DOGE shuts down "illegal" Payments to Lutheran Family Services February 2, 2025
Elon Musk @elonmusk
The @DOGE team is rapidly shutting down these illegal payments
General Mike Flynn @GenFlynn Now it's the "Lutheran" faith (this use of "religion" as a money laundering operation must end):
Lutheran Family Services and affiliated organizations receive massive amounts of taxpayer dollars, and the numbers speak for themselves. These funds, total BILLIONS of American taxpayer dollars.
Here are just a few of the recent grants awarded (pre @RobertKennedyJr) by the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS):
LUTHERAN IMMIGRATION AND REFUGEE SERVICE INC: $367,612,906 LUTHERAN SOCIAL SERVICES OF THE SOUTH, INC: $134,190,472.95 LUTHERAN SERVICES FLORIDA, INC.: $82,937,819.95
There are MANY more organizations cashing in on our hard-earned money. These entities are receiving huge sums, which raise serious questions about how taxpayer funds are being spent and who’s benefiting.
It’s time to hold these organizations accountable. American taxpayers deserve transparency. Enough is enough!
And there is much more where these screen shots below came from.
Hundreds protest the Trump administrations aggressive moves to reshape the American government and American society at City Hall in Los Angeles, Calif., joining thousands in front of state capitals across the United States, on Wednesday. Protesters denounced his comments on a U.S. "take over" of Gaza, his immigration crackdown, anti-trans orders and Elon Musk's role in the White House. Photo by Jim Ruymen/UPI.
Feb. 6 (UPI) -- Representatives of Elon Musk's new federal agency have access to payments and contracting information from the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services, which oversees the healthcare coverage to more than one third of Americans.
Musk, who is worth around half a trillion dollars, was appointed by President Donald Trump to head the Department of Government Efficiency shortly after he won the Nov. 5 election.
"CMS has two senior Agency veterans -- one focused on policy and one focused on operations -- who are leading the collaboration with DOGE, including ensuring appropriate access to CMS systems and technology," CMS said in a statement Wednesday to media sites, including CNN and USA Today. "We are taking a thoughtful approach to see where there may be opportunities for more effective and efficient use of resources in line with meeting the goals of President Trump."
Government outlays, including waste
Musk said Wednesday that he believes CMS is rife with problems.
"Yeah, this is where the big money fraud is happening," he said on X, which he owns.
More than $100 billion in improper Medicare and Medicaid payments were made in 2023, according to the U.S. Government Accountability Office. The $51.5 billion with Medicare and $21 billion with Medicaid represent 43% of all improper payments in the government.
The Wall Street Journal story first reported DOGE's work at the agency with access to payment and contracting systems but it has not yet received access to databases containing identifiable health information about Medicare and Medicaid enrollees.
The agency disbursed $1.5 trillion in outlays in fiscal year 2024, about 22% of total federal spending. Musk has vowed to cut between $1 trillion and $2 trillion from the federal budget. Much of that budget is for Social Security, Medicaid, military and debt payments.
Medicare, the federal health program for adults 65 and over and the disabled, has about 66 million people while Medicaid and the Children's Health Insurance Program covers nearly 80 million. About 12 million receive Medicare and Medicare.
Trump has nominated Robert F. Kennedy Jr. to head the Department of Health and Human Services and Dr. Mehmet Oz, a former famous television host, to lead CMS. They haven't been confirmed by the U.S. Senate yet.
DOGE
Despite its name, DOGE is not a federal department but a Temporary Organization to be terminated July 4, 2026.
Since it was formed by Trump via a Jan. 20 executive order, it has attracted much controversy, criticism and litigation.
Musk's agency has access to systems at the Treasury Department and the U.S. Agency for International Development. Musk has said that "suspicious transactions" would be paused for review, but both CNN and CBS, citing Treasury officials, report that DOGE only has "read-only" access to the Treasury system.
It has been sued by federal employee unions over its access to the Treasury as well as over its formation, while several lawsuits state violated the Federal Advisory Committee Act, which establishes protections to prevent advisory committees from being inaccessible to the public, biased and partial.
It has received staunch Democratic pushback over its effective shuttering of the U.S. Agency for International Development.
Senate minority leader Chuck Schumer, D-N.Y., has described the organization as "an unelected shadow government" that is "conducting a hostile takeover of the government.
Protests
On Wednesday, protests were staged across the country against Trump's rule of the government by executive order and Musk's involvement as an unelected official.
In Los Angeles, UPI photographed protesters at City Hall waving signs calling for Musk to be arrested and deported. Other signs accused him of having "hijacked" the U.S. government.
"No one elected Elon Musk," one states. "Elon Musk is a terrible president," states another.
Musk's money from government
In 2024, Musk's SpaceX received at least $3.8 billion in government contracts, USA Today reported.
And his Tesla electric motor and clean energy company has received at least $2.8 billion in federal, state and local grants and tax credits since 2009, according to Good Jobs First.
Japan Airlines plane collides with Delta jet at Seattle airport: The incident comes a week after an American Eagle regional jet collided with an Army Black Hawk helicopter over the Potomac River near Washington D.C. by Michelle Del Rey in Washington D.C. Independent Thursday 06 February 2025 02:32 GMT
The Federal Aviation Administration is investigating after a Japan Airlines flight hit a Delta Airlines plane as the aircraft were taxiing at the Seattle-Tacoma International Airport Wednesday.
The strike happened around 10:40 a.m. in an area that is not under air traffic control, according to the agency. The Delta plane’s wing tip was struck by the Japan Airlines aircraft. The Delta flight was heading to Puerto Vallarta, Mexico with 142 customers on board. The customers deplaned and later boarded another plane to their final destination.
The airport worked with both airlines to deplane passengers and bring them to the terminal. Incoming flights were temporarily paused due to the incident. No one was injured.
“We apologize for the experience and delay in travels,” Delta said in a statement.
The FAA announced it is investigating the incident, while the National Transportation Safety Board said it was aware of the incident and is monitoring the situation.
The Independent has emailed Japan Airlines for comment.
The incident comes a week after an American Eagle regional jet collided with an Army Black Hawk helicopter over the Potomac River near Washington D.C., killing 67 people. Three soldiers were on the helicopter and 64 people were on the plane.
The soldiers were involved in a training session, officials said after the collision. There are no definitive answers as to what may have caused the crash but investigators suspect the helicopter was flying higher than its allowed 200 feet altitude.
Preliminary data shows the Black Hawk was flying at an altitude of 325 feet when it was struck by the helicopter.
A few days later, a medical transport plane crashed in Philadelphia, killing six people on board. The aircraft was heading to Springfield, Missouri with 11-year-old Valentina Guzmán Murillol, her mother, Lizeth Murillo Osuna and four crew members. The child just underwent treatment at Shriners Children’s Philadelphia hospital. It’s not yet known what led to that crash either.
In an X post on Wednesday, Elon Musk announced his intentions to “make rapid upgrades to the air traffic control system.” Days earlier, the FAA’s primary aircraft safety notification system failed for several hours, the Tesla CEO claimed.
Musk, who heads the Department of Government Efficiency as a “special government employee,” said his team would be working on the matter.
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA
JOHN AND JANE DOES 1-9 Employees/Agents of the Federal Bureau of Investigations, on behalf of themselves and those similarly situated,
Plaintiffs,
v.
DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE; James McHenry, Acting Attorney General of the United States,
Defendant.
Case 1:25-cv-00325
CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT
JURY TRIAL DEMANDED
CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT
Comes now Plaintiffs, John and Jane Does 1-9 (hereinafter “Plaintiffs”) on behalf of themselves and all similarly situated current and former agents and/or employees of the Federal Bureau of Investigations (hereinafter “FBI”), by and through undersigned counsel, with their Class Action Complaint for Injunctive Relief, and state as follows:
INTRODUCTION
Plaintiffs are currently employed agents and/or employees of the FBI, who, during the course of their duties worked on, or participated in the investigation of persons suspected of criminal activity related to the January 6, 2021, attack on the United States Capitol building ( “the Jan. 6 attack” or “Jan. 6 cases”) at the behest of Donald Trump, and/or the unlawful removal, retention and storage of classified documents by Mr. Trump (hereinafter “Mar-a-Lago case”). Upon returning to the Presidency, Mr. Trump has ordered the DOJ to conduct a review and purge of FBI personnel involved in these investigations and prosecutions. This directive is unlawful and retaliatory, and violates the Civil Service Reform Act 5 U.S.C. §§2301 and 2303.
Additionally, on or about February 2, 2025, Plaintiffs were instructed to fill out a survey that would identify their specific role in the Jan. 6 and Mar-a-Lago cases. Some Plaintiffs were required to fill out the survey themselves, others were told that their supervisors would be filling out the form. Plaintiffs were informed that the aggregated information is going to be forwarded to upper management. Plaintiffs assert that the purpose for this list is to identify agents to be terminated or to suffer other adverse employment action. Plaintiffs reasonably fear that all or parts of this list might be published by allies of President Trump, thus placing themselves and their families in immediate danger of retribution by the now pardoned and at-large Jan. 6 convicted felons. Defendant’s gathering, retention, and disclosure of Plaintiffs’ activities related the acts of former President Trump is a violation of Plaintiffs’ rights under the First Amendments to the Constitution. It is also a violation of Plaintiffs’ Fifth Amendment substantive and due process rights, such that the Court has the authority to enjoin the serious harm it is likely to cause. Moreover, the publication or dissemination of the information in these surveys would be a violation of the Privacy Act of 1974, 5 U.S.C. §552a, and would place Plaintiffs in immediate risk of serious harm. Accordingly, Plaintiffs seek to enjoin the publication or dissemination of these surveys, or any information derived therefrom.
THE PARTIES
1. Plaintiffs are employees of the FBI who worked on Jan. 6 and/or Mar-a-Lago cases, and who have been informed that they are likely to be terminated in the very near future (the week of February 3-9, 2025) for such activity. They intend to represent a class of at least 6,000 current and former FBI agents and employees who participated in some manner in the investigation and prosecution of crimes and abuses of power by Donald Trump, or by those acting at his behest.
2. Defendant is the current Acting Attorney General of the United States, and the person authorized and tasked with enacting the political will of President Trump.
3. The Federal Bureau of Investigations is an agency under the control of the Department of Justice, with its headquarters located at 935 Pennsylvania Avenue NW, Washington, DC 20535. All essential personnel decisions and employment records are housed at the FBI headquarters.
JURISDICTION
4. Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1331, this Court enjoys jurisdiction over this matter because Plaintiffs assert claims under the laws of the United States. This Court also has jurisdiction over this matter because the Defendant is an agency of the United States. See 28 U.S.C. § 1346.
5. Defendant waived sovereign immunity because the Privacy Act allows for damages against the United States.
6. Sovereign immunity for declaratory relief is waived by 5 U.S.C.§ 702, and by the fact that Plaintiffs assert claims pursuant to the Constitution of the United States.
7. Plaintiffs are not seeking any universally applicable are national remedy or injunction. Rather they seek injunctive relief only for themselves and the members of the putative Class that are parties before this Court.
FACTS APPLICABLE TO ALL PLAINTIFFS
8. The FBI investigates a variety of crimes, including terrorism, cybercrime, white collar crimes, and public corruption.
9. The FBI collects, analyzes, and shares intelligence to understand and combat security threats.
10. Additionally, the FBI provides services like fingerprint identification, laboratory examinations, and training.
11. The FBI protects the United States from foreign intelligence, espionage, and cyber operations, and combats cyber-based attacks and high-technology crimes.
12. The FBI is part of the Department of Justice, and reports its investigations to the attorney general and United States attorneys' offices. It is impossible to overstate the importance of the FBI’s work to the security of the United States.
