of the Internet (OR Books, 2012/2016). ISBN 978-1-939293-00-8, Ebook ISBN 978-1-939293-01-5; Dennis Bailey, The Open Society Paradox : Why the 21st Century Calls for More Openness — Not Less (Dulles VA: Potomac, 2004), 28-29; and Eric Hughes <[email protected]>, "A Cypherpunk's Manifesto" (9 March 1993): https://www.activism.net/cypherpunk/manifesto.html Archived 2021-03-24 at the Wayback Machine
32. Matt Blaze (1994), "Protocol failure in the escrowed encryption standard", Proceedings of the 2nd ACM Conference on Computer and communications security - CCS '94, pp. 59–67, doi:10.1145/191177.191193, ISBN 0897917324, S2CID 14602435
33. "Yahoo! Groups". groups.yahoo.com. 2002-10-31. Archived from the original on 2019-02-25. Retrieved 2019-02-25.
34. "Apple takes strong privacy stance in new report, publishes rare "warrant canary"". Ars Technica. 2013. Archived from the original on 2021-03-08. Retrieved 2017-06-14.
35. "Cryptography Export Restrictions". http://www.freeswan.org. Archived from the original on 2018-09-11. Retrieved 2020-12-06.
36. Greenberg, Andy. "FBI Seizes Activists' Anonymizing Server In Probe Of Pittsburgh's Bomb Threats". Forbes. Archived from the original on 2023-04-06. Retrieved 2023-04-06.
37. Halfacree, Gareth. "Cryptography whizz Phil Zimmermann looks back at 30 years of Pretty Good Privacy". http://www.theregister.com. Archived from the original on 2023-04-06. Retrieved 2023-04-06.
38. Electronic Frontier Foundation (1998), Cracking DES: Secrets of Encryption Research, Wiretap Politics, and Chip Design, Electronic Frontier Foundation, ISBN 1-56592-520-3
39. Matt Blaze; Whitfield Diffie; Ronald L. Rivest; Bruce Schneier; Tsutomu Shimomura; Eric Thompson & MichaelWiener (1996). "Minimal Key Lengths for Symmetric Ciphers to Provide Adequate Commercial Security - Schneier on Security". Schneier on Security. Archived from the original on 2015-09-07. Retrieved 2010-08-15.
40. Hal Abelson; Ross Anderson; Steven M. Bellovin; Josh Benaloh; Matt Blaze; Whitfield Diffie; John Gilmore; Peter G. Neumann; Ronald L. Rivest; Jeffrey I. Schiller & Bruce Schneier (1998), The Risks of Key Recovery, Key Escrow, and Trusted Third-Party Encryption, archived from the original on 2015-09-08, retrieved 2010-08-15
41. Steven Bellovin; Matt Blaze; David Farber; Peter Neumann; Eugene Spafford, Comments on the Carnivore System Technical Review, archived from the original on 2010-06-18, retrieved 2010-08-15
42. Kenneth W. Dam; Herbert S. Lin, eds. (1996). Cryptography's Role In Securing the Information Society. Washington, D.C.: National Research Council. p. 688. ISBN 0-309-05475-3. LCCN 96-68943. Archived from the original on September 28, 2011.
43. "The Applied Cryptography Case: Only Americans Can Type!". Archived from the original on 2020-06-16. Retrieved 2010-08-15.
44. Schneier, Bruce (1996). Applied Cryptography (2nd ed.). John Wiley & Sons. ISBN 0-471-11709-9.
45. Junger v. Daley, (6th Cir. 2000).
46. "Revised U.S. Encryption Export Control Regulations (1/12/00)". archive.epic.org. Retrieved 2024-09-17.
47. Adam Back, export-a-crypto-system sig, web page, archived from the original on 2021-02-24, retrieved 2010-08-15
48. Adam Back, post to cypherpunks list, RSA in six lines of Perl, archived from the original on 2020-02-22, retrieved 2010-08-15
49. Vince Cate, ITAR Civil Disobedience (International Arms Trafficker Training Page), archived from the original on 2021-03-18, retrieved 2010-08-15
50. Zurko, Marie Ellen (1998-10-07). "Crypto policy costs the US a citizen". Electronic CIPHER: Newsletter of the IEEE Computer Society's TC on Security and Privacy. No. 29. Archived from the original on 2017-01-12. Retrieved 2013-10-11.
51. Dawson, Keith (1996-05-05). "Become an international arms trafficker in one click". Tasty Bits from the Technology Front. Archived from the original on 1997-01-16. Retrieved 2013-10-11.
52. Neal Stephenson, Cryptonomicon cypher-FAQ, archived from the original on May 28, 2010
53. "cryptoparty.org - cryptoparty Resources and Information". Cryptoparty.org. Archived from the original on 12 September 2012. Retrieved 5 September 2020.
54. "Warm Party for a Code Group". Wired. September 13, 2002. Archived from the original on March 5, 2009.
55. "'Julian Assange ' posts - MARC". Archived from the original on 2016-01-01. Retrieved 2015-10-04.
56. Rodger, Will (30 November 2001). "Cypherpunks RIP". The Register. Archived from the original on 13 July 2019. Retrieved 13 July 2016.
57. "Officers - Open Source Club at Ohio State University". Archived from the original on 2016-03-04. Retrieved 2011-07-01.
58. Franchesci-Bicchierai, Lorenzo (20 September 2014). "Egypt's New Internet Surveillance System Remains Shrouded in Mystery". Archived from the original on 5 December 2020. Retrieved 23 September 2014.
59. Matthew Green. "The pragmatist in me says "who cares, this will obviously work better if it has a few big nodes". The cypherpunk in me says "F that"". Twitter. Archived from the original on 2021-08-24. Retrieved 2021-08-24.
60. Hastings, Sean (2007). God Wants You Dead (1st ed.). Vera Verba. ISBN 978-0979601118.
61. Evans, Jon (13 January 2013). "Nadia Heninger Is Watching You". Archived from the original on 23 June 2020. Retrieved 23 September 2014.
62. Grigg, Ian (2001). "Financial Cryptography in 7 Layers". In Frankel, Yair (ed.). Financial Cryptography. 4th International Conference on Financial Cryptography, FC 2000 Anguilla, British West Indies, February 20–24, 2000. Lecture Notes in Computer Science. Vol. 1962. Berlin, Heidelberg: Springer. pp. 332–348. doi:10.1007/3-540-45472-1_23. ISBN 978-3-540-45472-4. Archived from the original on 2020-10-26. Retrieved 2020-10-23.
63. "IFCA". Ifca.ai. Archived from the original on 2021-03-20. Retrieved 2013-11-20.
64. "Jillian York". Electronic Frontier Foundation. 2011-10-07. Archived from the original on 2021-04-11. Retrieved 2014-09-23.

Further reading

• Greenberg, Andy (2012). This Machine Kills Secrets: How WikiLeakers, Cypherpunks, and Hacktivists Aim to Free the World's Information. New York: Dutton Adult. ISBN 978-0525953203.
• Assange, Julian (2012). Cypherpunks: Freedom and the Future of the Internet. OR Books. ISBN 978-1-939293-00-8.
• Anderson, Patrick D. (2022). Cypherpunk ethics: Radical Ethics for the Digital Age (1st ed.). London: Routledge. ISBN 9781003220534.

[admin]

Musk’s data takeover: A weapon for dictatorship and social plunder
by Joseph Kishore@jkishore
wsws.org
February 18, 2025
https://www.wsws.org/en/articles/2025/0 ... a-f19.html


President Donald Trump listens as Elon Musk speaks in the Oval Office at the White House, Tuesday, Feb. 11, 2025, in Washington. [AP Photo/Alex Brandon]

Over the past several days, the Trump administration and Elon Musk’s Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE) have escalated their efforts to gain unprecedented access to a vast trove of data on every individual and organization in the United States.

The latest targets are the Social Security Administration (SSA) and the Internal Revenue Service (IRS), both of which hold detailed financial and personal information on nearly every American. On Sunday, the acting head of the SSA, Michelle King, resigned, reportedly due to clashes with Musk over DOGE’s demand for direct access to the agency’s records.

On Monday, numerous media outlets reported on Musk’s attempt to seize control over the millions of tax records collected by the IRS, which include Social Security numbers, employment records, political donations and other information on every taxpayer, business and nonprofit organization in the country.

To execute this plan, Musk’s DOGE has installed 25-year-old Gavin Kliger as a special adviser to the acting IRS commissioner. Kliger exemplifies the cabal that Musk has assembled. He has publicly praised white supremacist Nick Fuentes and called for the execution, by military tribunal, of undocumented immigrants convicted of crimes. He has cited Holocaust denier Ron Unz as a key political influence.

This was followed by two major court rulings that pave the way for DOGE’s data takeover. A federal judge in the US District Court in D.C. declined to block Musk and DOGE from accessing data across multiple executive branch agencies, including the Office of Personnel Management and the departments of Education, Labor, Health and Human Services, Energy, Transportation and Commerce. A previous ruling by a separate judge in the same court on Monday night granted DOGE access to student records at the Department of Education.

Tomorrow, February 20, marks one month since the second inauguration of Donald Trump. The initial weeks of the new regime were focused on a series of executive orders that, under the pretense of a non-existent “invasion” at the border, arrogate to the president the power to violate free speech rights, deport immigrants, and create the framework for deploying the military against domestic opposition within the United States.

The essential class content of these actions—in a government of, by and for the oligarchy—has been revealed over the past two weeks. The mass firing of federal workers and the transfer of extraordinary powers to Musk and DOGE is part of a broader assault on the entire working class.

An immediate objective of DOGE’s data acquisition is the dismantling of any federal department that provides social services or regulatory oversight. Musk is leading an operation to slash $2 trillion in spending on programs like Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid, while accelerating mass firings of federal workers. Over the weekend, thousands of employees at the Department of Health and Human Services were terminated in what workers have referred to as the “Valentine’s Day Massacre.”

But the broader aim is to create an all-encompassing AI-driven database that can be used to track, monitor and suppress political opposition. By integrating financial data, medical records, employment histories and law enforcement databases, Musk and Trump are constructing a system that will enable them to identify and target their opponents with surgical precision.

Trump and Musk outlined their theory in a joint interview with Fox’s Sean Hannity Tuesday night. Musk’s DOGE agency is seen not simply or even primarily as a mechanism for implementing cuts, but as an instrument of executive dictatorship.

“These executive orders,” Trump said, “I sign them, and now they get passed on to [Musk] and his group... and they get it done.” DOGE needs direct control of the data and systems of all federal agencies to implement Trump’s dictatorial actions.

All of this is blatantly illegal and unconstitutional. The administration is operating on the principle that the president has unlimited powers that cannot be constrained by the law or the courts. Over the weekend, Trump made this explicit, declaring in a post that remained pinned at the top of the White House X account for several days: “He who saves his Country does not violate any Law.” In other words, Trump operates on the basis of the Führerprinzip—the principle that the “leader” alone determines what is legal and what is not.

In one of the few commentaries appearing in the media, the New York Times’ Thomas Edsall cited on Tuesday constitutional law professor Rogers Smith, who called Musk’s power grab “unprecedented in US history.” Smith warned that it violates the appointments clause of the Constitution, which requires Senate approval for principal officers. If Trump claims Musk is merely a consultant, he is still illegally delegating government power to a private individual.

Smith added that if the Supreme Court rules in Trump’s favor or if the administration ignores an unfavorable court ruling, “constitutional democracy in America will be in serious, perhaps fatal jeopardy.”

The response of the Democratic Party to the actions of the Trump administration in its first weeks has combined complicity and cowardice. While the Republicans, when in the minority, take every possible measure to paralyze the government, the Democrats have allowed nearly every one of Trump’s cabinet nominees to sail through confirmation hearings.

The Democrats have proposed no strategy beyond appealing to the courts, which are stacked with Trump appointees and which the administration has vowed to defy. Last week, Vice President Vance declared on X that “Judges aren’t allowed to control the executive’s legitimate power,” while Musk threatened, on February 12, that “there needs to be an immediate wave of judicial impeachments” targeting anyone who rules against the actions of the administration.

Far from mobilizing mass opposition, leading Democratic figures are urging inaction. Longtime Democratic strategist James Carville advised on Monday that the party should “play possum” as opposition develops and simply “let this germinate.” “Let’s just get out of the way,” he said.

Axios reported that top Democrats suspect Trump will “ignore one of the many major court rulings that’ll be coming his way,” but are only “gaming out legal and political responses behind the scenes.” House Democratic Caucus Chair Pete Aguilar issued a meaningless statement: “Nobody is above the law, no matter how many times Donald Trump thinks he is. We’ll let this process go through the courts, and we’ll be prepared to talk about it and react.” In other words, the Democrats plan to do nothing.

The Democrats are unwilling and incapable of mounting a serious fight against the drive toward dictatorship because they, along with the Republicans, represent the interests of the financial oligarchy. They agree with the essential program of the Trump administration in terms of social policy. Their primary concern is the growth of opposition from below, which could escape the control of the ruling class state apparatus.

