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

[admin]

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK

STATE OF NEW YORK; STATE OF ARIZONA, STATE OF CALIFORNIA, STATE OF COLORADO, STATE OF CONNECTICUT, STATE OF DELAWARE, STATE OF HAWAII, STATE OF ILLINOIS, STATE OF MAINE, STATE OF MARYLAND, COMMONWEALTH OF MASSACHUSETTS, STATE OF MINNESOTA, STATE OF NEVADA, STATE OF NEW JERSEY, STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA, STATE OF OREGON, STATE OF RHODE ISLAND, STATE OF VERMONT, and STATE OF WISCONSIN,

Plaintiffs,

-v-

DONALD J. TRUMP, IN HIS OFFICIAL CAPACITY AS PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES; U.S. DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY; and SCOTT BESSENT, IN HIS OFFICIAL CAPACITY AS SECRETARY OF U.S. DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY,

Defendants.

25 Civ. 1144 (JAV)

ORDER

PAUL A. ENGELMAYER, District Judge:

This Court, sitting in its Part I capacity, this evening received an application for a temporary restraining order filed by the Attorneys General of the 19 States identified as plaintiffs above. The States’ lawsuit challenges a new policy by the United States Department of the Treasury, at the direction of the President and the Secretary of the Treasury, which, as alleged, expands access to the payment systems of the Bureau of Fiscal Services (BFS) to political appointees and “special government employees.” The States contend that this policy, inter alia, violates the Administrative Procedure Act (“APA”), 5 U.S.C. §§ 551 et seq., in multiple respects; exceeds the statutory authority of the Department of the Treasury; violates the separation of powers doctrine; and violates the Take Care Clause of the United States Constitution. The States seek declaratory and injunctive relief. Later this evening, upon the States’ successful filing of their submissions, this matter was assigned on a permanent basis to the Hon. Jeannette A. Vargas, United States District Judge.

The Court has reviewed the affirmation of Colleen K. Faherty, dated February 7, 2025, in support of the States’ motion for a temporary restraining order, the States’ memorandum of law in support of that motion, the States’ motion for a temporary restraining order, dated February 7, 2025, and the Complaint. The Court’s firm assessment is that, for the reasons stated by the States, they will face irreparable harm in the absence of injunctive relief. See Winter v. Nat. Res. Def. Council, Inc., 555 U.S. 7, 20 (2008). That is both because of the risk that the new policy presents of the disclosure of sensitive and confidential information and the heightened risk that the systems in question will be more vulnerable than before to hacking. The Court’s further assessment is that, again for the reasons given by the States, the States have shown a likelihood of success on the merits of their claims, with the States’ statutory claims presenting as particularly strong. The Court’s further assessment is that the balance of the equities, for the reasons stated by the States, favors the entry of emergency relief.

The Court accordingly:

ORDERS that the defendants show cause before the Hon. Jeannette A. Vargas, at Courtroom 14C, United States Courthouse, 500 Pearl Street, New York, New York, at 2 p.m. on Friday, February 14, 2025, why an order should not be issued pursuant to Rule 65 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure preliminarily enjoining the defendants during the pendency of this action from granting to political appointees, special government employees, and any government employee detailed from an agency outside the Treasury Department access to Treasury Department payment systems or any other data maintained by the Treasury Department containing personally identifiable information; and further

ORDERS that, sufficient reason having been shown therefor, pending the hearing of the States’ application for a preliminary injunction, pursuant to Rule 65 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, the defendants are (i) restrained from granting access to any Treasury Department payment record, payment systems, or any other data systems maintained by the Treasury Department containing personally identifiable information and/or confidential financial information of payees, other than to civil servants with a need for access to perform their job duties within the Bureau of Fiscal Services who have passed all background checks and security clearances and taken all information security training called for in federal statutes and Treasury Department regulations; (ii) restrained from granting access to all political appointees, special government employees, and government employees detailed from an agency outside the Treasury Department, to any Treasury Department payment record, payment systems, or any other data systems maintained by the Treasury Department containing personally identifiable information and/or confidential financial information of payees; and (iii) ordered to direct any person prohibited above from having access to such information, records and systems but who has had access to such information, records, and systems since January 20, 2025, to immediately destroy any and all copies of material downloaded from the Treasury Department’s records and systems, if any; and further

ORDERS that any opposition submission by defendants be filed by 5 p.m. on Tuesday, February 11, 2025; and that any reply by the States be filed by 5 p.m. on Thursday, February 13, 2025; and further

ORDERS that personal service of a copy of this order and the States’ above-described affidavit, memorandum of law, and Complaint, be filed upon the defendants or their counsel on or before February 8, 2025, by 12 noon; and that the States forthwith serve these materials by email on Government counsel Bradley Humphreys and Jeffrey Oestericher, whom the Court understands have independently been emailed the States’ filings; and further

ORDERS that plaintiffs post security in the amount of $10,000 prior to Friday, February 14, 2025, at 2 p.m.

SO ORDERED.

PAUL A. ENGELMAYER
United States District Judge, sitting in Part I
Dated: February 8, 2025
New York, New York

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

NY AG delivers MASSIVE BLOW to Trump in LATE NIGHT ORDER
by Michael Popok
MeidasTouch
Feb 8, 2025

Michael Popok reports on a win by NY AG Letitia James after a federal judge in Manhattan temporarily blocked Trump and Elon Musk’s associates from accessing the U.S. Treasury Department’s payment system as a result of a multi-state legal challenge she led.



Transcript

got breaking news a New York federal
judge on an emergency basis has blocked
by issuing a temporary restraining order
Elon Musk and others from rumaging
around the treasury Department servers
looking for our medical information our
most Private Financial information in
fact the judge has ordered that anyone
including Elon Musk the quote world's
richest man anyone who's already
obtained such information over the last
week or two has to destroy it until
there's a subsequent hearing this was
led by Leticia James the New York
attorney general who already took down
Donald Trump once for over $450 million
in a civil fraud case she's back and
she's joined with 18 other Attorneys
General to bring Justice and to stop
Donald Trump and Elon Musk dead in their
tracks I'm Michael popok you're on the
mest touch Network in legal AF let's
dive into the New Order on an emergency
basis by judge Paul Meer of the southern
district of New York which means
Manhattan on an emergency application
filed by 19 different states led by
Attorneys General uh attorney general
Leticia
James they argued that all of the access
given to Elon Musk as special
governmental employees by the treasury
Department and Trump violated the
violate the administrative procedures
act and violate the take care Clause of
the United States Constitution and
they're seeking temporary relief
because of how fast these things have
already been moving the judge was
concerned that before they could even
have a full-blown hearing on the
temporary restraining order which he has
assigned already to judge Janette Vargas
um on to take place on the 14th of
February on Friday he needed to put an
administrative temporary restraining
order in place now because of the nature
of the uh harm that's being presented
here and the likelihood of success on
the merits so here is the actual order
the court on this emergency application
orders that the defendants show cause
and the defendants here of course are
the Donald Trump in His official
capacity as the President of the United
States Scott bassent uh for the treasury
Department and the treasury Department
so all of those defendants have to
appear before judge Vargas on Friday to
show cause why a preliminary injunction
that's one step up from a temporary
restraining order should not be issued
so it's on they have the burden to show
why it shouldn't be issued um during the
pendency of this action concerning
political appointees special government
employees employees and any government
employee detailed from an agency outside
the treasury Department why they should
not be stopped from
accessing the treasury Department
payment systems or any other data
maintained by the treasury Department
containing personal identifiable
information the judge also ordered that
there has been sufficient cause being
shown that pending the the hearing of
the state's application for a
preliminary injunction on Friday that
the defendants Trump musk bent are
restrained from granting to any Treasury
Department payment record they're
restrained from granting access to any
Treasury Department payment record
payment system or any other Data Systems
maintained by the treasury Department
containing personally identifiable
information and or confidential
financial information of pay payes other
than to civil servants with a need for
access to perform their job within the
Bureau of fiscal Services who have
passed background checks and security
clearances and taken all information
security trading uh called for in
federal statutes and Treasury Department
regulations that means not you Elon Musk
they are restrained from granting access
to all political appointees special
government employees and government
employees detailed from an agency
outside the treasury Department that's
Doge that's musk um giving them access
to any payment record payment system or
any other data maintained by the
treasury Department including personally
identifiable information and
confidential financial information of
taxpayers and they are ordered to direct
any person prohibited from above from
having access to that information but
who has already accessed that
information records or systems since
January 20th of 2025 to immediately
destroy any and all copies of the
material downloaded from the from the
treasury Department's records and
systems and then they got a then he said
sets up a briefing schedule to get this
whole thing set up in front of Judge
Vargas for Friday and they'll have to
post a bond U the states will post the
bond for $10,000 to pay for some of this
stuff so that's a um in a two cases now
two uh injunctions that are now in place
on the Doge access through the treasury
Department of
recordkeeping um I'm going to show you
now a clip from attorney general uh
Laticia James so you know how serious
this all is is and here here's her post
now

[Leticia James]

In the past week Elon Musk and his so-called Department of government efficiency have accessed the personal private information of tens of millions of Americans and sensitive data about public and private entities Social Security numbers addresses tax returns and more this unelected group led by the world's richest man is not authorized to have this information and they explicitly sought this unauthorized access to illegally blocked payments that millions of Americans rely on payments for Health Care Child Care and other essential programs today Democratic Attorneys General are taking action to keep Americans personal data secure to keep sensitive information about Americans private and to hold our constitution we have filed a lawsuit against the Trump Administration for giving unauthorized individuals access to these immensely sensitive records in violation of the law president Trump does not have the power to give our private information away to whomever he wants and he does not have the power to cut federal spending that Congress approved much less to do so by giving the richest man in the world the keys to all Americans most sensitive information as Democratic Attorneys General we are suing to stop this unprecedented and unauthorized attack and to protect your personal information as I've said before no one is above the law and I will not hesitate to uphold the rule of law and protect New Yorkers. Thank you.

