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.
2 See, e.g., https://thehill.com/homenews/3767785-tr ... r-country/.
Anti-Anti-Nazi Barbarian Hordes are Knocking Down the Gates
Re: Anti-Anti-Nazi Barbarian Hordes are Knocking Down the Ga
by admin » Fri Feb 14, 2025 5:04 am
- admin
- Site Admin
- Posts: 37580
- Joined: Thu Aug 01, 2013 5:21 am
Re: Anti-Anti-Nazi Barbarian Hordes are Knocking Down the Ga
by admin » Fri Feb 14, 2025 8:23 am
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
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
- admin
- Site Admin
- Posts: 37580
- Joined: Thu Aug 01, 2013 5:21 am
Re: Anti-Anti-Nazi Barbarian Hordes are Knocking Down the Ga
by admin » Fri Feb 14, 2025 9:10 am
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)."
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)."
- admin
- Site Admin
- Posts: 37580
- Joined: Thu Aug 01, 2013 5:21 am
Re: Anti-Anti-Nazi Barbarian Hordes are Knocking Down the Ga
by admin » Fri Feb 14, 2025 9:05 pm
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/
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.
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.
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.
- admin
- Site Admin
- Posts: 37580
- Joined: Thu Aug 01, 2013 5:21 am
Re: Anti-Anti-Nazi Barbarian Hordes are Knocking Down the Ga
by admin » Fri Feb 14, 2025 10:21 pm
Part 1 of 3
14 States Sue to Block Elon Musk’s DOGE Actions, Claim Unconstitutional Abuse of Power
by Courtney Cohn
Democracy Docket
February 14, 2025
https://www.democracydocket.com/news-al ... -of-power/
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.
This follows a similar lawsuit filed by USAID employees Thursday, also alleging that Musk, DOGE and Trump violated the Appointments Clause and separation of powers principles.
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.
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:
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.
14 States Sue to Block Elon Musk’s DOGE Actions, Claim Unconstitutional Abuse of Power
by Courtney Cohn
Democracy Docket
February 14, 2025
https://www.democracydocket.com/news-al ... -of-power/
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.”
-- State of Mexico, et al., plaintiffs, v. Elon Musk, U.S. Doge Service, U.S. Doge Service Temporary Organization and Donald J. Trump, Defendants.
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.
This follows a similar lawsuit filed by USAID employees Thursday, also alleging that Musk, DOGE and Trump violated the Appointments Clause and separation of powers principles.
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.
-- Declaration of Independence: The unanimous Declaration of the thirteen united States of America, In Congress, July 4, 1776
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.
- admin
- Site Admin
- Posts: 37580
- Joined: Thu Aug 01, 2013 5:21 am
Re: Anti-Anti-Nazi Barbarian Hordes are Knocking Down the Ga
by admin » Sat Feb 15, 2025 2:14 am
Part 2 of 3
Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB)
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).
Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB)
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).
- admin
- Site Admin
- Posts: 37580
- Joined: Thu Aug 01, 2013 5:21 am
Re: Anti-Anti-Nazi Barbarian Hordes are Knocking Down the Ga
by admin » Sat Feb 15, 2025 2:36 am
Part 3 of 3
CAUSES OF ACTION
COUNT I
Violation of the Appointments Clause of the U.S. Constitution Against All Defendants
253. The Plaintiffs States incorporate the preceding allegations as if alleged herein.
254. Mr. Musk is an “Officer[] of the United States.” U.S. Const. art. II, § 2, cl. 2.
255. Mr. Musk asserts significant and unprecedented authority in the Executive branch, including making decisions about spending, personnel, contracts, government property, regulations, and agency existence. And he occupies a continuing position as part of the federal government.
256. Mr. Musk takes actions that can only be taken by a nominated and confirmed principal officer of the United States. But President Trump did not appoint Mr. Musk with the advice and consent of the Senate.
257. Mr. Musk does not occupy an office created by law and has no authority to exercise the powers of a principal officer, or any other officer.
258. Mr. Musk’s actions violate Article II, Section 2 of the United States Constitution.
259. Mr. Musk’s actions, personally and through his oversight of DOGE and DOGE personnel, have harmed Plaintiff States.
260. To remedy the Appointments Clause violation, the improperly appointed officer’s challenged actions should be rendered invalid. Ryder v. United States, 515 U.S. 177 (1995); Lucia v. SEC, 585 U.S. 237 (2018); Stern v. Marshall, 564 U.S. 462 (2011); Clinton v. City of New York, 524 U.S. 417 (1998); INS v. Chadha, 462 U.S. 919 (1983).
COUNT II
Conduct in Excess of Statutory Authority
Against Defendants Mr. Musk, U.S. DOGE Service, and U.S. DOGE Temporary Service Organization
261. The Plaintiffs States incorporate the preceding allegations as if alleged herein.
262. DOGE has purported to exercise authority of its own, and not merely to have acted as an adviser to the President.
263. “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).
264. Congress has not provided any authority to DOGE.
265. The Constitution does not provide any authority to DOGE.
266. The temporary organization statute, 5 U.S.C. § 3161, does not provide DOGE with the authority it has purported to exercise.
267. That statute provides that a “temporary organization” is defined as an organization “established by law or Executive order 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(a)(1) (emphasis added).
268. There is no plausible definition of “project” that would include DOGE’s attempt to remake the entire Executive Branch, as described above, or to destroy agencies, fire personnel, halt funding, or dispose of government property.
269. That conclusion is supported by the major questions doctrine, under which courts “expect 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).
270. When the executive branch purports to exercise such powers, “the question” is whether a statute (or the Constitution) “plainly authorizes” that action. Id.
271. The temporary organization statute, 5 U.S.C. § 3161, does not “plainly authorize” DOGE to remake the entire Executive Branch as described above, or to destroy agencies, fire personnel, halt funding, or dispose of government property.
272. Accordingly, DOGE’s conduct to that effect has been ultra vires and DOGE must be enjoined from any such further conduct.
PRAYER FOR RELIEF
WHEREFORE, the Plaintiff States pray that this Court grant the following relief:
A. Injunctive Relief
273. Issue a temporary restraining order that immediately and temporarily, until such time as the Court may hear a motion for preliminary injunction, orders Mr. Musk to identify all ways in which any data obtained through unlawful agency access was used, including whether it was used to train any algorithmic models or create or obtain derivative data, orders Mr. Musk to destroy any copies or any derivative data from such unauthorized access in his or DOGE’s possession, custody, or control, and bars Mr. Musk and DOGE from:
(a) ordering any change in the disbursement of public funds by agencies;
(b) extending offers on behalf of the United States that would bind the government to an appropriation that has not been authorized by law;
(c) cancelling government contracts;
(d) disposing of government property;
(e) ordering the rescission or amendment of regulations;
(f) making personnel decisions for agency employees;
(g) taking steps to dismantle agencies created by law or otherwise asserting control over such agencies, including, e.g., placing employees on administrative leave;
(h) accessing sensitive and confidential agency data, using agency data for other than its authorized purpose;
(i) altering agency data systems without authorization by law and without taking all appropriate protections against cybersecurity risks; or
(j) engaging in any other conduct that violates the Appointments Clause or exceeds statutory authority.
274. Issue preliminary and permanent injunctions granting the same Relief as set forth in the preceding paragraph of this Complaint.
B. Declaratory Relief
275. (1) Declare that Mr. Musk’s officer-level governmental actions to date, including those of his subordinates and designees, are ultra vires and shall have no legal effect; and (2) declare that any future orders or directions by Mr. Musk or DOGE in the categories outlined in the Injunctive Relief section of this Prayer for Relief above are ultra vires and of no legal effect.
A. Other Relief
276. Award the Plaintiff States their reasonable fees, costs, and expenses, including attorneys’ fees, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2412.
277. Award such other relief as this Court may deem just and proper.
Dated: Santa Fe, New Mexico
February 13, 2025
Respectfully submitted,
RAÚL TORREZ
Attorney General of the State of New Mexico
By: /s/ Anjana Samant
Anjana Samant
Deputy Counsel
DC Bar No 4267019
James Grayson*
Chief Deputy Attorney General
Steven Perfrement
Assistant Attorney General
New Mexico Department of Justice
408 Galisteo Street
Santa Fe, New Mexico 87501
[email protected]
[email protected]
[email protected]
(505) 270-4332
Attorneys for the State of New Mexico
DANA NESSEL
Attorney General, State of Michigan
By: /s/ Joseph Potchen
Joseph Potchen*
Deputy Attorney General
Linus Banghart-Linn*
Chief Legal Counsel
Jason Evans*
Assistant Attorney General
Michigan Department of Attorney General
525 W. Ottawa St.
Lansing, MI 48933
517-335-7632
[email protected]
Attorneys for the People of the State of Michigan
KRISTIN K. MAYES
Attorney General for the State of Arizona
By: /s/ Joshua D. Bendor
Joshua D. Bendor*
Solicitor General
2005 North Central Avenue
Phoenix, Arizona 85004
(602) 542-3333
[email protected]