The only force capable of stopping the transformation of the US into a dictatorship is the working class.

The Socialist Equality Party is spearheading the fight to mobilize the working class against the Trump administration’s drive toward dictatorship. The SEP calls for the formation of independent rank-and-file and neighborhood committees in every workplace and city across the country. These committees must become centers of resistance, organizing workers and youth against Trump’s authoritarian rule, the complicity of the Democratic Party and the destruction of social programs and public services.

The working class must take up the fight through strikes, protests and mass actions to oppose the dictatorship of the financial oligarchy and defend its social and democratic rights.

The struggle against dictatorship cannot be separated from the struggle against capitalism. The SEP calls for the seizure of the ill-gotten wealth of the billionaires, the dismantling of the imperialist war machine, and the establishment of a workers’ government to reorganize society on the basis of social need, not private profit. We urge all those who want to take up this fight to join and build the Socialist Equality Party.

[admin]

Judge Says Discovery Into DOGE's Labor Department Probe Likely
by Marc Elias and Paige Moskowitz
Democracy Docket
Feb 19, 2025

A federal judge in Washington, D.C. said he will likely grant federal labor unions' motion for expedited discovery into the extent and types of access the so-called Department of Government Efficiency and Elon Musk have had to Department of Labor records. If granted, it would be the first instance of discovery being permitted in the Trump accountability cases and could give invaluable information into DOGE's activities. Marc Elias and Paige Moskowitz explain.



Transcript

A federal district court judge in
Washington DC has just issued an order
clearing the way for the first round of
Discovery to go out in a case against
Donald Trump and Elon musk's Doge
welcome back to democracy docket I'm
Mark Elias and I'm PA mosquit let's get
started all right Paige I am still gonna
refer to it as Elon musk's Doge although
I understand that now apparently Mr musk
has nothing to do with Doge that's the
subject of another video that you and I
have done uh but but at any event we got
this very very important order just you
know shortly a few minutes ago uh in
which for the first time a federal judge
is going to allow discovery that is
going to allow the plaintiffs in a
lawsuit to issue questions uh uh get
documents maybe even allow depositions
which are sworn uh interviews under oath
um uh you know in a case that involves
Doge and and uh Donald Trump's uh
efforts to re remaster the government
right Mark this comes in a lawsuit filed
by democracy forward on behalf of
various federal employees unions they're
claiming that doge is seeking access to
sensitive Department of Labor data
including uh information about medical
and other benefits of all federal
workers information about workers
compensation claims identities of
vulnerable workers who sought the help
of the Department of Labor For
Occupational saf safety or wage
complaints they also claim that doge is
seeking access to information regarding
investigations of Mr mus corporate
interests and the sensitive trade secret
information held by the department
including those of the competitors of
those corporate interests yeah and you
know it's interesting you mention uh uh
the fact that one of the things they're
looking at is whether uh private
information was accessed because that is
something that the court singled out in
this order the judge said plaintiffs
have thus far asserted theories of
standing likelihood of success on the
merits and IR reparable harm that turn
on whether individuals not permitted
under the Privacy Act to view personal
information are viewing or will view
that information exploring that subject
through expedited targeted and limited
Discovery thus should be beneficial I
mean that is to lawyers a very big deal
for non- lawyers what it means is that
this judge wants to know and wants to
let the plainist find out whether or not
people who are not authorized to access
private information did in fact access
private information and so Paige you can
see already the wheel spinning of where
that could lead Mark and this is a
proposed order for limited Discovery
right so what does the process look like
to actually get a discovery order yeah
so what the judge did here was didn't
actually rule on the specific Discovery
the judge basically granted or indicated
uh that he supported the position the
plaintiffs had asserted in a prior
pleading that Discovery was appropriate
you see normally Discovery is not used
in administrative law cases like this
why because you what you're really
normally asking is just a pure question
of law did the thing that the government
do did it comply with the law or it
didn't and like there's not usually a
dispute about what the government did
the dispute is whether or not the thing
they did whether it was legal or not he
here as the judge points out in his
order it's a little bit different
because there's actually a set of
factual questions right there is the
question of whether or not the people
could legally access the data that would
be like a typical kind of question but
there's a subsidiary question or a
question that comes before that which is
who are the people who access the data
you know and like are they were you know
were they even allowed to were they even
in the Ambit of government employees
allowed to access the data so so this is
an unusual case so the judge said you
know the plaintiff you have to come back
uh you know later today uh by the end of
uh the day uh with your proposed limited
discovery which is reasonable because
after all the plaintiffs are presumably
ready to go they're the ones who want to
expedited Discovery and then gives you
know the government uh until uh February
24th which again is a very compressed
time frame like in most cases these
things would be much much longer but
gives them uh you know five days
essentially to oppose or respond uh and
then I expect we'll get a court order
you know we'll get a court order that
that says this is the Discovery that's
allowed these are the people you can
depose these are the kinds of questions
you can ask these are things you can't
ask these are the kind of documents
you're entitled to these are the
documents you're not entitled to
whatever it is like wherever the court
draws a line and then we will see that
Discovery I suspect take place very very
fast again this may not feel to those of
you out there like things are moving at
Rocket speed for courts this is rocket
speed Mark the next question that comes
naturally is if there's an order for
Discovery how do you ensure that the
government complies with and that the
plaintiffs get the information that they
are entitled to all right so Paige now
you've asked like the big question right
isn't this I mean isn't this the big
question sort of hanging over all these
cases and you're right in the case of
Discovery it is actually uh much Starker
right because the government has to
comply by actually turning over the
information they actually have to
produce the witness to sit at a
deposition and you know there are
several possib ities here number one the
government could simply seek to delay by
saying we're going to appeal the
discovery order right and just try to
make this like a side piece of
litigation about whether the Discover is
uh even appropriate the second we could
see something like what we have seen in
some of the other cases where they say
oh when you asked for the log of who had
accessed the computer system we thought
you meant the log for who had entered
the building we didn't realize Iz that
what you really wanted was about the
computer system right we can see this
kind of game of cat and mouse and
misdirection that we've seen from a lot
in a lot of these cases but the thing is
that won't get them very far in a
discovery case because the judge you
know is already teed up that he wants
expedited Discovery so I think that will
that would get slapped down which brings
us to the third possibility page and
this is where we start to inch closer
and closer to a true constitutional
crisis right I've said before I don't
think this is we are in a constitutional
crisis we are not in the place where um
the where the Court's orders are being
intentionally violated well one of the
easiest places to trip that wire one of
the the most common places frankly where
sanctions are imposed in litigation even
in you know normal civil litigation
between you know corporations uh one of
the most common places where contempt is
issued again in civil litigation not
having to do with the you know Donald
Trump's Administration are in these
Discovery cases where a party just says
I'm not going to produce the document or
they delete the document or a witness
goes to a deposition and says I'm not
going to answer questions that they were
ordered to answer and so what is the
chance page what is the chance that
Donald Trump either
instructs the Departments not to comply
or the Departments take it on themselves
or the Department of Justice lawyers
refuse to certify that you know what's
been produced is complete whatever it is
like what is the chance that this winds
up being a trip wire not
insignificant Mark and let's say that
the order goes through Discovery happens
the government turns over everything
that they're supposed to what kind of
information could we be looking at how
insightful or clarifying could it be to
get these sorts of Records into the
scope of what doge is doing and maybe
more importantly who is a part of
Doge right and I think that you put your
finger on it again as usual page your
you're smarter than the rest of us right
the this case though it is about Doge in
this one agency right Doge in the
Department of Labor accessing
confidential information it doesn't sit
though in a vacuum because other courts
in other forums have been told things by
Department of Justice lawyers and they
all need to Jive between courtrooms
right like I mean the Jud the the
Department of Justice can't tell one
judge oh Elon Musk has nothing to do
with Doge and then in this courtroom it
turn out like Elon Musk is running Doge
on the internal documents I'm not saying
that's what it is but like like you're
going to start to see as these cases
progress through Discovery there's gonna
have you know whether or not there is in
fact a consistent paper trail a
consistent understanding by Witnesses a
consistent set of arguments that
department of justice lawyers are making
and Discovery is you know one of those
strands that is hard for the
administration to to get around you know
it's one thing to send the Department of
Justice lawyer in to say something like
Elon Musk you know has nothing to do
with Doge right like we can all be like
huh right but it's another thing once
you start producing the internal emails
of people who say well we have to answer
to Elon Musk because he has Doge or you
know whatever it is you know they've
refused I believe Paige you tell me I
think they've refused uh in another case
to actually identify who the if it's not
Elm who it is that runs Doge um you know
like this is the kind of thing where you
might actually come across a do that
says this is who runs those so it's
going to be very interesting to see how
the administration how the Department of
Justice tries to square all these cases
up right the White House made that claim
earlier this week in a lawsuit from 14
Democratic State Attorneys generals who
claim that doge is illegally organized
and musk is a un is an
unconstitutionally appointed principal
officer of the United States they're
seeking to nullify and block all actions
that Doge and musk have taken but
earlier this week Joshua fiser the
director of the White House's office of
administration wrote in a court filing
that Elon Musk is not a part of Doge he
is not the administrator of Doge he is a
special employee of the White House and
has nothing to do with Doge right so do
you think that's going to square up in
the discovery in the Department of Labor
maybe maybe maybe maybe or maybe there a
record showing that Elon mus showed up
at the treasury Department or the
Department of Labor seeking information
right so I mean that's why like you said
Discovery is really important but I have
one more question I want to ask you so
the judge in this Department of Labor
case denied the plaintiff's motion for a
temporary restraining order to block
Doge and Musk from getting access to
this Labor Department data how does it
square away that you deny this motion
for a temporary restraining order but
then follow it up a couple weeks later
saying no I agree you you should get
access to some documents because
something doesn't sound quite right yeah
so look the the standard for a temporary
restraining order is just different it's
like different than anything else in the
law and because what you're asking a
judge to do with a temporary restraining
order is oftentimes on little more than
a single filing and a few hours you are
asking a court to block some action okay
you're literally going to the judge and
saying if you don't act immediately by
immediately like like within minutes or
hours of the filing of the argument
rather then you know there will be a
reparable harm and so you have started
to see page in a number of cases the
judges start to decline issuing or deny
issuing um uh temporary restraining
orders and part of what they're saying
is like look this isn't either as much
of an emergency as you are saying it is
or you you waited a little bit of time
like you you you know if this was going
to be such an emergency you should have
shown up a few weeks ago when this all
started or they're saying look there's
just not enough in your filings for me
to know what's going on here it's just
it's not it's not clear enough to me
what the facts are of this case so in
this instance I think that's what the
judge was saying is that last thing is
like I don't really understand enough to
know who the plaintiffs are here what
their injury is what's the defendants
Theory like who's doing what and so
that's why he denied the temporary
restraining order but that that doesn't
mean the lawsuit's dismissed that just
means that very very short period relief
is denied but the case still goes
forward and the next stage in these
cases is what's referred to as a
preliminary injunction which sounds a
lot like a temporary restraining order
but think about temporary as like I need
relief today and it only has to last 14
days which is usually the period that a
temporary trining order can last a
preliminary injunction is okay your
honor I need a decision like in the next
few weeks you know like I I I don't I
don't have months to wait but I have
days to wait like and we can by the way
your honor do a little Discovery and we
can also put on some witnesses and we
can also submit longer arguments and
briefs right like there's enough
breathing room here your honor that it's
not going to be a full trial it's not
full Discovery it's not all of the bells
and whistles but you can have a hearing
and sort of get your get get more of
your arms around this case and so that's
where we are in this case that's where
we're frankly going to be in a lot of
these cases uh uh in the next couple of
weeks they're going to shift out of this
sort of emergency relief into this sort
of temporary relief and you know
temporary restraining order is a bit of
a misnomer page you you and the do do
Team cover all these cases the
preliminary injunctions uh the
preliminary injunctions in these cases
are not that preliminary uh they tend to
they oftentimes are in place for months
or even years they are preliminary only
in the sense that they are in effect
essentially till the trial is over and
you know given the speed with which the
court uh the federal courts right now
have trials that can be a matter of
years so really the action for the for
most of these cases is going to be at
that preliminary injunction phase not at
the temporary restraining order phase
Mark big news today about the discovery
order what else should we know look I
think that what we need to know is that
this is not going to be one or two
lawsuits that get decided quickly this
is not going to be you know Donald Trump
something does something terrible in
January early February and by the time
we hit the middle of March it's all
resolved in the Supreme Court's rule
like that's just not realistic and so
everybody watching this needs to just
settle in for the Long Haul I know
you're tired okay believe me I'm tired
paig is tired but now is not the time in
history to be tired like now is the time
you know get yourself some coffee get
some caffeine do what you need to do to
wake up because we are entering into a
prolonged period in which the courts are
going to be Central to whether or not
democracy survives the courts are going
to be a a the the courts are going to be
in the news every day for a long period
to come and you cannot tune it out you
cannot look for you know for short
answers and you cannot look at any one
case and say okay this case is going to
decide everything or this case if we
lose you know means all is lost that
just isn't the way it's going to work
it's going to be a lot of hard work by a
lot of lawyers and a lot of legal
organizations doing a lot to fight um
against this and we're GNA hopefully
have judges who you know who stand up
for democracy in court which is after
all page like the central mission of
what democracy docket exists to cover
right I started democracy Docket in 2020
to be the leading source for news
information analysis on everything
happening to democracy in court it now
has I think I on one of the videos I
said it had uh it had 17 uh uh people it
now has 19 people uh and it has 3115
thou 350,000 subscribers so please if
you're not already one of those and you
want to support the work of those folks
click on the link above and become a
subscriber to democracy docket today and
we will see you next time
[Music]

[admin]

Read the resignation letter by Denise Cheung, a veteran D.C. federal prosecutor: She refused a Trump administration demand to freeze environmental grant assets.
by Washington Post staff
February 18, 2025 at 3:27 p.m. EST Today at 3:27 p.m. EST
https://archive.ph/tEXT9#selection-459.0-520.0

NOTICE: THIS WORK MAY BE PROTECTED BY COPYRIGHT

YOU ARE REQUIRED TO READ THE COPYRIGHT NOTICE AT THIS LINK BEFORE YOU READ THE FOLLOWING WORK, THAT IS AVAILABLE SOLELY FOR PRIVATE STUDY, SCHOLARSHIP OR RESEARCH PURSUANT TO 17 U.S.C. SECTION 107 AND 108. IN THE EVENT THAT THE LIBRARY DETERMINES THAT UNLAWFUL COPYING OF THIS WORK HAS OCCURRED, THE LIBRARY HAS THE RIGHT TO BLOCK THE I.P. ADDRESS AT WHICH THE UNLAWFUL COPYING APPEARED TO HAVE OCCURRED. THANK YOU FOR RESPECTING THE RIGHTS OF COPYRIGHT OWNERS.

