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

[admin]

AUSA, who worked on Adams case, resigns in sharply-worded letter to DOJ: The AUSA's resignation follows his boss, the acting U.S. attorney for the Southern District of New York, and other DOJ officials who stepped down this week
by Jonathan Dienst, Tom Winter and Ryan Reilly
NBC news
Published 4 hours ago • Updated 2 hours ago
2/14/24
https://www.nbcnewyork.com/news/local/c ... j/6150699/

BY EMAIL

Re: United States v. Eric Adams, 24 Cr. 556 (DEH)

Mr. Bove,

I have received correspondence indicating that I refused your order to move to dismiss the indictment against Eric Adams without prejudice, subject to certain conditions, including the express possibility of reinstatement of the indictment. That is not exactly correct. The U.S. Attorney, Danielle R. Sassoon, never asked me to file such a motion, and I therefore never had an opportunity to refuse. But I am entirely in agreement with her decision not to do so, for the reasons stated in her February 12, 2025 letter to the Attorney General.

In short, the first justification for the motion -- that Damian Williams's role in the case somehow tainted a valid indictment supported by ample evidence, and pursued under four different U.S. attorneys -- is so weak as to be transparently pretextual. The second justification is worse. No system of ordered liberty can allow the Government to use the carrot of dismissing charges, or the stick of threatening to bring them again, to induce an elected official to support its policy objectives.

There is a tradition in public service of resigning in a last-ditch effort to head off a serious mistake. Some will view the mistake you are committing here in the light of their generally negative views of the new Administration. I do not share those views. I can even understand how a Chief Executive whose background is in business and politics might see the contemplated dismissal-with-leverage as a good, if distasteful, deal. But any assistant U.S. attorney would know that our laws and traditions do not allow using the prosecutorial power to influence other citizens, much less elected officials, in this way. If no lawyer within earshot of the President is willing to give him that advice, then I expect you will eventually find someone who is enough of a fool, or enough of a coward, to file your motion. But it was never going to be me.

Please consider this my resignation. It has been an honor to serve as a prosecutor in the Southern District of New York.

Yours truly,
Hagan Scotten
Assistant United States Attorney
Southern District of New York

One of two assistant U.S. attorneys who was working on the Eric Adams corruption case has resigned from his position in a tersely-worded letter to the Department of Justice, according to an email, which was shared with NBC New York.

Hagan Scotten, an assistant U.S. attorney with the Southern District of New York, resigned Friday morning in a note to Deputy Acting Attorney General Emil Bove. Scotten's decision to resign comes a day after Acting U.S. Attorney Danielle Sassoon, Scotten's boss, also left her post following orders by Bove to dismiss the case against the New York mayor.

In Scotten's email, he said he was never asked by Sassoon to dismiss the Adams case "and I therefore never had an opportunity to refuse. But I am entirely in agreement her decision not to do so..."

Bove, in a letter to Sassoon on Thursday, said he was placing Scotten and another AUSA on leave.

"You indicated that the prosecution team is aware of your communications with the Justice Department, is supportive of your approach, and is unwilling to comply with the order to dismiss the case. Accordingly, the AUSAs principally responsible for this case are being placed on off-duty, administrative leave pending investigations by the Office of the Attorney General and the Office of Professional Responsibility, both of which will also evaluate your conduct," Bove had said.

The DOJ order to dismiss the corruption case against the mayor had come from Bove, the current number-two official at the Justice Department under newly confirmed Attorney General Pam Bondi. Bove's memo said federal prosecutors needed to drop the case, in part, because it impacted Adams' ability to tackle “illegal immigration and violent crime."

The case, according to the docket, had not been dropped as of Thursday.

In a separate letter Sassoon sent to Bondi, Sassoon said Adams' attorneys in a meeting with the DOJ in January essentially proposed a "quid pro quo."

“I attended a meeting on January 31, 2025, with Mr. Bove, Adams’ counsel, and members of my office. Adams’s attorneys repeatedly urged what amounted to a quid pro quo, indicating that Adams would be in a position to assist with Department’s enforcement priorities only if the indictment were dismissed. Mr. Bove admonished a member of my team who took notes during that meeting and directed the collection of those notes at the meeting’s conclusion,” Sassoon.

Adams' attorney, Alex Spiro, denied Sassoon's recounting of the meeting and her allegation of a "quid pro quo" proposal.

"The idea that there was a quid pro quo is a total lie. We offered nothing and the department asked nothing of us," Spiro said in a statement to NBC New York. "I don't know what 'amounted to' means. We were asked if the case had any bearing on national security and immigration enforcement and we truthfully answered it did."

In Scotten's resignation letter, he said he understands how the administration could see the "contemplated dismissal-with-leverage as a good, if distasteful, deal."

"Any assistant U.S. attorney would know that our laws and traditions do not allow using the prosecutorial power to influence other citizens, much less elected officials, in this way. If no lawyer within earshot of the President is willing to give him that advice, then I expect you will eventually find someone who is enough of a fool, or enough of a coward, to file your motion. But is was never going to me," Scotten wrote.

When the Southern District of New York refused to drop the case, it was reassigned to the DOJ Public Integrity Section (PIN), two sources told NBC News. John Keller, the acting head of PIN, refused to drop the case and resigned, along with two other members of the section, according to sources. Kevin Driscoll, the acting head of the Criminal Division, which oversees federal criminal cases nationwide, also refused to drop the charges before resigning, sources said.

In all, five other high-ranking Justice Department officials resigned Thursday in addition to Sassoon, a stunning escalation in a days-long standoff over accusations the Trump administration is prioritizing political aims over criminal culpability.

Adams has pleaded not guilty to the charges and has denied any wrongdoing, saying the case was politically motivated.

Bove said the Justice Department will now take over the Adams case from the SDNY.

"I take no pleasure in imposing these measures, initiating investigations, and requiring personnel from the Justice Department to come to your District to do work that your team should have done and was required to do," Bove said.

Asked by reporters Thursday whether he asked that the charges be dismissed, President Donald Trump said, "No, I didn't. I know nothing about it."

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

Trump Attorney General Bondi expects Eric Adams case to be dismissed Friday after mass resignations
by Dan Mangan @_DanMangan
CNBC.com
Published Fri, Feb 14 2025 11:30 AM EST Updated 18 Min Ago
https://www.cnbc.com/2025/02/14/trump-e ... esign.html

Key Points

• Attorney General Pam Bondi said she expects the federal criminal corruption case against New York City Mayor Eric Adams to be dismissed.
• A seventh federal prosecutor resigned over the Department of Justice’s controversial order to dismiss charges against Adams.
• President Donald Trump has said he did not tell the DOJ to toss the case.
• Adams agreed to let federal immigration authorities into New York’s Rikers Island jail complex after Bove told the Manhattan U.S. Attorney’s office to dismiss charges against him.

Attorney General Pam Bondi said she expects the criminal corruption case against New York City Mayor Eric Adams to be dismissed Friday, after seven federal prosecutors quit in protest over the Department of Justice’s demand to toss the case.

“It’s my understanding, it is being dismissed today,” Bondi said on Fox News.

Bondi spoke after acting deputy attorney general Emil Bove promised promotions to leadership positions for remaining prosecutors in the DOJ’s Public Integrity Section who would agree to sign a motion to dismiss Adams’ case.

Bove gave the prosecutors a deadline of one hour to provide him with the names of two attorneys who would sign the motion, according to NBC News.

Reuters reported later Friday that Ed Sullivan, a member of the section, volunteered to file the motion to alleviate pressure on his colleagues. The news agency did not say if Sullivan agreed to accept a promotion in exchange for his action.

“This is not a capitulation -- this is a coercion,” a person briefed on the meeting told Reuters. “That person, in my mind, is a hero.”

Bove’s video call with the section’s team came as a seventh prosecutor resigned over his controversial order to dismiss the case in U.S. District Court in Manhattan.

Four prosecutors who resigned Thursday included the acting Public Integrity Section chief John Keller and three other members of his team.

The latest prosecutor to quit, Hagan Scotten, in a blistering letter to Bove, said, “I expect you will eventually find someone who is enough of a fool, or enough of a coward, to file your motion” to dismiss the Adams case.

“But it was never going to be me,” wrote Scotten, who had been the lead prosecutor in Adams’ case as an assistant U.S. Attorney for the Southern District of New York.

On Thursday, Scotten’s boss, acting U.S. Attorney Danielle Sassoon, resigned in protest over Bove’s order to toss the case.

Within hours of Sassoon quitting, Keller, the three other Public Integrity Section prosecutors, and the DOJ’s acting criminal division chief Kevin Driscoll, all resigned rather than execute Bove’s order.

Bove, while in private legal practice, previously represented President Donald Trump in his criminal hush money trial in New York last year. Trump was convicted of nearly three dozen felony counts of falsifying business records in that case, but received a sentence of no jail time or probation.

Scotten in his letter scoffed at Bove’s stated rationales for dismissing the Adams case.

Yashar Ali @yashar

Not only was Hagan Scotten a clerk for Judge Brett Kavanaugh, he also openly advocated for him to be confirmed.

Scotten gave interviews and quotes in support of Kavanaugh’s confirmation.

11:55 AM · Feb 14, 2025

Bove claimed the case interfered with Adams’ ability to “fully cooperate with the federal government” on the enforcement of Trump’s immigration policies in New York, and Bove also cited comments about Adams made by former U.S. Attorney Damian Williams.

“In short, the first justification for the motion — that Damian Williams’s role in the case somehow tainted a valid indictment supported by ample evidence, and pursued under four different U.S. attorneys — is so weak as to be transparently pretextual,” Scotten wrote.

“The second justification is worse,” Scotten wrote. “No system of ordered liberty can allow the Government to use the carrot of dismissing charges, or the stick of threatening to bring them again, to induce an elected official to support its policy objectives.”

“There is a tradition in public service of resigning in a last-ditch effort to head off a serious mistake,” Scotten wrote.

