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.
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.
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.
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.
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]
Inspectors General SUE Trump Administration Over Unlawful Firings! by Glenn Kirschner Feb 12, 2025
Inspectors general are the peoples' watchdogs inside government, guarding against fraud, waste, abuse, and corruption by administration employees and officials. In a very real sense, IGs are our cops on the inside.
Just days after being sworn in, Donald Trump fired a whole slew of IGs in violation of federal law, as discussed below.
Now, some of the wrongfully terminated IGs are fighting back. As The Hill just reported, "Eight Fired Government Watchdogs Sue Trump Administration."
The federal law require a president to give Congress 30 days advance notice before firing an inspector general. Trump gave Congress NO NOTICE, violating federal law.
The federal law also requires a president to provide "substantive rationale, including detailed and case-specific reasons" for the termination. Trump failed to do so, in violation of federal law.
Transcript
[Glenn Kirschner, Justice Matters] Well friends, another day, another lawsuit filed against the Trump Administration. According to the reporting, this makes about 50 legal challenges brought against Trump and Company. This lawsuit was filed by eight inspectors General that Donald Trump unlawfully fired. Let's talk about that because Justice matters [Music]
Hey all, Glenn Kirschner here. So friends, inspector's General IGS are the People's watchdogs inside government making sure that Administration officials do not engage in fraud, waste, abuse, & corruption. IGS are like our cops on the inside. So of course, within days of being sworn in, Donald Trump fired a whole slew of inspectors General, and now eight of those IGS have brought suit for firings that are plainly and obviously in violation of federal law.
Let's start with the new reporting. This from the Hill headline: Eight fired government Watchdogs Sue Trump Administration. And that article begins: Eight Federal Watchdogs ousted by President Trump last month are suing to get their jobs back on the basis that their dismissals were unlawful the lawsuit filed Wednesday asserts Congress was not given proper notice of the removals nor were adequate explanations for the firings given quote president Trump's attempt to eliminate a crucial and longstanding source of impartial nonpartisan oversight of his administration is contrary to the rule of law wrote Seth Waxman a Clinton error solicitor general representing the inspectors General the lawsuit was filed by eight of the 17 fired inspectors General who monitored various agencies in the federal government a 2022 Federal Law requires presidents to notify Congress at least 30 days in advance of firing An Inspector General in addition to providing substantive case specific rationale the inspectors General who sued were removed from the Departments of Defense State labor education agriculture Veterans Affairs and health and human Human Services in addition to the small business administration alt together they oversaw more than 5 trillion of appropriated funds each year and more than 3.5 million federal employees the lawsuit says inspectors General are responsible for providing an independent check on agencies and an Avenue for whistleblowers to report wrongdoing but you know what friends we don't just have to take somebody else's word when they tell us that these firings of these inspectors General were illegal violated federal law let's go to the federal law itself again for anybody scoring at home it is five United States code section 403b and it reads removal or transfer An Inspector General may be removed from office by the president if An Inspector General is removed from office or is transferred to another position or location within an establishment the president shall communicate in writing the reasons for any such removal or transfer to both houses of Congress not later than 30 days before the removal or transfer now friends admittedly I may not be great with numbers but Donald Trump fired these inspectors General about 3 weeks ago as we sit here today so the 30day period required by federal law 30 days of advanced notice to both houses of Congress and reasons for the firings fact-based case based reasons for the firings none of that has been done so the federal law has been violated and in fact one of the fired IGS told Donald Trump and His White House councel exactly that this letter is from Hannibal Mike wear and he is the chairperson of the Council of the inspectors General on integrity and efficiency and he writes to the director of presidential Personnel at the White House Mr Gore the following Dear Mr Gore I am writing in response to your email sent to me and other inspectors General earlier this evening now mind you friends this letter was written on January 24th 2025 the day Donald Trump unlawfully fired the IGS I'm writing in response to your email sent to me and other inspectors General earlier this evening wherein you informed each of us that quote due to changing priori ities your position as Inspector General is terminated effective immediately as chairperson of the Council of the inspectors General on integrity and efficiency I recommend that you reach out to White House Council to discuss your intended course of action at this point we do not believe the actions taken are legally sufficient to dismiss presidentially appointed Senate confirmed in inspector's General specifically based upon the 2022 amendments to the Inspector General Act of 1978 the president must notify Congress 30 days prior to removal of an IG and provide substantive rational including detailed and case specific reasons for such removal should you have any questions please feel free to reach out to me signed Hannibal Mike wear CI chairperson so friends you really don't need to be a lawyer to conclude that Donald Trump violated federal law the law requires 30 days of advanced notice to both houses of Congress and these firings occurred three weeks ago and Trump has given no notice to either house of Congress that would be the first violation of federal law and I think it's also reason reasonable to conclude that when the Federal Law requires the president while he's giving that 30 days advanced notice to Congress to provide substantive rationale including detailed and case specific reasons for such removal well when Donald Trump writes these inspector's General that he is firing on January 24th the following um due to changing priorities your position as Inspector General is terminated effective immediately well due to changing priorities doesn't exactly constitute specific rationale you know case based rationale deficiencies for these firings that would be violation of federal law number two so of course these inspect ctor General brought suit it sure looks like a lay down winner of a lawsuit because Trump and his administration inarguably violated the federal law a couple of times over so like the plaintiffs in the other 49 or so legal challenges lawsuits that have been filed against Trump and Company these inspectors General our cops on the inside the people's Watchdogs guarding against fraud waste abuse and Corruption by the Trump Administration they're not laying down they're not going quietly they're not obeying in advance they're standing up for their rights and they're going to ask federal courts to hold Trump and Company accountable for these wrongful terminations these unlawful firings because to the these inspector's General and all of the others who brought suits against Donald Trump trying to beat back the tide of Lawless conduct Justice matters friends as always please stay safe please stay tuned and I look forward to talking with you all again tomorrow [Music]
******************
8 fired government watchdogs sue Trump administration by Ella Lee The Hill Wed, February 12, 2025 at 8:58 AM MST2 min read
Eight federal watchdogs ousted by President Trump last month are suing to get their jobs back on the basis that their dismissals were unlawful.
The lawsuit, filed Wednesday, asserts Congress was not given proper notice of the removals, nor were adequate explanations for the firings given.
“President Trump’s attempt to eliminate a crucial and longstanding source of impartial, non-partisan oversight of his administration is contrary to the rule of law,” wrote Seth Waxman, a Clinton-era solicitor general representing the inspectors general.
The lawsuit was filed by eight of the 17 fired inspectors general, who monitored various agencies in the federal government.
A 2022 federal law requires presidents to notify Congress at least 30 days in advance of firing an inspector general, in addition to providing “substantiative, case-specific rationale.”
The inspectors general who sued were removed from the departments of Defense, State, Labor, Education, Agriculture, Veterans Affairs, and Health and Human Services, in addition to the Small Business Administration. Altogether, they oversaw more than $5 trillion of appropriated funds each year and more than 3.5 million federal employees, the lawsuit says.
The ousters were executed last month through brief emails from the Office of Presidential Personnel. Soon after, the watchdogs lost access to government emails and computers, and were physically barred from entering their government offices.
Despite the “obvious illegality” of the firings, the heads of each agency “effectuated and continue to effectuate” the watchdogs’ removals, Waxman said.
Inspectors general are responsible for providing an independent check on agencies and an avenue for whistleblowers to report wrongdoing.
During his first term in office, Trump fired several inspectors general, which spurred an update to the Inspector General Act to require the 30 days’ notice and rationale.
Trump defended the firings last month as a “very common thing to do.”
“Some people thought that some were unfair, some were not doing their job,” the president told reporters aboard Air Force One.
The lawsuit follows more than 50 legal challenges to sweeping Trump administration actions meant to reshape the federal government.
Copyright 2025 Nexstar Media, Inc. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.
NY US Attorney Stands Up to Trump's DOJ, Resigns Rather Than Dismissing Case for Political Reasons by Glenn Kirschner Feb 13, 2025
The resistance and opposition from within Donald Trump's Department of Justice is building. Rather than comply with an unethical directive from DOJ leadership, the US Attorney for the Southern District of New York, Danielle Sassoon, resigned.
Days ago, Emil Bove, a member of Trump's team at DOJ, directed the acting US Attorney in Manhattan, Danielle Sassoon, to dismiss the case against New York City Mayor Eric Adams, not based on the evidence but because they wanted Adams to help the Trump administration with some of it's goals and priorities.
Rather than agree to dismiss the case for political reasons, US Attorney Sassoon resigned.
Trump's DOJ Officials then tried to move supervision of the Adams case down to Washington, and the two top supervisors in the DOJ's Public Integrity Section resigned as well.
In a staggering display of retaliation, Bove, one of Trump's former criminal defense attorneys now a top DOJ official, told Ms. Sassoon that both she and the prosecutors who worked on the Adams case would be investigated by the DOJ.
Just days earlier, when he was first directing Sassoon to dismiss the case, "Mr. Bove in his order to drop the case said that the directive 'in no way calls into question the integrity and efforts' of the prosecutors working on the case, nor Ms. Sassoon’s efforts in leading them."
Transcript
So friends it really does feel like Donald Trump's Department of Justice is trying to purge all of the Integrity from DOJ's public Integrity section let's talk about that because Justice matters [Music] hey all Glenn Kirschner here so friends the latest display of unethical retaliation against career Federal prosecutors argues in favor of you just renaming the Department of Justice because the justice is Vanishing it's being replaced by lawlessness retaliation and revenge here's some brand new reporting about an egregious display of Injustice and retaliation against career prosecutors this from The New York Times headline order to drop New York city mayor Eric Adams case prompts resignations in New York and Washington the intram US attorney for the southern district of New York and two officials with the federal public Integrity unit all quit after the justice department ordered the charges against mayor Eric Adams to be dropped and that article begins Manhattan's us attorney on Thursday resigned just days after she was ordered to drop the corruption case against New York City's mayor then when Justice Department officials sought to transfer the case to the public Integrity section in Washington which oversees corruption cases the two men who led that unit also resigned according to five people with knowledge of the matter the resignations represent the most high-profile public resistance so far to president Trump's tightening control over the justice department the departures of the us. attorney Danielle Sassoon and the officials Who oversee the Justice Department's public Integrity section Kevin Driscoll and John Keller came in Rapid succession on Thursday days earlier the acting number two official at the justice department had ordered Manhattan prosecutors to drop the corruption case against mayor Eric Adams the agency's justification for dropping the case was explicitly political the number two official Amil B argued that the investigation would prevent Mr Adams from fully cooperating with Mr Trump's immigration Crackdown Mr Bo made a point of saying that Washington officials had not evaluated the strength of the evidence or the legal theory behind the case now friends let's tee up and bring into full Focus the evidence of Revenge and retaliation against career Federal prosecutors Mr in his order to drop the case this was a couple of days ago said that the directive quote in no way calls into question the integrity and efforts of the prosecutors working on the case nor Miss sassoon's efforts in leading them and friends just a day or two later when us attorney Sasson resigned rather than following Emil Bo's unethical command to dismiss a case not based on the evidence but based on politics she resigned rather than doing Donald Trump's dirty political deal what did Bo say then Mr Bo in accepting Miss sassoon's resignation informed her that the prosecutors who worked on the case were being placed on administrative leave and would be investigated by the attorney general and the Justice departments in internal investigative arm he told Miss Sassoon both bodies would also evaluate her conduct and friends there it is in the harsh light of day retaliation retribution Revenge because just a couple of days ago Bo in his order to drop the case said that the directive in no way calls into question the integrity and efforts of the prosecutors working on the case nor Miss sassoon's efforts in leading them but when she resigned instead of you know doing this dirty political deal now you and the prosecutors who worked on the case will be investigated this is no way to run a Department of Justice this is purging the Integrity from the public Integrity section and who is former US attorney Sassoon Miss Sassoon 38 joined the southern district of New York us attorney's office in 2016 a graduate of Harvard College and Yale law school she clerked for justice anonin Scalia about as conservative as a Supreme Court Justice gets she clerked for justice Scalia on the Supreme Court and is a member of the Federalist Society the conservative Legal Group so friends former US attorney Sassoon clearly has some conservative credentials clerking for justice Scalia being a member of the Federalist Society now I am not suggesting that Miss Sassoon brings whatever ideological beliefs or political leanings she may have into her work I am not suggesting that indeed I have great admiration for her for taking this principled stand but I do wonder what the Federalist Society for example might make of this blatant and transparent retaliation against miss suon one of its members you know the Federalist Society is a conservative organization but this kind of unethical Behavior dismissing somebody because they take their oath of office seriously they take their responsibility to prosecute without fear or favor seriously retaliating against them for that and saying now we're going to investigate you and your whole team of prosecutors who were involved in the mayor Adams case that's not conservative that's not liberal you know if it's anything it's just plain old corruption even if it is corruption masquerading as conservatism it's just plain old corruption but friends if there's any good news emanating from this latest debasement of the Department of Justice it's this we've discovered three new Points of Light amidst the Trump induced Darkness those three points of light are Danielle casson Kevin dris and John Keller all of whom stood up to Trump's corruption because to them Justice matters friends as always please stay safe please stay tuned and I look forward to talking with you all again tomorrow [Music]
*********************
U.S. Department of Justice United States Attorney Southern District of New York The Jacob K. Javits Federal Building 26 Federal Plaza, 37thFloor New York, New York 10278
February 12, 2025
BY EMAIL The Honorable Pamela Jo Bondi Attorney General of the United States U.S. Department of Justice 950 Pennsylvania Avenue NW Washington, D.C. 20530
Re: United States v. Eric Adams, 24 Cr. 556 (DEH)
Dear Attorney General Bondi:
On February 10, 2025, I received a memorandum from acting Deputy Attorney General Emil Bove, directing me to dismiss the indictment against Mayor Eric Adams without prejudice, subject to certain conditions, which would require leave of court. I do not repeat here the evidence against Adams that proves beyond a reasonable doubt that he committed federal crimes; Mr. Bove rightly has never called into question that the case team conducted this investigation with integrity and that the charges against Adams are serious and supported by fact and law. Mr. Bove's memo, however, which directs me to dismiss an indictment returned by a duly constituted grand jury for reasons having nothing to do with the strength of the case, raises serious concerns that render the contemplated dismissal inconsistent with my ability and duty to prosecute federal crimes without fear or favor and to advance good-faith arguments before the courts.
When I took my oath of office three weeks ago, I vowed to well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office on which I was about to enter. In carrying out that responsibility, I am guided by, among other things, the Principles of Federal Prosecution set forth in the Justice Manual and your recent memoranda instructing attorneys for the Department of Justice to make only good faith arguments and not to use the criminal enforcement authority of the United States to achieve political objectives or other improper aims. I am also guided by the values that have defined my over ten years of public service. You and I have yet to meet, let alone discuss this case. But as you may know, I clerked for the Honorable J. Harvie Wilkinson III on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit, and for Justice Antonin Scalia on the U.S. Supreme Court. Both men instilled in me a sense of duty to contribute to the public good and uphold the rule of law, and a commitment to reasoned and thorough analysis. I have always considered it my obligation to pursue justice impartially, without favor to the wealthy or those who occupy important public office, or harsher treatment for the less powerful.
I therefore deem it necessary to the faithful discharge of my duties to raise the concerns expressed in this letter with you and to request an opportunity to meet to discuss them further. I cannot fulfill my obligations, effectively lead my office in carrying out the Department's priorities, or credibly represent the Government before the courts, if I seek to dismiss the Adams case on this record.