Attorneys for the State of Arizona
ROB BONTA
Attorney General for the State of California
By: /s/ Laura L. Faer
Laura L. Faer*
Supervising Deputy Attorney General
1515 Clay St.
Oakland, CA 94612
(510) 879-3304
[email protected]
Attorneys for the State of California
WILLIAM TONG
Attorney General for the State of Connecticut
By: /s/ Michael K. Skold
Michael K. Skold*
Solicitor General
165 Capitol Ave
Hartford, CT 06106
(860) 808-5020
[email protected]
Attorneys for the State of Connecticut
ANNE E. LOPEZ
Attorney General for the State of Hawai’i
By: /s/ Kalikoʻonālani D. Fernandes
Kalikoʻonālani D. Fernandes*
Solicitor General
David D. Day*
Special Assistant to the Attorney General
425 Queen Street
Honolulu, HI 96813
(808) 586-1360
[email protected]
Attorneys for the State of Hawaiʻi
ANTHONY G. BROWN
Attorney General for the State of Maryland
By: /s/ Adam D. Kirschner
Adam D. Kirschner*
Senior Assistant Attorney General
200 Saint Paul Place, 20th Floor
Baltimore, Maryland 21202
(410) 576-6424
[email protected]
Attorneys for the State of Maryland
ANDREA JOY CAMPBELL
Attorney General of Massachusetts
By: /s/ David C. Kravitz
David C. Kravitz*
1 Ashburton Pl., 20th Fl
Boston, MA 02108
(617) 963-2277
[email protected]
Attorneys for the State of Massachusetts
KEITH ELLISON
Attorney General for the State of Minnesota
By: /s/ Liz Kramer
Liz Kramer*
Solicitor General
445 Minnesota Street, Suite 1400
St. Paul, Minnesota 55101
(651) 757-1010
[email protected]
Attorneys for the State of Minnesota
DAN RAYFIELD
Attorney General for the State of Oregon
By: /s/ Deanna J. Chang
Deanna J. Chang*
Senior Assistant Attorney General
100 SW Market Street
Portland, OR 97201
(971) 673-1880
[email protected]
Counsel for the State of Oregon
PETER F. NERONHA
Attorney General for the State of Rhode Island
By: /s/ Jeff Kidd
Jeff Kidd*
Special Assistant Attorney General
150 South Main Street
Providence, Rhode Island 02903
(401) 274-4400
[email protected]
Attorneys for the State of Rhode Island
CHARITY R. CLARK
Attorney General for the State of Vermont
By: /s/ Jonathan T. Rose
Jonathan T. Rose*
Solicitor General
109 State Street
Montpelier, VT 05609
(802) 793-1646
[email protected]
Attorneys for the State of Vermont
NICHOLAS W. BROWN
Attorney General for the State of Washington
By: /s/ Andrew Hughes
Andrew Hughes*
Assistant Attorney General
800 Fifth Avenue, Suite 2000
Seattle, WA 98104
(206) 464-7744
[email protected]
Attorneys for the State of Washington
* Pro Hac Vice
_______________
Notes:
1 See, e.g., Buckley, 424 U.S. at 140 (“determinations of eligibility for funds” are among duties implicating Appointments Clause); id. (“rulemaking . . . represents the performance of a significant government duty exercised pursuant to public law” and may only be “exercised” by officers); United States v. Tingey, 30 U.S. (5 Pet.) 115, 126 (1831) (discussing officers “for the purpose of making contracts, or for the purchase of supplies”); United States v. Maurice, 26 F. Cas. 1211, 1214 (Cir. Ct. D. Va. 1823).
2 Donald Trump (@RealDonaldTrump), X (Nov. 12, 2024).
3 Establishing and Implementing the Presidents Department of Government Efficiency,” Exec. Order No. 14,158, 90 Fed. Reg. 8441 (Jan. 20, 2025), https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/FR- ... -02005.pdf [hereinafter “DOGE Executive Order”].
4 DOGE Executive Order at § 4(a)
5 Id. at § 4(a).
6 Id. at § 1.
7 Id. at § 4(b).
8 Id. at § 1.
9 Unless otherwise indicated, Plaintiffs use “DOGE personnel” and “DOGE-affiliated personnel” to refer individuals whose apparent or actual authority derives from the DOGE Executive Order.
10 Alan Rappeport, Maggie Haberman, Theodore Schleifer, & Andrew Duehren, Elon Musk’s Team Now Has Access to Treasury’s Payments System, N.Y. Times (Feb. 1, 2025), https://www.nytimes.com/2025/02/01/us/p ... ystem.html.
11 Caleb Ecarma & Judd Legum, Musk associates given unfettered access to private data of government employees, MUSK WATCH (Feb. 3, 2025), at https://www.muskwatch.com/p/ muskassociates-given-unfettered (last accessed Feb. 3, 2025).
12 Alan Condon, DOGE sets sights on Medicaid, NY TIMES (Feb. 3, 2025) (noting that DOGE has been provided access to key payment and contracting systems at CMS).
13 Kim Kelly (@GrimKim), X (Feb. 4, 2025, 5:04 PM ET), https://x.com/GrimKim/status/1886898588099240401 (reporting that DOL workers were ordered to give DOGE access to anything they want without regard to security protocols).
14 Jeff Stein et al., U.S. government officials privately warn Musk’s blitz appears illegal, WASH. POST (Feb. 4, 2025), https://www.washingtonpost.com/business ... egal-doge/ (“Inside the Education Department, some staffers are deeply alarmed by the fact that DOGE staffers have gained access to federal student loan data, which includes personal information for millions of borrowers. Some employees have raised the alarm up their chain of management”).
15 Bobby Allyn & Shannon Bond, Elon Musk's DOGE Team Sets Off Tensions in the Federal Government, NPR (Feb. 3, 2025), https://www.npr.org/2025/02/03/nx-s1-52 ... said-trump.
16 Hanna Perry, Trump Says DOGE Does Not Even Needs Its Access to Sensitive Info, Newsweek (Feb. 7, 2025), https://www.newsweek.com/trump-says-dog ... fo-2028177.
17 See Erica L. Green & Michael D. Shear, Musk Wields Scythe on Federal Work Force, With Trump’s Full Blessing, N.Y. TIMES (Feb. 8, 2025).
18 See Erica L. Green & Michael D. Shear, Musk Wields Scythe on Federal Work Force, With Trump’s Full Blessing, N.Y. TIMES (Feb. 8, 2025).
19 Jake Lahut, Elon Musk’s Takeover Is Causing Rifts in Donald Trump’s Inner Circle, Wired (Feb. 5, 2025), https://www.wired.com/story/trump-aides ... -takeover/.
20 Elena Moore, Trump and Musk appear together in the Oval Office to defend the work of DOGE, NPR (Feb. 11, 2025), https://www.npr.org/2025/02/11/nx-s1-52 ... val-office.
21 “Implementing the President’s ‘Department of Workforce Efficiency’' Workforce Optimization Initiative” (Feb. 11, 2025) https://www.whitehouse.gov/presidential ... nitiative/
22 United States Dep’t of the Treasury, Bureau of the Fiscal Serv., Treasury Offset Program, How the Treasury Offset Program Collects Money for State Agencies, https://www.fiscal.treasury.gov/top/state-programs.html (last visited Feb. 5, 2025).
23 See U.S. Dep’t of the Treasury, Press Releases, Treasury Department Letter to Members of Congress Regarding Payment Systems, https://home.treasury.gov/news/press-releases/sb0009 (Feb. 4, 2025); Payment Integrity Information Act of 2019, codified at 31 U.S.C. § 3351.
24 See, e.g., Elon Musk (@Elon Musk), X (Feb. 8, 2025), https://x.com/elonmusk/status/1888314848477376744.
25 See Katelyn Polantz & Phil Mattingly, Musk Associates Sought to Use Critical Treasury Payment System to Shut Down USAID Spending, Emails Show, CNN, updated Feb. 6, 2025, 3:31 P.M. EST, https://www.cnn.com/2025/02/06/politics ... index.html.
26 Tim Reid, Helen Coster & James Oliphant, Musk's DOGE Cuts Based More On Political Ideology Than Real Cost Savings So Far, REUTERS (Feb. 12, 2025), http://reuters.com/world/us/musk-cuts-b ... 025-02-12/.
27 See Katelyn Polantz & Phil Mattingly, supra.
28 Alan Rappeport, Maggie Haberman, Theodore Schleifer, & Andrew Duehren, Elon Musk’s Team Now Has Access to Treasury’s Payments System, N.Y. TIMES (Feb. 1, 2025), https://www.nytimes.com/2025/02/01/us/p ... ystem.html.
29 Elon Musk (@Elon Musk), X (Feb. 2, 2025), https://x.com/elonmusk/status/1885964969335808217.
30 Vittoria Elliot & Leah Feiger, A U.S. Treasury Threat Intelligence Analysis Designates DOGE Staff as “Insider Threat, Wired (Feb. 7, 2025), https://www.wired.com/story/treasury-bf ... er-threat/.
31 Robert E. Rubin, Lawrence H. Summers, Timothy F. Geithner, Jacob J. Lew, & Janet L. Yellen, Five Former Treasury Secretaries: Our Democracy Is Under Siege, N.Y. TIMES (Feb. 10, 2025), https://www.nytimes.com/2025/02/10/opin ... -musk.html.
32 Jeff Stein et al., In Chaotic Washington Blitz, Elon Musk’s Ultimate Goal Becomes Clear, WASH. POST (Feb. 8, 2025); Charlie Warzel et al., The Government’s Computing Experts Say They Are Terrified, THE ATLANTIC (Feb. 7, 2025).
33 Jess Bidgood, When Musk’s Team Shows Up at Your Doorstep, N.Y. TIMES (Feb. 12, 2025), https://www.nytimes.com/2025/02/12/us/p ... trump.html.
34 See John Hudson, Ellen Nakashima, Missy Ryan, Mariana Alfaro & Faiz Siddiqui, Trump Moves To Wrest Control Of USAID As Musk Says, “We’re shutting it down,” WASH. POST (Feb. 3, 2025). https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics ... rump-musk/.
