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

[admin]

https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/69 ... s-v-trump/

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA

AMERICAN FOREIGN SERVICE ASSOCIATION, et al.,

Plaintiffs,

v.

DONALD TRUMP, et al.,

Defendants.

Case No. 1:25-cv-00352

PLAINTIFFS’ NOTICE OF DEFENDANTS’ NON-COMPLIANCE WITH COURT ORDER AND EMERGENCY MOTION FOR SHOW CAUSE HEARING

Plaintiffs American Foreign Service Association (AFSA) and the American Federation of Government Employees (AFGE) hereby notify this Court of Defendants’ non-compliance with this Court’s Temporary Restraining Order, ECF No. 15, and move for a hearing to show cause as to the basis for non-compliance.

Factual Background

On February 7, 2025, this Court granted in part Plaintiffs’ Motion for Temporary Restraining Order (TRO), ECF No. 9, and entered a TRO that provided:

All USAID employees currently on administrative leave shall be reinstated until that date, and shall be given complete access to email, payment, and security notification systems until that date, and no additional employees shall be placed on administrative leave before that date. No USAID employees shall be evacuated from their host countries before February 14, 2025 at 11:59 PM.

ECF No. 15.

Plaintiffs have since become aware that Defendants have not fully complied with the terms of this Court’s order. Plaintiffs’ members report the following:

• Patricia Doe was placed on administrative leave on January 31, 2025, and lost systems access that same day. As of 10:52 am this morning, systems access has not been restored. She has no ability to assess whether she has been reinstated from administrative leave. Ex. A.

• Quinn Doe was locked out of USAID systems on January 31. As of 10:48 this morning, systems access has not been restored. She has no ability to assess whether she has been reinstated from administrative leave. Ex. B.

• Rebecca Doe was also placed on administrative leave on January 31, and as of 10:33 am today, lacks access to systems and cannot tell whether she has been reinstated. Ex. C.

Plaintiffs understand that, in some cases, members have had systems access restored consistent with this Court’s order. But Plaintiffs and their attorneys understand that access has not been restored to many others. Those members, therefore, cannot assess whether they have been reinstated from leave.

Further, Plaintiffs believe this Court’s order should cover Personal Services Contractors (PSCs), who are “USAID employees.” PSCs, including those in extremely dangerous areas of the world, report that access to their computer systems has not been restored as of 12:27 pm today. Ex. D (Declaration of Ursula Doe).

Further, some USAID employees report that they were told that access to systems could not be restored until “political leadership signed off.” Id.

Beyond non-compliance with the TRO, factual developments that occurred immediately before and in the wake of the February 7 hearing also suggest that the government intends to continue taking potentially irreversible actions to dismantle the agency before the Court can adjudicate the lawfulness of those actions on the merits. Those factual developments include the following:

• At 9:31 am on Friday, February 7, Defendant Trump posted on Truth Social, “USAID IS DRIVING THE RADICAL LEFT CRAZY . . . CLOSE IT DOWN!”1

• USAID signage at the Ronald Reagan Building and International Trade Center—USAID’s headquarters—has been taken down.2 Press reports suggest that Customs and Border Protection has taken over the lease of the office space that had been allocated to USAID.3

• Reports indicate that contracts and awards are being terminated en masse, and that the procurement team at USAID is being subject to hourly targets regarding execution of these terminations.4

• Officials turned away USAID staffers that arrived at work this morning at its Washington offices. At least some USAID employees received messages that the “former USAID headquarters” were closed until further notice, and were instructed to telework.5

Request for Relief

In light of evidence suggesting that Defendants have not complied with this Court’s TRO and factual developments suggesting that Defendants continue to take immediate, irreparable action to dismantle the agency, Plaintiffs hereby respectfully request the Court schedule a show cause hearing today, directing the government to show why they have not fully complied with this Court’s order granting emergency relief. Plaintiffs also request any further relief that this Court deems just and proper.

Dated: February 10, 2025

Respectfully submitted,
/s/ Lauren Bateman
Lauren Bateman  
(DC Bar No. 1005886)
Allison Zieve
(DC Bar No. 424786)
Public Citizen Litigation Group
1600 20th Street NW
Washington, DC 20009
(202) 588-1000
[email protected]

Respectfully submitted,
/s/ Kaitlyn Golden
Kaitlyn Golden
(DC Bar No. 1034214)
Kristen Miller
(DC Bar No. 229627)
Kayla M. Kaufman
(DC Bar No. 90029091)
Robin F. Thurston
(DC Bar No. 1531399)
Skye L. Perryman
(DC Bar No. 984573)
Rachel L. Fried
(DC Bar No. 1029538)
Democracy Forward Foundation
P.O. Box 34553
Washington, D.C. 20043
(202) 448-9090 
[email protected]
(DC Bar No. 90029091)

Counsel for Plaintiffs

Certification Regarding Local Rule 7(m)

As required by Local Rule 7(m), counsel for Plaintiffs and counsel for Defendants met and conferred about this motion. Defendants oppose.

/s/ Lauren Bateman Lauren Bateman

_______________

Notes:

1 @realDonaldTrump, Truth Social (Feb. 7, 2025, 9:31 am), https://truthsocial.com/@realDonaldTrum ... 5497636545.

2 Laura Barrón-López, PHOTOS: USAID signs covered with black tape or removed at Washington headquarters, PBS (Feb. 7, 2025), https://www.pbs.org/newshour/nation/usa ... adquarters.

3 Garrett Haake, Customs and Border Protection takes over USAID headquarters lease, NBC News (Feb.7, 2025), https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/donald ... lCard=true.

4 @Atul_Gawande, X (Feb. 10, 2025, 9:25 am), https://x.com/Atul_Gawande/status/1888957407725867205.

5 Ellen Knickmeyer, USAID staffers turned away from offices even after court suspends leave order, AP News (Feb. 10, 2025), https://apnews.com/article/usaid-trump- ... 49853be3b6.

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

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA

AMERICAN FOREIGN SERVICE ASSOCIATION, et al.,

Plaintiffs,

v.

DONALD TRUMP, et al.,

Defendants.

Case No. 1:25-cv-00352

ORDER

Plaintiffs, two unions that represent employees of USAID, object to various recent executive branch actions that they allege have “systematically dismantled” that agency. ECF No. 1 (Compl.) at 2. Plaintiffs allege that their members are suffering or will suffer irreparable harm because of those actions, and late this morning filed a motion for a temporary restraining order that would “maintain the status quo” while the Court considers more fully whether the challenged actions are legal. ECF No. 9-1 (Mot.) at 2. The Court explored the alleged harms and claims at a hearing this afternoon and, for the reasons explained below, will enter a limited TRO.

To obtain a TRO, “the moving party must show: (1) a substantial likelihood of success on the merits, (2) that it would suffer irreparable injury if the [TRO] were not granted, (3) that [the TRO] would not substantially injure other interested parties, and (4) that the public interest would be furthered” by the TRO. Chaplaincy of Full Gospel Churches v. England, 454 F.3d 290, 297 (D.C. Cir. 2006); see also Hall v. Johnson, 449 F. Supp. 2d 1, 3 n.2 (D.D.C. 2009) (explaining that the TRO and PI standards are the same). “When the movant seeks to enjoin the government, the final two TRO factors—balancing the equities and the public interest—merge.” D.A.M. v. Barr, 474 F. Supp. 3d 45, 67 (D.D.C. 2020).

Plaintiffs frame their TRO request as pertaining to one overarching event: the allegedly “illegal and unconstitutional dismantling of USAID.” Mot. at 9. But at the TRO hearing, it became clear that plaintiffs’ allegations of irreparable injury flow principally from three government actions: (1) the placement of USAID employees on administrative leave; (2) the expedited evacuation of USAID employees from their host countries; and (3) Secretary Rubio’s January 24, 2025 order “paus[ing] all new obligations of funding . . . for foreign assistance programs funded by or through . . . USAID.” Dep’t of State, Memo. 25 STATE 6828. The Court finds that a TRO is warranted as to the first two actions but not the third.

I. Administrative Leave

When the Court received plaintiffs’ TRO motion, it was not clear how many USAID employees had been or would be placed on administrative leave, or even what precisely “administrative leave” entailed. The TRO hearing provided some clarity. The government reported that 500 USAID employees have already been placed on administrative leave and that, absent a TRO, 2,200 additional USAID employees would be placed on administrative leave by midnight tonight. The government also reported that employees would still be paid while on administrative leave. Plaintiffs, meanwhile, contended—as they had in their complaint and motion—that USAID employees placed on administrative leave, including USAID employees stationed abroad, lack access to the agency’s email, payment, and “internal security warning/alert systems.” Mot. at 20; see ECF No. 9-1 ¶ 18. As plaintiffs’ counsel put it at the hearing, overseas USAID employees placed on administrative leave exist within an “informational vacuum” with respect to possible threats to their safety.

Taking the TRO factors somewhat out of order and beginning with irreparable injury, the Court finds that plaintiffs have adequately demonstrated that their members are facing irreparable injury from their placement on administrative leave, and that more members would face such injury if they were placed on administrative leave tonight. Many USAID personnel work in “high-risk environments where access to security resources is critical.” ECF No. 9-10 ¶ 14. No future lawsuit could undo the physical harm that might result if USAID employees are not informed of imminent security threats occurring in the countries to which they have relocated in the course of their service to the United States. The government argued at the TRO hearing that placing employees on paid administrative leave is a garden-variety personnel action unworthy of court intervention. But administrative leave in Syria is not the same as administrative leave in Bethesda: simply being paid cannot change that fact.

Turning to the likelihood of success on the merits, plaintiffs have asserted at least a colorable argument that placing almost 3,000 USAID employees on administrative leave would violate the Further Consolidated Appropriations Act of 2024, which requires the State Department and USAID to consult with Congress before, among other things, “reorganiz[ing]” or “redesign[ing]” USAID, including by “downsiz[ing]” it. Pub. L. 118-47 §§ 7063(a), (b), 138 Stat. 460 (2024). To be sure, the government strongly objects to this argument, and the Court—without the benefit of a brief from the government and given the highly compressed timeline—has not had the opportunity to consider it in detail. But the TRO inquiry operates on a “sliding scale,” wherein “a strong showing on one factor c[an] make up for a weaker showing on another.” Changji Esquel Textile Co. v. Raimondo, 40 F.4th 716, 726 (D.C. Cir. 2022) (quotation marks and citation omitted). Given plaintiffs’ strong arguments about the seriousness of the safety risks posed to overseas USAID employees bereft of government support, the Court concludes that plaintiffs’ merits argument is enough to support a TRO here.

The last TRO factor requires the Court to balance the equities. When the Court asked the government at the TRO hearing what harm would befall the government if it could not immediately place on administrative leave the more than 2000 employees in question, it had no response—beyond asserting without any record support that USAID writ large was possibly engaging in “corruption and fraud.” The Court thus has no difficulty concluding that the balance of the hardships favors the plaintiffs. A TRO as to this issue is warranted.

II. Expedited Evacuations

Plaintiffs have also alleged that, in addition to being placed on administrative leave, USAID employees stationed abroad are being ordered to return to the United States on expedited timelines that are far shorter than those the agency normally prescribes. Specifically, whereas USAID’s “usual process” provides foreign service officers with six to nine months’ notice before an international move, plaintiffs allege that USAID has now issued a “mandatory recall notice” that would require more than 1400 foreign service officers to repatriate within 30 days. Mot. at 18.

Plaintiffs have demonstrated that this action, too, risks inflicting irreparable harm on their members. Recalling employees on such short notice disrupts long-settled expectations and makes it nearly impossible for evacuated employees to adequately plan for their return to the United States. For instance, one of plaintiffs’ members attests that, if he is recalled from his foreign post, he will be forced to “[ u]proot” his two special-needs-children from school in the middle of the year, “set[ting] back their development with possible lifelong implications.” ECF No. 9-5 ¶ 6. He also attests that, because his family has no home in the United States and his children have “lived overseas nearly their entire life,” there will be “an inevitable gap—possibly a long one—before they are back in a stable routine . . . that medical professionals have determined they need to overcome developmental delays.” Id. Other of plaintiffs’ members tell similar stories, explaining that the abrupt recall would separate their families, interrupt their medical care, and possibly force them to “be back in the United States homeless.” See ECF ECF No. 9-4 ¶ 7; ECF No. 9-5 ¶ 8; ECF No. 9-9 ¶ 6. Even if a future lawsuit could recoup any financial harms stemming from the expedited evacuations—like the cost of breaking a lease or of abandoning property that could not be sold prior to the move—it surely could not recoup damage done to educational progress, physical safety, and family relations.

The remaining TRO factors shake out in similar way as they did with respect to the administrative leave question. Plaintiffs again have a plausible argument that the expedited evacuations are unlawful (here because, on plaintiffs’ telling, they flow from the ultra vires unilateral closure of USAID’s overseas offices and operations), and the government, while opposing this argument, has not submitted any briefing on the issue. Nor has the government articulated any harm that would result to its interests if it could not continue recalling USAID employees during the next week, while preliminary injunction briefing proceeds. For these reasons, and again in light of plaintiffs’ strong showing of irreparable harm, the Court finds a TRO is warranted. See Changji, 40 F.4th at 726.

III. Funding Freeze

Plaintiffs finally seek a TRO as to Secretary Rubio’s January 24, 2025 order freezing funding to USAID’s contractors. As a threshold matter, the Court notes that there are significant factual questions about what the practical effect of that order is. The government argued at the hearing that the order only prevents USAID from entering “new obligations of funding”—leaving it free to pay out contracts that it entered into prior to January 24, 2025—and indeed, the text of the order does seem to permit that result. Dep’t of State, Memo. 25 STATE 6828. Yet, plaintiffs maintained at the TRO hearing that payments on existing USAID grants have been frozen, preventing certain “contracting officers” employed by USAID from using agency funds to fulfill monetary commitments that the agency had already made.

This factual dispute is relevant to plaintiffs’ TRO arguments, but ultimately is not dispositive of them. Plaintiffs allege that, by some legal mechanism, USAID contracting officers can be held personally liable for existing contractual expenses that USAID is supposed to, but does not, pay. Plaintiffs thus argue that those officers face irreparable harm as a result of the funding freeze because they will be left “holding the bag” when USAID imminently fails to disburse funds. Separately, plaintiffs argue that the general population of USAID employees will be emotionally harmed by the agency’s inability to pay its contractors because they will be stuck “watching a slow speed train wreck” as the agency reneges on its humanitarian commitments.