[Michael Popok] welcome back so um she takes
it one step further she said this
morning we want a court order blocking
Elon Musk the world's richest man from
accessing America's private data musk
and his doge employees must destroy all
records they've obtained I've said it
before I'll say it again no one is above
the law now Leticia James that's the one
that there's people on the Maga side who
literally said out loud during the
campaign that they wanted to put her
quote fat ass in jail she's back as I've
said there are 22 at least Attorneys
General around the country who are
Democrats who are going to be going
after Donald Trump twice a day three
times a day every day twice on Sunday
until his administration is over and
they have an over 80% winning percentage
from the first Trump Administration and
right now they are collectively in these
suits they are 9 and0 almost 10 and0 in
these cases that Donald Trump hasn't won
one of these Federal hearings nine
different injunctions two preliminary
injunctions already issued on various
things now there's two competing court
cases about Doge access of these servers
by the treasury Department you're in my
personal classified information
financial information healthc care
information and the rest think about all
the things you've had to submit in order
to get your benefits from the uh from
the government it's all there um there's
a case in front of Judge Kolar Catelli
who's in the district of Colombia
Federal bench she's forced the
Department of Justice and the government
to enter into a consent temporary
restraining order that covers uh many of
the same issues here but this new
temporary restraining order by judge
Angel Meer is even broader it's even
broader and they can exist parallel to
each other there was with some overlap
this is what happens when you file
multiple cases and multiple courts you
want to do that because in case you get
a bad ruling at least you've got three
or four different judges all looking at
the same thing right now the Attorneys
General the civil liberty groups the the
naacp's and ACLU of the world they don't
have to worry about conflicting
decisions because they're just winning
it's just winning they're not tired of
winning but it's all they're doing is
winning got 11 separate court
appearances they're 11 and0 Donald Trump
has a one one and the Trump Department
of Justice is in shreds and terms of its
credibility in front of these
judges so so that's where we are right
now in New York but this is a
effectively a nationwide bang it stops
the Trump Administration from doing this
now Steve bassent the treasury secretary
I saw his comments on uh on Bloomberg
recently where he he just said no no no
no there's there's no bad stuff going on
here with me giving complete and total
access to a stranger who doesn't have a
national security clearance or hasn't
been confirmed by the Senate to go
rooting around in your most personal
information no no no he's going to do
things about efficiency he's going to
make this work more efficient does
anybody believe this does anybody
believe Scott Scott bent sorry our
treasury secretary about about what he
thinks the um that Elon Musk is doing
there rooting around in our most private
information here's the quote from
bassent that almost I almost like fell
out of my chair when I read it um he
said must Doge isn't altering treasury
data he said it's an operational review
it's not an ideological review he told
Bloomberg television the ability to
change the system sits over at the
Federal Reserve we don't we don't even
run the system he said he said these are
highly trained professionals do the Doge
musk people this is not some roving ban
running around doing things this is
methodical and it's going to yield big
savings um so I mean not according to
this judge it's not and you're not going
to allow you're not allowed to do it
right now especially if it violates the
administrative procedures act because
the treasury Department is changing the
way that it it secures data without
telling the American people that they've
done that so that's inappropriate and
it's a improper delegation and savings
clause or takings Clause under the uh
under the um uh take care Clause sorry
under the US
Constitution we'll get to the bottom of
it but only in federal courts and right
here on Midas Touch and on legal AF
continue to follow all of these stories
we got 33 34 lawsuits that are out there
right this is they're already 0 and 11
at the Trump Administration they haven't
lost they haven't won yet because
they're on the wrong side of the law on
the wrong side of history in each one of
these cases Elon mus shut down and
congratulations to uh New York attorney
general Laticia James she's going to be
out there leading the way among these 22
I mean you know they're all kind of you
know their own Attorneys General but
look for her over and over and over
again beating the Trump Administration
with both ends of the stick and I I'm
here for it and I know you are here too
so until my next reporting I'm Michael
popuk in collaboration with the midest
touch Network we just launched the legal
AF YouTube channel help us build this
pro-democracy channel where I'll be
curating the top stories the
intersection of Law and politics go to
YouTube now and free subscribe @ legal
AF MTN that's @ legal l a fmtn
[Music]

[admin]

BREAKING: Trump loses EMERGENCY CASE in "BLOCKBUSTER" ruling
Brian Tyler Cohen
Feb 9, 2025 Democracy Watch with Marc Elias
Democracy Watch episode 257: Marc Elias discusses Trump losing an emergency case.

... ORDERS that, sufficient reason having been shown therefor, pending the hearing of the States’ application for a preliminary injunction, pursuant to Rule 65 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, the defendants are (i) restrained from granting access to any Treasury Department payment record, payment systems, or any other data systems maintained by the Treasury Department containing personally identifiable information and/or confidential financial information of payees, other than to civil servants with a need for access to perform their job duties within the Bureau of Fiscal Services who have passed all background checks and security clearances and taken all information security training called for in federal statutes and Treasury Department regulations; (ii) restrained from granting access to all political appointees, special government employees, and government employees detailed from an agency outside the Treasury Department, to any Treasury Department payment record, payment systems, or any other data systems maintained by the Treasury Department containing personally identifiable information and/or confidential financial information of payees; and (iii) ordered to direct any person prohibited above from having access to such information, records and systems but who has had access to such information, records, and systems since January 20, 2025, to immediately destroy any and all copies of material downloaded from the Treasury Department’s records and systems, if any; and further

ORDERS that any opposition submission by defendants be filed by 5 p.m. on Tuesday, February 11, 2025; and that any reply by the States be filed by 5 p.m. on Thursday, February 13, 2025; and further

ORDERS that personal service of a copy of this order and the States’ above-described affidavit, memorandum of law, and Complaint, be filed upon the defendants or their counsel on or before February 8, 2025, by 12 noon; and that the States forthwith serve these materials by email on Government counsel Bradley Humphreys and Jeffrey Oestericher, whom the Court understands have independently been emailed the States’ filings; and further

ORDERS that plaintiffs post security in the amount of $10,000 prior to Friday, February 14, 2025, at 2 p.m.

-- STATE OF NEW YORK, et al., Plaintiffs, v. DONALD J. TRUMP IN HIS OFFICIAL CAPACITY AS PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES, et al., Defendants. Case No. 25 Civ. 1144 (JAV). ORDER, by PAUL A. ENGELMAYER, District Judge:

Transcript

This is democracy watch. Marc, we have
major news on pretty much the biggest
story in the country right now which is
this idea that Elon musk's Doge
commission has access to all Americans
sensitive data, including Social Security
numbers. For example, a federal judge has
finally stepped in. Can you explain what
just happened?

[Marc Elias] This is a blockbuster
ruling from a federal judge in New York
City who was asked on an emergency
basis to block DOGE's access to these
very sensitive databases at the US
Treasury Department, not just to block
Elon Musk's access, right? In some of the
earlier cases we've talked about there
has been this kind of parsing about
whether Doge could still be in the
treasury Department, but it was read only,
and they couldn't write, or whether only
the special government employees could
have access to the information but not
others. What this judge did is said
nobody from Doge can have access to
these databases, only career civil
servants within the treasury Department
can have access to these databases,
and that any materials, or printouts,
or downloads of any information from
these databases, have to be destroyed by
anyone associated with those who may
have them. So this judge has really, at
this point, put a complete halt on the
exfiltration of data, the infiltration
with personnel, the embedding of
personnel into these databases that have
personally identified information like
people's Social Security numbers. This is
a big bold order from a very good
experienced federal judge in New York
City. It's only a temporary hold until
the case can be ultimately heard
on the merits and decided. That is true
about all these cases we're hearing
about. And no one should worry about that.
That's how the system works, right? First there's an emergency order,
and there's sort of a status quo put in
place. And then the case is decided
from there.

[Brian Tyler Cohen] Marc, this might be the cynic
in me coming out, but who is to say that
they're actually going to comply with
this order?

[Marc Elias] You sound
like the comments that we've gotten at
democracy docket when democracy
docket reported this. And you sound like
my Blue Sky feed of people who say great
Marc, but they're not going
to comply. And I understand the
skepticism, Brian, because Mr Big Balls, the one
guy, and I don't remember. Is he the one that's has sort of a Nazi
problem?

[Brian Tyler Cohen] When we can't remember
which one is big balls, and which one is
the guy who wants to normalize
Indian hate, I think that's when there's
a general culture problem. I think that's
a larger problem here .

[Marc Elias] Right, and of
course the vice president, with no other official duties
to do, decided to weigh in in favor of
rehiring the guy in favor of Indian hate.

[Brian Tyler Cohen] While he has to go home to his
indian-american wife and his three
indian-american kids. But I guess that's
the cost of
loyalty to Donald Trump.

[Marc Elias] Right. So
look, I understand the skepticism that
people have here, but what I can tell
you is that this federal judge, by
issuing this order as quickly as he did --
I mean, the state of New York and
the other states that brought this
lawsuit, brought it on Friday, and by early in the morning on
Saturday, this order was already in place.
And like I said, it is a very sweeping
order. You know, anyone who is caught
with those materials, or where there is
evidence that they did not destroy them,
will be subject to contempt of court,
which can be quite serious
and the lawyers associated with it,
they face problems if they don't
make sure that their clients and
the executive branch knows this.
Other employees in the Department of
Justice, or
in the treasury Department, could face
problems. But you know, this is in some sense
the most sweeping action we have seen
any judge take in any of the cases
against Donald Trump and the whole
dismantling of government since
he became president.