13. FBI agents are chosen through a highly selective process, and are carefully screened for aptitude and trustworthiness.
14. FBI agents go through more than four months of intensive training at the FBI academy before beginning their duties, and attend numerous training sessions throughout their careers to adapt to new technologies and emerging threats.
15. Many FBI agents are multi-lingual and routinely interface with intelligence agencies from allied nations.
16. The training FBI agents receive is comprehensive, and in some instances, extremely expensive.
17. On information and belief, Plaintiffs assert that each agent of the FBI receives more than 3 million dollars-worth of training in a twenty (20) year career.
18. FBI agents also develop specific expertise from their assignments and field duties, much of which cannot be replicated solely by training.
19. FBI agents often face threats to their personal safety, at times going under cover and/or working in extremely dangerous areas to obtain information necessary to secure the interests of the United States.
20. FBI agents are tasked by their chain and command and leadership team, and are not free to refuse assignments based on their political or personal preferences.
21. Plaintiffs’ tasks routinely involved, inter alia, reviewing video evidence, interviewing witnesses, executing search and arrest warrants, interfacing with confidential informants, reviewing and analyzing cyber communications, investigating financial transactions and other activities for the purpose of identifying persons engaged in unlawful conduct, and assisting in the prosecution of said persons, and/or providing support for such activities.
22. On or about January 6, 2021, a protest led by Donald Trump took place at the ellipse in front of the United States Capitol building, which erupted into violence.
23. Hundreds of rioters (“Jan. 6 Rioters”) forcefully breached the Capitol building, ignoring the directions of both Capitol Police and Police Officers of the Washington DC Metropolitan Police Department ( “MPD”).
24. Rioters violently attacked law enforcement officers causing one fatality and hundreds of injuries. To date, five (5) police officers have died as a result of what transpired during the Jan. 6 attack.
25. Additionally, Jan 6 Rioters vandalized the halls of Congress, unlawfully entered into secured areas of the Capitol building, and threatened the lives of members of Congress and the Vice President of the United States.
26. Over the four years that followed the Jan. 6 attack, Plaintiffs worked diligently to bring to justice the persons who had engaged in illegal activity related to the incitement, planning, preparation and execution of the Jan. 6 attack, resulting in the successful prosecution of more than 1,500 people.
27. A recurring theme in the trials of the Jan. 6 Defendants is that they appeared at the Capitol, and engaged in violent action at the urging and direct request of Donald Trump.
28. It is also undisputed that while Donald Trump was keenly aware of the violence taking place at the Capitol on that day, for hours he did nothing to intercede or persuade the Jan. 6 Rioters to cease their activity.
29. Information obtained during the investigation of the Jan. 6 attack also established that Mr. Trump was an active participant in the planning of the attack on the Capitol, and of the coordinated effort by some members of Congress to evade certification of the election results.
30. Plaintiffs assert that the ultimate goal of both the Jan. 6 attack and the efforts in Congress by allies of Donald Trump was to block the peaceful transition of power to the winner of the 2020 Presidential Election, Joe Biden.
31. As a result of the work of Plaintiffs and other members of the putative Class, Special Counsel Jack Smith ( “SC Smith”) achieved a Grand Jury indictment of Donald Trump which was in the process of being litigated when the 2024 Presidential Election took place.
32. Also, as a result of the work of Plaintiffs and the putative Class, SC Smith was able to secure a Grand Jury indictment of Mr. Trump for the unlawful removal, retention and storage of classified documents at Mar-a-Lago.
33. During his campaign for office, Mr. Trump repeatedly stated that he would personify “the vengeance” or “the retribution,” for those whom he called “political hostages,” for their actions during the Jan. 6 attack.
34. On or about November 9, 2024, Donald Trump was reelected President. On or about January 20, 2024, Mr. Trump was inaugurated.
35. Shortly after his inauguration, DOJ terminated all of the attorneys who prosecuted Jan. 6 cases.
36. These terminations were directed by Mr. Trump. They were politically motivated and unlawful, and were precisely the kind of retribution promised by Mr. Trump.
37. On or about February 1, 2025, Plaintiffs learned that a similar purge of personnel was being contemplated for the FBI.
38. On or about February 2, 2025, during a teleconference with many agents and several managers, some of the Plaintiffs were informed that they would be required to fill out a survey about their activities related to the Jan. 6 cases. See EXHIBIT 1.
39. As can be seen in EXHIBIT 1, the information supplied would be retrievable by the employees name and email address, or by other identifying information such as an employee number.
40. During this teleconference, Plaintiffs were informed that the order to fill out the survey was a lawful order according to the DOJ Office of General Counsel.
41. Plaintiffs assert that the specific purpose of this survey is to identify agents and other FBI personnel to be terminated as a form of politically motivated retribution.
42. Moreover, Plaintiffs have been informed that some of their personal information has already been posted by Jan. 6 convicted felons on “dark websites” (aka the “dark web”), and are particularly concerned about further publication of their personal information.
43. Plaintiffs assert that the very act of compiling lists of persons who worked on matters that upset Donald Trump is retaliatory in nature, intended to intimidate FBI agents and other personnel, and to discourage them from reporting any future malfeasance and by Donald Trump and his agents.
44. It has been widely reported that Elon Musk and persons working with him have recently attempted to access government databases that house personal information, without regard to security protocols, and without a legitimate business purpose.
45. Plaintiffs legitimately fear that the information being compiled will be accessed by persons who are not authorized to have access to it, and who lack the requisite security clearances to handle such information.
46. Plaintiffs further assert that even if they are not targeted for termination, they may face other retaliatory acts such as demotion, denial of job opportunities or denial of promotions in the future.
CLASS ACTION ALLEGATIONS
47. Plaintiffs bring this action on behalf of:
All FBI personnel for whom a survey was requested and/or completed by the Trump administration that identifies their specific role in the Jan. 6 and Mar-a-Lago cases.
48. Class certification is appropriate under Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(a), (b)(1) and (b)(2), and alternatively, (b)(3).
49. The Class satisfies the numerosity requirement because it is composed of at least 6,000 current and former FBI agents and employees. The number of class members is so large that joinder of all its members is impracticable.
50. Common questions of law and fact include:
A. Whether the survey requested by Defendant is collecting information to determine which FBI agents and other personnel worked on the Jan. 6 and Mar-a-Lago cases;
B. Whether the survey requested by Defendant is collecting information to catalogue FBI agents and other personnel for eventual termination;
C. Whether the survey requested by Defendant is collecting information to catalogue FBI agents for eventual other adverse employment actions;
D. Whether it is lawful for Defendant to collect the names, specific roles and other information requested in the survey for purposes of termination or other adverse employment actions.
E. Whether Defendant’s motivation in gather information about Plaintiffs’ activities is to target them for discrimination based on their real or perceived political affiliation.
F. Whether the collection of the survey’s information will result in Plaintiffs and the Class suffering irreparable harm.
G. Whether publication or dissemination of information gathered by the survey would cause Plaintiffs irreparable harm.
H. Whether the information gathered by the survey and stored by the FBI constitutes a “system of records” as Defined by the Privacy Act.
I. Whether all Plaintiffs have First and Fifth Amendment rights that would be violated if Defendant were to disclose the information gathered by the survey.
J. Whether all Plaintiffs’ First and Fifth Amendment rights would be violated should Defendant use the information gathered to retaliate against Plaintiffs.
51. Plaintiffs are typical of the claims of the Class because they are subject to the same decision and motivation, derived directly from the AG, and will all be made whole by the injunctive relief requested in this Class Complaint. Further, they have no interests that are antagonistic to the claims of the Class. They understand that this matter cannot be settled without the Court’s approval.
52. Plaintiffs will fairly and adequately protect the interests of the Class. Plaintiffs are committed to the vigorous representation of the Class. Plaintiffs have hired adequate counsel in the Center for Employment Justice, whose lawyers collectively have decades of experience in litigating complex class actions.
53. Plaintiffs’ counsel have agreed to advance the cost of the litigation contingent on the outcome of this case, and understand that no fee will be awarded without the Court’s approval.
54. A class action is the superior method for the fair and efficient adjudication of this controversy. Joinder of all members of the class is impracticable, as the Plaintiff are located all over the country, and would require substantial and costly duplication of effort. Individual proceedings, therefore, would pose the risk of inconsistent adjudications. Plaintiffs are unaware of any difficulty in the management of this action as a class action.
55. This Class may be certified under Rule 23(b).
A. 23(b)(1). Prosecution of separate actions by individual members would create the risk of (A) inconsistent or varying adjudications with respect to individual class members that would establish incompatible standards of conduct for the Defendants, or (B) adjudications with respect to individual class members would, as a practical matter, be dispositive of the interests of the other members not parties to the adjudication or substantially impair or impede their ability to protect their interests;
B. 23(b)(2). The party opposing the Class has acted on grounds that apply generally to the class, so that final injunctive relief or corresponding declaratory relief is appropriate respecting the Class as a whole; or in the alternative
C. 23(b)(3). This action is suitable to proceed as a class action under 23(b)(3) because questions of law and fact common to the members of the Class predominate over individual questions, and a class action is superior to other available methods for the fair and efficient adjudication of this controversy. Given the nature of the allegations, no class member has an interest in individually controlling the prosecution of this matter.
CLAIMS FOR RELIEF
COUNT I
(Violation of the First Amendment to the Constitution—Retaliation Based on Perceived Political Affiliation)
56. Plaintiffs incorporate all of the allegations in the previous paragraphs as if fully restated herein.
57. Government employees are protected by the First Amendment from discrimination or retaliation based on their political beliefs or affiliation, or the perception thereof.
58. On or about February 2, 2025, Plaintiffs were asked to self-report their activities on the Jan. 6 and Mar-a-Lago cases, or were told their managers would be providing such information to Trump administration officials.
59. Plaintiffs were informed that the aggregated list of all Jan. 6 and Mar-a-Lago FBI agents and other personnel is going to be forwarded to senior members in Donald Trump’s administration.
60. On or about January 31, 2025, DOJ summarily terminated all of the attorneys who prosecuted Jan. 6 and Mar-a-Lago cases precisely because of the Trump administration’s perception of those attorneys’ political loyalties.
61. Plaintiffs reasonably believe and fear that the information gathered in the survey will also be used to target them for retaliatory discharge due to the Trump administration’s perception of their loyalties.
62. Donald Trump has made repeated public pronouncements of his intent to exact revenge upon persons he perceives to be disloyal to him by simply executing their duties in investigating acts incited by him and persons loyal to him.
63. Whatever the Trump administration believes about Plaintiffs’ political affiliation, it clearly believes that persons who were involved in the investigation and prosecution of Jan. 6 and Mar-a-Lago cases are insufficiently politically affiliated with Donald Trump to be entitled to retain their employment.
64. Plaintiffs assert that there is no other legitimate agency purpose for this list to be created or to exist. The FBI has sufficient information in other forms to identify the work of FBI agents, and to either laud or discipline them for their work performance.
65. Plaintiffs assert that there is a real and material risk that the list itself, or parts thereof, will be shared with or leaked to persons or entities that harbor ill will towards the agents and other personnel involved in Jan. 6 and Mar-a-Lago cases.
66. Should this information fall into the wrong hands, Plaintiffs would be placed at immediate risk of serious personal harm and harm to their loved ones.
67. Should this information fall into the wrong hands, Plaintiffs would likely suffer measurable pecuniary damages such as loss of property, loss of income and damage to reputation.
68. Should this information fall into the wrong hands, the national security of the Unite States would be severely compromised.
69. Plaintiffs emphasize that they work or worked on a wide variety of threats to the United States, originating both domestically and from abroad, and that the list of persons who would wish harm upon them for the execution of their duties is vast.