Even assuming the funding freeze indeed prevents payments on existing grants in the way plaintiffs claim (instead of merely preventing USAID from entering new obligations, as the government suggested during the hearing), the Court concludes that plaintiffs have not demonstrated resulting irreparable harm. Plaintiffs’ claims about the risk of financial exposure for contracting officers are simply too speculative. They have not explained how or why contracting officers would be held personally liable for contracts entered into by USAID, nor have they explained why there would be no recourse after the fact if that did somehow happen. In response to the Court’s questioning on those points at the TRO hearing, plaintiffs’ counsel asserted that the mere “uncertainty” regarding potential exposure would be injurious. But the Court concludes that this is the kind of hypothetical harm insufficient to warrant a TRO. Cf. Chaplaincy of Full Gospel Churches, 454 F.3d at 297 & n.2. The same is true of the similarly hypothetical emotional harm that might befall USAID employes who are unhappy with the agency’s direction. Id. A TRO as to the funding freeze therefore is not warranted.

IV. Conclusion

For the foregoing reasons, the Court will grant in part plaintiffs’ Motion for Temporary Restraining Order, ECF No. 9. The Court will enter a TRO as to the administrative leave and expedited evacuation issues until February 14, 2025 at 11:59 PM. All USAID employees currently on administrative leave shall be reinstated until that date, and shall be given complete access to email, payment, and security notification systems until that date, and no additional employees shall be placed on administrative leave before that date. No USAID employees shall be evacuated from their host countries before February 14, 2025 at 11:59 PM.

The Court will also hold an in-person preliminary injunction hearing on February 12, 2025 at 11:00 AM in Courtroom 17. The government shall submit a brief in opposition to Plaintiffs’ Motion, ECF No. 9, on or before 5:00 PM on February 10, 2025, and plaintiffs shall submit a reply brief on or before 5:00 PM on February 11, 2025.

SO ORDERED.

DATE: February 7, 2025

CARL J. NICHOLS
United States District Judge

[admin]

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA

AMERICAN FOREIGN SERVICE ASSOCIATION,
2101 E Street NW
Washington, DC 20037,

and

AMERICAN FEDERATION OF GOVERNMENT EMPLOYEES,
80 F Street NW
Washington, DC 20001,

Plaintiffs,

v.

DONALD TRUMP, President of the United States of America,
1600 Pennsylvania Avenue NW
Washington, DC 20050,

UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF STATE,
2201 C Street NW
Washington, DC 20520,

UNITED STATES AGENCY FOR INTERNATIONAL DEVELOPMENT,
1300 Pennsylvania Avenue NW
Washington, DC 20004,

UNITED STATES TREASURY DEPARTMENT,
1500 Pennsylvania Avenue NW
Washington, DC 20220,

MARCO RUBIO, Secretary of State, and Acting Administrator of United States Agency for International Development, United States Department of State,
2201 C Street NW
Washington, DC 20520,

and

SCOTT BESSENT, Secretary of Treasury,
1500 Pennsylvania Avenue NW
Washington, DC 20220,

Defendants.

INTRODUCTION

This action seeks declaratory and injunctive relief with respect to a series of unconstitutional and illegal actions taken by President Donald Trump and his administration that have systematically dismantled the United States Agency for International Development (USAID). These actions have generated a global humanitarian crisis by abruptly halting the crucial work of USAID employees, grantees, and contractors. They have cost thousands of American jobs. And they have imperiled U.S. national security interests.

The first of these actions came on January 20, 2025, when Defendant Trump issued an Executive Order titled “Reevaluating and Realigning United States Foreign Aid,” directing an immediate “90-day pause in United States foreign development assistance for assessment of programmatic efficiencies and consistency with United States foreign policy.”1 Defendants State Department and Rubio then directed the immediate issuance of stop-work orders on USAID foreign assistance awards. USAID grantees and contractors reeled as they were— without any notice or process—constrained from carrying out their work alleviating poverty, disease, and humanitarian crises. Defendant Rubio subsequently was named by Defendant Trump as Acting Director of USAID and announced that he would consult with Congress on “potential reorganization” of the agency.2

Shortly after assistance funding was frozen, over one thousand USAID institutional support contractors—and thousands more employees of USAID contractors or grantees—were laid off or furloughed. The humanitarian consequences of defendants’ actions have already been catastrophic. USAID provides life-saving food, medicine, and support to hundreds of thousands of people across the world. Without agency partners to implement this mission, U.S.-led medical clinics, soup kitchens, refugee assistance programs, and countless other programs shuddered to an immediate halt.

Days ago, Elon Musk and other members of the so-called “Department of Government Efficiency” (DOGE) gutted what remained of the agency. Members of DOGE reportedly demanded access to classified USAID systems without requisite security clearances; USAID security officials who attempted to block them were placed on administrative leave.3 Musk posted on February 3 that he spent the previous weekend “feeding USAID into the wood chipper,” and that same day, USAID headquarters shut down.4 More than 1,000 employees— including some in war zones—were locked out of their computer accounts.5 The usaid.gov website now indicates that “all USAID direct hire personnel will be placed on administrative leave globally” on Friday, February 7, 2025, at 11:59 PM.

Not a single one of defendants’ actions to dismantle USAID were taken pursuant to congressional authorization. And pursuant to federal statute, Congress is the only entity that may lawfully dismantle the agency.

Given the severe ongoing harms suffered by plaintiffs and defendants’ intent to inflict imminent future harm, plaintiffs now file this Complaint and will seek a temporary restraining order directing Defendants to reverse these unlawful actions and to halt any further steps to dissolve the agency until the Court has an opportunity to more fully consider the issues on the merits.

PARTIES

1. Plaintiff American Foreign Service Association (AFSA) is the professional association and exclusive representative for the U.S. Foreign Service. AFSA represents nearly 80 percent of active-duty members of the Foreign Service, including 1980 Foreign Service Officers (FSO) employed by USAID.

2. Plaintiff American Federation of Government Employees, AFL-CIO (AFGE) is a labor organization and unincorporated association headquartered at 80 F Street N.W., Washington, D.C. 20001. AFGE, the largest federal union, represents approximately 800,000 federal civilian employees through its affiliated councils and locals in every state in the United States.

3. Defendant Donald J. Trump is the President of the United States and oversees the executive branch.

4. Defendant United States Department of State is an executive department of the federal government that is responsible for the country’s foreign policy and relations.

5. Defendant United States Agency for International Development (USAID) is an independent agency of the United States government that is primarily responsible for administering civilian foreign aid and development assistance.

6. Defendant Department of Treasury is an executive department of the federal government that is responsible for managing federal finances.

7. Defendant Marco Rubio is the Acting Director of USAID and the Secretary of State. He is sued in his official capacities.

8. Defendant Scott Bessent is the Secretary of Treasury. He is sued in his official capacity.

JURISDICTION AND VENUE

9. This Court has subject matter jurisdiction over this action pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1331, because this action arises under federal law, specifically, the United States Constitution and the Administrative Procedure Act, 5 U.S.C. § 701, et seq., and pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1361.

10. Venue is proper in this district pursuant to 5 U.S.C. § 552(a)(4)(B) and 28 U.S.C. § 1391(e), because at least one of Defendants is headquartered in Washington, D.C., and a substantial part of the events or omissions giving rise to Plaintiff’s claims occurred here.

LEGAL FRAMEWORK

11. In 1961, President John F. Kennedy created USAID to aid strategically important countries, lead American efforts to alleviate poverty and disease, and assist the commercial interest of the United States by supporting sustainable economic growth in developing countries to build capacity for global trade.6

12. An act of Congress, the Foreign Affairs Reform and Restructuring Act of 1998, later established USAID as an independent agency outside of the Department of State. It explicitly provided that “there is within the Executive branch of Government the United States Agency for International Development.” 22 U.S.C. § 6563 (1998).

13. The 1988 act also afforded the president a time-limited opportunity to submit to Congress a “reorganization plan and report” for USAID. To that end, the president was empowered by Congress either to “provide for the abolition” of USAID or to transfer its functions to the Department of State. 22 U.S.C. § 6601(d). Alternatively, and “in lieu of abolition,” the president could submit a plan to Congress providing for “the transfer to and consolidation” of certain USAID functions, and “additional consolidation, reorganization, and streamlining” of USAID. Id. The president had 60 days following October 21, 1998, to submit the reorganization plan and report. 22 U.S.C. § 6601(a).

14. On December 30, 1998, President Clinton submitted a report to Congress pursuant to Section 6601. That report determined that “USAID will remain a distinct agency with a separate appropriation.”7

15. Since the Foreign Affairs Reform and Restructuring Act of 1998, Congress has repeatedly appropriated funds for USAID as an independent agency. Congress most recently did so in the Further Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2024 (“Appropriations Act”).

16. The Appropriations Act also explicitly restricted the ability of the executive branch to reorganize USAID. The Act provided that “funds appropriated by this Act, prior Acts making appropriations for the Department of State, foreign operations, and related programs, or any other Act may not be used to implement a reorganization, redesign, or other plan . . . by the Department of State, the United States Agency for International Development, or any other Federal department, agency, or organization funded by this Act without prior consultation by the head of such department, agency, or organization with the appropriate congressional committees.” Further Consolidated Appropriations Act, Pub. L. 118-47 § 7063(a), 138 Stat 460 (2024).

17. The Appropriations Act defined “reorganization, redesign, or other plan” to include, inter alia, any action to “eliminate, consolidate, or downsize covered departments, agencies, or organizations,” any action to “eliminate, consolidate, or downsize the United States official presence overseas,” or “reduce the size of the permanent Civil Service, Foreign Service, eligible family member, and locally employed staff workforce” of USAID “from the staffing levels previously justified to the Committees on Appropriations for fiscal year 2024.” Id. § 7063(b).

18. The Appropriations Act also imposes notification requirements on the funds. Among other things, it provides that no funds shall be available for obligation to “suspend or eliminate a program, project, or activity,” “close, suspend, open, or reopen a mission or post,” or “create, close, reorganize, downsize, or rename bureaus, centers, or offices” unless “previously justified to the Committees on Appropriations or such Committees are notified 15 days in advance of such obligation.” Id. § 7015(a).

FACTUAL ALLEGATIONS

USAID Foreign Assistance Funding is Frozen

19. On January 20, 2025, President Trump issued an Executive Order titled “Reevaluating and Realigning United States Foreign Aid,” Exec. Order. No. 14169, 90 Fed. Reg. 8619, directing a “90-day pause in United States foreign development assistance for assessment of programmatic efficiencies and consistency with United States foreign policy.” Id. The funding freeze applied “immediately” to all “obligations and disbursements of development assistance funds.” Id. After that 90-day period, the Order directed “[t]he responsible department and agency heads . . . [to] make determinations . . . whether to continue, modify, or cease each foreign assistance program . . . with the concurrence of the Secretary of State.” Id.

20. Four days later, on January 24, 2025, the Secretary of State directed his staff to halt “foreign assistance funded by or through” USAID and required the “immediate[ ]” issuance of “stop-work orders” for existing foreign assistance grants and contracts.8

21. In the following days, USAID issued stop-work orders to contractor and grantee agency partners, requiring them to immediately stop work and to minimize the incurrence of costs allocable to the work covered by the order during the period of work stoppage.

22. Defendants simultaneously began purging agency employees and contractors. On January 26, at least fifty-six senior career agency staff were put on administrative leave.9 By January 29, hundreds of institutional support contractors were laid off.10 William Malyszka, USAID’s top human resources official, reportedly refused defendants’ directives to put thousands more staff on administrative leave, before he, too, was pushed out.11

23. As a result of these actions, most functions of the agency immediately halted, with life-threatening consequences. Clinics stopped distributing HIV medication.12 Staff who operate humanitarian operations at refugee camps in Syria were told to stop work, leaving thousands of people vulnerable to instability and violence at the hands of ISIS.13 Soup kitchens that feed nearly a million people in famine-stricken Khartoum were shut down.14 Toddlers in Zambia were deprived of rehydration salts to treat life-threatening diarrhea.15 Doctors at U.S.-funded medical facilities in Sudan that treat severely malnourished children were forced to choose whether to obey Defendants’ orders and “immediately stop their operations or to let up to 100 babies and toddlers die.”16

The State Department Issues Limited Foreign Assistance Waivers

24. As chaos engulfed the agency and the humanitarian operations it serves, the State Department issued two waivers of its order to halt foreign assistance through USAID. First, on January 28, 2025, it issued a limited waiver of the pause on USAID funding for “life-saving humanitarian assistance,” defined to mean “core life-saving medicine, medical services, food, shelter, and subsistence assistance.”17 The statement specified that that limited resumption was “temporary in nature.”18

25. Second, on February 1, 2025, the State Department announced a “limited waiver” for “[l]ife-saving HIV care and treatment services, inclusive of HIV testing and counseling, prevention and treatment of opportunistic infections including TB, laboratory services, and procurement and supply chain commodities/medicines” and “[p]revention of mother-to-child transmission services, inclusive of commodities/test kits, medicines and PrEP for pregnant and breastfeeding women.”19

26. These waivers offered little –to no relief for USAID partners who suffered from defendants’ freeze in funding. They were not “self-executing by virtue of the announcement,”20 so contractors and grantees scrambled to reach USAID contacts to ascertain if they were covered by the waiver. But because agency staff had already suffered severe cuts, groups doing lifesaving work were unsure how to request a waiver and received little to no information about the status of such requests.21

The Agency is Dissolved and Remaining Functions Halted

27. During the first weekend in February, Defendants swiftly moved to destroy what remained of the agency.

28. On Saturday, February 1, Elon Musk and other members of the so-called “Department of Government Efficiency” (DOGE) reportedly demanded access to classified USAID systems without requisite security clearances. USAID security officials who attempted to block them were placed on administrative leave.22

29. That same day, USAID.gov was taken offline.23

30. By Sunday, contract personnel at USAID began reporting that they were locked out of their email.24 Eventually, more than 1,000 USAID employees—including some in war zones—were completely locked out of their computer accounts.25 On information and belief, most, if not all, received no prior notice or communication that they would be losing access to USAID systems. Those agency staffers still receiving emails were told that, “[a]t the direction of Agency leadership, the USAID headquarters at the Ronald Reagan building in Washington, D.C. will be closed to Agency personnel on Monday, February 3, 2025.”26 The email directed that any replies be sent to Gavin Kliger, a special advisor to the director of the Office of Personnel Management who appears to currently work for DOGE.27

31. According to reports, members of DOGE also pressed the Treasury Department for access to the system through which aid payments are made. A top official reportedly wrote to the group, “I don’t believe we have the legal authority to stop an authorized payment certified by an agency.”28 That official was reportedly terminated in the following days for refusal to give DOGE members access to the system.29

32. By Monday, USAID—the world’s premier humanitarian assistance and international development agency—was in complete disarray. Musk stated that he had spent the previous weekend “feeding USAID into the wood chipper.”30 He also claimed, “With regards to the USAID stuff, I went over it with [President Trump] in detail and he agreed that we should shut it down.”31

33. Consistent with defendants’ efforts to shut down the agency, President Trump appointed Defendant Rubio to serve as Acting Administrator of USAID.32 Defendant Rubio then sent a letter to the Senate Foreign Relations Committee and House Foreign Affairs Committee providing “notice” and advising Congress of the State Department’s “intent to initiate consultations . . . regarding the manner in which foreign aid is distributed around the world.”33 Rubio further indicated that he authorized Peter Marocco, State Department Director of Foreign Assistance, to “begin the process of engaging in a review and potential reorganization of USAID’s activities.”34 Rubio further advised that “State and other pertinent entities will be consulting with Congress . . . to reorganize and absorb certain bureaus, offices, and missions of USAID. . . . USAID may move, reorganize, and integrate certain missions, bureaus, and offices into the Department of State, and the remainder of the Agency may be abolished consistent with applicable law.”35

34. USAID has already been substantially dismantled. It has no independent leadership: Defendant Rubio has assumed the mantle of Acting Director, and U.S. lawmakers concerned about the dissolution of the agency were reportedly blocked from meeting with USAID staff and told that it would be “best to contact” the State Department.36

35. On Tuesday, February 4, 2025, President Trump told a reporter “I think so” when asked if he was going to wind down USAID.37

36. On Tuesday, February 4, the State Department ordered the shutdown of all overseas USAID missions, ordering thousands of USAID employees to be recalled by Friday, February 7, 2025.38 That same day, the State Department placed thousands of employees on administrative leave, directing them “not to enter USAID premises, access USAID systems, or attempt to use your position or authority with USAID in any way without [the] prior permission [of Peter Marocco] or prior permission of a supervisor in your chain of command.”39

37. Throughout the week, USAID workforce members reported that key portions of USAID’s internal infrastructure were either inaccessible or offline. Such infrastructure includes Phoenix—which is USAID’s core financial management system—as well as the Global Acquisition and Assistance System (GLAAS).