[Brian Tyler Cohen] so this was with
regard to treasury we have seen Doge um
gain access into the Department of Labor
Doge gain access into a a variety of
other organizations so is a ruling like
this going to apply to other agencies or
do we just have to wait for those
agencies to be harmed so that they have
standing to go in and do the same thing
but really by then we're just we're just
kind of chasing after Doge as opposed to
take any taking any um proactive action
against something that we all know that
they're going to do anyway so could this
could this apply to other agencies even
before Doge goes in or do we have to
wait for Doge to kind of wreak havoc
before we can do something about it look
I I think you've hit the nail on the
head so you know this order only applies
to treasury but it speaks to a larger
sort of norms and culture uh and
expectations problem that we have which
it it is good to see the judges are
coming around on like so to be clear
this is this is a big this this is a big
deal this case in that Journey but let
me explain it to you so normally when a
federal judge is has a lawsuit against
the United States against the president
of the United States against you know
cabinet officials you can understand why
they are typically skeptical of private
litigant coming in and saying we would
like you to shut down the way in which
the executive branch is operating in
some key faction and when the Department
of Justice lawyers show up in their
courtrooms and say look your honor we're
operating according to what the
president wants and what the Secretary
of Treasury wants and like this is all
about board courts are normally
predisposed to be like okay I've got the
Department of Justice they speak on
behalf of the you know the federal
government I've got cabinet officials
you know like in the normal course they
are not inclined to think the worst of
what is going on they they assume that
all things being equal it is probably
the private litigant who is on the wrong
side not the government who's on the
wrong side so what we have seen though
over the course of just the last seven
days is a real attitude shift right the
first lawsuits that were filed the
courts were entering orders that you and
I talked about that were being easily
evaded you know they were they it was
like a game of cat and mouse they would
issue an order and then the government
would say oh well we only assumed it
applied to these people and not those
people and then we started to see the
courts issue broader orders you know we
saw that order from a judge in
Washington DC about the OM memo who said
look I don't care if it's an OM memo I
don't care if it's a tweet from a press
secretary like it's it applies my order
prohibits you from defunding these
grants in any fashion that was the first
time we saw a federal judge really like
the aha moment went on that deference to
the federal government is not going to
work here right you need to do these
broader orders here we saw the judge do
it off the back and said I'm going to
apply this basically this order to
everyone other than career civil
servants if you are not a career civil
servant if you are part of Doge you know
hands off and you got to destroy it now
I understand this is we are still on the
journey that you are laying out you're
you're like when can this just be
prophylactic to the federal entire
federal government we're not there would
it surprise me if we start to get there
next week no it would because I think
these federal judges are getting tired
about two things number one they are
annoyed undoubtedly that they keep being
told that there that there is an
emergency that they have to rule on
immediately judges have schedules like
everybody else they don't like having to
set everything aside and they definitely
don't like having to set everything
aside when it turns out that the
government is consistently on the wrong
side right which is that the government
keeps losing these emergency hearings so
what's happening is the judges are
getting in their heads like I don't
understand this other judge told them to
cut it out and they're still doing it
and now it's interfering my docket and
so as this starts to snowball I think
you're going to start to get judges more
and more annoyed with these and start to
issue broader orders the second part
though Brian and this is what we have to
be on the lookout for are we starting to
see cracks in the lawyers in the
Department of Justice or in these
agencies you know I took note that in
one of the hearings uh late last week it
was actually a very senior supervisor
who argued the case
now that is highly unusual you don't
usually have senior lawyers in a
Department of Justice in a supervisory
role having to show up in court and I'm
starting to wonder not that it's a good
thing if you start to see resignations
not that it's a good thing if you start
to see the good people you know uh uh uh
leaving but I'm starting to see the
early signs of the willingness of some
government lawyers to fight these
absurdly illegal fights I'm starting to
see that crack and so I think a
combination of those two things may come
to a boiling point in the next you know
in the next five days next seven days
and I think you and I will then be doing
an episode to talk about where we go
from there because that would be
Uncharted Territory well Mark isn't it
true that for some of these lawyers who
don't want to put their own jobs on the
line I mean they they can be predisposed
to uh to sanctions or even losing their
law license if they're going to go in
because they've been you know thrown to
the Wolves by the Trump Administration
who frankly could care l if if some
disposable um lawyer loses his law
license because there's going to be a
line of other lawyers who are willing to
take their place but aren't aren't some
of these folks I guess deferring more to
the longevity of their own career than
than looking to do something illegal for
Trump I think that some of them are
doing that some of them are looking out
for the longevity of their career I
think some of them are also just
dispirited by it you know I mean you
know you could you could be a doj lawyer
for five years and argue cases regularly
and never lose you know let's be honest
like the doj usually wins their cases
because like I said I think their
success rate is something like 98 or 99%
and in fact we we we've spoken at length
about the fact that if anything the doj
is too timid to take on to take an
aggressive posture on some of these
cases because they are so predisposed to
only taking cases that they're
guaranteed to win and so when you have
you know Donald Trump engaging in in the
January 6 stuff or in the classified
document case it takes so long because
the natural predisposition is not to say
yeah let's just let's just you know go
for it even though it's it's it's not a
home run no that's exactly right and I
think that that you know a lot of the
criticisms we had about mer Garland and
and as you say in the January 6
prosecutions also in the voting Arena
you know the place that I litigate most
uh they were too timid uh for precisely
the reasons you say but I think that
that so part of it is I think these
lawyers looking out for the longevity of
their career but part of it is also they
are just shell shocked at the prospect
of continuously going to court and being
scolded I mean you know these these
lawyers are having a rough go of it in
front of these these these these judges
because the positions they are
advocating I mean you know in a
different case uh that you know involved
usaid you know you had you had a trump
appointed judge write an opinion that is
like you know there's a difference
between putting someone on leave in
Bethesda Maryland than putting them on
leave in Syria I mean that doesn't sound
like a big deal maybe to your audience
but that's a really biting and sharp
retort for a career uh doj lawyer or any
doj lawyer to hear from a federal judge
no less one appointed uh by the by the
by by Donald Trump uh so you know I I I
just I think we may get to the point
where where we get to an inflection
point where the courts become very very
irritated much more aggressive in the
scope of their orders and the Department
of Justice lawyers become just look
themselves in the mirror and like what
am I doing and and finally let's finish
off with this I I'm cautiously feeling
heartened about the prospect of the
Court actually doing what what you for
so long have said it would do which is
to to serve as an effective Bull workk
against the worst excesses of the Trump
Administration does it look like in fact
the court is able to stand up and and do
what for example republicans in Congress
won't do which is to to assert its
Authority retain its autonomy and and
and uphold the law so the answer is yes
with an as okay so you and I have talked
about this a lot and I've said you know
the trial courts in this country the
federal district courts in this country
are are as good as they have been in a
very long time Joe Biden appointed a lot
of Judges some of the Trump judges as
we've seen are not amused by these
Antics um even a Ronald Reagan appointee
in Washington state as you recall was
you know uh sort of read the riot act to
doj over Birthright citizenship right
then you get to the courts of appeals
right which we really haven't heard from
yet we haven't yet heard the DC circuit
or the second circuit or the first
circuit or the fifth circuit or any of
those we haven't heard them weigh in yet
right that'll be the next thing and I
and I kind of think they'll hold I think
that you know when you look at where
these cases have been filed they've been
filed in Washington DC the DC circuit's
pretty reasonable the ones in
Massachusetts go to the first circuit
that's a fairly um uh Progressive
circuit the second circuit New York more
mixed but but also very a very smart
circuit um so I kind of think things
will hold there but then the big wild
card is what does the Supreme Court do
at that point yeah you know and they
have kind of three choices Brian one is
they just say you know what not it like
you know what we don't have to hear
these cases the lower courts are flooded
with them the lower courts are sorting
them out they we don't we the Supreme
Court don't at least not on an emergency
basis have to get involved you know
maybe we'll hear a case for next term
you know in 20126 but we don't need to
do anything now right it's already
February our term ends in June we're
just going to let be that's option one
option two is they actually want to show
solidarity with the lower courts and
they actually just sarily affirm these
Lower Court decisions I I I'm not you
know I didn't fall off a turnup truck
that is that is that is not the most
likely outcome the third is that they
that a conservative majority of the
Supreme Court decides they want to dive
in that would be as that would be such a
terrible thing not just subsid on the
law but also for the Court's credibility
you know for the Chief Justice keeps
talking about you know there are no
Democratic judges and Republican judges
or justices and you know their ethics
are perfect and all of that there this
is working itself through the lower
courts just fine the Supreme Court
doesn't need to be in a hurry to jump
into these cases and that would be my
advice to them if they were ever ask my
advice which they're not um but that is
of course going to be the first test and
that will probably come in one of the
birthright citizenship cases just
because those are a little bit further
ahead but you know my advice to Chief
Jud is Rob Bert just tell his colleagues
no one no one needs to hear quickly from
the US Supreme Court in any of these
cases well I know that you have been
covering this relentlessly democracy
docket is where I get all of my news in
terms of what happens in the courts and
these Court decisions these Monumental
Court decisions being handed down so
highly recommend for anybody watching
not just to hear about this stuff as
soon as it breaks but also to support
Mark and his team which is um what we
should be doing right now please make
sure to sign up for democracy doet I'll
put the link right here on the screen
and also in the post description of this
video I'm Brian teller Cohen I'm Mark
Elias this is democracy watch.

[admin]

Musk calls to impeach judge whose order blocks DOGE from Treasury systems access
by Lora Kolodny @in/lorakolodny/
CNBC
Published Sun, Feb 9, 2025 3:42 PM EST

Key Points

• Elon Musk lashed out at a federal judge over an order that temporarily restricts the billionaire and his DOGE team from accessing U.S. Department of Treasury payment systems and data.
• AGs from 19 states sued President Donald Trump, saying he violated constitutional law by giving Musk nearly unfettered access to the Treasury Department.
• Musk has repeatedly accused judges of corruption and called to have them impeached after rulings or orders that didn’t go his way.

Elon Musk has called to impeach a federal judge in New York, Paul Engelmayer, over an order that temporarily restricts the tech centi-billionaire and his DOGE team from accessing U.S. Department of Treasury payment systems and sensitive data.

Over the weekend an outraged Musk posted on X, the social network he owns, calling Engelmayer, “A corrupt judge protecting corruption,” adding, “he needs to be impeached NOW!” He also posted an explanation on X of what he wants to do with the Treasury Department.

Musk and his special government employees, who are part of his DOGE initiative, are tasked by President Donald Trump with finding ways to slash the federal budget, massively reduce the federal workforce, and eliminate as many federal regulations and agencies as possible.

Thus far, Musk’s DOGE team has mostly targeted agencies that use a tiny portion of the overall federal budget, including the foreign humanitarian assistance agency, USAID. DOGE specifically “sought access to the U.S. Department of Treasury payment system to stop money from flowing to the U.S. Agency for International Development,” the Associated Press previously reported.

Engelmayer, a U.S. District Judge appointed by former President Barack Obama, issued an order temporarily blocking DOGE from accessing those systems on Saturday in response to a complaint brought by 19 states’ attorneys general against President Trump, the Treasury and its newly appointed Secretary Scott Bessent.

Musk subsequently posted on X, “This ruling is absolutely insane! How on Earth are we supposed to stop fraud and waste of taxpayer money without looking at how money is spent? That’s literally impossible! Something super shady is going to protect scammers.”

In response to Musk’s remarks, New Jersey Attorney General Matthew Platkin, who is among the plaintiffs in the case, told CNBC via e-mail, “What’s shady is a tech billionaire breaking the law to try to steal millions of Americans’ sensitive data.”

The attorneys general from 19 states argued in their complaint that President Trump failed to “faithfully execute the laws enacted by Congress,” in giving Musk and his team unparalleled access to the treasury’s computer systems and taxpayers’ sensitive data stored or processed in them.

After the order was issued, Musk shared a post from a follower on X who suggested DOGE should defy the court’s order.

On Sunday, Vice President JD Vance, who is a Yale-educated attorney, posted on X that in his view, “If a judge tried to tell a general how to conduct a military operation, that would be illegal. If a judge tried to command the attorney general in how to use her discretion as a prosecutor, that’s also illegal. Judges aren’t allowed to control the executive’s legitimate power.”

New Jersey Attorney General Platkin said, via an e-mailed statement, “We absolutely expect the defendants to comply with the order, which the court issued in light of the egregiously illegal actions at issue and the enormous risk they pose to cybersecurity and privacy. Our nation is built on the rule of law, and we intend to pursue it to the maximum extent to protect our residents.”

According to legal scholars, the judiciary historically has been able to restrain the executive branch from violating the Constitution and other laws.

Joyce White Vance, a law professor at the University of Alabama School of Law and legal analyst for NBC News, wrote in an e-mail on Sunday: “The Constitution and our rule of law tradition are set up so that the courts have jurisdiction to consider the scope of power possessed by the executive branch (the president), when his actions are challenged. That’s why we are seeing groups of state AGs go to court to challenge whether Trump has legal authority to take steps like canceling birthright citizenship, suspending Congressionally authorized spending, and sending DOGE out to federal agencies.”

She noted that “centuries of precedent establish the role of the courts in checking overreach by the executive branch,” including cases like Youngstown Sheet & Tubing Company v. Sawyer, where the U.S. Supreme Court refused to let President Harry S. Truman take over U.S. steel mills during the Korean War.

Marin K. Levy, professor of law at Duke Law School, told CNBC via e-mail on Sunday: “The State Attorneys General and the judge in this case were all acting well within their authority. What we saw here was the judicial system working as it is supposed to.”