“Some will view the mistake you are committing here in light of their generally negative views of the new Administration,” he wrote. “I do not share those views.”

The prosecutor, referring to Trump, wrote, “I can even understand how a Chief Executive whose background is in business and politics might see the contemplated dismissal-with-leverage as a good, if distasteful deal.”

“But any assistant U.S. attorney would know that our laws and traditions do not allow using prosecutorial power to influence other citizens, much less elected officials, in this way,” Scotten wrote.

Scotten is a Harvard Law School graduate who clerked for Supreme Court Chief Justice John Roberts after serving in the U.S. Army in Iraq in the Special Forces. He also served as a clerk to Supreme Court Justice Brett Kavanaugh when Roberts’ fellow conservative was sitting on a lower court.

Bove on Thursday had placed Scotten on administrative leave along with another prosecutor on the Adams case, Derek Wikstrom.

Bove in a letter to Sassoon said he was taking that step after she indicated that Scotten and Wikstrom agreed with her decision to refuse to drop the case, and were “unwilling to comply with the order to dismiss this case.”

Bove said the prosecutors would be investigated by Attorney General Pam Bondi and the DOJ’s Office of Professional Responsibility for their conduct, along with Sassoon. Bondi then would determine if Scotten and the prosecutors should be fired, Bove wrote.

[admin]

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/

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]

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).

[admin]

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.

[admin]

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.”

[admin]

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.)

[admin]

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

[admin]

NDP MP Charlie Angus urges Canadian response to Trump threats
by cpac
February 14, 2025

NDP MP Charlie Angus is joined by Fareed Khan (Canadians United Against Hate) and Anne Lagacé Dowson (Canadian Health Coalition) at a news conference on Parliament Hill. On the occasion of the 60th anniversary of the adoption of the Canadian flag, they are calling on Canadians to respond to United States President Donald Trump's recent threats concerning possible tariffs on Canadian goods or the possible annexation of Canada by the U.S.



Transcript @ 3:03

[Fareed Khan (Canadians United Against Hate)] Thank you. And thank you Charlie for having me here.

I'd like to acknowledge that we are speaking from the unceded territory of the Algonquin Nishnawbe Aski people. My name is Fareed Khan. I'm a human rights activist, an anti-hate activist, and the founder of the advocacy group Canadians United Against Hate.

Tomorrow, February 15th, is Canada's flag day. It marks the 60th anniversary of the adoption of the red and white Maple Leaf flag, a symbol of Canada recognized around the world, and a symbol that Canadians are very proud to display.

As we mark this occasion, we're reminded of the values that have made Canada a beacon of hope and freedom. But today, we're also reminded of the very real threat hanging over our country, the threat of Donald Trump and his fascist and racist ambitions.

I'm here to speak today as a Canadian citizen, as an immigrant, as a child of refugee parents. I'm here to speak for the millions of Canadians who are watching with alarm as Canada-U.S. relations worsen day by day, with every new word that comes out of the mouth of Donald Trump as he refers to Canada. And because of Trump's threats to wreck Canada's economy, and annex us as the 51st state. I'm here to say to Donald Trump and his MAGA cultists that Canada will never become part of the U.S., and it'll only happen when hell freezes is over and all Canadians are gone from this land.

For my entire life, Canada has stood tall as a nation that values diversity, equity, and inclusion. But with Trump's threats, these values are also under threat. A vision of the future under Trump can be seen in the fascist edicts that have come out of his office which target migrants, refugees, the lgbtq community, women, Muslims, and vulnerable minorities; edicts which perpetuate hate, bigotry, misogyny, transphobia, and xenophobia, and violate fundamental human rights.

And make no mistake, Trump is a fascist. That's not my assessment, but that of 11 former high-ranking officials from his previous administration, including his longest serving chief of staff, and his former chief of defense staff.

My parents, and millions of others, chose to immigrate to Canada because of its values and the economic opportunities it presented. They chose to settle here, over other nations, because they wanted their children to be Canadian -- not American! And so it's only natural that immigrants, along with all patriotic Canadians, stand up and defend our country against Trump's unofficial Declaration of War, which is what his threats to impose 25% tariffs, and annex Canada are. Trump's repeated comments about annexing Canada, and his actions, reveal a sociopathy that was described in detail in the 2017 book "The Dangerous Case of Donald Trump." In it, 27 psychiatrists and mental health professionals made it clear that Trump is a sociopath who poses a threat not just to the U.S., but to the entire world. Some of the assessments of Trump's personality in the book include the following -- and mind you, these are assessments made by professionals who work in the area of mental health. "Trump is an impulsive, immature, incompetent person who, when in the position of ultimate power, would easily slide into the role of tyrant. His sociopathic characteristics are undeniable ,and present a profound threat to democracy. He is profoundly an evil man, exhibiting malignant narcissism. And if left unchecked, his pathological narcissism could lead to World War III.

I would encourage members of the media who haven't looked at this book to please take a look at it, and get a real look into the kind of person that Donald Trump is, if you don't know already from the insanity that comes out of his mouth.

To our political leaders I say, Canada cannot engage with him as we do with other normal leaders. He has shown himself to be an enemy to Canada, and we have to treat him as a clear and present danger to our country, and to our allies.  

And to the Canadian media I say, "Begin telling the story of the fascist sociopath occupying the White House using that language, so that Canadians in the world know the very real danger he presents to peace and stability.

Dring World War II, over 45,000 Canadian soldiers, sailors, and airmen paid the ultimate price to defend Canada from a fascist threat, as did millions of others from Allied Nations. Let's not let those sacrifices be in vain as we face another fascist threat today.

And as we Mark the 60th anniversary of the Canadian flag, all Canadians who say that they love Canada, who want to continue to build the just society that Pierre Trudeau spoke of over 50 years ago, who want to protect our communities from the fascist, racist, misogynistic, and transphobic demagogue that is trying to destroy Canada, we need to stand together and defend our flag, our country, and our sovereignty. Thank you. [Charlies Angus] Good morning, and happy Valentine's Day. I want to say this morning how much I love my country. We don't tend to do that in Canada. We think that that's kind of gauche. We don't feel we need to say how much we love our country. But when we see the criminal gang that is taking control in Washington telling us we do not have a right to our nation, well, oh yeah, not only am I going to love my country, and its values, and the people from one end of this beautiful Nation to another, but I'm going to work with those ordinary Canadians to defend our right to continue to exist as an independent nation.

And for this, on the eve of the 60th anniversary of the Canadian flag, I encourage Canadians to reflect what that symbol means; that symbol that has been in war zones; that symbol that has been since Canadians went to fight famines in other countries; that symbol of openness and inclusion that is the direct opposite to the politics of Elon Musk and Donald Trump.

This week we saw the shameful actions by Donald Trump to negotiate with Vladimir Putin -- another gangster -- to sell the people of Ukraine out. Mr Putin thinks that Vladimir Putin is a savvy genius, and he detests our country? Well, he's sending us a very clear message of the kind of man he is. Our neighbors are no longer our allies. We are dealing with a regime next door to us that is ignoring the international rule of law. And we have to take this dead serious, as a nation with our political leaders, but with ordinary Canadians.

So what do we do right now? Well, I'm extremely encouraged by the incredible response we've received from this Pledge For Canada that's now, just in the space of two weeks, had over 62,000 people sign up, people from across the political spectrum. Former Prime Minister Kim Campbell, former Attorney General Alan Rock, former Premier Danny Williams, but also the incredible artists and indigenous activists, and labor activists, and ordinary people across this country who said that there's a value to our nation that we're willing to defend.

And I also want to encourage and thank the ordinary people who, on their own, began the boycott of all things American.

Now some might think well, you know, if you just choose not to go down to Tennessee this year, who's going to notice? Well, right now, we're seeing the American tourism industry is in full-on panic. There are now over $2 billion in travel that is at risk. That's 140,000 American jobs. That's if just 10% of Canadians cancel their trips. It's still too early to say how many are cancelling, but from the evidence that we're gathering, it's much much higher than 10%.

And it's about sending a message, sending a message to Texas governor Greg Abbot who said Canada was going to learn a lesson. Oh really? Texas is going to teach Canada a lesson? Well, we've got $400 Million worth of travel that goes to Texas Mr. Abbott. How about we teach you a lesson, and say we got better places to go than Texas? If that's your attitude of Canadians, we will not go. Hell no we will not go.

The boycott is going to target many many areas of the United States that are very vulnerable right now. Kentucky has already started to speak up about the huge losses that they're facing in Kentucky bourbon, and Kentucky whiskey, because their No. 1 market is Canadians. So when Canadians stop buying, it's sending a message. And we know this is the only way right now that Americans are going to be able to put pressure on Donald Trump. Because what's at risk here, is the future of an international order, where we respect the rights of countries to be independent; we respect the international rule of law; we respect our neighbors and borders. And this is something Mr. Trump is saying he will not respect.

So on this Festival where we celebrate Canada as a nation and our flag, I am encouraged. I want to thank Canadians. I want to say we are strong; we do not bend; and we will never ever ever kiss the ring of that gangster from Mar-a-Lago.

So let's celebrate this 60th anniversary for Canada, and our flag, in a way that we have never done before.

Thank you. Merci. We'll take any questions.

Q. Mr. Angus, we've heard from you before this idea that you'd like to see your party continue to be able to work with the Liberals to keep Parliament going. Is that your view still, that you'd like to see whoever becomes the next prime minister to strike a deal with the NDP to keep Parliament moving?

[Charlie Angus] Since January 6th, the world for Canada's turned upside down. We are in completely uncharted territory. And nobody can say they have a plan to deal with this: none of our Comm's teams; none of our political planners; there's not a politician who's ready to deal with the crisis, because this is the biggest crisis we've seen since the 1930s.

So my simple position as a member of Parliament is to encourage all Parliamentarians to say, "Let's go back to Parliament. Let's see if we can put a plan in place to get Canada through this period. There will be lots of time to to bicker and batter as we love to do. But right now I think my focus is Canada.