70. Plaintiffs therefore respectfully seek immediate relief to enjoin the aggregation, storage, reporting, publication or dissemination of any list or compilation of information that would identify FBI agents and other personnel, and tie them directly to Jan. 6 and Mar-a-Lago case activities.
COUNT II
(Violation of the Fifth Amendment to the Constitution – Violation of Plaintiffs’ Substantive and Procedural Due Process Rights)
71. Plaintiffs incorporate all of the allegations in the previous paragraphs as if fully restated herein.
72. The Fifth Amendment to the Constitution protects against harms to a person’s reputation caused by government actors, often referred to as “reputation plus” and “stigma plus” harms.
73. Plaintiffs have a clearly defined interest in the maintenance of their reputations as professionals, acquired over years of faithful service to the United States.
74. Here, the potential of publication of information related to their work on Jan. 6 and Mar-a-Lago cases is an imminent threat to both their reputations, and to their prospects for either continued or future employment.
75. Moreover, Defendant has already harmed Plaintiffs’ reputation by publicly stating and implying that their work on Jan. 6 and/or Mar-a-Lago cases was somehow wrongful, dishonest, politically motivated or improper.
76. Not only would the publication of Plaintiffs’ names or other identifying information harm their safety and reputations, but it would also burden their ability to find future employment with any entity with an interest in maintaining positive relationships with the Trump administration.
77. The survey that Plaintiffs are being asked to submit does not afford them any opportunity to defend their honor or reputation, and does not give them an opportunity to challenge any perceptions regarding the propriety of their actions.
78. As such, Defendant violates Plaintiffs’ substantive and procedural due process rights by forcing them to fill out a survey that places them at risk for severe, underserved reputational damage without the opportunity to be fully heard and to respond regarding the same.
COUNT III
(Violation of the Plaintiffs’ Fifth Amendment Right to Privacy)
79. Plaintiffs incorporate all of the allegations in the previous paragraphs as if fully restated herein.
80. The Fifth Amendment requires Defendant to balance the constitutional privacy rights of federal officers against purported public interest in their activities.
81. Plaintiffs assert that the public does not have an interest in the specific investigative, administrative and law enforcement tasks of FBI agents and employees, particularly not with respect to matters that could still be active or litigated in the future.
82. Plaintiffs assert that any publication, dissemination, or transmission of the information gathered in the survey would violate their Fifth Amendment right to privacy.
83. Plaintiffs assert that there is a real and material risk that the list itself, or parts thereof, will be shared with or leaked to persons or entities that harbor ill will towards the agents and other personnel involved in Jan. 6 and Mar-a-Lago cases.
84. Not only would the convicted felons Plaintiffs assisted to prosecute who are now at large have a keen interest in obtaining the information obtained by the survey, but so too would various other enemies of the United States.
85. Should this information fall into the wrong hands, the national security of the United States would be severely compromised.
86. Plaintiffs therefore respectfully seek immediate relief to enjoin the aggregation, storage, reporting, publication or dissemination of any list or compilation of information that would identify FBI agents and other personnel, and tie them directly to Jan. 6 and Mar-a-Lago case activities.
COUNT IV
(Violation of the Privacy Act of 1974, 5 U.S.C. §552a (b))
87. Plaintiffs incorporate all of the allegations in the previous paragraphs as if fully restated herein.
88. On or about February 2, 2025, Plaintiffs were asked to self-report their activities on the Jan. 6 and Mar-a-Lago cases, or were told their managers would be providing such information to Trump administration officials.
89. Plaintiffs were informed that the aggregated list of all Jan. 6 and Mar-a-Lago FBI agents and other personnel is going to be forwarded to senior members in Donald Trump’s administration.
90. On or about January 31, 2025, DOJ summarily terminated all of the attorneys who prosecuted Jan. 6 and Mar-a-Lago cases.
91. Plaintiffs reasonably believe and fear that the target list will also be used to target them for retaliatory discharge.
92. Plaintiffs assert that the target list is a “system of records” as that term is defined in 5 U.S.C. § 552a.
93. Plaintiffs assert that they are being mandated to provide information to formulate the “system of record,” and are not doing so of their own volition.
94. Plaintiffs assert that there is no legitimate agency purpose for this list to be created or to exist. The FBI has sufficient information in other forms to identify the work of FBI agents, and to either laud or discipline them for their work performance.
95. Plaintiffs state that they have not given any prior consent to the dissemination of the information in the target list.
96. Plaintiffs assert that there is a real and material risk that the list itself, or parts thereof, will be shared with or leaked to persons or entities that harbor ill will towards the agents and other personnel involved in Jam. 6 and Mar-a-Lago cases.
97. Should this information fall into the wrong hands, Plaintiffs would be placed at immediate risk of serious personal harm and harm to their loved ones.
98. Should this information fall into the wrong hands, the national security of the United States would be severely compromised.
99. Plaintiffs therefore respectfully seek immediate relief to enjoin the aggregation, storage, reporting, publication or dissemination of any list or compilation of information that would identify FBI agents and other personnel, and tie them directly to Jan. 6 and Mar-a-Lago case activities.
JURY TRIAL
100. Plaintiffs ask for trial by jury of all claims so triable.
Respectfully submitted, /s/Pamela M. Keith Pamela M. Keith [Bar. No 448421] Scott M. Lempert [Bar No. 1045184] CENTER FOR EMPLOYMENT JUSTICE 650 Massachusetts Ave. NW Suite 600 Washington, DC 20001 (202) 800-0292 [email protected] [email protected] Counsel for Plaintiffs
US judge temporarily blocks Trump buyout offer for government workers by Daniel Wiessner, Tim Reid and Nathan Layne Reuters February 6, 2025 4:06 PM MST Updated a few seconds ago https://www.reuters.com/world/us/us-gov ... 025-02-06/
Summary
• Administration targets poor-performing employees • Administration says those who do not take offer could still lose their jobs • Labor unions warn buyout offer may lack authority or funds
Feb 6 (Reuters) - A U.S. judge on Thursday temporarily blocked the Trump administration's proposed buyout for federal workers until at least Monday, giving an initial win to labor unions that sued to stop it.
Even as the program was stayed, more than 60,000 federal employees have already accepted the buyout offer, a source told Reuters.
The ruling by U.S. District Judge George O'Toole in Boston pushes back a midnight deadline set by the Trump administration, which is pressuring federal workers to leave their jobs in an unprecedented drive to overhaul the federal government.
O'Toole could opt to delay the buyout further or block it on a more permanent basis when he next considers the legal challenge by the unions at a hearing on Monday.
The buyout proposal has upended Washington, sparking street protests and accusations by labor unions and opposition Democrats that Republican President Donald Trump is violating multiple laws.
The offer promises to pay employees' salaries until October, but that may not be ironclad. Current spending laws expire on March 14 and there is no guarantee that salaries will be funded beyond that point.
The Education Department told staffers that those who accept the buyout could see their paychecks stop at any time, media outlets reported. Labor unions and Democrats have said the offer is not trustworthy.
Some federal employees said they were heartened by Thursday's court ruling.
"It's a glimmer of hope that the courts might help us and block the whole resignation program," said an employee at the General Services Administration, which manages federal properties.
ANOTHER LAWSUIT
Trump has tasked the world's richest person, Elon Musk, to oversee a drastic slashing of the government workforce. As part of that effort, staffers working for Musk have sought access to government personnel files and payment records at a number of agencies, raising privacy and security concerns.
Trump's government overhaul has already resulted in staff purges at several agencies and dramatically scaled-back operations at America's main humanitarian aid agency, the U.S. Agency for International Development.
New York Attorney General Letitia James said she and seven other Democratic state attorneys general would sue to stop Musk's quasi-governmental "Department of Government Efficiency" from accessing sensitive data.
"The president does not have the power to give away our private information to anyone he chooses," she said in a statement.
U.S. Representative Rashida Tlaib (D-MI) speaks as demonstrators rally during a protest against U.S. President Donald Trump and the actions he has taken in the first weeks of his presidency, outside of the Department of Labor in Washington, U.S., February 5, 2025. REUTERS/Nathan Howard Purchase Licensing Rights
The White House says it is following through on Trump's campaign promise to cut wasteful spending and slim down a bureaucracy that many conservatives see as left-leaning and unresponsive to the president's agenda.
60,000 ACCEPT OFFER SO FAR
Some federal workers say they are operating in a climate of fear and uncertainty.
Workers said they were downloading pay and benefit records that they feared could be erased from government computers as they weighed whether to take a buyout deal that might not be honored or stay on with the knowledge they could be fired.
"In the halls most people are stopping to ask one another what their decision will be, with many people saying they are scared because we are caught between two bad choices and very little time to make the decision," said one Treasury Department executive, who spoke on condition of anonymity.
The 60,000 or so who have accepted the buyout constitute a little more than 2.5% of the 2.3 million federal workforce. It was unclear from which agencies those employees are leaving.
Roughly 6% of federal workers retire or resign in a typical year, according to the nonprofit Partnership for Public Service.
The administration has told workers they could lose their jobs if they do not accept the buyout. Federal workers say they have been told to brace for dramatic cuts.
"We were told that nothing that is happening is normal and the goal is to reduce the workforce as fast as possible," said an executive at the Internal Revenue Service.
The White House continues to target new categories of workers for potential dismissal.
The Trump administration sent a new memo on Thursday to agency heads across government ordering them to provide by March 7 a list of all employees who received less than a “fully successful” performance rating in the past three years.
The memo said barriers should be eliminated so agencies can “swiftly terminate poor performing employees.”
The White House has also sought to identify workers hired within the last two years, who lack full civil-service protections and would be easier to fire.
And it has also ordered agency officials to identify those appointed by Trump's predecessor, former President Joe Biden, who remain in civil-service jobs, as well as those who have received poor performance ratings.
The Wall Street Journal reported that the White House is planning to order the Food and Drug Administration and other health-care agencies to fire thousands of workers. The White House denied the report.
Reporting by Tim Reid, Nathan Layne, Daniel Wiessner, Mike Stone, Maggie Fick, Jasper Ward, Richard Cowan, Gabriella Borter, Alexandra Ulmer, Ned Parker, Nathan Layne and Andy Sullivan; Writing by Andy Sullivan and James Oliphant; Editing by Ross Colvin, Marguerita Choy and Deepa Babington
Elon Musk DATA LEAK Sparks URGENT WARNING: FIVE ALARM FIRE! by Suri Crowe MeidasTouch Feb 6, 2025
Nobody elected Elon Musk, a corrupt, near trillionaire who has implanted himself in our government. Musk, with the permission of the equally corrupt, Donald Trump, now has the keys to our Treasury and Americans' most sensitive information. How do we fight back? Suri Crowe has some ideas.
Transcript
[Sen. Ron Wyden, Ore.] Our Finance investigators got confirmation from whistleblowers late Friday that the treasury secretary had turned the keys over to the musk Hatchet Squad. And here's where we are now.
It is clear that unqualified and unaccountable people have seized control of the flow of taxpayer funds, and a trove of extremely sensitive data. They are seizing the tools you need for a coup. Their first target out of the gate wasn't anything to do with fraud or waste. It was a religious charity for poor people. If Donald Trump cared about improper payments, he wouldn't have fired the Inspectors General. Nobody should fall for that bit of misdirection.
Now, a few hours ago Trump claimed that Musk only looks at payments, and doesn't have the authority to shut any down. That's Donald Trump. It's pretty clear folks, that Musk sees it differently. As Trump and Musk continue targeting Americans they don't like, there's nothing to stop them from cutting off Social Security, Medicare or Medicaid, and penalizing cities and states that defy Trump's illegal orders.