She also emphasized what the court decided yesterday was not a final ruling on the merits of the case. Rather, the court has granted a request for emergency relief (also known as TRO, or temporary restraining order) by the attorneys general. The professor explained, “This is done in cases in which there is concern that irreparable harm will occur before a court can even decide the merits of the case. And now another judge will decide the merits.”

Musk has repeatedly accused judges of corruption, illegal or suspicious conduct after he was displeased with their orders or opinions.

For example, he lashed out at Chancellor Kathaleen McCormick in the Delaware court of Chancery, after she found Musk’s 2018 Tesla CEO compensation package, worth tens of billions, had been granted illegally and must be rescinded.

He also repeatedly lashed out at the head of Brazil’s Supreme Court, Justice Alexandre de Moraes, as the country pushed X (formerly Twitter) to comply with its social media regulations. After months of legal battles there, and posts denigrating de Moraes on X, Musk acquiesced to the court’s demands, paid fines and complied with Brazilian laws.

The case impacting Musk’s access to treasury data and computer systems is State of New York, et al v. Donald Trump, et al in the Southern District of New York (Case 1:25-cv-01144-JAV). Read the judge’s order here.

[admin]

King, Intel Colleagues Sound Alarm About “DOGE” Risk to National Security and American Privacy in Letter to White House: Senators call for answers to 22 questions, saying “the executive branch cannot operate without regard to rules, regulations, or Congressional oversight”
by king.senate.gov/newsroom
February 05, 2025
https://www.king.senate.gov/newsroom/pr ... hite-house

WASHINGTON, D.C. –U.S. Senator Angus King (I-ME), a member of the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence (SSCI), joined his committee colleagues to sound the alarm on the new national security risks that present themselves with the current operations of the Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE). In a letter to White House Chief of Staff Susie Wiles, the Senators write about the risks to national security by allowing unvetted DOGE staff and representatives to access classified and sensitive government materials.

The Committee members demanded that the administration provide details to Congress about how DOGE staff and representatives are being vetted, which systems, records and information are being shared, and what steps the administration is taking to safeguard them from misuse or disclosure.

“According to press reports, DOGE inspectors already have gained access to classified materials, including intelligence reports, at the United States Agency for International Development (USAID), sensitive government payment systems, including for Social Security and Medicare, at the Treasury Department, and federal personnel data from the Office of Personnel Management. Further, as of today the scope of DOGE’s access only seems to be expanding, as reports indicate DOGE has now entered the Department of Labor and other agencies,” the Senators wrote. “No information has been provided to Congress or the public as to who has been formally hired under DOGE, under what authority or regulations DOGE is operating, or how DOGE is vetting and monitoring its staff and representatives before providing them seemingly unfettered access to classified materials and Americans’ personal information.”

The Senators added, “As you know, information is classified to protect the national security interests of the United States. Government employees and contractors only receive access to such information after they have undergone a rigorous background investigation and demonstrated a ‘need to know.’ Circumventing these requirements creates enormous counterintelligence and security risks. For example, improper access to facilities and systems containing security clearance files of Intelligence Community personnel puts at risk the safety of the men and women who serve this country. In addition, unauthorized access to classified information risks exposure of our operations and potentially compromises not only our own sources and methods, but also those of our allies and partners. If our sources, allies, and partners stop sharing intelligence because they cannot trust us to protect it, we will all be less safe.”

“Unclassified government systems also contain sensitive data, the unintended disclosure of which could result in significant harm to individuals or organizations, including financial loss, identity theft, and exposure of medical and other private personal information. The U.S. Treasury payment systems, in particular, are used to disburse trillions of dollars each year, and contain everyday Americans’ personal information, such as Social Security numbers, home addresses, and bank accounts. Allowing DOGE access to this information raises unprecedented risks to Americans’ private personal and financial information,” the Senators continued.

They concluded, “Such unregulated practices with our government’s most sensitive networks render Americans’ personal and financial information, and our classified national secrets, vulnerable to ransomware and cyber-attacks by criminals and foreign adversaries. The recent unprecedented Salt Typhoon and Change Healthcare attacks that affected tens of millions of Americans further underscore the importance of rigorously fortifying our government systems.”

Joining King on the letter are Senators Mark Warner (D-VA), Ron Wyden (D-OR), Martin Heinrich (D-NM), Michael Bennet (D-CO), Kirsten Gillibrand (D-NY), Jon Ossoff (D-GA), and Mark Kelly (D-AZ).

The full text of the letter is available here and below.

+++

Dear Ms. Wiles,

We write to express our grave concern with the illegal actions currently being undertaken by the Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE), which risk exposure of classified and other sensitive information that jeopardizes national security and violates Americans’ privacy. The January 20 Executive Order establishes DOGE under the Executive Office of the President with DOGE Teams established by Agency Heads within their respective agencies, and requires the Administrator of DOGE to report to the White House Chief of Staff. According to press reports, DOGE inspectors already have gained access to classified materials, including intelligence reports, at the United States Agency for International Development (USAID), sensitive government payment systems, including for Social Security and Medicare, at the Treasury Department, and federal personnel data from the Office of Personnel Management. Further, as of today the scope of DOGE’s access only seems to be expanding, as reports indicate DOGE has now entered the Department of Labor and other agencies.

No information has been provided to Congress or the public as to who has been formally hired under DOGE, under what authority or regulations DOGE is operating, or how DOGE is vetting and monitoring its staff and representatives before providing them seemingly unfettered access to classified materials and Americans’ personal information.

As you know, information is classified to protect the national security interests of the United States. Government employees and contractors only receive access to such information after they have undergone a rigorous background investigation and demonstrated a “need to know.” Circumventing these requirements creates enormous counterintelligence and security risks. For example, improper access to facilities and systems containing security clearance files of Intelligence Community personnel puts at risk the safety of the men and women who serve this country. In addition, unauthorized access to classified information risks exposure of our operations and potentially compromises not only our own sources and methods, but also those of our allies and partners. If our sources, allies, and partners stop sharing intelligence because they cannot trust us to protect it, we will all be less safe.

Unclassified government systems also contain sensitive data, the unintended disclosure of which could result in significant harm to individuals or organizations, including financial loss, identity theft, and exposure of medical and other private personal information. The U.S. Treasury payment systems, in particular, are used to disburse trillions of dollars each year, and contain everyday Americans’ personal information, such as Social Security numbers, home addresses, and bank accounts. Allowing DOGE access to this information raises unprecedented risks to Americans’ private personal and financial information.

Moreover, there are strict cybersecurity controls for accessing federal networks, which DOGE does not seem to be following, including by reportedly connecting personal devices to sensitive government systems. Such unregulated practices with our government’s most sensitive networks render Americans’ personal and financial information, and our classified national secrets, vulnerable to ransomware and cyber-attacks by criminals and foreign adversaries. The recent unprecedented Salt Typhoon and Change Healthcare attacks that affected tens of millions of Americans further underscore the importance of rigorously fortifying our government systems.

The Executive Branch cannot operate without regard to rules, regulations, or Congressional oversight. The American people, and our intelligence officials, deserve to know that their information is being appropriately safeguarded. We therefore respectfully request written responses to the following questions by February 14, 2025:

1. Provide a list of personnel operating under DOGE, their position or role, and their duties.
2. Pursuant to the Executive Order, DOGE teams are to be established by Agency Heads within their respective agencies. Provide a list of each agency that has established a DOGE team, and the agency personnel overseeing such team.
3. Under what authorities is DOGE conducting its operations?
4. Who is overseeing DOGE’s operations?
5. Provide a list of each agency DOGE has requested information from.
6. Provide a list of all unclassified systems, records, or other information DOGE has requested and/or gained access to.
7. Provide a list of all classified systems, records, or other information DOGE has requested and/or gained access to.
8. Do DOGE staff or representatives have access to any Intelligence Community systems, networks, or other information? If so, please specify the extent of such access.
9. Under what authority is DOGE requesting and/or gaining access to classified information?
10. What security clearances have been provided to DOGE staff or representatives, and who has authorized such clearances?
11. What processes have been followed prior to granting security clearances to DOGE staff or representatives?
12. What vetting for potential conflicts of interest has been conducted prior to granting clearances or access to government systems, records, or other information to DOGE staff or representatives?
13. Provide a list of each DOGE staff or representative who has requested and/or gained access to classified information, what clearance each such individual holds, and who authorized each security clearance.
14. Who is supervising and/or monitoring DOGE employee access to classified information?
15. What processes have been followed prior to granting DOGE staff or representatives access to sensitive government systems and networks, and who has authorized such access?
16. Who is supervising and/or monitoring DOGE employee access to sensitive government systems and networks?
17. Has DOGE briefed you, the White House Chief of Staff, on the counterintelligence and other risks of DOGE staff or representatives accessing classified and other sensitive information? If so, please specify the date of the briefing and those in attendance.
18. Has DOGE briefed you, the White House Chief of Staff, on the counterintelligence and other risks of DOGE staff or representatives accessing government networks and systems? If so, please specify the date of the briefing and those in attendance.
19. Has the Office of the Director of National Intelligence and/or the Central Intelligence Agency been briefed on the counterintelligence and other risks of DOGE staff or representatives accessing Treasury’s payment systems? If so, please specify the date of the briefing and those in attendance.
20. Has the Office of the Director of National Intelligence and/or the Central Intelligence Agency been briefed on the counterintelligence and other risks of DOGE staff or representatives accessing USAID’s classified and other sensitive information, including security clearance files? If so, please specify the date of the briefing and those in attendance.
21. What actions if any has the Office of the Director of National Intelligence and/or the Central Intelligence Agency taken to ensure DOGE employee access does not create counterintelligence risks?
22. What actions if any has the Office of the Director of National Intelligence and/or the Central Intelligence Agency taken to ensure DOGE employee access does not compromise classified or other sensitive intelligence and/or personal information of intelligence community officials?

To underscore, DOGE seems to have unimpeded access to some of our nation’s most sensitive information, including classified materials and the private personal and financial information of everyday Americans. In light of such unprecedented risks to our national and economic security, we expect your immediate attention and prompt response.

[admin]

A US Treasury Threat Intelligence Analysis Designates DOGE Staff as ‘Insider Threat’: An internal email reviewed by WIRED calls DOGE staff’s access to federal payments systems “the single greatest insider threat risk the Bureau of the Fiscal Service has ever faced.”
by Vittoria Elliott & Leah Feiger
Wired
Feb 7, 2025 2:47 PM
https://www.wired.com/story/treasury-bf ... er-threat/

NOTICE: THIS WORK MAY BE PROTECTED BY COPYRIGHT

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

Members of Elon Musk’s Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE) team have had access to the US Treasury Department’s payment systems for over a week [since Jan. 20]. On Thursday, the threat intelligence team at one of the department's agencies recommended that DOGE members be monitored as an “insider threat.”

Sources say members of the Bureau of the Fiscal Service’s IT division and others received an email detailing these concerns.

“There is ongoing litigation, congressional legislation, and widespread protests relating to DOGE’s access to Treasury and the Bureau of the Fiscal Service,” reads a section of the email titled “Recommendations,” reviewed by WIRED. “If DOGE members have any access to payment systems, we recommend suspending that access immediately and conducting a comprehensive review of all actions they may have taken on these systems.”