Q. On the topic that my colleague just brought up, a little bit of a different focus. Is now perhaps the right time for an early election given the uncertainty surrounding Donald Trump and his administration and the threat of tariffs?

[Charlie Angus] I think what people were thinking on January 1st, and what people saw after January 6th, our world has turned upside down. And we see that Mr. Trump is continuing to attack and menace not just Canada, but the international order. I'm just one Parliamentarian, and I'm ready to go back to Parliament and make it work. I'm willing to do whatever I have to to try and put a plan in place to help Canada get through this. Maybe there will be an election, maybe there won't, but I think we all have an obligation right now to try to reassure Canadians that we are there for them, and that we will do our job to get through what is unprecedented turbulence....'

My focus right now is what do we do to go back to Parliament and try and get a plan for Canadians? That is where we have to stay focused right now.

I think we have to go back and say, "What is it going to mean to work as a Parliament to put in place, the measures at the federal level to withstand the threat, not just economic threats, but the threats to the international order; the threats that we're seeing to NATO; the threats to our sovereignty? There's so many things that we could be doing. But to do that we all have to agree that right now Canada's primary focus needs to be Canada.

Q. So the Trump tariff threats kind of spark some conversations that a lot of our oil is flowing north to south rather than east-west, and to ports, I guess, and it's exposed a weakness in Canadian energy. Some complain that NDP standards stood in the way of these pipelines, as well as some First Nations. What you think about that. Would you be willing to work more to get some of these projects going forward?

[Charlie Angus] Well, it's amazing, you know -- never give up a good opportunity to burn the planet when there's a crisis. Canadians paid $34 billion dollars to build a pipeline. Canadians are subsidizing over 50 cents on every dollar for the pipeline. To be told that Canada hasn't done its share? Why aren't we talking about the huge opportunities to reinvest across the board with energy? The idea that we're going to spend 15 years building a pipeline to oppose Pump-Trump, when we've just built a pipeline, I'd like to see what the oil sector is going to do. They're making record profits, and I haven't seen them offer to do anything yet, except we've seen Madame Smith say that any efforts to have oil and the energy sector play their part, is some kind of threat to Canada.

So this is all speculation. But there's huge things that we could do across our regions that we'd get bigger bang for the bucks. So if they want to post trial balloons, go ahead. But I think there's many opportunities we can have to make a resilient economy right now in the short term.

[Hostess] Thank you. This concludes the press conference.

[Charlie Angus] Thank you.  

[admin]

Jamie Raskin Talks About Silicon Valleys' Techno-Libertarian Fascists
by Brian Tyler Cohen
Feb 15, 2025 Interviews with Brian Tyler Cohen

INTERVIEW - Brian interviews Rep. Jamie Raskin about Elon profiting off the federal government while simultaneously slashing programs for working class Americans.



Transcript @6:40

[Jamie Raskin] We need to be supporting the lawyers and the people who are willing to take Trump to court, because we are winning. And that's going to be a really important part of filling that gap you talk about between what the rule of law says, and then what's actually happening. Because we're dealing with a band of incorrigible, lawless plutocrats who think that they can just control the whole U.S. government. And I keep thinking about what Steve Bannon said about Elon Musk. He said he's a truly evil individual. He knows that whole crowd, so he knows what he's talking about. And so that's quite a statement. But in the Silicon Valley network of right-wing, billionaire, libertarian-turned-authoritarians, they are very open about the fact that they think that democracy is obsolete, we're living in a post-Constitutional America, and the Constitution no longer fits. And they are trying to get everybody ready for a Techno-State Monarchy. And in their writings about it, they suggest that seizure of the control of technology, and computers, and financial payments, is the essence to moving from one form of government to another.

So we're really talking about people who would like to abolish American Constitutional institutions, and representative democracy, and the rights and freedom of the people.

Their guy, Curtis Yarvin, who's their big intellectual hero, has said people have got to overcome their fear of the word "Dictator." He says a Dictator is basically just like a corporate CEO, who are all Dictators in their businesses.

The Corporation as Sovereign
by Allison D. Garrett
Maine Law Review
Volume 60 Number 1 Article 4
January 2008

Abstract

In the past two hundred years, sovereignty devolved from the monarch to the people in many countries; in our lifetimes, it has devolved in several significant ways from the people to the corporation. We are witnesses to the erosion of traditional Westphalian concepts of sovereignty, where the chess game of international politics is played out by nation-states, each governing a certain geographic area and group of people. Eulogies for the nation-state often cite globalization as the cause of death. The causa mortis is characterized by the increase in the power and normative influence of supranational organizations, such as the United Nations, World Bank, European Union, International Monetary Fund, and non-governmental organizations. Today, geography lacks the political significance it once had, as valuable commodities instantly pass over, through, and under geographic borders in the world’s most common language, binary code. Telecommunications, when combined with mobile capital and technology, “is viewed as obliterating spatial lines.” All of these changes have made the nation-state, as a geopolitical entity, far less significant than it has been in the past several decades. Corporations have stepped into this power vacuum with a reach and economic influence so broad that some of the duties of sovereign nations have fallen under their aegis. The power and influence of the world’s major corporations continue to grow, and with this growth their similarities to sovereign states increase. As the nation-state is prematurely eulogized, scholars are writing about the privatization of governance and commerce. Many scholars tend to focus on international relations and the extent to which relationships among nations have been transcended or superseded by private actors. For example, the concept of nations acting as private entities has been recognized in the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act, which provides that “a foreign state shall not be immune . . . in any case in which the action is based upon a commercial activity carried on in the United States by a foreign state.” This Article focuses, instead, on how the distinction between corporations and the state is blurring, not only internationally, but also domestically, as corporations act in ways that make them similar to nation-states.

And so we need a Dictator that is the corporation, that's the United States of America. And obviously they have Elon Musk in mind, because he could never run for President, he wasn't born in the United States of America, and he's had citizenship in three different countries. He was actually an undocumented immigrant here for many months before he got work authorization, for all the right-wingers out there who want to kick all the undocumented people out of the country, although that might be an argument in their favor. I don't know. But in any event, these people are talking about supplanting our system of Constitutional democracy with a completely different kind of government controlled by Dictatorship.

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

Curtis Yarvin
by Wikipedia
Accessed: 2/16/25
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Curtis_Yarvin


Yarvin in 2023
Born: 1973 (age 51–52)
Nationality: American
Other names: Mencius Moldbug
Education: Brown University (BA); University of California, Berkeley
Spouse(s): Jennifer Kollmer (died 2021); Kristine Militello (2024–)
School: Neo-monarchism; Neo-reactionism; Dark Enlightenment; Anti-egalitarianism; Anti-democracy; Anti-liberalism; Neocameralism; Technofeudalism
Website: Unqualified Reservations – his old blog; Gray Mirror – his new blog

Part of a series on Anarcho-capitalism

People

Bruce L. Benson; Walter Block; Bryan Caplan; Gerard Casey; Anthony de Jasay; David D. Friedman; Hans-Hermann Hoppe; Michael Huemer; Stephan Kinsella; Nick Land; Michael Malice; Javier Milei; Robert P. Murphy; Wendy McElroy; Lew Rockwell; Murray Rothbard; Joseph Salerno; Jeffrey Tucker; Tom Woods; Curtis Yarvin

Curtis Guy Yarvin (born 1973), also known by the pen name Mencius Moldbug, is an American blogger. He is known, along with philosopher Nick Land, for founding the anti-egalitarian and anti-democratic philosophical movement known as the Dark Enlightenment or neo-reactionary movement (NRx).[1][2][3][4]

In his blog Unqualified Reservations, which he wrote from 2007 to 2014, and in his later newsletter Gray Mirror, which he started in 2020, he argues that American democracy is a failed experiment[5] that should be replaced by an accountable monarchy, similar to the governance structure of corporations.[6] In 2002, Yarvin began work on a personal software project that eventually became the Urbit networked computing platform. In 2013, he co-founded the company Tlon to oversee the Urbit project and helped lead it until 2019.[7]

Yarvin has been described as a "neo-reactionary", "neo-monarchist" and "neo-feudalist" who "sees liberalism as creating a Matrix-like totalitarian system, and who wants to replace American democracy with a sort of techno-monarchy".[8][9][10][11] He has defended the institution of slavery, and has suggested that certain races may be more naturally inclined toward servitude than others.[12][13] He has claimed that whites have higher IQs than black people, but does not consider himself a white nationalist. He is a critic of US civil rights programs, and has called the civil rights movement a "black-rage industry".[14]

Yarvin has influenced some prominent Silicon Valley investors and Republican politicians, with venture capitalist Peter Thiel described as his "most important connection".[15] Political strategist Steve Bannon has read and admired his work.[16] U.S. Vice President JD Vance has cited Yarvin as an influence.[17][18][19] Michael Anton, the State Department Director of Policy Planning during Trump's second presidency, has also discussed Yarvin's ideas.[20] In January 2025, Yarvin attended a Trump inaugural gala in Washington; Politico reported he was "an informal guest of honor" due to his "outsize influence over the Trumpian right."[21]

Biography

Early life and education

Curtis Guy Yarvin[22] was born in 1973 to a liberal, secular family.[23] His grandparents on his father's side were Jewish American and communists. His father, Herbert Yarvin, worked for the US government as a diplomat,[24] and his mother was a Protestant from Westchester County.[25] In 1985, he entered Johns Hopkins' longitudinal Study of Mathematically Precocious Youth. In 1988, Yarvin graduated from Wilde Lake High School,[26] a public high school in the planned community of Columbia, Maryland.