A. The Government Does Not Have a Valid Basis To Seek Dismissal
Mr. Bove's memorandum identifies two grounds for the contemplated dismissal. I cannot advance either argument in good faith. As you know, the Government “may, with leave of court, dismiss an indictment” under Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 48(a). “The principal object of the 'leave of court' requirement is apparently to protect a defendant against prosecutorial harassment, e.g. , charging, dismissing, and recharging, when the Government moves to dismiss an indictment over the defendant's objection.” Rinaldi v. United States, 434 U.S. 22, 30 n.15 ( 1977). “But the Rule has also been held to permit the court to deny a Government dismissal motion to which the defendant has consented if the motion is prompted by considerations clearly contrary to the public interest.” Id.; see also JM § 9-2.050 (reflecting Department's position that a "court may decline leave to dismiss if the manifest public interest requires it”). The reasons advanced by Mr. Bove for dismissing the indictment are not ones I can in good faith defend as in the public interest and as consistent with the principles of impartiality and fairness that guide my decision-making.
First, Mr. Bove proposes dismissing the charges against Adams in return for his assistance in enforcing the federal immigration laws, analogizing to the prisoner exchange in which the United States freed notorious Russian arms dealer Victor Bout in return for an American prisoner in Russia. Such an exchange with Adams violates commonsense beliefs in the equal administration of justice, the Justice Manual, and the Rules of Professional Conduct. The "commitment to the rule of law is nowhere more profoundly manifest” than in criminal justice. Cheney v. United States Dist. Ct., 542 U.S. 367, 384 (2004) (alterations and citation omitted). Impartial enforcement of the law is the bedrock of federal prosecutions. See Robert H. Jackson, The Federal Prosecutor, 24 J. Am. Jud. Soc'y 18 (1940). As the Justice Manual has long recognized, “the rule of law depends upon the evenhanded administration of justice. The legal judgments of the Department of Justice must be impartial and insulated from political influence.” JM § 1-8.100. But Adams has argued in substance -- and Mr. Bove appears prepared to concede -- that Adams should receive leniency for federal crimes solely because he occupies an important public position and can use that position to assist in the Administration's policy priorities.
Federal prosecutors may not consider a potential defendant's “political associations, activities, or beliefs.” Id. § 9-27.260 ; see also Wayte v. United States, 470 U.S. 598, 608 (1985) (politically motivated prosecutions violate the Constitution). If a criminal prosecution cannot be used to punish political activity, it likewise cannot be used to induce or coerce such activity. Threatening criminal prosecution even to gain an advantage in civil litigation is considered misconduct for an attorney. See, e.g., D.C. Bar Ethics Opinion 339; ABA Criminal Justice Standard 3-1.6 (“A prosecutor should not use other improper considerations, such as partisan or political or personal considerations, in exercising prosecutorial discretion."). In your words, "the Department of Justice will not tolerate abuses of the criminal justice process, coercive behavior, or other forms of misconduct." Dismissal of the indictment for no other reason than to influence Adams's mayoral decision-making would be all three.
The memo suggests that the issue is merely removing an obstacle to Adams's ability to assist with federal immigration enforcement, but that does not bear scrutiny. It does not grapple with the differential treatment Adams would receive compared to other elected officials, much less other criminal defendants. And it is unclear why Adams would be better able to aid in immigration enforcement when the threat of future conviction is due to the possibility of reinstatement of the indictment followed by conviction at trial, rather than merely the possibility of conviction at trial. On this point, the possibility of trial before or after the election cannot be relevant, because Adams has selected the timing of his trial.
Rather than be rewarded, Adams's advocacy should be called out for what it is: an improper offer of immigration enforcement assistance in exchange for a dismissal of his case. Although Mr. Bove disclaimed any intention to exchange leniency in this case for Adams's assistance in enforcing federal law, that is the nature of the bargain laid bare in Mr. Bove's memo. That is especially so given Mr. Bove's comparison to the Bout prisoner exchange, which was quite expressly a quid pro quo, but one carried out by the White House, and not the prosecutors in charge of Bout's case.
The comparison to the Bout exchange is particularly alarming. That prisoner swap was an exchange of official acts between separate sovereigns (the United States and Russia), neither of which had any claim that the other should obey its laws. By contrast, Adams is an American citizen, and a local elected official, who is seeking a personal benefit—immunity from federal laws to which he is undoubtedly subject—in exchange for an act -- enforcement of federal law -- he has no right to refuse. Moreover, the Bout exchange was a widely criticized sacrifice of a valid American interest (the punishment of an infamous arms dealer) which Russia was able to extract only through a patently selective prosecution of a famous American athlete.² It is difficult to imagine that the Department wishes to emulate that episode by granting Adams leverage over it akin to Russia's influence in international affairs. It is a breathtaking and dangerous precedent to reward Adams's opportunistic and shifting commitments on immigration and other policy matters with dismissal of a criminal indictment. Nor will a court likely find that such an improper exchange is consistent with the public interest. See United States v. N.V. Nederlandsche Combinatie Voor Chemische Industrie ("Nederlandsche Combinatie "), 428 F. Supp. 114 , 116-17 (S.D.N.Y. 1977) (denying Government's motion to dismiss where Government had agreed to dismiss charges against certain defendants in exchange for guilty pleas by others); cf. In re United States, 345 F.3d 450, 453 (7th Cir. 2003) (describing a prosecutor's acceptance of a bribe as a clear example of a dismissal that should not be granted as contrary to the public interest).
Second, Mr. Bove states that dismissal is warranted because of the conduct of this office's former U.S. Attorney, Damian Williams, which, according to Mr. Bove's memo, constituted weaponization of government as defined by the relevant orders of the President and the Department. The generalized concerns expressed by Mr. Bove are not a basis to dismiss an indictment returned by a duly constituted grand jury, at least where, as here, the Government has no doubt in its evidence or the integrity of its investigation.
As Mr. Bove's memo acknowledges, and as he stated in our meeting of January 31, 2025, the Department has no concerns about the conduct or integrity of the line prosecutors who investigated and charged this case, and it does not question the merits of the case itself. Still, it bears emphasis that I have only known the line prosecutors on this case to act with integrity and in the pursuit of justice, and nothing I have learned since becoming U.S. Attorney has demonstrated otherwise. If anything, I have learned that Mr. Williams's role in the investigation and oversight of this case was even more minimal than I had assumed. The investigation began before Mr. Williams took office, he did not manage the day-to-day investigation, and the charges in this case were recommended or approved by four experienced career prosecutors, the Chiefs of the SDNY Public Corruption Unit, and career prosecutors at the Public Integrity Section of the Justice Department. Mr. Williams's decision to ratify their recommendations does not taint the charging decision. And notably, Adams has not brought a vindictive or selective prosecution motion, nor would one be successful. See United States v. Stewart, 590 F.3d 93, 121-23 (2d Cir. 2009); cf. United States v. Biden, 728 F. Supp. 3d 1054, 1092 (C.D. Cal. 2024) (rejecting argument that political public statements disturb the “presumption of regularity" that attaches to prosecutorial decisions").
Regarding the timing of the indictment, the decision to charge in September 2024—nine months before the June 2025 Democratic Mayoral Primary and more than a year before the November 2025 Mayoral Election -- complied in every respect with longstanding Department policy regarding election year sensitivities and the applicable Justice Manual provisions. The Justice Manual requires that when investigative steps and charges involving a public official could be seen as affecting an election the prosecuting office must consult with the Public Integrity Section, and, if directed to do so, the Office of the Deputy Attorney General or Attorney General. See JM §§ 9-85.210, 9-85.500. As you are aware, this office followed this requirement. Further, the Justice Department's concurrence was unquestionably consistent with the established policies of the Public Integrity Section. See, e.g., Public Integrity Section, Federal Prosecution of Election Offenses 85 (2017) (pre-election action may be appropriate where “it is possible to both complete an investigation and file criminal charges against an offender prior to the period immediately before an election"). The Department of Justice correctly concluded that bringing charges nine months before a primary election was entirely appropriate.
The timing of the charges in this case is also consistent with charging timelines of other cases involving elected officials, both in this District and elsewhere. See, e.g., United States v. Robert Menendez, 23 Cr. 490 (SHS) ( S.D.N.Y.) (indictment in September 2023); United States v. Duncan Hunter, 18 Cr. 3677 (S.D. Cal.) (indictment in August 2018). I am not aware of any instance in which the Department has concluded that an indictment brought this far in advance of an election is improper because it may be pending during an electoral cycle, let alone that a validly returned and factually supported indictment should be dismissed on this basis.
When first setting the trial date, the District Court and the parties agreed on the importance of completing the trial before the upcoming mayoral election—including before the Democratic primary in which Adams is a candidate -- so that the voters would know how the case resolved before casting their votes. (See Dkt. 31 at 38-44). Adams has decided that he would prefer the trial to take place before rather than after the June 2025 primary, notwithstanding the burden trial preparation would place on his ability to govern the City or campaign for re-election. But that is his choice, and the District Court has made clear that Adams is free to seek a continuance. (See Dkt. 113 at 18 n.6). The parties therefore cannot argue with candor that dismissing serious charges before an election, but holding open the possibility that those charges could be reinstated if Adams were re-elected, would now be other than “clearly contrary to the manifest public interest." United States v. Blaszczak, 56 F.4th 230, 238-39 (2d Cir. 2022) (internal quotation marks omitted).
Mr. Bove's memo also refers to recent public actions by Mr. Williams. It is not my role to defend Mr. Williams's motives or conduct. Given the appropriate chronology of this investigation and the strength of the case, Mr. Williams's conduct since leaving government service cannot justify dismissal here. With respect to pretrial publicity, the District Court has already determined that Mr. Williams's statements have not prejudiced the jury pool. The District Court has also repeatedly explained that there is no evidence that any leaks to the media came from the prosecution team—although there is evidence media leaks came from the defense team—and no basis for any relief. (See Dkt. 103 at 3-6; Dkt. 49 at 4-21). Mr. Williams's recent op-ed, the Court concluded, generally talks about bribery in New York State, and so is not a comment on the case. (Dkt. 103 at 6 n.5). Mr. Williams's website does not even reference Adams except in the news articles linked there. (See Dkt. 99 at 3). And it is well settled that the U.S. Attorneys in this and other districts regularly conduct post-arrest press conferences. See United States v. Avenatti, 433 F. Supp. 3d 552, 567-69 (S.D.N.Y. 2020) (describing the practice); see also, e.g. , "New Jersey U.S. Attorney's Office press conference on violent crime," YouTube, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oAEDHQCE91A (announcing criminal charges against 42 defendants). In short, because there is in fact nothing about this prosecution that meaningfully differs from other cases that generate substantial pretrial publicity, a court is likely to view the weaponization rationale as pretextual.
Moreover, dismissing the case will amplify, rather than abate, concerns about weaponization of the Department. Despite Mr. Bove's observation that the directive to dismiss the case has been reached without assessing the strength of the evidence against Adams, Adams has already seized on the memo to publicly assert that he is innocent and that the accusations against him were unsupported by the evidence and based only on “fanfare and sensational claims.” Confidence in the Department would best be restored by means well short of a dismissal. As you know, our office is prepared to seek a superseding indictment from a new grand jury under my leadership. We have proposed a superseding indictment that would add an obstruction conspiracy count based on evidence that Adams destroyed and instructed others to destroy evidence and provide false information to the FBI, and that would add further factual allegations regarding his participation in a fraudulent straw donor scheme.
That is more than enough to address any perception of impropriety created by Mr. Williams's personal conduct. The Bove memo acknowledges as much, leaving open the possibility of refiling charges after the November 2025 New York City Mayoral Election. Nor is conditioning the dismissal on the incoming U.S. Attorney's ability to re-assess the charges consistent with either the weaponization rationale or the law concerning motions under Rule 48(a). To the contrary, keeping Adams under the threat of prosecution while the Government determines its next steps is a recognized reason for the denial of a Rule 48(a) motion. See United States v. Poindexter, 719 F. Supp . 6, 11-12 (D.D.C. 1989) (allowing Government to “to keep open the option of trying [certain] counts" would effectively keep the defendant “under public obloquy for an indefinite period of time until the government decided that, somehow, for some reason, the time had become more propitious for proceeding with a trial”).
B. Adams's Consent Will Not Aid the Department's Arguments
Mr. Bove specifies that Adams must consent in writing to dismissal without prejudice. To be sure, in the typical case, the defendant's consent makes it significantly more likely for courts to grant motions to dismiss under Rule 48(a). See United States v. Welborn, 849 F.2d980, 983 (5th Cir. 1988) ("If the motion is uncontested, the court should ordinarily presume that the prosecutor is acting in good faith and dismiss the indictment without prejudice."). But Adams's consent -- which was negotiated without my office's awareness or participation— would not guarantee a successful motion, given the basic flaws in the stated rationales for dismissal. See Nederlandsche Combinatie, 428 F. Supp. at 116-17 (declining to “rubber stamp" dismissal because although defendant did not appear to object, “the court is vested with the responsibility of protecting the interests of the public on whose behalf the criminal action is brought”). Seeking leave of court to dismiss a properly returned indictment based on Mr. Bove's stated rationales is also likely to backfire by inviting skepticism and scrutiny from the court that will ultimately hinder the Department of Justice's interests. In particular, the court is unlikely to acquiesce in using the criminal process to control the behavior of a political figure.
A brief review of the relevant law demonstrates this point. Although the judiciary "[r]arely will . . . overrule the Executive Branch's exercise of these prosecutorial decisions,” Blaszczak, 56 F.4that 238, courts, including the Second Circuit, will nonetheless inquire as to whether dismissal would be clearly contrary to the public interest. See, e.g. , id. at 238-42 (extended discussion of contrary to public interest standard and cases applying it); see also JM § 9-2.050 (requiring "a written motion for leave to dismiss . . . explaining fully the reason for the request" to dismiss for cases of public interest as well as for cases involving bribery). At least one court in our district has rejected a dismissal under Rule 48(a) as contrary to the public interest, regardless of the defendant's consent. See Nederlandsche Combinatie, 428 F. Supp. at 116-17 ("After reviewing the entire record, the court has determined that a dismissal of the indictment against Mr. Massaut is not in the public interest. Therefore, the government's motion to dismiss as to Mr. Massaut must be and is denied."). The assigned District Judge, the Honorable Dale E. Ho, appears likely to conduct a searching inquiry in this case. Notably, Judge Ho stressed transparency during this case, specifically explaining his strict requirements for non-public filings at the initial conference. (See Dkt. 31 at 48-49). And a rigorous inquiry here would be consistent with precedent and practice in this and other districts.
Nor is there any realistic possibility that Adams's consent will prevent a lengthy judicial inquiry that is detrimental to the Department's reputation, regardless of outcome. In that regard, although the Flynn case may come to mind as a comparator, it is distinct in one important way. In that case, the Government moved to dismiss an indictment with the defendant's consent and faced resistance from a skeptical district judge. But in Flynn, the Government sought dismissal with prejudice because it had become convinced that there was insufficient evidence that General Flynn had committed any crime. That ultimately made the Government's rationale defensible, because “[i]nsufficient evidence is a quintessential justification for dismissing charges." In re Flynn, 961 F.3d 1215, 1221 (D.C. Cir.), reh'g en banc granted, order vacated, No. 20-5143, 2020 WL 4355389 (D.C. Cir. July 30, 2020), and on reh'g en banc, 973 F.3d 74 (D.C. Cir. 2020). Here no one in the Department has expressed any doubts as to Adams's guilt, and even in Flynn, the President ultimately chose to cut off the extended and embarrassing litigation over dismissal by granting a pardon.
