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

[admin]

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

[admin]

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

[admin]

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.

[admin]

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.

3 @wyden.senate.gov, Bluesky (Feb. 1. 2025, 3:37 pm) https://bsky. app/ profile/ wyden.senate.gov/post/3lh5ejpwncc23.

4 Andrew Duehren et al., Treasury Official Quits After Resisting Musk’s Requests on Payments, N.Y. Times, Jan. 31, 2025.

5 Michael Stratford et al., Trump administration gives Musk allies access to Treasury payment system, Politico, Feb. 1, 2025.

6 @elonmusk, X (Feb. 2, 2025 3:14 am) https://x.com/elonmusk/status/ 1885964969335808217.

[admin]

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

[admin]

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]

[admin]

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

[admin]

Conway Explains: Here’s How We STOP This Psycho
George Conway Explains It All (To Sarah Longwell)
The Bulwark
Feb 6, 2025

We are on the edge of a dark precipice where the rule of law doesn't exist at least at the federal level I mean we're talking about psychopaths here. We're talking about sociopaths here. We're talking about people with no morals, no conscience, no nothing. Why are they going to obey a court order? And that to me is the scariest aspect of all.

-- George Conway

Sarah Longwell and George Conway take on Trump 2.0's grim vision of a government stripped of legal limits. Agencies dismantled, courts defied, and the Constitution in jeopardy. When no one enforces the law, will chaos prevail?



Transcript

[George Conway] We are on the edge of a dark precipice where the rule of law doesn't exist at least at the federal level I mean we're talking about psychopaths here. We're talking about sociopaths here. We're talking about people with no morals, no conscience, no nothing. Why are they going to obey a court order? And that to me is the scariest aspect of all.

[Sarah Longwell] Hello everyone, and welcome to George Conway explains it all to Sarah.
I'm Sarah Longwell, publisher of the Bulwark. And because I'm not a lawyer, I've asked my good friend George Conway, from
the society for the rule of law, to explain the illegal news to me, because that's all we got, George. We got illegal
news. It is just a Festivus of illegality that we have here
in the United States of America, and I don't think I can explain it all. I think I'm going to be completely
stumped, because I don't think you can possibly catch up to all the things that are happening as they happen, which is by
design, right? I mean this is how it's supposed to go. We're supposed to be overwhelm with this stuff.

[George Conway] I think that's right. I always hesitate when anybody
ever associates the name Donald Trump with the word "strategy." I don't think
he's strategic in his thinking. I do think that the people around him, to some
extent, I don't think they're the brightest people in the world. All of them do have a strategy of just
overwhelming everybody, and they have an advantage. Not that they're smart, it's
that they're evil. And they have an advantage in that normally, if you or I took over the government and wanted to
turn it around in some fashion suitable to our beliefs and
desires, we'd be sitting around figuring out carefully what the plan is, what are the side effects of the plan, what
what harm could it do, would our plan work? And we'd be consulting
with lawyers to figure out whether the plan is legal, and what authorizations does it require; which parts of the
United States Code impact it. And that's a process that takes a while.

They don't believe in any of that. They don't care about the side effects of anything they're doing. They're not doing it
necessarily because they have hard and fast beliefs on what a good world should be, a better world should be, they're
doing it out of desires for revenge, and just outright nihilism, and they
certainly do not care about legality. And that's the advantage they
have. That's the reason why they can proceed so quickly.