And a lot of us care deeply, as our constituents do, about privacy. Musk has access to to the personal information of hundreds of millions of Americans' bank accounts, tax data, Social Security numbers, home addresses. If people are creeped out at Elon Musk and his Hatchet Squad having your bank accounts, your home address, social security number. Musk Hatchet Brigade has infiltrated a goldmine of data that every foreign spy, and every corrupt actor, would love to see. It is a prescription for nightmares.
[Suri Crowe] That is Senator Ron Wyden of Oregon, doing the most to warn Americans of the dire situation that Donald Trump and his creepy first buddy and fellow psychopath Elon Musk, have put all of us Americans in. My name is Suri Crowe, and you are watching the MeidasTouch network.
Does anyone else feel like we're living in a real life Bond movie, but with two Bond villains, except where is James and Jane Bond? Well I will tell you at the end of this video, but you got to hang with me.
A group of senators and Congressional reps are now getting the message that this is a five alarm fire! And not a minute too soon! Here is more from Senators Wyden and Elizabeth Warren.
[Sen. Ron Wyden, Ore.] Let's remember that Musk reportedly couldn't get a security clearance because of his financial ties to the Chinese government, and his other foreign connections. That's the guy, folks, who's now got his hands on the personal data of hundreds of millions of Americans and some unknown number of businesses and groups.
Last point: the Trump Administration caused chaos in Medicaid and other services that are important to Americans last week when they shut down the primary payment portals to States and social service agencies. These are incompetent people! They don't care about the damage they're doing! And now they may be in charge of the tight-rope walk the Treasury has to do to avoid defaulting on out of debt. We're one mistake away from economic catastrophe.
[Sen. Elizabeth Warren] I just want to be clear about what's going on here. The system that makes sure that your granddad gets his social security check; the system that makes sure that your Mom's doctor gets Medicare payment to cover her medical appointment; and the system that makes sure that you get the tax refund that you're owed, has been taken over by Elon Musk. And every organization, from your State government that uses Federal money on that bridge project, to the local Head Start that takes care of little kids while their mommies and daddies go to work, is now at the mercy of Elon Musk. Maybe you get paid, or maybe you don't. Because now it appears that all of us work for Elon Musk.
Elon just grabbed the controls of our whole payment system, demanding the power to turn it on for his friends, or turn it off for anyone he doesn't like. One guy deciding who gets paid and who doesn't. It is not the law, but it is the reality.
[Suri Crowe] So it is patently obvious to any of us who are not watching propaganda networks like Fox, OAN, Charlie Kirk, or crazy Alex Jones, that Elon Musk who is a non-elected, foreign-born, openly white supremacist, is now running our government with a band of teenage hackers. In addition to firing the head of the FAA, because the man was doing his job, and investigating Elon's Space X for safety violations, Musk also illegally fired Phyllis Fong, who was the Inspector General of the USDA. She was a 22-year nonpartisan veteran. And Fong, who contested her firing because Trump did not follow legal termination protocols, refused to leave her office. And so Trump had her physically removed from her office to degrade her. But Fong did not obey in advance. A lawsuit is coming, likely a successful lawsuit, and bravo to Phyllis Fong for holding her ground. Way to go; way to go.
Fong was overseeing investigations into consumer food safety; violations of Animal Welfare laws; including the spread of the Avian flu, which is spreading among cattle and chickens, and as of this recording has has killed at least one person.
And here's the kicker: the US Department of Agriculture is responsible for investigating Animal Welfare at zoos; research labs, etc., which most Americans are completely unaware of. I am, because I did several investigations on animal cruelty at roadside zoos, some of which I won investigative journalism awards for.
And Fong was specifically looking into Elon Musk's brain implant startup, Neuralink, for animal abuse allegations. So, of course, this monster wanted her gone.
The bottom line is that Trump's regime is lawless, doesn't want any checks and balances, or oversight, and that is why they are getting rid of career Federal prosecutors, career FBI agents, Inspectors Generals -- anyone who would say, "Stop! You are breaking the law!"
And all of his cabinet picks are enablers, and will destroy the very agencies that they are in charge of, which is why it is inexcusable, in my opinion, that any Democrat is voting to confirm Trump's nominations.
Ruben Gallego (Ariz.) : 7 Maggie Hassan (N.H.: 7 Jeanne Shaheen (N.H.): 7 John Hickenlooper (Colo.): 6 Tim Kaine (Va.): 6 Mark Kelly (Ariz.): 6 Michael Bennett (Colo.): 5 John Fetterman (Pa.): 5 Kirsten Gillibrand (N.Y.): 5 Gary Peters (Mich.: 5
The Democratic senators most aligned with Trump in the inaugural tracker are:
· Jeanne Shaheen, New Hampshire · Maggie Hassan, New Hampshire · Gary Peters, Michigan · Tim Kaine, Virginia
Here is a list of Democrats in the Senate who have voted for the most of Trump's picks. Pause to read.
Thirteen Democratic and independent senators were initially tied for the highest score, including our very own Patty Murray ()hurrah for Senator Murray!):
· Richard Blumenthal, Connecticut · Catherine Cortez Masto, Nevada · Tammy Duckworth, Illinois · Martin Heinrich, New Mexico · Mazi Hirono, Hawaii · Ben Ray Lujan, New Mexico · Ed Markey, Massachusetts · Chris Murphy, Connecticut · Patty Murray, Washington · Jack Reed, Rhode Island · Bernie Sanders, Vermont · Chris Van Hollen, Maryland · Elizabeth Warren, Massachusetts
Here's a list of Senate Democrats who have opposed Trump's cabinet picks. And this is what we should be expecting. Note that Senators Patty Murray, Chris Murphy, Elizabeth Warren, to name a few, they are leading the way of how we behave when we are the party of opposition and pro democracy.
[Sen. Ron Wyden, Ore.] These are incompetent people. They don't care about the damage they're doing. And now they may be in charge of the tightrope walk the Treasury has to do to avoid defaulting on out of debt. We're one mistake away from economic catastrophe.
[Suri Crowe] So here is my wrap up. Where is James Bond? Where is Jane Bond? We are he and she. We are the ones we have been waiting for. Tthere are far more of us than this 1% of corrupt criminal hoarders.
Take a look at Elon Musk before his multiple plastic surgeries and hormones. etc. The very stuff he wants to take away from everyone else, including his trans daughter. He is an almost trillionaire, where no amount of money will ever make him feel secure enough. He and Trump are insecure bullies, weak men, an orange freak and a weird nerd.
So we oppose, we obstruct, we tell Representatives that they represent us, and we demand that they do not play footsie with Nazis. Look what the Canadians did. And what the Mexicans did. They stood up to these bullies, and we can too. They said, "We're not buying your American liquor; we're not going to buy any American Products; we're not going to abide by Elon Musk's Starlink contract." They said, "No!" And Trump folded. Paralysis is what authoritarians want. They flood the zone with shit. That is the Playbook. Putin is the master of this, so that people feel overwhelmed and helpless.
So step away if you must, but then, get back in the game. Call your representatives: MAGA or Democrats. And let them know that you are watching them, and that you are doing everything you can to put people in Congress who will represent your rights. And that you are talking to friends and family, and spreading the word about what they are doing to take away your rights and freedom. Because at the end of the day, these people just want to stay in power, which is pathetic! Yes, I agree. But that's what they want to hold on to. So remind them who votes them in.
And lastly, people, say they want "small" government, but do they really? Because the USDA regulates food safety/ Do you really want another E. coli/Listeria outbreak from your food, like the recent huge outbreak of Lysteria at a Boar's head plant in Northern Virginia? You take away the regulators in aviation safety, and planes are crashing, and falling out of the sky, as we have seen recently. You deregulate banks, your money is no longer guaranteed or safe. We need to be grateful for big government that is accountable and works for us. Because this -- what we have right now -- is a king and his corrupt court, looting our rights and our earned income benefits. It is inexcusable.
And lastly, before I sign off, I just want to remind people that when we rise up all together, we do have power. Trump tried to sneak in the turning off of faucets of trillions of dollars of money last week when he shut off Medicaid, Snap, WIC, veterans benefits, etc. And people became furious. I was one of them, Because at that very moment, my cancer surgery was temporarily cancelled. So I called my MAGA representative Jen Kiggins, I called my Senators Tim Kaine and Mark Warner, and I didn't let up. And neither did millions of you. And as a result, there are now 2 federal district judges that said "No you don't, Donald Trump. You cannot do that." And there is now pending litigation, and he had to back off. And I am happy to say that, as of this recording, tomorrow I am going under the knife for my next cancer surgery, and I am excited. But we have to keep the pressure on, and that's how it works.
So I will be checking out, but I can't wait to be back here soon.
My name is Suri Crowe, and you are watching the Meidastouch Network. I hope to be back here very soon, and while I am gone, please you guys, keep up the pressure. Do not be weary and well-doing, for in due time you will reap a harvest of good. Okay? Peace.
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA
Alliance for Retired Americans, 815 16th Street NW, 4th Floor Washington, DC 20006,
American Federation of Government Employees, AFL-CIO, 80 F Street NW, Washington, D.C. 20001, and
Service Employees International Union, AFL-CIO, 1800 Massachusetts Ave. NW, Washington, DC 20036,
Plaintiffs,
v.
Scott Bessent, in his official capacity as Secretary of the Treasury, 1500 Pennsylvania Ave. NW Washington, DC 20220,
Department of the Treasury, 1500 Pennsylvania Ave. NW Washington, DC 20220, and
Bureau of the Fiscal Service, 3201 Pennsy Drive, Building E Landover, MD 20785,
Defendants.
Civil Action No. 25-313
COMPLAINT FOR DECLARATORY AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF
1. Plaintiffs Alliance for Retired Americans, American Federation of Government Employees, AFL-CIO, and Service Employees International Union, AFL-CIO, file this action against defendants Scott Bessent, in his official capacity as Secretary of the Treasury, the Department of the Treasury, and the Bureau of the Fiscal Service, agencies of the United States, for declaratory and injunctive relief to halt Defendants’ unlawful ongoing, systematic, and continuous disclosure of personal and financial information contained in Defendants’ records to Elon Musk and other members of the so-called “Department of Government Efficiency” (DOGE), or to any other person.
2. Millions of individuals engage in financial transactions with the federal government. The government collects trillions of dollars from individuals who pay their income taxes, obtain government services, and pay back loans and other debts that they owe. People also receive money from the federal government. Social security retirement and disability payments, federal tax refunds, veterans’ benefits, and salaries and wages for federal workers are some examples of payment transactions that occur between ordinary individuals and federal agencies.
3. The job of effectuating these financial transactions for the federal government belongs to the Department of the Treasury (the Department), operating through the Bureau of the Fiscal Service (the Bureau). To carry out its duties, the Department collects and maintains sensitive personal and financial information about the individuals who are the counterparties to the transaction. Names, Social Security numbers, birth dates, birth places, home addresses and telephone numbers, email addresses, and bank account information about millions of individuals are maintained within the Department’s records to enable the secure and timely transfer of funds between federal agencies and members of the public.
4. Federal laws protect sensitive personal and financial information from improper disclosure and misuse, including by barring disclosure to individuals who lack a lawful and legitimate need for it.
5. In his first week as Treasury Secretary, defendant Bessent violated these restrictions. Elon Musk and/or other DOGE members had sought access to the Bureau’s records for some time, only to be rebuffed by the employee then in charge of the Bureau. Within a week of being sworn in as Treasury Secretary, Mr. Bessent placed that civil servant on leave and granted DOGE-affiliated individuals full access to the Bureau’s data and the computer systems that house them. He did so without making any public announcement, providing any legal justification or explanation for his decision, or undertaking the process required by law for altering the agency’s disclosure policies.