The head of the criminal division in the U.S. attorney’s office in D.C. resigned Tuesday morning after declining to comply with an urgent Trump administration demand to freeze the assets of a multibillion-dollar Biden administration environmental grant initiative and launch a criminal investigation, according to two sources familiar with the matter and the official’s resignation letter.

The Washington Post has reproduced the text of veteran prosecutor Denise Cheung’s letter to interim U.S. attorney Ed Martin below.

Re: Resignation

Dear United States Attorney Martin:

As you requested, I am tendering my resignation from this Office.

I have been proud to serve at the U.S. Department of Justice and this Office for over 24 years. During my tenure, which has spanned over many different Administrations, I have always been guided by the oath that I took upon being sworn as an AUSA to support and defend the Constitution. Whether it was prosecuting homicide cases in the Superior Court Division or investigating international terrorism cases in the Criminal Division, I have always worked to enforce the rule of law, to vindicate the rights of victims, and to protect the security of the nation. I believe that the values the Department of Justice stands for, and the many people that work every day to fulfill them, are to be promoted and cherished.

As a member of the management team in the Office, including as Chief of the Criminal Division, I have always sought to offer sound and ethical counsel to my principals and to execute their directives to the best of my ability.

Earlier yesterday. I was asked to review documentation supplied by the Office of the Deputy Attorney General (ODAG) to open a criminal investigation into whether a contract had been unlawfully awarded by an executive agency before the change in Administration and to issue grand jury subpoenas pursuant to this investigation. I was told that there was time sensitivity and action had to be taken that day because there was concern that contract awardees could continue to draw down on accounts handled by the bank handling the disbursements. I conferred with others in the Office, all of whom have substantial white collar criminal prosecution experience, and reviewed documentation provided by ODAG, in determining whether the predicate for opening such a grand jury investigation existed. Despite assessing that the existing documents on their face did not seem to meet this threshold, an ODAG representative stated that he believed sufficient predication existed, including in the form of a video where statements were made by a former political appointee of the executive agency in question.

[Brent Efron] Now we're just trying to get the money out as fast as possible before they come in and stop it all. It truly feels like we're on the Titanic, and we're throwing gold bars off the edge.

[Reporter] Who are the gold bars going to?

[Brent Efron] Non profits, States, tribes....

[Reporter] $50 billion dollars?

[Brent Efron] Yes. For climate things. So, to go work for one of these places, I think would be really cool.

[Reporter] What are the places that you've given them to?

[Brent Efron] It's only been a few weeks, so it's a little early. But, Green Banks. So, they're nonprofit institutions that are making it more financially feasible to build renewables, to do climate projects....

[Reporter] Who are the gold bars going to?

[Brent Efron] Nonprofits, states, tribes, cities....Well, they're all local. A lot of them are small, local nonprofits. This is a big thing...

[Reporter] Will the [Trump administration] come in and stop?

[Brent Efron] Yeah. I think they will. I think they will come in, and they will issue an order that like all grants have to stop, that EPA can't give any money out. So we reevaluate anything, and then they'll say we're reevaluating it. And then Congress will say, we're stopping this entirely. And they'll pass a law that says all this money doesn't exist anymore that you wanted to give out....These are basically nonprofit institutions that will cover the entire country....

[Reporter] You guys are like saving saving the world, literally.

[Brent Efron] I don't know if we are, but we're throwing gold bars off the Titanic, yeah.

[Reporter] You're doing what?

[Brent Efron] We're throwing gold bars off the Titanic. That's all we can save for today. I don't know if we're saving it, but we're getting the money out.

At one point, it was conveyed that the ODAG representative would work directly with a line AUSA from the Office in handling the matter and bypass any USAO-DC supervisory chain. Upon further conversations with the Principal Assistant U.S. Attorney (PAUSA), and in a subsequent conversation with the ODAG representative, I received clarification that a type of “freeze letter” requesting that the bank freeze assets would be adequate at this point, as opposed to other legal process. I took point on this process.

Upon further discussion with the PAUSA [Principal Assistant U.S. Attorney], and upon an understanding that ODAG agreed that such a reach-out was appropriate in light of the lack of any known investigative agency working on the matter, I contacted a supervisor at the Washington Field Office (WFO) of the FBI and provided him with the materials received from ODAG and also referenced the possible existence of the video and statements made by the head of the executive agency. I further conveyed ODAG’s desire to send out the freeze letter to the bank as soon as possible as to avoid subsequent payouts. The FBI-WFO supervisor forwarded links of these statements and the video, which I also reviewed. Despite the federal holiday yesterday, the FBI-WFO supervisor, as well as other FBI-WFO managers, spoke frequently throughout the day yesterday with me to discuss the matter, including what, if any, possible criminal charges might be applicable, as well as the sufficiency of the evidence of any criminal offense or the connection of any alleged crime to the accounts at issue.

During this period, I sent a draft freeze letter provided by the FBI-WFO supervisor to the PAUSA [Principal Assistant U.S. Attorney] at 4:31 p.m. In an email sent at 4:46 p.m., the PAUSA conveyed suggested language “in case it [was] helpful” from the ODAG representative, which included language represented to be from the Second Circuit, including the phrase “the government has probable cause to believe that the funds on deposit in the above-referenced account(s) at [named bank] are subject to seizure and forfeiture to the United States based upon violations...” I subsequently informed the PAUSA that the suggested language was not appropriate to the matter at hand.

Despite expressing some concern about the current lack of evidence of any apparent crime and the need to send out any such freeze letter, FBI-WFO personnel were able to consult with necessary individuals, including legal counsel, at their office. I was told that if FBI-WFO was unwilling to send out such a freeze letter, that you would direct someone from USAO-DC to send out such a correspondence to the bank. However, that contingency did not come to pass, as FBI-WFO determined that they were willing to send out the freeze letter, but asked that I first send them an email stating that, based on the evidence, there was possible evidence of certain criminal violations. I emailed them the following statement: "Based upon the information we received from ODAG and public-source materials, including a video of statements by a former [executive agency] official, USAO-DC believes that there may be conduct that constitutes potential violations of 18 U.S.C. Sec. 371 (conspiracy to defraud the United States) and 18 U.S.C. Sec. 1343 (wire fraud) that merits additional investigation."

After they received this email, FBI-WFO subsequently issued a letter to the bank recommending a thirty-day administrative freeze on certain assets. After this letter was issued at approximately 7:28 p.m. yesterday night, I received a call from the PAUSA [Principal Assistant U.S. Attorney] and you shortly thereafter. You expressed your dissatisfaction about the adequacy of the FBI-WFO letter and criticized that the language merely "recommended" that a freeze of the accounts take place, notwithstanding that the same language was used in the draft I sent to the PAUSA earlier in the day. You also directed that a second letter be immediately issued to the bank under your and my name ordering the bank not to release any funds in the subject accounts pursuant to a criminal investigation being run out of USAO-DC. When I explained that the quantum of evidence did not support that action, you stated that you believed that there was sufficient evidence. You also accused me about wasting five hours of the day "doing nothing" except trying to get what the FBI and I wanted, but not what you wanted. As I shared with you, at this juncture, based upon the evidence I have reviewed, I still do not believe that there is sufficient evidence to issue the letter you described, including sufficient evidence to tell the bank that there is probable cause to seize the particular accounts identified. Because I believed that I lacked the legal authority to issue such a letter, I told you that I would not do so. You then asked for my resignation.

I remain committed to the oath that I took, and it has been an honor of a lifetime to be an AUSA in this Office. I know that all of the AUSAs in the Office will continue to uphold that pledge they have taken, following the facts and the law and complying with their moral, ethical, and legal obligations.

Sincerely,

Denise Cheung

********************

Veteran federal prosecutor resigns over bank freeze order from Trump appointee: Denise Cheung wrote in a resignation letter that Ed Martin, nominated by Trump to be Washington's top federal prosecutor, ordered her to take actions unsupported by evidence.
by Ryan J. Reilly
NBC
Feb. 18, 2025, 2:23 PM MST
https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/justic ... rcna192619


Ed Martin, interim U.S attorney for the District of Columbia, has been picked by President Trump to take over the post permanently. Michael A. McCoy / Getty Images file

WASHINGTON — A longtime federal prosecutor resigned Tuesday rather than carry out what she described as orders from Trump-appointed officials to take actions unsupported by evidence, according to a copy of her resignation letter obtained by NBC News.

Denise Cheung, who had been at the Justice Department for over 24 years and was the head of the criminal division of the U.S. Attorney's Office for the District of Columbia, wrote in her resignation letter to interim U.S. Attorney Ed Martin that she had "always sought to offer sound and ethical counsel" to her bosses throughout multiple administrations, and that she had been asked to take investigative and law enforcement actions despite what she called the lack of "sufficient evidence."

Cheung wrote that she was asked on Monday to review documentation provided by the Office of the Deputy Attorney General (ODAG) — currently headed by acting Deputy Attorney General Emil Bove — “to open a criminal investigation into whether a contract had been unlawfully awarded by an executive agency” during former President Joe Biden’s administration.

Her letter did not specify the grants at issue, but three sources told NBC News it had to do with environmental grants issued during the Biden administration.

A Department of Justice spokesperson said that "refusing a basic request to pause an investigation [??] so officials can examine the potential waste of government funds is not an act of heroism — just a failure to follow chain of command."

The new resignation comes amid a period of turmoil within the Justice Department. Most recently, seven prosecutors chose to resign rather than follow orders to drop the case against New York City Mayor Eric Adams, a decision that several described in letters as improper and politically motivated. In the D.C. U.S. Attorney's Office, Martin — who pushed unfounded election conspiracy theories after the 2020 vote and later was an advocate for Jan. 6 defendants — disbanded the unit investigating and prosecuting Capitol rioters and launched a review of their work.

Cheung wrote that she was told the issue "was time sensitive and action had to be taken that day because there was concern that contract awardees could continue to draw down on accounts handled by the bank handling the disbursements."

Cheung wrote that she conferred with others in the office on Monday, a federal holiday, about whether there was a basis for opening a grand jury investigation. She assessed that "the existing documents on their face did not seem to meet this threshold," she wrote in her letter. But "an ODAG representative stated that he believed sufficient predication existed" for the investigation, she continued.

Cheung wrote that she was then told that the ODAG representative would work directly with a federal prosecutor and "bypass" the D.C. U.S. Attorney's Office, before being informed that a "freeze letter" requesting that a bank freeze certain assets "would be adequate at this point, as opposed to other legal process."

Cheung wrote that she contacted a supervisor in the FBI Washington Field Office, and they and others discussed "what, if any, possible criminal charges might be applicable, as well as the sufficiency of the evidence."

Cheung wrote that she sent a draft freeze letter provided by the FBI Washington Field Office (WFO) and that ODAG had provided some language suggesting that there was probable cause to seize the assets, but Cheung said that language "was not appropriate" for the matter at hand.

"Despite expressing some concern about the current lack of evidence of any apparent crime and the need to send any such freeze letter, FBI-WFO personnel were able to consult with necessary individuals, including legal counsel, at their office," Cheung wrote. "I was told that if FBI-WFO was unwilling to send out such a freeze letter, that you would direct someone from the USAO-DC to send out such a correspondence to the bank."