And then the other aspect of it is and again this isn't you
know even Trump can understand that it's not strategy as such it's
bullies act in an unrestrained fashion to intimidate okay and that's that's what
the instinctual source of all of this is with Trump you intimidate and the way
you intimidate is by you just com at everybody all at once and you know it's that basically
what we have in America today is I've heard the you know I've heard
all sorts of phrases to describe trumpism as fascistic or want to be fascists or fascist or authoritarian or
autocratic um the word that one word that I've heard in the past is ocracy is
what is what we were have been headed for what we had during the first Trump
Administration which I have now taken to call [ __ ] show one I think it's even more specific than PA pathocracy which
is a word that somebody I don't know who coined what what is this word pathocracy pathocracy in other words it's
pathological it's a pathological form of government I mean there lots of other words you have kakistocracy for the
government by the worst is that a real world or did you just invent that word no I did not invent pathocracy I'm about
to tell you the word that I did invent I think I because I see no trace of it ever in any dictionary or writing and I
probably should save it because I want to write something about but I'm gonna I'll for the for Bart viewers so since
they pay so much money do they pay money no this is free this is free we giving
meow for free I mean no advertisers are on it they gotta watch ads okay
psychopath psychopathy yeah rolls off the tongue I can see how this could be is if you take
all the characteristics that I was talking about last year about Psychopaths malignant narcissists
narcissistic sociopaths whatever phrase you want to use to describe them because all of those phrases are like
overlapping circles in a V diagram you you have a government that
is psychopathic because it is being run by Psychopaths for Psychopathic ends um
and Psychopaths seek destruction this is what they are seeking and you know I I that's where we
are today and it's a really really I don't think people are starting to catch on to it a few days late a few years l
um but that's where we are uh okay I Che it's cheerful yeah I
do want to kind of I'm TR I have been trying in this way that just sort of overwhelms the senses like part of
what's difficult is that you're trying to pull apart like you're right if if we were if both of us who I think have
would have Ambitions if you gave us magic wands we were running the government we would have Ambitions around po IDE not all of them be work
but yeah yeah to how you constrain the government how you limit uh the government perhaps how you how you shrink the government a little bit um
but you would also recognize that uh you had to do it in ways that were careful um ways that would likely have blowback
and so like rather than rather than stressing themselves with learning about
any of the functions of these things who might be harmed what do they actually do what is essential what is non-essential
or what is less essential and making those careful judgments they're just he's got the Twitter Playbook and he's
just like we're just going to fire everybody we're just stop up for work um now it it took a
while for and it was funny not funny like haha but like he did it over the
weekend too and he tweeted about this right I I gotta tell you yesterday he tweeted 200 times I don't know is
ketamine does ketamine what does it do that allows you to tweet 200 times while you're dismantling the government um
because it's a it's like a lot to do but they they went in over the weekend and started just like shutting down systems
you know demanding sort of ke to all of the confidential things in the metime they managed to make a bunch of CIA uh
Chinese CIA types like expose them just like out them um now like there there is
collateral damage that's happening from this Beyond just what they're doing at these governments but I was like when is
this is illegal Congress has appropriated money for these people we talked about this last week this is it
is approved by Congress you can't just stop it all so it's it is illegal it's
seems like on its face but I was like where why isn't anything happening but subsequently uh there's been a flurry of
litigation pushing back against everything going on from birth rght citizenship to the establishment of uh
Doge to disclosure of personal and financial information to Doge so is
there any of the litigation that you're particularly hopeful about like is is this going to work are they going to be
able to slow these guys down you well this is that you've asked the correct
question great news in an Ordinary World yes
because they're going to get you know they're going to win some the plaintiffs they're going to lose some that some
some claims are not yet fully developed because they need Discovery but by and large these complaints do point out a SM
a slew of illegalities I mean there are literally dozens of them I now and I can't it's hard to keep track of them
all but here's the problem and this is why I've been very pessimistic over the
last few days at least pessimistic in the short and medium anything but the long term maybe in the long term there'll be something positive out of
all of this when it's all over Trump's gonna lose some of these cases no question they may even get Tred in the
FBI agents case today what does trro mean means temp there's a tempor law you're right temporary
restraining order what happens when you file a lawsuit that ultimately seeks relief to stop somebody from doing
something like you know your neighbor wants to build a big uh you know uh something or other it's going to pollute
onto your land you want to stop the government from doing something you seek a permanent injunction and you have to
go through a trial to get that but in to prevent the harm before you get all the way to a trial you get temporary relief
and one thing you can do is you can walk into a court and say Here's an affidavit look at the things that are going on and please give us a temporary restraining
order so that there'll be something left for you to decide judge tomorrow and then you can have a quick hearing and
have a preliminary injunction and then you go on to the full trial it's just a whole process of trying to protect the
status quo so that ultimately fin or relief can be granted and then you'll take an appeal and so on so today there
may be a trro granted in there at least three cases in the US District Court
downtown here in DC that are attacking the you know the requests the basically
the inquiries being made of FBI agents about whether they had anything to do with January 6 prosecutions and so on
and the claim the principal claim as I understand it and I've only skimmed these complaints they were literally
just filed within the last 48 hours um is that the the there there
there about to be violations or have been violations of the Privacy Act and the Privacy Act is an act that protects
your and my and government employees confidential information in
other words between if an agency has you know data about Sarah Longwell it is
prohibited from taking that personal data personal information and Publishing
it on the internet also prohibited is the sending of such information from one
agency to another absent your consent and so what the FBI agents claims are is
that these the the the government is contemplating or engaging in massive violations of the Privacy Act because
they want you know they want to compile a list of FBI agents who participated in
some fashion in j January 6th prosecutions and investigations and they want to purge them and so you know you
wouldn't be surprising to see that go over to the White House or whatever and and that's what's the allegation the
problem with the the allegation is although it's probably true the defendants the government is saying well
you don't really have any proof that's what's going on and which is true because it's just news it's it's there's
a lot of speculation about what are they doing with this stuff it hasn't happened yet and so sometimes you know one one
one defense it's not a crazy defense is this is all speculative on the other hand on a trro basis you don't have to
you don't have to prove your case you just have to show look there's some something really bad going on here judge
we don't know you know you may not we may not have it all figured out yet but you can see that you can see the
outlines in the night here um but anyway to go to the main topic that I'd like to
discuss is okay what happens when Trump loses some of these cases and he will lose some of these cases this is on my
list to talk about I well this is the most important thing because basically we could be just
days away from the complete abandonment of federal
rule of law in this country and here's here's let me explain this and I know this sounds very alarmist um but we
should be alarmed this guy doesn't care about laws psychopath the principal
psychopath the elected psychopath doesn't care about laws and obeying rules and then the his his minion who is
really exercising more power with than he is the guy running
around the government hooking up to computer sites he doesn't care about
rules either yeah what happens when somebody gets enjoined by a federal judge judge issues an order saying Thou
shalt not do X okay so somebody gets enjoined and go and they say [ __ ] you
I'm going to do X anyway well what the judge does next would be to basically
have US Marshals go out and arrest person why who's doing X in violation of
a court order and bring them in and hold them in contempt of court problem is all
the mechanisms by which federal judges can do that go through the Executive Branch the United States Marshall
service which goes out and executes warrants and would execute would be the person who would take some would be the
people who would take somebody into contempt is part of United States
Department of Justice and that United States Department of Justice reports to president Donald J Trump and so what
happens when Trump decides I'm not we're not obeying that
order and he tells Pam Bondi to tell the US
Marshall service to stand down what good is a federal court
order and once you get to that point yeah there is no
law and you know why why are we pay you know and and it means why should anyone
obey the law at this point the federal law why should you and I pay taxes the government's not going to comply by the
law is the government going to come after us for not paying taxes who's going to do that they probably took they
probably took elon's us I mean we are on the edge of a dark precipice where the rule
of law doesn't exist at least at the federal level and
that I don't think people fully understand that yet but I don't I've
been gaining this out in my head and what makes anyone believe that a court order is going to be enforceable now I
don't I don't know I I don't see why the you know I mean we're talking about psychopathy here we're talking about
soci here we're talking about people with no morals no conscience no nothing
why are they going to obey a court order and that to me
is the scariest aspect of all this all right so some you know I mean it's
there's all sorts of terrible things that can happen that the the federal government cannot you know I mean
these specific line items that were appropriated may not get spent that's illegal
absolutely that's nothing compared to what happens if courts cannot enforce their
orders and if we are I don't think we're that far away from
this okay so let me ask you this because I so I I was this is the rub of what I
want to talk about although it was sort of a different example so I was on Nicole yesterday and John hman was on
and it was like he'd had JVL on his podcast and JVL sort of laid out this doomsday scenario but we were talking
about birth right citizenship and I naively you know was like well here's
the thing here's what it says like here's the express language of the cons couldn't be clearer like I was like this