C. I Cannot in Good Faith Request the Contemplated Dismissal
Because the law does not support a dismissal, and because I am confident that Adams has committed the crimes with which he is charged, I cannot agree to seek a dismissal driven by improper considerations. As Justice Robert Jackson explained, “the prosecutor at his best is one of the most beneficent forces in our society, when he acts from malice or other base motives, he is one of the worst." The Federal Prosecutor, 24 J. Am. Jud. Soc'y 18 ("This authority has been granted by people who really wanted the right thing done -- wanted crime eliminated—but also wanted the best in our American traditions preserved."). I understand my duty as a prosecutor to mean enforcing the law impartially, and that includes prosecuting a validly returned indictment regardless whether its dismissal would be politically advantageous, to the defendant or to those who appointed me. A federal prosecutor “is the representative not of an ordinary party to a controversy, but of a sovereignty whose obligation to govern impartially is as compelling as its obligation to govern at all." Berger v. United States, 295 U.S. 78, 88 (1935).
For the reasons explained above, I do not believe there are reasonable arguments in support of a Rule 48(a) motion to dismiss a case that is well supported by the evidence and the law. I understand that Mr. Bove disagrees, and I am mindful of your recent order reiterating prosecutors' duty to make good-faith arguments in support of the Executive Branch's positions. See Feb. 5, 2025 Mem. “General Policy Regarding Zealous Advocacy on Behalf of the United States." But because I do not see any good-faith basis for the proposed position, I cannot make such arguments consistent with my duty of candor. N.Y.R.P.C.3.3; id. cmt. 2 ("A lawyer acting as an advocate in an adjudicative proceeding has an obligation to present the client's case with persuasive force. Performance of that duty while maintaining confidences of the client, however, is qualified by the advocate's duty of candor to the tribunal.” ).
In particular, the rationale given by Mr. Bove—an exchange between a criminal defendant and the Department of Justice akin to the Bout exchange with Russia— is, as explained above, a bargain that a prosecutor should not make.Moreover, dismissing without prejudice and with the express option of again indicting Adams in the future creates obvious ethical problems, by implicitly threatening future prosecution if Adams's cooperation with enforcing the immigration laws proves unsatisfactory to the Department. See In re Christoff, 690 N.E.2d 1135 (Ind. 1997) (disciplining prosecutor for threatening to renew a dormant criminal investigation against a potential candidate for public office in order to dissuade the candidate from running); Bruce A. Green & Rebecca Roiphe, Who Should Police Politicization of the DOJ?, 35 Notre Dame J.L. Ethics & Pub. Pol'y 671, 681 (2021) (noting that the Arizona Supreme Court disbarred the elected chief prosecutor of Maricopa County, Arizona, and his deputy, in part, for misusing their power to advance the chief prosecutor's partisan political interests). Finally, given the highly generalized accusations of weaponization, weighed against the strength of the evidence against Adams, a court will likely question whether that basis is pretextual. See, e.g., United States v. Greater Blouse, Skirt & Neckwear Contractors, 228 F. Supp. 483, 487 (S.D.N.Y. 1964) (courts “should be satisfied that the reasons advanced for the proposed dismissal are substantial and the real grounds upon which the application is based").
I remain baffled by the rushed and superficial process by which this decision was reached, in seeming collaboration with Adams's counsel and without my direct input on the ultimate stated rationales for dismissal. Mr. Bove admonished me to be mindful of my obligation to zealously defend the interests of the United States and to advance good-faith arguments on behalf of the Administration. I hope you share my view that soliciting and considering the concerns of the U.S. Attorney overseeing the case serves rather than hinders that goal, and that we can find time to meet.
In the event you are unwilling to meet or to reconsider the directive in light of he problems raised by Mr. Bove's memo, I am prepared to offer my resignation. It has been, and continues to be, my honor to serve as a prosecutor in the Southern District of New York.
Very truly yours,
DANIELLE R. SASSOON United States Attorney Southern District of New York
_______________
Notes:
1 I attended a meeting on January 31, 2025, with Mr. Bove, Adams's counsel, and members of my office. Adams's attorneys repeatedly urged what amounted to a quid pro quo, indicating that Adams would be in a position to assist with the Department's enforcement priorities only if the indictment were dismissed. Mr. Bove admonished a member of my team who took notes during that meeting and directed the collection of those notes at the meeting's conclusion.
Trump AG Announces FAKE CHARGES Against Trump Opponents?! by Court Authorities Feb 13, 2025
AG Pam Bondi announces charges against New York officials—but is it all just political theater? Attorney Rich Schoenstein breaks down the reality behind the DOJ’s complaint against Governor Kathy Hochul, Attorney General Letitia James, and others over New York’s Green Light Law. Is this a serious legal battle or just grandstanding?
Transcript
[Pam Bondi] I was in The West Wing swearing in Tulsi gabard and so I just came straight back here so thanks for um being patient with us with the delay um we're here today because we have filed charges against the state of New York we have filed charges against Cathy hokel we have filed charges against Leticia James and Mark Schroeder who is with DMV um this is a new doj and we are taking steps to protect Americans American citizens and Angel moms like the mom standing right behind me who you're going to hear from in a moment/
[Rich Schoenstein] That's newly appointed United States Attorney General Pam Bondi saying that she's bringing charges against Governor Kathy Hochul and Letitia James and the State of New York and others. Is she really bringing charges against them? Not quite. Let's break it all down.
May it please the viewers, I'm Rich Schoenstein. Welcome back to court authorities, good to be back. I've been in an arbitration all week, but I'm catching up with some legal developments, and this one and I'm getting a hold of what my role is here on this Venture um as a civil litigator I like to dive into these cases and see what they're really about and then I can share with you what the actual case is about because I feel sometimes the news coverage doesn't do justice so to speak to what's actually happening and this is a case like that I saw a bunch of headlines about Governor hokel being brought up on charges I saw people posting stuff you know an image of her in an orange jumpsuit that's not at all what's happening it's not the way Pam bondy described it it's not the way it's been reported there is a new civil lawsuit that has been reportedly filed I'll get to that in a minute uh I have the complaint here it's caption for the United States District Court Northern District of New York that's up in Albany it's entitled United States of America the state of New York Kathleen hokel Leticia James and Mark JF Schroeder he's the commissioner of the New York Department of Motor Vehicles so I couldn't find this on the court website yet so I'm not sure it's actually been electronically filed and commenced but we did get a copy of it on the internet and we know what the claims are these are civil claims against the state of New York and those individuals I just mentioned acting in their official capacity so they're only in this lawsuit by name only for the purpose of the claims being brought and essentially the claim is that New York has a law called the green light law that was enacted in 2019 and the claim is that that law the way it's being implemented in New York is violating the federal government rights to control its immigration laws and I go right to the introduction which says um the United States is currently facing a crisis of illegal immigration and the federal government is set to put a stop to it while states are welcome Partners in that effort it is their prerogative as separate sovereigns to refrain but a state's freedom to stand aside is not a freedom to stand in the way and where inaction crosses into obstruction a state breaks the law the state of New York is doing just that it must be stopped so this complaint alleges that the green light law requires New York's DMV commissioner to tip off illegal aliens if a federal immigration agency requests information and that the uh state law is playing out to obstruct giving information on immigrants to Federal authorities including ice um it says Federal immigration law express preempts state and local laws that restrict sharing information with the federal government regarding immigration status it says that under conflict presumption principles the state cannot fashion an obstacle to accomplishment and execution of the full purposes and objectives of the federal immigration law so that's sort of the complaint in a nutshell again it's filed in federal court in the uh Northern District of New York that's a little bit of form shopping on the part of the federal government the Northern District of New York is going to be much friendlier to the administration than for example the southern district of New York where I sit or the eastern district of New York presumably it could have been brought in any of those districts but the United States is going to go to the most favorable jurisdiction possible uh it's a short complaint you know the complaint is only 16 pages long it gives an allegations about what the green law is it says the green light law prohibits the commissioner of New York DMV as well as his agents and employees for sharing DMV records or information with any agency that primarily enforces immigration law uh it says it includes a tip off provision it says it imposes strict limitations on those who have access or receive records from New York so that's what it says the green light law does it brings three claims for Relief and all of them are constitutional law arguments that the green light law violates the supremacy clause of the US Constitution uh the supremacy clause is article 6 Clause 2 if you like looking up that kind of thing there's lots of case law and I'm not an expert on this area of constitutional law there's lots of case law about what states can do as uh sovereigns and what they can't do in light of federal government statutes I'm not going to get into all of that but there are three claims the first one is preemption the United States alleges that the green light law is preempted by federal laws requirement that states not prohibit in any way or in any way restrict any government entity or official from sending to or receiving from federal immigration officials information regarding citizenship or immigration status the second claim is that it constitutes unlawful regulation of the federal government the third claim is that it discriminates against the federal government by targeting federal government enforcement specifically in the way it holds out the law and by the way the complaint says that it you know that it's unsafe that it threatens the safety of federal immigration officials that it impedes the federal government's ability to arrest and remove illegal aliens thereby threatening the safety of Americans that allegation assumes of course that immigrants are particularly dangerous that notion has been disproved ad nauseum that's not consistent with the statistics it's no more dangerous than anybody else who's in the US but so be it the relief sought uh is a judgment that the Greenlight law violates the supremacy law a declaration an injunction B Bing enforcement of the green light law and fees and costs that's it they want a declaration that it's unconstitutional they want an injunction against it now this is a civil lawsuit the clip we played of Pam Bondi is her staying up bragging that they've filed charges we've filed charges against Governor Kathy hok we've filed charges against Leticia James no she didn't there's no charges charges are criminal actions a civil lawsuit is just a claim for Relief frankly there's no point in having Kathy hokel or Leticia James or Mark Schroeder named in this complaint you could have made the complaint without them that is just a cheap political stunt and it's not charges and I think Pam Bondi is very intelligent so she's not making a mistake she is at the beginning of her tenure as us Attorney General purposefully misleading the American public about what her office is doing and she's playing politics I have no problem with the claim if there is a claim that the New York law is unconstitutional then the federal government has every right to make that claim to go to court to Advocate to argue that's what the courts are there for but the grand standing is kind of nonsense the grand standing that she's brought charges and we did it in Illinois and now we going to do it in New York and if you're in another state you're next everybody should relax everybody should relax it's a conlaw argument it's going to get settled in court Governor Kathy hok put out a statement said essentially the same thing her statement says earlier today attorney general Pam Bondi marched in front of the television cameras for a dramatic media briefing to announce she was filing charges against New York State related to our immigration laws hours later when legal papers were shared with reporters we learned this with smoke and mirrors the Department of Justice was filing a routine civil action about a law passed in 2019 that has been upheld by the courts time and again I don't know about whether or not it's been upheld by the courts time and again I actually haven't researched that but I agree with the smoke and mirrors com comment that is true um here are the facts our current laws allow Federal immigration officials to access any DMV database with a Judicial warrant that's a common sense approach that most New Yorkers support but there's no way I'm letting federal agents or Elon musk's shadowy Dodge operation get unfettered access to the personal data of any New Yorker in the DMV system like 16-year-old kids learning to drive and other vulnerable people we expect Pam bondi's worthless publicity driven lawsuit to be a total failure just like all the others let let me be clear New York is not backing down so tough guy talk begets tough guy talk and you get Grand standing on the other side uh substantively Kathy hoko may be correct and I certainly understand the concept she's saying you can get this information with a search warrant if there's a valid reason to get the information but there shouldn't be unfettered access to the federal government for State DMV records that shouldn't be permitted and that's what governor hok was saying and we'll see how it plays out in court uh it will play out it's a civil claim uh we'll see what the court has to say about it we'll keep an eye on it we'll keep an eye on what else is going to go on in this new Administration and the things they are doing I'll be back here to talk about it thanks so much for watching again this is Court authorities don't forget to subscribe to the channel if you haven't don't forget to like this video you can follow me on the social media at lawful riches we'll see you next time for now we are adjourned thank you for watching Court authorities part of the mest touch Network we're at the intersection of law politics and True Crime I'm Dave aronburg aka the Florida law man if you want more of this content hit that subscribe button and we'll see you next time
State Department removes mention of 'armored Teslas' from its 2025 procurement list, replaces it with 'armored electric vehicles' by Kwan Wei Kevin Tan Business Insider Feb 13, 2025, 8:44 AM MT https://www.businessinsider.com/state-d ... las-2025-2
• The State Department said it was planning to buy $400 million worth of armored Teslas this year. • It now says it will be buying "Armored Electric Vehicles" instead of specifically Teslas. • Musk's companies have received billions of dollars from government contracts and subsidies.
Sjoerd van der Wal via Getty Images
The State Department has scrubbed mention of armored Teslas from its 2025 procurement forecast.
The procurement document previously contained a line item that read: "Armored Tesla (Production Units)" — a reference to products from Elon Musk's electric vehicle company, Tesla. It was listed as a five-year contract and valued at $400 million, making it the biggest item on the list.
The document was titled "Department of State Procurement Forecast Year 2025 (Revised 12/23/2024)." The Tesla line item had last been revised on December 13.
As of Wednesday night at 9:12 p.m. EST, the line item has been revised. It now reads "Armored Electric Vehicles." It's still listed as a five-year contract worth $400 million.
The document is now called "Department of State Procurement Forecast Year 2025."
The latest version of the document doesn't mention Tesla.
"I'm pretty sure Tesla isn't getting $400M. No one mentioned it to me, at least," Musk wrote on X on Thursday about the department's revised forecast.
News of the $400 million State Department contract with Tesla was reported by Drop Site News on Wednesday.
It's unclear when the procurement list was first released. The State Department updates its forecast in the first quarter of every fiscal year.
When contacted for comment, a State Department spokesperson told Business Insider that no government contract for armored electric vehicles has been awarded to Tesla or any other vehicle manufacturer.
The Biden administration had instructed the State Department to assess if private companies would be interested in producing armored vehicles, the spokesperson added. Only one company responded to the department's request for information, the spokesperson said.
There are no current plans to hold an official bid, the spokesperson said.
The White House did not immediately respond to requests for comment about the change.
Procurement list details
The earlier version of the forecast was made under the Biden administration, weeks before President Donald Trump took office on January 20.
It didn't specify which Tesla vehicle model it was commissioning.
Tesla produces several EVs, including its Model 3 and Model S sedans and Model Y and Model X SUVs. The company also produces the Cybertruck, a stainless steel pickup truck that Musk has said is bulletproof.
Both the original and newly revised documents list an anticipated award date of September 30 for the contract. Both versions of the forecast also include orders from other automakers, including a $40 million contract for armored BMW SUVs, the X5 and X7.
Tesla didn't respond to a request for comment.
Musk's companies have received billions from government contracts
Musk's companies have done several deals with the government. His companies have received billions of dollars from government contracts and subsidies.
Gwynne Shotwell, the president and chief operating officer of Musk's rocket company, SpaceX, said in November that the company had $22 billion in government contracts.
Musk is now the public face of Trump's cost-cutting efforts within the government, serving as the leader of the Department of Government Efficiency.
The White House has said Musk is a "special government employee" and isn't compensated for his services. The classification allows Musk to maintain his sprawling business interests, which include companies such as Tesla and SpaceX.
On Tuesday, Musk joined Trump at a press conference in the Oval Office, where he was asked about the conflicts of interest he could face from running DOGE and his companies simultaneously.
"No, because you have to look at the individual contract. First of all, I'm not the one filing the contract. It's people at SpaceX or something will be putting for the contract," Musk said.
"And I'd like to say if you see any contract where it was awarded to SpaceX and it wasn't by far the best value for money for the taxpayer, let me know, because every one of them was," he added.
Trump said at a press conference on February 3 that Musk wouldn't be allowed to deal with government matters where there could be a conflict of interest.
"If there's a conflict, then we won't let him get near it," Trump said.