6. The scale of the intrusion into individuals’ privacy is massive and unprecedented. Millions of people cannot avoid engaging in financial transactions with the federal government and, therefore, cannot avoid having their sensitive personal and financial information maintained in government records. Secretary Bessent’s action granting DOGE-affiliated individuals full, continuous, and ongoing access to that information for an unspecified period of time means that retirees, taxpayers, federal employees, companies, and other individuals from all walks of life have no assurance that their information will receive the protection that federal law affords. And because Defendants’ actions and decisions are shrouded in secrecy, individuals will not have even basic information about what personal or financial information that Defendants are sharing with outside parties or how their information is being used.
7. People who must share information with the federal government should not be forced to share information with Elon Musk or his “DOGE.” And federal law says they do not have to. The Privacy Act of 1974 generally, and the Internal Revenue Code with respect to taxpayer information, make it unlawful for Secretary Bessent to hand over access to the Bureau’s records on individuals to Elon Musk or other members of DOGE. Plaintiffs file this action to put an immediate stop to Defendant’s systematic, continuous, and ongoing violation of federal laws that protect the privacy of personal information contained in federal records. This Court’s exercise of equitable authority is the only adequate avenue available to Plaintiffs to protect the trust that Plaintiffs’ members, and other citizens, taxpayers, and workers, have placed in the federal government in reliance of the laws that Congress enacted to assure the public that what Secretary Bessent is doing would never happen.
JURISDICTION AND VENUE
8. This Court has statutory jurisdiction over this action pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1331, because this action arises under the laws of the United States, namely, the Administrative Procedure Act (APA), 5 U.S.C. §§ 702, 706.
9. Venue is proper in this judicial district under 28 U.S.C. § 1391(e)(1)(A) because defendants are officers and agencies of the United States and because at least one defendant resides in Washington, D.C.
PARTIES
10. Plaintiff Alliance for Retired Americans is a grassroots advocacy organization with 4.4 million members. Founded by the AFL-CIO in 2001, the Alliance now has 39 state alliances and members in every state. The Alliance’s retiree activists are from all walks of life. They are former teachers, industrial workers, state and federal government workers, construction workers, and community leaders united in the belief that every American deserves a secure and dignified retirement after a lifetime of hard work.
11. Plaintiff American Federation of Government Employees, AFL-CIO (AFGE) is a labor organization and unincorporated association that represents approximately 800,000 federal civilian employees through its affiliated councils and locals in every state in the United States. AFGE members include nurses caring for our nation’s veterans, border patrol agents securing our borders, correctional officers maintaining safety in federal facilities, scientists conducting critical research, health care workers serving on military bases, civilian employees in the Department of Defense supporting our military personnel and their families, and employees of the Social Security Administration making sure retirees receive the benefits they have earned.
12. Plaintiff Service Employees International Union (SEIU) is a labor union of approximately two million diverse workers who provide public services, healthcare, and property services throughout the United States, Canada, and Puerto Rico. SEIU represents approximately 80,000 federal sector employees in the U.S., including nurses, doctors, other healthcare workers, police officers, firefighters, correctional officers, office workers, scientists, engineers, analysts, maintenance workers, and more, who are employed by and receive paychecks from the federal government. SEIU also represents approximately 30,000 retiree members, many of whom receive checks from the Social Security Administration.
13. Defendant Scott Bessent is the Secretary of the Treasury.
14. Defendant Department of the Treasury is an agency of the United States, headquartered in Washington, D.C.
15. Defendant Bureau of the Fiscal Service is an agency of the United States headquartered in Landover, Maryland, and a component of the Department.
FACTS
Defendants’ Collection and Maintenance of Information on Individuals
16. Defendants are responsible for managing the finances of the United States Government. Their responsibilities include collecting receipts owed to the government and making payments to recipients of public funds. 31 U.S.C. §§ 3301, 3321. In fiscal year 2024, the Department processed nearly $5 trillion in receipts, including $2.4 trillion from individual income taxes, $1.7 trillion from social security taxes, and $530 billion from corporate income taxes. In that fiscal year, the Department handled $6.752 trillion in outlays, including $1.46 trillion for social security payments and $874 billion in defense spending.1 The U.S. Treasury is the largest collections, payments, cash management, and financial operation in the world.
17. To engage in financial transactions with individuals, Defendants must collect and maintain personal and financial information about those individuals.As federal agencies, the Department and the Bureau are subject to the requirements of the Privacy Act, 5 U.S.C. § 552a, with respect to records that it maintains on individuals.
18. Under the Privacy Act, an agency must prepare a notice in the Federal Register “of the existence and character of the system of records” when such a system is established or revised. 5 U.S.C. § 552a(e)(4). This notice is referred to as a System of Records Notice (SORN). At least 30 days before publishing a SORN, an agency must “publish in the Federal Register notice of any new use or intended use of the information in the system, and provide an opportunity for interested persons to submit written data, views, or arguments to the agency.” Id. § 552a(e)(11).
19. The Privacy Act requires a SORN to disclose, among other things, “the categories of individuals on whom records are maintained in the system,” “the categories of records maintained in the system,” “each routine use of the records contained in the system, including the categories of users and the purpose of such use,” and “the policies and practices of the agency regarding storage, retrievability, access controls, retention, and disposal of the records.” 5 U.S.C. § 552a(e)(4).
20. The current SORN for the Bureau was published in the Federal Register on February 27, 2020. 85 Fed. Reg. 11776. The Federal Register publication describes 20 systems of records for the Bureau.
21. SORN .002 concerns payment records, which are records “collected from federal government entities that are requesting disbursement of domestic and international payments to their recipients and is used to facilitate such payments.” 85 Fed. Reg. at 11779. Personal information contained in these records include “a payee’s name, Social Security number, employer identification number, or other agency identification or account number; date and location of birth, physical and/or electronic mailing address; telephone numbers; [and] payment amount,” as well as “financial institution information, including the routing number of his or her financial institution and the payee’s account number at the financial institution.” SORN .002 states that “[o]nly employees whose official duties require access are allowed to view, administer, and control these records.”
22. SORN .012 concerns records about individuals who owe a debt to the government. 85 Fed. Reg. at 11793. Personal information contained in these records include debtor names; taxpayer identifying numbers ( i.e., Social Security number or employer identification number); contact information, such as work and home addresses, email addresses, and work, home and cellular numbers; “information concerning the financial status of the debtor and his/her household, including income, assets, liabilities or other financial burdens, and any other resources from which the debt may be recovered”; and the name of employer or employer contact information. Id. at 11794. SORN .012 states that “[o]nly employees whose official duties require access are allowed to view, administer, and control these records.” Id. at 11796.
23. SORN .013 concerns records “about individuals who electronically authorize payments to the Federal Government.” 85 Fed. Reg. at 11796. Personal information contained in these records include names; taxpayer identifying numbers (i.e., Social Security numbers or employer identification numbers); contact information, such as work and home addresses, email addresses, and work, home, and cellular telephone numbers; the name and contact information of employers; dates of birth; driver’s license numbers; bank account information; credit and debit card numbers; individual payment information; and user names and passwords. Id. at 11796–97. SORN .013 states that “[o]nly employees whose official duties require access are allowed to view, administer, and control these records.” Id. at 11798.
24. The Privacy Act prohibits the disclosure of a record about an individual to any person or another agency unless “the individual to whom the record pertains” consents or a statutory exception applies. 5 U.S.C. § 552a(b).
25. One exception to the Privacy Act prohibition on disclosure allows disclosure to “those officers and employees of the agency which maintains the record who have a need for the record in the performance of their duties.” Id. § 552a(b)(1).
26. Another exception permits disclosure for a “routine use” if the agency describes the routine use in a SORN. Id. § 552a(b)(3). The Bureau’s SORN, including SORN .002, .012, and .013 specify the routine uses for which records on individuals may be disclosed.
27. Because Defendants process tax-related transactions, they are also subject to the confidentiality requirements of the Internal Revenue Code, 26 U.S.C. § 6103. Section 6103 provides that “[r]eturns and return information shall be confidential,” and cannot be disclosed by a federal officer and employee unless authorized by statute. Return and return information include the taxpayer’s identity, mailing address, taxpayer identification number, claims for refund, and other information on tax returns. Id. § 6103(b)(1), (2), (6). The officers and employees of the Treasury Department may access return and return information if their “official duties require such inspection or disclosure for tax administration purposes.” Id. § 6103(h)(1).
Defendants’ Disclosure of Bureau Records on Individuals to DOGE
28. President Trump was inaugurated as President on January 20, 2025. The same day, he issued an executive order establishing a so-called “Department of Government Efficiency.” Under the executive order, the United States Digital Service was renamed the United States DOGE Service (USDS) and a “temporary organization” was established under 5 U.S.C. § 3161 entitled “the U.S. DOGE Service Temporary Organization.”
29. The executive order directs the USDS Administrator to “work with Agency Heads to promote inter-operability between agency networks and systems, ensure data integrity, and facilitate responsible data collection and synchronization.” It also directs agency heads to “take all necessary steps, in coordination with the USDS Administrator and to the maximum extent consistent with law, to ensure USDS has full and prompt access to all unclassified agency records, software systems, and IT systems.” The executive order “displaces all prior executive orders and regulations, insofar as they are subject to direct presidential amendment, that might serve as a barrier to providing USDS access to agency records and systems as described above.”
30. Since his inauguration, President Trump has not formally identified the individual who would serve as USDS Administrator or the full list of individuals that are part of the U.S. DOGE Service Temporary Organization.
31. During the presidential campaign, President Trump announced that billionaire entrepreneur Elon Musk would have a leadership role in DOGE. It is widely reported that, since the inauguration, Mr. Musk has played a leadership role in DOGE activities across the federal government.
32. The Trump administration has not publicly revealed whether Mr. Musk has been made an officer or employee of the U.S. government or remains a private citizen. The Trump administration also has not publicly revealed the employment status of other individuals who are part of DOGE.
33. Sometime after November 5, 2024, DOGE representatives reportedly approached officials in the Department seeking access to the agency’s payment systems. DOGE’s efforts to obtain access continued after President Trump’s inauguration.
34. Initially, DOGE’s requests for access to the Treasury’s payment systems were reportedly rebuffed by David A. Lebryk, the highest-ranking career official at the agency and the individual who had been in charge of the Bureau. According to press reports, Mr. Lebryk advised DOGE representatives during the transition period that the information contained in the payment systems was proprietary and should not be shared outside of the government.
35. On January 27, 2025, the Senate confirmed Mr. Bessent as President Trump’s Treasury Secretary, and he was sworn in the following day. On information and belief, Secretary Bessent and his chief of staff Dan Katz had a meeting with Mr. Lebryk later that week, after which Mr. Lebryk was placed on administrative leave. On Friday, January 31, Mr. Lebryk announced that he was retiring from the Treasury after 35 years in federal service.
36. On information and belief, on Friday evening, January 31, defendant Bessent gave representatives of DOGE full access to the federal payment system.2 Senator Ron Wyden, Ranking Member of the Senate Committee on Finance, has reported that DOGE’s access to Treasury’s payment system is complete. He has stated that DOGE has “*full* access to this system. Social Security and Medicare benefits, grants, payments to government contractors…. All of it.”3
37. Defendants have not released the full list of DOGE-affiliated individuals who have been provided access to the Treasury’s payment systems, or whether those individuals are employees of the Bureau, the Department, another agency, or a private enterprise. Tom Krause, the Chief Executive Officer of Cloud Software Group (according to that company’s website, see https://www.cloud.com/leadership (Feb. 3, 2025)) is reported to be working at the Treasury Department.4 And Secretary Bessent has reportedly “signed off on a plan to give access to the payment system to a team led by” Mr. Krause, who is identified in the article as “a liaison to Musk’s DOGE group that operates out of” the USDS.5 Defendants have not publicly disclosed the members of Mr. Krause’s team or provided the details of the “plan” for access that Secretary Bessent reportedly signed off on. Although an anonymous source assured that “no one outside Treasury would have access” to the payment system, the source apparently did not indicate whether information contained in the payment system would be disseminated outside of the Bureau.