isn't a public opinion question it's not even barely a legal question it's a constitutional question the Constitution is like just completely straightforward
I like read it out loud on live TV to be like this is what it says and John hman
said okay Sarah well here's the thing I I've got I've had JVL on my podcast and I was like oh no here we go darkest time
line uh and he's like but but what happens if the Supreme Court because
it'll go up to the Supreme Court and the Supreme Court upholds it because the letter like obviously there's two
supreme court justices that might not do it anyway because they're Clarence Thomas And Justice Alo but like Amy Cony
Barrett does and Kavanagh does because it's just about having reading comprehension which I still think most
of the people in the Supreme Court have y um and then Trump says I don't care we're going to stop issuing birth
certificates cuz here's the thing once he does it in one area you do it in all the areas correct
right what happens the point that I was just making no I know it is I know it is but I guess like it's if he just defies
the Supreme Court like I could see them trying to overrun lower level courts or I don't know like acting until it got
but like if he just says like dares the Supreme Court to stop him like what happens next look I don't think there's
a difference actually I don't think there's a practical difference between defying the Supreme Court and defying
the lower courts and here's why because at the end of the day if the Supreme
Court rules against the government in a Birthright citizenship
case as as you pause it and I think they will I think the Supreme Court's never going to uphold the crazy theory of
of that the government is pushing the case gets sent back to the district court the district court is the
court that is charged with enforcing what the law is okay they're
at the front lines and how do they enforce it just give granularly again no they get what I describe the process
basically let's say the government stops issuing birth certificates to people who are entitled
to birth certificates on the cookie Theory Supreme Court says Kookie Theory um uh we're affirming The
District Court decision which probably will have already been defied by the government um and so it goes back to The District
Court District Court says You must issue these birth certificates and the head of in says no and what would normally
happen would be that person would be held in contempt and that person could be fined and that person could be hauled
off by the US Marshals and held in civil contempt until he complies and usually it doesn't get to that because nobody
wants to be held in civil contempt until they comply and the person underneath them doesn't want that too so they will
obey they'll obey the court order even if president United States that's what normally would happen but as I said
who's going to take these people off to jail for civil for for to be held in
civil contempt and you're saying that the marshals themselves the US Marshal Service enforces if if I violate a
federal court order and I'm held in contempt because contempt is the way civil contempt is the way you enforce
you viol an order the judge and you refuse to obey the order the judge says you need to obey the order and you you
defy them you get held in civil contempt the judge will then the GU judge can
find you or the judge can you know basically keep finding you until you comply or the judge can basically send
the US Marshall service out at you that's what and then right okay so but then like so you're a marshall let's
just this Marshall's name is Joe and Joe Joe Marshall is like all right well the
told me to go do this that's what I normally do who then who stops Joe does
Trump call Joe and say Joe don't do this Joe Joe will get have gotten a
memo from his superiors saying you shall not do this or you will be
fired and does the court then go to the superior and give them a similar none of these people report to
the court that's the point this Marshall reports to some supervisor who ultimately reports to the
head of US Marshall service who reports to Pam to to the probably associate or Deputy attorney general I don't know and
then who then reports to Pam Bondi who then reports to pus okay if Trump it's I'm not saying
this any of this is legal because none of this is legal but Trump can basically take out
the mechanisms by which court orders can be enforced and you know he'll enjoy
that you know what he thinks of the courts he has nothing but contempt for
courts l i mean I don't mean that in the legal sense but he has nothing but contempt this will you know the courts
have done bad things to him okay
so here's why I think look here's where I think we are or we possibly could end
up courts will not be able to enforce their orders against Trump because Trump
will disobey them and will basically Wipe Out the mechanism by which I I hope this isn't true but I don't just doing
the math and extrapolating and conducting the experiment in my head with these sociopaths who really don't
have any limiting you know they're not limited by law or conscience or anything this is
where this is happening so he can he will not obey court orders so the law cannot be enforced and at the same time
he's going to try to enforce his will upon people legally or illegally by you
know firing them or by Prosecuting them or by rounding them up or by having the
calling out the National Guard or the military or whatever he's going to issue orders and I think those orders May well
be disobeyed too because I do think government employees and soldiers and and people at some point are going to
say I can't these are illegal orders I'm not going to obey them okay we're already we're we're going to see some of
that and he won't have actually he will not have a way to enforce his orders
not not not completely what we have so what I'm saying is we're going to have
chaos there are going to be no rules there GNA be no laws at least at the
federal level and that's what I think is
terrifying I hope it doesn't happen but I just you know it just it's sort of
like you know how I have scientist friends who will just cringe at this but it's sort of how they figured out what
the where how the Big Bang occurred they just sort of logically traced the principles and the and the things that
are affecting the system back to the very beginning well this is tracing the
actors in their behavioral modes into the future I don't see them obeying the
law I don't see a future for the rule of law right now in in in in under the
Federal Constitution I I think we are that close to the precipice didn't get
what you wanted for Christmas it's time to give yourself what you really wanted cooking is easy with hexclad whose one
pan has both the performance of stainless steel and the convenience of nonstick their dishwashers safe and
simple to wipe clean after use as well as oven safe handles heat up to 500° fah
the patented hexagon design protects against scratches even when using metal utensils and hexclad isn't just about
pots and pans their knives are made of 67 layers of Japanese Damascus steel for
a Sharper Edge that stays sharp longer for effortless slicing Gordon Ramsey
even uses hexclad in his restaurants and his home and he's the toughest critic on the planet I always see that guy yelling
at people for a limited time only our listeners get 10% off your order with our exclusive link just head to hexclad
decom ask George that's h eex c a d.com
forward slash ask George guys I don't do a lot of cooking
you know that I talk about this but I do make spaghetti for my kids that's like
the one thing I can really make and every time I make spaghetti for my kids before with other pans I would always
burn my hand on the pot it's one of the reasons that I keep like out of the kitchen because I'm always burning
myself on the super hot handle when you take it off the stove these handles don't get hot it's
like the greatest invention ever had uh in my life where it just it doesn't it's something about the way that this what
did they call it the uh the Japanese Damascus steel or something like it doesn't doesn't get so hot that you burn
yourself these are the best pots and pans we've ever had our family loves them you'll love them too so again our
listeners get 10% off your order with our exclusive link head to hexclad dcom
askgeorge support our show and check them out at heex
a.com askgeorge make sure to let let them know we sent you bone Appetit let's
eat with hexclad revolutionary cookware you know one of the things it's so alarming about you saying this is like I
expect this from JVL JVL is always the darkest has The Darkest Timeline and take you usually kind of feel like you
know the courts will function normally like even as we've watched every other back stop
fall away you know you've always kind of had the courts uh and the law they going to lose some of these cases and but the
thing is now is what we are seeing is
inconsistent with anybody obeying the law yeah and unless somebody gets a
spying real fast in the justice department or somewhere I mean we see this guy uh who
who they accidentally I mean they're just so incompetent they accidentally put in charge of the FBI he kind of
stood up to them a little but you know I don't see how this plays out
without complete chaos okay well that's good great great stuff I mean this is
this is how I see it right now I hope I'm I hope I'm rat of I hope I'm just insanely wrong but I just don't see you
know I just I mean I mean they're crazy these people that were running the government are either
crazy some of them are crazy others are just um craving look at look at let's
take the Gaza thing okay it's it's almost it's so ridiculous you couldn't have made it up
but Trump goes out there and basically says he wants to basically ethnically cleanse Gaza send the Palestinians to
Jordan and Egypt or wherever and turn turn it into turn Gaza into the Riviera
with probably with a Trump Hotel and everybody freaks out the entire planet freaks out because no one
thinks this is possible no one thinks it's not immoral and illegal it violates
basic international law violates the law it violate it's a war crime and it's a
crime against humanity and it's just you know how are you going to actually physically do this without you know
murdering 100 thousand people right this is completely insane on many levels and
so the White House walks it back yesterday oh no no no blah blah blah you
know they're with [ __ ] the way they always used to you know back in [ __ ] show one they used to always have to do this all the time although this one was
really really insane um and what does he do at 5:00 this morning he puts out a true social post
saying how wonderful it's going to be when we got all the Palestinians out of Gaza and it's a wonderful beautiful
place to live let's talk about Gaza for a hot second but on my point is he's
[ __ ] nuts no I know and there's nothing there's there's he's completely
beyond control right now did you see Susie W's face when he's saying that
that was not a thing they had discussed previously he just decided to throw it all out there you know what's
interesting about both Elon I didn't find surprising because I know that's what he thinks no I know and Jared I saw
clips of Jared saying this like years ago this like you know we're gonna make it you know we're you mean wrong in the
sense that is that should be an idilic place on the Mediterranean if it weren't for the political issues and the history
and everything like that I mean in terms of as a real estate play it ought to be good
but these people are so psychotic they can't understand it well these are actually people who live there real
people with lives and they may not behave the way you want them to behave but you can't
just you just can't you know how are you going to get them all out how how what right do you have to do that like none
of these things occur to these people because they are all so narcissistic and
sociopathic well part of what's funny too is like he literally ran on an an anti- interventionist platform the