February 13, 2025: This story has been updated to reflect a change the State Department made in its 2025 procurement forecast after the story was published. The procurement forecast now lists $400 million of "Armored Electric Vehicles," not $400 million of "Armored Tesla (Production Units)."
AUSA, who worked on Adams case, resigns in sharply-worded letter to DOJ: The AUSA's resignation follows his boss, the acting U.S. attorney for the Southern District of New York, and other DOJ officials who stepped down this week by Jonathan Dienst, Tom Winter and Ryan Reilly NBC news Published 4 hours ago • Updated 2 hours ago 2/14/24 https://www.nbcnewyork.com/news/local/c ... j/6150699/
BY EMAIL
Re: United States v. Eric Adams, 24 Cr. 556 (DEH)
Mr. Bove,
I have received correspondence indicating that I refused your order to move to dismiss the indictment against Eric Adams without prejudice, subject to certain conditions, including the express possibility of reinstatement of the indictment. That is not exactly correct. The U.S. Attorney, Danielle R. Sassoon, never asked me to file such a motion, and I therefore never had an opportunity to refuse. But I am entirely in agreement with her decision not to do so, for the reasons stated in her February 12, 2025 letter to the Attorney General.
In short, the first justification for the motion -- that Damian Williams's role in the case somehow tainted a valid indictment supported by ample evidence, and pursued under four different U.S. attorneys -- is so weak as to be transparently pretextual. The second justification is worse. No system of ordered liberty can allow the Government to use the carrot of dismissing charges, or the stick of threatening to bring them again, to induce an elected official to support its policy objectives.
There is a tradition in public service of resigning in a last-ditch effort to head off a serious mistake. Some will view the mistake you are committing here in the light of their generally negative views of the new Administration. I do not share those views. I can even understand how a Chief Executive whose background is in business and politics might see the contemplated dismissal-with-leverage as a good, if distasteful, deal. But any assistant U.S. attorney would know that our laws and traditions do not allow using the prosecutorial power to influence other citizens, much less elected officials, in this way.If no lawyer within earshot of the President is willing to give him that advice, then I expect you will eventually find someone who is enough of a fool, or enough of a coward, to file your motion. But it was never going to be me.
Please consider this my resignation. It has been an honor to serve as a prosecutor in the Southern District of New York.
Yours truly, Hagan Scotten Assistant United States Attorney Southern District of New York
One of two assistant U.S. attorneys who was working on the Eric Adams corruption case has resigned from his position in a tersely-worded letter to the Department of Justice, according to an email, which was shared with NBC New York.
Hagan Scotten, an assistant U.S. attorney with the Southern District of New York, resigned Friday morning in a note to Deputy Acting Attorney General Emil Bove. Scotten's decision to resign comes a day after Acting U.S. Attorney Danielle Sassoon, Scotten's boss, also left her post following orders by Bove to dismiss the case against the New York mayor.
In Scotten's email, he said he was never asked by Sassoon to dismiss the Adams case "and I therefore never had an opportunity to refuse. But I am entirely in agreement her decision not to do so..."
Bove, in a letter to Sassoon on Thursday, said he was placing Scotten and another AUSA on leave.
"You indicated that the prosecution team is aware of your communications with the Justice Department, is supportive of your approach, and is unwilling to comply with the order to dismiss the case. Accordingly, the AUSAs principally responsible for this case are being placed on off-duty, administrative leave pending investigations by the Office of the Attorney General and the Office of Professional Responsibility, both of which will also evaluate your conduct," Bove had said.
The DOJ order to dismiss the corruption case against the mayor had come from Bove, the current number-two official at the Justice Department under newly confirmed Attorney General Pam Bondi. Bove's memo said federal prosecutors needed to drop the case, in part, because it impacted Adams' ability to tackle “illegal immigration and violent crime."
The case, according to the docket, had not been dropped as of Thursday.
In a separate letter Sassoon sent to Bondi, Sassoon said Adams' attorneys in a meeting with the DOJ in January essentially proposed a "quid pro quo."
“I attended a meeting on January 31, 2025, with Mr. Bove, Adams’ counsel, and members of my office. Adams’s attorneys repeatedly urged what amounted to a quid pro quo, indicating that Adams would be in a position to assist with Department’s enforcement priorities only if the indictment were dismissed. Mr. Bove admonished a member of my team who took notes during that meeting and directed the collection of those notes at the meeting’s conclusion,” Sassoon.
Adams' attorney, Alex Spiro, denied Sassoon's recounting of the meeting and her allegation of a "quid pro quo" proposal.
"The idea that there was a quid pro quo is a total lie. We offered nothing and the department asked nothing of us," Spiro said in a statement to NBC New York. "I don't know what 'amounted to' means. We were asked if the case had any bearing on national security and immigration enforcement and we truthfully answered it did."
In Scotten's resignation letter, he said he understands how the administration could see the "contemplated dismissal-with-leverage as a good, if distasteful, deal."
"Any assistant U.S. attorney would know that our laws and traditions do not allow using the prosecutorial power to influence other citizens, much less elected officials, in this way. If no lawyer within earshot of the President is willing to give him that advice, then I expect you will eventually find someone who is enough of a fool, or enough of a coward, to file your motion. But is was never going to me," Scotten wrote.
When the Southern District of New York refused to drop the case, it was reassigned to the DOJ Public Integrity Section (PIN), two sources told NBC News. John Keller, the acting head of PIN, refused to drop the case and resigned, along with two other members of the section, according to sources. Kevin Driscoll, the acting head of the Criminal Division, which oversees federal criminal cases nationwide, also refused to drop the charges before resigning, sources said.
In all, five other high-ranking Justice Department officials resigned Thursday in addition to Sassoon, a stunning escalation in a days-long standoff over accusations the Trump administration is prioritizing political aims over criminal culpability.
Adams has pleaded not guilty to the charges and has denied any wrongdoing, saying the case was politically motivated.
Bove said the Justice Department will now take over the Adams case from the SDNY.
"I take no pleasure in imposing these measures, initiating investigations, and requiring personnel from the Justice Department to come to your District to do work that your team should have done and was required to do," Bove said.
Asked by reporters Thursday whether he asked that the charges be dismissed, President Donald Trump said, "No, I didn't. I know nothing about it."
***********************
Trump Attorney General Bondi expects Eric Adams case to be dismissed Friday after mass resignations by Dan Mangan @_DanMangan CNBC.com Published Fri, Feb 14 2025 11:30 AM EST Updated 18 Min Ago https://www.cnbc.com/2025/02/14/trump-e ... esign.html
Key Points
• Attorney General Pam Bondi said she expects the federal criminal corruption case against New York City Mayor Eric Adams to be dismissed. • A seventh federal prosecutor resigned over the Department of Justice’s controversial order to dismiss charges against Adams. • President Donald Trump has said he did not tell the DOJ to toss the case. • Adams agreed to let federal immigration authorities into New York’s Rikers Island jail complex after Bove told the Manhattan U.S. Attorney’s office to dismiss charges against him.
Attorney General Pam Bondi said she expects the criminal corruption case against New York City Mayor Eric Adams to be dismissed Friday, after seven federal prosecutors quit in protest over the Department of Justice’s demand to toss the case.
“It’s my understanding, it is being dismissed today,” Bondi said on Fox News.
Bondi spoke after acting deputy attorney general Emil Bove promised promotions to leadership positions for remaining prosecutors in the DOJ’s Public Integrity Section who would agree to sign a motion to dismiss Adams’ case.
Bove gave the prosecutors a deadline of one hour to provide him with the names of two attorneys who would sign the motion, according to NBC News.
Reuters reported later Friday that Ed Sullivan, a member of the section, volunteered to file the motion to alleviate pressure on his colleagues. The news agency did not say if Sullivan agreed to accept a promotion in exchange for his action.
“This is not a capitulation -- this is a coercion,” a person briefed on the meeting told Reuters. “That person, in my mind, is a hero.”
Bove’s video call with the section’s team came as a seventh prosecutor resigned over his controversial order to dismiss the case in U.S. District Court in Manhattan.
Four prosecutors who resigned Thursday included the acting Public Integrity Section chief John Keller and three other members of his team.
The latest prosecutor to quit, Hagan Scotten, in a blistering letter to Bove, said, “I expect you will eventually find someone who is enough of a fool, or enough of a coward, to file your motion” to dismiss the Adams case.
“But it was never going to be me,” wrote Scotten, who had been the lead prosecutor in Adams’ case as an assistant U.S. Attorney for the Southern District of New York.
On Thursday, Scotten’s boss, acting U.S. Attorney Danielle Sassoon, resigned in protest over Bove’s order to toss the case.
Within hours of Sassoon quitting, Keller, the three other Public Integrity Section prosecutors, and the DOJ’s acting criminal division chief Kevin Driscoll, all resigned rather than execute Bove’s order.
Bove, while in private legal practice, previously represented President Donald Trump in his criminal hush money trial in New York last year. Trump was convicted of nearly three dozen felony counts of falsifying business records in that case, but received a sentence of no jail time or probation.
Scotten in his letter scoffed at Bove’s stated rationales for dismissing the Adams case.
Yashar Ali @yashar
Not only was Hagan Scotten a clerk for Judge Brett Kavanaugh, he also openly advocated for him to be confirmed.
Scotten gave interviews and quotes in support of Kavanaugh’s confirmation.
11:55 AM · Feb 14, 2025
Bove claimed the case interfered with Adams’ ability to “fully cooperate with the federal government” on the enforcement of Trump’s immigration policies in New York, and Bove also cited comments about Adams made by former U.S. Attorney Damian Williams.
“In short, the first justification for the motion — that Damian Williams’s role in the case somehow tainted a valid indictment supported by ample evidence, and pursued under four different U.S. attorneys — is so weak as to be transparently pretextual,” Scotten wrote.
“The second justification is worse,” Scotten wrote. “No system of ordered liberty can allow the Government to use the carrot of dismissing charges, or the stick of threatening to bring them again, to induce an elected official to support its policy objectives.”
“There is a tradition in public service of resigning in a last-ditch effort to head off a serious mistake,” Scotten wrote.
“Some will view the mistake you are committing here in light of their generally negative views of the new Administration,” he wrote. “I do not share those views.”
The prosecutor, referring to Trump, wrote, “I can even understand how a Chief Executive whose background is in business and politics might see the contemplated dismissal-with-leverage as a good, if distasteful deal.”
“But any assistant U.S. attorney would know that our laws and traditions do not allow using prosecutorial power to influence other citizens, much less elected officials, in this way,” Scotten wrote.
Scotten is a Harvard Law School graduate who clerked for Supreme Court Chief Justice John Roberts after serving in the U.S. Army in Iraq in the Special Forces. He also served as a clerk to Supreme Court Justice Brett Kavanaugh when Roberts’ fellow conservative was sitting on a lower court.
Bove on Thursday had placed Scotten on administrative leave along with another prosecutor on the Adams case, Derek Wikstrom.
Bove in a letter to Sassoon said he was taking that step after she indicated that Scotten and Wikstrom agreed with her decision to refuse to drop the case, and were “unwilling to comply with the order to dismiss this case.”
Bove said the prosecutors would be investigated by Attorney General Pam Bondi and the DOJ’s Office of Professional Responsibility for their conduct, along with Sassoon. Bondi then would determine if Scotten and the prosecutors should be fired, Bove wrote.
An internal email sent to BFS IT personnel by the BFS threat intelligence team has identified DOGE access as “the single greatest insider threat risk the Bureau of the Fiscal Service has ever faced.” The intelligence team recommended the DOGE members be monitored as an insider threat. Critically, they called for “suspending” any access to payment systems and “conducting a comprehensive review of all actions they may have taken on these systems.”
Protesters gather at the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau headquarters to protest against Elon Musk and President Donald Trump’s efforts to close the bureau. (Andrew Leyden/NurPhoto via AP)
Over a dozen states filed a lawsuit Thursday to nullify the unconstitutional actions of Elon Musk’s Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE) and prevent them from performing any future actions like freezing federal funding, accessing agency data and taking over agencies.
“Although our constitutional system was designed to prevent the abuses of an 18th century monarch, the instruments of unchecked power are no less dangerous in the hands of a 21st century tech baron,” the plaintiffs said in the lawsuit.
The plaintiffs argued that Musk, DOGE and President Donald Trump violated the Appointments Clause and the separation of powers principles of the U.S. Constitution.
Musk has wielded the power of an official who would need to be formally appointed by the president and confirmed by the Senate, but he hasn’t gone through that constitutionally required process, the states argued.
They detailed how he and his department employees “roamed through the federal government,” accessing sensitive information, controlling agency activities and eliminating programs in a variety of entities, including the Education, Labor, and Treasury departments, the U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID) and the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau.
“Musk’s seemingly limitless and unchecked power to strip the government of its workforce and eliminate entire departments with the stroke of a pen, or click of a mouse, is unprecedented,” the plaintiffs said. “The sweeping authority now vested in a single unelected and unconfirmed individual is antithetical to the nation’s entire constitutional structure.”
New Mexico Attorney General Raúl Torrez (D) spearheaded the lawsuit, filing it with his counterparts in Arizona, California, Connecticut, Hawaii, Maryland, Massachusetts, Minnesota, Michigan, Nevada, Oregon, Rhode Island, Vermont and Washington.
“Empowering an unelected billionaire to access Americans’ private data, slash funding for federal student aid, stop payments to American farmers and dismantle protections for working families is not a sign of President Trump’s strength, but his weakness,” Torrez said in a statement.
The plaintiffs specifically implicated Trump in the lawsuit for creating DOGE through an executive order, delegating “virtually unchecked authority” to Musk “without proper legal authorization from Congress.”
The plaintiffs explained that DOGE’s actions have harmed them because a lot of the federal funding that the department has interfered with is allocated to their states.
“The federal government disburses billions of dollars directly to the States, to support law enforcement, health care, education, and many other programs,” the plaintiffs said.
They asked a federal district court in Washington, D.C. to “restore constitutional order” by voiding Musk’s “officer-level governmental actions to date, including those of his subordinates and designees,” and declare that any future orders or directions Musk or DOGE make will have no legal effect.
The plaintiffs asked the judge to block DOGE from taking further actions until the court can hold a hearing on an injunction to stop the conduct while litigation is ongoing.
A couple of judges already delivered losses to DOGE. Earlier this week, a New York judge blocked DOGE’s access to the Treasury Department’s payment systems. Also, a federal judge in Washington, D.C. extended a temporary restraining order Thursday blocking DOGE and the Trump administration from putting 2,220 USAID workers on paid leave.
************************
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA
STATE OF NEW MEXICO, 408 Galisteo St. Santa Fe, NM 87501;
STATE OF ARIZONA, 2005 N. Central Ave. Phoenix, AZ 85004;
THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN, 525 Ottawa St. Lansing, MI 48933;
STATE OF CALIFORNIA, 1300 I St. Sacramento, CA 95814;
STATE OF CONNECTICUT, 165 Capitol Ave. Hartford, CT 06106;
STATE OF HAWAI’I, 425 Queen St Honolulu, HI 96813;
STATE OF MARYLAND, 200 St. Paul Place, 20th Fl. Baltimore, MD 21202;
STATE OF MASSACHUSETTS, 1 Ashburton Pl Boston, MA 02108
STATE OF MINNESOTA, 445 Minnesota St., Ste. 600 St. Paul, MN 55101;
STATE OF NEVADA 1 State of Nevada Way, Ste. 100
Las Vegas, NV 89119
STATE OF OREGON, 100 SW Market St Portland, OR 97210
STATE OF RHODE ISLAND, 150 South Main St Providence, RI 02903;
STATE OF VERMONT, 109 State St. Montpelier, VT 05609;
STATE OF WASHINGTON, 800 Fifth Ave., Ste. 2000 Seattle, WA 98104;
Plaintiffs,
v.