35 See Andrew Roth, Doge V USAID: How Elon Musk Helped His Acolytes Infiltrate World’s Biggest Aid Agency, THE GUARDIAN (Feb. 5, 2025), https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/202 ... over-usaid.
36 Id.; John Hudson, Ellen Nakashima, Missy Ryan, Mariana Alfaro & Faiz Siddiqui, Trump Moves To Wrest Control Of USAID As Musk Says, “We’re shutting it down,” WASH. POST (Feb. 3, 2025).
37 USAID, https://www.usaid.gov (last visited Feb. 8, 2025).
38 Elon Musk (@Elon Musk), X (Feb. 2, 2025), https://x.com/elonmusk/status/1886102414194835755.
39 Elon Musk (@Elon Musk), X (Feb. 2, 2025), https://x.com/elonmusk/status/1886307316804263979.
40 John Hudson, et al., Trump Moves To Wrest Control Of USAID As Musk Says, “We’re shutting it down,” WASH. POST (Feb. 3, 2025).
41 See Ellen Knickmeyer, Farnoush Amiri, & Adriana Gomez Licon, Trump And Must Move To Dismantle USAID, Igniting Battle With Democratic Lawmakers, AP NEWS (Feb. 3, 2025), https://apnews.com/article/trump-musk-u ... 6565985fe2.
42 Ellen Knickmeyer, Lawsuit Describes Musk's DOGE Teams Overseeing The Ending Of Hundreds Of USAID Programs Abroad, AP (Feb. 12, 2025); Declaration of Thomasina Doe, Civil Action No. 1:25-CV-352, at 9 (“While the Senior Procurement Executive sent the email, there was no indication from whom the order was coming officially for documentation purposes. When someone asked the Senior Procurement Executive, Jami Rodgers, [a DOGE official] named Jeremy Lewin responded”).
43 See Nahal Toosi & Robbie Gramer, How spending $153M to pay its bills put USAID in DOGE’s crosshairs, POLITICO (Feb. 8, 2025), https://www.politico.com/news/2025/02/0 ... e-00203191.
44 Id.
45 Ellen Nakashima, Hacks of OPM databases compromised 22.1 million people, federal authorities say, WASH. POST (July 9, 2015), https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/fed ... ities-say/ (last accessed Feb. 2, 2025).
46 Tim Reid, Exclusive: Musk aides lock workers out of OPM computer systems, REUTERS (Feb. 2, 2025), https://www.reuters.com/world/us/musk-a ... hatgpt.com.
47 Isaac Stanley-Becker et al., Musk’s DOGE agents access sensitive personnel data, alarming security officials, WASH. POST (Feb. 6, 2025), https://www.washingtonpost.com/national ... -security/ (“At least six DOGE agents were given broad access to all personnel systems at the OPM on the afternoon of Jan. 20, the day of Trump’s inauguration, according to two agency officials.”).
48 OPM, Fork in the Road (Jan. 28, 2025), at https://www.opm.gov/fork (last accessed Feb. 3, 2025).
49 Id.
50 Caleb Ecarma & Judd Legum, Musk associates given unfettered access to private data of government employees, MUSK WATCH (Feb. 3, 2025), at https://www.muskwatch.com/p/muskassocia ... unfettered (last accessed Feb. 3, 2025).
52 Anna Wild Mathews & Liz Essley Whyte, DOGE Aides Search Medicare Agency Payment Systems for Fraud, (Feb. 5, 2025), https://www.wsj.com/politics/elon-musk- ... d-e697b162.
53 Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Servs., Press Release, CMS Statement on Collaboration with DOGE, https://www.cms.gov/newsroom/press-rele ... ation-doge (Feb. 5, 2025).
54 Riley Griffin & Madison Muller, Musk’s DOGE Team Mines for Fraud at Medicare, Medicaid, BLOOMBERG (Feb. 5, 2025), https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles ... aid-agency.
55 Joyce Lupiani, Elon Musk’s DOGE Team Visits CDC in Atlanta, Reports Say, FOX 5 ATLANTA (Feb. 6, 2025), https://www.fox5atlanta.com/news/elon-m ... eports-say.
56 Pien Huang & Will Stone, Morale Plummets At The CDC As Staff Fear Job Losses, NPR (Feb. 7, 2025), https://www.npr.org/sections/shots-heal ... lists-doge (“Losing even half of these workers would be “devastating” for the agency's current disease outbreak responses, which includes H5N1 bird flu, measles and mpox.”).
57 U.S. Dep’t of Energy, NNSA, About NNSA, https://www.energy.gov/nnsa/about-nnsa (last visited Feb. 7, 2025).
58 Ella Nilsen & Sean Lyngaas, Trump Energy Secretary Allowed 23-Year-Old DOGE Rep to Access IT Systems Over Objections From General Counsel, CNN (Feb. 7, 2025), https://www.cnn.com/2025/02/06/climate/ ... index.html.
59 Timothy Gardner, Three DOGE Members Raise Access Concerns at U.S. Energy Department, Sources Say, REUTERS, (Feb. 7, 2025), https://www.reuters.com/world/us/three- ... 025-02-07/.
60 Pub. L. 111–203 (2010), https://www.consumerfinance.gov/about-us/the-bureau/.
61 See Tony Room, DOGE targets Consumer Financial Protection Bureau as Musk tweets ‘RIP’, WASH. POST (Feb. 7, 2025).
62 Elon Musk (@Elon Musk), X (Feb. 7, 2025), https://x.com/elonmusk/status/1887979940269666769.
63 See Stacey Cowley, Confusion Reigns as ‘a Wrecking Ball Hits the Consumer Bureau,” (Feb. 10, 2025), https://www.nytimes.com/2025/02/10/busi ... usion.html.
64 See Erica L. Green & Michael D. Shear, Musk Wields Scythe on Federal Work Force, With Trump’s Full Blessing, N.Y. TIMES (Feb. 8, 2025).
65 Department of Government Efficiency (@DOGE), X (Jan. 27, 2025), https://x.com/DOGE/status/1884015256957296917.
66 Weslan Hansen, DOGE Chief Claims to ‘Delete’ GSA’s 18F Tech Group, MERITALK (Feb. 4, 2025), https://www.meritalk.com/articles/doge- ... ech-group/.
67 Tom Hals & Jack Queen, Is Elon Musk’s Government Efficiency Drive Legal? , REUTER (Feb. 5, 2025), https://www.reuters.com/world/us/is-elo ... 025-02-05/.
68 Danny Nguyen, ‘Anxiety provoking’: Government workers describe their DOGE interviews, POLITICO (Feb. 12, 2025), https://www.politico.com/news/2025/02/1 ... ews-016214.
69 Id.
70 Jeff Stein et al., In Chaotic Washington Blitz, Elon Musk’s Ultimate Goal Becomes Clear, WASH. POST (Feb. 8, 2025).
71 Danny Nguyen, ‘Anxiety provoking’: Government workers describe their DOGE interviews, POLITICO (Feb. 12, 2025), https://www.politico.com/news/2025/02/1 ... ews-016214.
72 Jeff Stein et al., U.S. Government Officials Privately Warn Musk’s Blitz Appears Illegal, WASH. POST (Feb. 4, 2025), https://www.washingtonpost.com/business ... egal-doge/.
73 See Collin Binkley & Bianca Vázquez Toness, Musk Team’s Access To Student Loan Systems Raises Alarm Over Borrowers’ Personal Information, AP (Feb. 7, 2025), https://apnews.com/article/education-de ... a4f291bec4.
74 Annie Nova, How Elon Musk’s DOGE took over the Education Department, one office at a time, CNBC (Feb. 12, 2025), https://www.cnbc.com/2025/02/12/trump-d ... -cuts.html.
75 Tyler Kingkade & Natasha Korecki, Inside DOGE’s takeover of the Education Department, NBC NEWS (Feb. 8, 2025).
76 Elon Musk (@Elon Musk), X (Feb. 7, 2025), https://x.com/elonmusk/status/1888038615780909178.
77 See Erica L. Green & Michael D. Shear, Musk Wields Scythe on Federal Work Force, With Trump’s Full Blessing, N.Y. TIMES (Feb. 8, 2025).
78 Department of Government Efficiency (@DOGE), X (Feb. 10, 2025), https://x.com/DOGE/status/1889113011282907434.
79 Zachary Schermele, DOGE slashes millions from Education Department research, USA TODAY (Feb. 11, 2025), https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/edu ... 411180007/.
80 See Department of Education, Fiscal Year 2025 Budget Summary at 15, www.ed.gov/sites/ed/files/about/overvie ... ummary.pdf.
81 Department of Education, Fiscal Year 2025 Budget Summary at 28, www.ed.gov/sites/ed/files/about/overvie ... mmary.pdf;
82 See Department of Education, Federal Student Aid, https://www.ed.gov/about/ed-offices/fsa ... tudent-aid.
83 See Department of Education, Privacy Policy for StudentAid.gov, https://studentaid.gov/notices/privacy.
84 2 Kim Kelly (@GrimKim), X (Feb. 4, 2025, 5:04 PM ET), https://x.com/GrimKim/status/1886898588099240401.
85 Affidavit from Rushab Sanghvi, https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap ... .1.0_2.pdf.
86 Federal Aviation Administration, National Airspace System (last updated April 20, 2023), https://www.faa.gov/air_traffic/nas.