America we are I mean are we going to be gritted as liberators uh like what is the the plan like the whole thing was
like we are in too many forever Wars we're doing all this stuff we shouldn't do all this adventurism abroad and now what we're invading Canada we're
invading Greenland we're gonna take over Gaza and the Panama Canal yeah just start is
that's just the warm-up act but you know what listen it's like but you're using
logic okay you canot I I know that that's I know that that's a mistake but here's another piece of logic let me
just or or like what it seems like to me though is that Trump trump and Elon are both just doing the thing that they know
like Trump like is like I'm president now so I'm going to develop I like want to go purchase other places and develop
them because that's like what he is a developer at his core and Elon is like a person who dismantles he's just doing to
the federal government exactly what he did to Twitter Twitter corre uh and so they're just like using the same oh
they know in that sense they're both you know onetick ponies okay and you know I mean but I'll
give Elon credit for zeroing it I mean this is the one everything
else I am not surprised by right the one thing that I think is new that I would
which is not on my bingo card was that Elon would zero in on the computer
systems and take those over I mean it's sort of life but it makes sense now in hindsight because like you you know
you're Dracula what do you do you go for the circulatory part and this is what
and he's he's not wrong you can you can cut off the money you can shut down the government tomorrow of course you could
also crash the national debt you could destroy the global economy I mean there are all sorts of collateral effects we
may ought to be ought to be concerned by um but yeah I mean that's they're just
sticking to I mean they have they have limited playbooks they you know and and there there's somebody wrote something
yesterday I saw on on social media where um elon's very smart in a lot of ways
but the so there was like the definition of idiot back in Roman or Greek times
was somebody who didn't understand how they relate to the society around them okay what Elon
thinks Elon thinks and and a lot of these Tech oligarchs brchs or whatever you want to
call them they think that they exist solely because of their own Brilliance not because they existed
within a legal and social structure that allowed them to prosper the rule of law
for example you could not have you know I mean all this all the stuff that that has been done by Silicon Valley and
silicon you know it's all basically because we have a rule of law where you can have intellectual property and those
rights can be enforced and people can't just copy stuff and people can't just
break contracts all of this stuff he's like we but none of this matters to these two to Trump and Elon but actually
you just raised something that I was thinking about before when you were talking about it so if if let's just say Trump stops abiding by the law we are
thrust into this constitutional crisis and you were saying we don't have laws anymore you know at least at the federal
level does that apply to everyone like or like does everybody stop obeying the
law like what's the or or or let me and sorry let me ask just a second part of this question and also let's say Trump
wants to Trump trump is actively trying to litigate against other people right he's going after CBS he's going after so
do the courts allow him to litigate against other people if he's refusing to
abide by their rulings in other cases that's a very good question that's a very good question um
I think they will probably try to act in the normal fashion and handle the cases if nothing else is going on um but that
being said you know who's enforcing all these judgments that get issued I don't
know maybe only maybe only judgments that Trump gets will be enforced I don't
know um but I have to say one of the I mean what why do we all obey the law why
don't we why don't we just go and walk down the street and kill somebody for their lunch money well there a bunch of
different reasons one is we have moral consciences right
another is we fear the impa We Fear prosecution right if
you have a legal system that shows itself not to be able to enforce the law
you lose one of those important constraints and if you have a government
where basically nobody has the moral as moral constraints or is willing to act
on moral constraints you know we don't have law
we have absolute chaos and that is I mean that's where I'm afraid we're
headed I'm just putting it another way and I hope I'm wrong I would love to
be able to be wrong in two weeks two months two years well you're gonna forgive me but I I'm going to sit here
and I'm going to keep trying to work up alternate scenarios of how you would put guard rails around this system as the guard rails collapse from the courts but
like let's say Trump just okay so he does this thing you're saying thrust us into a constitutional crisis he's not
obeying now I know that everything we've seen from Congress so far indicates that
there is no limiting principle for them on like what they will tolerate from Trump if he just yes the Republicans if
he just refuses to start to obey the courts will no Republicans do anything
about that well what are they going to do well they could say
something I know I know I know no I heard something that Tom Tillis I I I
got to look it up but I saw some Tom Tillis who basically said well maybe all
maybe this some of this stuff is legal but some of the stuff isn't it doesn't really matter sometimes you just have to do stuff I mean basically it was equ to
that effect I don't think they have the spine and even if you have a few of them what are they gonna do Chuck Schumer is
introducing a bill to say you can't do all the things that are illegal that they're doing Bill's never going to pass
but so what so so let's make it you know something's illegal 50 times over what what what difference does it
make if we say it's illegal for a 501st time in the Neco what what does what does Congress get
us and there is an answer the answer is
provided by the framers was if you have a president who is violating his oath of
office which this guy is he's you know he's he's clearly basically that's what
I mean like teritory if I can finish oh oh did I interrupt you oh I'm so sorry I'm so
sorry I interrupted you I can't imagine how that works I know right um he's basically cast his legal
and constitutional obligations to the win he's his he violates his oath of
office almost every minute now yeah he has delegated executive power to
somebody who's not even a permanent employee of the government let alone a prince officer I mean it's so it's IL and this
person is usurping article one powers of the purse I mean you've got so much unconstitutionality here um I mean the
answer would be impeachment right that should be the answer you should be impeached and removed from office and but here's the
thing how's that GNA go okay but hold on hold on just one second if he was doing this
McConnell if he's still up I mean this guy McConnell McConnell you know I mean
M M Makowski Collins like you could How You Gonna what do they do
they're not going to get to they're not gonna get you know we're they're not gonna get maybe if you got five or six
house members you could get you could you could vote it through a bill of impeachment but I don't see that happening um but if it did are you gonna
get this are you really gonna get 66 V 67 votes in the Senate it's got to get
things got to get a lot worse before that happens yeah okay and at that point you think
he's really going to leave office all right so here's my next all right next next possibility so this is and this was
you know obviously I'm I'm kicking around these other things but I I see I mean I obviously see the futility of of
trying to say like boy Congress could do something or maybe they're like at this point of just refusing to
obey the law people in the streets is probably your last Bingo last option Bingo that's all we
got at the end of the day that's what's going to have to come down to yes and he'll deploy the military against them
it will be go back to the other point that I was making which is I don't know whether
some people are GNA B obey those orders which is a good thing I don't
know but this is you know no but but you're seeing the point I've been making is as you gain this stuff out you don't
see a positive outcome you don't see anything but chaos and
violence and I mean play Devil's Advocate where where if which logical
step in this chain am I wrong I don't think it's wrong I mean I
think because I think it's conceivable I think part of what is where where's it gonna where where it where's the what's
the break in the chain that says it's not going to happen I can't figure that out yeah I mean the break in the chain
would be that they would abide by the court ruling because I you know and maybe they will maybe
maybe they will I don't see it though I think these people are that far gone I
think there's not many people in government who will have the backbone to
stand up to Trump and they will be removed hey let me ask you a different question so I see
Trump's Complete embolden because the Supreme Court right gave him total immunity from these
actions right so he gets out let's say one of the limiting again one of the fears is some point he's not in office
and he spends his very last years in prison but he can't now because he's
immune uh I mean I don't know if he's immune from all this stuff but elon's not immune elon's not immune yeah but
Elon can be pardoned what What Fear Does Elon what about after though what about after they're out of power what do you
mean when are they going to be out of power well so I mean I guess okay so so that's that in this scenario they don't
they don't abide by the court rulings and they stop having elections well I
mean maybe but how do we 2026 2026 right but so we have to get to 2026
and 2028 I'm worried we're not even going to get there but the bottom line is why should Elon Musk fear anything
well we'll get there in the sense that those days will come but he will he's you know this is this is what Trump
trump told people this in during [ __ ] show one just build a wall just do this do
all that I will pardon you and all of these people have nothing to fear because they actually have potentially
broader immunity than Trump has because Trump is why well because Trump is only
immune from Criminal prosecution for his official ads which is why he could have
been prosecuted and sent to jail for what he for shenanigans relating to the 2020 election because not everything he
did was an official act or even could be characterized as an official act his pining of documents was not official his
um what he did with his books and records in the stormmy Daniel case was not official conduct he's still subject
to prosecution for those things um let's leave aart of the state and federal
thing because that that's that's a little wrinkle on it but if you're Elon
or your Kash or your pondi or pick somebody in the government and Trump
pardons you he can pardon you for for for stealing money from a
grandmother you know under federal law not under state law so basically but this scenario only works if Trump never
leaves power well it doesn't matter he could he could issue a he could he could issue a pardon today for every crime
that has been committed since the beginning of his administration or the beginning of time by all the people right so if he ever did leave
office let's say it's at noon on January 20th 2029 he'd basically issue pardons to
everybody who D did his bidding during his four years in office let's Assuming he's leaving office not you know and
they would have B immunity than he would have he probably want a pardon himself too just to get see if he could get the
benefit of that broader immunity because those people can be Pro you know pardon
can cover unofficial acts so if if if somebody if one of these Doge kids