He attended Brown University from 1988 to 1992, then was a graduate student in a computer science PhD program at UC Berkeley before dropping out after a year and a half to join a tech company.[27][25] During the 1990s, Yarvin was influenced by the libertarian tech culture of Silicon Valley.[27] Yarvin read right-wing and American conservative works. The libertarian University of Tennessee law professor Glenn Reynolds introduced him to writers like Ludwig von Mises and Murray Rothbard. The rejection of empiricism by Mises and the Austrian School, who favored instead deduction from first principles, influenced Yarvin's mindset.[28]

Yarvin's pen name, Mencius Moldbug, is a combination of the Confucian philosopher "Mencius" and a play on "goldbug."[24]

Urbit

In 2002, Yarvin founded the Urbit computer platform as a decentralized network of personal servers. In 2013, he co-founded the San Francisco-based company Tlön Corp to build out Urbit further with funding from Peter Thiel's venture capital arm, the Founders Fund.[29][30] In 2016, Yarvin was invited to present on the functional programming aspects of Urbit at LambdaConf 2016, which resulted in the withdrawal of five speakers, two sub-conferences, and several sponsors.[31][32] Yarvin left Tlön in January 2019, but retains some intellectual and financial involvement in the development of Urbit.[7]

Neo-reactionary blogging

Yarvin's reading of Thomas Carlyle convinced him that libertarianism was a doomed project without the inclusion of authoritarianism, and Hans-Hermann Hoppe's 2001 book "Democracy: The God That Failed," marked Yarvin's first break with democracy. Another influence was James Burnham, who asserted that real politics occurred through the actions of elites, beneath what he called apparent democratic or socialist rhetoric.[33] In the 2000s, the failures of US-led nation-building in Iraq and Afghanistan strengthened Yarvin's anti-democratic views, the federal response to the 2008 financial crisis strengthened his libertarian convictions, and Barack Obama's election as US president later that year reinforced his belief that history inevitably progresses toward left-leaning societies.[34]

In 2007, Yarvin began the blog Unqualified Reservations to promote his political vision.[35] In an early blog post, he adapted a phrase from the movie The Matrix, repurposing "red pill" to mean a shattering of progressive illusions.[25] He largely stopped updating his blog in 2013, when he began to focus on Urbit; in April 2016, he announced that Unqualified Reservations had "completed its mission".[36]

In 2020, Yarvin began blogging his views on under the page name Gray Mirror.[18] His posts, such as "Reflections on the late election" (2020) and "The butterfly revolution" (2022), are thought experiments on how to achieve an American coup and replace democracy with a new form of monarchy, ideas that critics have described as "fascist".[37]

In January 2025, Yarvin attended a Trump inaugural gala in Washington, D.C., hosted by the far-right publishing house Passage Press; Politico reported he was "an informal guest of honor" due to his "outsize[d] influence over the Trumpian right."[38]

Views

Dark Enlightenment

Main article: Dark Enlightenment

Yarvin believes that real political power in the United States is held by something he calls "the Cathedral", an informal amalgam of universities and the mainstream press, which collude to sway public opinion.[39] According to him, a so-called "Brahmin" social class (in reference to the Brahmin class of India's caste system and the American Boston Brahmin) dominates American society, preaching progressive values to the masses. The socio-religious analogy originates from Yarvin's opinion that the progressive ideology of the Cathedral is delivered to and internalized by the general populace much in the same way religious authorities and institutions deliver religious dogma to fanatical worshippers. Yarvin and the Dark Enlightenment (sometimes abbreviated to "NRx") movement assert that the Cathedral's commitment to equality and justice erodes social order.[40] He advocates an American 'monarch' dissolving elite academic institutions and media outlets within the first few months of their reign.[37]

Drawing on computer metaphors, Yarvin contends that society needs a "hard reset" or a "rebooting", not a series of gradual political reforms.[41] Instead of activism, he advocates passivism, claiming that progressivism would fail without right-wing opposition.[42] According to him, NRx adherents should rather design "new architectures of exit" than engage in ineffective political activism.[43]

Yarvin argues for a "neo-cameralist" philosophy based on Frederick the Great of Prussia's cameralism.[44] In Yarvin's view, democratic governments are inefficient and wasteful and should be replaced with sovereign joint-stock corporations whose "shareholders" (large owners) elect an executive with total power, but who must serve at their pleasure.[41] The executive, unencumbered by liberal-democratic procedures, could rule efficiently much like a CEO-monarch.[41] Yarvin admires Chinese leader Deng Xiaoping for his pragmatic and market-oriented authoritarianism, and the city-state of Singapore as an example of a successful authoritarian regime. He sees the U.S. as soft on crime, dominated by economic and democratic delusions.[40]

Yarvin supports authoritarianism on right-libertarian grounds, claiming that the division of political sovereignty expands the scope of the state, whereas strong governments with clear hierarchies remain minimal and narrowly focused.[40] According to scholar Joshua Tait, "Moldbug imagines a radical libertarian utopia with maximum freedom in all things except politics."[45] He has favored same-sex marriage, freedom of religion, and private use of drugs, and has written against race- or gender-based discriminatory laws, although, according to Tait, "he self-consciously proposed private welfare and prison reforms that resembled slavery".[41] Tait describes Yarvin's writing as contradictory, saying: "He advocates hierarchy, yet deeply resents cultural elites. His political vision is futuristic and libertarian, yet expressed in the language of monarchy and reaction. He is irreligious and socially liberal on many issues but angrily anti-progressive. He presents himself as a thinker searching for truth but admits to lying to his readers, saturating his arguments with jokes and irony. These tensions indicate broader fissures among the online Right."[27]

Under his Moldbug pseudonym, Yarvin gave a talk about "rebooting" the American government at the 2012 BIL Conference. He used it to advocate the acronym "RAGE", which he defined as "Retire All Government Employees". He described what he felt were flaws in the accepted "World War II mythology", alluding to the idea that Hitler's invasions were acts of self-defense. He argued these discrepancies were pushed by America's "ruling communists", who invented political correctness as an "extremely elaborate mechanism for persecuting racists and fascists". "If Americans want to change their government," he said, "they're going to have to get over their dictator phobia."[46]

In the inaugural article published on Unqualified Reservations in 2007, entitled a formalist manifesto, Yarvin called his concept of aligning property rights with political power "formalism", that is, the formal recognition of realities of the existing power, which should eventually be replaced in his views by a new ideology that rejects progressive doctrines transmitted by the Cathedral.[45][47] Yarvin's first use of the term "neoreactionary" to describe his project occurred in 2008.[48][49] His ideas have also been described by Dylan Matthews of Vox as "neo-monarchist".[9]

Yarvin's ideas have been influential among right-libertarians and paleolibertarians, and the public discourses of prominent investors like Peter Thiel have echoed Yarvin's project of seceding from the United States to establish tech-CEO dictatorships.[50][15] Venture capitalist Marc Andreessen, an informal adviser to Donald Trump, has spoken approvingly of Yarvin's thinking.[51] Political strategist Steve Bannon has read and admired his work.[16] Vice-president JD Vance has cited Yarvin as an influence, saying in 2021, "So there's this guy Curtis Yarvin who has written about these things," which included "Retire All Government Employees," or RAGE, written in 2012. Vance said that if Trump became president again, "I think what Trump should do, if I was giving him one piece of advice: Fire every single midlevel bureaucrat, every civil servant in the administrative state, and replace them with our people. And when the courts stop you, stand before the country and say, 'The chief justice has made his ruling. Now let him enforce it.'"[17][52]

Yarvin suggested in a January 2025 New York Times interview that there was historical precedent to support his reasoning, asserting that in his first inaugural address FDR "essentially says, Hey, Congress, give me absolute power, or I'll take it anyway. So did FDR actually take that level of power? Yeah, he did." The interviewer, David Marchese, remarked that "Yarvin relies on what those sympathetic to his views might see as a helpful serving of historical references — and what others see as a highly distorting mix of gross oversimplification, cherry-picking and personal interpretation presented as fact."[51]

According to Tait, "Moldbug's relationship with the investor-entrepreneur Thiel is his most important connection."[15] Thiel was an investor in Yarvin's startup Tlon and gave $100,000 to Tlon's co-founder John Burnham in 2011.[53][15] In 2016, Yarvin privately asserted to Milo Yiannopoulos that he had been "coaching Thiel" and that he had watched the 2016 US election at Thiel's house.[54] In his writings, Yarvin has pointed to [u]a 2009 essay by Thiel, in which the latter declared: "I no longer believe that freedom and democracy are compatible... Since 1920, the vast increase in welfare beneficiaries and the extension of the franchise to women—two constituencies that are notoriously tough for libertarians—have rendered the notion of 'capitalist democracy' into an oxymoron."[/u][55]

Investor Balaji Srinivasan has also echoed Yarvin's ideas of techno-corporate cameralism. He advocated in a 2013 speech a "society run by Silicon Valley [...] an opt-in society, ultimately outside the US, run by technology."[56][15]

Alt-right

Yarvin has been described as part of the alt-right by journalists and commentators.[44][57][10] Journalist Mike Wendling has called Yarvin "the alt-right's favorite philosophy instructor".[58][44] Tait describes Unqualified Reservations as a "'highbrow' predecessor and later companion to the transgressive anti-'politically correct' metapolitics of nebulous online communities like 4chan and /pol/."[15] Yarvin has publicly distanced himself from the alt-right. In a private message, Yarvin counseled Milo Yiannopoulos, then a reporter at Breitbart News, to deal with neo-Nazis "the way some perfectly tailored high-communist NYT reporter handles a herd of greasy anarchist hippies. Patronizing contempt. Your heart is in the right place, young lady, now get a shower and shave those pits."[59]

Writing in Vanity Fair, James Pogue said of Yarvin:

Some of Yarvin's writing from (his blog Unqualified Reservations) is so radically right wing that it almost has to be read to be believed, like the time he critiqued the attacks by the Norwegian far-right terrorist Anders Behring Breivik—who killed 77 people, including dozens of children at a youth camp—not on the grounds that terrorism is wrong but because the killings wouldn't do anything effective to overthrow what Yarvin called Norway's 'communist' government. He argued that Nelson Mandela, once head of the military wing of the African National Congress, had endorsed terror tactics and political murder against opponents and said anyone who claimed 'St. Mandela' was more innocent than Breivik might have 'a mother you'd like to fuck.'[60]