87 Jason Lalljee, Musk Sets Sights on Aviation Reform, AXIOS (Feb. 5, 2025), https://www.axios.com/2025/02/05/dc-pla ... -musk-doge ; see also Secretary Sean Duffy (@SecDuffy), X (Feb.5, 2025), https://x.com/SecDuffy/status/1887209012867047525.
88 Charlie Warzel & Ian Bogost, The Government’s Computing Experts Say They Are Terrified, THE ATLANTIC (Feb. 7, 2025), https://www.theatlantic.com/technology/ ... ty/681600/.
89 Id.
90 Elon Musk (@Elon Musk), X (Feb. 5, 2025), https://x.com/elon musk/status/1887233566263967812 (“Just a few days ago, the FAA’s primary aircraft safety notification system failed for several hours!”).
91 Laura Geller & Tracy J. Wholf, Democrats Concerned DOGE Is Targeting NOAA, Sources Say, CBS NEWS (Feb. 5, 2025).
92 ABC Climate Unit, DOGE Now Has Access To NOAA's IT Systems; Reviewing DEI Program, Sources Say, ABC NEWS (Feb. 5, 2025), https://www.kron4.com/hill-politics/dem ... -noaa/amp/.
93 Dell Cameron, NOAA Employees Told to Pause Work with ‘Foreign Nationals,’ WIRED (Feb. 5, 2025).
94 Aileen Graef & Veronica Stracqualursi, DOGE Team Has Access To FEMA Private Information On Those Who Received Disaster Relief Grants, ACTION NEWS NOW (Feb. 9, 2025), https://www.actionnewsnow.com/news/doge ... 450a5.html
95 Elon Musk (@Elon Musk), X (Feb. 9, 2025), https://x.com/elonmusk/status/1888488867809956267.
96 Elon Musk (@Elon Musk), X (Feb. 10, 2025), https://x.com/elonmusk/status/1888891512303263815.
97 Antonio Pequeno IV, Four FEMA Officials Fired After Musk’s DOGE Claims Agency Funded Migrant Housing In ‘Luxury’ Hotels (Feb. 11, 2025), http://forbes.com/sites/antoniopequenoi ... ry-hotels/.
98 Nicole Narea, Elon Musk’s Secretive Government IT Takeover, Explained, VOX (Feb. 5, 2025), https://www.vox.com/politics/398366/mus ... pm-budget; Bobby Allyn & Shannon Bond, Elon Musk Is Barreling into Government with DOGE, Raising Unusual Legal Questions, NPR (Feb. 3, 2025), https://www.npr.org/2025/02/03/nx-s1-52 ... said-trump.
99 Jonathan Schwabish, The Implications of Shrinking the Federal Workforce by DOGE’s Recommended 75 Percent, URBAN INSTITUTE (Jan. 20, 2025), https://www.urban.org/urban-wire/implic ... 5-percent; Madeliene Ngo and David A. Fahrenhold, Musk Wants to Slash $2 Trillion in Federal Spending. Is That Possible?, N.Y. TIMES (Nov. 16, 2024), https://www.bloomberg.com/news/videos/2 ... dget-video.
100 Annie Nova, How Elon Musk’s DOGE took over the Education Department, one office at a time, CNBC (Feb. 12, 2025), https://www.cnbc.com/2025/02/12/trump-d ... -cuts.html.
101 Department of Government Efficiency (@DOGE), X (Jan. 31, 2025), https://x.com/DOGE/status/1885420298138247458
102 Department of Government Efficiency (@DOGE), X (Feb. 3, 2025), https://x.com/DOGE/status/1886273522214813785
103 Department of Government Efficiency (@DOGE), X (Feb. 3, 2025), https://x.com/DOGE/status/1886578681805504608.
104 Department of Government Efficiency (@DOGE), X (Feb. 4, 2025), https://x.com/DOGE/status/1886982858369020330.
105 Department of Government Efficiency (@DOGE), X (Feb. 7, 2025), https://x.com/DOGE/status/1888046273543979183.
106 Collin Binkley & Bianca Vazquez Toness, Musk team’s access to student loan systems raises alarm over borrowers’ personal information, AP NEWS (Feb. 7, 2025), https://apnews.com/article/education-de ... a4f291bec4
107 Matt Shuham, Elon Musk Suggests Getting Rid Of All Regulations In Midnight Call, HUFFPOST (Feb. 3, 2025), https://www.yahoo.com/news/elon-musk-su ... 57557.html (““These regulations are added willy-nilly all the time. So we’ve just got to do a wholesale, spring cleaning of regulation and get the government off the backs of everyday Americans so people can get things done.”).
108 Soo Rin Kim, Some Ethics Experts Raise Concerns Over Musk and Ramaswamy’s Department of Government Efficiency Roles, ABC NEWS (Nov. 13, 2024), https://abcnews.go.com/US/ethics-expert ... =115838961.
109 Elon Musk (@Elon Musk), X (Nov. 27, 2024, 12:35 AM ET), https://x.com/elonmusk/status/1861644897490751865 (identifying the CFPB as an area of federal government to “delete”). Last week, Mr. Musk posted: “CFPB RIP.”
110 Isaac Arnsdorg & Jacqueline Alemany, Trump, Musk wage two-front war as donor does president’s ‘dirty work’, WASH. POST (Feb. 4, 2025), https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics ... dent-role/.
111 Annie Nova, How Elon Musk’s DOGE took over the Education Department, one office at a time, CNBC (Feb. 12, 2025), https://www.cnbc.com/2025/02/12/trump-d ... -cuts.html.
112 Rebecca Thiess, Kate Watkins & Justin Theal, Record Federal Grants to States Keep Federal Share of State Budgets High, PEW (Sept. 10, 2024), https://www.pewtrusts.org/en/research-a ... dgets-high.
113 Bridget Fahey, Coordinated Rulemaking and Cooperative Federalism’s Administrative Law, 132 YALE L.J. 1320, 1323 (2023).
114 Letter from Senators to Susan Wiles, White House Chief of Staff Executive (Feb. 5, 2025), https://www.bennet.senate.gov/wp-conten ... Letter.pdf.
CAUSES OF ACTION
COUNT I
Violation of the Appointments Clause of the U.S. Constitution Against All Defendants
253. The Plaintiffs States incorporate the preceding allegations as if alleged herein.
254. Mr. Musk is an “Officer[] of the United States.” U.S. Const. art. II, § 2, cl. 2.
255. Mr. Musk asserts significant and unprecedented authority in the Executive branch, including making decisions about spending, personnel, contracts, government property, regulations, and agency existence. And he occupies a continuing position as part of the federal government.
256. Mr. Musk takes actions that can only be taken by a nominated and confirmed principal officer of the United States. But President Trump did not appoint Mr. Musk with the advice and consent of the Senate.
257. Mr. Musk does not occupy an office created by law and has no authority to exercise the powers of a principal officer, or any other officer.
258. Mr. Musk’s actions violate Article II, Section 2 of the United States Constitution.
259. Mr. Musk’s actions, personally and through his oversight of DOGE and DOGE personnel, have harmed Plaintiff States.
260. To remedy the Appointments Clause violation, the improperly appointed officer’s challenged actions should be rendered invalid. Ryder v. United States, 515 U.S. 177 (1995); Lucia v. SEC, 585 U.S. 237 (2018); Stern v. Marshall, 564 U.S. 462 (2011); Clinton v. City of New York, 524 U.S. 417 (1998); INS v. Chadha, 462 U.S. 919 (1983).
COUNT II
Conduct in Excess of Statutory Authority
Against Defendants Mr. Musk, U.S. DOGE Service, and U.S. DOGE Temporary Service Organization
261. The Plaintiffs States incorporate the preceding allegations as if alleged herein.
262. DOGE has purported to exercise authority of its own, and not merely to have acted as an adviser to the President.
263. “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).
264. Congress has not provided any authority to DOGE.
265. The Constitution does not provide any authority to DOGE.
266. The temporary organization statute, 5 U.S.C. § 3161, does not provide DOGE with the authority it has purported to exercise.
267. That statute provides that a “temporary organization” is defined as an organization “established by law or Executive order 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(a)(1) (emphasis added).
268. There is no plausible definition of “project” that would include DOGE’s attempt to remake the entire Executive Branch, as described above, or to destroy agencies, fire personnel, halt funding, or dispose of government property.
269. That conclusion is supported by the major questions doctrine, under which courts “expect 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).
270. When the executive branch purports to exercise such powers, “the question” is whether a statute (or the Constitution) “plainly authorizes” that action. Id.
271. The temporary organization statute, 5 U.S.C. § 3161, does not “plainly authorize” DOGE to remake the entire Executive Branch as described above, or to destroy agencies, fire personnel, halt funding, or dispose of government property.
272. Accordingly, DOGE’s conduct to that effect has been ultra vires and DOGE must be enjoined from any such further conduct.
PRAYER FOR RELIEF
WHEREFORE, the Plaintiff States pray that this Court grant the following relief:
A. Injunctive Relief
273. Issue a temporary restraining order that immediately and temporarily, until such time as the Court may hear a motion for preliminary injunction, orders Mr. Musk to identify all ways in which any data obtained through unlawful agency access was used, including whether it was used to train any algorithmic models or create or obtain derivative data, orders Mr. Musk to destroy any copies or any derivative data from such unauthorized access in his or DOGE’s possession, custody, or control, and bars Mr. Musk and DOGE from:
(a) ordering any change in the disbursement of public funds by agencies;
(b) extending offers on behalf of the United States that would bind the government to an appropriation that has not been authorized by law;
(c) cancelling government contracts;
(d) disposing of government property;
(e) ordering the rescission or amendment of regulations;
(f) making personnel decisions for agency employees;
(g) taking steps to dismantle agencies created by law or otherwise asserting control over such agencies, including, e.g., placing employees on administrative leave;
(h) accessing sensitive and confidential agency data, using agency data for other than its authorized purpose;
(i) altering agency data systems without authorization by law and without taking all appropriate protections against cybersecurity risks; or
(j) engaging in any other conduct that violates the Appointments Clause or exceeds statutory authority.