decides to hey let's use the payment system to send me a billion dollars to my Swiss bank
account that kid could be pardoned yeah okay okay I'm I'm I'm extremely
depressed uh and I didn't mean to be depressed no no no no no no no no I think it's this is I don't even mean
it's not about it's not about being depressed this is this is clarifying in ways I and I wanted to to get into this
I want to ask you one other question that I've been kicking around which is um and and maybe I mean in your previous
scenario like if everything's Lawless then the answer to my questions all of
my questions about like can this be done is like well technically no but nobody's abiding by it so it's all Lawless but
like can without Congress can the president just dissolve
usaid um yes
probably because again I'm I'm not a bureaucratic expert or expert in any of this stuff
but my understanding is usaid is not a statutory creation of Congress what it
does is it does dispense money that has been appropriated by Congress So to that
extent whether or not usaid exists they cannot basically just say we're not
spending money for these purposes that Congress provided that we spend the money for
but my understanding is that USA ID was created by an executive order President Kennedy and it was it's not a statutory
creation and and you know well Congress no in 1998 Congress established USA ID
as its own agency oh did it okay okay all right well then they can't they can't disestablish it then if that's
true I mean they just so moving into the state department like I guess I'm wondering like is that move legal it may not be again I'd have to I'd have to see
what this what the statute did not know that they had been that the usid has had been created as a separate agency I
thought it was something that sort of existed and that Congress you know once it's like the EPA for a long time was
not a statutorily created agency it was basically a President Nixon repurposed
some you know office in the EOB and then
you know it basically created this agency by executive order that to enforce all the en environmental
mandates that had been passed by Congress which made sense so you know president has the power to create
structures to carry out congress's you know instructions even if
they don't actually create the department so he has he has some res residual authority to do that well then
let's just take one that we where it's not even a question um which is like Ed Department of Education can he cannot
dissolve the Department of Education and he he cannot refuse to spend the money that has been appropriated to be spent
through the Department of Education correct absolutely that would be profoundly illegal you know what's crazy to me about all this stuff with the they
could just pass a new budget like like I I like if if they instead of they're
they're gonna they're going to pass a budget soon like the budget stuff is so like why not just do this through the normal budgetary process and cut
everything because they don't have the votes because even republicans in Congress won't give it to them right
well you know we we don't have I mean if this stuff all this we have
been marching in the fields of the right for decades you and I okay um at least
until [ __ ] show one there are always people who wanted
to basically dismantle the government sure from you know I mean like uh like Grover NorQuest who basically said he
wants to make the government so small he could strangle it in the bathtu drown it in the bathtub drown it in the bathtub that old famous thing
and the reason why that never happened or anything close to it never happened
is because there just isn't political support for it and that's what they you know the ultimate reason why this all of
this is anti-democratic apart from the fact that you know they're just running rough shod
over statutes and constitutional restrictions is that
we've never had the will as a people people to vote in legislators to do
these things okay because it's you know basically dissolve the entire that's
crazy right nobody everybody has their little their little things in the government some of us like some stuff
some of us like don't like other stuff okay and we all have different preferences and what the democratic
system what our constitutional system does is it provides a mechanism by which
we work that out so I have to take I have to accept some stuff I don't like in order to accept the things that I
like and they don't want to play by that anymore and that's where we
are they are doing things they could not possibly have the political support to do or they are trying to do things that
they don't have the political support to do because if they had the political support to done it they would have been done they would would have been done during [ __ ] show one would have been
done during the Reagan Administration right and you know one of the things
have to accept living in a constitutional democracy is you don't get everything you want yeah I guess the
only push back I would have to this is that if if you think every Republican would give him right they've got this
tiny majority in Congress uh and if you think every Republican would be on his
side about everything else every all the Lawless stuff but they would stand up to him on funding on the budget like why
well I you know I never has happened before right they've never actually you
know when the Republicans have had control of both the presidency and
Congress we've never seen serious fiscal restraint on there I mean we see a
little bit on the margins for some things I but if Trump was like past this budget where I cut the hell out of all
this stuff why wouldn't they do it they take his if they're taking his marching orders on everything else well they don't want to do it because they don't
want to accept political responsibility for it you think the one thing that still exists for them is the incentive
of keeping their positions that's all they care about so they're afraid they're afraid
of him because he can create a backlash and have get them primary but they're also afraid of the backlash if they take
responsibility for anything so they basically sit on their hands and they do nothing I mean this is why this is how
Trump survives committing all these um High crimes and misdemeanors
they didn't want they knew he was guilty like I mean how many times do we have to
listen to Mitch mcon say that the criminal law was a you know he he knew
what what this guy did was criminal but he didn't want to take the political responsibility for taking him
out right so these people are just gonna be ciphers and maybe one or two of them
will show some courage maybe three or four but it's not enough
because the only mechanism that Congress has to control
an executive that is completely out of control and completely define the constitution and his oath of office is
impeachment and removal yeah and at the end of the day if he doesn't go who's gonna who's who
who takes him out of the White House who's there to order that to happen and so yeah so the only listen
everything everything comes down to as you pointed out and I've been saying online the streets yeah
man you look distressed and I I don't blame you well yeah what what do we what do we have to go leave a protest now in
the streets and yeah we're all gonna believe me we're all gonna be out there
we we we have to be out there because this is where it's you know unless somebody decides all of a sudden Donald
Trump grows a conscience and and Elon and all of these
people decide to put their loyalty to this one guy aside
and honor the Constitution and the laws of the United
States unless enough people do that all at once in the in the executive
branch we are going to see essentially
the dissolution of the federal rule of law I I just don't you know I just I I keep
running this in my head and I can't think of the scenario where that happens
where all of a sudden these people decide oh my gosh we've gone too far we have to obey the law even if we don't
like it I don't see that happening and and as as as I point out
Congress can't do anything unless the only mechanism Congress Congress has is impeachment and removal and we know
where that goes yeah
so you know what I'm describing here is essentially the potential destruction in
a matter of weeks and again I I
it's I mean we used to say stuff like this during the 2024 campaign during
2020 campaign during the during [ __ ]
show one that you know we run the risk of the complete Devolution of the rule
of law in America nobody knew what that meant yeah and it sounded
crazy right it sounds crazy because things are you go out walk out on the street it's all fine everything's fine
stre everybody's going to work I'm gonna go to the Super Bowl this weekend everything's gonna be
fun but where I you know when you actually
talk is through we are at very close to that point where all of these things all
these nightmare scenarios could come to pass and people don't fully appreciate
that yet including the media is starting to catch up a little bit but you know I mean it's like Oliver garcy who writes
this amazing column every day for his basically he used to work at CNN as
a as a media critic and now he has his own not substack it's a competitor of substack but basically says you know the
the the on the ground reporting is explaining this reasonably well after kind of a being thrown for a loop for a
couple days but we're not seeing screaming headlines like you know crisis
in America people don't we have become
numb to what's happening here and how
pathological and destructive it is and how close we are to the precipice I
don't think I I don't think anyone who doesn't walk carefully in and try to
thinks it doesn't think about these issues can fully appreciate it but when you actually try to focus on well where
where's the stopping point it's hard to reach to to to it's
hard not to reach the conclusion that there is none yeah which is why you're listening to me all depressed and you're
not even saying George I don't I don't think it's that bad I mean I I've been I've been I've been saying this for the
last two or three days over the weekend to some very very smart people professors of political
scientists other Boyers and I say tell me I'm
wrong and they can't well you know I'm with JVL if JBL
agrees is that if that's what JVL is saying then I thoroughly agree with JBL yeah it's always The Darkest Timeline um
that's what we walk through today but it is it is real um we are really confronting right that people haven't
caught up I'm not I'm not apocalyptic and I'm not I'm usually you're the opposite you're like no here's how he's
gonna go down right and and you see that completely gone because now it's
like we're stri down to the last defense and I don't there's nobody there
basically there's a gap in our lines the last defense is the American people the last defense is basically all these
people coming up and basically throwing their bodies in front of the tanks like the like the Mia tianan Square this is
where we this is where we possibly are okay throwing your bodies in front
of Tanks that's where we're going to leave you guys this week um Good Luck America as JVL says uh
thanks George for talking us through that I it is something I've been trying to think through so I appreciate the conversation we'll see you guys next
week um I usually say a closing but right now I'm all whatever and so uh
let's see uh thanks George Conway for explaining it all thanks to all of you for listening to another episode don't
forget to subscribe listen to us on Apple podcast do all the subscribing
let's all be in this together way he's a man with plan got to sit down with s long will take a stand
explain all the legal problems they're piling high with Donald Trump oh my oh
my oh my he said Sarah let me break it down
for you there's destruction Justice corruption to the legal Tangles and troubles the growing fast it's a storm
that's going to last and last oh can't way tell on well all about
it those legal problems can't live without it from the m to the Russian ties
oh Sarah listen close