ELON MUSK, in his official capacity, c/o Executive Office of the President 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW Washington, DC 20530
U.S. DOGE SERVICE 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW Washington, DC 20530
U.S. DOGE SERVICE TEMPORARY ORGANIZATION, c/o Executive Office of the President 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW Washington, DC 20530
DONALD J. TRUMP, in his official capacity as PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES, 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW Washington, DC 20530
Defendants.
Case No. 1:25-cv-00429
COMPLAINT FOR DECLARATORY AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF
INTRODUCTION
1. There is no greater threat to democracy than the accumulation of state power in the hands of a single, unelected individual. Although our constitutional system was designed to prevent the abuses of an 18th century monarch, the instruments of unchecked power are no less dangerous in the hands of a 21st century tech baron. In recent weeks, Defendant Elon Musk, with President Donald J. Trump’s approval, has roamed through the federal government unraveling agencies, accessing sensitive data, and causing mass chaos and confusion for state and local governments, federal employees, and the American people.
2. Oblivious to the threat this poses to the nation, President Trump has delegated virtually unchecked authority to Mr. Musk without proper legal authorization from Congress and without meaningful supervision of his activities. As a result, he has transformed a minor position that was formerly responsible for managing government websites into a designated agent of chaos without limitation and in violation of the separation of powers.
3. The Founders of this country fought for independence from the British monarchy due in no small part to the King’s despotic power to create an unlimited number of governmental offices and to fill those offices with the King’s supporters. In fact, this practice so severely undermined the Founders’ freedoms that it is a listed grievance in the Declaration of Independence.
He has erected a multitude of New Offices, and sent hither swarms of Officers to harrass our people, and eat out their substance....
For taking away our Charters, abolishing our most valuable Laws, and altering fundamentally the Forms of our Governments:
For suspending our own Legislatures, and declaring themselves invested with power to legislate for us in all cases whatsoever....
In every stage of these Oppressions We have Petitioned for Redress in the most humble terms: Our repeated Petitions have been answered only by repeated injury. A Prince whose character is thus marked by every act which may define a Tyrant, is unfit to be the ruler of a free people.
4. Informed by that history, the Framers of the Constitution crafted the Appointments Clause to protect against such tyranny in our system of government. The Appointments Clause was designed to buttress the separation of powers in two ways: first by requiring that Congress create an office before the President can fill it, and second by requiring that the Senate confirm a nominee to an office created by law. These limitations on the President’s power make executive appointments accountable to Congress and make the Senate’s confirmation decisions accountable to the people. See United States v. Arthrex, 594 U.S. 1, 12 (2021). In this way, the Appointments Clause serves a vital role in curbing Executive abuses of power.
5. Mr. Musk’s seemingly limitless and unchecked power to strip the government of its workforce and eliminate entire departments with the stroke of a pen or click of a mouse would have been shocking to those who won this country’s independence. There is no office of the United States, other than the President, with the full power of the Executive Branch, and the sweeping authority now vested in a single unelected and unconfirmed individual is antithetical to the nation’s entire constitutional structure.
6. Mr. Musk does not occupy an office of the United States and has not had his nomination for an office confirmed by the Senate. His officer-level actions are thus unconstitutional. This Court should restore constitutional order and, consistent with the Appointments Clause, enjoin Mr. Musk from issuing orders to any person in the Executive Branch outside of DOGE and otherwise engaging in the actions of an officer of the United States, and declare that his actions to date are ultra vires and of no legal effect.
JURISDICTION AND VENUE
7. The Court has jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331 and 2201(a).
8. The Court may grant declaratory, injunctive and other relief pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 2201–02.
9. An actual controversy exists between the parties within the meaning of 28 U.S.C. § 2201(a).
10. Venue is proper in the District of Columbia under 28 U.S.C. §§ 1391(b)(2) and (e)(1). Defendants are organizations of the United States, the President of the United States, and an individual employed by the United States sued in his official capacity, and a substantial part of the events or omissions giving rise to the claims in this Complaint occurred and continue to occur within this District.
PARTIES
A. Plaintiffs
11. Plaintiff the State of New Mexico is a sovereign state of the United States. New Mexico is represented by Attorney General Raúl Torrez. The Attorney General is New Mexico’s chief law enforcement officer and is authorized to pursue this action pursuant to N.M. Stat. Ann. § 8-5-2(B).
12. Plaintiff the State of Arizona is a sovereign state of the United States. Arizona is represented by Attorney General Kris Mayes. The Attorney General is Arizona’s chief law enforcement officer and is authorized to pursue this action pursuant to Arizona Revised Statutes § 41-193(A)(3).
13. Plaintiff the People of the State of Michigan is represented by Attorney General Dana Nessel. The Attorney General is Michigan’s chief law enforcement officer and is authorized to bring this action on behalf of the People of the State of Michigan pursuant to Mich. Comp. Laws § 14.28.
14. Plaintiff the State of California is a sovereign state of the United States. California is represented by Attorney General Rob Bonta. The Attorney General is California’s chief law enforcement officer and is authorized to pursue this action pursuant to section 13 of article V of the California Constitution.
15. Plaintiff the State of Connecticut is a sovereign state of the United States. Connecticut is represented by Attorney General William Tong, who is the chief law enforcement officer of Connecticut.
16. Plaintiff the State of Hawai’i is a sovereign state of the United States. Hawai’i is represented by and through Attorney General Anne E. Lopez, who is the chief law enforcement officer of Hawai’i.
17. Plaintiff the State of Maryland is a sovereign state of the United States. Maryland is represented by and through Attorney General Anthony G. Brown, who is the chief law enforcement officer of Maryland.
18. Plaintiff State of Massachusetts is a sovereign state of the United States. Maryland is represented by and through Attorney General Andrea Joy Campbell, who is the chief law enforcement officer of Maryland.
19. Plaintiff the State of Minnesota is a sovereign state of the United States. Minnesota is represented by Attorney General by Attorney General Keith Ellison who is the chief law enforcement officer of Minnesota.
20. Plaintiff the State of Nevada is a sovereign state of the United States. Nevada is represented by Attorney General Aaron Ford who is the chief law enforcement officer of Nevada.
21. Plaintiff the State of Oregon is a sovereign state of the United States. Oregon is represented by Attorney General Dan Rayfield, who is the chief law enforcement officer of Oregon.
22. Plaintiff the State of Rhode Island is a sovereign state of the United States. Rhode Island is represented by Attorney General Peter F. Neronha who is the chief law enforcement officer of Rhode Island.
23. Plaintiff the State of Vermont is a sovereign state of the United States. Vermont is represented by Attorney General Chastity Clark who is the chief law enforcement officer of Vermont.
24. The State of Washington is a sovereign state in the United States. Washington is represented by Attorney General Nicholas W. Brown. The Attorney General of Washington is the chief legal adviser to the State and is authorized to act in federal court on behalf of the State on matters of public concern.
B. Defendants
25. Defendant Elon Musk is sued in his official capacity as a “special Government employee” of the Executive. 18 U.S.C. § 202(a).
26. Defendant the United States Department of Government Efficiency Service was established by Executive Order on January 20, 2025, and is a group organized within the Executive Office of the President.
27. Defendant the United States Department of Government Efficiency Service Temporary Organization was established by Executive Order on January 20, 2025.
28. Defendant Donald J. Trump is sued in his official capacity as the President of the United States.
LEGAL FRAMEWORK
29. The Constitution creates a deliberate and ordered process for the exercise of significant authority over the Nation’s laws, its purse, and its people. While the President has the authority to recommend to Congress “such measures as he shall judge necessary and expedient,” U.S. Const. art. II, § 3, it is Congress that ultimately wields the power to enact a law authorizing the exercise of significant authority and disbursing any necessary funding.
30. The separation of powers is one of the core, fundamental principles that undergirds our constitutional structure. It is Congress, not the President, that possesses the power to enact laws and appropriate funds. Among the President’s responsibilities include his obligation to “take care that the laws” Congress enacts are “faithfully executed.” U.S. Const. art. II, § 3.
31. Likewise, the Constitution prevents the President from making unilateral changes to existing laws concerning the structure of the Executive Branch and federal spending. For example, the President cannot establish—or “delete”—federal agencies. Nor may the President unilaterally shut off federal funding where Congress has already appropriated the money.
32. In these and a host of other ways, the Constitution reflects the Framers’ clear intent to provide checks and balances among the coordinate branches of government.
A. The Appointments Clause
33. The Appointments Clause is a pillar of this basic constitutional structure and serves as a vital bulwark against “the danger of one branch’s aggrandizing its power at the expense of another branch.” Freytag v. C.I.R., 501 U.S. 868, 880 (1991).
34. The Appointments Clause provides that the President:
shall nominate, and by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, shall appoint Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, Judges of the supreme Court, and all other Officers of the United States, whose Appointments are not herein otherwise provided for, and which shall be established by Law: but the Congress may by Law vest the Appointment of such inferior Officers, as they think proper, in the President alone, in the Courts of Law, or in the Heads of Departments.
U.S. Const. art. II, § 2, cl. 2.
35. The Appointments Clause is among the Constitution’s most “significant structural safeguards of the constitutional scheme,” Edmond v. United States, 520 U.S. 651, 659 (1997), because it prevents one branch from “aggrandizing its power” or “dispensing it too freely . . . to inappropriate members of the Executive Branch.” Freytag, 501 U.S. at 878, 80. The Supreme Court has explained that “[ i]f there is any point in which the separation of the legislative and executive powers ought to be maintained with great caution, it is that which relates to officers and offices.” Myers v. United States, 272 U.S. 52, 116 (1926) (quoting 1 ANNALS OF CONG. 581 (1789)).
36. The Appointments Clause also serves the twin purposes of transparency and accountability. “‘Assigning the nomination power to the President guarantees accountability for the appointees’ actions because the ‘blame of a bad nomination would fall upon the president singly and absolutely.’” Arthrex, 594 U.S. at 12 (quoting The Federalist No. 77, p. 517 (J. Cooke ed. 1961) (A. Hamilton)). Likewise, “[t]he Appointments Clause adds a degree of accountability in the Senate, which shares in the public blame ‘for both the making of a bad appointment and the rejection of a good one.’” Id. (citation omitted). The Clause allows the public to scrutinize individuals who exercise significant authority through a public vetting process under an oath of office pursuant to 5 U.S.C. § 3331.
37. Precedent interpreting the Appointments Clause distinguishes between two types of “officers”: “inferior” officers and what have become known as “principal” or “noninferior” officers. See Arthrex, 594 U.S. at 12. In essence, there are three types of Executive Branch personnel (other than the President and Vice President): (1) principal officers, (2) inferior officers, and (3) employees. See generally id.
38. Principal officers must always be nominated by the President and confirmed by the Senate. Id.
39. Inferior officers must be nominated by the President and confirmed by the Senate unless Congress creates an exception and “by Law vest[s] the Appointment of such inferior Officers, as they think proper, in the President alone, in the Courts of Law, or in the Heads of Departments.” U.S. Const. art. II, § 2, cl. 2. In other words, when there is no law addressing the appointment of an inferior officer, the principal-officer procedure applies; only the President can nominate the officer, and appointment requires the advice and consent of the Senate.
40. The hiring of employees—who are distinct from “Officers of the United States”—is not governed by the Appointments Clause because they are categorized as “lesser functionaries subordinate to officers of the United States.” Buckley v. Valeo, 424 U.S. 1, 126 n.162 (1976) (per curiam).
41. The difference between an officer and an employee is that an officer exercises “significant authority” on behalf of the United States on a continuing basis. Lucia v. Sec. & Exch. Comm’n, 585 U.S. 237, 245 (2018) (quoting Buckley, 424 U.S. at 6).
42. Continuing offices are distinguished from those that are personal, contractual, or limited to a single task. Edmond v. United States, 520 U.S. 651, 661 (1997).
43. There is not “an exclusive criterion for distinguishing between principal and inferior officers for Appointments Clause purposes,” but the central rule is that “‘inferior officers’ are officers whose work is directed and supervised at some level by others who were appointed by Presidential nomination with the advice and consent of the Senate.” Edmond, 520 U.S. at 661, 663.
44. Importantly, the Appointments Clause only grants the President the power to nominate officers to offices that Congress has already “established by Law.” U.S. Const. art. II, § 2, cl. 2. “If Congress has not reached a consensus that a particular office should exist, the Executive lacks the power to unilaterally create and then fill that office.” Trump v. United States, 603 U.S. 593, 650 (2024) (Thomas, J., concurring). “By keeping the ability to create offices out of the President’s hands, the Founders ensured that no President could unilaterally create an army of officer positions to then fill with his supporters. Instead, our Constitution leaves it in the hands of the people’s elected representatives to determine whether new executive offices should exist.” Id. at 646 (Thomas, J., concurring).
45. The “significant authority” that distinguishes officers subject to the Appointments Clause from employees not subject to the Clause includes, among other things, the binding execution or interpretation of the laws. This applies to many types of executive decisions, such as the authority to receive, oversee, or disburse public funds, authority over contracts, the power to determine the use of and access to government property, and the power to issue regulations.1
B. Temporary Organization Statute
46. “Administrative agencies are creatures of statute. They accordingly possess only the authority that Congress has provided.” Nat’l Fed’n of Indep. Bus. v. Dep’t of Lab., Occupational Safety & Health Admin., 595 U.S. 109, 117 (2022) (per curiam).
47. Congress has provided that the President may establish a “temporary organization” for a “specific period not in excess of three years for the purpose of performing a specific study or other project.” 5 U.S.C. § 3161. By its plain terms, this limited authorization does not amount to a carte blanche grant of authority to the Executive to create new federal agencies from whole cloth.
48. Although the Executive Order that created the United States DOGE Service Temporary Organization purports to invoke this statute, 5 U.S.C. § 3161 does not provide DOGE with the authority it has purported to exercise.
49. The “major questions” doctrine further constrains administrative power by requiring “Congress to speak clearly when authorizing an agency to exercise powers of vast economic and political significance.” Nat’l Fed’n of Indep. Bus., 595 U.S. at 117 (citation and quotation marks omitted). When the executive branch purports to exercise such powers, “the question” is whether a statute (or the Constitution) “plainly authorizes” that action. Id.
FACTUAL BACKGROUND
50. On November 12, 2024, then President-elect Trump announced on X (formerly known as Twitter) that he planned to establish a “Department of Government Efficiency,” describing it as a “Manhattan Project” for the federal government that would “pave the way” to “dismantle Government Bureaucracy, slash excess regulations, cut wasteful expenditures, and restructure Federal Agencies.”2
51. President Trump’s earliest indication that Mr. Musk would lead such an effort appeared was during a YouTube conversation between the two on August 12, 2024, in which President Trump enthusiastically responded to Mr. Musk offering to take a leadership role on a government efficiency commission, noting that Mr. Musk was “the greatest cutter.”
52. On the day of his inauguration, President Trump issued an Executive Order (“DOGE Executive Order”) creating the United States Department of Government Efficiency Service (“DOGE Service”).