Although Treasury and White House officials have repeatedly denied it, WIRED has reported that DOGE technologists had the ability to not only read the code of sensitive payment systems but also rewrite it. Marko Elez, one of a number of young men identified by WIRED who have little to no government experience but are associated with DOGE, was granted read and write privileges on two of the most sensitive systems in the US government: the Payment Automation Manager and Secure Payment System at the BFS, an agency that according to Treasury records paid out $5.45 trillion in fiscal year 2024.

“There is reporting at other federal agencies indicating that DOGE members have performed unauthorized changes and locked civil servants out of the sensitive systems they gained access to,” the “Recommendations” portion of the email continues. “We further recommend that DOGE members be placed under insider threat monitoring and alerting after their access to payment systems is revoked. Continued access to any payment systems by DOGE members, even ‘read only,’ likely poses the single greatest insider threat risk the Bureau of the Fiscal Service has ever faced.”

The recommendations were part of a weekly report sent out by the BFS threat intelligence team to hundreds of staffers. “Insider threat risks are something [the threat intelligence team] usually covers,” a source told WIRED. “But they have never identified something inside the bureau as an insider threat risk that I know of.”

The Treasury Department and the White House did not immediately respond to a request for comment.

The email also details this week’s Treasury lawsuit, which resulted in a federal judge granting an order on February 6 to temporarily restrict DOGE staffers from accessing and altering payment system information.

In a section of the email titled “Analyst Notes,” the email delves into the fallout from the suit.

“A court order formalizing an agreement reportedly restricting DOGE’s access to Treasury was issued, but specifically provides ‘read only’ exemptions for Marko Elez (DOGE member at Fiscal Service and Treasury) and Thomas (aka Tom) Krause (DOGE member at Treasury),” it states. “This access still poses an unprecedented insider threat risk.”

Elez previously worked for SpaceX, Musk’s space company, and X, Musk’s social media company. Elez resigned Thursday after The Wall Street Journal inquired with the White House about his connections to “a deleted social-media account that advocated for racism and eugenics.” Elez did not immediately respond to a request for comment.

In a letter to Treasury secretary Scott Bessent on February 7, Senator Ron Wyden of Oregon said that “Treasury’s refusal to provide straight answers about DOGE’s actions, as well as its refusal to provide a briefing requested by several Senate committees only heightens my suspicions” and requested that Bessent provide the logs of Elez and any other DOGE-affiliated personnel regarding their access to the Treasury’s systems.

Vittoria Elliott is a reporter for WIRED, covering platforms and power. She was previously a reporter at Rest of World, where she covered disinformation and labor in markets outside the US and Western Europe. She has worked with The New Humanitarian, Al Jazeera, and ProPublica. She is a graduate of Columbia Journalism School and, before transitioning to journalism, worked with startups in Kenya and India.

Leah Feiger is WIRED's senior politics editor. She is the former managing editor of VICE News.

[admin]

As Elon Musk Warns of Persecution of White People, Trump Says He Will Block Aid to South Africa: In recent days, Musk and Trump have discussed halting aid to the country. The president said “certain classes” [White Guys] are being treated “VERY BADLY.”
by Noah Lanard
Mother Jones
February 4, 2025
https://www.motherjones.com/politics/20 ... twitter-x/

NOTICE: THIS WORK MAY BE PROTECTED BY COPYRIGHT

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

On Sunday, President Donald Trump posted on Truth Social that the United States would cut aid to South Africa because the country is “confiscating land, and treating certain classes of people [White Guys] VERY BADLY” and committing a “massive Human Rights VIOLATION.” The South African-born Elon Musk responded with his own posts endorsing Trump’s claims.

Trump and Musk did not need to say who was allegedly taking whose land. Their far-right followers, who have fixated on the prospect of “white genocide” in South Africa for years, knew the two billionaires were invoking the specter of a race war in which Black citizens “steal” the land of their compatriots. The people who seem most excited by Trump and Musk’s recent defense of South African white people appear to be far-right X users known for posting about race, IQ, and the JQ, an anti-semitic abbreviation for the “Jewish Question.”

When asked to clarify by the press later on Sunday, Trump claimed much the same and said South Africa was “doing things that are perhaps far worse.” He repeated that aid would be on hold until a vague investigation was finished.

Musk has kept at it as well by writing “Yes” in response to a post on X that stated: “White South Africans are being persecuted for their race in their home country. Also White South Africans are one of the few population groups that are fiscally positive when immigrating to Europe. We should allow more immigration of White South Africans.” (The Danish man Musk was responding to at 3:36 a.m. is a transparently racist poster who has written that “Non-Western immigration to Northern European countries is morally indefensible.”)

South African President Cyril Ramaphosa did recently sign a controversial law that expands the state’s ability to expropriate land—in some cases without providing compensation. But the law, which was signed by a democratically elected government and is motivated by a desire to address severe injustices imposed on Black people by past regimes, is not what Trump and Musk are making it out to be.

President Ramaphosa wrote on social media that the law is not “a confiscation instrument, but a constitutionally mandated legal process that ensures public access to land in an equitable and just manner as guided by the constitution.”

The Democratic Alliance, a more centrist and white-led party in South Africa, has opposed the law and has argued it needs to be amended. Nevertheless, the party strongly objected to Trump’s recent move and said in a statement released on Monday that “it is not true that the Act allows land to be seized by the state arbitrarily.” It added that funding cuts could have devastating consequences for vulnerable South Africans, explaining that the country is slated to receive $439 million this year for HIV/AIDs treatment and support. “It would be a tragedy if this funding were terminated because of a misunderstanding of the facts,” the party stressed.

More broadly, land reform is a response to the staggering inequity that still plagues South Africa. As of 2018, nearly two-thirds of Black South Africans lived in poverty, compared to just one percent of white South Africans. And as the New York Times has reported:

In 1913, the colonial government passed a law confining Black South Africans to just 7 percent of the country’s territory, essentially dispossessing many Black people from their land. Although the Black population would make slight gains in land ownership in subsequent decades, that uneven distribution remained largely in place.

Since the end of apartheid in 1994, the government has made efforts to redistribute some land to Black people. But white South Africans, who comprise about 7 percent of the population, continue to dominate land ownership. White-owned farms occupy about half of South Africa’s surface area.

Trump’s claims about the law are also at odds with experts who represent major business interests in South Africa. In response to an interview request, Wandile Sihlobo, the Chief Economist of the Agricultural Business Chamber of South Africa, directed me to an article he recently wrote about why there was no need to panic about the law. Fasken, a major international law firm, has taken a similar perspective. South African lawyers at the firm concluded that, while they have some reservations about sections of the law, it is generally “doubtful if the Expropriation Act will generally affect private property rights as envisaged” in the country’s constitution. Even the leader of AfriForum, a far-right group that largely advocates on behalf of white Afrikaners and vehemently opposes the Expropriation Act, has expressed concern with Trump’s decision to target South Africa so broadly.

This is not the first time that Musk or Trump have weighed in on the side of right-wing white people in South Africa. In 2018, Trump tweeted that he had ordered then Secretary of State Mike Pompeo to “closely study the South Africa land and farm seizures and expropriations and the large scale killing of farmers.” (Tucker Carlson had recently aired a segment that made those claims.) In 2023, Musk wrote on X that “They are openly pushing for genocide of white people in South Africa.”

Musk’s comments would likely have made his late maternal grandfather, Joshua Haldeman, proud. Jill Lepore wrote in 2023 about Haldeman in The New Yorker:

Haldeman was born in Minnesota in 1902 but grew up mostly in Saskatchewan, Canada. A daredevil aviator and sometime cowboy, he also trained and worked as a chiropractor. In the nineteen-thirties, he joined the quasi-fascistic Technocracy movement, whose proponents believed that scientists and engineers, rather than the people, should rule. He became a leader of the movement in Canada, and, when it was briefly outlawed, he was jailed, after which he became the national chairman of what was then a notoriously antisemitic party called Social Credit. In the nineteen-forties, he ran for office under its banner, and lost. In 1950, two years after South Africa instituted apartheid, he moved his family to Pretoria, where he became an impassioned defender of the regime.

Musk’s father, who the billionaire is estranged from, has been more blunt about his former in-laws. “They were very fanatical in favor of apartheid,” he once said. “They used to support Hitler and all that sort of stuff.”

Seven decades after they moved to South Africa, their grandson, the richest man in the world, is defending white people in his homeland as he pursues a version of anti-democratic (and perhaps more than quasi-fascistic) rule by engineer in the United States with his Department of Government Efficiency. The results are predictably bleak.

Copyright © 2025 Mother Jones and the Center for Investigative Reporting. All Rights Reserved.

[admin]

Trump dealt HUMILIATION in court as judge issues major rebuke
by Brian Tyler Cohen and Marc Elias
Democracy Watch with Marc Elias
Feb 10, 2025
Democracy Watch episode 258: Marc Elias discusses Trump suffering a major rollback from judge.





Transcript

[Brian Tyler Cohen] This is democracy watch. Marc, Donald
Trump just got some bad news from a
federal judge. As you know, he moved to
fire thousands of usaid employees. That
effort didn't work especially well in
court. Can you explain what just happened?

[Marc Elias] Yeah, this is breaking news. And this is
really, really important, because we
have seen Donald Trump Target usaid, we
have seen Marco Rubio, who by the way
used to say he was a big fan of usaid,
he turned out to go along
with this, and we saw Elon Musk most
importantly perhaps target usaid.
And the net effect of this was to try to
put on administrative leave
2700 employees of usaid
overseas, and 500 of them were put on
administrative leave before this lawsuit
was filed. As of Friday
night at midnight, the remaining 2200
were supposed to be put on
administrative leave.

Well, this judge,
appointed, by the way, by Donald
Trump in his first term [Judge Nichols] blocked it
and said, "Nope, those 2200 people cannot
be put on an administrative leave, and
the 500 people that were put on
administrative leave need to be taken
off administrative leave.

So this was a big
win for democracy forward, the legal
organization that brought this
lawsuit on behalf of these folks, a big
win for usaid obviously, the
people who do the work, and a bit of
a surprising black eye to
Elon Musk and Donald Trump.

[Brian Tyler Cohen] Marc,
before we go further into the legal
implications of all this, can you just
talk about what usaid is, what it does,
and really frankly, why Americans
should even care about the preservation
of this program?