[admin]

Trump Has Disturbing Response to DOGE’s Massive Overreach of Power
by Edith Olmsted
The New Republic
Opinion
Fri, February 7, 2025 at 2:23 PM MST
https://www.yahoo.com/news/trump-distur ... 04023.html

During a press conference Friday, Trump was asked about the Department of Government Efficiency’s unfettered access to trillion-dollar payment systems such as the U.S. Treasury Department, as well as the personal information of millions of Americans, including their Social Security numbers, home addresses, and bank account numbers.

[Reporter] “Why does DOGE need all of that?” asked one reporter.

[Donald Trump] “Well, it doesn't, but they get it very easily. I mean, we don't have very good security in our country. And they get it very easily. And what we're doing, if you look at what has just taken place with respect to some of their investments that have been made on another Agency that people have been talking about for years, but nobody did anything about, it's absolutely obscene, dangerous, bad, very costly. I mean, virtually every investment made is a con job. There's nothing of value to anybody, unless there's a kickback scheme going on, which is possible. And we're going to be doing more and more of that. We're going to be looking at the Department of Education; we're going to be looking at even our military; we're going to be looking at tremendous amounts of money, Peter, being spent on things that bear no relationship to anything, and have no value. We're talking about trillions of dollars. It will be, in the end, trillions of dollars being absolutely wasted, and perhaps illegally. I would say certainly, in many cases, illegally, but perhaps illegally overall. And I'm very proud of the job that this group of young people -- generally young people, but very smart people -- they're doing. They’re doing it at at my insistence. It would be a lot easier not to do it, but we have to take some of these things apart to find the corruption. We found tremendous corruption.

Donald Trump doesn’t care that Elon Musk and his nerd squad have access to the private information of millions of Americans.

During a press conference Friday, Trump was asked about the Department of Government Efficiency’s unfettered access to trillion-dollar payment systems such as the U.S. Treasury Department, as well as the personal information of millions of Americans, including their Social Security numbers, home addresses, and bank account numbers.

“Why does DOGE need all of that?” asked one reporter.

“Well, it doesn’t, but they get it very easily,” Trump admitted. “I mean, we don’t have very good security in our country, and they get it very easily.”

Trump appeared completely unbothered by the massive intrusion on the privacy of U.S. citizens—in fact, he seemed to suggest it was the fault of government agencies for not better concealing this information from Musk’s goons.

Trump rambled on, describing how DOGE needed to audit certain investments the government had made because they were “obscene, dangerous, bad, very costly.”

The Bulwark
@BulwarkOnline

Reporter: "DOGE engineers have access to treasury payment systems...social security numbers, home addresses, bank accounts. Why does DOGE need all of that?"