274. Issue preliminary and permanent injunctions granting the same Relief as set forth in the preceding paragraph of this Complaint.
B. Declaratory Relief
275. (1) Declare that Mr. Musk’s officer-level governmental actions to date, including those of his subordinates and designees, are ultra vires and shall have no legal effect; and (2) declare that any future orders or directions by Mr. Musk or DOGE in the categories outlined in the Injunctive Relief section of this Prayer for Relief above are ultra vires and of no legal effect.
A. Other Relief
276. Award the Plaintiff States their reasonable fees, costs, and expenses, including attorneys’ fees, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2412.
277. Award such other relief as this Court may deem just and proper.
Dated: Santa Fe, New Mexico
February 13, 2025
Respectfully submitted,
RAÚL TORREZ
Attorney General of the State of New Mexico
By: /s/ Anjana Samant
Anjana Samant
Deputy Counsel
DC Bar No 4267019
James Grayson*
Chief Deputy Attorney General
Steven Perfrement
Assistant Attorney General
New Mexico Department of Justice
408 Galisteo Street
Santa Fe, New Mexico 87501
[email protected]
[email protected]
[email protected]
(505) 270-4332
Attorneys for the State of New Mexico
DANA NESSEL
Attorney General, State of Michigan
By: /s/ Joseph Potchen
Joseph Potchen*
Deputy Attorney General
Linus Banghart-Linn*
Chief Legal Counsel
Jason Evans*
Assistant Attorney General
Michigan Department of Attorney General
525 W. Ottawa St.
Lansing, MI 48933
517-335-7632
[email protected]
Attorneys for the People of the State of Michigan
KRISTIN K. MAYES
Attorney General for the State of Arizona
By: /s/ Joshua D. Bendor
Joshua D. Bendor*
Solicitor General
2005 North Central Avenue
Phoenix, Arizona 85004
(602) 542-3333
[email protected]
Attorneys for the State of Arizona
ROB BONTA
Attorney General for the State of California
By: /s/ Laura L. Faer
Laura L. Faer*
Supervising Deputy Attorney General
1515 Clay St.
Oakland, CA 94612
(510) 879-3304
[email protected]
Attorneys for the State of California
WILLIAM TONG
Attorney General for the State of Connecticut
By: /s/ Michael K. Skold
Michael K. Skold*
Solicitor General
165 Capitol Ave
Hartford, CT 06106
(860) 808-5020
[email protected]
Attorneys for the State of Connecticut
ANNE E. LOPEZ
Attorney General for the State of Hawai’i
By: /s/ Kalikoʻonālani D. Fernandes
Kalikoʻonālani D. Fernandes*
Solicitor General
David D. Day*
Special Assistant to the Attorney General
425 Queen Street
Honolulu, HI 96813
(808) 586-1360
[email protected]
Attorneys for the State of Hawaiʻi
ANTHONY G. BROWN
Attorney General for the State of Maryland
By: /s/ Adam D. Kirschner
Adam D. Kirschner*
Senior Assistant Attorney General
200 Saint Paul Place, 20th Floor
Baltimore, Maryland 21202
(410) 576-6424
[email protected]
Attorneys for the State of Maryland
ANDREA JOY CAMPBELL
Attorney General of Massachusetts
By: /s/ David C. Kravitz
David C. Kravitz*
1 Ashburton Pl., 20th Fl
Boston, MA 02108
(617) 963-2277
[email protected]
Attorneys for the State of Massachusetts
KEITH ELLISON
Attorney General for the State of Minnesota
By: /s/ Liz Kramer
Liz Kramer*
Solicitor General
445 Minnesota Street, Suite 1400
St. Paul, Minnesota 55101
(651) 757-1010
[email protected]
Attorneys for the State of Minnesota
DAN RAYFIELD
Attorney General for the State of Oregon
By: /s/ Deanna J. Chang
Deanna J. Chang*
Senior Assistant Attorney General
100 SW Market Street
Portland, OR 97201
(971) 673-1880
[email protected]
Counsel for the State of Oregon
PETER F. NERONHA
Attorney General for the State of Rhode Island
By: /s/ Jeff Kidd
Jeff Kidd*
Special Assistant Attorney General
150 South Main Street
Providence, Rhode Island 02903
(401) 274-4400
[email protected]
Attorneys for the State of Rhode Island
CHARITY R. CLARK
Attorney General for the State of Vermont
By: /s/ Jonathan T. Rose
Jonathan T. Rose*
Solicitor General
109 State Street
Montpelier, VT 05609
(802) 793-1646
[email protected]
Attorneys for the State of Vermont
NICHOLAS W. BROWN
Attorney General for the State of Washington
By: /s/ Andrew Hughes
Andrew Hughes*
Assistant Attorney General
800 Fifth Avenue, Suite 2000
Seattle, WA 98104
(206) 464-7744
[email protected]
Attorneys for the State of Washington
* Pro Hac Vice
_______________
Notes:
1 See, e.g., Buckley, 424 U.S. at 140 (“determinations of eligibility for funds” are among duties implicating Appointments Clause); id. (“rulemaking . . . represents the performance of a significant government duty exercised pursuant to public law” and may only be “exercised” by officers); United States v. Tingey, 30 U.S. (5 Pet.) 115, 126 (1831) (discussing officers “for the purpose of making contracts, or for the purchase of supplies”); United States v. Maurice, 26 F. Cas. 1211, 1214 (Cir. Ct. D. Va. 1823).
2 Donald Trump (@RealDonaldTrump), X (Nov. 12, 2024).
3 Establishing and Implementing the Presidents Department of Government Efficiency,” Exec. Order No. 14,158, 90 Fed. Reg. 8441 (Jan. 20, 2025), https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/FR- ... -02005.pdf [hereinafter “DOGE Executive Order”].
4 DOGE Executive Order at § 4(a)
5 Id. at § 4(a).
6 Id. at § 1.
7 Id. at § 4(b).
8 Id. at § 1.
9 Unless otherwise indicated, Plaintiffs use “DOGE personnel” and “DOGE-affiliated personnel” to refer individuals whose apparent or actual authority derives from the DOGE Executive Order.
10 Alan Rappeport, Maggie Haberman, Theodore Schleifer, & Andrew Duehren, Elon Musk’s Team Now Has Access to Treasury’s Payments System, N.Y. Times (Feb. 1, 2025), https://www.nytimes.com/2025/02/01/us/p ... ystem.html.
11 Caleb Ecarma & Judd Legum, Musk associates given unfettered access to private data of government employees, MUSK WATCH (Feb. 3, 2025), at https://www.muskwatch.com/p/ muskassociates-given-unfettered (last accessed Feb. 3, 2025).
12 Alan Condon, DOGE sets sights on Medicaid, NY TIMES (Feb. 3, 2025) (noting that DOGE has been provided access to key payment and contracting systems at CMS).
13 Kim Kelly (@GrimKim), X (Feb. 4, 2025, 5:04 PM ET), https://x.com/GrimKim/status/1886898588099240401 (reporting that DOL workers were ordered to give DOGE access to anything they want without regard to security protocols).
14 Jeff Stein et al., U.S. government officials privately warn Musk’s blitz appears illegal, WASH. POST (Feb. 4, 2025), https://www.washingtonpost.com/business ... egal-doge/ (“Inside the Education Department, some staffers are deeply alarmed by the fact that DOGE staffers have gained access to federal student loan data, which includes personal information for millions of borrowers. Some employees have raised the alarm up their chain of management”).
15 Bobby Allyn & Shannon Bond, Elon Musk's DOGE Team Sets Off Tensions in the Federal Government, NPR (Feb. 3, 2025), https://www.npr.org/2025/02/03/nx-s1-52 ... said-trump.
16 Hanna Perry, Trump Says DOGE Does Not Even Needs Its Access to Sensitive Info, Newsweek (Feb. 7, 2025), https://www.newsweek.com/trump-says-dog ... fo-2028177.
17 See Erica L. Green & Michael D. Shear, Musk Wields Scythe on Federal Work Force, With Trump’s Full Blessing, N.Y. TIMES (Feb. 8, 2025).
18 See Erica L. Green & Michael D. Shear, Musk Wields Scythe on Federal Work Force, With Trump’s Full Blessing, N.Y. TIMES (Feb. 8, 2025).
19 Jake Lahut, Elon Musk’s Takeover Is Causing Rifts in Donald Trump’s Inner Circle, Wired (Feb. 5, 2025), https://www.wired.com/story/trump-aides ... -takeover/.
20 Elena Moore, Trump and Musk appear together in the Oval Office to defend the work of DOGE, NPR (Feb. 11, 2025), https://www.npr.org/2025/02/11/nx-s1-52 ... val-office.
21 “Implementing the President’s ‘Department of Workforce Efficiency’' Workforce Optimization Initiative” (Feb. 11, 2025) https://www.whitehouse.gov/presidential ... nitiative/
22 United States Dep’t of the Treasury, Bureau of the Fiscal Serv., Treasury Offset Program, How the Treasury Offset Program Collects Money for State Agencies, https://www.fiscal.treasury.gov/top/state-programs.html (last visited Feb. 5, 2025).