38. Mr. Musk has suggested that the DOGE team has the authority to control disbursements at the Bureau. In response to an allegation by General Mike Flynn (ret.) that certain federal grants to Lutheran Family Services and affiliated organizations should end, Mr. Musk responded on X (formerly Twitter) that “The @DOGE team is rapidly shutting down these illegal payments.”6
Defendants’ Unlawful Actions Harm Plaintiffs’ Members
39. Plaintiffs’ members are among the millions of people who send or receive money to the federal government using the Bureau’s payment, collections, and electronic funds systems.
40. Plaintiff Alliance for Retired Americans has members who receive monthly Social Security retirement payments from the Treasury Department. It also has members who receive other forms of retirement and health-related benefits, such as Railroad Retirement Benefits, pension income for federal government service, disability and workers compensation benefits under the Federal Employees’ Compensation Program, federal black lung benefits and veterans benefits. Plaintiffs AFGE and SEIU each have members who are federal employees and who work in a wide variety of positions, in every state and the District of Columbia. Their members who are actively working must engage in transactions with Defendants to receive their salaries and wages from their federal employment, while their retired members must do so to receive their pension benefits.
41. Each Plaintiff also has members who pay federal income taxes or receive refunds and who have done so and will do so again in the current tax season.
42. The Bureau will collect and maintain personal and financial information about Plaintiffs’ members to make the income payments and benefits they are owed and to process their tax payments or refunds.
43. Defendants have the statutory responsibility to protect the sensitive personal and financial information that they collect and maintain about individuals from unnecessary and unlawful disclosure to third parties. Defendants have acted inconsistently with that responsibility by granting individuals associated with DOGE access to the extensive records that the Bureau maintains on every individual with whom it engages in financial transactions. Moreover, Defendants have taken this action without obtaining or even asking for the consent of affected individuals.
44. Plaintiffs’ members rely on Defendants’ payment, collection, and other systems to make and receive payments from the government. They do not have the option of avoiding dealing with Defendants to avoid improper disclosure or misuse of their personal and financial information. Defendants’ actions have thus harmed Plaintiffs’ members by depriving them of privacy protections guaranteed to them by federal law and, consequently, the ability to decide for themselves whether Elon Musk or other individuals should be able to obtain and use their personal data to advance DOGE’s agenda.
COUNT I
(Contrary to law)
45. The APA directs courts to hold unlawful and set aside agency actions that are found to be arbitrary, capricious, an abuse of discretion, or otherwise not in accordance with law. 5 U.S.C. § 706(2)(A).
46. The Privacy Act prohibits Defendants from disclosing records on individuals to Mr. Musk, other individuals associated with DOGE, or any other person without the individual’s consent except in specified circumstances.
47. The Internal Revenue Code, 26 U.S.C. § 6013, prohibits Defendants from disclosing return and return information about taxpayers to Mr. Musk, other individuals associated with DOGE, or any other person except for officers or employees of the Treasury Department whose official duties require such inspection or disclosure for tax administration purposes.
48. Defendants have implemented a continuous and ongoing system for disclosing records on Plaintiffs’ members without obtaining consent from each member.
49. Defendants have implemented a system for disclosing records on Plaintiffs’ members to individuals who are not officers or employees of the Bureau who have a need for the records in the performance of their duties.
50. Defendants have implemented a system for disclosing records on Plaintiffs’ members to individuals for purposes other than the routine uses specified in the Bureau’s SORNs.
51. Defendants have implemented a system for disclosing tax returns and return information of Plaintiffs’ members to individuals who are not officers and employees involved in tax administration as part of their official duties.
52. Defendants’ actions violate the prohibitions in the Privacy Act and Section 6103 of the Internal Revenue Code and are thus contrary to law.
53. Defendants’ action is “final agency action for which there is no other adequate remedy in a court.” 5 U.S.C. § 704. An individual action against the agency for damages under the Privacy Act or the Internal Revenue Code would not put a stop to the ongoing unlawful access that Defendants have granted to the personal and financial information of Plaintiffs’ members. Defendants’ action therefore is “subject to judicial review.” Id. § 702.
COUNT II
(Arbitrary and capricious)
54. The APA directs courts to hold unlawful and set aside agency actions that are found to be arbitrary, capricious, an abuse of discretion, or otherwise not in accordance with law. 5 U.S.C. § 706(2)(A).
55. Agency action is arbitrary and capricious when an agency fails to engage in reasoned decision-making when it adopts or alters its policies.
56. Defendants failed to engage in reasoned decision-making when they implemented a system under which Elon Musk or other individuals associated with DOGE could access the Bureau’s records for purposes other than those authorized by the Privacy Act, the Bureau’s SORNs, and the Internal Revenue Code. In particular, Defendants failed to consider their legal obligations under federal law, the harm that their actions would cause to the objectives that those statutes sought to achieve, or the harm caused to Plaintiffs’ members or the general public.
57. Defendant’s action is final agency action for which there is no other adequate remedy in a court and therefore is subject to judicial review. Id. § 704; see id. § 702.
COUNT III
(Excess of statutory authority)
58. Defendants have a non-discretionary duty to protect records on individuals, and the returns and return information of taxpayers, from unauthorized disclosure.
59. Defendants’ ongoing, systematic, and continuous action in permitting Elon Musk and/or other individuals associated with DOGE to access the Bureau’s records and the personal and financial information contained therein violates that duty and is in excess of their statutory authority. Id. § 706(2)(C).
PRAYER FOR RELIEF
WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs pray that this Court:
a. Declare that Defendants’ decision to implement a system by which Elon Musk or other DOGE-affiliated individuals may access the Bureau’s records and obtain personal information about individuals and taxpayers contained there is unlawful.
b. Enjoin Defendants from continuing to permit such access or obtain such personal information.
c. Enjoin Defendants to ensure that future disclosure of individual records will occur only in accordance with the Privacy Act, the Internal Revenue Code, and the SORNs applicable to the system of records at issue.
d. Grant any temporary, preliminary, or permanent injunctive relief necessary to protect the privacy of individuals whose information is contained within the system of records.
e. Award Plaintiffs their costs and attorneys’ fees for this action; and
f. Grant any other relief as this Court deems appropriate.
Dated: February 3, 2025
Respectfully submitted,
/s/ Nandan M. Joshi Nandan M. Joshi (DC Bar No. 456750) Nicolas Sansone (DC Bar No. 1686810) Allison M. Zieve (DC Bar No. 424786) Public Citizen Litigation Group 1600 20th Street NW Washington, DC 20009 (202) 588-1000
Norman L. Eisen (DC Bar No. 435051) State Democracy Defenders Fund 600 Pennsylvania Avenue SE, #15180 Washington, DC 20003
_______________
Notes:
1 U.S. Dep’t of Treas., Bur. of Fiscal Serv., Final Monthly Treasury Statement, Receipts and Outlays of the United States Government For Fiscal Year 2024 Through September 30, 2024, and Other Periods 4.
2 Andrew Duehren et al., Elon Musk’s Team Now Has Full Access to Treasury’s Payments System, N.Y. Times, Feb. 1, 2025.
US judge blocks Trump from sending transgender women to men's prisons by Mike Scarcella, Nate Raymond and Luc Cohen Reuters February 5, 2025 1 0:28 AM MST Updated a day ago https://www.reuters.com/legal/us-judge- ... 025-02-05/
WASHINGTON, Feb 4 (Reuters) - A U.S. judge on Tuesday blocked President Donald Trump's administration from moving transgender women to men's prisons and ending their gender-affirming care.
In a broad ruling temporarily halting an executive order that Trump, a Republican, signed on his first day back in office on Jan. 20, U.S. District Judge Royce Lamberth in Washington found that three transgender inmates who sued would likely succeed in arguing the policy was unconstitutional.
The decision marked the second time that a federal judge had sided with LGBTQ legal rights groups who sued to prevent the U.S. Bureau of Prisons from implementing the order.
Lamberth's order applies to all 16 transgender women currently housed in federal women's prisons. It goes further than a Jan. 26 decision by a federal judge in Boston blocking prison officials from transferring an individual transgender woman to a men's facility.
A spokesperson for the Justice Department, which defended the Trump administration in court, declined to comment. The Bureau of Prisons did not immediately respond to a request for comment.
The three transgender women who brought the Washington, D.C. case argued transgender women would face violence and sexual assault in men's prisons, which would violate their right to not be subjected to cruel and unusual punishment as guaranteed by the Eighth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution.
U.S. Justice Department attorney John Robinson had argued that the Bureau of Prisons has broad authority to make inmate placement decisions. He urged Lamberth, an appointee of Republican President Ronald Reagan, to wait for the agency to revise its policies before issuing any order compelling the continuation of medical treatment.
In his decision, Lamberth wrote that the government did not dispute the plaintiffs' assertion that transgender persons were at a higher risk of physical and sexual violence than other inmates when housed in a facility corresponding to their biological sex.
Trump's executive order directed the federal government to only recognize two, biologically distinct sexes, male and female; house transgender women in men's prisons; and cease funding for any gender-affirming medical care for inmates.
Prior to Trump's order, the Bureau of Prisons had been operating under guidelines adopted in 2022 during Democratic former President Joe Biden's tenure requiring prisons to consider inmates' "current gender expression" when deciding where to house them.
Biden's policy was a reversal from earlier guidance during Trump's first term.
The lawsuit filed on Jan. 30 also argued that Trump's executive order discriminates against transgender people on the basis of sex in violation of the U.S. Constitution's Fifth Amendment.
About 2,230 transgender inmates are housed in federal custodial facilities and halfway houses, according to the U.S. Department of Justice. About two thirds of them, 1,506, are transgender women, most of whom are housed in men's prisons.
Reporting by Mike Scarcella in Washington and Nate Raymond in Boston; Additional reporting by Luc Cohen in New York; Editing by Alexia Garamfalvi, Noeleen Walder and Christopher Cushing
New attorney general moves to align Justice Department with Trump's priorities: Trump and Attorney General Pam Bondi have both argued the Justice Department under Biden unfairly targeted conservatives, most notably Trump himself. by Ryan Lucas Houston Public Media: A Service of the University of Houston February 5, 2025, 8:36 PM
On her first day in charge at the Justice Department, Attorney General Pam Bondi on Wednesday issued a series of directives aimed at aligning the department with President Trump and his agenda, including establishing a task force to examine the alleged weaponization of the justice system and reviving the federal death penalty.
The Senate confirmed Bondi on Tuesday evening and she was sworn in Wednesday in a ceremony at the White House. Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas administered the oath of office for Bondi, whose husband and mother were by her side.
She takes over at a time of tumult at the Justice Department, where the Trump administration has pushed out several senior career officials over the past few weeks as the new leadership looks to assert control over the department and implement the president's agenda.
Justice Department changes rattle current and former agency veterans
In little more than a week, the Trump administration has fired people who prosecuted the president and reassigned other career officials.
On her first day on the job, Bondi signed 14 memos addressed to all Justice Department employees. Some of the directives roll back guidelines put in place under the Biden administration, while others strike new ground. Many appear to offer details to implement executive orders President Trump signed, including on the weaponization of the federal government and on combatting antisemitism.
One of the memos, for example, establishes the "Weaponization Working Group," which is tasked with reviewing "the activities of all department and agencies exercising civil or criminal enforcement authority of the United States over the last four years."