38. On Tuesday, February 4, 2025, the USAID.gov website came back online, with the following notice:

USAID
FROM THE AMERICAN PEOPLE

On Friday, February 7, 2025, at 11:59 pm (EST) all USAID direct hire personnel will be placed on administrative leave globally, with the exception of designated personnel responsible for mission-critical functions, core leadership and specially designated programs. Essential personnel expected to continue working will be informed by Agency leadership by Thursday, February 6, at 3:00 pm (EST).

For USAID personnel currently posted outside the United States, the Agency, in coordination with missions and the Department of State, is currently preparing a plan, in accordance with all applicable requirements and laws, under which the Agency would arrange and pay for return travel to the United States within 30 days and provide for the termination of PSC and ISC contracts that are not determined to be essential. The Agency will consider case-by-case exceptions and return travel extensions based on personal or family hardship, mobility or safety concerns, or other reasons. For example, the Agency will consider exceptions based on the timing of dependents' school term, personal or familial medical needs, pregnancy, and other reasons. Further guidance on how to request an exception will be forthcoming.

Thank you for your service.

Consequences of Defendants’ Actions

39. The agency’s collapse has had disastrous humanitarian consequences. Among countless other consequences of defendants’ reckless dissolution of the agency, halting USAID work has shut down efforts to prevent children from dying of malaria, stopped pharmaceutical clinical trials, and threatened a global resurgence in HIV.40 Deaths are inevitable. Already, 300 babies that would not have had HIV, now do.41 Thousands of girls and women will die from pregnancy and childbirth.42 Without judicial intervention, it will only get worse. The actions defendants plan to take on Friday will “doom billions of dollars in projects in some 120 countries, including security assistance for Ukraine and other countries, as well as development work for clean water, job training and education, including for schoolgirls under Taliban rule in Afghanistan.”43

Injuries to Plaintiffs

40. Plaintiff AFSA exists to support the United States Foreign Service, which deploys worldwide to protect and serve America’s people, interests, and values. AFSA is both the principal advocate for the long-term institutional wellbeing of the professional career Foreign Service and responsible for safeguarding the interests of AFSA members.

41. AFSA represents 1,980 Foreign Service Officers (FSOs) who are currently employed by USAID. These members have already experienced extraordinary harms caused by the ongoing shutdown of USAID and are at imminent risk of further irreparable injury if the shutdown is allowed to continue.

42. Financial Harms: AFSA’s member FSOs are experiencing myriad financial injuries and will experience more such injuries as the shutdown continues. Among other financial harms and risks:

a. FSOs have reported to AFSA that they are unable to get reimbursed by USAID for incurred travel expenses, which can reach into the thousands and sometimes tens of thousands in any given month. Without reimbursement, FSOs will be on the hook for these expenses (which are carried on credit cards under the FSOs’ names) and may also experience harm to their credit scores if the FSOs are unable to pay off their credit cards.

b. The mandatory 30-day evacuation—which is being accomplished on an impracticable timeline and is a gross departure from standard processes for evacuating—threatens to cause financial harm in a myriad of ways. For example, some FSOs have spouses employed at the local embassy. Such spouses will be forced to give up their employment and evacuate alongside the FSOs. Those families will therefore lose a second source of income. Further, under the normal evacuation process, FSOs would receive a special evacuation allowance (which would include lodging and meals) for up to 180 days upon returning to the states. But FSOs have received no indication that they will receive that per diem and may be forced to incur thousands of dollars of expenses to secure short term housing (e.g., hotels or Airbnbs) for their families as they look for more permanent accommodations. And FSOs may lose income themselves upon repatriation. Many FSOs earn up to an additional 75% of their base salary (for hardship) depending on which country they work in. These FSOs will likely lose that additional income when they return to the states. Moreover, FSOs will face tremendous logistical uncertainty, from navigating the process of withdrawing their children from school mid-year to contemplating the possibility of leaving pets behind. The above impacts are just a sample of the harms that will flow from the mandatory evacuation.

43. Physical Safety and Legal Exposure: Some FSOs are located in dangerous countries and have reported losing access to USAID’s security apparatus, putting their safety and well-being at risk. Additionally, AFSA has heard reports that some FSOs have had their immunity status revoked by their host countries at the direction of senior USAID officials. The revocation of this status exposes FSOs to the law enforcement procedures of the host country and strips the FSOs of access to the U.S. embassy for legal counsel and advice. The revocation of immunity status also comes with financial harm and risk: without it, FSOs are subject to duties on their purchases, imports, and exports.

44. Plaintiff AFGE is the largest federal union in the nation, representing approximately 800,000 federal civilian employees through its affiliated councils and locals in every state in the United States.

45. Through its affiliate, AFGE Local 1534, AFGE has over 500 members at USAID.

46. As a union, AFGE has already been severely harmed by defendants’ actions and will suffer continued, irreparable harm if defendants’ actions persist. It has had to devote considerable resources into advising its members about the consequences of defendants’ arbitrary and reckless actions. Unless this court intervenes, AFGE will lose the ability to represent its members who were USAID employees and will lose hundreds of members.

47. AFGE’s members, too, have been severely and irreparably harmed. They are confused and frightened. Some have made choices with significant financial consequences—such as geographic location and family planning—in reliance on defendants’ adherence to federal law.

48. Because many members have been shut out of USAID computer systems, they have been unable to recoup reimbursements or to access health benefits to which they are entitled. Many members will be forced to incur substantial out-of-pocket costs that they would not have otherwise incurred.

CAUSES OF ACTION

Count One
Violation of Separation of Powers
(against all Defendants)

49. Plaintiffs restate and reallege all paragraphs above as if fully set forth here.

50. Plaintiffs have a non-statutory right of action to declare unlawful official action that is ultra vires.

51. The President of the United States has only those powers conferred on him by the Constitution and federal statutes.

52. The President may not confer powers upon other federal Officers or Departments within the Executive Branch that he does not himself possess.

53. Federal legislation must be passed by both chambers of Congress before it may be presented to the President, and, if signed, become law.

54. The President does not have the power under the Constitution unilaterally to amend statutes.

55. The President may not confer powers upon other federal Officers or Departments within the Executive Branch that he does not himself possess.

56. USAID was established as an independent federal agency by Congress in 1998 through a duly enacted statute, the Foreign Affairs Reform and Restructuring Act, signed into law by President Clinton.

57. Since 1998, Congress has passed numerous additional statutes regarding USAID appropriations and oversight, all the while preserving USAID’s status as an independent federal agency.

58. Because Congress created USAID as a separate agency by statute, only Congress may act to dissolve it or merge it with the Department of State. See, e.g., Myers v. United States, 272 U.S. 52 (1926).

59. President Trump’s actions to dissolve USAID exceed presidential authority and usurp legislative authority conferred upon Congress by the Constitution, in violation of the separation of powers.

60. The remaining defendants, acting as agents of Defendant Trump, aided President Trump in dissolving USAID despite lacking the Constitutional authority to do so.

61. Plaintiffs will suffer irreparable injury if the President’s action is not declared unlawful, and Plaintiffs have no adequate remedy at law.

62. The public interest favors issuance of a judicial declaration that the president’s unilateral action in dissolving USAID is unlawful because that action has interrupted life-saving humanitarian work performed throughout the world by USAID and its contractors, undermined U.S. national security, and caused thousands of Americans to lose their jobs.

Count Two
Violation of Take Care Clause
(against all Defendants)

63. Plaintiffs restate and reallege all paragraphs above as if fully set forth here.

64. Article II of the Constitution confers upon the President the duty to “take care that the Laws be faithfully executed.” U.S. Const., Art. II, § 3.

65. The Take Care Clause is judicially enforceable against presidential actions that violate or undermine statutes duly enacted by Congress. See, e.g., Angelus Milling Co. v. Comm’r of Internal Revenue, 325 U.S. 293, 296 (1945) (“Insofar as Congress has made explicit statutory requirements, they must be observed and are beyond the dispensing power of [the Executive Branch].”).

66. President Trump’s actions in dissolving USAID violate the Take Care Clause because they violate duly enacted statutes establishing USAID as an independent agency.

67. The Take Care Clause prohibits the President from directing federal officers to act in derogation of federal statute.

68. President Trump’s action in directing Secretary of State Rubio to take over USAID functions and absorb those functions into the State Department violates the Take Care Clause because such a restructuring would violate the Congressionally enacted arrangement under which USAID is an independent agency distinct from the State Department.

69. The remaining defendants, as agents of Defendant Trump, acted contrary to duly enacted statute in violation of the Take Care Clause.

70. Plaintiffs will suffer irreparable injury if the President’s action is not declared unlawful, and Plaintiffs have no adequate remedy at law.

71. The public interest favors issuance of a judicial declaration that the president’s unilateral action in dissolving USAID is unlawful because that action has interrupted life-saving humanitarian work performed throughout the world by USAID and its contractors, undermined U.S. national security, and caused thousands of Americans to lose their jobs.

Count Three
Administrative Procedure Act–706(2)(C)
In Excess of Statutory Authority
(against Defendants State Department, USAID, Department of Treasury, Rubio, and Bessent)

72. Plaintiffs restate and reallege all paragraphs above as if fully set forth here.

73. Under the APA, a court shall “hold unlawful and set aside agency action . . . found to be . . . in excess of statutory jurisdiction, authority, or limitations, or short of statutory right.” 5 U.S.C. § 706(2)(C).

74. No defendant possesses the statutory authority to dissolve USAID. Defendants’ actions to dissolve USAID exceed their respective statutory authorities.

75. Defendants’ unilateral dissolution of USAID also violates a statutory limitation: namely, the Further Consolidated Appropriations Act, which limits the use of appropriated funds only to reorganizing or redesigning USAID—not dissolving it entirely—and only after first consulting with the appropriate congressional committees.

Count Four
Violation of the Administrative Procedure Act—706(2)(A)
Arbitrary and capricious
(against Defendants State Department, USAID, Department of Treasury, Rubio, and Bessent)

76. Plaintiffs restate and reallege all paragraphs above as if fully set forth here.

77. Under the APA, a court shall “hold unlawful and set aside agency action . . . found to be arbitrary, capricious, an abuse of discretion, or otherwise not in accordance with law.” 5 U.S.C. § 706(2)(A).

78. The dissolution of USAID is arbitrary and capricious in multiple respects.

79. First, defendants failed to acknowledge the catastrophic consequences of their actions, both as they pertain to American workers, to the lives of millions across the world, and to U.S. national interests.

80. Second, defendants fail to articulate a reasoned explanation for the dissolution of the agency.

81. Third, defendants failed to account for the substantial reliance interests in the continued existence of USAID. “When an agency changes course . . . it must be cognizant that longstanding policies may have engendered serious reliance interests that must be taken into account,’’ and the failure to do so is arbitrary and capricious. DHS v. Regents of the Univ. of Cal., 591 U.S. 1, 30 (2020) (internal quotation marks and citation omitted).

82. The dissolution of USAID is also contrary to law. The statutes defendants violated include, but are not limited to:

a. 5 U.S.C § 6329a(b)(1), which provides that “during any calendar year, an agency may place an employee in administrative leave for a period of not more than a total of 10 work days.”

b. 31 U.S.C. § 3901 et seq., which requires agencies to pay valid invoices by their contracted due date or within 30 days.

PRAYER FOR RELIEF

WHEREFORE, plaintiffs pray that this Court:

a. Declare unlawful and set aside the decision to shut down USAID as arbitrary, capricious, an abuse of discretion, or otherwise not in accordance with law under 5 U.S.C. § 706(2)(A), contrary to constitutional right, power, privilege, or immunity under 5 U.S.C. § 706(2)(B), and in excess of statutory jurisdiction, authority, or limitations, or short of statutory right under 5 U.S.C. § 706(2)(C);

b. Issue a temporary restraining order and preliminary injunction directing defendants to immediately cease actions to shut down USAID’s operations in a manner not authorized by Congress and directing to them to take the following actions:

i. Appoint an independent Acting Director of USAID;

ii. Reopen USAID buildings;

iii. Restore all USAID computer systems and webpages;

iv. Restore funding pursuant to the terms of all grants, cooperative agreements, and contracts, consistent with the terms of the agreements and any relevant statutes and regulations;

v. Refrain from placing any additional workers on administrative leave, or continuing the leave of those previously placed on administrative leave, unless such leave is authorized by this Court after giving legitimate, nonarbitrary, and particularized reasons;

vi. Recall furlough notices to affected workers unless specifically authorized to do so by this Court after giving legitimate, nonarbitrary, and particularized reasons;

vii. Recall mandatory evacuation orders.

c. Order Defendants to file a status report with the Court within 24 hours of entry of a temporary restraining order, and at regular intervals thereafter, confirming compliance with these orders.

d. Issue a permanent injunction barring executive agencies and agency heads from taking any action to dissolve USAID absent the authorization of Congress;

e. Award Plaintiffs their costs, reasonable attorney’s fees, and other disbursements as appropriate; and

f. Grant such other relief as the Court deems necessary, just, and proper.