[Marc Elias] Yeah, I mean what's
interesting is that usaid was created
during the Cold War as a tool to win the
Cold War. The idea was that we needed it
in order to win the fight against the
Soviet Union against Chinese influence
in southeast Asia. We needed an agency
that would deliver aid to people and
thereby garner goodwill towards the
United States. Because in many, many parts
of the world, the delivery of aid is inextricably linked to the
hearts and minds of the local population.
So the idea was that if people were
getting bags of grain that had an
American flag on it saying, "Courtesy of
the American people," and there were
workers on the ground who are
vaccinating their children, or helping
build roads, that this was a way
to help win the Cold War, to defeat
communism, defeat the Soviet Union. It
was part and parcel of a number of other
programs like this, for example the
Peace Corp right? The Peace Corp was also
a program built by John Kennedy to
defeat the Cold War by, again, creating
this sort of soft power. And so over the
years, Brian, and this is really important
for people, over the years some of the
biggest proponents of usaid have
actually been conservative,
pro-military
Hawks, because if you are a
foreign policy Hawk, if you're
anti-russia, anti China, usaid has been
viewed as one of the most effective
tools to defeat China's expansionist
plans, to defeat Russia's expansionist
plans, and like I said, garner the
goodwill of the local populations in a
lot of parts of the world.

So the undoing of this is just a
gift to the communists in
Beijing; this is a gift to Vladimir
Putin; this is not
helping America maintain its position
of strength around the world.

[Brian Tyler Cohen] Well, can
you dig into that further, because now
what happens if usaid goes away, which, by
the way, I know that the Elon's of
the world will frame this as some
massive example of waste, fraud and
abuse, this is about a half of 1% of the
federal budget, and in exchange for that,
to your exact point, we garner goodwill
across the world without having to
engage in any conflict, without having to
fire any bullets. That's just a way to
win over countries across
the entire planet. So what happens in the
absence of usaid given the
fact that we would no longer be there?

[Marc Elias] Yeah, so I mean China has its own program
along these lines, as does Russia, as does
Isis, as does Iran, right? I mean like
every time we talk about these programs of
influence, you know, how is it that Isis
gains a foothold in a place, or how does
China expand into Africa, it is
oftentimes by setting up local Aid
Services, setting up clinics, providing
services at the local level. And usaid is
a critical piece
of doing that for the American
public so that people who feel like they
are being fed by the United States, or
getting vaccines from
the United States, are less likely to be
susceptible to Russian, to Chinese, to
other terrorist movements who
are otherwise competing to do that.

So this is a huge win for China. I mean
the biggest single victor of this plan
is going to be China, because China has
been actively acting to get into
this area. And they have a
very well-funded program. And they will
step into the void, right? And China's
program is the the Belt and Road
initiative.

And to your exact point
that the US will kind of seed this
ground to China, China is perfectly content to go
against the interests of the United
States for a fraction of the
cost of having to go to war in any of
these countries across the world.

Just
doing goodwill, aside from the fact that
it's just virtuous to do HIV
prevention, it's virtuous to do clean
water programs, and on and on, we also get
to garner that goodwill, and that'll help
us economically, it'll
help us with our national security, it'll
help us militarily across the world. And
so [shutting down that program] would be against the interest of
the United States. But it's not against
the interest of somebody like Elon Musk
who has business interests in Beijing,
who has business interest in
Shanghai. And so he has a vested interest
in making sure that he can help out
China. And by dismantling usaid, even before he
goes into the obvious departments like DOD, for example, which has
failed the last almost dozen audits,
he'll go into
usaid, and the only people that will be
better off in the long run as the result
of this are going to be the only country
that Elon is looking to expand his
foothold in, which is China.

I mean what
is really sad is that there has been so
much misinformation and disinformation
spread about us Aid and about what has
been going on that as you said you know
in sort of your initial question like if
you're just an average American and
you're reading about this you're
thinking oh this is good they're saving
money they're not you know they're not
uh taking our taxpayer money and using
it abroad but the fact is that that that
the way in which US Aid money is spent
as as you said is some of the most
effective ways to make sure that you
have pro- us governments you have Pro us
populations you have folks who you know
Aspire and see the United States as a
friendly force and what does that do
that means that as those societies
develop they become friendlier for
American Products as governments form
around them they become more friendly to
the United States not just on a military
basis by the way but also on all these
other on all these other bases I mean
every time we withdraw from the world's
stage it is not just that China China is
offering more Aid or you know Military
Support or anything else they're also
looking to build trading uh trading uh
uh partners and that is that is why it
is so inexplicable that this is but
Brian I want to say there was a lot of
talk at the beginning of this
Administration about how competent they
were going to be remember that like they
were going to come in and they were
going to be super competent they keep
losing court case after court case after
court case and I want to bring it back
to something that I said this they lost
this case before a judge appointed by
Donald Trump in his first term now you
know that that there are I think two
things to take away from that the first
is that I think people assume that every
judge appointed by Donald Trump is gonna
always rule in his favor I don't think
we should look at a judge in Florida for
example as the iconic example of how all
judges uh uh work uh this judge I think
had a very thoughtful hearing wrote a
very thoughtful opinion uh but the
second thing is that you know people
can't give up the fight they can't think
that there is no way to fight back
against these things because the fact is
Donald Trump keeps losing these lawsuits
I mean Donald Trump has now lost lawsuit
after lawsuit after lawsuit his
Department of Justice the lawyers there
must be Shell Shocked by the number of
cases they are having to defend and make
fools out of themselves frankly in some
of them but they and they keep losing
them and the Department of Justice is
not used to losing cases and and that's
really the point I want to hammer to
everyone it is very unusual very unusual
for a federal judge to slap down the
Department of Justice over executive
power that's just like you know I mean
you really have to go a long way to
overstep and yet we keep seeing in case
after case after case that's what's
happening and so I'm sure these doj
lawyers don't know what to do of course
they're also potentially being asked to
retire to to to take early retirement or
being threatened with being fired so I'm
sure that's not helping but but it's
showing that the fight in court is
working so I just want to make sure
everyone knows that well that's a good
opportunity to underscore that you know
you you have been consistent in pointing
out that the courts are going to serve
as our our last and most effective Bull
workk against the worst excesses of the
Trump Administration and you obviously
cover them extensively on a daily basis
with democracy docket which is the news
Outlet you found it to focus on
everything voting in elections highly
recommend if you are looking for any
news regarding what's happening in the
courts which which again are proving
that they are up to the task right now
of standing up to the Trump
Administration in the same way that
these republicans in Congress are not
please make sure to sign up for
democracy. I'll put the link right here
on the screen and also in the post
description of this video I'm Brian
teller Cohen I'm Mark Elias this is
democracy watch
[Music]a

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

US judge to temporarily block Trump from taking some steps to dismantle USAID
by Reuters
Voice of America
February 07, 2025 6:24 PM
https://www.voanews.com/a/us-judge-to-t ... 67290.html

WASHINGTON — A U.S. judge on Friday said he would enter a "limited" order temporarily blocking the Trump administration from taking some steps to dismantle the U.S. Agency for International Development, adding that 2,200 employees from the agency would not immediately be placed on administrative leave.

U.S. District Judge Carl Nichols in Washington, who was nominated by Trump during his first term, announced the decision at a hearing on a lawsuit from the largest U.S. government workers' union and an association of foreign service workers, who sued to stop the administration from dismantling the agency.

Nichols said the written ruling would be issued later Friday.

The administration in a notice sent to the foreign aid agency's workers on Thursday said it would keep 611 essential workers on board at USAID out of a worldwide workforce that totals more than 10,000.

"The major reduction in force, as well as the closure of offices, the forced relocation of these individuals were all done in excess of the executive’s authority in violation of the separation of powers," Karla Gilbride, a lawyer for the unions, said at the hearing.

A Justice Department official, Brett Shumate, told Nichols that about 2,200 USAID employees would be put on paid leave under the administration's plans, adding that 500 had already been placed on leave.

"The president has decided there is corruption and fraud at USAID," Shumate said.

However, the judge said his order would prevent those 2,200 employees from being immediately placed on administrative leave and would also pause the relocation of certain humanitarian workers stationed outside the United States.

Hours after he was inaugurated on Jan. 20, Trump ordered all U.S. foreign aid be paused to ensure it was aligned with his "America First" policy. Chaos has since consumed USAID, which distributes billions of dollars of humanitarian aid around the world.

The State Department issued worldwide stop-work directives after the executive order was issued, effectively freezing all foreign aid with the exception of emergency food assistance. That brought USAID programs covering lifesaving aid around the globe to a grinding halt, in a move that experts warned risked killing people.

The gutting of the agency has largely been overseen by businessman Elon Musk, the world's richest man and a close Trump ally spearheading the president's effort to shrink the federal bureaucracy.

In fiscal 2023, the United States disbursed, partly via USAID, $72 billion of aid worldwide on everything from women's health in conflict zones to access to clean water, HIV/AIDS treatments, energy security and anti-corruption work.

The U.S. provided 42% of all humanitarian aid tracked by the United Nations in 2024, yet that represents less than 1% of its total budget.

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

Trump administration temporarily blocked from placing 2,200 USAID workers on paid leave
by Ellen Knickmeyer
Associated Press
Feb 7, 2025 5:32 PM EST
https://www.pbs.org/newshour/politics/t ... paid-leave

WASHINGTON (AP) — A federal judge on Friday temporarily blocked the Trump administration from placing 2,200 employees of the U.S. Agency for International Development on paid leave.

U.S. District Judge Carl Nichols, who was nominated by President Donald Trump, sided with two federal employee associations in agreeing to a pause in plans to put the employees on paid leave as of midnight Friday.

The workers associations argue that Trump lacks the authority for his swift dismantling of a six-decade-old aid agency enshrined in congressional legislation.

“CLOSE IT DOWN,” Trump said Friday on social media of USAID.

Crews used duct tape to block out the agency’s name on a sign outside its Washington headquarters Friday, and a flag was taken down. Someone placed a bouquet of flowers outside the door.

A group of a half-dozen USAID officials speaking to reporters Friday strongly disputed assertions from Secretary of State Marco Rubio that the most essential life-saving programs abroad were getting waivers to continue. With all but several hundred staffers forced out and funding stopped, the agency has “ceased to exist,” one official on the call said.

The Trump administration and billionaire ally Elon Musk, who is running a budget-cutting Department of Government Efficiency, have targeted USAID hardest so far in an unprecedented challenge of the federal government and many of its programs.

The administration told remaining USAID officials on Thursday afternoon that it planned to exempt 297 employees from global leave and furloughs ordered for at least 8,000 staffers and contractors, according to USAID staffers and officials.

Late that night, a new list was finalized of 611 employees to remain on the job, many of them to manage the return home of thousands of staffers, contractors and their families abroad, the officials said. Justice Department lawyer, Brett Shumate, confirmed the 611 figure in court.

The USAID officials and staffers spoke on condition of anonymity due to a Trump administration order barring them from talking publicly.

Some of the remaining staffers and contractors, along with an unknown number of 5,000 locally hired employees abroad, would run the few life-saving programs that the administration says it intends to keep going for now.

It was not immediately clear whether the reductions would be permanent or temporary, potentially allowing more workers to return after what the Trump administration says will be a review of which aid and development programs it wants to resume.

Trump and Musk have spoken of moving surviving programs under the State Department.

Within the State Department itself, employees fear substantial staff reductions following the deadline for the Trump administration’s offer of financial incentives for federal workers to resign, according to officials who spoke on condition of anonymity for fear of reprisal. A judge temporarily blocked that offer and set a hearing Monday.