Trump and Bondi have both argued that the department under the Biden administration unfairly targeted conservatives, most notably Trump himself. Trump was charged in two federal cases: for election interference in 2020 and for hoarding classified documents. Both cases were dropped after he won election to a second term.
The department's previous leadership rejected the allegation of political motivations, and pointed to multiple criminal cases against prominent Democrats during the Biden administration.
Focus on "improper aims"
According to the Bondi memo, the new working group will "identify instances where a department's or agency's conduct appears to have been designed to achieve political objectives or other improper aims rather than pursuing justice of legitimate governmental objectives."
It mentions several specific things that it will examine, including "weaponization" by former special counsel Jack Smith, the prosecutors and the investigators who took part in the "unprecedented raid on President Trump's home." FBI agents searched Trump's Mar-a-Lago club and his residence as part of its classified documents case.
It also will examine "federal cooperation with the weaponization" by the Manhattan district attorney and the New York state attorney general "to target President Trump, his family and his businesses." The Manhattan district attorney brought state criminal charges against Trump for falsifying business records to conceal a payment to an adult film star.
The Jan. 6 Capitol riot will also come under review, it says. The working group will look at "the pursuit of improper investigative tactics and unethical prosecutions" related to the Jan. 6, 2021, Capitol attack. Trump granted clemency to every defendant accused of committing crimes that day in one of his first acts after returning to the White House.
The memo says the Justice Department will provide quarterly reports to the White House on the review's progress.
Another memo sets up a Joint Task Force for Oct. 7 to "prioritize seeking justice for victims" of the Hamas-led attacks on Israel. The task force also aims to address the "ongoing threat posed by Hamas and its affiliates" and to combat "antisemitic acts of terrorism and civil rights violations in the homeland."
Two other memos relate to the federal death penalty.
One lifts the moratorium on federal executions, and instructs federal prosecutors to seek the death penalty in cases involving the murder of a law enforcement official and capital crimes "committed by aliens who are illegally present in the United States."
The other relates to President Biden's decision in his waning days in office to commute the death sentences of 37 people on federal death row to life in prison. The Bondi memo directs the Justice Department to, among other things assist local prosecutors in pursuing death sentences under state law against the 37 individuals who received commutations.
Bondi also signed a memo that puts department attorneys on notice that they are expected to "zealously" defend, advance and protect the interests of the United States—interests that are set by the president.
It says that when DOJ attorneys "refuse to advance good-faith arguments by declining to appear in court or sign briefs, if undermines the constitutional order and deprives the President of the benefit of his lawyers."
It goes on to say that any department attorney who "because of their personal views or judgments declines to sign a brief or appear in court, refuses to advance good-faith arguments on behalf of the Administration, or otherwise delays or impedes the Department's mission will be subject to discipline and potentially termination."
***********************
New Attorney General Vows to Have DOJ Go After Trump Foes by Glenn Kirschner Justice Matters Feb 6, 2025 All the "King's" Men: Trump's lackeys and their disservice to America
Shortly after being sworn in, Attorney General Pam Bondi published a memo regarding "ending the weaponization of the federal government."
The problem is, the priorities in this memo signal the death of the independence of the Department of Justice. DOJ's priorities will shift from focusing on crimes that impact the American people to seeking revenge against Donald Trump's foes.
The Bondi memo promises to pursue "Special Counsel Jack Smith and his staff," "Manhattan District Attorney Alvin Bragg (and) New York Attorney General Letitia James, and their respective staffs," and those who investigated and prosecuted the crimes committed at the US Capitol on January 6, 2021.
This obscene pervasion of the rule of law and the independence of the Department of Justice constitutes ACTUAL weaponization of the DOJ.
This video discusses the new reporting and the rule-of-law--busting Bondi memo.
Transcript
[Glenn Kirschner] So friends, today is a sad and somber day, because today we are mourning the death of an independent Department of Justice. Please join me in a moment of silence. Thank you. Let's talk about that, because Justice matters.
Hey all. Glenn Kirschner here. So friends, upon being sworn in as attorney general Pam Bondi issued a memo a bunch of memos actually but we're going to focus on one in particular because it signals the death of an independent Department of Justice and the birth of a department of justice that protects Donald Trump and pursues his enemies rather than remaining loyal to the rule of law and protecting the American people let's start with the new report reporting this from USA Today headline AG Pam Bondi sworn in vows to end weaponization of justice department and that article begins moving swiftly to align the justice department with Donald Trump's agenda attorney general Pam Bondi on Wednesday issued a flurry of directives including the creation of a weaponization working group to investigate Federal and local prosecutions of trump that she said were overly politicized so she won't be focusing on making America safe for the people of the United States rather she'll be focusing on making America unsafe if not a living hell for anybody who dared cross Donald Trump anybody who DED to investigate or prosecute the obvious crimes Donald Trump committed all my editorial addition the article continues although the department historically has insisted on remaining independent of the White House Bondi made clear that she was working to overhaul a doj that Trump had insisted is both biased against him and against political conservatives in general the weaponization working group will look at everything from the investigations into Trump's actions before during and after his first term in office cases brought against him by Manhattan district attorney Alvin Bragg and New York attorney general Leticia James it will also look at doj's investigations into crimes we saw committed with our own eyes the January 6 2021 assault on the US Capital by a violent mob of trump supporters the moves came on the same day Bondi was sworn in as the nation's top law enforcement officer in a ceremony at the White House by Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas at that ceremony Trump lavished Praise on Bondi his former criminal defense attorney who was also a two-term Florida attorney general and fr have a gander at this picture here Pam Bondi showing her independence of Donald Trump and the independence of the department she is now leading the Department of Justice how did she show that independence by sprinting over to the White House entering the Oval Office and being sworn in by Justice Clarence Thomas now let's have a quick look at select portions of Attorney General bondi's weap ionization memo memorandum for all Department employees from the attorney general subject restoring the integrity and credibility of the Department of Justice the Department of Justice must take immediate and overdue steps to restore the integrity and credibility with the public that we are charged with protecting and to ensure that the Department's Personnel are ready and willing to Faithfully implement the policy agenda of the duly elected president of the United States sorry I was just looking for the part where the Attorney General said that she and the employees of the Department of Justice would support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies foreign and domestic but no it's just pretty much supporting and defending Donald Trump these steps are required because as president Trump pointed out following his second inauguration the prior Administration and allies throughout the country engaged in an unprecedented third world weaponization of prosecutorial power to upend the Democratic process sounds more like a 2 A.M rambling Donald Trump social media post doesn't it thus the American people have witnessed the previous administration engage in a systematic campaign against its perceived political opponents weaponizing the legal force of numerous federal law enforcement agencies and the intelligence Community against those perceived political opponents in the form of Investigations prosecutions civil enforcement actions and other related actions and so the Attorney General I guess thinks that the way to remedy the evil of using the Department of Justice to go after one's political enemies is to use the Department of Justice to go after one's political enemies the reconciliation and restoration of the department of Justice's core values can only be accomplished through review and accountability the department has already started this process but much more work is required.
No one who has acted with a righteous spirit and just intentions has any cause for concern about efforts to root out corruption and weaponization.
Okay, color me cynical, but I don't believe the Attorney General when she says no one who has acted with a righteous spirit and just intentions will have any cause for concern. Why don't I believe that? Well, because FBI agents who followed the evidence regarding the January 6 crimes at the Capitol, crimes we all saw with our own eyes, have already been forced out of government, retaliated against, and 25-30 federal prosecutors who followed the facts and applied the law to the January 6th cases have been fired. So if attorney general Bondi is speaking the truth, I very much look forward to those FBI officials and those Federal prosecutors being reinstated to their jobs.
I hereby establish the weaponization working group which will be led by the Office of the Attorney General and supported by the office of the Deputy attorney general the office of legal policy the Civil Rights division the US attorney's office for the District of Colombia and other personnel as necessary to achieve the objectives set forth here in in other words we are are all in to protect Donald Trump and punish his foes and we will be going after special counsel Jack Smith and his staff Manhattan district attorney Alvin Bragg and his staff New York attorney general Leticia James and her staff and anybody who prosecuted the criminal cases at the United States capital on January 6th 202.
[Crumples up Memorandum]
So friends, let's finish with this. Rest in peace independent Department of Justice, date of birth July 1st 1870 and date of death February 5th 2025.
You know friends when we write the American ship and we will I look forward to seeing what Rises Up From the Ashes of a once proud once independent Department of Justice because Justice matters friends as always please stay safe please stay tuned and I look forward to talking with you all again tomorrow [Music]
Judge issues nationwide injunction blocking Trump's bid to end birthright citizenship: The judge heard arguments from lawyers for five pregnant undocumented women. by Selina Wang, Laura Romero, and Peter Charalambous abcnews February 5, 2025, 9:17 AM https://abcnews.go.com/US/judge-future- ... =118460936
A federal judge in Maryland has issued a nationwide preliminary injunction against President Donald Trump's executive order aimed at ending birthright citizenship.
U.S. District Judge Deborah Boardman heard arguments Wednesday over a request by five pregnant undocumented women to block Trump's Day-1 executive order seeking to redefine the meaning of the 14th Amendment to exclude the children of undocumented immigrants from birthright citizenship.
"The denial of the precious right to citizenship will cause irreparable harm," Judge Boardman said in handing down her order. "It has been said the right to U.S. citizenship is a right no less precious than life or liberty. If the court does not enjoin enforcement of the executive order, children subject to the order will be denied the rights and benefits of U.S. citizenship and their parents will face instability."
"A nationwide injunction is appropriate and necessary because it concerns citizenship," Judge Boardman said.
The ruling comes two weeks after a federal judge in Seattle criticized the Department of Justice for attempting to defend what he called a "blatantly unconstitutional" order and issued a temporary restraining order.
In her ruling, Judge Boardman said Trump's executive order "conflicts with the plain language of the 14th Amendment."
"The U.S. Supreme court has resoundingly rejected the president's interpretation of the citizenship clause," Boardman said. "In fact, no court has endorsed the president's interpretation, and this court will not be the first."
She added that the plaintiffs would "very likely" succeed on the merits in their case against Trump's order.
During the hearing, plaintiffs' attorney Joseph Mead called the DOJ's argument a "reimagination of the 14th Amendment phrase 'subject jurisdiction.'"
"The executive order's departure from settled law is so abrupt ... it is such a departure from what we've been doing for over a century," Mead argued. "Being a citizen is the foundation for so many rights."
The five women, along with two nonprofits, filed the lawsuit against the Trump administration last month, arguing that Trump's executive order violated the constitution and multiple federal laws.
"If allowed to go into effect, the Executive Order would throw into doubt the citizenship status of thousands of children across the country, including the children of Individual Plaintiffs and Members," the lawsuit said.
Lawyers for the Department of Justice have claimed that Trump's executive order attempts to resolve "prior misimpressions" of the 14th Amendment, arguing that birthright citizenship creates a "perverse incentive for illegal immigration." If permitted, Trump's executive order would preclude U.S. citizenship from the children of undocumented immigrants or immigrants whose presence in the United States is lawful but temporary.
"Text, history, and precedent support what common sense compels: the Constitution does not harbor a windfall clause granting American citizenship to, inter alia: the children of those who have circumvented (or outright defied) federal immigration laws," DOJ lawyers argued.
The executive order had already been put on hold by U.S. District Judge John Coughenour in Seattle.
"I have difficulty understanding how a member of the bar can state unequivocally that this is a constitutional order. It boggles my mind," said Coughenour last month when he issued his temporary restraining order. "Where were the lawyers when this decision was being made?"
Because Judge Coughenour's order only blocked the executive order temporarily, Judge Boardman had been asked to consider a longer-lasting preliminary injunction against the executive order.