Dated: February 10, 2025
/s/ Lauren Bateman
Lauren Bateman
(DC Bar No. 1047285)
Allison Zieve
(DC Bar No. 424786)
Public Citizen Litigation Group
1600 20th Street NW
Washington, DC 20009
(202) 588-1000
[email protected]

Respectfully submitted,
/s/ Kaitlyn Golden
Kaitlyn Golden
(DC Bar No. 1034214)
Kristen Miller
(DC Bar No. 229627)
Kayla M. Kaufman*
(DC Bar No. 90029091)
Robin F. Thurston
(DC Bar No. 1531399)
Skye L. Perryman*
(DC Bar No. 984573)
Rachel L. Fried
(DC Bar No. 1029538)
Democracy Forward Foundation
P.O. Box 34553
Washington, D.C. 20043
(202) 448-9090
[email protected]
(DC Bar No. 90029091)

*motion to appear pro hac vice forthcoming

Counsel for Plaintiffs


_______________

Notes:

1 Exec. Order. No. 14169, 90 Fed. Reg. 8619.

2 Press Release, U.S. Dep’t of State, Secretary Marco Rubio Appointed as Acting Administrator for the United States Agency for International Development (USAID) (Feb. 3, 2025) (https://tinyurl.com/znt34s64) ).

3 Margaret Brennan, et al., Two top security officials at USAID placed on leave, sources say, CBS News (Feb. 3, 2025), https://tinyurl.com/54z6pnu2 .

4 Elon Musk (@elonmusk), X (Feb. 4, 2025, 1:54 AM), https://tinyurl.com/mskvue6w .

5 Hana Kiros, America Can’t Just Unpause USAID, The Atlantic (Feb. 4, 2025), https://tinyurl.com/54w83yz4.

6 Cong. Rsch. Serv., U.S. Agency for International Development: An Overview (Jan. 6, 2025), https://tinyurl.com/4dc4wjhpsee also The Am. Presidency Proj., Executive Order 10973 - Administration of Foreign Assistance and Related Functions (Nov. 3, 1961), https://tinyurl.com/3pwptwat (text of Executive Order 10973).

7 Reorganization Plan and Report Submitted by President Clinton to the Congress on December 30, 1998, Pursuant to Section 1601 of the Foreign Affairs Reform and Restructuring Act of 1998, as Contained in Public Law 105-277. https://tinyurl.com/48kthcr8.

8 Dep’t of State, Memo. 25 STATE 6828 (attached as Exhibit A); see also Press Release, U.S. Dep’t of State, Prioritizing America’s National Interests One Dollar at A Time (Jan. 29, 2025), https://tinyurl.com/2n4zyp8f (confirming the existence of the January 24 order).

9 Ellen Knickmeyer and Matthew Lee, US places dozens of senior aid officials on leave, citing possible resistance to Trump orders, AP (Jan. 27, 2025),https://tinyurl.com/37r6pb2y.

10 Anna Gawel, Furloughs hit hundreds of USAID contractors, Devex (Jan. 29, 2025),https://tinyurl.com/ycxpb54h. .

11 Elissa Miolene, Top USAID HR officer pushed out after refusing to fire more staff, Devex (Feb. 4, 2025),https://tinyurl.com/4pujyp5t.

12 Melody Schreiber, Trump's 'stop-work' order for PEPFAR cuts off anti-HIV drugs for patients, NPR (Jan. 28, 2025), https://tinyurl.com/bdf52kas.

13 Tom Bateman, How a US freeze upended global aid in a matter of days, BBC (Jan. 29, 2025), https://tinyurl.com/27k3mjue.

14 Sui-Lee Wee, et al., How the World is Reeling from Trump’s Aid Freeze, N.Y. Times (Jan. 31, 2025), https://tinyurl.com/2fjm79nh.

15 Stephanie Nolen, Health Programs Shutter Around The World As Trump Pauses Foreign Aid, N.Y. Times (Feb. 1, 2025), https://tinyurl.com/53j4mhw9.

16 Brett Murphy and Anna Maria Barry-Jester, “People Will Die”: The Trump Administration Said it Lifted its Ban on Lifesaving Humanitarian Aid. That’s Not True, ProPublica (Jan. 31, 2025), https://tinyurl.com/y7stwsua.

17 Press Release, U.S. Dep’t of State, Emergency Humanitarian Waiver to Foreign Assistance Pause (Jan. 28, 2025), https://tinyurl.com/34wmfvu8.

18 Id.

19 @JohnHudson, X (Feb. 1, 2025) https://tinyurl.com/43mdff3p (posting an image of the first page of the order); Adva Saldinger, Exclusive: Some PEPFAR programs get waiver to restart operations, Devex (Feb. 1, 2025), https://tinyurl.com/28sk6xf5.

20 Brett Murphy and Anna Maria Barry-Jester, “People Will Die”: The Trump Administration Said it Lifted its Ban on Lifesaving Humanitarian Aid. That’s Not True, ProPublica (Jan. 31, 2025),https://tinyurl.com/y7stwsua .

21 Id.

22 Margaret Brennan, et al., Two top security officials at USAID placed on leave, sources say, CBSNews (Feb. 3, 2025), https://tinyurl.com/54z6pnu2.

23 Edward Helmore, USAID website offline as Trump moves to put agency under State Department, The Guardian (Feb. 1, 2025), https://tinyurl.com/25buz7mx.

24 Michael R. Gordon, et al., Marco Rubio wants USAID to undergo overhaul, backs off sudden shutdown, The Wall Street Journal (Feb. 3, 2025), https://tinyurl.com/39s7nw83. https://www.wsj.com/politics/policy/tru ... istration- shutters-usaid-headquarters-db3fac7e

25 Hana Kiros, America Can’t Just Unpause USAID, The Atlantic (Feb. 4, 2025), https://tinyurl.com/54w83yz4.

26 Michael R. Gordon et al., Marco Rubio Wants USAID to Undergo Overhaul, Backs Off Sudden Shutdown, Wall St. J. (Feb. 3, 2025), https://tinyurl.com/39s7nw83.

27 Id.

28 Andrew Duehren et al., Treasury Sought to Freeze Foreign Aid Payments, Emails Show, N.Y. Times (Feb. 6, 2025), https://tinyurl.com/yn27uumyhttps://.

29 Id.

30 Elon Musk (@elonmusk), X (Feb. 3, 2025. 1:54 AM), https://tinyurl.com/mskvue6w.

31 Jennifer Hansler et al., Rubio says he’s acting director of USAID as humanitarian agency is taken over by the State Department, CNN (Feb. 4, 2025), https://tinyurl.com/3dw3h7nj.

32 Id.

33 Image of letter available at Brett Murphy (@BrettMurphy), X (Feb. 3, 2025, 3:41 PM), https://tinyurl.com/fnbxptpm.

34 Id.

35 Id.

36 Elissa Miolene, U.S. lawmakers blocked from USAID, told to go to State Department instead, Devex (Feb. 3, 2025),https://tinyurl.com/m9hypwar.

37 Jeff Mason & Daphne Psaledakis, Trump says he thinks he will wind down US humanitarian agency, Reuters (Feb. 4, 2025), https://tinyurl.com/k8swykw7.

38 Humeyra Pamuk, Trump administration puts on leave USAID staff globally in dramatic aid overhaul, Reuters (Feb. 4, 2025),https://tinyurl.com/2hbvfvpm.

39 Alex Marquardt et al., USAID employees around the world will be placed on leave Friday and ordered to return to US, CNN (Feb. 5, 2025), https://tinyurl.com/bdh4kaf5.

40 Matthew Kavanaugh & Luis Gil Abinader, Abolishing USAID is both Unconstitutional and Dangerous, Foreign Policy (Feb. 4, 2025), https://tinyurl.com/mr2wfsbd. /.

41 Kate Knibbs, Elon Musk’s DOGE Is Still Blocking HIV/AIDS Relief Exempted From Foreign Aid Cuts, Wired (Feb. 3, 2025), https://tinyurl.com/5n65ehw8.

42 Mark Townsend et al., Deaths predicted amid the chaos of Elon Musk’s shutdown of USAID, Guardian (Feb. 4, 2025), https://tinyurl.com/4ke5kb8p.

43 Ellen Knickmeyer & Matthew Lee, Almost all USAID workers will be pulled off the job worldwide, Trump administration says, AP (Feb. 5, 2025), https://tinyurl.com/287dnnk4.

[admin]

White House Bars AP Reporter From Oval Office Because of AP Style Policy on 'Gulf of America': The White House blocked an Associated Press reporter from attending an event in the Oval Office after demanding the news agency alter its style on the Gulf of Mexico, which President Donald Trump has ordered renamed to the Gulf of America
by Alex Brandon
Associated Press
Feb. 11, 2025, at 5:17 p.m.
https://www.usnews.com/news/business/ar ... of-america

The White House blocked an Associated Press reporter from an event in the Oval Office on Tuesday after demanding the news agency alter its style on the Gulf of Mexico, which President Donald Trump has ordered renamed the Gulf of America.

The reporter tried to enter the White House event as usual Tuesday afternoon and was turned away, AP executives said. The highly unusual ban, which Trump administration officials had threatened earlier Tuesday unless the AP changed the style on the Gulf, could have constitutional free-speech implications.

Julie Pace, senior vice president and executive editor of The Associated Press, called the administration's move unacceptable.

“It is alarming that the Trump administration would punish AP for its independent journalism,” Pace said in a statement. “Limiting our access to the Oval Office based on the content of AP’s speech not only severely impedes the public’s access to independent news, it plainly violates the First Amendment.”

The Trump administration made no immediate announcements about the move, and there was no indication any other journalists were affected. Trump has long had an adversarial relationship with the media. On Friday, the administration ejected a second group of news organizations from Pentagon office space.

AP style is not only used by the agency. The AP Stylebook is relied on by thousands of journalists and other writers globally.

Demands by a president that a news organization comply with an order to change its content would seem to run counter to the First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution, which bars the government from impeding the freedom of the press.

Before his Jan. 20 inauguration, Trump announced plans to change the Gulf of Mexico’s name to the “Gulf of America” — and signed an executive order to do so as soon as he was in office. Mexico’s president responded sarcastically and others noted that the name change would probably not affect global usage.

This week, Google Maps began using “Gulf of America," saying it had a “longstanding practice” of following the U.S. government’s lead on such matters. The other leading online map provider, Apple Maps, was still using “Gulf of Mexico.”

The AP said last month, three days after Trump’s inauguration, that it would continue to refer to the Gulf of Mexico while noting Trump's decision to rename it as well. As a global news agency that disseminates news around the world, the AP says it must ensure that place names and geography are easily recognizable to all audiences.

Trump also decreed that the mountain in Alaska known as Mount McKinley and then by its Indigenous name, Denali, be shifted back to commemorating the 25th president. President Barack Obama had ordered it renamed Denali in 2015. AP said last month it will use the official name change to Mount McKinley because the area lies solely in the United States and Trump has the authority to change federal geographical names within the country.

Copyright 2025 The Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed.

[admin]

Elon Musk DESTROYS His Own Company As Tesla Sales Crater Worldwide
by John Iadarola
The Damage Report
Feb 11, 2025

Elon Musk hit with the bad news as he tanks his own company in the first weeks of Donald Trump's administration with Tesla sales across the world plummeting and Telsa stock dramatically plunging. John Iadarola and David Shuster break it down on The Damage Report. Leave a comment with your thoughts below!

Read more here:

Tesla Sales Are Crashing Worldwide Even as EV Sales Increase - https://www.mediaite.com/news/tesla-s...

"Elon Musk’s increasingly prominent role in American politics is dragging down sales of his Tesla automobiles around the globe.

The report from electric vehicle trade publication Inside EVs was highlighted by Jonathan Last at The Bulwark on Monday, who described Tesla’s sales as having “fallen off a cliff” over the past year through this January. Among the statistics from the report noted by Last were multiple regions where Tesla sales dropped even though overall EV sales were rising — illustrating how this wasn’t an industry-wide decline, but rather a phenomenon specific to Musk’s company:

California leads the United States in EV sales. In 2024 EV sales of all non-Tesla brands increased by 1.4 percent in the state while Tesla sales declined by 11.6 percent. That’s a steep drop in America’s most important EV market."