In Commonweal, Matt McManus said of Yarvin:

He comes across as a kind of third-rate authoritarian David Foster Wallace, combining post-postmodern bookish eclecticism with a yearning to communicate with and influence young disaffected white men. His writings are full of dubious historical claims usually mixed with thinly veiled bigotry and a powdery kind of middle-class snobbery.[61]

Yarvin came to public attention in February 2017 when Politico magazine reported that Steve Bannon, who served as White House Chief Strategist under U.S. President Donald Trump, read Yarvin's blog and that Yarvin "has reportedly opened up a line to the White House, communicating with Bannon and his aides through an intermediary."[62] The story was picked up by other magazines and newspapers, including The Atlantic, The Independent, and Mother Jones.[44][63][64] Yarvin denied to Vox that he was in contact with Bannon in any way,[9] but he jokingly told The Atlantic that his White House contact was the Twitter user Bronze Age Pervert.[44] Yarvin later gave a copy of Bronze Age Pervert's book Bronze Age Mindset to Michael Anton, a former senior national security official in the first Trump administration. Trump also named Anton to be the U.S. State Department Director of Policy Planning in his second presidency.[65][66][67]

In a May 2021 conversation, Anton said Yarvin was arguing that a president could "gain power lawfully through an election, and then exercise it unlawfully." Yarvin replied, "It wouldn't be unlawful. You'd simply declare a state of emergency in your inaugural address," adding, "you'd actually have a mandate to do this. Where would that mandate come from? It would come from basically running on it, saying, 'Hey, this is what we're going to do.'" He continued that if a hypothetical authoritarian president were to take office in January 2025, "you can't continue to have a Harvard or a New York Times past since perhaps the start of April" because "the idea that you're going to be a Caesar and take power and operate with someone else's Department of Reality in operation is just manifestly absurd. Machiavelli could tell you right away that that's a stupid idea."[20]

Views on race

Yarvin has alleged that whites have higher IQs than blacks for genetic reasons. He has been described as a modern-day supporter of slavery, a description he disputes.[68][31] He has claimed that some races are more suited to slavery than others.[31] In a post that linked approvingly to Steve Sailer and Jared Taylor, he wrote: "It should be obvious that, although I am not a white nationalist, I am not exactly allergic to the stuff. [Anti-anti-White Nationalist]"[44][69] In 2009, he wrote that since US civil rights programs were "applied to populations with recent hunter-gatherer ancestry and no great reputation for sturdy moral fiber", the result was "absolute human garbage."[70]

Yarvin disputes accusations of racism,[68] and in his essays, "Why I am not a White Nationalist" and "Why I am not an Anti-Semite," he offered a somewhat sympathetic analysis of those ideologies before ultimately rejecting them.[25] He has also described the use of IQ tests to determine superiority as "creepy".[31]

Personal life

Yarvin was married to Jennifer Kollmer, who died in 2021 and with whom he had two children.[71] He was briefly engaged to writer Lydia Laurenson, with whom he has one child.[60][72][73] He married Kristine Militello in 2024.[74]

He is an atheist.[24]

See also

• Anarchocapitalism
• Authoritarian capitalism
• Counter-Enlightenment
• Criticism of democracy
• Dark Enlightenment
• Far-right politics
• Fusionism
• Natural order
• Neo-feudalism
• Paleoconservatism
• Paleolibertarianism
• Radical right
• Reactionary
• Reactionary modernism


References

1. Tait 2019, p. 188: "He became the founding theorist of the 'neoreactionary' movement, an online collection of writers determined to theorize a superior alternative to democracy. ... Sometimes called the 'Reactionary Enlightenment', neoreaction is an alchemy of authoritarian and libertarian thought."
2. Smith & Burrows 2021, p. 145: "There are numerous individuals associated with NRx ideas, but four are perhaps key: two – Curtis Yarvin and Nick Land – might be considered the original 'builders' ... of the position."; p. 148: "Yarvin is probably the most important figure in NRx, as it would be fair to regard his UR blog as the foundational text of the movement ... Originally called 'neocameralism', his position soon became known as 'neoreactionary' philosophy (NRx) and then, once passed through Land's nihilist Deleuzian filter, as The Dark Enlightenment."
3. Kindinger, Evangelia; Schmitt, Mark (January 4, 2019). "Conclusion: Digital culture and the afterlife of white supremacist movements". The Intersections of Whiteness. Routledge. ISBN 978-1-351-11277-2. Retrieved November 29, 2022.
4. Gray, Rosie (February 10, 2017). "The Anti-Democracy Movement Influencing the Right". The Atlantic. Retrieved November 29, 2022.
5. Matthews, Dylan (April 18, 2016). "The alt-right is more than warmed-over white supremacy. It's that, but way way weirder". Vox. Archived from the original on August 31, 2017. Retrieved May 27, 2020.
6. Hawley, George (2017). Making sense of the alt-right. Columbia University Press. pp. 43–45. ISBN 978-0231185127.
7. Smith & Burrows 2021, p. 152.
8. Goldberg, Michelle (April 26, 2022). "Opinion | The Awful Advent of Reactionary Chic". The New York Times.
9. Matthews, Dylan (February 7, 2017). "Neo-monarchist blogger denies he's chatting with Steve Bannon". Vox. Archived from the original on May 20, 2020. Retrieved March 21, 2020.
10. Lecher, Colin (February 21, 2017). "Alt-right darling Mencius Moldbug wanted to destroy democracy. Now he wants to sell you web services". The Verge. Archived from the original on June 13, 2019. Retrieved June 14, 2019.
11. "The Moldbug Variations | Corey Pein". The Baffler. October 9, 2017. Retrieved February 4, 2025.
12. Lehmann, Chris (October 27, 2022). "The Reactionary Prophet of Silicon Valley". ISSN 0027-8378. Retrieved February 14, 2025.
13. Townsend, Tess (March 31, 2016). "Controversy Rages Over 'Pro-Slavery' Tech Speaker Curtis Yarvin". Inc. Archived from the original on January 28, 2025. Retrieved February 14, 2025.
14. "Chapter 3: AGW, KFM, and HNU | A Gentle Introduction to Unqualified Reservations | Unqualified Reservations by Mencius Moldbug". http://www.unqualified-reservations.org. Retrieved February 14, 2025.
15. Tait 2019, p. 200.
16. Tait 2019, p. 199.
17. Mahler, Jonathan; Mac, Ryan; Schleifer, Theodore (October 18, 2024). "How Tech Billionaires Became the G.O.P.'s New Donor Class". The New York Times.
18. "Curtis Yarvin wants American democracy toppled. He has some prominent Republican fans". October 24, 2022.
19. Ward, Ian (October 24, 2022). "The Seven Thinkers and Groups That Have Shaped JD Vance's Unusual Worldview". Politico.
20. WIlson, Jason (December 21, 2024). "He's anti-democracy and pro-Trump: the obscure 'dark enlightenment' blogger influencing the next US administration". The Guardian.
21. Ian, Ward (January 30, 2025). "Curtis Yarvin's Ideas Were Fringe. Now They're Coursing Through Trump's Washington". Politico.
22. Pein 2018, p. 211.
23. Tait 2019, pp. 189–190.
24. "Interview with Curtis Yarvin". Interviews with Max Raskin. Retrieved November 15, 2023.
25. Siegel 2022.
26. Yarvin, Curtis (October 26, 2011). "The Holocaust: A Nazi Perspective". Unqualified Reservations/MenciusMoldbug. Retrieved January 19, 2025.
27. Tait 2019, p. 189.
28. Tait 2019, p. 190.
29. Smith & Burrows 2021, pp. 152–153.
30. Pein, Corey (October 9, 2017) [October 9, 2017]. "The Moldbug Variations | Corey Pein". The Baffler. Archived from the original on July 31, 2024. Retrieved August 27, 2024.
31. Townsend, Tess (March 31, 2016). "Controversy Rages Over 'Pro-Slavery' Tech Speaker Curtis Yarvin". Inc.com. Archived from the original on April 1, 2016. Retrieved March 31, 2016. Yarvin's online writings, many under his pseudonym Mencius Moldbug, convey blatantly racist views. He expresses the belief that white people are genetically endowed with higher IQs than black people. He has suggested race may determine whether individuals are better suited for slavery, and his writing has been interpreted as supportive of the institution of slavery. ... Yarvin disputes that he agrees with the institution of slavery, but many interpret his writings as screeds supportive of bondage of black people. He writes in an email to Inc., 'I don't know if we can say *biologically* that part of the genius of the African-American people is the talent they showed in enduring slavery. But this is certainly true in a cultural and literary sense. In any case, it is easiest to admire a talent when one lacks it, as I do.' ... In Yarvin's Medium blog post, he wrote that while he disagrees with the concept that 'all races are equally smart,' he is not racist because he rejects what he refers to as 'IQism.'
32. Townsend, Tess (April 5, 2016). "Citing 'Open Society,' Racist Programmer's Allies Raise $20K on Indiegogo". Inc.com. Archived from the original on July 13, 2016. Retrieved September 17, 2016.
33. Tait 2019, p. 191.
34. Tait 2019, p. 192.
35. Tait 2019, p. 187.
36. Tait 2019, p. 198.
37. Prokop, Andrew (October 24, 2022). "Curtis Yarvin wants American democracy toppled. He has some prominent Republican fans". Vox. Retrieved July 27, 2024. Shut down elite media and academic institutions: Now, recall that, according to Yarvin's theories, true power is held by 'the Cathedral,' so they have to go, too. The new monarch/dictator should order them dissolved. 'You can't continue to have a Harvard or a New York Times past the start of April,' he told Anton. After that, he says, people should be allowed to form new associations and institutions if they want, but the existing Cathedral power bases must be torn down.
38. Ian, Ward (January 30, 2025). "Curtis Yarvin's Ideas Were Fringe. Now They're Coursing Through Trump's Washington". Politico.
39. Sullivan, Andrew (April 2017). "The Reactionary Temptation". New York. Archived from the original on November 20, 2018. Retrieved November 29, 2018.
40. Tait 2019, p. 195.
41. Tait 2019, p. 197.
42. Tait 2019, pp. 197–198.
43. Smith & Burrows 2021, p. 149.
44. Gray, Rosie (February 10, 2017). "Behind the Internet's Anti-Democracy Movement". The Atlantic. Archived from the original on February 10, 2017. Retrieved February 10, 2017.
45. Tait 2019, p. 196.
46. Pein 2018, pp. 216–217
47. Smith & Burrows 2021, p. 148
48. Hermansson et al. 2020, p. 65.
49. Moldbug, Mencius (June 19, 2008). "Chapter X: A Simple Sovereign Bankruptcy Procedure | An Open Letter to Open-Minded Progressives". Unqualified Reservations. If I had to choose one word and stick with it, I'd pick "restorationist." If I have to concede one pejorative which fair writers can fairly apply, I'll go with "reactionary." I'll even answer to any compound of the latter—"neoreactionary," "postreactionary," "ultrareactionary," etc.
50. Pein 2018, pp. 228–230.
51. Marchese, David (January 18, 2025). "Curtis Yarvin Says Democracy Is Done. Powerful Conservatives Are Listening". The New York Times.
52. Del Valle, Gaby (October 16, 2024). "JD Vance thinks monarchists have some good ideas". The Verge.
53. Pein 2018, p. 228.
54. Tait 2019, p. 200; Hermansson et al. 2020, pp. 95–96; quoting Bernstein 2017 Archived January 25, 2021, at the Wayback Machine.
55. Smith & Burrows 2021, pp. 148–149; quoting Thiel 2009 Archived April 29, 2013, at the Wayback Machine
56. Pein 2018, pp. 278–281.
57. Bernstein, Joseph (October 5, 2017). "Here's How Breitbart And Milo Smuggled Nazi and White Nationalist Ideas Into The Mainstream". BuzzFeed News.
58. Wendling, Mike (2018). Alt Right: From 4chan to the White House. Pluto Press. pp. 28–29. ISBN 978-0-7453-3795-1.
59. Tait 2019, p. 199; quoting Bernstein 2017 Archived January 25, 2021, at the Wayback Machine.
60. Pogue, James (April 20, 2022). "Inside the New Right, Where Peter Thiel Is Placing His Biggest Bets". Vanity Fair.
61. McManus, Matt (January 27, 2023) "Yarvin's Case Against Democracy." Commonweal. (Retrieved January 27, 2023.)
62. Johnson, Eliana; Stokols, Eli (February 2017). "What Steve Bannon Wants You to Read". Politico. Archived from the original on April 23, 2017. Retrieved April 17, 2017.
63. Revesz, Rachael (February 27, 2017). "Steve Bannon 'connects network of white nationalists' at the White House". The Independent. Archived from the original on April 18, 2017. Retrieved April 17, 2017.
64. Levy, Pema (March 26, 2017). "Stephen Bannon Is a Fan of a French Philosopher...Who Was an Anti-Semite and a Nazi Supporter". Mother Jones. Retrieved April 17, 2017.
65. Anton, Michael (August 14, 2019). "Are the Kids Al(t)right?". Claremont Review of Books. Archived from the original on August 24, 2019. Retrieved August 26, 2019.
66. Schreckinger, Ben (August 23, 2019). "The alt-right manifesto that has Trumpworld talking". Politico. Archived from the original on August 26, 2019. Retrieved August 26, 2019.
67. Irwin, Lauren (December 8, 2024). "Trump names several picks for State Department roles". The Hill.
68. Byars, Mitchell (April 6, 2016). "Speaker Curtis Yarvin's racial views bring controversy to Boulder conference". Daily Camera: Boulder News. Archived from the original on March 10, 2018. Retrieved June 30, 2016. A programming conference in Boulder this May has become surrounded by controversy after organizers decided to let Curtis Yarvin — a programmer who has blogged under the pseudonym Mencius Moldbug about his views that white people are genetically smarter than black people — remain a speaker at the event. ... But Yarvin's views, which some have alleged are racist and endorse the institution of slavery, already have led to him being kicked out of a conference in 2015, and there has been pressure on LambdaConf to do the same. ... 'I am not an "outspoken advocate for slavery," a racist, a sexist or a fascist,' he wrote. 'I don't equate anatomical traits (whether sprinting speed or problem-solving efficiency) with moral superiority. ... '
69. Marantz, Andrew (2019). Antisocial: online extremists, techno-utopians, and the hijacking of the American conversation. Penguin. p. 156. ISBN 978-0525522263.
70. Tait 2019, p. 194; quoting Moldbug, 2009 archive.
71. Yarvin, Curtis (April 7, 2021). "Jennifer Kollmer, 1971-2021". Gray Mirror. Retrieved November 15, 2023.
72. "I Am No Longer Engaged To Curtis Yarvin -". archive.ph. September 27, 2022. Archived from the original on September 27, 2022. Retrieved July 16, 2024.
73. Yarvin, Curtis (September 25, 2022). "Podcasts and a personal note". Gray Mirror. Retrieved July 16, 2024.
74. Black, Julia (August 9, 2024). "The Far-Right Guru Who has Befriended Silicon Valley's Extreme Factions". The Information. Retrieved October 1, 2024.