While the FBI's Washington Field Office [FBI-WFO] "determined they were willing to send out the freeze letter," Cheung wrote, the office asked Cheung to send an email stating that there was possible evidence of potential criminal violations. Cheung wrote in an email to the FBI that the most she'd be willing to say was that there "may be conduct that constitutes potential violations" of two laws, conspiracy to defraud the United States and wire fraud, that "merits additional investigation."

After the FBI field office sent its letter to the bank recommending a 30-day freeze, Cheung wrote that she received a call from Martin and one of his top aides.

“You expressed dissatisfaction about the adequacy of the FBI-WFO letter and criticized that the language merely ‘recommended’ that a freeze of the accounts take place," Cheung wrote in her letter. "You also directed that a second letter be immediately issued to the bank under your and my name ordering the bank not to release any funds in the subject accounts pursuant to the criminal investigation being run out of USAO-DC. When I explained that the quantum of evidence did not support that action, you stated that you believed there was sufficient evidence.

"You also accused me about wasting five hours of the day ‘doing nothing’ except trying to get what the FBI and I wanted, but not what you wanted," Cheung continued. "As I shared with you, at this juncture, based upon the evidence I have reviewed, I still do not believe that there is sufficient evidence to issue the letter you described, including sufficient evidence to tell the bank that there is probable cause to seize the particular accounts identified. Because I believed that I lacked the legal authority to issue such a letter, I told you that I would not do so. You then asked for my resignation."

“I remain committed to the oath that I took, and it has been the honor of a lifetime to be an AUSA in this Office," Cheung wrote, using an acronym for assistant U.S. attorney. "I know that all of the AUSAs in the Office will continue to uphold that pledge that they have taken, following the facts and the law and complying with their moral, ethical, and legal obligations."

Trump announced on Monday that he would seek to install Martin as the permanent U.S. attorney for the District of Columbia. Martin, who was still listed as a defense attorney for Jan. 6 defendants until earlier this month, has been acting U.S. attorney for Washington since Inauguration Day, when Trump pardoned convicted rioters, including some of Martin's clients.

Trump's announcement came less than 72 hours after Martin announced on X — the platform known as Twitter before it was purchased by billionaire Elon Musk — that he would be investigating former special counsel Jack Smith over pro bono legal help he received from a private law firm.

Martin, in a speech outside the Capitol on the eve of the Jan. 6 attack, called on “die-hard true Americans” to work until their "last breath" to "stop the steal."

Neither Martin nor the U.S. Attorney's Office for the District of Columbia immediately responded to a request for comment from NBC News.

Ryan J. Reilly is a justice reporter for NBC News.
Michael Kosnar contributed.

****************************

'GOLD BARS': EPA Advisor Admits ‘Insurance Policy’ Against Trump Funnels Billions to Climate Groups
by Project Veritas
Dec 3, 2024

Brent Efron, an Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) special advisor implementing Biden’s climate agenda, told Project Veritas the agency is frantically shoveling billions in grants to nonprofits, making sure that the Biden administration’s climate projects stay afloat — no matter who’s in charge.



Transcript

[Brent Efron] Now we're just trying to get the money out as fast as possible before they come in and stop it all. It truly feels like we're on the Titanic, and we're throwing gold bars off the edge.

[Reporter] Who are the gold bars going to?

[Brent Efron] Non profits, States, tribes. We gave them the money, because it was harder if it wasn't a government run program. They couldn't take the money away if Trump won. Because it was, it was an insurance policy against Trump winning. It's until the Trump people come in and tell us we can no longer give out money. I do environmental, climate policy things.

[Reporter] Really?

[Brent Efron] Yeah.

[Reporter] That's amazing. That stuff is here?

[Brent Efron] I mean, because I do federal government climate things. Well, I have been doing that, but that might change.

[Reporter] Why?

[Brent Efron] Because of Trump. So I work at the EPA.

[Reporter] Amazing.

[Brent Efron] So I do -- do you know the inflation reduction act?

[Reporter] Yes. Okay, Biden's climate law?

[Brent Efron] Yeah. So, I do entire implementation. I work with Biden appointees. The money that we've given out, we've given out tens of billions of dollars.

[Reporter] The EPA has?

[Brent Efron] Over the last year, we've given out $50 billion dollars.

[Reporter] $50 million dollars?

[Brent Efron] Billions ... Billion, with a "B."

[Reporter] $50 billion dollars?

[Brent Efron] Yes. For climate things. So, to go work for one of these places, I think would be really cool.

[Reporter] What are the places that you've given them to?

[Brent Efron] It's only been a few weeks, so it's a little early. But, Green Banks. So, they're nonprofit institutions that are making it more financially feasible to build renewables, to do climate projects. I do implementation now. So I do, "How do you spend $100 billion? How do you make sure the proper processes are in place to prevent fraud and prevent abuse, and ensure that we are funding good-paying jobs, and that sort of stuff. Now -- it's just how to get the money out as fast as possible before they come in and stop it all.

[Reporter] Really?

[Brent Efron] Yeah.

[Reporter] You can do that?

[Brent Efron] To an extent. Just within reason. Yeah.

[Reporter] Really?

[Brent Efron] Why not? Because if it's not going to -- basically, that's what it all is now. I mean, now it all is -- It truly feels we're on the Titanic, and we're throwing gold bars off the edge.

[Reporter] Does it really?

[Brent Efron] Yup.

[Reporter] It's got to feel weird.

[Brent Efron] It's weird. It's not good vibes. It's not good. I mean, everyone's very sad.

[Reporter] Who are the gold bars going to?

[Brent Efron] Nonprofits, states, tribes, cities.

[Reporter] Anything in the news that I would know of?

[Brent Efron] Not yet.

[Reporter] Organizations?

[Brent Efron] Well, they're all local. A lot of them are small, local nonprofits. This is a big thing that we -- Most of the stuff we've funded. But the thing that we haven't funded yet are the local nonprofit programs. That was going to be like an inter-Kamala Harris Administration program. So now, we're just getting it out as quick as possible.

[Reporter] Right, to the tune of $2 billion dollars.

[Brent Efron] No, it's $2 billion at this point. But yeah, we've got most of it. 90% is out.

[Reporter] Wow. And what happens if they try to stop it? They can?

[Brent Efron] When they come in, if we haven't gotten it out the door, then they can stop it.

[Reporter] You have two months.

[Brent Efron] Yeah.

[Reporter] If they don't get it out by a certain date, what's that date?

[Brent Efron] It's the inauguration. The 20th. It's noon on the 20th of January.

[Reporter] So you can work right down to the minute.

[Brent Efron] It's probably a little after noon. But yeah, it's basically noon. Throw a couple billion here and there. It's until the Trump people come in and tell us we can no longer give out money.

[Reporter] Wow.

[Brent Efron] So that's at the very earliest noon on the 20th. It's probably a little after because they have to get in the building and tell people what to do.

[Reporter] Will they come in and stop?

[Brent Efron] Yeah. I think they will. I think they will come in, and they will issue an order that like all grants have to stop, that EPA can't give any money out. So we reevaluate anything, and then they'll say we're reevaluating it. And then Congress will say, we're stopping this entirely. And they'll pass a law that says all this money doesn't exist anymore that you wanted to give out.

No, I think we gave them [the nonprofits] the money because it was harder. If it was a government run program, they could take the money away if Trump won. Because it was an insurance policy against Trump winning. So these are basically nonprofit institutions that will cover the entire country. They could have been a government agency, but because they aren't, they're safer from Republicans taking money away.

[Reporter] You guys are like saving saving the world, literally.

[Brent Efron] I don't know if we are, but we're throwing gold bars off the Titanic, yeah.

[Reporter] You're doing what?

[Brent Efron] We're throwing gold bars off the Titanic. That's all we can save for today. I don't know if we're saving it, but we're getting the money out.

[admin]

ICYMI: Administrator Zeldin’s “Powering the Great American Comeback” Unveiled at the EPA
by epa.gov
February 4, 2025
Contact Information: EPA Press Office ([email protected])
https://www.epa.gov/newsreleases/icymi- ... veiled-epa

WASHINGTON – U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) Administrator Lee Zeldin exclusively previewed his “Powering the Great American Comeback” initiative with Breitbart today. The initiative will guide EPA’s work to protect public health and the environment while restoring the greatness of the American economy for the first 100 days and beyond.

“The EPA is going to aggressively pursue an agenda powering the Great American Comeback… that’s our purpose, and it’s what will keep us up at night. EPA wants to help power that Great American Comeback. President Trump, as the leader of our country and the great American people, has earned that mandate. It’s up to the EPA to ensure we’re doing our part to make sure we deliver on that,” said Administrator Zeldin.

“Zeldin and his team are exclusively announcing this new initiative — titled ‘Powering the Great American Comeback’ — here on Breitbart News. The initiative has five major pillars. The first is pushing for ‘Clean Air, Land, and Water for Every American.’ The second is to ‘Restore American Energy Dominance,’ and the third is for ‘Permitting Reform, Cooperative Federalism, and Cross-Agency Partnership.’ The fourth pillar is to ‘Make the United States the Artificial Intelligence Capital of the World,’ and the fifth is ‘Protecting and Bringing Back American Auto Jobs.’ Zeldin said it is time for the EPA to return to its core mission of conservation — which he argued is a core conservative principle,” wrote Breitbart.

“‘President Trump has been very outspoken about his desire for Americans to be able to access clean air and clean water. We want air, land, water to be cleaner, safer, healthier,’ Zeldin said,” added Breitbart.

Read the full article here or below.

***

Exclusive — ‘Powering the Great American Comeback’: The Legend of Zeldin Comes to the EPA
by Matthew Boyle
Breitbart.com
Washington, DC
4 Feb 2025
https://www.breitbart.com/politics/2025 ... eldin-epa/

Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) Administrator Lee Zeldin is rolling out a massive five-pillar initiative for his first 100 days in the role, he told Breitbart News exclusively in a lengthy interview at EPA headquarters in downtown Washington, DC, late last week.

“President Trump earned a mandate last November when the American people all across this country elected him to have a term that I believe will be the greatest four years in American history,” Zeldin told Breitbart News in his cavernous office inside the William Jefferson Clinton Building just blocks from the White House.

“A lot of longtime Democratic voters decided to vote Republican for the first time and to vote for President Trump because their party had abandoned them and they felt disenfranchised,” he said. “President Trump has pledged to do everything in his power to unleash American prosperity throughout this country and we have an important role to play to make sure the EPA is accomplishing its mission in a manner that doesn’t lose sight over the strong desire by the American public to unleash American prosperity. In order to do so, we need to become energy dominant. We need to bring back American auto jobs. We have to make the United States the AI capital of the world. We need to pursue permitting reform that can allow more investment into the American economy. The EPA has to do its part here. Our mission here at the EPA is to protect human health and the environment. That mission absolutely can be accomplished while tapping into American innovation, creating jobs, and being accountable to the public and to Congress. We want to hit the ground running.”

Zeldin continued… “The EPA is going to aggressively pursue an agenda powering the Great American Comeback… that’s our purpose, and it’s what will keep us up at night. EPA wants to help power that Great American Comeback. President Trump, as the leader of our country and the great American people, has earned that mandate. It’s up to the EPA to ensure we’re doing our part to make sure we deliver on that.”

Zeldin is affectionately known in America First activist circles as “the Legend of Zeldin,” a play on the name of the classic video game the Legend of Zelda. He earned the nickname when he was a rank-and-file GOP U.S. House member from New York, when he was serving on the House Intelligence Committee and tearing up its then-chairman Democrat Adam Schiff’s plot to impeach President Donald Trump in his first term. While Schiff survived that madness and is now in the U.S. Senate from California, Zeldin is thriving even more. After a run for governor in New York in 2022 where he nearly toppled Democrat Kathy Hochul, he served as one of the top campaign surrogates for Trump’s 2024 comeback bid. Now, Zeldin is back at Trump’s side as now the administrator for the nation’s premiere environmental agency, the EPA, helping the president take on one of the most entrenched bureaucracies in a capital city full of them.

Zeldin and his team are exclusively announcing this new initiative — titled “Powering the Great American Comeback” — here on Breitbart News. The initiative has five major pillars. The first is pushing for “Clean Air, Land, and Water for Every American.” The second is to “Restore American Energy Dominance,” and the third is for “Permitting Reform, Cooperative Federalism, and Cross-Agency Partnership.” The fourth pillar is to “Make the United States the Artificial Intelligence Capital of the World,” and the fifth is “Protecting and Bringing Back American Auto Jobs.”

Zeldin said it is time for the EPA to return to its core mission of conservation — which he argued is a core conservative principle — and ditch the leftist environmentalist radicalism that has dominated in the past.