Transcript

Elon Musk may not deserve an ounce of credit
for founding Tesla because he didn't.
I will never stop reminding people of that.
No, neither founded it, nor did any of the engineering of the cars
or anything like that.
But he should receive, I think, at least close to 100% of the blame
for destroying the brand's reputation in near record time.
And we've got a variety of different numbers to go over here,
demonstrating what the effect of having a front man like Elon Musk can be.
And for a long time, they sort of just they rode on oh, he generates headlines.
He hypes things up.
He lies about timelines and capabilities and the cost of things.
But the tech journalists don't care because this gets people to read their
magazines, so they never call them on it.
And that made the company big.
Well, now he's the front man who's doing, you know, Nazi salutes on stage,
and that's probably going to hurt you.
So let's see, what are Tesla sales actually doing.
So in California.
So that's the US state that leads in EV sales.
Okay.
So in 2024 EV sales of all non Tesla brands increased by 1.4%.
Meanwhile, Tesla sales declined by 11.6%.
That was their number one state for sales in the US. So that's a pretty steep drop.
But it's not just the US that we're talking about here.
So let's talk about worldwide.
In Germany that's Europe's biggest car market.
Tesla has been the German EV sales champ for some time.
Last month, their sales in Germany dropped by 60% compared to one year ago.
So that's comparing January of 2025 to January of 2020
for a 60% drop in France year over year.
Tesla sales dropped by 63% in January.
In the UK, overall EV sales were up 7%. Tesla sales were down 8% in China.
January January Tesla sales were down by 11.5% year over year.
And if you have been following this, Elon Musk has for years been trying
to break more into the Chinese market.
That does not appear to be doing well at this point.
And you could sort of see why some of these numbers would go would go down.
I don't know why.
You know, when you have him coming in to like Germany, for instance, and trying
to look as hard as he can for the most neo-Nazi esque politicians to support.
A lot of Germans are probably not going to be big fans of that.
Seeing him do the Nazi salute probably isn't going to make you popular
in some parts of the world.
And so you can take a look at how tied to your political ID your view of Tesla
has become, bearing in mind that Tesla has always been it's an electric car company.
That's libs stuff, right?
Well, now Trump supporters are far more likely to have a positive view of it.
Only 41% of those who voted for Harris view it favorably.
And bear in mind those libs are still far more likely to actually buy an electric
car like some of these conservatives might look at it favorably,
but they also think the electric cars are stupid and shouldn't exist.
So not a great business plan necessarily.
And by the way, for those looking to buy an EV in the next year,
comparing it to other brands, it's now trailing like Ford and VW.
I barely even know which EVs VW makes.
But people have a higher view of them, and you can see that Unfavorability at 37% way
higher than a lot of these other brands and its overall brand identification.
You only have to go back like three years for it to be the top ten
most admired brands of all products.
And now you look at it over time, it's dropped down significantly.
It was in eighth place in 2021. It's now in 63rd.
Okay.
On attributes like character, trust and ethics.
It's in the 70s.
It's way beyond or lower now than other car manufacturers.
Honda is at seventh. Toyota at 12th.
Subaru at 15th.
General Motors, which people love to dog on.
They're doing way better than Ford right now.
Than Tesla right now. Ford is as well.
And you can also see we'll close on this. Their stock price going down.
It sort of rallied a little bit after Trump won.
And now that's going down once again.
And certainly, you know negative headlines about Elon Musk don't help.
Negative headlines like this that the Tesla Cybertruck is 17 times more
likely to lead to fire fatalities than the Ford Pinto was, which late night
comics joked about for literally years.
All of this is not good for the brand.
Which leads me to wonder at what point do they just get rid of him?
Like, and then maybe get rid of the Cybertruck.
And then you'll probably be doing much better, David.
But what do you make of all this?
Well, I think he's doing to Tesla what he did to to Twitter.
Right.
He took Twitter, which was a valuable tool for a lot of people,
which had certain basic rules and standards and tried to weed out the hatred
and the xenophobia and the racism and try to make sure that people
were speaking in facts on Twitter.
And he essentially turned that into his own playpen and chased a lot
of progressive voices away and brought in a lot of racism and a lot of vile like,
the worst in America is now on X. And so, okay, he destroyed
the value of Twitter by turning it to X and doing all this nonsense.
Now he's almost like he's doing the same thing with Tesla,
in part because, you know,
one of the other reasons that Tesla is hurting right now is because the Trump
administration is stripping out all the funding for electric vehicle charging
stations across the United States,
so the infrastructure is not there to support electric vehicles, although
Tesla is doing worse than other ones. So and again, his own sort of reputation.
Elon Musk's polling among Republicans continues to plummet.
And I think people are just sort of sick of him.
They don't they don't like what he's doing to social media.
They don't like what he's doing to governance, and they don't like
what he has been doing to Tesla.
Yeah, 100%.
And and again, none of this is like necessary really.
Like again, he didn't found Tesla.
He didn't come up with the concepts for most of these cars
except for the dumbest one.
And so like if they got rid of him, I think they would do much better.
There's there's reasons to like Tesla's.
I, I find their designs to be a little bit boring
and they barely iterate year to year.
And there's a lot of issues like that.
And Elon Musk, despite everybody saying literally the only thing we
want is an affordable EV, he decided to make the Cybertruck instead.
So again, bad CEO, they could just get rid of him.
But I don't think they're going to do that because their board of directors
is now packed with Musk cultists that seem to love him,
despite the fact that not only is he out there doing damage to their brand
identity, but like, does anyone think that he's doing the job of CEO right now?
There and at SpaceX and at Twitter and all that.
He's literally he's living in the Department of Education building
with a bunch of 17 year old boys.
You think he's actually functioning as a CEO?
I know I'm not a businessman or whatever, but I don't understand
why this is how businesses work.
And by the way, tomorrow on the program, we're going to dive in
to give you a little bit of a taste there with the fire thing with the Ford Pinto.
There was just recently released an evaluation of automobile safety
that is scathing towards Tesla.
And we're going to dive into all of the numbers on tomorrow's show.
So definitely tune in for big news Wednesday.

[admin]

GOP Show They Are DONE With Democracy, Want A KING
by Sarah Longwell and JVL
The Bulwark
Feb 11, 2025 Bulwark Takes

Sarah Longwell and JVL react to Scott Jennings putting Donald Trump over the rule of law by saying that Trump should defy court orders that are limiting his ability to dismantle the federal government.



Transcript

[Sarah Longwell] Hey guys. I'm Sarah Longwell, publisher of the Bulwark. I'm here with my best friend JVL. What's up man? You look great. I'm glad you wore that hat.

[JVL] Everything's going so good. I just feel like we're finally coming out of this, America! It's gonna to be all right.

[Sarah Longwell] Yeah, yeah, you feel like things are turning around.

[JVL] It's going to be all right.

[Sarah Longwell] You know, it's funny. You are known for your trademark optimism, so great. All right, so listen. Here's why I dragged you on the camera. I got something I want to talk about, okay? So we talked about this already, this past Sunday, after a Court ruled that Trump could not go through with one of his executive orders, our vice president, JD Vance, tweeted that, "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 on how to use her discretion as a prosecutor, that's also illegal. Judges aren't allowed to control the Executive's legitimate power."

Now, people like us said, "Wait a minute. I'm sorry. I actually think Judges are there to maybe draw lines around Executive authority. That is what judges have done in the past. So here's the thing, the reason I want to talk to you is that JD Vance coming out and saying that, and because we all know what they're doing, they are preparing for when the courts tell them they can't do something, to try and ignore the courts, right? And they're in a process -- and this is important, because Republicans do this -- they are in a process of building legitimacy for that totally illegitimate position. And one of the ways they do that is to have their toady surrogates go out and say, "Hey guys, nothing to see here. Of course we can't just have judges telling the president how to do their job.

[JVL] Be cool. Be cool everybody.

[Sarah Longwell] And one of my favorite Trump toadies, last night on CNN, one Scott Jennings, he reacted --

[JVL] I'm so glad CNN brings him onto their airwaves. He really helps their viewers understand the world better.

[Sarah Longwell] He's quite illuminating, that gentleman.

[JVL] Yeah.

[Sarah Longwell] Well he reacted to Vance's tweet. So he was asked if he believed that Trump should defy court orders that are limiting his ability to dismantle the federal government. And he gave exactly the type of answer you would expect from Scott Jennings. And I would like us to watch it.

[Scott Jennings] Now I think we do have a constitutional crisis. And it's being caused by these judges. They're not here to tell us how to spend the money. They're not here to set broad federal policy. That is the president's job as elected by the people. These judges are supposed to be settling discreet specific matters, not policy setting. I think Vance is right. I think Trump has a point. And these judges want nothing more but to continue the lawfare.

[Reporter] Let me just understand where you stand. If a district court judge rules in a way that the president dislikes, should the president listen, or should the president defy?

[Scott Jennings] If a district court judge tries to usurp the authority of the chief executive of this country, he should absolutely defy it. No matter who the president is, the duly elected chief executive of this country, they should not be sharing the broad plenary powers of the presidency with 300 individual district court judges.

[Sarah Longwell] Who cares about what those pesky District judges might say. What is a district judge anyway? Do we care?

[JVL] Is that even a real judge? All they judge is a district.

[Sarah Longwell] Yeah. [Laughs] Did you see Sununu sitting there?

[JVL] Yeah.

[Sarah Longwell] I saw some choice stuff from him too. He's moved up to a CNN pundit now.

[JVL] Yeah. That's great. Good god. [Adopting heavy English accent] At this point, I raise a practical question, Sarah. Who is it who decides whether they're usurping legitimate authority or not? Is it the president himself who decides that? Sorry, this is my Nigel Tufnel from Spinal Tap. This is like, "Will we be playing Stonehenge tonight?" Just say you want a king! Just say it. You know you want to. Just say you want your big daddy to take his belt off. You can do that Scott. You don't need to be afraid of it. Nobody on CNN is going to King Shame you.

[Sarah Longwell] I knew you were the right person to call to do this video, that you were going to keep it light, keep it --

[JVL] Cool.

[Sarah Longwell] Hey, but here's the thing. So just as some background, in the past few weeks, as you know there's been this blitzkrieg trying to dismantle the government --

[JVL] Uh, to pick a word.

[Sarah Longwell] To pick a word. As of yesterday, five different judges across the country, issued temporary blocks on five different executive orders, including Trump's attempt to overturn birthright citizenship, because it's obviously unconstitutional, funding cuts at NIH, the deferred resignation program for federal employees -- since it's not at all clear that that's legal to offer -- the firing --

[JVL] But Sarah, they sent an email! They sent an email! If people replied to that email with the word "resign" in the subject, I believe that's binding law. It's like signing a Blood Oath with the Devil. Like, you know, you sign the contract, you get the golden fiddle, then you have to play better than the devil does, otherwise he gets your soul. No?

[Sarah Longwell] Oh, the plot of one of my favorite songs. So then the firing of a nonpartisan government ethics watchdog, right? And then the federal funding freeze.

So there's been either temporary restraining orders, or they are just putting, you know, temporary blocks on these things. So one of the things Scott said in that clip is that he would have the same position on this matter if a Democrat did it.

[JVL] Oh, sure.

[Sarah Longwell] Now what I want to know from you, because I saw Susan Collins do a thing too when she announced recently that she's gonna confirm Tulsi Gabbard. No, wait. Was it Tulsi Gabbard or RFK? Merkowski said she's gonna do Tulsi Gabbard. Oh, when Susan Collins was asked about this, about what Trump was doing, she said, "Well Joe Biden did it and he set a really terrible precedent. And I'm seeing a lot of people say this, like this idea that if it was a Democrat, you know, they'd say the same thing: Yes, the legitimate executive authority. Okay. Do you think that Scott Jennings would say the same thing if it was a Democrat?

[JVL] You know Sarah, I'd really like to know when we could finally get back to talking about the real issues that Americans care about, like Hunter's laptop.

[Sarah Longwell] [Laughs]

[JVL] No, of course not. And this is what I mean. Look, Scott Jennings is free to do what Scott Jennings does. But I do fault CNN's executives for putting him on air, because it's preposterous to put that guy on air. He's just Bagdad Bob. Like he's absolutely bankrupt, and he will say anything. And there's no actual news value, or analytical value, in listening to him. Unless you agree, right? Unless the view of CNN's executive leadership is that that is the correct interpretation. Otherwise it's nonsense, and frankly kind of traitorous nonsense.

But of course none of this is about Biden. And if it were about Biden, I mean, then we we would have seen it about Biden, right? And Biden adhered to all of the laws. Biden even just sat there on his hands over the DOJ squashing the part two of the report on Trump's confidential documents case.

[Sarah Longwell] Well, here's the thing. I've seen this argument come up a lot, because two things are going on here. And it's not about Scott Jennings per se, it's about normalizing the idea that Trump is within his right to defy a court order, right? Like the minions are out trying to say that this is fine. While simultaneously you're seeing arguments like, "Well, Biden did this. And he set this precedent." And I really want to push back on this idea. Okay, here's what Biden did. I was mad when he did it, too. What Biden did, it was on student loan forgiveness, and he said, "The Supreme Court blocked me, but it didn't stop me." And by the way, you know what Scott Jennings tweeted when Joe Biden did that? He said that --

[JVL] Did he say, "I'm sorry, but President Biden is within his legitimate authority." Is that what he said?

[Sarah Longwell] He said, "Rough day for the 'America is hurtling toward a dictatorship!" crowd."

[JVL] Oh wow! So he thinks that means dictatorship. Yikes!

[Sarah Longwell] So anyway, but the disingenuousness of Scott Jennings, notwithstanding.

Here's the thing about what Biden did. I thought it was crappy when he came out and he was like, "You know, it's not going to stop me." But here's what he didn't do. He didn't just defy the order. He didn't just forgive all the student loans in a direct attack like saying. "I'm not going to listen to what the court said." What he did was he went back to the drawing board, and tried to come up with a different legal theory that the courts might go for. He accepted the ruling, and went back with his lawyers, and was like, "Let's try this again. Let's come at this from a different angle."

That is not what Trump is doing! Everybody listen to me! This is not what Trump is doing. Trump is saying if the courts rule against him -- just a lowly District Court, which by the way, I don't know why, he can appeal it if he doesn't like it, and it will go up to the Supreme Court, eventually. That's what will happen. But if they just decide, "No, we're just going to defy it," that is a constitutional crisis, is it not? Am I getting this wrong?

[JVL] No, you're right of course. And you know, it's actually worse than even you've portrayed it. Because this afternoon, we had report from NBC news ,that what happened with the FEMA funding is a judge issued a temporary restraining order saying, "You cannot freeze disbursements from FEMA; you have to be giving those out." The Trump Administration just defied it. They just kept holding on to the FEMA disbursements. So they went back to court and the judge said, "No, you have to follow my order." This is the, "You can't not follow the order." And then NBC News got a hold of a memo sent out by a senior official in FEMA saying, "No. Hold those. Don't disburse any funds." And so as the people from NBC noted, what you have here is a scenario in which you have a bunch of civil service bureaucrats at FEMA who are being told, "If you don't break the law, we will fire you; but if you do break the law, I guess just hope that Daddy Trump will pardon you? You'll be like Eric Adams. It'll all be cool. Be cool, Daddyo." And this is Gangster government. AND I'M NOT CLEAR AS TO WHY IT WOULDN'T WORK THIS WAY, BECAUSE THE SUPREME COURT FUCKING INVENTED CRIMINAL IMMUNITY FOR THE PRESIDENT! And if you do that, this is what you get. It isn't like, "Oh, this is an unintended consequence. How could we possibly have known?" Like this is literally, you had a guy stand in front of you and say say, "Uh well, I mean, I guess if the president sent Seal Team 6 to assassinate the guy he was running against, it would probably be cool." And then they said, "Yeah, okay, that sounds good. We'll sign off on that. Yeah, what could possibly go wrong?" Sarah, this is where we live now. And it's because all of this that -- I've written a bunch about this -- I'm pretty convinced the Supreme Court will not rule against him, because at this point they understand that if they do it, and he defies them, what are they going to do about it? And that's the real end, right? I mean, that is the point where all the floodgates are opened, and we are in actual dictatorship autocracy, because the Constitution has just been been burned. And I think John Roberts isn't going to want to take that chance. My suspicion is that he will try to find some lawyerly way to let Trump do whatever he wants, while saying that he didn't have to, he didn't have to let Trump do whatever he wants, he chose to, and at some point in the unspecified future he could choose to stop Trump.

[Sarah Longwell] I disagree with you.

[JVL] Okay. That's new.