Sources

• Hermansson, Patrik; Lawrence, David; Mulhall, Joe; Murdoch, Simon (2020). The International Alt-Right: Fascism for the 21st Century?. Routledge. ISBN 978-0-429-62709-5.
• Pein, Corey (2018). Live Work Work Work Die: A Journey into the Savage Heart of Silicon Valley. Metropolitan Books. ISBN 978-1-62779-486-2.
• Siegel, Jacob (March 31, 2022). "The Red-Pill Prince: How computer programmer Curtis Yarvin became America's most controversial political theorist". Tablet Magazine.
• Smith, Harrison; Burrows, Roger (2021). "Software, Sovereignty and the Post-Neoliberal Politics of Exit". Theory, Culture & Society. 38 (6): 143–166. doi:10.1177/0263276421999439. hdl:1983/9261276b-8184-482c-b184-915655df6c19. ISSN 0263-2764. S2CID 234839947.
• Tait, Joshua (2019). "Mencius Moldbug and Neoreaction". In Sedgwick, Mark (ed.). Key Thinkers of the Radical Right: Behind the New Threat to Liberal Democracy. Oxford University Press. pp. 187–203. ISBN 978-0190877606.

External links

Wikiquote has quotations related to Curtis Yarvin.

• Unqualified Reservations – his old blog
• Gray Mirror – his new blog
• Interview with Curtis Yarvin, The New York Times, January 2025

[admin]

Part 1 of 2

Anarcho-capitalism
by Wikipedia
Accessed: 2/16/25
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anarcho-capitalism



Anarcho-capitalism (colloquially: ancap or an-cap) is a political philosophy and economic theory which posits that all government institutions are unnecessary or harmful and can be abolished or replaced with private ones.[2] Anarcho-capitalists hold that society tends to contractually self-regulate and civilize through the voluntary exchange of goods and services. This would ideally result in a voluntary society[3][4][5][6] based on concepts such as the non-aggression principle, free markets and self-ownership. In such a society, private property rights would be enforced by private agencies. In the absence of statute, private defence agencies and/or insurance companies would operate competitively in a market and fulfill the roles of courts and the police.

According to its proponents, various historical theorists have espoused philosophies similar to anarcho-capitalism.[7] While the earliest extant attestation of "anarchocapitalism" [sic] is in Karl Hess's essay "The Death of Politics" published by Playboy in March 1969,[8][9] American economist Murray Rothbard was credited with coining the terms anarcho-capitalist[10][11] and anarcho-capitalism in 1971.[12] A leading figure in the 20th-century American libertarian movement,[6] Rothbard synthesized elements from the Austrian School, classical liberalism and 19th-century American individualist anarchists and mutualists Lysander Spooner and Benjamin Tucker, while rejecting the labor theory of value.[13][14][15] Rothbard's anarcho-capitalist society would operate under a mutually agreed-upon "legal code which would be generally accepted, and which the courts would pledge themselves to follow".[16] This legal code would recognize contracts between individuals, private property, self-ownership and tort law in keeping with the non-aggression principle.[6][16][17] Unlike a state, enforcement measures would only apply to those who initiated force or fraud.[18] Rothbard views the power of the state as unjustified, arguing that it violates individual rights, reduces prosperity, and creates social and economic problems.[6]

Anarcho-capitalists and right-libertarians cite several historical precedents of what they believe to be examples of quasi-anarcho-capitalism,[23] including the Republic of Cospaia,[24] Acadia,[25] Anglo-Saxon England,[26][3] Medieval Iceland,[25] the American Old West,[25] Gaelic Ireland,[6] and merchant law, admiralty law, and early common law.

Anarcho-capitalism is distinguished from minarchism, which advocates a minimal governing body (typically a night-watchman state limited to protecting individuals from aggression and enforcing private property) and from objectivism (which is a broader philosophy advocating a limited role, yet unlimited size, of said government).[27] Anarcho-capitalists consider themselves to be anarchists whilst supporting private property and private institutions, as opposed to Anarcho-communism, which rejects these ideas.[26]

Classification

See also: Anarchism and capitalism

Anarcho-capitalism developed from Austrian School-neoliberalism and individualist anarchism.[28][29][30][31][32][33][34] Most left wing anarchist movements do not consider anarcho-capitalism to be anarchist because it lacks the historically central anti-capitalist emphasis of older ideas of anarchism. They also argue that anarchism is incompatible with capitalist structures .[35][36][37][38][39][40] According to several scholars, Anarcho-capitalism lies outside the tradition of the vast majority of anarchist schools of thought and is more closely affiliated with capitalism, right-libertarianism and neoliberalism.[35][41][42][43][44][45] Traditionally, left-anarchists oppose and reject capitalism, and consider anarcho-capitalism to be a contradiction in terms,[46][47][48] although anarcho-capitalists and some right-libertarians consider anarcho-capitalism to be a form of anarchism, or even the only legitimate form of anarchism.[49][50][51][52]

According to the Encyclopædia Britannica:[6]

Anarcho-capitalism challenges other forms of anarchism by supporting private property and private institutions with significant economic power.