With Trump vowing to appeal a ruling that finds his executive order unconstitutional, Wednesday's preliminary injunction could be his first opportunity to appeal to a higher court.
Members of the Trump administration spent months crafting this executive order with the understanding that it would inevitably be challenged and potentially blocked by lower courts, according to sources familiar with their planning.
While the lawsuit challenging the executive order in Seattle was brought by four state attorneys general, the five pregnant undocumented women who filed the Maryland case argued that they would be uniquely harmed by the order. With individual states and undocumented women suffering different harms under the order, the cases could present different reasons to justify blocking the order.
Monica -- a medical doctor from Venezuela with temporary protected status who joined the lawsuit under a pseudonym -- said she joined the suit because she fears her future child will become stateless, with her home country facing an ongoing humanitarian, political and economic crisis.
"I'm 12 weeks pregnant. I should be worried about the health of my child. I should be thinking about that primarily, and instead my husband and I are stressed, we're anxious and we're depressed about the reality that my child may not be able to become a U.S. citizen," she said.
*************************
Trump LOSES BIG in Court as JUDGE HITS HIM HARD by Michael Popok Legal AF Podcast MeidasTouch Feb 6, 2025
In breaking news, we have our FIRST preliminary injunction (nationwide) entered against the Trump Administration to block Trump’s executive order denying birthright citizenship to those born on US Soil. Michael Popok reports on why this is so important, how it shows the strategy of suing Trump 2-3x a day in Federal Court is working, with 32 suits, 4 TROs, and 1 Preliminary Injunction in the first 15 days of his administration, and what it means for future wins to support the rule of law.
Transcript
we got breaking news on day 15 of the Trump Administration the first Nationwide preliminary injunction has been entered by a federal judge against Donald Trump's Administration for their depraved unconstitutional Birthright citizenship executive order denying babies born on us soil US citizenship guaranteed them by the US Constitution that's a big no and a big unconstitutional for judge Deborah Borman out of the District of Maryland I want to break it down for you I want to compare it to the other four temporary restraining orders against different executive orders uh for Donald Trump so let's just do the math 32 cases have been filed against the Trump Administration that he's obtained against him four separate temporary restraining orders and one preliminary injunction by federal judges and a lot of them are the Biden federal judges so isn't that isn't that Poetic Justice isn't that Cosmic Justice I'll break it down right now I'm Michael Popo you're here on mest touch and on legal AF preliminary injunctions in my world as a lawyer are big deals and they are uh bigger batter Bolder than temporary restraining orders when you're looking at the level of types of orders that a federal judge can can issue there's like an administrative stay which is for hours sometimes days while the judge gets their mind around the briefing and the evidence for a matter that's been put before them that's on the the bottom of it right the next level up is a Full temporary restraining order which is the judge taking a Peak at the uh underlying facts and evidence as presented in a very short amount of time and saying well it looks like it's more likely than not the other party's got a very good argument here there is a constitutional violation a statutory violation a violation of something so I'm going to put a pin in this I'm going to hold the status quo now to allow for full briefing and full evidence and an evidentiary hearing and a record presentation at some later time in the very very near future that's the temporary restraining orders that we've been talking about a lot on legal a and the Midas Dutch Network the temporary restraining order about Birthright citizenships executive order stopping it in its place that was issued by judge kenor in Seattle Washington the temporary restraining order that was obtained against by two judges issued against the Trump Administration by two judges McConnell in um in Rhode Island and Ali Khan in the District of Columbia against his attempts to cut off Federal funding to all not for-profits and States those have been temporarily restrained subject to a future hearing on preliminary injunction that brings us to judge bourman who issued From the Bench it's going to be in writing soon we'll get her hands on it but she read out loud her tempor her per sorry her preliminary injunction against the Trump Administration for trying to continue to enforce the birthright citizenship executive order denying children babies born on us soil their citizenship and let me listen let me tell you what she basically said and I'm going to read to you from her her ruling her oral ruling subject to we're going to get it in writing she said the argument by the Trump Administration has been rejected by every judge that's ever looked at it that it runs counter to our nation's 250 years of history of citizenship by birth it runs counter to um aund 125 years of Supreme Court president everything about the 14th Amendment and no court has ever found that that kind of executive order uh is going to be constitutional or has adopted the interpretation of the 14th amendment by the Trump Administration and she wasn't going to be the first let me tell you a little bit about Borman before I read you from the language of her order that she read out loud what it means as a nationwide injunction and then and then also some comments made by some of the plaintiffs including pregnant women from Trinidad and other places that will just Will Make You Weep about the real life impact IRL as they say of what these depraved positions taken by the Department of Justice for Donald Trump what it means in the real world first let me tell you a little bit about judge bourman judge bourman is one of the um uh Biden appointees got confirmed by the Senate who started out as a federal public defender it's very rare she's one of very few all put on by Biden who weren't prosecutors who weren't you know Elite lawyers at some big law firms or corporations or right-wing public interest firms she she was a federal public defender and I know Federal public defenders first day on the job you get a 100 files those are your clients who are indigenous who can't afford private representation and they're looking at drug charges and immigration charges and other and other and other types of charges and she was a federal public defender doing doing God's work there she then became a Magistrate Judge which is not an article 3 confirmed by Senate judge but a judge just below that who handles a lot of the day-to-day in federal practice so she served in that role for a few years and then Biden elevated her to full-blown confirmed article 3 judge and boy she couldn't have come along quick enough for me let me read to you from her actual words so you know where this is coming from in a nationwide injunction this is what she had to say and then I want to talk to you about the back and forth she had with the Trump lawyers who lost all credibility in her courtroom I mean they've lost all credibility in all courtrooms at this point with their ridiculous ludicrous intellectually dis honest position taking with no case law and and no nothing just Donald Trump's talking points she said um she said that it was very likely that the that the plaintiff's here would succeed on the merits she said no court in the country has ever endorsed the president Trump's interpretation and this court will not be the first um particularly she said that um she looked at the 14th Amendment which was ratified in 1868 which provides automatic citizenship to those born on us soil who are subject to the jurisdiction of the federal government and which has traditionally applied to nearly everyone other than children of foreign diplomats um the lawyer for the Department of Justice for Trump said oh we don't think the framers of the 14th Amendment meant to create a loophole to give people with uncertain status or undocumented status citizenship really where does it say that everybody that came here was undocumented originally you know the people that came over on the Mayflower you know were were they documented no as a kid I loved eating cereal but as an adult I don't want all that sugar and most cereals don't give me the protein I need then I found magic spoon a nostalgically delicious cereal that tastes just like my childhood favorites but without the sugar and with a ton of protein and if you're already a magic spoon fan I've got big news magic spoon has turned their super popular cereal into high protein treats that are light crispy and taste just like those classic crunchy cereal bars magic spoons brand new treats are so delicious and have already become my favorite before or after gym snack magic spoon has literally changed the way we view our pantry in my family now when my wife and I are looking for a quick high protein snack that makes us instantly nostalgic with that warm and fuzzy comfort food feeling we reach for magic spoon new cereal bars every fre serving of magic spoon cereal has 13 g of protein 0 g of sugar and 4 G of net carbs so you can feel good about what you're eating the most popular flavors are fruity and cocoa and there's so many more magic spoon brand new treats are Crispy Crunchy Airy and an easy way to get 12 grams of protein on the go and for the first time ever magic spoon treats are available in grocery stores with delicious flavors like marshmallow and chocolatey peanut butter magic spoon Treats have replaced all my other bars just the right balance of delicious flavor great mouth feel and texture and the best part they are high in protein and low in carbs don't tell my wife but after a long day of legal AF video recording and research magic spoon has become my occasional midnight snack treat honey we're out of magic spoon again a common refrain in my household get $5 off your next order at magpole or look for magic spoon on Amazon or in your nearest grocery store that's magpole for $5 off magic spoon hold on to the dream the Justice uh sorry Boardman had to say this about it Boardman said I am not going to be the first judge to take away somebody's constitutional rights there is no she turned to the lawyer for the Department of Justice she said cite for me one case one case that is cided with your interpretation of the 14th Amendment of course there aren't any she then turned to judge kenor who is her colleague but in the Seattle branch of the federal uh court system and said judge cenor was right this is blatantly unconstitutional now his was a temporary restraining order that held the ring until we got here he's going to issue his preliminary injunction too as I've said before I've done Federal practice for 35 years I've I think one time in my entire career I ever had a temporary restraining order that didn't convert into a preliminary injunction at some point so that preliminary injunction now on full briefing and with the order that'll be coming out will give the Trump Administration the right to take an appeal that appeal because she sits in Maryland I think it's going to go to the third or fourth I think it's the fourth the fourth Circuit Court of Appeals and then based on the rulings there and I'm expecting a loss for the Trump Administration it'll go to the United States Supreme Court that's the pathway here that's why it was filed in Maryland to get a favorable appell court and a fast track over the United States Supreme Court but in the meantime this is a preliminary injunction this is a big deal uh let me let me take a moment and show you the the personal impact of these types of depraved positions by the um Trump Administration this is a um a pregnant plf in the case identified only by her pseudonym and the judge allowed Janee doe and John do because of fear of Retribution in the listing on the case said and she's from Trinidad she said quote all I have wanted is to focus on my baby being born healthy and safe but instead even though my baby will be born in the US because she's here residing in the US I have been worried that they will be denied a right that has guaranteed them under the Constitution the right to be a US citizen this ruling will give mothers like me a bit of temporary relief as we navigate pregnancy and the uncertain future of our babies I agree with her agree with her wholeheartedly um so what does it mean it means that the blueprint for how the Democrats and progressives and public interest groups and Attorneys General are handling these cases is working is winning we are winning in the right courts filed by in front of the right judges on the right arguments the arguments are constitutional violations 14th Amendment violations due process violations First Amendment violations depending upon the case administrative procedures act violation I mean Donald Trump can issue an executive order that doesn't violate one aspect of congressional law or the Constitution and that's where we got him and that's where we got him so watching somebody try to rule by Fiat and by executive order and floundering and doing so is actually an advantage to the Democrats and progressives and those in favor of the rule of law because I know we lost a lot of confidence in our federal court system not in individual judges but in the court system overall but at least particularly at the Supreme Court level about the criminal matters of Donald Trump but forget that we're not in the criminal matters of Donald Trump anymore this is the Revenge of the Biden judges this is the Revenge of the DC judges who are handling most of these cases I mean out of 32 cases filed against the Trump Administration uh 15 were filed in the District of Columbia for a reason and these judges are ready right um they were shocked uh they were shocked and horrified by what they heard during the trials of the Jan 6 Insurrection is shocked and horrified by what saw with the United States Supreme Court in letting Donald Trump off the hook shocked and horrified during the sentencing process for these people and shocked and horrified When Donald Trump let them all out of jail now it's their turn and that's what we're watching here on on legal AF and on the mest touch Network so big headline here 15 days in first preliminary injunction trust the process the process is working you don't get to day 15 with four temporary restraining orders and four different judges on three different matters and a preliminary injunction if you don't know what you're doing trust the process trust the public interest groups trust the NAACP the ACLU democracy forward democracy Now Court accountability action the Attorneys General in 22 States they know what they're doing they know where to file they know how to file this is not their first rodeo they beat Donald Trump 80% of the time in a thousand cases in the first Administration so if Donald Trump we're gonna have triple now we're going to have 3,000 cases I've said it before we're already up to two plus cases a day and that will only continue that's why you got to keep track with the headlines here and our banners here about which case I'm talking about I'm going to talk about so many Jane Doe and John Doe cases against some aspect of Donald Trump you'll think didn't poac already give us that analysis no these are different cases we're keeping them straight for you here at the intersection of Law and politics