Trump: "Well, it doesn't, but they get it very easily. We don't have very good security in our country."

https://x.com/BulwarkOnline/status/1887950992760570069

12:46 PM · Feb 7, 2025

Concerns over DOGE’s “insider threat” have only grown in recent days, as they take over agency after agency, acquiring access to more troves of sensitive information. Trump has already said he couldn’t care less about Musk’s conflicts of interest, and the White House said that the DOGE czar would self-determine what projects were appropriate for him to work on.

As DOGE continues to extend its reach, members of Musk’s team are simultaneously being revealed to be a group of twenty-something failsons.

Musk announced Friday that he would be rehiring the DOGE employee who was fired over a range of racist posts because, as he wrote, “to err is human, to forgive divine.” Still, on X, Musk waged war against the journalist who reported on the posts in the first place, so it’s considerably more likely that, to him, there was nothing to forgive.

Additionally, Bloomberg reported Friday that another one of the 19-year-old wards on Musk’s DOGE team had been fired from an internship after he was accused of sharing company secrets with a competitor. Seems like the perfect person to have access to a trove of sensitive information, right?

[admin]

Inside Elon Musk’s War on Washington
by Simon Shuster and Brian Bennett
Time Magazine
February 7, 2025 8:00 AM EST
https://time.com/7213409/elon-musk-us-government-trump/

This article provides evidence for the first time of a systematic policy of direct collusion between the Time Inc. media empire and the U.S. Central Intelligence Agency (CIA).

-- The CIA and Time Magazine: Journalistic Ethics and Newsroom Dissent, by Simon Willmetts, Diplomatic History, Volume 48, Issue 5, November 2024, Pages 719–743

The OPS [Office of Public Safety] originated in the Public Safety program under the International Cooperation Administration (ICA) in 1954. In 1962, when the ICA was replaced by the USAID, the program was reorganised under the new title of 'Office of Public Safety', consolidating various disparate overseas police training and assistance projects across the globe. Its director, CIA operative and police reformer Byron Engle, served from 1962 until his retirement in 1973....

International development programs could present the modernisation and expansion of security infrastructure as growing stability and preventing crime in these nations, without the bad optics of the CIA or the military...

The OPS operated in at least fifty-two countries in Asia, Africa and the Americas. One of its main functions was counterinsurgency, aiding governments in the suppression of communist groups. In total, it provided over $200M of USAID and CIA funds to recipient countries in weaponry, communications equipment and tactical equipment. Its other functions were to facilitate the planting of CIA operatives within police forces of at-risk regions, and to find suitable candidates within these foreign forces to enrol in the CIA.

-- Office of Public Safety, by Wikipedia, Accessed: 2/7/25

The standoff at 1300 Pennsylvania Avenue was not much of a spectacle. On the first day of February, a handful of men working for Elon Musk had come to the U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID), a few blocks from the White House, demanding full access to its headquarters. The agency’s staff refused. No guns were drawn. No punches thrown. Nobody involved the police. But in these early days of the Trump Administration, perhaps no other scene revealed more clearly the forces reshaping America’s government.

On one side stood an institution with a 64-year history, a $35 billion budget, and a mission enshrined in federal law. On the other stood Musk’s political wrecking crew. They identified themselves as members of the Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE), a collection of temporary staffers with no charter, no website, and no clear legal authority. Its power derives from Musk, the wealthiest person on the planet, who has been deputized to dismantle vast swaths of the federal bureaucracy—slashing budgets, gutting the civil service, and stripping independent agencies of the ability to impede the President’s objectives.

USAID leadership had allowed Musk’s team, a group of his young and eager followers, to spend several days inside their headquarters at the end of January. “The DOGE kids,” as some of the staffers called them in private, walked the halls with clipboards in their hands, examining desks and questioning managers, according to several USAID officials who described the events to TIME. But as the weekend arrived, their demands—including access to sensitive facilities designed to store classified information—went too far for the agency’s heads of security. The men from DOGE threatened to call the U.S. Marshals and have them clear the building. They also informed Musk about the problem. “USAID is a criminal organization,” Musk wrote to his 215 million followers on his social media platform, X, soon after. “Time for it to die.”

The cause of Musk’s crusade remained unclear. But regardless of the reason, by the following morning, an agency that annually disburses tens of billions of dollars across the globe, fighting famine and disease and bringing clean water to millions, had mostly ceased to function. Within a week, nearly all its staff were placed on leave, its offices around the world shut down.


Photo-Illustration by TIME (Source Photos: Chip Somodevilla—Getty Images; Anna Moneymaker—Getty Images)

Every other government bureau got the message loud and clear. No single private citizen, certainly not one whose wealth and web of businesses are directly subject to the oversight of federal authorities, has wielded such power over the machinery of the U.S. government. So far, Musk appears accountable to no one but President Trump, who handed his campaign benefactor a sweeping mandate to bring the government in line with his agenda. DOGE directed all of TIME’s questions about its work to the White House, which declined to comment.

Already, the DOGE team has taken over the U.S. Digital Service and established a beachhead within the federal human-resources department, the Office of Personnel Management (OPM). The Education Department is on edge, fearing a self-decapitation mandate is in the offing. Few agencies seem safe. Musk has shown that he will tolerate no opposition, no matter how justified. Days before the drama at USAID, a Treasury official refused DOGE access to the U.S. federal payment system. The official was forced to retire, and the newly appointed Treasury Secretary, Scott Bessent, gave DOGE the access it demanded. The Administration agreed on Feb. 5 to restrict that access, at least temporarily, after a group of past and present employees sued.

These are just the first ripples in a massive antigovernment wave. Budgets will be hacked. Valuable programs will be eliminated. Career civil servants will be purged, replaced with political appointees whose primary qualification is apparent fealty to the President. This is the course the electorate chose. And to many, the idea of one of the world’s most accomplished entrepreneurs attacking a sprawling, sclerotic federal bureaucracy with the same velocity and determination he brought to his car startup or rocket company is cause for celebration, not alarm. “The federal government is so big that there are surely significant opportunities for saving and efficiency,” says Robert Doar, president of the American Enterprise Institute, a center-right think tank. “The fact that the President and his team is giving this a lot of attention is a good thing.”

But a public backlash may be growing to Musk’s mission, and far more is at stake than the size of the federal balance sheet, the head count at agencies inside the Beltway, or the dangers of one unelected man possessing such unconstrained power. Soon Americans are going to learn where they interact with the federal government in ways they didn’t realize or took for granted. Companies that export tech products to China may no longer have State or Commerce Department employees available to explain, for free, how to avoid violating criminal law. Farmers in the Midwest may soon find USAID-funded buyers no longer paying for sacks of flour to send to refugee camps. Around the world, millions of people who depend on the U.S. for food, medicine, and shelter are suddenly on their own.