[Sarah Longwell] I think that Amy Coney Barrett [laughs], I do not think the Supreme Court -- I agree with you that John Roberts will do what he always does, which is try to find some halfstep way, but I do think they will do something to rain Trump in. And they'll probably do some kind of half a loaf thing. But I do think they want to steer us away from a constitutional crisis. And I also don't like the idea of taking the bleakest view on this, in part because I don't like the idea of all of us just saying, "Yeah, country's over. Let's have no expectations for the Supreme Court." Because here's the thing man. I don't know who needs to learn this, Scott Jennings, [holds up chart] this is how government works, okay? The checks and balance of the Judiciary, right? The Executive branch=. And you have Congress. I don't know about you, but I came up in Republican circles where they're always like, "We need to do more civic education. People don't understand the way things work." Here's how it works. This is called checks and balances, right? They're co-equal branches of government .

[JVL] Graphic design is your passion.

[Sarah Longwell] [Laughs] I just did this just now.

[JVL] Are you going to pull out your pocket Constitution next?

[Sarah Longwell] Don't make me. I will pull out the Constitution.

[JVL] Can I break you? Do I have permission to break you on YouTube? Normally we save JVL breaking Sarah for the secret show. Here's why the Supreme Court should NOT stand in the way of presidential authority and executive power. [Adopting heavy British accent] Because the Constitution provides a remedy in case the executive overreaches. The legislative branch can impeach, convict and remove an overzealous chief executive. Mwahahahaha! It's over.

[Sarah Longwell] You didn't break me! Hold on a second.

[JVL] All of the pieces of the Constitution are now dead letters. They are dead letters.

[Sarah Longwell] All I wanted was 15 minutes to make fun of Scott Jennings, draw a poor man's thing about the way the checks and balances work. That's all I wanted to do. The world is still moving. There will be elections in 2026. And before any of you jump in the comments to be like, "Naive Sarah, we're not having elections." Okay guys, well then what are you doing watching a political podcast if it's all ending? Just go fishing or something. Go do something else with your lives. What are we all doing here if we're not trying to stop the march of autocracy on our liberal democracy. We're trying to do that, right? So let's not say it's all over. Let's figure out what we're going to do about it. And (1) is to demand that Congress assert their power, (2) is to make sure Democrats are in charge in 2026 so that they can impeach him, and (3) to demand that the Judiciary do the things that it is supposed to do, which is to uphold its lower courts when the lower courts are correct. Like when they're right. And to say that the judicial branch still matters. It is there to put a check on the Executive branch. It's literally its role.

[JVL] Sarah, do you want to know why I'm here? You know why I'm here doing this instead of out fishing? One reason is so that when you and I are hauled off to the camps, and we're put in side-by-side cells in Guantanamo, I can sit in my cell and I could say, "Told you so; told you so, over and over until you want to murder me for an extra pack of cigarettes --

[Sarah Longwell] We don't have to be in cells for that to happen, okay? We're there.

[JVL] [Laughs]

[Sarah Longwell] All right. Fine! That's all I got, man. That's all I got.

[JVL] Good luck America!

[admin]

Trump's DOJ To DISMISS Prosecution of NYC Mayor Eric Adams, But NOT For Lack of Evidence???
by Glenn Kirschner
Feb 12, 2025 All the "King's" Men: Trump's lackeys and their disservice to America

Donald Trump's Department of Justice seems to be leaving the honest practice of the law behind. DOJ leadership directed federal prosecutors at the Southern District of New York U.S. Attorney's Office to dismiss all criminal charges against New York City Mayor Eric Adams.

In a remarkable admission, a DOJ memo says they are not dismissing the case based on "assessing the strength of the evidence", but due to the "restricted ability (of Adams) to help the Trump administration."

This video discusses the three main takeaways from this searingly unjust development.



Transcript

So friends, Donald Trump's department of
justice has signaled that it intends to
dismiss, or really more accurately, to
withdraw criminal charges against New
York city mayor Eric Adams, and it sure
looks like they are preparing to hold
those charges over the head of Mayor
Adams. To what
end? You know friends, this is no way to
run a Department of
Justice. Let's talk about that because
Justice matters.
[Music]

Hey all. Glenn Kirschner here. So
friends, a Federal grand jury handed down
a 57-page indictment detailing the
allegations against New York city mayor
Eric Adams and specifically charging
Adams with conspiracy and bribery and
wire fraud and other
crimes, and even though the evidence in
that 57-page indictment looks
strong, Donald Trump's Department of
Justice is seeking to dismiss the case
against
him. Let's start with the new reporting. This from CBS News:

"Justice Department
tells prosecutors to drop case against
New York city mayor Eric
Adams."

And that article begins:

The Department of Justice told Federal
prosecutors in New York to drop their
corruption case against New York mayor
Eric Adams citing his restricted
ability to help the Trump Administration
enforce its immigration policies.

You know friends, this is a special kind of
lawlessness, and a really nefarious kind
of leverage it appears Trump's DOJ is
exerting against Eric Adams. We'll talk
more about that leverage in a
minute. The article
continues:

Acting Deputy attorney general
Emil Bove, sent a memo instructing
prosecutors in the southern district of
New York U.S. attorney's office, to abandon
the charges. "You are directed as
authorized by the Attorney General, to
dismiss the pending charges," Bove wrote in
a memo Monday adding that the department
reached this conclusion without
assessing the strength of the evidence,
or the legal theories on which the case
is based, and in no way calls into
question the integrity and efforts of
the prosecutors who brought the case.
Instead, Bove wrote that the timing of the
charges, and the former US attorney who
brought the case, created appearances of
impropriety, and that the probe into
Adams' office has unduly restricted mayor
Adam's ability to devote full attention
and resources to the illegal immigration
and violent crime that occurred in his
city under President Joe Biden. Bove added
that the charges against Adams can be
reconsidered by the southern district of
New York federal prosecutors after
the November 2025 New York City mayoral
election."

And what that sounds like to me,
is Donald Trump's DOJ saying, "So look
Adams, we will be holding these charges
over your head, so
you best do as we
say. The article continues:

The stunning
decision comes after Department lawyers
met with Adams' attorneys and Manhattan
Federal prosecutors in late January
where senior officials discussed
dropping the charges against the
embattled mayor. In September Adams was
indicted on five counts including
bribery, conspiracy, and campaign Finance
violations. He pleaded not guilty to all
charges. The mayor's trial is scheduled
to begin in April. The decision to drop
the charges will still need to be
formally submitted by prosecutors and
approved by the judge overseeing the
case.

Friends, I think by any objective
assessment of what's going on here, this
is a stunning example of governmental
misconduct. FBI agents, and undoubtedly
lots of other law enforcement agents and
agencies, but FBI agents and federal
prosecutors, public servants, all
undoubtedly worked their tails off
investigating these suspected crimes, and
presenting what was almost certainly a
mountain of evidence to a grand jury and
obtained a public corruption indictment
detailing the alleged crimes of Eric
Adams. And Donald Trump's dirty DOJ just
brushes it all
aside, You know what an insult to the FBI
agents, to the federal prosecutors, to the
Grand jurors, and the many others who
work to put this important public
corruption case together, and what a
victimization of the people of New
York.

So friends, what are
three of the many takeaways from this
horrific development, this searing abuse
and Injustice. Well, first of all this
decision to dismiss these charges, or
withdraw them and potentially hold them
over Eric Adams head, has nothing to do
with the strength of the evidence
supporting these criminal charges. How do
we know that? Because Donald Trump's DOH
told us so. It said that the Department
reached this conclusion without
assessing the strength of the evidence.
Friends, once a case has been
indicted, the strength of the evidence is
pretty much the only thing that should
come into play when prosecutors are
considering dismissing an indictment
that they worked so hard to obtain, and
that a grand jury handed down. No, it
should be based only on the strength the
quality the quantity of the evidence the
ability of the prosecutors to use that
evidence to prove guilt beyond a
reasonable doubt. But Donald Trump's
Department of Justice said it has nothing
to do with the strength of the evidence,
but it has everything to do with
something else. According to Donald
Trump's Department of Justice, takeaway
number
two. it's all about Eric Adams' restricted
ability to help the Trump
Administration.

Friends, can you imagine,
that it has nothing to do with the strength
of the evidence; rather, it has everything
to do with Eric Adams' ability to help
Donald Trump and his
administration?

This is the legal upside
down. This is not the way the criminal
justice system is supposed to
work. And that brings us to the third
takeaway
with these cases being dismissed. They can be re-indicted
at the pleasure of the Department of
Justice, Donald Trump's Department of
Justice. And they are being dismissed, or
withdrawn, because they expect Eric Adams
to help the Trump Administration. You know,
in undefined ways: immigration;
fighting violent crime.

Yeah right. Sure.
What do you think Eric Adams will do
to keep these charges from being dropped
on his head anew, as Donald Trump's
Department of Justice said they are
prepared to do? Talk about
leverage. Do we suspect Eric Adams would
do damn near
anything the Trump Administration wanted
him to do to keep from being
re-indicted? Friends, this is not the way
the Department of Justice is supposed to
operate

Because Justice matters. Friends try to hang in there.
Please stay safe, please stay tuned and I
look forward to talking with you all
again tomorrow
[Music]

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

Justice Department orders charges against NYC Mayor Eric Adams dismissed: The mayor was charged with bribery, fraud and other counts. Legal experts questioned the Trump administration’s justification for the move, and one law enforcement official called the order “transparent corruption.”
by Ken Dilanian, Ryan J. Reilly and Tom Winter
NBC News
Feb. 10, 2025, 5:16 PM MST / Updated Feb. 10, 2025, 7:57 PM MST
https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/er ... rcna191600

Acting U.S. Deputy Attorney General Emil Bove has ordered federal prosecutors in New York to drop corruption charges against New York Mayor Eric Adams, a senior Justice Department official said Monday evening.

The order is for all charges against Adams to be dismissed, and the dismissal is without prejudice, the official said, meaning charges could be refiled in the future.

The charges have not yet been dismissed, and federal prosecutors in New York did not immediately respond to a request for comment Monday night.

A formal dismissal request would be filed in court by prosecutors overseen by Danielle R. Sassoon, the acting U.S. attorney for the Southern District of New York, where the charges were brought. A motion to dismiss would also be reviewed by a judge.

Adams’ attorney Alex Spiro called the planned dismissal a victory. “As I said from the outset, the mayor is innocent — and he would prevail. Today he has,” Spiro said in a statement.

In a memo, Bove argued that the indictment of Adams in September came too close to this year's mayoral primary in June and that it limited Adams' ability to aid President Donald Trump's crackdown on immigrants and to fight crime.

Bove said Adams' case would be reviewed by a new Trump-appointed U.S. attorney after the general election for mayor in November.

Bove, without citing specific evidence, also suggested that the charges were politically motivated. “It cannot be ignored that Mayor Adams criticized the prior Administration’s immigration policies before the charges were filed," Bove wrote.

Professor Stephen Gillers, an expert on legal ethics at New York University Law School, rejected Bove’s explanation.

“Although dressed up as a concern for appearances and despite his disclaimer," Gillers said, "Bove’s memo is really a baseless and offensive slur against the former U.S. attorney and the lawyers who worked on the Adams case at the premier federal prosecutorial office in the nation.”

The office also prosecuted Democratic Sen. Robert Menendez of New Jersey, who was sentenced to 11 years in prison last month after he was convicted of bribery, obstruction of justice and other charges.

The indictments of Adams and Menendez, two prominent Democratic elected officials, during the 2024 presidential election cycle were generally seen as political blows to the Democratic Party. And the fact that charges could be filed against Adams again could make him beholden to the Trump administration.

A federal law enforcement official called the order to withdraw the charges “horrific” and “just transparent corruption.”

Adams, a former New York police captain elected mayor in 2021, was charged in an indictment unsealed in September with one count of conspiracy to receive campaign contributions from foreign nationals and commit wire fraud and bribery, two counts of soliciting campaign contributions from foreign nationals and one count of soliciting and accepting a bribe.

The indictment accused him of taking $100,000 worth of free plane tickets and luxury hotel stays from wealthy Turkish nationals and at least one government official in a nearly decadelong corruption scheme.

Adams has pleaded not guilty. He has said that he is innocent, that the charges are politically motivated and that he would fight the charges.

Trump suggested on Dec. 16 that he would consider pardoning Adams, saying that Adams "was treated pretty unfairly” and that he would need to see the case, “because I don’t know the facts.”

Adams met with Trump in Palm Beach, Florida, days before Trump was inaugurated as president. He said they discussed a number of topics but “did not discuss my legal case.” Adams later attended Trump’s inauguration.

An attorney for Adams contacted Justice Department leadership late last month about dropping the criminal case.

Adams was elected Brooklyn Borough president in 2013 before he was elected mayor of New York. Damian Williams, the Biden-appointed U.S. attorney who brought the charges, said Adams was alleged to have been taking bribes and soliciting illegal campaign contributions dating to his time as the borough president.

Adams ran for mayor on a platform of fighting crime, beating Republican candidate Curtis Sliwa, who founded the 1970s-era anti-crime patrol the Guardian Angeles.

Williams announced his resignation in December after Trump won the election.

In announcing criminal charges, Williams had said Adams allowed a Manhattan skyscraper to open without a fire inspection as part of the alleged bribery scheme.

“Adams put the interests of his benefactors, including a foreign official, above those of his constituents,” Williams said at the time.

Spiro, Adams' attorney, said Monday that "the mayor never used his official position for personal benefit. Nor did he have any role in violating campaign finance laws."

Ken Dilanian is the justice and intelligence correspondent for NBC News, based in Washington.

Ryan J. Reilly is a justice reporter for NBC News.

Tom Winter is a New York-based correspondent covering crime, courts, terrorism and financial fraud on the East Coast for the NBC News Investigative Unit.

Phil Helsel, Adam Reiss and David Rohde contributed.

[admin]

Here Are All The Major Lawsuits Against Trump And Musk: 8 Inspectors General Challenge Their Firing In Court -- TIMELINE
by Alison Durkee
Forbes Staff
Feb 12, 2025,10:29am EST
Updated Feb 12, 2025, 04:07pm EST

TIMELINE:

Feb. 12: Eight inspectors general—or federal agency watchdogs—who were fired by Trump filed a lawsuit, arguing their termination violated federal rules that require the executive branch to give Congress 30 days notice before any inspectors general are fired and give concrete reasoning to justify that decision.

Feb. 11: A court order halting the Trump administration’s directive to freeze most federal spending will remain in place after the 1st Circuit Court of Appeals declined to lift it, the latest twist in a court battle over the funding pause, after multiple judges previously blocked it—and Judge John McConnell Jr. then separately had to order the Trump administration to “immediately restore frozen funding,” after a group of states that sued Trump alleged they “continue to be denied access to federal funds.”

Feb. 11: District Judge John D. Bates ordered Health and Human Services, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention and the Food and Drug Administration to restore their websites and datasets to what they were on Jan. 30—prior to data being removed—before the end of the day in response to a lawsuit from Doctors for America that alleged the Trump administration removed “a broad range of health-related data.”