“President Trump has been very outspoken about his desire for Americans to be able to access clean air and clean water. We want air, land, water to be cleaner, safer, healthier,” Zeldin said. “That is our goal. That is our first pillar. Conservation has long been an important principle that conservatives and Republicans have been very proud of. When I was in the House, I was part of an effort to pass out of the House and Senate the Great American Outdoors Act. Conservation is going to continue to be a highest priority of conservatives and that includes advocacy from hunters, from fisherman, and so many more who care about our environment. In the name of climate change, Democrats during the Biden administration wasted tax dollars in a way that was inexcusable, unjustifiable, and illegitimate. We don’t want to waste a penny. It is important that we are pursuing this agenda of having cleaner air, land, and water without wasting any tax dollars at all. There has been talk through the years about how the world was imminently about to end because of climate change, and in the name of that threat there was a push to do some crazy things.”

The timelines of those predictions of “climate change” ending the world have “come and gone,” Zeldin said, and the world is still here.

“That’s what President Trump had spoken about so often,” Zeldin said. “When I heard the president talk about a climate change hoax, he would also talk about how important it is to him that Americans have clean air and clean water. What he expressed as a concern was, in the name of climate change, that politicians in Washington, DC, were willing to bankrupt our economy and that people who were struggling to make ends meet would lose the ability to heat their homes, and that Americans who want to be able to go out and purchase a gas-powered vehicle would have that option denied to them by the government. President Trump has proven that he’s not somebody willing to sit on the sidelines. When he sees Americans in need and not being properly represented and not being properly led, he will step away from an easy lifestyle and take on all of the risk and all the bullets and all the arrows and he will eagerly lead that charge to restore the Great American Comeback. We just want to do our part at the EPA here.”

Zeldin argues that that first pillar — cleaner air, water, and land — is not at odds with the second, which is to boost energy production in the U.S.

“Emissions went down during the [first] Trump presidency,” Zeldin said. “Energy that gets produced here in America taps into innovation and is far cleaner than energy produced overseas. Restoring energy dominance is not just an economic goal and not just a national security goal, but I also believe it’s best for the environment because here in America we tap into our domestic energy supply in ways that are much better for the environment than other nations across the world do it. We do it better here.”

Permitting reform, the third pillar in the plan, is key too, he said.

“The president has made a focus of ensuring the there is more reliability, consistency, and timeliness in order to secure a permit to make a massive investment in the United States,” Zeldin said. “EPA wants to help do our part to bring down that timeline, to increase consistency and reliability, and to make sure it doesn’t take as long to get a permit or to be able to make that investment.”

The fourth pillar, making the U.S. the world’s AI capital, is something Zeldin said is important to position the U.S. better on the world stage, particularly when it comes to confronting China.

“As far as AI, the United States of America should be the AI capital of the world,” Zeldin said. “There are some people in America who are scared of AI and they want us to go slower. That is absolutely not an option. The slower America goes in this race to become the AI capital of the world the more certainty and risk exists that nations like China are going to eat our lunch. President Trump has made it clear going back to his first term and even in video clips from many, many years before he ever ran for office that he has zero tolerance whatsoever to have a nation like China ever eat our lunch. We have to become the AI capital of the world, and we have to do it better, smarter, and quicker than nations like China.”

When it comes to the fifth pillar, bringing back American auto jobs, Zeldin said the obsession the radical left had with electric vehicles over gas-powered vehicles is over. He said, under his leadership, the EPA will focus on allowing consumers a choice: If they want an electric vehicle, they can get one, but if they want a gas-powered vehicle, they can get one of those too.

“Couple things — one is there is a big research mission in Ann Arbor that is part of EPA. It is important that the science, data, research, coming from that important work doesn’t yield results that are skewed by ideology and being a zealot. We don’t want any left-wing bias to be inserted into science and research, and we want to work closely with American auto companies to ensure that they have the tools to be successful, keep costs down, and create jobs — bring back jobs,” Zeldin said when asked about the fifth pillar of his plan.

“As far as rule making goes, it is important that I as administrator follow my obligations under the law and respect the rule of law,” he continued. “Understanding the Administrative Procedures Act, I don’t prejudge outcomes before we get to that part of the process of changing a rule. I will say that there were rules that were enacted over the course of the last administration that I’ve heard a lot of feedback on that have greatly impacted the American auto industry in a very negative way and greatly impacted the American consumer in a very negative way. And I believe in choice. I believe in an energy strategy that allows an American to choose a gas-powered vehicle if they want one. If they want to go out and get an electric vehicle, they can do that too. But in the spirit of allowing one American to be able to access an electric vehicle they want, we shouldn’t be denying every other American on that street the ability to pull a gas-powered vehicle into their driveway if that’s what they prefer. We respect choice and optionality in the American auto industry has a robust history they should be proud of and EPA has an important role to play to make them stronger.”

Asked if he will be out front and center pushing these principles in a highly visible way he has long been known for, Zeldin told Breitbart News: “Absolutely.”

“Every way we want to work harder than the last,” Zeldin said. “I’m hoping that [this] week I also have the opportunity to get on the ground in LA, and possibly even western North Carolina if that can work out. We want the American public to be able to count on the EPA so that when disaster strikes and the EPA is called upon, that we bring a level of reliability and exceptionalism that the American public is exceptionally proud of.”

Zeldin accompanied Vice President JD Vance on Monday to East Palestine, Ohio, to tour the town devastated by a chemical-laden train derailment two years ago. Zeldin had nothing but platitudes for Vance’s leadership, first in the U.S. Senate and now in the White House, on this front.

“Then-Sen. Vance was at the tip of the spear the moment the train derailment happened he led the way,” Zeldin said. “He proved quickly he was the right choice when he became the junior senator from Ohio and his continued leadership on this issue proves he was the right choice to become our nation’s now-vice president. His leadership showed that, when disaster strikes, it’s important for an elected official to be present and at that site instantly. People who might live in a community who voted against you in the last election start realizing that they missed an opportunity, but it’s not too late to correct wrongs when you identify that talent and that leadership as what happened in the East Palestine community. JD Vance was first on the scene, consistently on the scene, and even though he is now Vice President of the United States, he has not forgotten where he came from. That’s why now immediately after he’s sworn into office, he’s going right back now to East Palestine because he hasn’t forgotten.”

And later this week, Zeldin is set to visit Los Angeles, California, where wildfires have completely upended the local community burning thousands of homes and leaving wide-scale devastation in their wake. The EPA, he said, is engaged in the largest cleanup operation in the agency’s history there, and officials at the EPA told Breitbart News that well over a thousand employees are on the ground leading the cleanup operations. They have already removed at least 80 electric vehicles and built energy storage systems and conducted reconnaissance at more than 6,000 properties so far.

“EPA is undertaking the largest cleanup of hazardous materials in the history of the agency,” Zeldin said. “We’re not going to wait days or weeks or months to ramp up. We’ve done it already. We’ll have a thousand people on the ground this weekend. This morning, we started off the day — it was 7:15 a.m. on the West Coast — and there was a massive team from California on a video call with us here in the conference room to make sure we are collaborating as closely as possible and to make sure they have all the resources they need and to make sure we are assisting them in any way that we can. We are very proud of the thousands of properties they have already worked through inspecting to help residents. Our role there is one that we’re proud of — any residents who want to return to their property, we are encouraging them that if they come across a lithium-ion battery for example that they call the EPA hotline and bring us in to help. We’re working with the local government and we’re working with local residents, and we won’t slow down until the job gets done.”

“President Trump said he wanted our work to be done there with phase one within 30 days and we are going to do everything in our power to make sure we are able to hit that goal,” Zeldin said. “Phase one is the EPA assisting with the cleanup of hazardous material, and phase two is the work that will get done by the Army Corps of Engineers. The Trump administration is tackling this head on in a way that the EPA couldn’t possibly be any prouder to be a part of and I would have to give a special shoutout to Ric Grenell who is on the ground there and has been providing excellent support and feedback of what he’s hearing. I would also like to take this opportunity to thank all the men and women who are working extraordinarily long days right now to make sure that President Trump’s timeline is met.”

…

“The EPA has to be as productive as possible. We have to collaborate and deliver. We can’t do that with everybody working from home,” Zeldin said. “Many of the highest profile issues across the country right now have communities looking to the EPA for help. The removal of hazardous material in L.A. after the fires. There is a heavy reliance on local government to get safe drinking water back into residential properties, and EPA is on the ground offering to assist. I’m traveling as you know with our great vice president to East Palestine for the anniversary. EPA has played an important role on the ground to assist. In western North Carolina, same thing. You can’t respond from home. The needs on the ground in these communities that have been impacted require EPA to be present, to show up. There is a lot of work for us to do here at headquarters — there is a lot of feedback coming in from members of Congress and the public, of advocacy, saying that the Biden administration set back a particular community or industry in a way that harmed the American economy. We have heard all of this feedback and we want to do whatever we can to reverse any damage that was done.”

Zeldin also told Breitbart News he intends to get to the bottom of a Biden appointee during [their] transition post-election getting caught on camera saying the Biden administration was throwing money away. The employee, caught in a Project Veritas video, said they were throwing gold bars off the edge of the Titanic.

Project Veritas @Project_Veritas
BREAKING: @EPA Advisor Admits ‘Insurance Policy’ Against Trump is Funneling Billions to Climate Organizations, “We’re Throwing Gold Bars off the Titanic”

“It was an insurance policy against Trump winning.”

“Get the money out as fast as possible before they [Trump Administration] come in ... it’s like we’re on the Titanic and we’re throwing gold bars off the edge.”

“I would add that tens of billions of dollars went out the door during the Biden administration that we want accountability for,” Zeldin said. “Between the time President Trump was elected and sworn in, a Biden political appointee was on video talking about how here at the EPA they were tossing gold bars off the Titanic. He says it four or five times in this Project Veritas video, even saying that there was a desire among the Biden political appointees to give out the final billions of dollars with an eye toward getting jobs at the recipient NGOs. Gold bars are tax dollars, and off the Titanic means they know they are wasting those tax dollars. I want to have an ability to be able to appear before Congress and answer all these outstanding questions about all these dollars that went out during the Biden administration that the Biden administration themselves referred to as tossing gold bars off the Titanic. You can’t do everything that the American public is demanding of the EPA by remote working and teleworking. We have to be in the office, productive, collaborative, and delivering.”

Last updated on February 4, 2025

*****************************

ICYMI: Administrator Lee Zeldin Announces EPA Found Billions of Dollars Parked at an Outside Financial Institution by Biden Administration: Administrator Zeldin Demands Termination of Biden-Harris Financial Agent Agreement and Return of Entire Fund Balance
by epa.gov
February 15, 2025
Contact Information: EPA Press Office ([email protected])
https://www.epa.gov/newsreleases/icymi- ... ed-outside

WASHINGTON – U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) Administrator Lee Zeldin announced that the agency found $20 billion dollars parked at a financial institution by the Biden-Harris Administration to fund partisan pet projects.

[Brent Efron] Now we're just trying to get the money out as fast as possible before they come in and stop it all. It truly feels like we're on the Titanic, and we're throwing gold bars off the edge.

[Reporter] Who are the gold bars going to?

[Brent Efron] Non profits, States, tribes....

[Reporter] $50 billion dollars?

[Brent Efron] Yes. For climate things. So, to go work for one of these places, I think would be really cool.

[Reporter] What are the places that you've given them to?

[Brent Efron] It's only been a few weeks, so it's a little early. But, Green Banks. So, they're nonprofit institutions that are making it more financially feasible to build renewables, to do climate projects....

[Reporter] Who are the gold bars going to?

[Brent Efron] Nonprofits, states, tribes, cities....Well, they're all local. A lot of them are small, local nonprofits. This is a big thing...

[Reporter] Will the [Trump administration] come in and stop?

[Brent Efron] Yeah. I think they will. I think they will come in, and they will issue an order that like all grants have to stop, that EPA can't give any money out. So we reevaluate anything, and then they'll say we're reevaluating it. And then Congress will say, we're stopping this entirely. And they'll pass a law that says all this money doesn't exist anymore that you wanted to give out....These are basically nonprofit institutions that will cover the entire country....

[Reporter] You guys are like saving saving the world, literally.

[Brent Efron] I don't know if we are, but we're throwing gold bars off the Titanic, yeah.

[Reporter] You're doing what?

[Brent Efron] We're throwing gold bars off the Titanic. That's all we can save for today. I don't know if we're saving it, but we're getting the money out.

Administrator Zeldin called for termination of the financial agent agreement, and for the immediate return of the entire fund balance to the United States Treasury to ensure EPA oversight. He will also be referring this matter to the Office of the Inspector General (OIG) and Congress, and the agency will work with the U.S. Department of Justice.

The discovery comes on the heels of a video released of a Biden EPA political appointee talking about “tossing gold bars off the titanic,” intentionally rushing to get billions of tax dollars out of the agency before Inauguration Day in a reckless attempt to avoid oversight.

In the last couple of days, the Administrator also identified and cancelled a $50 million Biden-era environmental justice grant to the Climate Justice Alliance and announced that the agency would not be renewing nearly half a million dollars in media subscriptions to Politico and its subsidiaries.

Administrator Zeldin is steadfast in his commitment to review agency spending line-by-line to ensure every penny spent is to advance clean air, land and water for all Americans.