Anarcho-capitalism is occasionally seen as part of the New Right.[53][54]

Philosophy


Murray Rothbard in the 1970s

Author J Michael Oliver says that during the 1960s, a philosophical movement arose in the US that championed "reason, ethical egoism, and free-market capitalism". According to Oliver, anarcho-capitalism is a political theory which logically follows the philosophical conclusions of Objectivism, a philosophical system developed by Ayn Rand, but he acknowledges that his advocacy of anarcho-capitalism is "quite at odds with Rand's ardent defense of 'limited government'".[55] Professor Lisa Duggan also says that Rand's anti-statist, pro–free market stances went on to shape the politics of anarcho-capitalism.[56]

According to Patrik Schumacher, the political ideology and programme of anarcho-capitalism envisages the radicalization of the neoliberal "rollback of the state", and calls for the extension of "entrepreneurial freedom" and "competitive market rationality" to the point where the scope for private enterprise is all-encompassing and "leaves no space for state action whatsoever".[57]

On the state

Anarcho-capitalists oppose the state and seek to privatize any useful service the government presently provides, such as education, infrastructure, or the enforcement of law.[57][58] They see capitalism and the free market as the basis for a free and prosperous society. Murray Rothbard stated that the difference between free-market capitalism and state capitalism is the difference between "peaceful, voluntary exchange" and a "collusive partnership" between business and government that "uses coercion to subvert the free market".[59] Rothbard argued that all government services, including defense, are inefficient because they lack a market-based pricing mechanism regulated by "the voluntary decisions of consumers purchasing services that fulfill their highest-priority needs" and by investors seeking the most profitable enterprises to invest in.[60]: 1051 

Rothbard used the term anarcho-capitalism to distinguish his philosophy from anarchism that opposes private property[61] as well as to distinguish it from individualist anarchism.[62] Other terms sometimes used by proponents of the philosophy include:

• Individualist anarchism[63][64]
• Natural order[7]
• Ordered anarchy[7]
• Private-law society[7]
• Private-property anarchy[7]
• Radical capitalism[7]

Maverick Edwards of the Liberty University describes anarcho-capitalism as a political, social, and economic theory that places markets as the central "governing body" and where government no longer "grants" rights to its citizenry.[65]

Non-aggression principle

Writer Stanisław Wójtowicz says that although anarcho-capitalists are against centralized states, they believe that all people would naturally share and agree to a specific moral theory based on the non-aggression principle.[66] While the Friedmanian formulation of anarcho-capitalism is robust to the presence of violence and in fact, assumes some degree of violence will occur,[67] anarcho-capitalism as formulated by Rothbard and others holds strongly to the central libertarian nonaggression axiom,[66] sometimes non-aggression principle. Rothbard wrote:

The basic axiom of libertarian political theory holds that every man is a self-owner, having absolute jurisdiction over his own body. In effect, this means that no one else may justly invade, or aggress against, another's person. It follows then that each person justly owns whatever previously unowned resources he appropriates or "mixes his labor with". From these twin axioms – self-ownership and "homesteading" – stem the justification for the entire system of property rights titles in a free-market society. This system establishes the right of every man to his own person, the right of donation, of bequest (and, concomitantly, the right to receive the bequest or inheritance), and the right of contractual exchange of property titles.[17]

Rothbard's defense of the self-ownership principle stems from what he believed to be his falsification of all other alternatives, namely that either a group of people can own another group of people, or that no single person has full ownership over one's self. Rothbard dismisses these two cases on the basis that they cannot result in a universal ethic, i.e. a just natural law that can govern all people, independent of place and time. The only alternative that remains to Rothbard is self-ownership which he believes is both axiomatic and universal.[68]

In general, the non-aggression axiom is described by Rothbard as a prohibition against the initiation of force, or the threat of force, against persons (in which he includes direct violence, assault and murder) or property (in which he includes fraud, burglary, theft and taxation).[16]: 24–25  The initiation of force is usually referred to as aggression or coercion. The difference between anarcho-capitalists and other libertarians is largely one of the degree to which they take this axiom. Minarchist libertarians such as libertarian political parties would retain the state in some smaller and less invasive form, retaining at the very least public police, courts, and military. However, others might give further allowance for other government programs. In contrast, Rothbard rejects any level of "state intervention", defining the state as a coercive monopoly and as the only entity in human society, excluding acknowledged criminals, that derives its income entirely from coercion, in the form of taxation, which Rothbard describes as "compulsory seizure of the property of the State's inhabitants, or subjects."[68]

Some anarcho-capitalists such as Rothbard accept the non-aggression axiom on an intrinsic moral or natural law basis. It is in terms of the non-aggression principle that Rothbard defined his interpretation of anarchism, "a system which provides no legal sanction for such aggression ['against person and property']"; and wrote that "what anarchism proposes to do, then, is to abolish the State, i.e. to abolish the regularized institution of aggressive coercion".[69] In an interview published in the American libertarian journal The New Banner, Rothbard stated that "capitalism is the fullest expression of anarchism, and anarchism is the fullest expression of capitalism".[49]

Property

Private property

Anarcho-capitalists postulate the privatization of everything, including cities with all their infrastructures, public spaces, streets and urban management systems.[57][70]

Central to Rothbardian anarcho-capitalism are the concepts of self-ownership and original appropriation that combines personal and private property. Hans-Hermann Hoppe wrote:

Everyone is the proper owner of his own physical body as well as of all places and nature-given goods that he occupies and puts to use by means of his body, provided only that no one else has already occupied or used the same places and goods before him. This ownership of "originally appropriated" places and goods by a person implies his right to use and transform these places and goods in any way he sees fit, provided only that he does not change thereby uninvitedly the physical integrity of places and goods originally appropriated by another person. In particular, once a place or good has been first appropriated by, in John Locke's phrase, 'mixing one's labor' with it, ownership in such places and goods can be acquired only by means of a voluntary – contractual – transfer of its property title from a previous to a later owner.[71]

Rothbard however rejected the Lockean proviso, and followed the rule of "first come, first served", without any consideration of how much resources are left for other individuals.[72][73]

Anarcho-capitalists advocate private ownership of the means of production and the allocation of the product of labor created by workers within the context of wage labour and the free market – that is through decisions made by property and capital owners, regardless of what an individual needs or does not need.[74] Original appropriation allows an individual to claim any never-before-used resources, including land and by improving or otherwise using it, own it with the same "absolute right" as their own body, and retaining those rights forever, regardless of whether the resource is still being used by them. According to Rothbard, property can only come about through labor, therefore original appropriation of land is not legitimate by merely claiming it or building a fence around it – it is only by using land and by mixing one's labor with it that original appropriation is legitimized: "Any attempt to claim a new resource that someone does not use would have to be considered invasive of the property right of whoever the first user will turn out to be". Rothbard argued that the resource need not continue to be used in order for it to be the person's property as "for once his labor is mixed with the natural resource, it remains his owned land. His labor has been irretrievably mixed with the land, and the land is therefore his or his assigns' in perpetuity".[75]: 170 

Rothbard also spoke about a theory of justice in property rights:

It is not enough to call simply for the defense of "the rights of private property"; there must be an adequate theory of justice in property rights, else any property that some State once decreed to be "private" must now be defended by libertarians, no matter how unjust the procedure or how mischievous its consequences.[62]

In Justice and Property Rights, Rothbard wrote that "any identifiable owner (the original victim of theft or his heir) must be accorded his property".[76][77] In the case of slavery, Rothbard claimed that in many cases "the old plantations and the heirs and descendants of the former slaves can be identified, and the reparations can become highly specific indeed". Rothbard believed slaves rightfully own any land they were forced to work on under the homestead principle. If property is held by the state, Rothbard advocated its confiscation and "return to the private sector",[78] writing that "any property in the hands of the State is in the hands of thieves, and should be liberated as quickly as possible".[79] Rothbard proposed that state universities be seized by the students and faculty under the homestead principle. Rothbard also supported the expropriation of nominally "private property" if it is the result of state-initiated force such as businesses that receive grants and subsidies.[80] Rothbard further proposed that businesses who receive at least 50% of their funding from the state be confiscated by the workers,[81][82] writing: "What we libertarians object to, then, is not government per se but crime, what we object to is unjust or criminal property titles; what we are for is not 'private' property per se but just, innocent, non-criminal private property".[79]

Similarly, Karl Hess wrote that "libertarianism wants to advance principles of property but that it in no way wishes to defend, willy nilly, all property which now is called private ... Much of that property is stolen. Much is of dubious title. All of it is deeply intertwined with an immoral, coercive state system".[83]

Common property

As opposed to most other anarchists,[84] most anarcho-capitalists reject the commons.[85] However, some of them propose that non-state public or community property can also exist in an anarcho-capitalist society.[85] For anarcho-capitalists, what is important is that it is "acquired" and transferred without help or hindrance from what they call the "compulsory state". Deontological anarcho-capitalists believe that the only just and most economically beneficial way to acquire property is through voluntary trade, gift, or labor-based original appropriation, rather than through aggression or fraud.[86]