At USAID, among the programs officials said had not received waivers: $450 million in food grown by U.S. farmers sufficient to feed 36 million people, which was not being paid for or delivered; and water supplies for 1.6 million people displaced by war in Sudan’s Darfur region, which were being cut off without money for fuel to run water pumps in the desert.

The administration earlier this week gave almost all USAID staffers posted overseas 30 days, starting Friday, to return to the U.S., with the government paying for their travel and moving costs. Diplomats at embassies asked for waivers allowing more time for some, including families forced to pull their children out of schools midyear.

In a notice posted on the USAID website late Thursday, the agency clarified that none of the overseas personnel put on leave would be forced to leave the country where they work. But it said that workers who chose to stay longer than 30 days might have to cover their own expenses unless they received a specific hardship waiver.

Rubio said Thursday during a trip to the Dominican Republic that the government would help staffers get home within 30 days “if they so desired” and would listen to those with special conditions.

He insisted the moves were the only way to get cooperation because staffers were working “to sneak through payments and push through payments despite the stop order” on foreign assistance. Agency staffers deny his claims of obstruction.

Rubio said the U.S. government will continue providing foreign aid, “but it is going to be foreign aid that makes sense and is aligned with our national interest.”

Democratic lawmakers and others call the move illegal without congressional approval.

The same argument was made by the American Foreign Service Association and the American Federation of Government Employees in their lawsuit filed late Thursday. It asks the federal court in Washington to compel the reopening of USAID’s buildings, return its staffers to work and restore funding.

Government officials “failed to acknowledge the catastrophic consequences of their actions, both as they pertain to American workers, the lives of millions around the world, and to US national interests,” the suit says.

AP reporters Matthew Lee, Farnoush Amiri and Lindsay Whitehurst in Washington contributed to this report.

[admin]

Judge Orders White House to Unblock Funding for NIH, Others
by Kaei Li
Democracy Docket
February 10, 2025
https://www.democracydocket.com/news-al ... eeze-case/



A federal judge today ordered the Trump administration to resume payments for federal programs after the White House violated a previous order blocking a federal funding freeze.

In a blistering order, District Court Judge John McConnell in Rhode Island warned that not complying with a court order could lead to contempt of court, which is a crime.

On Jan. 31, McConnell blocked the administration’s directive freezing federal grants and loans. On Feb. 3, another federal judge in the District of Columbia granted a similar temporary restraining order blocking the same policy.

In a legal filing last week, states said that they still could not access federal money. The Trump administration argued that they were blocking funds to “root out fraud,” but McConnell did not buy it, writing that the continued funding freeze stems from the administration’s directive and not specific findings of possible fraud. He ordered the Trump administration to immediately restore funding to agencies like the National Institutes of Health and programs created under the Inflation Reduction Act and the Infrastructure Improvement and Jobs Act — two landmark laws championed by former President Joe Biden.

“The broad categorical and sweeping freeze of federal funds is, as the Court found, likely unconstitutional and has caused and continues to cause irreparable harm to a vast portion of this country,” McConnell wrote in his order.

02/10/25
Case 1:25-cv-00039-JJM-PAS

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF RHODE ISLAND

STATE OF NEW YORK; STATE OF CALIFORNIA; STATE OF ILLINOIS; STATE OF RHODE ISLAND; STATE OF NEW JERSEY; COMMONWEALTH OF MASSACHUSETTS; STATE OF ARIZONA; STATE OF COLORADO; STATE OF CONNECTICUT; STATE OF DELAWARE; THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA; STATE OF HAWAI’I; STATE OF MAINE; STATE OF MARYLAND; STATE OF MICHIGAN; STATE OF MINNESOTA; STATE OF NEVADA; STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA; STATE OF NEW MEXICO; STATE OF OREGON; STATE OF VERMONT; STATE OF WASHINGTON; and STATE OF WISCONSIN,

Plaintiffs,

v.

DONALD TRUMP, in his Official Capacity as President of the United States; U.S. OFFICE OF MANAGEMENT AND BUDGET; MATTHEW J. VAETH, in his Official Capacity as Acting Director of the U.S. Office of Management and Budget; U.S. DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY; SCOTT BESSENT, in his Official Capacity as Secretary of the Treasury; PATRICIA COLLINS, in her Official Capacity as Treasurer of the U.S.; U.S. DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES; DOROTHY A. FINK, M.D., in her Official Capacity As Acting Secretary Of Health And Human Services; U.S. DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION; DENISE CARTER, in her Official Capacity as Acting Secretary of Education; U.S. FEDERAL EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT AGENCY; CAMERON HAMILTON, in his Official Capacity as Acting Administrator of the U.S. Federal Emergency Management Agency; U.S. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION; JUDITH KALETA, in her Official Capacity as Acting Secretary of Transportation; U.S. DEPARTMENT OF LABOR; VINCE MICONE, in his Official Capacity as Acting Secretary of Labor; U.S. DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY; INGRID KOLB, in her Official Capacity as Acting Secretary of the U.S. Department of Energy; U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY; JAMES PAYNE, in his Official Capacity as Acting Administrator of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency; U.S. DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY; KRISTI NOEM, in her Capacity as Secretary of the U.S. Department of Homeland Security; U.S. DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE; JAMES R. McHENRY III, in his Official Capacity as Acting Attorney General of the U.S. Department of Justice; THE NATIONAL SCIENCE FOUNDATION; and DR. SETHURAMAN PANCHANATHAN, in his Capacity as Director of the National Science Foundation,

Defendants.

C.A. No. 25-cv-39-JJM-PAS

ORDER

The Plaintiff States’ Motion for Enforcement of the Temporary Restraining Order (“TRO”) (ECF No. 66) is GRANTED.

[It is a] basic proposition that all orders and judgments of courts must be complied with promptly. * * * Persons who make private determinations of the law and refuse to obey an order generally risk criminal contempt even if the order is ultimately ruled incorrect. The orderly and expeditious administration of justice by the courts requires that an order issued by a court with jurisdiction over the subject matter and person must be obeyed by the parties until it is reversed by orderly and proper proceedings.

Maness v. Meyers, 419 U.S. 449, 458–59 (1975) (citations and quotations omitted) (emphasis added). The Defendants issued a broad, categorical, all-encompassing directive freezing federal funding. The plain language of the TRO entered in this case prohibits all categorical pauses or freezes in obligations or disbursements based on the OMB Directive or based on the President’s 2025 Executive Orders.1 The Defendants received notice of the TRO, the Order is clear and unambiguous, and there are no impediments to the Defendants’ compliance with the Order.

The States have presented evidence in this motion that the Defendants in some cases have continued to improperly freeze federal funds and refused to resume disbursement of appropriated federal funds. See Exhibits A-C of the States’ motion, (ECF Nos. 66-1, 66-2, and 66-3). The Defendants now plea that they are just trying to root out fraud. See ECF No. 70. But the freezes in effect now were a result of the broad categorical order, not a specific finding of possible fraud. The broad categorical and sweeping freeze of federal funds is, as the Court found, likely unconstitutional and has caused and continues to cause irreparable harm to a vast portion of this country. These pauses in funding violate the plain text of the TRO.2 In response to the Defendants’ arguments, they can request targeted relief from the TRO from this Court where they can show a specific instance where they are acting in compliance with this Order but otherwise withholding funds due to specific authority.

Therefore, consistent with the United States Constitution, United States statutes, United States Supreme Court precedent, and the TRO, the Defendants are hereby further ORDERED as follows:

1. The Defendants must immediately restore frozen funding during the pendency of the TRO until the Court hears and decides the Preliminary Injunction request.

2. The Defendants must immediately end any federal funding pause during the pendency of the TRO.

3. The Defendants must immediately take every step necessary to effectuate the TRO, including clearing any administrative, operational, or technical hurdles to implementation.

4. The Defendants must comply with the plain text of the TRO not to pause any funds based on pronouncements pausing funding incorporated into the OMB Directive, like Section 7(a) of the Unleashing Executive Order, and the OMB Unleashing Guidance. The TRO requirements include any pause or freeze included in the Unleashing Guidance.

5. The Defendants must immediately restore withheld funds, including those federal funds appropriated in the Inflation Reduction Act and the Infrastructure Improvement and Jobs Act. The directives in OMB M-25-11 are included in the TRO. 6. The Defendants must resume the funding of institutes and other agencies of the Defendants (for example the National Institute for Health) that are included in the scope of the Court’s TRO.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

/s/John J. McConnell, Jr.

Chief Judge
United States District Court for the District of Rhode Island
February 10, 2025

_______________

Notes:

1 The Defendants acknowledged that they understood what the TRO required: “Federal agencies cannot pause, freeze, impede, block, cancel, or terminate any awards or obligations on the basis of the OMB Memo, or on the basis of the President’s recently issued Executive Orders.” ECF No. 51-1 at 1 (emphasis added).

2 The Court disagrees with the Defendants’ Notice (ECF No. 51), particularly paragraph 2. The Court’s TRO is clear and unambiguous in its scope and effect, which is inconsistent with the Defendant’s interpretation contained in the Notice. ECF No. 51 at 2.

[admin]

Trump Picks Jan. 6 Rioter to Lead Agency That Investigated Insurrection
by Courtney Cohn
Democracy Docket
February 10, 2025
https://www.democracydocket.com/news-al ... urrection/

NOTICE: THIS WORK MAY BE PROTECTED BY COPYRIGHT

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

Ed Martin was part of the mob at the U.S. Capitol on Jan. 6, 2021. Now, he’s one of the top attorneys in the country, running the agency that successfully prosecuted over 1,500 insurrectionists.

After his inauguration, President Donald Trump appointed Martin to be the Interim U.S. Attorney for Washington, D.C. until he permanently fills the role.

Martin earned his law degree in St. Louis, Missouri in 1998, and since then, he has run his own law practice, held senior roles at the Eagle Forum Education and Legal Defense Fund — a right-wing legal group — and has been a central figure in the Missouri Republican Party and national GOP.

He served as the chief of staff for former Missouri Republican Gov. Matt Blunt, unsuccessfully ran for Congress in 2010 and state attorney general in 2012, was elected chair of the Missouri GOP in 2013, served as a member of the Republican National Committee and co-authored a book in 2016 called The Conservative Case for Trump.

In 2021, Martin was one of the thousands of insurrectionists at the U.S. Capitol Jan. 6. He posted on social media that day, saying it’s “Like Mardi Gras in DC today: love, faith and joy. Ignore #FakeNews.” Later that year, the U.S. House’s Jan. 6 Committee subpoenaed Martin, identifying him as an organizer of the Stop the Steal Movement formed after the 2020 election.

Now, four years later, he’s become head of the U.S. Attorney’s Office for Washington, D.C., a branch of the U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ).

When he entered office, he launched an investigation into the DOJ’s Jan. 6 prosecutions using a specific obstruction of justice charge, asking employees to retain records related to those cases. Martin also disbanded the DOJ’s Capitol Siege Section and moved to dismiss cases against those who attacked police officers Jan. 6.

After that, he fired numerous prosecutors who worked on Jan. 6 cases, following a Jan. 31 directive from Acting Deputy Attorney General Emil Bove.