23 See U.S. Dep’t of the Treasury, Press Releases, Treasury Department Letter to Members of Congress Regarding Payment Systems, https://home.treasury.gov/news/press-releases/sb0009 (Feb. 4, 2025); Payment Integrity Information Act of 2019, codified at 31 U.S.C. § 3351.
24 See, e.g., Elon Musk (@Elon Musk), X (Feb. 8, 2025), https://x.com/elonmusk/status/1888314848477376744.
25 See Katelyn Polantz & Phil Mattingly, Musk Associates Sought to Use Critical Treasury Payment System to Shut Down USAID Spending, Emails Show, CNN, updated Feb. 6, 2025, 3:31 P.M. EST, https://www.cnn.com/2025/02/06/politics ... index.html.
26 Tim Reid, Helen Coster & James Oliphant, Musk's DOGE Cuts Based More On Political Ideology Than Real Cost Savings So Far, REUTERS (Feb. 12, 2025), http://reuters.com/world/us/musk-cuts-b ... 025-02-12/.
27 See Katelyn Polantz & Phil Mattingly, supra.
28 Alan Rappeport, Maggie Haberman, Theodore Schleifer, & Andrew Duehren, Elon Musk’s Team Now Has Access to Treasury’s Payments System, N.Y. TIMES (Feb. 1, 2025), https://www.nytimes.com/2025/02/01/us/p ... ystem.html.
29 Elon Musk (@Elon Musk), X (Feb. 2, 2025), https://x.com/elonmusk/status/1885964969335808217.
30 Vittoria Elliot & Leah Feiger, A U.S. Treasury Threat Intelligence Analysis Designates DOGE Staff as “Insider Threat, Wired (Feb. 7, 2025), https://www.wired.com/story/treasury-bf ... er-threat/.
31 Robert E. Rubin, Lawrence H. Summers, Timothy F. Geithner, Jacob J. Lew, & Janet L. Yellen, Five Former Treasury Secretaries: Our Democracy Is Under Siege, N.Y. TIMES (Feb. 10, 2025), https://www.nytimes.com/2025/02/10/opin ... -musk.html.
32 Jeff Stein et al., In Chaotic Washington Blitz, Elon Musk’s Ultimate Goal Becomes Clear, WASH. POST (Feb. 8, 2025); Charlie Warzel et al., The Government’s Computing Experts Say They Are Terrified, THE ATLANTIC (Feb. 7, 2025).
33 Jess Bidgood, When Musk’s Team Shows Up at Your Doorstep, N.Y. TIMES (Feb. 12, 2025), https://www.nytimes.com/2025/02/12/us/p ... trump.html.
34 See John Hudson, Ellen Nakashima, Missy Ryan, Mariana Alfaro & Faiz Siddiqui, Trump Moves To Wrest Control Of USAID As Musk Says, “We’re shutting it down,” WASH. POST (Feb. 3, 2025). https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics ... rump-musk/.
35 See Andrew Roth, Doge V USAID: How Elon Musk Helped His Acolytes Infiltrate World’s Biggest Aid Agency, THE GUARDIAN (Feb. 5, 2025), https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/202 ... over-usaid.
36 Id.; John Hudson, Ellen Nakashima, Missy Ryan, Mariana Alfaro & Faiz Siddiqui, Trump Moves To Wrest Control Of USAID As Musk Says, “We’re shutting it down,” WASH. POST (Feb. 3, 2025).
37 USAID, https://www.usaid.gov (last visited Feb. 8, 2025).
38 Elon Musk (@Elon Musk), X (Feb. 2, 2025), https://x.com/elonmusk/status/1886102414194835755.
39 Elon Musk (@Elon Musk), X (Feb. 2, 2025), https://x.com/elonmusk/status/1886307316804263979.
40 John Hudson, et al., Trump Moves To Wrest Control Of USAID As Musk Says, “We’re shutting it down,” WASH. POST (Feb. 3, 2025).
41 See Ellen Knickmeyer, Farnoush Amiri, & Adriana Gomez Licon, Trump And Must Move To Dismantle USAID, Igniting Battle With Democratic Lawmakers, AP NEWS (Feb. 3, 2025), https://apnews.com/article/trump-musk-u ... 6565985fe2.
42 Ellen Knickmeyer, Lawsuit Describes Musk's DOGE Teams Overseeing The Ending Of Hundreds Of USAID Programs Abroad, AP (Feb. 12, 2025); Declaration of Thomasina Doe, Civil Action No. 1:25-CV-352, at 9 (“While the Senior Procurement Executive sent the email, there was no indication from whom the order was coming officially for documentation purposes. When someone asked the Senior Procurement Executive, Jami Rodgers, [a DOGE official] named Jeremy Lewin responded”).
43 See Nahal Toosi & Robbie Gramer, How spending $153M to pay its bills put USAID in DOGE’s crosshairs, POLITICO (Feb. 8, 2025), https://www.politico.com/news/2025/02/0 ... e-00203191.
44 Id.
45 Ellen Nakashima, Hacks of OPM databases compromised 22.1 million people, federal authorities say, WASH. POST (July 9, 2015), https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/fed ... ities-say/ (last accessed Feb. 2, 2025).
46 Tim Reid, Exclusive: Musk aides lock workers out of OPM computer systems, REUTERS (Feb. 2, 2025), https://www.reuters.com/world/us/musk-a ... hatgpt.com.
47 Isaac Stanley-Becker et al., Musk’s DOGE agents access sensitive personnel data, alarming security officials, WASH. POST (Feb. 6, 2025), https://www.washingtonpost.com/national ... -security/ (“At least six DOGE agents were given broad access to all personnel systems at the OPM on the afternoon of Jan. 20, the day of Trump’s inauguration, according to two agency officials.”).
48 OPM, Fork in the Road (Jan. 28, 2025), at https://www.opm.gov/fork (last accessed Feb. 3, 2025).
49 Id.
50 Caleb Ecarma & Judd Legum, Musk associates given unfettered access to private data of government employees, MUSK WATCH (Feb. 3, 2025), at https://www.muskwatch.com/p/muskassocia ... unfettered (last accessed Feb. 3, 2025).
52 Anna Wild Mathews & Liz Essley Whyte, DOGE Aides Search Medicare Agency Payment Systems for Fraud, (Feb. 5, 2025), https://www.wsj.com/politics/elon-musk- ... d-e697b162.
53 Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Servs., Press Release, CMS Statement on Collaboration with DOGE, https://www.cms.gov/newsroom/press-rele ... ation-doge (Feb. 5, 2025).
54 Riley Griffin & Madison Muller, Musk’s DOGE Team Mines for Fraud at Medicare, Medicaid, BLOOMBERG (Feb. 5, 2025), https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles ... aid-agency.
55 Joyce Lupiani, Elon Musk’s DOGE Team Visits CDC in Atlanta, Reports Say, FOX 5 ATLANTA (Feb. 6, 2025), https://www.fox5atlanta.com/news/elon-m ... eports-say.
56 Pien Huang & Will Stone, Morale Plummets At The CDC As Staff Fear Job Losses, NPR (Feb. 7, 2025), https://www.npr.org/sections/shots-heal ... lists-doge (“Losing even half of these workers would be “devastating” for the agency's current disease outbreak responses, which includes H5N1 bird flu, measles and mpox.”).
57 U.S. Dep’t of Energy, NNSA, About NNSA, https://www.energy.gov/nnsa/about-nnsa (last visited Feb. 7, 2025).
58 Ella Nilsen & Sean Lyngaas, Trump Energy Secretary Allowed 23-Year-Old DOGE Rep to Access IT Systems Over Objections From General Counsel, CNN (Feb. 7, 2025), https://www.cnn.com/2025/02/06/climate/ ... index.html.
59 Timothy Gardner, Three DOGE Members Raise Access Concerns at U.S. Energy Department, Sources Say, REUTERS, (Feb. 7, 2025), https://www.reuters.com/world/us/three- ... 025-02-07/.
60 Pub. L. 111–203 (2010), https://www.consumerfinance.gov/about-us/the-bureau/.
61 See Tony Room, DOGE targets Consumer Financial Protection Bureau as Musk tweets ‘RIP’, WASH. POST (Feb. 7, 2025).
62 Elon Musk (@Elon Musk), X (Feb. 7, 2025), https://x.com/elonmusk/status/1887979940269666769.
63 See Stacey Cowley, Confusion Reigns as ‘a Wrecking Ball Hits the Consumer Bureau,” (Feb. 10, 2025), https://www.nytimes.com/2025/02/10/busi ... usion.html.
64 See Erica L. Green & Michael D. Shear, Musk Wields Scythe on Federal Work Force, With Trump’s Full Blessing, N.Y. TIMES (Feb. 8, 2025).
65 Department of Government Efficiency (@DOGE), X (Jan. 27, 2025), https://x.com/DOGE/status/1884015256957296917.
66 Weslan Hansen, DOGE Chief Claims to ‘Delete’ GSA’s 18F Tech Group, MERITALK (Feb. 4, 2025), https://www.meritalk.com/articles/doge- ... ech-group/.
67 Tom Hals & Jack Queen, Is Elon Musk’s Government Efficiency Drive Legal? , REUTER (Feb. 5, 2025), https://www.reuters.com/world/us/is-elo ... 025-02-05/.