Read the coverage below:

New York Post EXCLUSIVE: EPA head Lee Zeldin reveals no real oversight of shocking $20B that Biden admin funneled through Citibank: ‘Tip of the iceberg’

“This was an arrangement the EPA sought out, working with the Biden Treasury Department to park $20 billion outside of government and that deliberately resulted in less transparency, accountability and oversight.

“And I committed to Congress and the American people during my confirmation hearing that I would do everything in my power if confirmed to ensure there wasn’t any waste and abuse and I was going to get to the bottom of all of these funds.

“This is something that is a highest concern and priority for us. We have very high confidence that this is just the tip of the iceberg.”

Blaze Media: Lee Zeldin reveals how much taxpayer money the EPA is saving through cutting waste

“Lee Zeldin, the new administrator of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, explained to Americans the recent steps he has taken to cut down on wasteful spending by the federal government's environment watchdog.

On Wednesday, Zeldin said his staff is working to recover over $20 billion that was stashed outside the EPA by then-political appointees within the EPA under the Biden-Harris administration.

“‘This scheme was the first of its kind in EPA history, and it was purposefully designed to obligate all of the money in a rush job with reduced oversight,’ Zeldin stated, noting that only eight entities would be in charge of disbursing that money to politically aligned non-governmental organizations. Zeldin said the bank the money was allocated to must return all of the funds to the EPA.”

Breitbart: Lee Zeldin Cancels $50 Million Contract for ‘Free Palestine’ Climate Group

“Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) Administrator Lee Zeldin announced Thursday that he had canceled a Biden-era contract awarded to the Climate Justice Alliance, a group that claimed it was working toward a ‘Free Palestine’… As Breitbart News reported Wednesday, Zeldin is fighting to claw back $20 billion in grants handed out by the Biden EPA in its last weeks in office to an array of powerful left-wing non-governmental organizations and activist causes.”

Daily Caller: Radical Left-Wing Activist Org Sunsetting Grant Program Biden EPA Wanted To Fund To Tune Of $50 Million

“CJA is sunsetting the “environmental justice”-focused grant program that the Biden Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) sought to fund with $50 million from one of the agency’s massive “environmental justice” grant programs, a spokesperson representing the group confirmed to the DCNF. The funds that the Biden EPA looked to route to CJA did not make it out the door before President Donald Trump and his team took power in Washington in January, and the Trump EPA is not at all keen to allow those dollars to get to CJA and other left-wing activist organizations that emerged as major beneficiaries of Biden EPA spending programs…

“CJA describes itself as ‘building a Just Transition away from extractive systems of production, consumption and political oppression’ and believes that ‘the path to climate justice travels through a free Palestine.’ The organization offers several printable posters, ostensibly for use in protest demonstrations, on its website that advocate for causes like defunding the police and abolishing prisons, among other radical positions.”

Daily Mail: Video: Trump's EPA boss Lee Zeldin exposes eye-popping $20 billion wasted by Biden during final days in office

Daily Wire News: Lee Zeldin Reveals EPA Found Unprecedented Scheme Biden Admin Used To Funnel Money To Leftists

“EPA Administrator Lee Zeldin said in a video released on Wednesday night that his agency has discovered an unprecedented scheme that was utilized by the Biden administration to funnel money to far-Left activist groups.

“‘An extremely disturbing video circulated two months ago featuring a Biden EPA political appointee talking about how they were ‘tossing gold bars off the Titanic,’ rushing to get billions of your tax dollars out the door before Inauguration Day,’ Zeldin said. He continued, ‘The gold bars were tax dollars, and tossing them off the Titanic meant the Biden administration knew they were wasting it.’

“Zeldin said that he has contacted the U.S. Justice Department and the inspector general to launch investigations into the $20 billion that was transferred to an outside financial institution for the purpose of doling out funds to leftist organizations during Biden’s final days in office.”

Fox News: EPA administrator Zeldin demands return of $20B in taxpayer money wasted by Biden administration

“The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) administrator Lee Zeldin said Wednesday that his team has located $20 billion in tax dollars that the Biden administration purposely wasted… He said that ‘this scheme was the first of its kind in EPA history, and it was purposefully designed to obligate all the money in a rush job with reduced oversight’ before Inauguration Day. Zeldin said ‘there is zero reason to suspect any wrongdoing by the bank,’ but he thinks an agreement with the institution ‘needs to be instantly terminated’ and all the money should be immediately returned. He says the EPA needs to resume responsibility for all of these funds, adding that his team will ‘review every penny that has gone out the door.’”

Newsmax: Lee Zeldin to Newsmax: Climate Hoax Blows Billions in Name of 'Environmental Justice'

“EPA Administrator Lee Zeldin told Newsmax on Thursday that ‘it's crazy’ that the Biden administration awarded $20 billion in clean-energy grants to non-governmental organizations and said it was willing to blow billions in ‘the name of environmental justice.’

...

“‘It needs to be with the government,’ he said. ‘It needs to be with the American taxpayer. I, as the administrator of EPA, have to have the ability to go before Congress and account for these funds. So, when the video came out that you all know about, a couple months ago, Biden EPA political appointees saying that they were tossing these gold bars off the Titanic, I was going through my confirmation hearing. And part of that process, you meet individually with senators. They were all concerned about it.’

“‘They wanted my commitment, if confirmed, as soon as you get there, will you make it a top priority to get to the bottom of where these gold bars are?’ he said. ‘We found the gold bars. Now we want to bring them back into control of government. And whether it's $20 billion … or it's finding some way to save $100,000, none of this is our money in government. It is the people's money. It is our duty to have zero tolerance for any waste and abuse.’”

New York Post: Lee Zeldin demands return of $20B 'parked' at a financial institution by 'Biden EPA' to dole out to climate groups

“EPA Administrator Lee Zeldin announced Wednesday that he’s found $20 billion in taxpayer money that the Biden administration ‘parked’ at a financial institution — in an apparent effort to prevent the Trump administration from cutting grants to ‘far-left activist groups.’

“Zeldin, 45, explained in a video posted on X that the Biden administration’s obfuscation was unprecedented and he demanded that the unnamed financial institution immediately return the funds to the EPA.

...

“‘Let me make one thing abundantly clear: At this point, there is zero reason to suspect any wrongdoing by the bank,’ Zeldin said, before making it known that he wants the money back.”

PJ Media: Lee Zeldin Just Discovered $20 Billion Laundered by the Biden Admin

“Zeldin underscored the urgency of accountability, declaring, ‘One of my very top priorities at EPA is to be an excellent steward of your hard-earned tax dollars. There will be zero tolerance of any waste and abuse.’ The controversy goes back two months when a video of a Biden EPA appointee referring to taxpayer funds as ‘gold bars’ being ‘tossed off the Titanic’ went viral. ‘The gold bars were tax dollars, and tossing them off the Titanic meant the Biden administration knew they were wasting it,’ he explained…

“Zeldin specifically called out the Climate United Fund, which received nearly $7 billion from this pot. He posed vital questions about funding decisions, potential conflicts of interest, and the involvement of former Biden staffers.

...

“‘We will review every penny that has gone out the door,’ Zeldin declared, indicating that necessary measures would be taken to restore oversight and accountability. ‘I will be referring this matter to the Inspector General’s office and will work with the Justice Department as well. The days of irresponsibly shoveling boatloads of cash to far-left activist groups in the name of environmental justice and climate equity are over.’”

RealClear Politics: Zeldin: Biden EPA Was Shoveling Boatloads Of Cash To Left-Wing Activist Groups In The Name Of Environmental Justice

“EPA: Environmental Protection Agency Administrator Lee Zeldin announced the agency has found billions of taxpayer dollars parked at a financial institution by the Biden-Harris Administration. Administrator Zeldin is calling for termination of the financial agent agreement, and for the immediate return of the entire fund balance to the United States Treasury to ensure EPA oversight. Administrator Zeldin also announced that he will be referring this matter to the Office of the Inspector General (OIG) and Congress, and the agency will work with the U.S. Department of Justice.”

Washington Examiner: EPA looks to claw back $20B in ‘gold bars’ given to climate groups

“The Environmental Protection Agency is seeking to claw back around $20 billion in grant funding approved for climate projects under the Biden administration’s signature Inflation Reduction Act. 

“EPA administrator Lee Zeldin announced the move in a video shared on X on Wednesday evening, claiming the funds were “parked” at a financial institution under a ‘scheme’ to rush money to left-wing activist groups without oversight. The funding drew notice late last year when an EPA employee compared the funding to gold bars being thrown off the Titanic.  

“‘EPA needs to reassume responsibility for all of these funds. We will review every penny that has gone out the door. I will be referring this matter to the inspector general’s office, and we’ll work with the Justice Department as well,’ Zeldin said in the video. ‘The days of irresponsibly shoveling boatloads of cash to far-left activist groups in the name of environmental justice and climate equity are over.’” 

Washington Post: Trump’s EPA chief vows to claw back $20 billion in climate funding

“The Environmental Protection Agency will try to claw back $20 billion that the Biden administration approved for climate projects, EPA Administrator Lee Zeldin said in a social media post Wednesday...

“In a video posted to X on Wednesday evening, Zeldin said the EPA would terminate its contract with the bank overseeing the Greenhouse Gas Reduction Fund, a program established by former president Joe Biden’s signature 2022 climate law.

...

“The U.S. DOGE Service, billionaire Elon Musk’s initiative to slash the size of the federal government, also commended Zeldin on X for an ‘awesome job’ on saving taxpayer money.”

Washington Times: EPA clawing back more than $20 billion in Biden's last-minute spending on climate justice

“EPA Administrator Lee Zeldin said he’s working to retrieve billions of dollars the Biden administration frantically shoveled to green energy and climate justice projects in the months before President Trump took office.

“The money includes $20 billion that Biden officials deposited at Citibank, presumably to shield it from Trump administration officials…

“‘The days of irresponsibly shoveling boatloads of cash to far-left activist groups in the name of environmental justice and climate equity are over,’ Mr. Zeldin said.”

Last updated on February 15, 2025

[admin]

DOGE Is Hacking America: The U.S. government has experienced what may be the most consequential security breach in its history.
by Bruce Schneier, a security technologist and lecturer at the Harvard Kennedy School, and Davi Ottenheimer, the vice president of trust and digital ethics at Inrupt, a data infrastructure company.
Foreign Policy
February 11, 2025, 6:49 PM
https://foreignpolicy.com/2025/02/11/do ... -treasury/

NOTICE: THIS WORK MAY BE PROTECTED BY COPYRIGHT

YOU ARE REQUIRED TO READ THE COPYRIGHT NOTICE AT THIS LINK BEFORE YOU READ THE FOLLOWING WORK, THAT IS AVAILABLE SOLELY FOR PRIVATE STUDY, SCHOLARSHIP OR RESEARCH PURSUANT TO 17 U.S.C. SECTION 107 AND 108. IN THE EVENT THAT THE LIBRARY DETERMINES THAT UNLAWFUL COPYING OF THIS WORK HAS OCCURRED, THE LIBRARY HAS THE RIGHT TO BLOCK THE I.P. ADDRESS AT WHICH THE UNLAWFUL COPYING APPEARED TO HAVE OCCURRED. THANK YOU FOR RESPECTING THE RIGHTS OF COPYRIGHT OWNERS.

A security guard stands at the entrance to the U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID) headquarters on Feb. 3. Kevin Dietsch/Getty Images

In the span of just weeks, the US government has experienced what may be the most consequential security breach in its history—not through a sophisticated cyberattack or an act of foreign espionage, but through official orders by a billionaire with a poorly defined government role. And the implications for national security are profound.

First, it was reported that people associated with the newly created Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE) had accessed the US Treasury computer system, giving them the ability to collect data on and potentially control the department’s roughly $5.45 trillion in annual federal payments.

Then, we learned that uncleared DOGE personnel had gained access to classified data from the US Agency for International Development, possibly copying it onto their own systems. Next, the Office of Personnel Management—which holds detailed personal data on millions of federal employees, including those with security clearances—was compromised. After that, Medicaid and Medicare records were compromised.

Meanwhile, only partially redacted names of CIA employees were sent over an unclassified email account. DOGE personnel are also reported to be feeding Education Department data into artificial intelligence software, and they have also started working at the Department of Energy.

This story is moving very fast. On Feb. 8, a federal judge blocked the DOGE team from accessing the Treasury Department systems any further. But given that DOGE workers have already copied data and possibly installed and modified software, it’s unclear how this fixes anything.

In any case, breaches of other critical government systems are likely to follow unless federal employees stand firm on the protocols protecting national security.

The systems that DOGE is accessing are not esoteric pieces of our nation’s infrastructure—they are the sinews of government.

For example, the Treasury Department systems contain the technical blueprints for how the federal government moves money, while the Office of Personnel Management (OPM) network contains information on who and what organizations the government employs and contracts with.