53. While President Trump purported to simply be renaming the pre-existing entity United States Digital Service, he gave the DOGE Service a different mission and structure.3
54. Through the DOGE Executive Order, President Trump created a DOGE Administrator position to lead another new entity, the U.S. DOGE Service Temporary Organization (“DOGE Temporary Organization”). The DOGE Administrator was directed to implement a “Software Modernization Initiative” “to improve the efficiency of federal software and information technology systems and promote interoperability among agency networks and systems.”4
55. The DOGE Executive Order also created DOGE Teams that are intended to be embedded in every federal agency and will typically consist of a Team Lead, one engineer, one human resources specialist, and one attorney. The DOGE Teams were to be created through consultation between the relevant agency head and the DOGE Administrator.5
56. President Trump tasked the DOGE Temporary Organization with advancing the “President’s DOGE agenda, by modernizing Federal technology and software to maximize governmental efficiency and productivity” before its termination date, July 4, 2026.6
57. In the DOGE Executive Order, President Trump further directed federal agency heads to “take all necessary steps, in coordination with the [DOGE] Administrator and to the maximum extent consistent with law, to ensure [DOGE] has full and prompt access to all unclassified agency records, software systems, and IT systems.”7
58. On its face, the Executive Order exempts the DOGE Service, DOGE Administrator, and DOGE Teams from the July 4, 2026, sunset provision.8
59. The statements and actions of President Trump, other White House officials, and Mr. Musk himself indicate that Mr. Musk has been directing the work of DOGE personnel9 since at least January 21, 2025.
60. On February 3, 2025, White House Press Secretary Karoline Leavitt confirmed that, as President Trump had planned, Mr. Musk had taken charge of DOGE: “As you know, President Trump tasked Mr. Musk with starting up DOGE, and he already has done that in the first week, they’ve been incredibly productive and efficient already, saving taxpayers tens of billions of dollars, so we welcome Mr. Musk’s support in this effort.”
61. During this initial period, DOGE secured access to sensitive material in dozens of federal agencies, including the Department of the Treasury,10 the Office of Personnel Management, 11 the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services,12 the Department of Labor,13 the Department of Education,14 the Department of Energy (which oversees nuclear weapons), the Department of Defense, and the Centers for Disease Control.
62. After this conduct became public, White House Press Secretary Leavitt revealed that Mr. Musk was a “special government employee,” though she could not confirm whether he had received any security clearance and did not disclose the date on which he became a “special government employee.”15
63. “[S]pecial Government employee” is a statutory term that means, in relevant part, “an officer or employee of the executive . . . of the United States Government , . . . who is retained, designated, appointed, or employed to perform, with or without compensation, for not to exceed one hundred and thirty days during any period of three hundred and sixty-five consecutive days, temporary duties either on a full-time or intermittent.” 18 U.S.C. § 202(a).
MR. MUSK’S UNLAWFUL CONDUCT
64. Although he occupies a role President Trump—not Congress—created and even though the Senate has never voted to confirm him, Mr. Musk has and continues to assert the powers of an “Officer[] of the United States” under the Appointments Clause. Indeed, in many cases, he has exceeded the lawful authority of even a principal officer, or of the President himself.
65. As explained below, Mr. Musk: (1) has unprecedented and seemingly limitless access across the federal government and reports solely to President Trump, (2) has asserted significant and sweeping authority across a broad swath of federal agencies, and (3) has engaged in a constellation of powers and activities that have been historically associated with an officer of the United States, including powers over spending and disbursements, contracts, government property, regulations, and agency viability.
66. In sum, Mr. Musk purports to exercise and in fact asserts the significant authority of a principal officer on behalf of the United States. Yet, he does not occupy an office created by Congress and has not been nominated by the President or confirmed by the Senate. As a result, all of Mr. Musk’s actions are ultra vires and contrary to law.
A. Mr. Mr. Musk Has Unprecedented Access and Reports Only to President Trump.
67. Mr. Musk is far more than an adviser to the White House. He executes the President’s agenda by exercising virtually unchecked power across the entire Executive Branch, making decisions about expenditures, contracts, government property, regulations, and the very existence of federal agencies. No executive position wields as much power over the operations of the Executive Branch other than the President.
68. Mr. Musk has gained sweeping and unprecedented access to sensitive data, information, systems, and technological and financial infrastructure across the federal government. This access is seemingly limitless and dependent upon Mr. Mr. Musk’s discretion.
69. For instance, on February 7, 2025, President Trump verified that Mr. Musk and DOGE did not need the access they had attained to sensitive Treasury Department information. Asked why DOGE needed access to Americans’ sensitive data, he replied, “It doesn’t. … But they get it very easily. And we don’t have very good security in our country, and they get it very easily.”16
70. Mr. Musk’s DOGE personnel has inserted itself into at least 17 federal agencies. On February 7, 2025, when asked whether there was anything in the federal government that Mr. Mr. Musk had been instructed not to touch, President Trump replied: “Well, we haven’t discussed that much.” He added, “I guess maybe you could say some high intelligence or something. And I’ll do that myself if I have to.”17
71. In addition, statements by Mr. Musk and President Trump make clear that the individual with the closest proximity to Mr. Musk is President Trump and Mr. Musk reports only to President Trump.
72. President Trump’s February 8, 2025, statements illustrate that no one stands between Mr. Musk and Trump in the Executive chain-of-command: “I’ve instructed him to go check out Education, to check out the Pentagon.”18
73. And despite the numerous, monumental actions Mr. Musk and DOGE have taken, Mr. Musk evidently has significant autonomy regarding when, how frequently, and in what depth he briefs the President, which briefings the White House has described simply “as needed.”19
74. Indeed, there have been reports that Mr. “Mr. Musk is not fully briefing White House Chief Of Staff Susie Wiles about his plans and that the White House is effectively in the dark,” and that there is no clarity about “the proper chain of communication … between agencies and the White House” with respect to DOGE.
75. On February 11, 2025, Mr. Musk and President Trump jointly addressed the public from the White House Oval Office.20 If there were any doubt about the reach of Mr. Musk’s de facto power over Executive-Branch operations, his remarks delivered from the Oval Office on February 11, 2025—with the President sitting in silence at the Resolute as Mr. Musk held the floor—should dispel it.
76. Mr. Musk’s authority to direct and veto the staffing decisions of agencies was supported by an additional Executive Order. This Executive Order expressly mandated large-scale reductions in workforce by every agency, requires hiring plans with all decisions made in consultation with DOGE personnel, and prohibits the filling of any vacancies without DOGE approval.21
B. Mr. Musk Has Exercised Sweeping Authority Across Numerous Federal Agencies.
77. The specifics of Mr. Musk’s conduct within various agencies confirm that he is wielding the power of a principal officer, a principal officer that has never previously existed. Mr. Musk has purported to exercise, and in fact exercised, sweeping authority across a wide swath of federal agencies. Defendants’ conduct has already impaired the work of several of these agencies, perhaps irrevocably, harming the people they serve and the Plaintiff States.
U.S. Department of Treasury (Treasury)
78. The U.S. Treasury Department maintains and safeguards our nation’s central bank account. Treasury’s Bureau of the Fiscal Services (“BFS”) receives coded payment instructions in the form of payment files from a host of federal agencies to disburse funds to tens of millions of Americans every year. These funds include social security benefits, veteran’s benefits, childcare tax credits, Medicaid and Medicare reimbursements, federal employee wages, and federal tax refunds. Plaintiff States also receive billions of dollars in funds every year directly from Treasury through BFS under federal grant programs.
79. BFS also operates the Treasury Offset Program, which, among other things, helps states recover delinquent state income taxes and child support by subtracting those debts from a person’s federal income tax refund. This program recovered $720.9 million in state income tax debt and $1.4 billion in child support in fiscal year 2024.22
80. BFS processes payments after the payment files are certified by the responsible agency and checked against Treasury’s “do not pay” system.23
81. Mr. Musk has publicly criticized BFS for not using its role as payment processor to interfere with congressionally authorized and agency-certified payments.24
82. On January 24, 2025, Tom Krause, a tech executive apparently working with or behalf of DOGE, asked Trump appointee and then-acting Treasury Secretary David A. Lebryk, to halt certain foreign aid payments through BFS systems because Mr. Musk believed they violated certain executive orders.25 On information and belief, at the time Mr. Krause made this request, he was not a Treasury employee but rather was affiliated with DOGE.
83. DOGE was not seeking to stop the payments because they were going to an improper payee. Rather, DOGE sought to stop the payments for policy reasons.26
84. Mr. Lebryk stated that he did not believe “we have the legal authority to stop an authorized payment certified by an agency” and that the less legally risky route would be for the State Department to stop and evaluate the propriety of the payments.27 Mr. Krause responded by threatening Mr. Lebryk, telling him he could face legal risk himself if he did not comply with DOGE.
85. Shortly after Scott Bessent was confirmed as Treasury Secretary on January 27, 2025, Mr. Lebryk was placed on administrative leave and ultimately resigned after 30 years of federal service.28 Beginning February 2, 2025, Secretary Bessent granted DOGE personnel full access to BFS payment systems, which contain sensitive Treasury data, including Social Security and Medicare customer payment data as well as Plaintiff States’ bank account and related financial information.
86. On February 2, 2025, in response to a tweet about Lutheran Family Services, Mr. Musk responded, “The @DOGE team is rapidly shutting down these illegal payments.”29 Lutheran Family Services provides child behavioral health, substance abuse rehabilitation, and refugee resettlement services pursuant to government contracts. Mr. Musk has not substantiated his claim that payments to Lutheran Family Services pursuant to those contracts, are illegal.
87. An internal email sent to BFS IT personnel by the BFS threat intelligence team has identified DOGE access as “the single greatest insider threat risk the Bureau of the Fiscal Service has ever faced.” The intelligence team recommended the DOGE members be monitored as an insider threat. Critically, they called for “suspending” any access to payment systems and “conducting a comprehensive review of all actions they may have taken on these systems.”30
88. The letter discusses reports “at other federal agencies indicating that DOGE members have performed unauthorized changes and locked civil servants out of the sensitive systems they gained access to.” This contradicts statements from administration officials denying such changes.
89. This kind of authority over Treasury, including its management of personnel, its funding decisions, programs, and systems, may only be exercised by a duly appointed officer.
90. DOGE’s unauthorized access to the BFS system poses a threat to cybersecurity and system malfunction31 and has endangered the Plaintiff States’ access to billions of dollars in lawfully appropriated Congressional funding and the security of their banking information. These risks are exacerbated by DOGE’s use of artificial intelligence to analyze data gathered from agencies.32
91. These risks are not mere speculation: A court filing revealed that, on February 6, Treasury officials found that Marko Elez had accidentally been given “read/write” permissions to one of the payment databases, allowing him to make changes to the sensitive payment database.33
U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID)
92. USAID is created by statute and funded by Congressional appropriations. 22 U.S.C. § 6563. It is one of the foremost development agencies in the world, providing food, medicine, and infrastructure funding in developing countries around the world, both to aid those countries and to further U.S. foreign policy. In doing so, it buys millions of dollars of products from American farmers. The agency also has contracts with American universities to provide certain services, including public universities in the Plaintiff States.
93. With a budget of over $40 billion, USAID accounts for more than half of all U.S. foreign assistance. USAID has missions in over 100 countries. As of January 2025, USAID had a workforce of over 10,000, with approximately two-thirds serving overseas.
94. On Saturday, February 1, 2025, a group of about eight DOGE personnel entered the USAID building and demanded access to every door and floor, despite only a few of them having the requisite security clearance.34 The areas to which they sought access included a sensitive compartmented information facility—commonly known as a SCIF—an ultra-secure room where officials and government contractors take extraordinary precautions to review highly classified information. DOGE personnel, aided by phone calls from Mr. Musk, had pressured USAID officials for days to access the secure facility and its contents.35
95. When USAID personnel attempted to block access to some areas, DOGE personnel, including Mr. Musk, threatened to call federal marshals. Under threat, the agency personnel acquiesced, and DOGE personnel were eventually given access to the secure spaces.
96. Later that day, top officials from USAID and the bulk of the staff in USAID’s Bureau for Legislative and Public Affairs were put on leave. Some of them were not notified but had their access to agency terminals suspended. USAID’s security official was also put on leave.36
97. Within hours, USAID’s website vanished. It remains inoperative.37
98. On Sunday, February 2, 2025, Mr. Musk tweeted, “USAID is a criminal organization. Time for it to die.”38 Later, he tweeted, “We spent the weekend feeding USAID into the woodchipper.”39
99. Mr. Musk provided no support for his claim that USAID is a criminal organization.
100. On Monday, February 3, 2025, Mr. Musk stated that he was in the process of closing the agency, with President Trump’s blessing. Mr. Musk stated: “I went over it with him [President Trump] in detail, and he agreed that we should shut it down. And I actually checked with him a few times [and] said ‘are you sure?’ The answer was yes. And so we’re shutting it down.”40
101. On Monday, February 3, 2025, USAID staffers were told that the agency’s headquarters in Washington, D.C., would be closed.41 That day, USAID contract officers emailed agency higher-ups asking for the required authorization and justification needed to cancel programs abroad. But the response came directly from DOGE personnel, one of the contract workers said in a sworn account filed with the federal court.42
102. That same day, DOGE personnel approached the agency’s acting leadership and handed them a list of 58 people, almost all senior career officials, to put on administrative leave.43 The acting leadership of the agency—including two Trump appointees—were skeptical, but eventually relented.44
103. On Tuesday, February 4, 2025, USAID sent out an email placing nearly its entire workforce on administrative leave.
104. This authority over USAID, including its management of personnel, its funding decisions, programs, and systems, may only be exercised by a duly appointed officer.
105. Defendants’ attempts to destroy USAID have injured the Plaintiff States by endangering the funding that their public universities receive pursuant to contracts with USAID.
106. On Friday, February 7, 2025, a federal judge in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia issued a TRO, temporarily enjoining USAID from (1) placing 2,200 USAID employees on administrative leave; and (2) engaging in a mandatory expedited evacuation of USAID employees from their host countries. Among other things, the Court held that these actions could violate the Further Consolidated Appropriations Act of 2024, Pub. L. 118-47 §§ 7063(a), (b), 138 Stat. 460 (2024), and place USAID employees abroad at risk of physical and other harms. See American Foreign Service Assoc. v. Trump, No. 1:25-cv-00352-CJN, Doc. 15 (D.D.C. Feb. 7, 2025).
Office of Personnel Management (OPM)
107. OPM serves as the chief human resources agency and personnel policy manager for the federal government. Among other things, OPM formulates and oversees policies related to federal employment, ensuring compliance with merit system principles and federal laws.
108. OPM administers benefits programs such as health insurance, retirement plans, and life insurance for federal employees. Accordingly, OPM maintains and manages extensive data on federal employees.
109. OPM also maintains a security clearance database. Past data breaches of OPM have implicated the security clearance database and have resulted in the leak of five million digitized fingerprints and sensitive background records.45 The systems include a vast database called Enterprise Human Resources Integration, which contains dates of birth, Social Security numbers, appraisals, home addresses, pay grades and length of service of government workers, the officials said. 46
110. Upon information and belief, DOGE gained full and unfettered access to OPM systems over the existing CIO’s objection on or about January 20, 2025.47
111. DOGE-affiliated personnel directed OPM staff to grant them high-level access to OPM computer systems, and quickly took control of them, including systems containing large troves of personally identifiable information. DOGE-affiliated personnel also locked career civil servants at OPM out of at least some of those systems, giving them completely unchecked control over the systems and the information they contain.
112. On January 27, 2025, an unknown “OPM employee for nearly a decade and a Federal Employee for almost 20 years” posted a message to the r/FedNews discussion board on https://Reddit.com. The message stated, “According to the FedNews Message, ‘Our CIO, Melvin Brown, . . . was pushed aside just one week into his tenure because he refused to setup email lists to send out direct communications to all career civil servants. Such communications are normally left up to each agency.”
113. At some point after the inauguration, DOGE created an “outside server” to store records of millions of federal employees and their sensitive data.
114. The outside server installed by DOGE is of unknown nature and origin. Upon information and belief, the outside server was installed by an “outside employee” that had not undergone background investigations.
115. This server was created to facilitate DOGE’s attempts to send a mass email offering the “Fork in the Road” buyout package to nearly all employees.