68 Danny Nguyen, ‘Anxiety provoking’: Government workers describe their DOGE interviews, POLITICO (Feb. 12, 2025), https://www.politico.com/news/2025/02/1 ... ews-016214.
69 Id.
70 Jeff Stein et al., In Chaotic Washington Blitz, Elon Musk’s Ultimate Goal Becomes Clear, WASH. POST (Feb. 8, 2025).
71 Danny Nguyen, ‘Anxiety provoking’: Government workers describe their DOGE interviews, POLITICO (Feb. 12, 2025), https://www.politico.com/news/2025/02/1 ... ews-016214.
72 Jeff Stein et al., U.S. Government Officials Privately Warn Musk’s Blitz Appears Illegal, WASH. POST (Feb. 4, 2025), https://www.washingtonpost.com/business ... egal-doge/.
73 See Collin Binkley & Bianca Vázquez Toness, Musk Team’s Access To Student Loan Systems Raises Alarm Over Borrowers’ Personal Information, AP (Feb. 7, 2025), https://apnews.com/article/education-de ... a4f291bec4.
74 Annie Nova, How Elon Musk’s DOGE took over the Education Department, one office at a time, CNBC (Feb. 12, 2025), https://www.cnbc.com/2025/02/12/trump-d ... -cuts.html.
75 Tyler Kingkade & Natasha Korecki, Inside DOGE’s takeover of the Education Department, NBC NEWS (Feb. 8, 2025).
76 Elon Musk (@Elon Musk), X (Feb. 7, 2025), https://x.com/elonmusk/status/1888038615780909178.
77 See Erica L. Green & Michael D. Shear, Musk Wields Scythe on Federal Work Force, With Trump’s Full Blessing, N.Y. TIMES (Feb. 8, 2025).
78 Department of Government Efficiency (@DOGE), X (Feb. 10, 2025), https://x.com/DOGE/status/1889113011282907434.
79 Zachary Schermele, DOGE slashes millions from Education Department research, USA TODAY (Feb. 11, 2025), https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/edu ... 411180007/.
80 See Department of Education, Fiscal Year 2025 Budget Summary at 15, www.ed.gov/sites/ed/files/about/overvie ... ummary.pdf.
81 Department of Education, Fiscal Year 2025 Budget Summary at 28, www.ed.gov/sites/ed/files/about/overvie ... mmary.pdf;
82 See Department of Education, Federal Student Aid, https://www.ed.gov/about/ed-offices/fsa ... tudent-aid.
83 See Department of Education, Privacy Policy for StudentAid.gov, https://studentaid.gov/notices/privacy.
84 2 Kim Kelly (@GrimKim), X (Feb. 4, 2025, 5:04 PM ET), https://x.com/GrimKim/status/1886898588099240401.
85 Affidavit from Rushab Sanghvi, https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap ... .1.0_2.pdf.
86 Federal Aviation Administration, National Airspace System (last updated April 20, 2023), https://www.faa.gov/air_traffic/nas.
87 Jason Lalljee, Musk Sets Sights on Aviation Reform, AXIOS (Feb. 5, 2025), https://www.axios.com/2025/02/05/dc-pla ... -musk-doge ; see also Secretary Sean Duffy (@SecDuffy), X (Feb.5, 2025), https://x.com/SecDuffy/status/1887209012867047525.
88 Charlie Warzel & Ian Bogost, The Government’s Computing Experts Say They Are Terrified, THE ATLANTIC (Feb. 7, 2025), https://www.theatlantic.com/technology/ ... ty/681600/.
89 Id.
90 Elon Musk (@Elon Musk), X (Feb. 5, 2025), https://x.com/elon musk/status/1887233566263967812 (“Just a few days ago, the FAA’s primary aircraft safety notification system failed for several hours!”).
91 Laura Geller & Tracy J. Wholf, Democrats Concerned DOGE Is Targeting NOAA, Sources Say, CBS NEWS (Feb. 5, 2025).
92 ABC Climate Unit, DOGE Now Has Access To NOAA's IT Systems; Reviewing DEI Program, Sources Say, ABC NEWS (Feb. 5, 2025), https://www.kron4.com/hill-politics/dem ... -noaa/amp/.
93 Dell Cameron, NOAA Employees Told to Pause Work with ‘Foreign Nationals,’ WIRED (Feb. 5, 2025).
94 Aileen Graef & Veronica Stracqualursi, DOGE Team Has Access To FEMA Private Information On Those Who Received Disaster Relief Grants, ACTION NEWS NOW (Feb. 9, 2025), https://www.actionnewsnow.com/news/doge ... 450a5.html
95 Elon Musk (@Elon Musk), X (Feb. 9, 2025), https://x.com/elonmusk/status/1888488867809956267.
96 Elon Musk (@Elon Musk), X (Feb. 10, 2025), https://x.com/elonmusk/status/1888891512303263815.
97 Antonio Pequeno IV, Four FEMA Officials Fired After Musk’s DOGE Claims Agency Funded Migrant Housing In ‘Luxury’ Hotels (Feb. 11, 2025), http://forbes.com/sites/antoniopequenoi ... ry-hotels/.
98 Nicole Narea, Elon Musk’s Secretive Government IT Takeover, Explained, VOX (Feb. 5, 2025), https://www.vox.com/politics/398366/mus ... pm-budget; Bobby Allyn & Shannon Bond, Elon Musk Is Barreling into Government with DOGE, Raising Unusual Legal Questions, NPR (Feb. 3, 2025), https://www.npr.org/2025/02/03/nx-s1-52 ... said-trump.
99 Jonathan Schwabish, The Implications of Shrinking the Federal Workforce by DOGE’s Recommended 75 Percent, URBAN INSTITUTE (Jan. 20, 2025), https://www.urban.org/urban-wire/implic ... 5-percent; Madeliene Ngo and David A. Fahrenhold, Musk Wants to Slash $2 Trillion in Federal Spending. Is That Possible?, N.Y. TIMES (Nov. 16, 2024), https://www.bloomberg.com/news/videos/2 ... dget-video.
100 Annie Nova, How Elon Musk’s DOGE took over the Education Department, one office at a time, CNBC (Feb. 12, 2025), https://www.cnbc.com/2025/02/12/trump-d ... -cuts.html.
101 Department of Government Efficiency (@DOGE), X (Jan. 31, 2025), https://x.com/DOGE/status/1885420298138247458
102 Department of Government Efficiency (@DOGE), X (Feb. 3, 2025), https://x.com/DOGE/status/1886273522214813785
103 Department of Government Efficiency (@DOGE), X (Feb. 3, 2025), https://x.com/DOGE/status/1886578681805504608.
104 Department of Government Efficiency (@DOGE), X (Feb. 4, 2025), https://x.com/DOGE/status/1886982858369020330.
105 Department of Government Efficiency (@DOGE), X (Feb. 7, 2025), https://x.com/DOGE/status/1888046273543979183.
106 Collin Binkley & Bianca Vazquez Toness, Musk team’s access to student loan systems raises alarm over borrowers’ personal information, AP NEWS (Feb. 7, 2025), https://apnews.com/article/education-de ... a4f291bec4
107 Matt Shuham, Elon Musk Suggests Getting Rid Of All Regulations In Midnight Call, HUFFPOST (Feb. 3, 2025), https://www.yahoo.com/news/elon-musk-su ... 57557.html (““These regulations are added willy-nilly all the time. So we’ve just got to do a wholesale, spring cleaning of regulation and get the government off the backs of everyday Americans so people can get things done.”).
108 Soo Rin Kim, Some Ethics Experts Raise Concerns Over Musk and Ramaswamy’s Department of Government Efficiency Roles, ABC NEWS (Nov. 13, 2024), https://abcnews.go.com/US/ethics-expert ... =115838961.
109 Elon Musk (@Elon Musk), X (Nov. 27, 2024, 12:35 AM ET), https://x.com/elonmusk/status/1861644897490751865 (identifying the CFPB as an area of federal government to “delete”). Last week, Mr. Musk posted: “CFPB RIP.”
110 Isaac Arnsdorg & Jacqueline Alemany, Trump, Musk wage two-front war as donor does president’s ‘dirty work’, WASH. POST (Feb. 4, 2025), https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics ... dent-role/.
111 Annie Nova, How Elon Musk’s DOGE took over the Education Department, one office at a time, CNBC (Feb. 12, 2025), https://www.cnbc.com/2025/02/12/trump-d ... -cuts.html.
112 Rebecca Thiess, Kate Watkins & Justin Theal, Record Federal Grants to States Keep Federal Share of State Budgets High, PEW (Sept. 10, 2024), https://www.pewtrusts.org/en/research-a ... dgets-high.
113 Bridget Fahey, Coordinated Rulemaking and Cooperative Federalism’s Administrative Law, 132 YALE L.J. 1320, 1323 (2023).
114 Letter from Senators to Susan Wiles, White House Chief of Staff Executive (Feb. 5, 2025), https://www.bennet.senate.gov/wp-conten ... Letter.pdf.
- admin
- Site Admin
- Posts: 37580
- Joined: Thu Aug 01, 2013 5:21 am
Re: Anti-Anti-Nazi Barbarian Hordes are Knocking Down the Ga
by admin » Sat Feb 15, 2025 9:54 pm
Trump officials fired nuclear staff not realizing they oversee the country’s weapons stockpile, sources say
by Rene Marsh and Ella Nilsen
CNN
Updated 8:41 PM EST, Fri February 14, 2025
https://www.cnn.com/2025/02/14/climate/ ... index.html
CNN -- Trump administration officials fired more than 300 staffers Thursday night at the National Nuclear Security Administration — the agency tasked with managing the nation’s nuclear stockpile — as part of broader Energy Department layoffs, according to four people with knowledge of the matter.