Feb. 11: A lawsuit was filed by a group of nongovernmental organizations and small businesses that receive American foreign aid against the Trump administration for its efforts to phase out the U.S. Agency for International Development, and it alleges Trump’s administration “violated the separation of powers” and, in doing so, put their aid work and employees’ livelihoods at risk.

Feb. 10: Trump’s deadline for over 2 million federal employees to accept buyout offers was once again extended by Boston-based Judge George O’Toole, as he weighs whether to halt the buyouts long-term, as requested by federal workers’ unions that sued over the plan (the buyout deadline was initially set for Feb. 6, but O’Toole has now delayed it twice).

Feb. 10: After 22 states sued the National Institutes of Health over its decision to place a 15% cap on indirect funding for research projects—calling the rate change “arbitrary and capricious”—District Judge Mary Page Kelley halted the cap while the litigation moves forward.

Feb. 10: District Judge Joseph LaPlante halted Trump’s order that only allows the children of U.S. citizens and permanent residents to become citizens at birth, in response to a lawsuit brought by the American Civil Liberties Union—marking the third time a federal judge has blocked Trump’s attempt to end birthright citizenship since it was issued Jan. 20.

Feb. 9: The Treasury Department asked District Judge Paul Engelmayer to “immediately” dissolve his order barring political appointees from accessing the Treasury Department’s system, after Trump, Musk and their allies blasted the judge’s ruling and claimed it shouldn’t be possible for the judge to restrict DOGE’s access.

Engelmayer ruled political appointees and “special government employees”—like members of Musk’s team—must be cut off from access from the Treasury’s systems while the litigation is pending, after 19 Democratic state attorneys general sued Trump over DOGE’s Treasury access.

Feb. 7: Judge Carl Nichols, a Trump appointee, blocked a plan to put 2,200 USAID staff on paid leave, part of Trump’s gambit to wind down the foreign aid agency—a temporary reprieve following a lawsuit by a federal employees’ union calling Trump’s efforts to dismantle USAID without Congress’ permission “unconstitutional and illegal.”

Feb. 7: The University of California Student Association sued the Department of Education, accusing Musk’s DOGE of illegally accessing “sensitive personal and financial information” of about 42 million federal student loan borrowers.

Feb. 7: The Justice Department agreed to not name the FBI agents involved in the Jan. 6 investigation before a judge rules on two lawsuits from FBI agents that argued the dissemination of the agents’ names could threaten their employment, reputation and wellbeing.

Feb. 6: Judge John Coughenour in Seattle extended a pause on Trump’s day-one executive order rescinding birthright citizenship for the children of undocumented or temporary immigrants, in response to a lawsuit brought by Democratic-led states, writing, “The president cannot change, limit, or qualify this Constitutional right via an executive order.”

Feb. 5: A second judge —Deborah L. Boardman of Maryland—blocked Trump’s policy rescinding birthright citizenship, in response to a lawsuit brought by nonprofits representing undocumented pregnant women.

Jan. 23: Coughenour paused Trump’s order rescinding birthright citizenship, the first major ruling against the second Trump administration.

Jan. 20: The first lawsuit against Trump’s administration was filed minutes after he was sworn into office, as public interest law group National Security Counselors argued DOGE should be classified as a federal advisory board that has “fairly balanced” membership and follows public transparency rules.

[admin]

Multiple ICE impersonation arrests made during nationwide immigration crackdown
by Artemis Moshtaghian, Gloria Pazmino and Nick Valencia
CNN
Updated 1:35 PM EST, Wed February 5, 2025
https://www.cnn.com/2025/02/04/us/ice-i ... index.html


From left: Sean-Michael Johnson, Aidan Steigelmann and Carl Thomas Bennett. Al Cannon Detention Center/Philadelphia Police Department/Wake County Government/Courtesy WRAL CNN

Editor’s note: This story contains profane and hateful language.

Authorities in at least three states have arrested individuals allegedly impersonating Immigration and Customs Enforcement officers at a time when real ICE agents have ramped up immigration enforcement efforts under the Trump administration, adding to existing fears of law enforcement among migrant communities.

In South Carolina, Sean-Michael Johnson, 33, was charged with kidnapping and impersonating a police officer after allegedly detaining a group of Latino men along a Charleston County road. Johnson is accused of “willfully and unlawfully presenting himself as an ICE Agent and detaining a vehicle of individuals from moving,” according to court records.

The incident, which was recorded by one of the victims, took place on Sullivan’s Island near Charleston on January 29.

“You all got caught!” Johnson is heard saying on the video. “Where are you from, Mexico? You from Mexico? You’re going back to Mexico!”

In the video, Johnson is seen taking the driver’s keys, mocking the driver’s accent, while jiggling the car keys in his face. At one point he is seen trying to take the driver’s phone.

The driver calls a friend and, speaking Spanish, says, “I don’t know man, he’s saying immigration.”

“Now don’t be speaking that pig-Latin in my f**king country!” Johnson says, knocking the phone out of his hand.

“He’s crazy. He’s a racist, man,” one of the passengers in the vehicle, another victim, can be heard saying in Spanish.

https://www.youtube.com/shorts/ULc3Kror-2k

Johnson was charged with three counts of kidnapping and one count each of impersonating a law enforcement officer, petty larceny, assault and battery, according to jail records.

CNN has been unable to locate an attorney for Johnson. In court Saturday, the public defender said Johnson was extremely sorry for his actions.

Johnson bonded out of jail over the weekend, and in a court appearance Saturday his family pleaded with the judge, saying their son has mental health issues and “has tried to get help” in the past, “but he needs to continue with that therapy,” according to CNN affiliate WCIV.

An ICE spokesperson in a statement Wednesday noted “imposters” who commit such “dangerous” actions can face criminal charges at the federal, state and local levels.

“U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement officers and agents are highly trained and dedicated professionals who are sworn to uphold the law, protect the American people and support U.S. national security interests,” the statement said. “ICE strongly condemns the impersonation of its officers or agents.”

‘Vulnerable in this moment’

The founder and president of the Charleston Hispanic Association told CNN that harassment of his constituents based on their ethnicity is commonplace.

“We hear of Hispanics being targeted quite a bit. It’s an everyday thing,” Enrique Grace told CNN. “I don’t think this is an isolated case, it was just caught on video. It’s pretty sad to see that.”

The ICE impersonation cases come as President Donald Trump has quickly mobilized wide swaths of the federal government to arrest and detain undocumented immigrants in the United States, part of a broader strategy to amass a large enforcement machine.

The administration has sent troops to the US-Mexico border, utilized military aircraft to repatriate recent border crossers, and deployed people from multiple federal agencies, including those under the Justice Department, to augment immigration enforcement operations.

“Immigrants are a target for scams anyway, and I think that this just kind of amplifies this, this situation where people who are particularly vulnerable are in this moment where they are kind of looking for ICE agents everywhere,” Siembra NC co-director Nikki Marin Baena told CNN.

The grassroots organization based out of North Carolina focuses on supporting Latino communities through civic engagement and social justice.

Siembra NC is actively combating ICE impersonation and reducing community fear by creating and distributing multimedia educational resources, including graphics and videos, and hosting statewide “know your rights” presentations that teach Latino residents how to distinguish between legitimate federal law enforcement officers and potential impersonators.

College student accused of impersonation

In another impersonation case, in Philadelphia, police charged a Temple University student in connection with the alleged impersonation of ICE officers on campus. The incident, which occurred Saturday night, involved three individuals, two wearing shirts with “Police” and “ICE” in white lettering, attempting to enter a residence hall on campus, Temple University said in a statement.

After being denied entrance to the residence hall, they were later found disrupting a local business, the university said.

Philadelphia police arrested 22-year-old Aidan Steigelmann, charging him with impersonating a public servant, with the university saying that he’s been placed on “interim suspension.” Two other suspects involved in the incident fled the scene in a light-colored SUV, according to the Philadelphia Police Department.

CNN has reached out to Steigelmann’s attorney for comment.

Temple’s statement followed an announcement earlier in the week reacting to Trump’s executive orders, including the plans for mass deportations of undocumented immigrants.

“The uncertainty of the present moment has also led to an increase in rumors, which can quickly be amplified through social media,” Temple University President John Fry said in a Wednesday statement. “Please know that neither Temple’s Department of Public Safety nor the Philadelphia Police Department have any reports of federal Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) agents being on campus.”

Meanwhile, in Raleigh, North Carolina, Carl Thomas Bennett was arrested for allegedly impersonating an ICE officer and sexual assaulting a woman at a Motel 6 threatening to deport her if she didn’t comply, according to CNN affiliate WRAL.

Police reports indicated that Bennett, 37, “threatened to deport the victim if she did not have sex with him,” and “displayed a business card with a badge on it,” according to WRAL.

Bennett was denied bond and appointed a public defender, court records show, CNN affiliate WBTV reported.

CNN has reached out to Raleigh Police Department for comment.

The incidents show the importance of “safe space” policies, according to Maribel Hernández Rivera, director of policy and government affairs, border and immigration at the American Civil Liberties Union.

“It’s important for immigrant communities to feel safe, to be able to approach law enforcement and report anything that’s happening and when people do not feel safe, not only does it make people who are immigrants less safe, but it makes all of us less safe,” Hernández Rivera said.

In her view, Trump administration immigration policies are designed to instill fear, which she says endangers public safety for entire communities.

“The point of their policies is to create fear, to create panic, to create chaos. That’s the point,” Hernández Rivera told CNN. “The point is a cruelty and that is what’s being exploited here.”

Under the Trump administration, federal immigration authorities are now permitted to arrest people and carry out enforcement actions in and near places such as churches and schools, marking a departure from long-standing policy to avoid so-called sensitive areas. Hernandez said the shift in policy not only threatens public safety but discourages people who need help from law enforcement or health care providers to seek it out.

After watching the video Hernández Rivera said it also showed the effect that White House policies are having across the country – not just for migrant communities but also everyone else.

“What we’re seeing here is we have leadership at the top that dehumanizes people who are immigrants and now this is the outcome of that dehumanizing,” Hernández Rivera said. “You end up having a violation of people’s rights, people see and hear this and they feel emboldened to go against immigrants.”

CNN’s Devon Sayers, Shawn Nottingham, Nayeli Jaramillo-Plata, and Lex Harvey contributed to this report.

[admin]

Crockett Slams MAGA Republicans for Relinquishing Constitutional Duties to Elon Musk
DOGE Hearing
Rep. Jasmine Crockett
Feb 12, 2025

In the first DOGE Subcommittee Hearing of the 119th Congress, Rep. Crockett delivers powerful remarks, criticizing MAGA Republicans for allegedly surrendering their constitutional responsibilities to Elon Musk. Watch as Crockett exposes the troubling influence of tech moguls on political decision-making and the future of democracy.



Transcript

Thank you madam chair um and Mr talve. I'm just
going to go ahead and pick up where you
left off really quickly um just to be
clear the upgrades that you're talking
about as it relates to our data
processes these aren't things that would
be free are they they would cost some
kind of money not looking for a number
but they will cost correct some are free
and some would cost money okay all right
so I just want to leave it there because
um we've had a number of these hearings
so I do want to be clear before the
Trump Administration came in um this
committee did exist in the form of the
oversight committee and our task is to
root out waste Fraud and Abuse in that
vein we had a number of hearings at
least last term I can't speak for any
other term as I'm only in my sophomore
term and we dealt with improper payments
And interestingly enough, our chairwoman
who is so passionate about this today,
she missed every single one of those
improper payment hearings. But just to be
clear, I was there, so I don't want anyone
to believe that Democrats just come to
work and don't plan to do work. In fact,
I'm trying to figure out exactly what it
is that the Republicans believe our job
is. Because right now, they have
relinquished their constitutional duties
over to an unelected bureaucrat, someone
who no one went out to vote for, and
absolutely he is occupying the Oval
Office as we saw yesterday. And that is a
first for me to see someone occupying
the Oval Office who's never actually
been elected to the Oval Office, and
actually answering more questions than
the person that allegedly got elected.
But for whatever reason, this is the
first time we're having a DOGE
subcommittee hearing, and that guy is not
here. Instead, we have y'all. So I do want
to thank you for coming. But I will say
this it's also interesting to me, that in
the first few days of Doge existing, we
know that they are trying to get rid of
the Department of Education, USAid, the
Consumer Financial Protection Bureau,
they're laying off FAA workers, they are
going after the FDA, the CDC, the HHS, the
FBI agents, and they're talking about
getting rid of FEMA. And they brought
y'all in, and I am going to say that I
actually was shocked that there was only
one person that seemed like he was an
overt Trumper, as you laid out your
opening remarks, because I anticipated
that at least one of y'all would say yes,
what Elon is doing is exactly what we
would prescribe. But
instead, I will applaud you, because you
actually were focused. You talked about
what the American people are looking for
us to do. We've actually consistently, on
this side of the aisle, promoted this
idea of making investments into
technology so that we can do things such
as say look at the Department of Defense,
the Department of Defense that takes up
approximately 50% of our
discretionary income, or our
discretionary spending. Approximately 50%
goes to Department of Defense Department
of Defense, who has not been able to pass an
audit in the last six audits. And we're
not talking about pennies.

I understand that we want everything to be perfect
and if we could get all ways of Fraud and
Abuse out, that would be fantastic. But
let me talk about the big numbers.

The big numbers are on that side when we
look at say our entire work Force, our
federal Workforce, as we're trying to
somehow fire all of them, they don't even
make up a total of 5%. It's even less
than that when we look at our budget. But
let's talk about defense. That just
happens to be the same side of the
Ledger that Mr musk gets the vast
majority of his money from. In fact, at
the same time that they were unlawfully,
and we will stay in court, because on
this side we believe in Law and Order,
I mean a number of us are
actually lawyers. But nevertheless, we
understand the Constitution. We believe
in that as well. And so there's things
such as you know, impoundment, right?
Because as Mr witson said, he said we
need to return the power of the purse to
Congress. It never left! According to the
Constitution, that's where it's at now.

I know that people are confused right now,
because for whatever reason, we had a guy
that went in, and you talk about people
invading our data. Listen, people said
that they were upset about Tik Tok. But
I'm upset about the guy that run
Twitter, who for sure is doing nefarious
things. Because I don't understand if you
are trying to conduct Audits, and figure
out where the waste, Fraud, and Abuse is, I
don't know why you would go to some tech
guy. In fact, it was only techies that
were sitting there at the inauguration. We
didn't have Auditors. I would welcome
Auditors to come in and do forensic
audits. In fact, he sat there in the Oval
Office yesterday, and he admitted that he
was lying and he was using his
propaganda machine to do it when he said
that we sent millions of dollars to Gaza
for Condoms. That was a lie. So let me
tell you
something ...