116. On January 28, 2025, Executive Branch personnel across federal agencies—as well as many contractors—received an email from [email protected] with the subject line “Fork in the Road,” describing a “deferred resignation program.”48
117. This email was received by 2.3 million federal employees and contractors. The email offered them continued pay and benefits through September 2025 if they resigned by February 6th by simply sending an email to the Office of Personnel Management with the word “Resign” in the subject line.49
118. The connection between the “Fork in the Road” program and Mr. Musk is clear. Upon his 2022 acquisition of then-Twitter, Mr. Musk made a similar offer to company employees through an email identically titled “Fork in the Road” that promised three months’ severance to those who resigned within 24 hours. This history supports a reasonable belief that Mr. Musk conceived of and offered the “deferred resignation program” to federal employees.
119. This email purports to make binding spending commitments on behalf of the federal government.
120. According to subsequent reporting, Mr. Musk and his team have exerted direct control over OPM and the “Fork in the Road” initiative. The email was sent out via a custom-built email system from Mr. Musk’s team and was sent without consultation with other advisers to the President or OMB officials.50
121. It appears that OPM is now significantly controlled by Mr. Musk.51 This authority over OPM, including its management of personnel, its funding decisions, programs, and systems, may only be exercised by a duly appointed officer.
U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS)
122. HHS is a federal agency charged with enhancing the health and well-being of Americans. Of its 13 operating divisions, 10 are public health service agencies and three are human service agencies.
123. Through these divisions, HHS oversees or operates more than 100 programs, including social services such as Temporary Assistance to Needy Families (TANF), HeadStart, and other childcare programs. HHS also offers health prevention and wellness programs and participates in national efforts to prepare for, respond to, and recover from disasters and public health emergencies. The agency also conducts and funds health-related research.
124. One critical division of HHS is the Center for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS). CMS is responsible for overseeing critical entitlement programs providing health coverage for many older, disabled, or low-income enrollees. It serves more than 160 million enrollees across Medicare, Medicaid, CHIP, and the Health Insurance Marketplace. CMS spends about $1.5 trillion yearly, which is about 22% of all federal healthcare spending.
125. Another critical division within HHS is the Centers for Disease Control (CDC), the nation’s leading science-based, data-driven service organization protecting the public’s health.
126. Several of HHS’s operating divisions maintain personally identifiable data for large numbers of individuals. 51 Jeff Stein et al., In Chaotic Washington Blitz, Elon Musk’s Ultimate Goal Becomes Clear, WASH. POST (Feb. 8, 2025).
127. On February 5, 2025, the Wall Street Journal reported that DOGE representatives had “access to key payment and contracting systems” at CMS.52
128. CMS confirmed the reports of DOGE access as well. On February 5, 2025, it put out a press release stating that two “Agency veterans” were leading the collaboration with DOGE, including ensuring appropriate access to CMS systems and technology.”53
129. Bloomberg reported that DOGE “gained access to payment and contracting systems.”54 Because much of Medicare is administered through employers, contracts contain key information about Medicare’s functioning.
130. Reportedly, DOGE personnel also visited the CDC in Atlanta, requesting “lists of new employees and employees who are still on probation.”55 It is unclear why DOGE would need these lists except to select employees to fire. But DOGE personnel do not have the legal authority to fire CDC employees.
131. This kind of authority over the HHS, including its management of personnel, its funding decisions, and systems, may only be exercised by a duly appointed officer.
132. Plaintiff States stand to suffer immediate harm from this unauthorized access. The States receive funding and programming support from HHS. See, e.g., Chapman-See Decl. ¶ 11 (outlining $16,313,304,384 in federal grant funds received by the State of Washington in FY 2024 from HHS).
133. Moreover, threats to CDC and other programs that protect public health pose a threat to state residents.56 As the experience of COVID-19 shows, disease outbreaks impose significant harms and costs on states, inflicting classic pocketbook injuries. And public health threats to residents inflicted by federal actions infringe the state’s sovereign interests. See Massachusetts v. EPA, 549 U.S. 497, 518, 520 (2007).
U.S. Department of Energy (DOE)
134. DOE advances the energy, environmental, and nuclear security of the United States. It promotes scientific and technological innovation and manages the environmental cleanup of the nuclear weapons complex. DOE is the largest federal sponsor of basic research in the physical sciences, including in Plaintiff States’ public universities. See Chapman-See Decl. ¶ 12.
135. DOE also operates the State Energy Program, which “provides resources directly to the states for allocation by the governor-designated State Energy Offices for use in efficiency, renewable, and alternative energy demonstration activities.” The State Energy Program provides $50 million to states annually.
136. A particularly critical division within the DOE is the National Nuclear Security Administration. The NNSA maintains the nuclear weapons stockpile, provides the Navy with nuclear propulsion, and responds to nuclear emergencies around the world. 57 Its computer systems carry some of the most critical, confidential information in our nation, including information regarding nuclear weapons.
137. On February 5, 2025, DOGE representative Luke Farritor (Farritor), a former SpaceX intern, received access to the DOE’s IT system. The move was opposed by the DOE’s general counsel’s office and chief information office, in part because Farritor lacked a security clearance.58
138. Two days later, a different DOGE representative, Ryan Riedel, was installed as the DOE’s chief information officer. According to officials within the DOE, “DOGE members will have access to computer drives and human resource systems, data on grants and loans on energy projects and financial management systems.”59
139. This authority over DOE, including its management of personnel, its funding decisions, programs, and systems, may only be exercised by a duly appointed officer.
140. Plaintiff States stand to suffer immediate harm from these actions, both because of their public universities’ relationship with the DOE as grantees, see, e.g., Chapman-See Decl. ¶ 12 (outlining $82,949,065 in funds received in FY2024 to facilitate approximately 100 federal grant programs), and because any increased risks to nuclear safety pose a clear danger to their sovereign interests. See Massachusetts, 549 U.S. at 518, 520 (2007) (states receive “special solicitude” in standing analysis where federal action poses a threat to “sovereign territory” or “the earth and air within” a state’s domain).
141. Control over or access to the DOE’s IT systems poses more mundane threats as well. Payments to states under the State Energy Program must be certified by the agency before BFS can process them. A failure in the DOE’s IT systems or a decision using those systems not to fund the Program would immediately endanger Plaintiffs’ ability to provide energy security for their residents and would force Plaintiffs to divert resources currently used for other things.
142. Congress created the CFPB after the great recession of 2007-08. Congress assigned the CFPB the mission of supporting and protecting American consumers in the financial marketplace. To fulfill its statutory mission, CFPB monitors financial markets for risks to consumers; enforces consumer finance law; investigates consumer complaints; and writes rules to protect consumers from unfair, deceptive, or abusive practices in the financial sector.60
143. In recent years, CFPB has issued rules to protect Americans from medical debt, expand their access to banking services, and crack down on financial institutions that levy high fees on customers, resulting in more than $21 billion returned to taxpayers.
144. CFPB’s rules assist the Plaintiff States in enforcing their own consumer protection laws.
145. CFPB’s investigative work can be highly sensitive, including extraordinary access to a bank’s communications, customer records, and other nonpublic data.
146. On Friday, February 7, 2025, Mr. Musk’s aides set up shop in a conference room at CFPB’s headquarters and began their review of the agency, accessing and parsing its sensitive personnel and financial records.61 Hours later that afternoon, Mr. Musk tweeted “CFBP RIP.”62
147. That night, CFPB’s website, consumerfinance.gov, was no longer working and remains down.
148. Just three days later, all CFPB employees were told to “[s]tand down from performing any work task” and “[e]mployees should not come into the office,” by the agency’s acting Director Russell Vought.63
149. If allowed to continue, Defendants’ assault on the CFPB will harm the Plaintiff States by requiring them to invest far greater resources and personnel to protect their citizens. As just one example, CFPB is co-Plaintiff with the State of Minnesota in two consumer cases but is no longer taking an active role, requiring the State of Minnesota to devote additional resources to the litigation.
150. This authority over CFPB, including its management of personnel, its funding decisions, programs, and systems, may only be exercised by a duly appointed officer.
U.S. Department of Defense (Defense Department)
151. On Friday, February 7, 2025, President Trump stated that he had “instructed [Mr. Musk] . . . to check out the Pentagon.”64 He added that Mr. Musk would be going through “just about everything” at the Defense Department.
152. The Defense Department has billions of dollars in contracts with Mr. Musk through SpaceX and other companies he owns. The Defense Department relies on SpaceX to get most of its satellites into orbit and works closely with his companies on a variety of other initiatives.
153. This authority over the Defense Department, including its contracts, management of personnel, its funding decisions, programs, and systems, may only be exercised by a duly appointed officer.
U.S. General Services Administration (GSA)
154. The GSA is the central procurement agency for the Federal Government. Among many other services, it acquires real estate for office space, provides vehicles for governmental use, including non-tactical vehicles for the military, and supplies office space needs. Its 18F technology group assists government agencies in building and buying technology products and fixing technical problems.
155. On January 27, 2025, only a week into the new administration, DOGE announced that it already had terminated three GSA leases as the “first steps” to “right size the federal real estate portfolio of more than 7,500 leases.”65
156. Mr. Musk claimed on X that he had “deleted” GSA’s 18F technology group.66
157. According to news reports, Mr. Musk and DOGE have “taken over the Office of Personnel Management and the General Services Administration along with their computer systems.”67
158. DOGE has been interviewing GSA employees, “frequently with almost no notice and often scheduled over existing client meetings.” Employees “fear that, based on the brief interaction, their job is on the line.” The DOGE questions led GSA staffers to believe the group was looking to cull employees.68
159. DOGE is assisting with the development of a chatbot called GSAi to “increase worker productivity” and have proposed other AI tools to scrub contracts for redundancies and streamline processes.69
160. DOGE workers said they plan to automate a majority of GSA jobs, and Mr. Musk plans to liquidate as much as half of the federal government’s nonmilitary real estate holdings.70
161. This kind of authority over the GSA, including its contracts,
162. Haphazard cuts in personnel that cause service outages at GSA — even relatively brief ones — could be disastrous for the States and citizens who use GSA services. GSA operates Login.gov, the central login system for Medicare, Medicaid, Social Security and other public assistance lifelines.71
U.S. Department of Education (ED)
163. The Department of Education provides critical services to the country. Although education is primarily a state and local responsibility, ED operates several important programs, including those that provide funding for low-income schools, special education, and financial aid for college students.
164. As of February 4, 2025, DOGE personnel have gained access to ED’s student loan database.72
165. As of February 7, 2025, several DOGE personnel were working out of the undersecretary’s office on the seventh floor of ED’s headquarters. Staff members have been told little about the group, which has been spotted in hallways and rummaging through boxes. This group of DOGE personnel does not interact at all with anyone who is not part of their team.73
166. The highest-ranking officials at ED — even those recently appointed by President Donald Trump — were pushed out of their own offices. DOGE personnel even rearranged the furniture and set up white noise machines to muffle their voices.74
167. DOGE personnel have obtained administrator-level electronic accounts at ED, allowing them to access sensitive information.75 Upon information and belief, the two DOGE personnel with administrator-level status have no familiarity with ED’s inner workings prior to this time. One of them has accessed the back end of the Department of Education website. It is highly unusual for anyone from another government agency to obtain such access.
168. On February 7, 2025, Mr. Musk tweeted, “What is this ‘Department of Education’ you keep talking about? I just checked and it doesn’t exist.”76
169. At a press conference that day, Trump said that he had “instructed” Mr. Musk to “go check out Education” and that Mr. Musk “will be looking at education pretty quickly.”77
170. As promised, DOGE announced three days later that the Agency had ‘terminated 89 contracts worth $881mm,” and another 29 DEI training grants totaling $101mm.78 Eliminating the agreements effectively halted the work of the Institute of Education Sciences, the arm of ED responsible for gathering information about students and schools nationwide.79
171. This kind of authority over ED, including its management of personnel, its contracts, its funding decisions, programs, and systems, may only be exercised by a duly appointed officer.
172. States, school districts, and public universities rely on ED’s funding and personnel. See Padilla Decl. ¶¶ 8(a)-(e) (identifying $1,879,210,362 in grants to New Mexico alone); Chapman Decl. ¶14 (outlining $2,493,055,346 in funding to the state of Washington for federal programs in FY2024).
173. Title I grants provide supplemental education funding to school districts and charter schools, especially those with high rates of poverty. See Padilla Decl. ¶ 8(a). These funds serve an estimated 26 million students in nearly 90% of school districts and nearly 60% of all public schools and are critical to closing the funding gaps between schools in communities with high rates of poverty and their wealthier counterparts. In fiscal year 2024, Title I provided over $18 billion in funding. See Padilla Decl. ¶ 8(a) (identifying $146,145,066 in grant awards to New Mexico alone).80
174. The Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) provides formula grants to help states pay the additional cost of providing special education and related services to children with disabilities. See Padilla Decl. ¶8(d). In fiscal year 2024, IDEA provided over $14 billion in grants to states. See Padilla Decl. ¶ 8(d) (identifying $109,028,430 in grant awards to New Mexico alone).81
175. Each year, ED awards financial aid to approximately 13 million students.82 ED’s student loan database contains highly sensitive information about these borrowers, including their Social Security number, date of birth, student loan account information, contact information, driver’s license number, and financial information throughout the student aid lifecycle.83
U.S. Department of Labor (DOL)
176. On February 4, 2025, Department of Labor leadership reportedly told its employees that USDS would be accessing the DOL headquarters around 4 p.m. on February 5, 2024.
177. A journalist shared on social media that her sources told her that “DOGE is going after the DOL next. DOL workers have been ordered to give DOGE access to anything they want-or risk termination.”84 This included providing access to any requested DOL system without regard to security protocols.
178. Upon information and belief, DOL leadership told employees that when Mr. Musk and his team visit the DOL, they are to do whatever they ask, not to push back, not to ask questions. They were told to provide access to any DOL system they requested access to and not to worry about any security protocols; just do it. Based on leadership’s statements, the employee believed they could face termination if they did not comply.85
179. The States rely on DOL for funding, resources, and personnel. See Decl. Nair, ¶¶ 8-17; ¶ 23.
180. This kind of authority over the DOL, including its management of personnel, its funding decisions, programs, and systems, may only be exercised by a duly appointed officer.
U.S. Department of Transportation (DOT)
181. The Department of Transportation plans and coordinates federal transportation projects and sets safety regulations for major modes of transportation, including air travel, which is regulated by the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA).
182. The FAA provides air traffic control service for “more than 45,000 flights and 2.9 million airline passengers traveling across the more than 29 million square miles that make up the U.S. national airspace system.”86
183. On Wednesday, February 5, Mr. Musk posted on X: “With the support of President [Trump], the @DOGE team will aim to make rapid safety upgrades to the air traffic control system.” Secretary of Transportation Sean Duffy confirmed that Mr. Musk and his team will “plug in to help upgrade our aviation system” and “remake our airspace . . . quickly.”87
184. The systems involved in air traffic control are immense and complex. “A single program run by the FAA to help air-traffic controllers, En Route Automation Modernization, contains nearly 2 million lines of code; an average iPhone app, for comparison, has about 50,000.”88 The consequences of changes in these systems could be catastrophic: “In the FAA, even a small systems disruption could cause mass grounding of flights, a halt in global shipping, or worse, downed planes.”89
185. Thus, Mr. Musk is planning to make—and may have already started to make—rapid-fire changes to FAA systems and processes, potentially without the subject matter expertise, testing, coordination, and oversight ordinarily required.