Sources told CNN the officials did not seem to know this agency oversees America’s nuclear weapons.
An Energy Department spokesperson disputed the number of personnel affected, telling CNN that “less than 50 people” were “dismissed” from NNSA, and that the dismissed staffers “held primarily administrative and clerical roles.”
The agency began rescinding the terminations Friday morning.
Some of the fired employees included NNSA staff who are on the ground at facilities where nuclear weapons are built. These staff oversee the contractors who build nuclear weapons, and they inspect these weapons.
It also included employees at NNSA headquarters who write requirements and guidelines for contractors who build nuclear weapons. A source told CNN they believe these individuals were fired because “no one has taken any time to understand what we do and the importance of our work to the nation’s national security.”
Members of Congress made their concerns about the NNSA firings known to the Energy Department, a Hill staffer told CNN. A person with knowledge of the matter told CNN that senators visited Energy Sec. Chris Wright to express concern about the NNSA cuts.
“Congress is freaking out because it appears DOE didn’t really realize NNSA oversees the nuclear stockpile,” one source said. “The nuclear deterrent is the backbone of American security and stability – period. For there to be any even very small holes poked even in the maintenance of that deterrent should be extremely frightening to people.”
The Y-12 National Security Complex in Oak Ridge, Tennessee, which enriches and stores uranium for America's nuclear weapons. Jim Lo Scalzo/EPA/Shutterstock
NNSA has a total of 1800 staff at facilities around the country. The only probationary staffers exempt from the Thursday-night firings were those who work at its Office of Secure Transportation, the office in charge of driving or otherwise transporting nuclear weapons around the country securely, one person familiar told CNN.
“There is strong support on the Hill for NNSA in nuclear modernization writ large,” one source told CNN. “Clearly, NNSA is a critical agency. There have been lawmakers with concerns.”
The agency made the about face Friday morning; during a meeting, acting NNSA administrator Teresa Robbins said the agency had received direction to rescind the termination of probationary employees. Probationary workers have typically been employed for less than a year, or two years in some cases, and have fewer job protections and rights to appeal.
Robbins added on Friday that if probationary NNSA employees had not yet been fired, their jobs were now safe and all NNSA employees whose access to the agency’s network and internal IT systems was shut off would be turned back on, one source told CNN.
The source said Robbins added, “There is a good probability that most or all probationary employees who were fired could return.”
Another source cautioned the situation was extremely fluid and said “we don’t know” how many people will be returning.
An NNSA spokesperson referred CNN’s questions to DOE.
“The Energy Department will continue its critical mission of protecting our national security and nuclear deterrence in the development, modernization, and stewardship of America’s atomic weapons enterprise, including the peaceful use of nuclear technology and nonproliferation,” the DOE spokesperson told CNN.
Political officials at the Energy Department told its non-political HR administrators to cite poor performance personnel files as a justification for firing the employees, the source said. Frustrated by the pressure from political appointees, two of those HR employees submitted their resignations on Friday.
A DOE spokesperson declined to comment on the poor-performance rationale for the firings. CNN has reached out to the two employees who resigned.
In addition to overseeing America’s nuclear weapons, the NNSA also helps secure nuclear material nationwide. Sources told CNN it’s a critical mission, pointing to the Russian drone attack on a Chernobyl power plant reactor in Ukraine on Thursday.
“NNSA maintains sensors in Ukraine to help track nuclear risks, whether intentional or unintentional,” a source said, adding the layoffs are “frightening.”
by Rene Marsh and Ella Nilsen
CNN
Updated 8:41 PM EST, Fri February 14, 2025
https://www.cnn.com/2025/02/14/climate/ ... index.html
CNN -- Trump administration officials fired more than 300 staffers Thursday night at the National Nuclear Security Administration — the agency tasked with managing the nation’s nuclear stockpile — as part of broader Energy Department layoffs, according to four people with knowledge of the matter.
Sources told CNN the officials did not seem to know this agency oversees America’s nuclear weapons.
An Energy Department spokesperson disputed the number of personnel affected, telling CNN that “less than 50 people” were “dismissed” from NNSA, and that the dismissed staffers “held primarily administrative and clerical roles.”
The agency began rescinding the terminations Friday morning.
Some of the fired employees included NNSA staff who are on the ground at facilities where nuclear weapons are built. These staff oversee the contractors who build nuclear weapons, and they inspect these weapons.
It also included employees at NNSA headquarters who write requirements and guidelines for contractors who build nuclear weapons. A source told CNN they believe these individuals were fired because “no one has taken any time to understand what we do and the importance of our work to the nation’s national security.”
Members of Congress made their concerns about the NNSA firings known to the Energy Department, a Hill staffer told CNN. A person with knowledge of the matter told CNN that senators visited Energy Sec. Chris Wright to express concern about the NNSA cuts.
“Congress is freaking out because it appears DOE didn’t really realize NNSA oversees the nuclear stockpile,” one source said. “The nuclear deterrent is the backbone of American security and stability – period. For there to be any even very small holes poked even in the maintenance of that deterrent should be extremely frightening to people.”
The Y-12 National Security Complex in Oak Ridge, Tennessee, which enriches and stores uranium for America's nuclear weapons. Jim Lo Scalzo/EPA/Shutterstock
NNSA has a total of 1800 staff at facilities around the country. The only probationary staffers exempt from the Thursday-night firings were those who work at its Office of Secure Transportation, the office in charge of driving or otherwise transporting nuclear weapons around the country securely, one person familiar told CNN.
“There is strong support on the Hill for NNSA in nuclear modernization writ large,” one source told CNN. “Clearly, NNSA is a critical agency. There have been lawmakers with concerns.”
The agency made the about face Friday morning; during a meeting, acting NNSA administrator Teresa Robbins said the agency had received direction to rescind the termination of probationary employees. Probationary workers have typically been employed for less than a year, or two years in some cases, and have fewer job protections and rights to appeal.
Robbins added on Friday that if probationary NNSA employees had not yet been fired, their jobs were now safe and all NNSA employees whose access to the agency’s network and internal IT systems was shut off would be turned back on, one source told CNN.
The source said Robbins added, “There is a good probability that most or all probationary employees who were fired could return.”
Another source cautioned the situation was extremely fluid and said “we don’t know” how many people will be returning.
An NNSA spokesperson referred CNN’s questions to DOE.
“The Energy Department will continue its critical mission of protecting our national security and nuclear deterrence in the development, modernization, and stewardship of America’s atomic weapons enterprise, including the peaceful use of nuclear technology and nonproliferation,” the DOE spokesperson told CNN.
Political officials at the Energy Department told its non-political HR administrators to cite poor performance personnel files as a justification for firing the employees, the source said. Frustrated by the pressure from political appointees, two of those HR employees submitted their resignations on Friday.
A DOE spokesperson declined to comment on the poor-performance rationale for the firings. CNN has reached out to the two employees who resigned.
In addition to overseeing America’s nuclear weapons, the NNSA also helps secure nuclear material nationwide. Sources told CNN it’s a critical mission, pointing to the Russian drone attack on a Chernobyl power plant reactor in Ukraine on Thursday.
“NNSA maintains sensors in Ukraine to help track nuclear risks, whether intentional or unintentional,” a source said, adding the layoffs are “frightening.”
- admin
- Site Admin
- Posts: 37580
- Joined: Thu Aug 01, 2013 5:21 am
Re: Anti-Anti-Nazi Barbarian Hordes are Knocking Down the Ga
by admin » Sun Feb 16, 2025 2:07 am
18 U.S. Code § 912 - Officer or employee of the United States
Legal Information Institute
Cornell Law School
Accessed: 2/15/25
https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/912
Whoever falsely assumes or pretends to be an officer or employee acting under the authority of the United States or any department, agency or officer thereof, and acts as such, or in such pretended character demands or obtains any money, paper, document, or thing of value, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than three years, or both.
(June 25, 1948, ch. 645, 62 Stat. 742; Pub. L. 103–322, title XXXIII, § 330016(1)(H), Sept. 13, 1994, 108 Stat. 2147.)
Legal Information Institute
Cornell Law School
Accessed: 2/15/25
https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/912
Whoever falsely assumes or pretends to be an officer or employee acting under the authority of the United States or any department, agency or officer thereof, and acts as such, or in such pretended character demands or obtains any money, paper, document, or thing of value, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than three years, or both.
(June 25, 1948, ch. 645, 62 Stat. 742; Pub. L. 103–322, title XXXIII, § 330016(1)(H), Sept. 13, 1994, 108 Stat. 2147.)
- admin
- Site Admin
- Posts: 37580
- Joined: Thu Aug 01, 2013 5:21 am
Re: Anti-Anti-Nazi Barbarian Hordes are Knocking Down the Ga
by admin » Sun Feb 16, 2025 8:29 am
Donald J Trump
@ real Donald Trump
He who saves his country does not violate any law
******
Donald J Trump
@ real Donald Trump
Should I audit the IRS into Oblivion?
10:11 AM
February 15, 2025
@ real Donald Trump
He who saves his country does not violate any law
******
Donald J Trump
@ real Donald Trump
Should I audit the IRS into Oblivion?
10:11 AM
February 15, 2025
- admin
- Site Admin
- Posts: 37580
- Joined: Thu Aug 01, 2013 5:21 am
Return to United States Government Crime
Who is online
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 42 guests