For now, millions of government workers find themselves at Musk’s mercy. One described her team at the Department of Homeland Security assuming a “defensive crouch” as they awaited a visit from the DOGE. For an inkling of their fate, she added, her colleagues had turned to a book called Character Limit, which chronicles the way Musk took over Twitter two years ago and fired 80% of its staff, often with chaotic and lasting results.

The similarities to his assault on the bureaucracy have been uncanny. On Jan. 28, millions of civil servants across government received an email offering them eight months’ pay in exchange for their resignation. Musk had proposed much the same deal to Twitter’s employees two years earlier. He even used the same subject line: “Fork in the road.”

None of this came without warning. Among Musk’s friends in Silicon Valley, many understood his takeover of Twitter as preparation for a greater cause. “The mood is that hopefully Musk can do the same thing with the U.S. government,” one told TIME in November. Veterans of Trump’s first Administration likewise laid out their plans long before the elections, publishing a 900-page report known as Project 2025. One of its lead authors, Russell Vought, said in a speech two years ago that he wanted civil servants to be “traumatically affected” by the purge he envisioned. “We want their funding to be shut,” he said. “We want to put them in trauma.”


Russell Vought, Trump’s pick to lead the Office of Management and Budget, at a confirmation hearing on Jan. 15.Andrew Harnik—Getty Images

On the campaign trail, Trump swore he had nothing to do with the plan. “It was inappropriate that they would come out with a document like that,” he told TIME in November. “Some things I vehemently disagreed with.” But once in office, he picked Vought to be in charge of the White House Office of Management and Budget, which now works closely with Musk to enact crucial parts of Project 2025. So far, the frenetic opening moves of the Trump presidency have tracked nearly two-thirds of its prescriptions, according to a TIME analysis.

Musk never hid his intentions. Two weeks after the election, he co-wrote a piece in the Wall Street Journal that promised DOGE would help Trump “hire a lean team of small-government crusaders,” who would work to bring “mass head-count reductions across the federal bureaucracy.” That recruitment drive began soon after the elections, drawing from Musk’s acolytes in Silicon Valley, some barely out of college, and priming them to fan out across Washington.

The man Musk put in charge of staffing at DOGE was an aerospace engineer named Steve Davis, who previously led his cost-cutting efforts at Twitter. In late December, as the presidential transition unfolded inside the White House, Davis took part in a series of meetings with members of the Biden Administration. The Democratic staffers noted his fixation with an obscure branch of the White House called the U.S. Digital Service. Davis wanted to know how it operated, who it reported to, and what it could access.

Created in 2014, the USDS works with federal agencies to improve computer systems and databases. It houses a map of the government’s technology infrastructure and has contact points for the technology officer at nearly every federal agency. That made it the perfect place to host the DOGE. If Musk wanted to wither the limbs of the federal government, the USDS provided the veins that would let the poison flow.

The empowerment of USDS started on Inauguration Day. One of Trump’s first Executive Orders renamed it “the United States DOGE Service,” neatly preserving the office’s acronym. The order also ensured that the new entity would report directly to the White House chief of staff. Since then, the office has set up shop inside the Departments of State and Treasury. It began accessing personnel computer systems, firing contractors, and blocking payments on their contracts.

Musk also sent a team to OPM. The office holds records on 2.1 million workers, the email address for nearly every federal employee, and tracks $59 billion per year in federal health care premiums and $88 billion per year in payments to federal retirees. The mass buyout offer to government employees originated from within Musk’s team at OPM, according to a source familiar with those actions. (Both DOGE and the White House declined to comment.)

Next, the DOGE team set to starving OPM itself. Brian Bjelde, who recently worked as vice president of human resources at Musk’s aerospace firm, told career supervisors at OPM that the “target” was to slash 70% of its staff, a move that would hobble its health care benefits and retirement-planning teams, says a current OPM official. Some senior leaders at OPM have been locked out of key databases, the official says, and political appointees have access to systems, including the Enterprise Human Resources Integration, without standard safeguard procedures designed to keep such information private. That system includes information like pay grades, length of service, Social Security numbers, dates of birth, and home addresses.

Days after Trump took office, the White House ordered a freeze on federal spending—from foreign aid to public-health programs, and everything in between. It would be lifted, the Administration said, as agencies fell in line with the President’s agenda: cracking down on immigration, ending diversity efforts, and stopping investments that reduce the impact of fossil fuels on the environment. Facing a court’s action, the White House rolled back the order.


A protest outside the U.S. Treasury building in Washington, D.C., on Feb 4.Stefani Reynolds—Bloomberg/Getty Images

Musk’s downsizing pressed ahead, and Trump continued to give his blessing. “Elon can’t do—and won’t do—anything without our approval,” Trump told reporters in the Oval Office on Feb. 4. “We’ll give him the approval where appropriate,” he added. “Where not appropriate, we won’t.” Some took it as a sign that Trump might rein in his attack dog. But civil servants are not waiting around for that to happen. In Northern Virginia, home to tens of thousands of workers on the federal payroll and military service members, the typical town-hall meeting in the town of Leesburg attracts a few dozen people. Hundreds gathered on the night Musk shut down USAID. “We’re hearing bizarre stories,” says Representative Suhas Subramanyam, the local Democratic Congressman who spoke at the event. His office has been flooded with workers describing DOGE’s takeover, and he instructed his staff to log their testimony and assist whistle-blowers. Much of what they witnessed is “simply illegal,” Subramanyam insists to TIME. “We’re almost being tested and dared to sue or investigate.”

Read More: Across Pennsylvania, Musk Deploys His Fame and Fortune For Trump.

Some lawsuits have worked. The White House complied with court orders blocking its attempt to freeze trillions of dollars in federal spending. A judge’s ruling on Feb. 6 delayed the deadline for the buyout offer to government employees. Unions have filed suits related to DOGE on behalf of federal workers. Even Musk’s usual admirers have warned he is overreaching. “The lawsuits are already flying,” a Feb. 4 Wall Street Journal editorial noted, “and courts will derail Mr. Musk’s project before it even gets off the ground if he isn’t careful.”

On Capitol Hill, Musk’s assault on the bureaucracy has set up a battle with Democrats that could determine the future of the government and the balance of power within it. “We don’t have a fourth branch of government called Elon Musk,” Maryland Democrat Jamie Raskin told a crowd outside USAID on the afternoon of Feb. 3, while the men from DOGE tried to impose their demands inside.

Raskin was right. But the agency staffers listening to him on Pennsylvania Avenue, unsure of whether they still had a job, could not tell how much power Musk had acquired, and whether he would bend the other branches of government to his will. One staffer seemed especially skeptical. Yes, she told TIME, the Constitution grants Congress the power of the purse. But Musk had shown his power to yank it away.

“There’s only so much Democrats can do,” she said, not wanting to give her name lest it attract more attention from DOGE. Her official email account had been shut down, and she could no longer access her desk at the agency. Like thousands of her colleagues, and millions of Americans, she was left to watch Musk’s moves play out, wondering how far he would go, and what, if anything, could stop him.

—With reporting by Eric Cortellessa, Philip Elliott, Nik Popli, and Tessa Berenson Rogers/Washington