What makes this situation unprecedented isn’t just the scope, but also the method of attack. Foreign adversaries typically spend years attempting to penetrate government systems such as these, using stealth to avoid being seen and carefully hiding any tells or tracks. The Chinese government’s 2015 breach of OPM was a significant US security failure, and it illustrated how personnel data could be used to identify intelligence officers and compromise national security.

In this case, external operators with limited experience and minimal oversight are doing their work in plain sight and under massive public scrutiny: gaining the highest levels of administrative access and making changes to the United States’ most sensitive networks, potentially introducing new security vulnerabilities in the process.

But the most alarming aspect isn’t just the access being granted. It’s the systematic dismantling of security measures that would detect and prevent misuse—including standard incident response protocols, auditing, and change-tracking mechanisms—by removing the career officials in charge of those security measures and replacing them with inexperienced operators.

The Treasury’s computer systems have such an impact on national security that they were designed with the same principle that guides nuclear launch protocols: No single person should have unlimited power. Just as launching a nuclear missile requires two separate officers turning their keys simultaneously, making changes to critical financial systems traditionally requires multiple authorized personnel working in concert.

This approach, known as “separation of duties,” isn’t just bureaucratic red tape; it’s a fundamental security principle as old as banking itself. When your local bank processes a large transfer, it requires two different employees to verify the transaction. When a company issues a major financial report, separate teams must review and approve it. These aren’t just formalities—they’re essential safeguards against corruption and error. These measures have been bypassed or ignored. It’s as if someone found a way to rob Fort Knox by simply declaring that the new official policy is to fire all the guards and allow unescorted visits to the vault.

The implications for national security are staggering. Sen. Ron Wyden said his office had learned that the attackers gained privileges that allow them to modify core programs in Treasury Department computers that verify federal payments, access encrypted keys that secure financial transactions, and alter audit logs that record system changes. Over at OPM, reports indicate that individuals associated with DOGE connected an unauthorized server into the network. They are also reportedly training AI software on all of this sensitive data.

This is much more critical than the initial unauthorized access. These new servers have unknown capabilities and configurations, and there’s no evidence that this new code has gone through any rigorous security testing protocols. The AIs being trained are certainly not secure enough for this kind of data. All are ideal targets for any adversary, foreign or domestic, also seeking access to federal data.

There’s a reason why every modification—hardware or software—to these systems goes through a complex planning process and includes sophisticated access-control mechanisms. The national security crisis is that these systems are now much more vulnerable to dangerous attacks at the same time that the legitimate system administrators trained to protect them have been locked out.

By modifying core systems, the attackers have not only compromised current operations, but have also left behind vulnerabilities that could be exploited in future attacks—giving adversaries such as Russia and China an unprecedented opportunity. These countries have long targeted these systems. And they don’t just want to gather intelligence—they also want to understand how to disrupt these systems in a crisis.

Now, the technical details of how these systems operate, their security protocols, and their vulnerabilities are now potentially exposed to unknown parties without any of the usual safeguards. Instead of having to breach heavily fortified digital walls, these parties can simply walk through doors that are being propped open—and then erase evidence of their actions.

The security implications span three critical areas.

First, system manipulation: External operators can now modify operations while also altering audit trails that would track their changes. Second, data exposure: Beyond accessing personal information and transaction records, these operators can copy entire system architectures and security configurations—in one case, the technical blueprint of the country’s federal payment infrastructure. Third, and most critically, is the issue of system control: These operators can alter core systems and authentication mechanisms while disabling the very tools designed to detect such changes. This is more than modifying operations; it is modifying the infrastructure that those operations use.

To address these vulnerabilities, three immediate steps are essential. First, unauthorized access must be revoked and proper authentication protocols restored. Next, comprehensive system monitoring and change management must be reinstated—which, given the difficulty of cleaning a compromised system, will likely require a complete system reset. Finally, thorough audits must be conducted of all system changes made during this period.

This is beyond politics—this is a matter of national security. Foreign national intelligence organizations will be quick to take advantage of both the chaos and the new insecurities to steal US data and install backdoors to allow for future access.

Each day of continued unrestricted access makes the eventual recovery more difficult and increases the risk of irreversible damage to these critical systems. While the full impact may take time to assess, these steps represent the minimum necessary actions to begin restoring system integrity and security protocols.

Assuming that anyone in the government still cares.

[admin]

'Reboot' Revealed: Elon Musk's CEO-Dictator Playbook: In 2022, one of Peter Thiel's favorite thinkers envisioned a second Trump Administration in which the federal government would be run by a “CEO”
by Gil Duran
05 Feb 2025
https://www.thenerdreich.com/reboot-elo ... ator-doge/


Contrary to scurrilous rumors that this newsletter is funded by billionaires, The Nerd Reich is brought to you by 78 (heroic) paid subscribers. If you have the means, and if you want this work to continue, please become a paid subscriber.

The Point: In 2022, one of Peter Thiel's favorite thinkers envisioned a second Trump Administration in which the federal government would be run by a “CEO” who was not Trump and laid out a playbook for how it might work. Elon Musk is following it.

The Back Story: In 2012, Curtis Yarvin — Peter Thiel’s “house philosopher”—called for something he dubbed RAGE: Retire All Government Employees. The idea: Take over the United States government and gut the federal bureaucracy. Then, replace civil servants with political loyalists who would answer to a CEO-type leader Yarvin likened to a dictator.

“If Americans want to change their government, they’re going to have to get over their dictator phobia,” he said.

Yarvin, a software programmer, framed this as a “reboot” of government.

Elon Musk’s DOGE is just a rebranded version of RAGE. He demands mass resignations, locks career employees out of their offices, threatens to delete entire departments, and seizes total control of sensitive government systems and programs. DOGE = RAGE, masked in the bland language of “efficiency.”

But Musk’s reliance on Yarvin’s playbook runs deeper.

In an essay dated April 2022, Yarvin updated RAGE to something he described as a “butterfly revolution.” In an essay on his paywalled Substack, he imagined a second Trump presidency in which Trump would enable a radical government transformation. The proposal will sound familiar to anyone who has watched Musk wreak havoc on the United States Government (USG) over the past three weeks.

Wrote Yarvin:

We’ve got to risk a full power start—a full reboot of the USG. We can only do this by giving absolute sovereignty to a single organization—with roughly the powers that the Allied occupation authorities held in Japan and Germany in the fall of 1945. This level of centralized emergency power worked to refound a nation then, for them. So it should work now, for us.”

(The metaphor of “full power start” comes from Star Trek and entails a risky process of restarting a fictional spaceship in a way that might cause “implosion.” The World War II metaphor casts the federal government as a conquered enemy now controlled by an outside force.)

Yarvin wrote that in a second term, Trump could appoint a different person to act as the nation’s “CEO.” This CEO would be enabled to run roughshod over the federal government, with Trump in the background as “chairman of the board.” The metaphors clarify the core idea: Run the government as a rogue corporation rather than a public institution beholden to the rules of democracy.

Trump himself will not be the brain …He will not be the CEO. He will be the chairman of the board—he will select the CEO (an experienced executive). This process, which obviously has to be televised, will be complete by his inauguration—at which the transition to the next regime will start immediately.

This CEO will bring a new radical new style of leadership to the federal government:

The CEO he picks will run the executive branch without any interference from the Congress or courts, probably also taking over state and local governments. Most existing important institutions, public and private, will be shut down and replaced with new and efficient systems. Trump will be monitoring this CEO’s performance, again on TV, and can fire him if need be.

Sound familiar?

Yarvin continues: Trump should amass an army of people willing to staff his new regime. Once he wins, this “magnificent army” of “ideologically trained” and Trump-loyal “ninjas” will be unleashed on the federal bureaucracy.

[H]e will throw it directly against the administrative state—not bothering with confirmed appointments, just using temporary appointments as needed. The job of this landing force is not to govern. It is to understand the government. It is to figure out what the Trump administration can actually do—when it assumes the full Constitutional powers given to the chief executive of the executive branch…

The regime must have the capacity to govern every institution it does not dismantle. The Trump regime is not a barbaric sack of America’s institutions. Genghis Khan is not in the building! It is a systematic renewal of America’s institutions. No brand or building can survive. But the new regime must perform the real functions of the old, and ideally perform them much better.

Many institutions which are necessary organs of society will have to be destroyed. These organs will have to be replaced. If they have not already been replaced in the larval stage, or even if they have, to scale—these replacements will need staff.

Government isn't the only target for this hostile takeover, wrote Yarvin:

Finally, it is not sufficient to have an army of parachute ninjas large or smart to drop into all the agencies in the executive branch. Many institutions of power are outside the government proper. Ninjas will have to land on the roofs of these buildings too—mainly journalism, academia and social media.

The new regime must seize all points of power, without respect for paper protections. Anything can be nationalized—so long as the new regime has the staff, the prize crew as it were, to nationalize it.

Yarvin envisioned a crew of experienced and educated government workers who would be recruited to staff the new regime. Musk appears to have different ideas. As Vittoria Elliott of Wired reports, Musk's chief lieutenants at DOGE (Destruction of Government by Elon) are very young men with no experience in government.

(Read "The Young, Inexperienced Engineers Aiding Elon Musk's Government Takeover," and please subscribe to Wired, which is doing excellent work.)

Yarvin is not alone in envisioning a massive purge of government. In 2021, J.D. Vance lauded Yarvin's work and called for a government purge:

I think that what Trump should do, if I was giving him one piece of advice: Fire every single midlevel bureaucrat, every civil servant in the administrative state, replace them with our people.

Like Yarvin, Vance compared the federal government to a conquered enemy:

De-Nazification, De-Baathification ... I tend to think that we should seize the institutions of the left. And turn them against the left. We need like a de-Baathification program, a de-woke-ification program.

He added that Trump should defy any court orders designed to stop his purge.

The idea of a massive purge also appears in the writings of Balaji Srinivasan, whose ideas seem primarily derived from Yarvin's. I've written much about Srinivasan in this newsletter, so I won't quote him at length here. But his core idea, which he clearly got from Yarvin, is a corporate takeover of governments, which will afterward be run like tech companies (specifically, Twitter). Just as Musk took over Twitter and stripped "Blue Checks" of their status, he will now defrock civil servants, experts, and anyone who is loyal to democracy instead of the current regime.

Of course, the plot to destroy the federal bureaucracy also has a partner in the far-right Heritage Foundation. Project 2025, which is clearly being implemented despite mocking Republican denials during the 2024 campaign, calls for a purging and dismantling of government as well. As the Association of Federal Government Employees warned last July:

What could happen to our government and the federal workforce in 2025? A group of conservative organizations have a plan, and it’s not good for federal employees.

The plan is detailed in a blueprint called Project 2025, organized by the far-right Heritage Foundation, and backed by over 100 conservative organizations.

The plan promises a takeover of our country’s system of checks and balances in order to “dismantle the administrative state” – the operations of federal agencies and programs according to current law and regulation, including many of the laws and regulations that govern federal employment.

Longtime readers may recall that back in September, the Heritage Foundation and particular San Francisco tech interests held a conference called "Reboot 2024: The New Reality."

The New Reality

Analysis: What once seemed like a fringe theory is now being carried out by the corporate powers that have wholly captured our government. While there are some minor differences between Yarvin's approach and Musk's, here's a summary of what they have in common:

1. Install a CEO Dictator

• Yarvin’s Blueprint: Trump appoints a CEO to run the country like a private corporation, bypassing Congress and the courts.

• Musk’s Moves: Acts as federal CEO, demands unilateral control over sensitive government programs, positioning himself as an unelected decision-maker as Trump stays in the background.

2. Purge the Bureaucracy

• Yarvin’s Plan: “Retire All Government Employees” (RAGE) – fire career civil servants and replace them with loyalists.

• Musk’s Moves: DOGE is gutting teams, demanding mass resignations, locking employees out of offices, and threatening mass layoffs in federal government. Meanwhile, DOGE is recruiting inexperienced young men who owe their loyalty to Musk/Thiel.

3. Build a Loyalist Army

• Yarvin’s Blueprint: Recruit an “ideologically trained” army to replace experts and enforce the new regime.

• Musk’s Moves: Surrounding himself with young, inexperienced loyalists who enforce his will without question. Project 2025 will also provide Republican cadre to run what's left of the federal government.

4. Dismantle Democratic Institutions

• Yarvin’s Blueprint: Strip power from federal agencies, courts, and Congress, centralizing authority under the executive branch.

• Musk’s Moves: Undermining the credibility of the federal government, downplaying legal oversight, and defying regulatory authorities. Dismantling government agencies and functions with no plan for their replacement.

5. Seize Media and Information Control to Maintain Power

• Yarvin’s Blueprint: Take over government, journalism, academia, and social media to control public narratives.

• Musk’s Moves: Buying Twitter, firing journalists, boosting propaganda, and promoting fringe narratives while attacking traditional media. Leading the hostile tech takeover as Trump’s “CEO.”

Did I miss anything?

Conclusion: There is a lot more to say. What surprises me most is how the political press generally fails to inform the public that Musk is taking a systematic approach, one that has been outlined in public forums for years. (Some press outlets, like the Washington Post and Los Angeles Times, are owned by billionaires keenly interested in kowtowing to Musk and Trump.)