[Marjorie Taylor Greene] Time expired. Time expired.

[admin]

Trump Admin Admits It Made Significant Errors in Dismantling USAID
by Martha McHardy is a U.S. News reporter.
Newsweek
Published Feb 11, 2025 at 10:16 AM EST
Updated Feb 11, 2025 at 7:18 PM EST
https://www.newsweek.com/donald-trump-u ... rs-2029312

The Trump administration has admitted it made two significant errors in its attempt to dismantle U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID), according to new legal filings.

The Context

The Trump administration is attempting to put more than 2,000 USAID workers on paid leave and recall nearly all of those posted abroad. Under the plan, most USAID programs worldwide would also be suspended following a funding freeze initiated by the White House.

The move by the Trump administration has led to a lawsuit being filed by the Public Citizen Litigation Group and Democracy Forward, on behalf of the American Foreign Service Association (AFSA)—the union representing USAID workers—to halt the efforts.

On Friday, a federal judge blocked the attempt to put 2,700 USAID workers on paid leave.

It comes amid the Trump administration's drive to drastically reduce the size of the federal government and cut what it claims is wasteful public spending. Leading this effort is the newly created Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE), headed by Elon Musk. Republicans have cited USAID's spending on global diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) initiatives as an example of wasteful public spending. On his first day in office, Trump signed an executive order to dismantle federal diversity and inclusion programs.

What To Know

The Department of Justice has acknowledged making two errors in an initial court hearing for the lawsuit, according to new legal filings from February 10.

According to the filings, in a hearing on February 7—which was held 3 hours after the initial temporary restraining order (TRO) motion was filed—the department said that only 500 USAID employees had been placed on leave, when the number was in fact 2,140.

The DoJ has now corrected the error in subsequent legal filings.

Meanwhile, in the initial court hearing, the DoJ also initially said that future contracts with USAID would be frozen, per a directive by Secretary of State Marco Rubio. However, subsequent filings revealed existing contracts were also paused.

The errors were set out in a notice of correction attached to the legal filing from February 10. The filing said the errors were made "in good faith" on the basis of information provided to the DoJ immediately prior to the hearing.

The American Foreign Service Association had asked the court to declare unlawful what they called "a series of unconstitutional and illegal actions taken by President Donald Trump and his administration that have systematically dismantled" USAID without authorization from Congress.

"Pursuant to federal statute, Congress is the only entity that may lawfully dismantle the agency," the lawsuit said.

The plaintiffs in the case also said that the moves by Trump and Musk had "generated a global humanitarian crisis by abruptly halting the crucial work of USAID employees, grantees, and contractors."

"They have cost thousands of American jobs. And they have imperiled U.S. national security interests," they wrote.

U.S. District Judge Carl J. Nichols—who was nominated by Trump during his first term—has now entered a temporary restraining order in the case, putting the Trump administration's plans on hold. Nichols wrote that the firing of USAID employees would result in "physical harm."

"No future lawsuit could undo the physical harm that might result if USAID employees are not informed of imminent security threats occurring in the countries to which they have relocated in the course of their service to the United States."

"Administrative leave in Syria is not the same as administrative leave in Bethesda: simply being paid cannot change that fact," he wrote.

All 2,140 employees have now been taken off of paid leave. However, some USAID workers were reportedly turned away from their offices even after the TRO was issued.

Nichols said he would not impose a pause on the funding freeze, putting many USAID programs at risk.

Only a small portion of USAID funding goes towards DEI initiatives. Much of USAID funding goes toward agencies like the World Food Program, UNICEF and nongovernmental agencies like Save the Children. USAID is the world's biggest aid donor.

What People Are Saying

AFSA President Tom Yazdgerdi said in a press release: "This reckless decision has thrown USAID's Foreign Service professionals—and their families—into chaos. These non-partisan men and women have dedicated their careers to advancing America's interests abroad, only to have their futures suddenly placed in jeopardy."

He added: "USAID Foreign Service officers are non-partisan patriots who serve under every president, regardless of party, to implement U.S. foreign policy and advance national security. AFSA is committed to using every tool at our disposal to protect these professionals, safeguard their careers, and ensure that USAID retains the expertise necessary to fulfill its mission."

Donald Trump wrote on Truth Social: "USAID IS DRIVING THE RADICAL LEFT CRAZY, AND THERE IS NOTHING THEY CAN DO ABOUT IT BECAUSE THE WAY IN WHICH THE MONEY HAS BEEN SPENT, SO MUCH OF IT FRAUDULENTLY, IS TOTALLY UNEXPLAINABLE. THE CORRUPTION IS AT LEVELS RARELY SEEN BEFORE. CLOSE IT DOWN!"

What Happens Next

For now, the plan to fire over 2,000 USAID employees is on hold until February 14 at 11:59 p.m. It remains unclear whether Trump has the authority to dismantle USAID. Democrats say such a move would be illegal.

Elon Musk said during an X Spaces stream last Monday that Trump "agreed" with him that the agency should be shut down.

"I actually checked with him a few times. Said 'Are you sure?' Yes, so we're shutting it down," Musk said.

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

OMG! Trump DOJ Makes SHOCK ADMISSION in Filings
by Ben Meiselas and Harry Litman
MeidasTouch
Feb 12, 2025

MeidasTouch host Ben Meiselas and Talking Feds host Harry Litman report on Donald Trump’s DOJ lawyers being forced to admit they lied to federal judges in prior proceedings.



Transcript

[Ben Meiselas] the Department of Justice lawyers in the
Trump Administration have had to make
some very embarrassing filings that
would be putting it lightly and there
could be major repercussions as to
factual
misrepresentations AKA lies that they
made to federal judges we've been
covering here Harry Litman and us here
at the Meidastouch Network Harry
Litman on the talking feds podcast the
tsunami of cases that have been filed
against the Trump Administration for all
of these patently egregiously unlawful
executive orders that Donald Trump has
been signing shutting down agencies
cutting off funding where Congress has
clearly appropriated the funds gutting
staff firing people without uh
appropriate diligence and without
appropriate cause I mean there's been a
lot of horrific actions but some
powerful lawsuits some orders by judges
and when these filings happen just to
situate everybody there are often
emergency hearings that are held and
these hearings take place in court or
via conference call depending on the
hearing but often in a courtroom and the
judge whether they're Democratic
appointed Republican appointed Trump
appointed judges they ask the lawyers
questions now Harry Litman worked in the
Department of Justice he was a top
leader at the doj Harry Litman was also
a top federal prosecutor the top federal
prosecutor in the Western District of
Pennsylvania so it's not uncommon, though,
that at the DOJ, you would get called in
for emergency hearings. And you've got to
know the facts. So you go to the source
of the facts, the agency heads, certain
people, and you got to damn well make
sure that when you're making
representations to judges, as the lawyer
you have your facts straight, because
every time you step into the court,
whether you're a private lawyer or a
government lawyer, you have something
called a bar license ,and you have to be
candid, you have a duty of candor, duties
of diligence with the court. Yes I know
that Donald Trump is a felon. Yes I know
that Elon Musk is an online agitator, and
engages in horrific conduct. Lawyers have
licenses. And I want to talk about these
Notices of Corrections that we're seeing
filed now where these lawyers have
admitted that they are lying.

So you have
a Notice of Correction filed in the case
involving
SAID on the critical issue where the DOJ
had acknowledged that it made two
significant errors during the court
hearing last week on efforts to
dismantle USAid. One, it said only 500
employees had been placed on leave when
the actual number was
2,140. It's a significant difference
right there. And here was the key issue,
is that judge Carl Nichols, by the way a
Trump appointed judge, was drilling into
because the DOJ said only future
contracts were stopped. Existing
contracts though were also stopped. Why?
That's the key issue is because I guess
technically, the administration can say,
"Hey, the new administration's changing
protocols going forward." They have no
right to stop past programs where
appropriations were already made. That
was the key issue. The plaintiff's
lawyers representing the US employees said
that's not true, they're cancelling the
old stuff. The Trump lawyers said, "No no
no, it's just the future stuff." Were being
told that was a lie. Fortunately the
federal Judge Carl Nichols saw through
that lie. But that was a material
misrepresentation.

Then there was the
other notice of correction that they
filed on another key issue in another
case about the access that one of these
Elon Musk 22year-old guys -- I think this one
was calling himself Big Balls -- that that
they were basically saying that he
didn't have certain levels of access when it
turns out he had levels of access.

Let me just read it to you at the hearing on
February 5th 2025, held the same day as
plaintiff's motion for temporary
restraining order that was filed in the
above caption case Council for
defendants made a factual representation
in good faith based on the information
provided by defendants that requires
correction with the benefit of more time
time to investigate the facts over the
weekend defendants came to understand
that Marco alz who at the time of the
hearing was employed by the Department
of Treasury had not in fact been
designated by the treasury Department as
a special government employee SJ sge as
Council stated at the February 5 hearing
Mr LZ was however a treasury Department
employee that has significant impacts
because then LZ is subject to certain
ethics requirements that were at the
heart of it so Harry these are not
notices of arada right you and I know
notices of Arata you get the date wrong
occasionally maybe there's a typo this
these material misstatements Harry you
led the do you led you were a leader
there what do you make of all of
this man oh man so Ben you're right I
did have these higher level positions
but the real uh analogous experience is
the guy on the ground who has to go into
court and man you got to pity those
figures now I'm not sure that they're
huge misstatements that go to the heart
of the case but it it may be that the
poor putts who was kicked in the rear
and said go in there and defend uh
didn't know one way or another they
obviously should have been much much
more careful but it's also it's so
discordant in a couple ways with what's
really going on first on the facts the
guy doesn't even know the person who
does what is supposed to be the heart
and soul meat and potatoes the work of
the Department of Justice representing
to the court and to the public what's
going on and then second there's only
one thing you can do when you're in that
very unenviable position that is fall on
your sword and fall on it hard and
that's what these uh lawyers are doing
but it's completely opposite from what
the Trump guys are doing because they
are arrogant as can be about it and
Asser
their Authority and indifference to the
legal violations that the people when
they go to court in front of the judges
have to fess up to so it it it is a
general problem now in the Department of
Justice where the you know as I've said
before The Barbarians aren't just at the
gates they are ransacking the actual
Palace and you they you have to send in
the lawyers to say crap but they don't
even know what it is they're supposed to
say they don't know what the policies
are because nobody consults them nobody
cares about what the Department of
Justice has to say to courts of all
things rather it's just the policies
coming on from on high from Trump and
then his acting uh Deputy attorney
general Emil Bo so it is just um what
what's happening now in the department B
is just an utter divorce from the
lifeblood of what prosecutors do which
is base decisions on facts and law it's
something other than that they were
candid in saying it for example and
dropping the charges although we'll see
what whether the um the career person
now acting us attorney in New York goes
along but it's just a really complete
reversal of what they're supposed to be
doing it's both heartbreaking and
infuriating and and totally terrifying
for the people who are still there who
don't know what to do the these are the
few lucky ones who are being kicked into
court and say you know try to defend
this say some crap and then then you
find out of course two days later what
you told them was
exactly uh wrong so you know in general
it the this is part and parcel of a
broader effort by the the new Trump
Invaders not not simply to enact all
these um really unlawful Provisions but
also prevent all the kinds of guard
rails and oversight and accountability
and just the to care about what ought to
be the DNA of the department going in
explaining to the judges making
arguments under the law that's an
afterthought at best we can only hope it
stays that way for for these new uh
Invaders in the in the department this
is Far and Away Far and Away the worst
um juncture and um period for the doj
and its history know we talk about the
executive branch and the take care
Clause take care that the laws be
Faithfully executed that's the opposite
of what they're doing the Trump White
House halted all enforcement of the law
the Foreign Corrupt Practices at
which is to stop foreign bribery from
embedding itself in American Business
the law to be Faithfully executed
requires that the Foreign Corrupt
Practices a law be enforced and Trump's
literally saying don't enforce it when
the law is trying to be enforced against
someone like mayor Adams in a bribery
related case without even doing legal
analysis as you mentioned Trump's doj
prepar a memo to the United States
Attorney or acting United States
Attorney in uh the southern district of
New York or in New York basically saying
hey do not Faithfully follow the law and
we're not even going to give you a
reason we're not giving you a memo that
says main Justice reviewed this case and
it turns out that it's a bad case
because here are the reasons or there's
bad law or something no it's just we
want want you to dismiss it even if
crimes were obviously committed so now
it puts that United States Attorney
acting us attorney but that whole you
know New York prosecut the whole the
whole all those prosecutors they're
being told you know there's crimes but
you got to look away from the crimes and
that's what those lawyers as we started
this segment the lawyers who are issuing
notices of Correction you have lawyers
who went to ostensibly good law schools
or law schools throughout the country
who took their own Oaths who have
obligations under their legal standards
and they're being asked now lawyers
violate the law there are lawyers who
are going to do it there are lawyers who
are not going to do it I think
unfortunately the ones who are attracted
to Trump don't give a crap about that
but you're putting a lot of career
people also at risk Harry last word yeah
look like the good teacher you are Ben
you make it all sound basic and
Elementary but you know why it is basic
and Elementary Congress passes the laws
saying if you want to remove them you
need four cause saying Foreign Corrupt
Practices Act we know that you can try
to cheat like other folks do but that's
not what we want American companies to
do and the like and Trump asserts again
and again some uh ability or power out
of no where because he won the election
to just ignore it remember the
Republicans control everything here if
they really wanted to repal the Foreign
Corrupt Practices Act if they really
wanted to shut down usaid they could do
it but what's happening is they' ma
they're making a real deal with the
devil where the republicans in Congress
don't have to take the immediate heat
for doing something that is outrageous
and bad for the country and makes
victims here of the honest companies and
just goes against who we are as a people
and Trump uh takes on that for them and
they in return Stay cow and quiet and do
nothing so we've talked before in a
different uh YouTube about the court
stepping up thank God they are and you
have to pray that it continue because
the other people the people who are
really again and again their Ox is being
gored Congress which has said do this do
that and don't do this Trump is just
saying giving them the middle finger and
they're saying thank you sir may I have
another it is fraking crazy there you
have it everybody you know where I get
my legal news from it's from Harry
Litman the talking feds YouTube channel
the talking feds substack and the
talking feds podcast it'll probably take
you all of 30 seconds to subscribe to
all three and it will inform you the way
it informs me at these pivotal moments
talking feds YouTube talking feds
substack talking feds podcast Harry
Litman as always thank you thank you Ben
Can't Get Enough Midas check out the
midus Plus substack for adree articles
reports podcasts daily Recaps from Ron
filipowski and more sign up for free now
at Midas plus.com
[Music]