186. Further, Mr. Musk now has, or will imminently have, access to FAA systems, although the FAA oversees SpaceX’s operations in commercial airspace and Mr. Musk previously threatened to sue the FAA for “regulatory overreach” when it did not approve launch licenses quick enough for SpaceX.90
187. This kind of authority over the FAA, including its management of personnel, its funding decisions, programs, and systems, may only be exercised by a duly appointed officer.
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA)
188. The NOAA provides critical information to state governments, including information about weather, severe storms, wildfires, tornados, hurricanes, and coastal flooding.
189. DOGE has been investigating NOAA. Former NOAA officials said that DOGE staffers visited NOAA headquarters in Silver Spring, Md., and the Hoover Building in Washington, D.C., the location of NOAA’s parent agency, the U.S. Department of Commerce. The agency has been told it should expect to lose half of its 13,000 employees and to prepare for 30% budget cuts.91
190. DOGE has also accessed NOAA IT systems. As of February 5, 2025, several key NOAA websites were down. 92
191. The National Marine Fisheries Service, a division of the NOAA, received an emailed order to halt “ALL INTERNATIONAL ENGAGEMENTS.”93 The order includes all participation with international agencies and emails “with foreign national colleagues.”
192. DOGE-affiliated personnel Nikhil Rajpal was also given edit access to the NOAA’s documents after an alleged order came from acting Commerce Secretary Jeremy Pelter. Rajpal previously worked at Tesla and Twitter.
193. This authority over the NOAA, including its management of personnel, its funding decisions, programs, and systems, may only be exercised by a duly appointed officer.
Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA)
194. On February 9, 2025, Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem acknowledged that DOGE has access to FEMA’s data, including that of federal disaster aid recipients’ personal information, as part of an “audit.”94
195. On February 9, Mr. Musk tweeted that “FEMA is broken.”95 On February 10, Mr. Musk tweeted that DOGE had discovered that FEMA spent nearly $60 million housing migrants in what he alleged were “luxury” New York City hotels. He wrote that the money “violated the law” and that “a clawback demand will be made today to recoup those funds.”96
196. That day, four FEMA officials were fired. FEMA’s acting administrator, Cameron Hamilton, stated that the payments were suspended and that personnel “will be held accountable.”97
197. This authority over the FEMA, including its management of personnel, its funding decisions, and systems, may only be exercised by a duly appointed officer.
Small Business Administration
198. Mr. Musk and DOGE have gained access to all systems of the Small Business Administration—including HR, contracts, and business systems—which supported more than 100,000 financings to small businesses last year alone.98
199. This authority over the Small Business Administration, including its personnel, data, funding decisions, and technological infrastructure, may only be exercised by a duly appointed officer.
C. Mr. Musk Has Engaged in Conduct That Exceeds the Authority Historically Recognized As Belonging to an Officer.
200. The exercise of significant authority associated with officers of the United States includes the authority to receive, oversee, or disburse public funds, authority over contracts, the power to determine the use of and access to government property, and the power to issue regulations. Mr. Musk has asserted or promised to assert all these forms of significant authority, and more, through his widespread actions across the Executive Branch, both within and between agencies.
Controlling Expenditures and Disbursements of Public Funds
201. Under the banner of improving efficiency, cutting waste, and rooting out fraud, Mr. Musk and DOGE have assumed and exercised authority over public funds held by the federal government.
202. Mr. Musk announced his intent to use DOGE to take control of federal spending and reduce it by $2 trillion and to drastically downsize the federal government.99 It is doubtful that any officer in the Executive Branch has the power to do so, let alone a non-confirmed government employee.
Terminating Federal Contracts and Exercising Control over Federal Property
203. DOGE has expressly indicated that it intends to eliminate every contract not essential to operations or required by law, over objection from agency officials.
204. Federal employees have reported that “DOGE teams don’t tell department staffers which contracts they need to cancel.”100
205. On January 31, 2025, DOGE said in a post on X that it had eliminated 104 contracts related to diversity, equity, inclusion and accessibility (DEIA) at more than a dozen federal agencies.101
206. On February 3, DOGE wrote in a post on X that it had canceled twenty-two leases in the past six days.102 DOGE also posted that it had canceled thirty-six contracts across six agencies to cut federal expenditures.103
207. DOGE wrote on February 4 that it canceled twelve contracts in the GSA and the Department of Education.104
208. DOGE posted on its X account on February 7, 2025, that “coordination across 35 agencies over the last two days” had resulted in cuts of $250 million through the termination of 199 contracts.105
209. Mr. Musk and DOGE have made clear that they will continue to eliminate federal contracts.
210. Among the cuts sought by the DOGE team is an 80% reduction in spending on a contract to manage websites and call center technology that parents and students use for help applying for federal student aid. There are two years remaining on an $824 million contract with information technology services company Accenture for the work.106
211. DOGE also plans to sell government real estate holdings at GSA.
Binding the Government to Future Financial Commitments Without Congressional Authorization
212. Through the “Fork in the Road” initiative, Mr. Musk has committed to severance packages through September. Eliminating Agency Regulations and Entire Agencies and Departments
213. Mr. Musk has made clear that he plans to embark on a massive and unprecedented deregulation project by rescinding thousands of agency regulations.
214. Mr. Musk has publicly remarked that “regulations, basically, should be default gone” and has promised a “wholesale removal of regulations.”107
215. Trump stated that Mr. Musk “will pave the way for my Administration to dismantle Government Bureaucracy, slash excess regulations, cut wasteful expenditures, and restructure Federal Agencies.”108
216. Mr. Musk has called for the elimination of entire federal organizations, such as the CFPB and USAID.109
217. Again, it is doubtful that any one officer of the Executive Branch has the authority to engage make such cuts, let alone an unconfirmed government employee.
Directing Action by Agencies
218. The Executive Order creating DOGE purports to create a hierarchy in which the DOGE Administrator answers to the White House Chief of Staff.
219. However, public reporting makes clear that Mr. Musk is acting unsupervised by anyone and without advance consultation with President Trump or White House staff about his or DOGE’s actions.
220. Further, Trump is “not closely monitoring Mr. Musk’s moves”; instead, he provides Mr. Musk unfettered discretion to take control of federal finances, agency operations, and sensitive information as he sees fit because he “views Mr. Musk as doing the task he assigned him.”110
221. Mr. Musk and his DOGE personnel have conducted their work by threatening, ignoring, and overriding any objections or concerns raised by agency heads and staff. Federal employees have reported that they feel “afraid,” “confused,” and intimidated.111
222. Constantly shifting demands from DOGE employees about how much funding they need to cut have left employees confused and afraid, two employees told CNBC.
223. What’s more, they said, the demands of DOGE teams appear to be arbitrary, and not rooted in any political or policy goals.
Acting as a Principal Officer Unsupervised by Heads of Departments
224. Mr. Musk is not subject to removal by any officer higher than himself as DOGE Administrator—only by President Trump.
225. Mr. Musk’s authority extends across all agencies in the Executive Branch in an unprecedented manner.
D. Defendants’ Actions Have Harmed the Plaintiff States and Will Continue to Harm Them Unless Enjoined.
226. “[J]udicial review of an Appointments Clause claim will proceed even where any possible injury is radically attenuated.” Landry v. F.D.I.C., 204 F.3d 1125, 1131 (D.C. Cir. 2000); see also Lofstad v. Raimondo, 117 F.4th 493, 497 (3rd Cir. 2024) (“A litigant need not show direct harm or prejudice caused by an Appointments Clause violation . . . Such harm is presumed” (citing Cirko v. Comm’r of Soc. Sec., 948 F.3d 148, 154 (3rd Cir. 2020)).
227. Here, however, Mr. Musk’s unlawful assault on the federal government has directly harmed the Plaintiff States. Mr. Musk has interfered with funding that goes directly to the Plaintiff States and stated his intent to continue interfering with such funding. That amounts to a classic pocketbook injury.
228. Defendants have also unlawfully accessed financial data, including of the Plaintiff States, and exposed that data to cybersecurity risks.
Financial and Programmatic Harms to States
229. The federal government disburses billions of dollars directly to the States, to support law enforcement, health care, education, and many other programs. See, e.g., Gilliam Decl. ¶ 7 (“Federal funding comprises 42% of the New Mexico Environment Department’s budget.”); Chang Decl. ¶ 8 (noting that New Mexico’s Abandoned Mine Lands Program is fully federally funded and its Coal Mine Reclamation Program is 79% federally funded); Henerson Decl. (“In FY 2025, the State of Arizona is slated to receive more than $30 billion in federal funding” for a huge array of State agencies.”). In fiscal year 2022, 36.4% of state revenue came from federal dollars.112
230. Defendants have attempted to use their unlawful control of federal agencies to stop many such payments, and they have expressed their intent to continue and expand those efforts.
231. For example, Defendants have halted payments from USAID to public universities, including in the Plaintiff States, see Brunell Decl. ¶¶ 3-8; stated that they intend to use Treasury’s BFS system to halt payments to innumerable recipients, including the Plaintiff States; and stated that they intend to destroy the U.S. Department of Education, which provides billions of dollars in funding to the Plaintiff States.
232. Mr. Musk has also stated that he intends to “delete” the CFPB. The destruction of CFPB, the U.S. Department of Education, or other agencies would place unanticipated financial and resource constraints on Plaintiff States.
233. For example, CFPB’s investigations into and enforcement of consumer protection laws benefits residents of Plaintiff States. With the cessation of CFPB operations, state consumer protection agencies and other enforcement authorities will likely face an increase in complaints and requests for assistance, resulting in the need to invest greater resources and personnel to protect their citizens. See supra ¶ 145.
234. Since its formation in 2011, the CFPB has shouldered a massive burden for Plaintiff States by regulating and enforcing consumer protection laws against industries that exploit financially vulnerable consumers, including payday lenders, mortgage servicers, foreclosure relief services, and debt collectors. These industries already account for a substantial percentage of all complaints Plaintiff States receive each year. Complaints will increase dramatically if the CFPB ceases enforcement of the Consumer Financial Protection Act and abandons the CFPB-prescribed rules that bring uniformity to the information financial institutions and debt collectors must provide to consumers.
235. The CFPB also produces educational resources that aid consumers with questions or issues related to finances, a burden Plaintiff States will bear if the CFPB halts operations. Further, the CFPB operates a unique victims fund that has provided more $3.3 billion in restitution to 6.7 million consumers harmed by insolvent businesses, a cost the states cannot possibly bear.
236. Likewise, the U.S. Department of Education Office of Civil Rights (OCR) has jurisdiction over areas that state civil rights offices may not. For example, some state civil rights offices do not have clear jurisdiction over public schools under state statutes prohibiting discrimination against people with disabilities. Without OCR, discrimination against students with disabilities in public schools (e.g., with respect to Individualized Education Programs (IEPs), protections under Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, like prohibitions against seclusion and restraint) will go without investigation or oversight by a government entity. The public will then turn to state civil rights offices, which will have to spend time and resources to review the cases to determine jurisdiction.
237. Plaintiff States operate numerous programs through federal-state partnerships and contracts, whereby the two parties collectively oversee and administer programs that serve both the States themselves and their citizens.113 For example, New Mexico’s Department of Workforce Solutions has approximately 85 contracts with the federal government. See Declaration of Sarita Nair, ¶¶ 8-17; ¶ 23
238. If the federal government ceases to fulfill its obligations under these agreements, Plaintiff States will incur greater financial costs and strain on personnel and other resources to compensate for the lost federal funding and staffing needed to administer and operate these programs, or else cut them entirely. See, e.g., Henderson Decl. ¶¶ 3-4, 10-11; Gilliam Decl. ¶¶ 9-11; Padilla Decl. ¶¶ 9-12.
239. Aside from cooperatively administered programs, many federal programs are overseen and operated entirely by states at the local level. Federal hiring freezes or workforce reductions can lead to understaffed federal agencies, causing delays and inefficiencies in program implementation. States may need to allocate additional resources to manage these programs effectively, adding to their financial burdens. See, e.g., Chang Decl. ¶¶ 3-11.
Unauthorized Access to and Disclosure of the States’ Private Data
240. Plaintiff States have a proprietary interest in maintaining the privacy and security of their financial and banking information that they have transmitted to federal agencies. See TransUnion LLC v. Ramirez, 594 U.S. 413, 424 (holding that “disclosure of private information” is a concrete harm “traditionally recognized as providing a basis for lawsuits in American courts.”).
241. Plaintiff States’ bank account information and other sensitive financial data, such as taxpayer identification numbers, financial account numbers, are stored in the Bureau of the Fiscal Service (“BFS”) payment systems within Treasury.
242. Unauthorized access to State financial data jeopardizes the privacy and security of the States’ data.
243. Because the Federal Government is under constant threat of cyberattacks, increasing the number of people with access to secure systems and rewriting basic programs presents grave cybersecurity risks, including with respect to the Plaintiff States’ data.
244. Further, the rushed and reckless manipulation of federal agency data management and storage systems by people unfamiliar with agency systems creates opportunities for cyberhacking, jeopardizing national security and infrastructure controlled by agencies like DOT, DOD, and DOE.
245. Defendants have also defied the strict cybersecurity controls for accessing federal networks, including by reportedly connecting personal devices to sensitive government systems114 and ignoring information-security protocols.
246. Agency employees have attempted to raise the alarm about this reckless conduct. Treasury’s security contractor even flagged DOGE’s conduct as an “insider threat.”
247. Mr. Musk and DOGE have already gained access to and altered IT networks for numerous agencies that are responsible for maintaining and protecting critical infrastructure and national safety, including the Department of Energy.
248. Media reporting as of February 9, 2025, indicated that Mr. Musk and DOGE intended to access another secure Treasury database, the Central Accounting Reporting System (CARS) in the next few days. CARS was created to promote uniformity in accounting procedures across federal agencies to enable the federal government to better track financial transactions for the purpose of identifying potential national security risks. The database is believed to be of interest to foreign intelligence agencies. When government auditors have examined the system in the past, the Treasury has pushed for them to do it in secure environments or on the Fiscal Service’s laptops.
249. Thousands of citizens have contacted officials at Plaintiff States to voice their fears about Mr. Musk’s and DOGE’s unprecedented access to protected financial, personal, and other sensitive data. See, e.g., Bush-Koleszar Decl. ¶¶ 4-7 (describing some of the more than 2,600 citizen letters detailing concerns about Mr. Musk and DOGE having unauthorized access to personal information held by federal agencies); Clinton Decl. ¶¶ 7-7-13 (describing some of the more than 1,600 citizen letters detailing same).
250. Defendants’ expanded access may cause a chilling effect on accessing or applying for state programs. Some state citizens have expressed reluctance to provide private information to the government due to fears about data security and data misuse, whether through pursuit of the DOGE agenda or the use of federal data for Mr. Musk’s private ventures.
251. On February 11, 2025, U.S. District Court Judge Paul A. Engelmayer issued an order amending a preliminary injunction entered on February 8, 2025, restraining Defendant President Trump, the Department of Treasury, and Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent from (a) granting access to “personally identifiable and/or confidential financial information of payees” to individuals other than “career employees with a need for access to perform their job duties within the BFS who have passed all background checks and security clearances and taken all information security training called for in federal statutes and Treasury Department regulations,” (b) “granting access to all political appointees, special government employees, and government employees detailed from an agency outside the Treasury Department, to any Treasury Department payment record, payment systems, or any other data systems maintained by the Treasury Department containing personally identifiable information and/or confidential financial information of payees.”
252. Judge Engelmayer further ordered Defendant Trump, the Department of Treasury, and Secretary Bessent “to direct any person prohibited above from having access to such information, records and systems but who has had access to such information, records, and systems since January 20, 2025, to immediately destroy any and all copies of material downloaded.” Order, at *3, New York v. Trump, 1:25-cv-01144-JAV (S.D.N.Y. Feb. 8, 2025).