We are witnessing the methodical implementation of a long-planned strategy to transform American democracy into corporate autocracy. The playbook was written in plain sight and is now being followed step by step. Some dismiss the Yarvins of the world as unhinged nuts, but that's the point. These guys, with their bizarre and dangerous ideas, have gotten very far in 2025. Just look at the news.

Yarvin pitched his vision as a fictional or unlikely scenario. Unfortunately, it now appears to be our new reality. The press's failure to connect these dots isn't just a journalistic oversight — it's a critical missed warning about the systematic dismantling of democratic governance. By the time most Americans understand what's happening, the "reboot" – the destruction of government – may already be complete.

Note: Journalists or academic researchers interested in getting full access to Yarvin's post can contact me directly.

[admin]

DOGE’s DUMBEST Firing Yet
by Sam Stein
The Bulwark
Feb 21, 2025 Bulwark Takes

Sam Stein talks to Andrew Egger about his article Inside DOGE’s Dumbest Cut Yet.



Transcript

[Sam Stein] Hey guys me Sam Stein managing Eder at
the bulwark here with Andrew Edgar
who is live on the CPAC floor there's
like a 55 to 65% chance his internet
goes out and then there's a 30% chance
that the j6 choir starts singing right
behind him uh so if that happens uh
that's great uh if the 5% chance is that
we get this done correctly so be it in
the meantime subscribe to the feed uh
Andrew first off before we get to your
story uh which is what we're here to
talk about about uh this inexplicably
dumb
Doge cuts at uh Los Alamos uh which uh
if you're worried about nuclear safety
not the best cuts to make before we do
that uh tell us what's CPAC like yeah so
uh so you know we're we're we're a small
outfit here at the bull workk you finish
up one story uh you go hering off to the
next one uh and then you know while
you're there you try to do the video
content for the last story for the
YouTube page uh I haven't even been in
yet I've just I'm I'm I'm kind of
outside of the exhibitor hall where all
of the Mega lifestyle Brands um you know
Hawk their Wares and and raise raise
awareness I've seen a lot of you know
interesting people walk by Hans Von
spakovsky of the Heritage Foundation you
know how it is at CPAC The Heavy Hitters
um guys like that uh but uh but yeah you
know we're gonna we're GNA do a day at
CPAC and and see how it is we were
supposed to do it yesterday but then
this story happened yeah okay so let's
talk about the story
um first of all uh I think the context
here is important which is doer has been
going around cutting basically
everything um a few key agencies that
they're supposedly getting to um and
then trying to figure out if they
up uh and often times they have and
they've had to bring people back uh on
board who they cut we knew uh prior to
today that they had done the same uh at
this nuclear safety agency what's the
name of the agency yeah it's the
national nuclear Security Administration
which is a a subset of the Department of
energy and they basically handle you
know a lot of the the nuclear um Safety
Management of our current nuclear
stockpile as well as a lot of the uh
well they're they're involved with a lot
of the manufacturer of new nuclear
components um both to refurbish uh the
nukes that we already have and to build
new ones all right so we knew that they
had made these cuts and we knew that
they had frantically tried to rehire a
lot of these people and their portrayal
of this this is the Doge folks their
portrayal of This was oh you know the
people we cut were not critical but we
you know so nothing was we were never
too much danger um there primarily
administrative people um but that wasn't
the case according to your reporting
tell us what the actual story yeah so
this is I mean this is kind of a
remarkable thing because because this
whole story kind of blew up last week
right where where everyone just realized
that there were these there had been
these cuts at this at this extremely
critical uh Sub sub uh uh agency of the
Department of agency semi- autonomous
agency within the department of of
energy um and uh and it was so obvious
so quickly uh that this had been a
problem that uh uh you know the
administration quickly backtracked and
quickly at the beginning of this week
sent uh sent you know rehire notices to
a lot of these people uh to to all to
nearly all of them almost all of them
and and and nearly all of the ones who
got those notices have come back on and
so kind of the narrative has been wow
that sure was a screw up um but at least
you know says the department of energy
it was really just kind of a handful of
sort of clerical and administrative
employees uh and and you know it's just
kind of a thing that happened in the
past and we're all kind of back to
normal now but I've been talking to to
you know a number of current and for
former officials at uh in NSSA for the
last couple of days and the picture that
they give is very different first of all
um they are are they find it kind of
like a bad joke this idea that these are
kind of low functioning or not low
functioning but low-level uh kind of
clerical pencil pushing employees it's
kind of true in the sense that their
whole role at these nuclear manufacturer
sites like Los Alamos in New Mexico is
Administrative these are sites that are
um essentially all of the on the ground
stuff is done not by government
employees at all it's done by
independent contractors but they are
they are the eyes and ears of the
federal government at those sites to
direct the work and to um you know
ensure that it's it's always in
accordance with all federal you know
safety uh standards all just kind of
operational uh standards and just you
know make sure they're doing the what
the Department of Defense wants them to
be doing essentially with the energy
wants them mo doing as well um and so uh
when these Cuts came through as they
have at many agencies they essentially
hit everybody who was probationary and
in fact it was a little bit um you know
more we don't need to get into it but a
little bit more chaotic even than that
there were some people who who weren't
even like really probationary according
to the sense that it's actually legal to
fire them they were they were kind of
thought of as probationary they got on
lists for different reasons but the the
most striking of all of these people and
just to kind of give you a sense of it
is that uh the the acting chief of uh
defense nuclear safety at the entire
agency is a guy named James Todd he was
one of the people who found himself
locked out of his systems at the end of
last week when all these purges went
through now there it's a little unclear
and just let me say that again this is
the top authority at the entire National
nuclear Security Administration the top
authority for everything related to
nuclear safety at that agency so this a
kind of an important guy right it's a
little unclear because there's so much
fog of war with all this whether he was
ever like quote unquote supposed to be
one of these guys who was fired um and
and and and you get into like what does
supposed to be even mean like none of
it's really supposed to be happening
there's no no real sense of that any
it's legal it's just these guys who are
going around like slashing and burning
and he was one of the guys who got
slashed and burned right he was one of
the guys who got locked out of the
system who was then kind of very
hurridly brought back at the beginning
of this week he's not somebody who
talked to me for the story um but but I
think like that that he was um you know
one of the people involved is is really
really a striking thing hey YouTube fam
if you want to support the bull workk
the best way to do it is by becoming a
Youtube Bull workor plus member the bull
workk is truly independent we have no
corporate overlords we're not settling
any dumb lawsuits with Trump by joining
you help support our work and you can
get a bunch of perks right here on this
platform ad free content bonus videos
live streams and some emojis of me which
I guess some people want so come join
come hang out become a bullwark YouTube
plus member and I'll be seeing you in
the comments so behave what kind of
panic did it send throughout the agency
uh when they saw that James Todd and
others at Le relatively similar levels
had been locked out well what's what's
crazy is I mean I I I mentioned the word
fog like the term fog of War a minute
ago a lot of people didn't even really
know who all had been locked out because
there were no like kind of you know
agency-wide um you know announcements
about all who all had and had not gotten
the The Descent people kind of knew who
the probationary employees were right um
the ones who you know were the were the
legitimate probationary employees the
the the new people who had been there
for less than a year um but so so they
kind of had a sense going in who was
likely to get the AE but there was there
was never any kind of um you know
sitewide notice or agency wide notice
and and you know when the people would
get the AE they'd immediately be locked
out of systems and then they couldn't
communicate right it's and it became you
know it was it was hard to know who all
was who but but but uh I mean even even
even among kind of the the quote unquote
normal probationary employees there's
still like a bunch of people who are
like incredibly Mission critical staff
at these different field offices and I
zoomed in on the field office at Los
Alamos um the sit's emergency
preparedness manager was a probationary
employee guy who maintains plans to
minimize the effects of a nuclear
accident on site their radiation
protection manager was a probationary
employee the security manager the fire
prot the fire protection engineer two of
their facility Representatives who are
kind of like onsite um you know
supervisors of the contract and and kind
of eyes and ears for for the agency like
on the floor there um and and uh and
these are all people who just like kind
of were kind of like in a horror movie
just sort of snatched up by the by the
beast at the end of last week um by the
Doge yeah and with very little warning
by the way because I I should also say
this that that you know their kind of
understanding as early as the beginning
of last week uh their their assumption I
should say was that they were not going
to be affected by by these Cuts because
a lot of um a lot of it's all been very
foggy keep saying this because this is
true across the federal government but
but one keep saying yeah but but one big
one big thing in all this is that in
theory like uh immigration enforcement
law enforcement National Security
officials uh are not sub uh uh subject
to a lot of this stuff at least
according to the initial executive order
so they kind of all thought well you
know we're unbelievably important uh
nuclear safety workers we'll probably be
fine so let's talk about that for a
second because Los alos National
Laboratory it is the development site
for the first ever nuclear bomb
obviously it still conducts research
today uh they have storage of nuclear
plutonium pits as I've understand it um
so it's a serious Place obviously they
actually manufacture those plutonium
Pits on site at that laboratory and
they're the only laboratory that does it
got you so um I guess my my qu it's not
question like if you this is the type of
thing where if you sort of
knew about the subject matter a bit more
or if you knew how government operated
in this field a bit more
if you had taken some time rather than a
couple weeks to just sort of go through
the probationary employees and slash
them all away you might have been like
ooh that's not a good idea like we can't
just you know find people to like fill
in here uh because this is a highly
technical highly specialized line of
work that also happens to be in the
middle of nowhere New Mexico um
but that wasn't what happened there's no
indication that any research or homework
or Outreach was done in advance
to figure out who would be the best
people if you had to cut to cut from
this agency at least that's my R of it
is that your R of it AB absolutely
especially as this thing that happened
last week now they are there's a lot of
kind of fear and anxiety among the
workforce right now that such uh kind of
more detailed Force reduction could
still be coming down the pipe where they
they try to do go where where they do
try to go with a little bit more of a
scalpel the problem is that this we're
talking about field Offices here and
again I just zoomed in on the one at Los
Alamos um but but field offices that are
already working kind of significantly
below uh capacity I mean like this is
this is an office that that has a a 95
uh uh uh or sorry 97 is the number of of
uh employees that are authorized by
Congress and funded to be working there
the going into this year the number they
actually had working there was 85
because it like like you mentioned it's
just hard to hire like insanely
qualified post do postdoctoral you know
officials to move out to the middle of
nowhere in New Mexico and commute an
hour through the desert to get to this
like highly classified facility you
can't bring your smartphone into and you
know you know what I mean like it's it's
a tough sell to get people there in the
first place and what they've been doing
as they've been going through these
agencies is not only a hiring freeze on
all new civilian uh uh staff or staff
positions but also you know when when
they've gone through and had people take
the buyouts or or gone through with
these Doge purges they've just
eliminated all of the positions as the
person goes out the door and it's like
it's like this insane Kafkaesque thing
where like you I mean like the the the
top guy there like imagine if that if
that had stayed there what you're just
not going to have like a a head of
safety for nuclear stuff at the nuclear
safety agency
anymore yeah um so it's I mean it's you
move fast and you break things and you
have a little nuclear drip that's just
what you so that's what I mean just
let's see what happens it's really kind
of hard to to even communicate just how
sort of Crest Fallen and and unsettled
and bemused all of these all of these
employees are who you know they have now
been restored to their jobs but they
don't know that future Cuts aren't
coming they they are like kind of newly
incentivized to maybe just get out the
door themselves you know there's there
have been people who have made comments
to other outlets that okay well you know
I wasn't planning on retiring but now
maybe that is going to be the best move
for me and my career in the future and
and and I think the other thing that's
so important to emphasize and this is a
thing that that these employees talked a
lot about was just
it's not I mean like you you're talking
about some of the most kind of like
highly specialized technical work uh
like that you could picture anywhere
they don't there are no like kind of
classes uh that you can take in college
to kind of like prepare you to hit the
ground running when they hire you to
handle nuclear waste or to do nuclear
security I mean one guy one guy I said
with you go ahead hold on
speak for yourself this is my side
Pursuit I have the I have the capacity
to fill in if they need yeah you gota
watch out look we got to run you got to
run let me say one other thing was one
of these guys said if you try to if you
try to you know teach yourself about
some of this stuff you know prior to
coming to the agency that's how you get
yourself on the list you know so it's
like uh so the the the worry the worry
is brain train right the worry is that
you you're kicking these people out
they're the only person knows how to do
it you can't bring anybody in and then
you know it's just all awful forever so
that's that's exciting that's the that's
the whole thing and now I'll let you go
Sam I know you have plac to well we'll
have that we'll have that to look
forward to for sure uh all right Andrew
go back to your crappy Wi-Fi and your
CPAC experience eager to see what you
have uh for folks who want to read the
full piece it's up on the uh site but
also you should subscribe frankly to
morning shots it's called inside Do's
dumbest cut yet Andrew thanks a bunch
man really appreciate it