Rep. Jamie Raskin (D-Md.), ranking member of the House Judiciary Committee and former member of the House’s Jan. 6 Committee, sent a letter last week to Martin, criticizing the firings.

“In firing these [attorneys], your office has lost prosecutors who, collectively, had decades of experience as local and state prosecutors and litigators in the country’s top law firms, including military veterans and graduates of our nation’s best law schools,” Raskin wrote. “All of this was done to appease a president who now apparently believes that the law does not apply to pro-Trump rioters who engage in seditious conspiracy and smash police officers in the face.”

Raskin also condemned Martin for “regularly visiting the White House,” which “violates decades-old safeguards developed to preserve the DOJ’s independence.”

He added that since entering office, Martin personally communicated with “individuals charged and convicted of criminal offenses related to the January 6th insurrection, as well as their attorneys, regarding ongoing matters.”

Less than a week later, Martin threatened those who have opposed Elon Musk’s Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE), which is tasked with gutting and cutting government agencies.

The department is currently facing numerous lawsuits for attempting to access sensitive data and information from the Education, Treasury and Labor departments.

Martin issued a statement Feb. 3 alleging that “certain individuals and/or groups have committed acts that appear to violate the law in targeting DOGE employees.” He added that his office is “in contact with FBI and other law enforcement partners to proceed rapidly,” and has its “prosecutors preparing.”

Also, in a post on X, he shared a Jan. 7 letter addressed to Musk, thanking him for referring individuals and groups “who appear to be stealing government property and/or threatening government employees.”

Martin also said in the letter, “if people are discovered to have broken the law or even acted simply unethically, we will investigate them and chase them to the end of the Earth to hold them accountable.”

[admin]

What is the Goat Supposed to Represent?
by jackthom8
ar15.com
Posted: Today 11:03:14 AM EST
February 10, 2025
https://www.ar15.com/forums/General/At- ... 5-2777898/

PatriotTakes (@patriottakes)

At Mar-a-Lago, a bizarre, golden-hoofed goat idol is on display.

The idol is wrapped in Trump $100 bills that say, “In Trump we Trust,” replacing God with Trump.

The idols’ base says, “I love you” along with Trump’s signature.

5:45 AM · Feb 10, 2025

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

On 9/11, Pres. Bush Goes Ahead With His Photo Opportunity
by Michael Moore
Fahrenheit 9/11 Screenplay, 2004

[Michael Moore] As the attack took place, Mr. Bush was on his way to an elementary school in Florida. When informed of the first plane hitting the World Trade Center, where terrorists had struck just eight years prior, Mr. Bush decided to go ahead with his photo opportunity.

[Teacher] Good morning, boys and girls.

[Students] Good morning.

[Teacher] Read this word the fast way. Get ready.

[Students] "Mad"!

[Teacher] Yes, "mad." Get ready.

[Students] "Calf"!

[George Bush] Yeah!

[Teacher] Okay, get ready to read the words on this page without making a mistake.



[Michael Moore] When the second plane hit the tower, his chief of staff entered the classroom and told Mr. Bush, "The nation is under attack." Not knowing what to do, with no one telling him what to do, and no Secret Service rushing in to take him to safety, Mr. Bush just sat there and continued to read My Pet Goat with the children.

[9:05 AM]

[9:07 AM]

[9:09 AM]

[Michael Moore] Nearly seven minutes passed with nobody doing anything.

[9:11 AM]

[9:12 AM]

[Michael Moore] As Bush sat in that Florida classroom, was he wondering if maybe he should have shown up to work more often?

Should he have held at least one meeting since taking office to discuss the threat of terrorism with his head of counterterrorism? Or maybe Mr. Bush wondered why he had cut terrorism funding from the FBI. Or perhaps he just should have read the security briefing that was given to him on August 6th, 2001, which said that Osama bin Laden was planning to attack America by hijacking airplanes. But maybe he wasn't worried about the terrorist threat, because the title of the report was too vague.


[Condoleezza Rice, National Security Advisor] I believe the title was, "Bin Laden Determined to Attack Inside the United States."

[Michael Moore] A report like that might make some men jump but, as in days past, George W. just went fishing. As the minutes went by, George Bush continued to sit in the classroom. Was he thinking, "I've been hanging out with the wrong crowd. Which one of them screwed me? Was it the guy my daddy's friends delivered a lot of weapons to?

[1983: Donald Rumsfeld, Saddam Hussein]

[Michael Moore] Was it that group of religious fundamentalists who visited my state when I was governor? Or was it the Saudis? Damn, it was them. I think I better blame it on this guy." In the days following September 11th all commercial and private airline traffic was grounded.

[Spokesman] The FAA has taken the action to close all of the airports in the United States.

[Newscaster] Even grounding the president's father, former President Bush on a flight forced to land in Milwaukee.

[Newscaster] Thousands of travelers were stranded, among them Ricky Martin due to appear at tonight's Latin Grammy Awards.

[Michael Moore] Not even Ricky Martin could fly. But really, who wanted to fly? No one, except the bin Ladens.

[Song: We gotta get out of this place if it's the last thing we ever do.]

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

The Pet Goat
by Wikipedia
Accessed: 2/10/25

"The Pet Goat" (often erroneously called "My Pet Goat") is a grade-school-level reading exercise composed by American educationalist Siegfried "Zig" Engelmann and Elaine C. Bruner. It achieved notoriety for being read by US President George W. Bush with a class of second-graders on the morning of September 11, 2001. After being discreetly informed of the September 11 attacks midway through the reading, Bush waited quietly for the reading to finish before responding to the unfolding crisis. The exercise has gained notoriety in the retrospective assessment of Bush's response to the September 11 attacks.

Reading exercise

"The Pet Goat" was composed by Siegfried "Zig" Engelmann, who had written over a thousand similar instructional exercises since the 1970s.[1] It was anthologized in the classroom workbook Reading Mastery: Rainbow Edition, Level 2, Storybook 1. "The Pet Goat" is designed to teach students about words ending in the letter E, using the Direct Instruction (DI) teaching method. The exercise tells a story about a girl's pet goat, which her parents want to get rid of because it eats everything; the parents relent after it foils a robbery by butting the intruder, who is now "sore" (that word ending in e).[2]

George W. Bush during the September 11 attacks

See also: Timeline for the day of the September 11 attacks

On September 11, 2001, US President George W. Bush went to Emma E. Booker Elementary School to meet students and staff and to bring attention to his plans for education reform. Upon arriving at the Sarasota, Florida, school, the president was informed of the first plane crash into the World Trade Center, though he was briefed that it was probably just a small propeller plane. While President Bush sat in Kay Daniels' classroom, and her students read "The Pet Goat", White House Chief of Staff Andrew Card interrupted the president to whisper in his ear: "A second plane hit the second tower. America is under attack."[3]

Afterwards, the children continued to read and President Bush sat while—as described by The Wall Street Journal—"trying to keep under tight control."[2] Despite the president's efforts to remain stoic and not alarm the children, students knew something was wrong; they later said that the president's face became red and serious, and his expression was "flabbergasted, shocked, [and] horrified".[4]

According to Bill Sammon's book Fighting Back, Bush's gaze flitted about the room—the children, the press, the floor, his staff—while his mind raced about everything he did not yet know. After receiving cue-card advice from his press secretary, Ari Fleischer ("DON'T SAY ANYTHING YET"), the "notoriously punctual" president lingered in the classroom after the reading exercise was finished: he adamantly did not want to give an appearance of panic. After chatting with the students and their teacher, Bush deflected a Trade Center–related question from a reporter and began to learn about the magnitude of the attacks.[5]

Public attention to "The Pet Goat" first came to the fore with Michael Moore's 2004 documentary Fahrenheit 9/11, though the film incorrectly gave the title as "My Pet Goat" and called it a book. Within a few weeks, a blogger named Peter Smith tracked down the correct name and origin as a reading exercise by Engelmann.[1]

It was anthologized in the classroom workbook Reading Mastery: Rainbow Edition, Level 2, Storybook 1.

Reactions

The New Yorker described a seven-minute video of President Bush holding Reading Mastery while "staring blankly into space" as the most memorable bit in Fahrenheit 9/11;[1] the film presents the president as faltering in the face of the crisis.[2]

The commander-in-chief's supporters argued that there was nothing for Bush to do but wait for more information while not alarming the pupils.[2] On his own behalf, Bush said that "his instinct was to project calm, not to have the country see an excited reaction at a moment of crisis. The national press corps was standing behind the children in the classroom; he saw their phones and pagers start to ring. The president felt he should project strength and calm until he could better understand what was happening."[6] Booker Elementary Principal Tose-Rigell supported the president's reactions at her school—"I don't think anyone could have handled it better. What would it have served if [Bush] had jumped out of his chair and ran out of the room?"—as did Daniels' students, who later said that Bush's actions were the right ones.[4]

A year after the attacks, Kay Daniels' classroom still had the chair in which the president sat; it was festooned with a purple ribbon.[3] By 2004, Engelmann (then a retired professor) was surprised at the attention "The Pet Goat" received: "It hasn't brought me any fame, [...] It's fascinating that anyone would even be interested in something like this."[2]

Editions

• Engelmann, Siegfried; Bruner, Elaine C. (1995). "The Pet Goat". Reading Mastery II: Rainbow Edition, Storybook 1. Worthington, OH: SRA Macmillan/McGraw-Hill. pp. 153–155. ISBN 0026863553.[1][2]

References

1. Radosh, Daniel (July 18, 2004). "The Pet Goat Approach". The New Yorker. ISSN 0028-792X. OCLC 320541675. Archived from the original on April 1, 2019. Retrieved September 12, 2019.
2. Trachtenberg, Jeffrey A. (July 2, 2004). "Bush's Goat Tale Is Tough to Find". The Wall Street Journal. ISSN 0099-9660. OCLC 781541372. Archived from the original on April 12, 2019. Retrieved September 18, 2019.
3. Adair, Bill; Hegarty, Stephen (September 8, 2002). "The drama in Sarasota". St. Petersburg Times. Sarasota, Florida. ISSN 2327-9052. OCLC 5920090. Archived from the original on November 14, 2012. Retrieved September 18, 2019. A day promoting the president's education policy suddenly becomes a historical turning point.
4. Padgett, Tim (May 3, 2011). "The Interrupted Reading: The Kids with George W. Bush on 9/11". Time. ISSN 0040-781X. OCLC 1311479. Archived from the original on March 9, 2019. Retrieved September 29, 2019. They are in their teens now, but when they were second-graders, they shared the moment the President of the United States learned the country was under attack
5. Sammon, Bill (2002). "Bifurcation". Fighting Back: The War on Terrorism—from Inside the Bush White House. Massachusetts Avenue: Regnery Publishing. pp. 83–132. ISBN 0-89526-149-9.
6. "Staff Statement No. 17" (PDF), Improvising a Homeland Defense (After action report), National Commission on Terrorist Attacks Upon the United States, p. 22, archived (PDF) from the original on December 24, 2016, retrieved September 18, 2019