Anarcho-capitalists state that there could be cases where common property may develop in a Lockean natural rights framework. Anarcho-capitalists make the example of a number of private businesses which may arise in an area, each owning the land and buildings that they use, but they argue that the paths between them become cleared and trodden incrementally through customer and commercial movement. These thoroughfares may become valuable to the community, but according to them ownership cannot be attributed to any single person and original appropriation does not apply because many contributed the labor necessary to create them. In order to prevent it from falling to the "tragedy of the commons", anarcho-capitalists suggest transitioning from common to private property, wherein an individual would make a homesteading claim based on disuse, acquire title by the assent of the community consensus, form a corporation with other involved parties, or other means.[85]

American economist Randall G. Holcombe sees challenges stemming from the idea of common property under anarcho-capitalism, such as whether an individual might claim fishing rights in the area of a major shipping lane and thereby forbid passage through it.[85] In contrast, Hoppe's work on anarcho-capitalist theory is based on the assumption that all property is privately held, "including all streets, rivers, airports, and harbors" which forms the foundation of his views on immigration.[85]

Intellectual property

Most anarcho-capitalists strongly oppose intellectual property (i.e., trademarks, patents, copyrights). Stephan N. Kinsella argues that ownership only relates to tangible assets.[87]

Contractual society

The society envisioned by anarcho-capitalists has been labelled by them as a "contractual society" which Rothbard described as "a society based purely on voluntary action, entirely unhampered by violence or threats of violence"[75]: 84  The system relies on contracts between individuals as the legal framework which would be enforced by private police and security forces as well as private arbitrations.[88][89][90]

Rothbard argues that limited liability for corporations could also exist through contract, arguing that "[c]orporations are not at all monopolistic privileges; they are free associations of individuals pooling their capital. On the purely free market, those men would simply announce to their creditors that their liability is limited to the capital specifically invested in the corporation".[60]

There are limits to the right to contract under some interpretations of anarcho-capitalism. Rothbard believes that the right to contract is based in inalienable rights[68] and because of this any contract that implicitly violates those rights can be voided at will, preventing a person from permanently selling himself or herself into unindentured slavery. That restriction aside, the right to contract under anarcho-capitalist order would be pretty broad. For example, Rothbard went as far as to justify stork markets, arguing that a market in guardianship rights would facilitate the transfer of guardianship from abusive or neglectful parents to those more interested or suited to raising children.[91][92] Other anarcho-capitalists have also suggested the legalization of organ markets, as in Iran's renal market. Other interpretations conclude that banning such contracts would in itself be an unacceptably invasive interference in the right to contract.[93]

Included in the right of contract is "the right to contract oneself out for employment by others". While anarchists criticize wage labour describing it as wage slavery, anarcho-capitalists view it as a consensual contract.[94] Some anarcho-capitalists prefer to see self-employment prevail over wage labor. David D. Friedman has expressed a preference for a society where "almost everyone is self-employed" and "instead of corporations there are large groups of entrepreneurs related by trade, not authority. Each sells not his time, but what his time produces".[94]

Law and order and the use of violence

Different anarcho-capitalists propose different forms of anarcho-capitalism and one area of disagreement is in the area of law. In The Market for Liberty, Morris and Linda Tannehill object to any statutory law whatsoever. They argue that all one has to do is ask if one is aggressing against another in order to decide if an act is right or wrong.[95] However, while also supporting a natural prohibition on force and fraud, Rothbard supports the establishment of a mutually agreed-upon centralized libertarian legal code which private courts would pledge to follow, as he presumes a high degree of convergence amongst individuals about what constitutes natural justice.[96]

Unlike both the Tannehills and Rothbard who see an ideological commonality of ethics and morality as a requirement, David D. Friedman proposes that "the systems of law will be produced for profit on the open market, just as books and bras are produced today. There could be competition among different brands of law, just as there is competition among different brands of cars".[97] Friedman says whether this would lead to a libertarian society "remains to be proven". He says it is a possibility that very un-libertarian laws may result, such as laws against drugs, but he thinks this would be rare. He reasons that "if the value of a law to its supporters is less than its cost to its victims, that law ... will not survive in an anarcho-capitalist society".[98]

Anarcho-capitalists only accept the collective defense of individual liberty (i.e. courts, military, or police forces) insofar as such groups are formed and paid for on an explicitly voluntary basis. However, their complaint is not just that the state's defensive services are funded by taxation, but that the state assumes it is the only legitimate practitioner of physical force – that is, they believe it forcibly prevents the private sector from providing comprehensive security, such as a police, judicial and prison systems to protect individuals from aggressors. Anarcho-capitalists believe that there is nothing morally superior about the state which would grant it, but not private individuals, a right to use physical force to restrain aggressors. If competition in security provision were allowed to exist, prices would also be lower and services would be better according to anarcho-capitalists. According to Molinari: "Under a regime of liberty, the natural organization of the security industry would not be different from that of other industries".[99] Proponents believe that private systems of justice and defense already exist, naturally forming where the market is allowed to "compensate for the failure of the state", namely private arbitration, security guards, neighborhood watch groups and so on.[100][101][102][103] These private courts and police are sometimes referred to generically as private defense agencies. The defense of those unable to pay for such protection might be financed by charitable organizations relying on voluntary donation rather than by state institutions relying on taxation, or by cooperative self-help by groups of individuals.[16]: 223  Edward Stringham argues that private adjudication of disputes could enable the market to internalize externalities and provide services that customers desire.[104][105]


The death of General Joseph Warren at the Battle of Bunker Hill during the American Revolutionary War, a war which anarcho-capitalists such as Murray Rothbard admired and believed it was the only American war that could be justified[106]

Rothbard stated that the American Revolutionary War and the War of Southern Secession were the only two just wars in American military history.[107] Some anarcho-capitalists such as Rothbard feel that violent revolution is counter-productive and prefer voluntary forms of economic secession to the extent possible.[108] Retributive justice is often a component of the contracts imagined for an anarcho-capitalist society. According to Matthew O'Keefee[who?], some anarcho-capitalists believe prisons or indentured servitude would be justifiable institutions to deal with those who violate anarcho-capitalist property relations while others believe exile or forced restitution are sufficient.[109] Rothbard stressed the importance of restitution as the primary focus of a libertarian legal order[72] and advocated for corporal punishment for petty vandals and the death penalty for murders.

American economist Bruce L. Benson argues that legal codes may impose punitive damages for intentional torts in the interest of deterring crime. Benson gives the example of a thief who breaks into a house by picking a lock. Even if caught before taking anything, Benson argues that the thief would still owe the victim for violating the sanctity of his property rights. Benson opines that despite the lack of objectively measurable losses in such cases, "standardized rules that are generally perceived to be fair by members of the community would, in all likelihood, be established through precedent, allowing judgments to specify payments that are reasonably appropriate for most criminal offenses".[110]

Morris and Linda Tannehill raise a similar example, saying that a bank robber who had an attack of conscience and returned the money would still owe reparations for endangering the employees' and customers' lives and safety, in addition to the costs of the defense agency answering the teller's call for help. However, they believe that the robber's loss of reputation would be even more damaging. They suggest that specialized companies would list aggressors so that anyone wishing to do business with a man could first check his record, provided they trust the veracity of the companies' records. They further theorise that the bank robber would find insurance companies listing him as a very poor risk and other firms would be reluctant to enter into contracts with him.[111]

Influences

Murray Rothbard has listed different ideologies of which his interpretations, he said, have influenced anarcho-capitalism.[13][14] This includes his interpretation of anarchism, and more precisely individualist anarchism; classical liberalism and the Austrian School of economic thought. Scholars additionally associate anarcho-capitalism with neo-classical liberalism, radical neoliberalism and right-libertarianism.[41][44][112]

Anarchism

Main article: Anarchism and capitalism

In both its social and individualist forms, anarchism was usually considered an anti-capitalist[113][114] and radical left-wing or far-left[115][116][52] movement that promotes libertarian socialist economic theories such as collectivism, communism, individualism, mutualism and syndicalism before Rothbard challenged these ideas.[117] Because left-anarchism is usually described alongside libertarian Marxism as the libertarian wing of the socialist movement and as having a historical association with anti-capitalism and socialism, left-anarchists believe that capitalism is incompatible with social and economic equality and therefore do not recognize anarcho-capitalism as an anarchist school of thought.[41][112][44] In particular, left-anarchists argue that capitalist transactions are not voluntary and that maintaining the class structure of a capitalist society requires coercion which is incompatible with an anarchist society.[118][119] The usage of libertarian is also in dispute.[120] While both anarchists and anarcho-capitalists have used it, libertarian was synonymous with anarchist until the mid-20th century, when anarcho-capitalist theory developed.[112][121]

Anarcho-capitalists are distinguished from the historically dominant left-anarchist tradition by their relation to property and capital. While both anarchism and anarcho-capitalism share general antipathy towards government authority, anarcho-capitalism favors free-market capitalism. Left-anarchists, including egoists such as Max Stirner, have supported the protection of an individual's freedom from powers of both government and private property owners.[122] In contrast, while condemning governmental encroachment on personal liberties, anarcho-capitalists support freedoms based on private property rights. Anarcho-capitalist theorist Murray Rothbard argued that protesters should rent a street for protest from its owners. The abolition of public amenities is a common theme in some anarcho-capitalist writings.[123]

Rothbard argued that anarcho-capitalism is the only true form of anarchism – the only form of anarchism that could possibly exist in reality as he maintained that any other form presupposes authoritarian enforcement of a political ideology such as "redistribution of private property", which he attributed to anarchism.[49] According to this argument, the capitalist free market is "the natural situation" that would result from people being free from state authority and entails the establishment of all voluntary associations in society such as cooperatives, non-profit organizations, businesses and so on. Moreover, anarcho-capitalists, as well as classical liberal minarchists, argue that the application of anarchist ideals as advocated by left-anarchists would require an authoritarian body of some sort to impose it. Based on their understanding and interpretation of anarchism, in order to forcefully prevent people from accumulating capital, which is a goal of left-anarchists, there would necessarily be a redistributive organization of some sort which would have the authority to in essence exact a tax and re-allocate the resulting resources to a larger group of people. They conclude that this theoretical body would inherently have political power and would be nothing short of a state. The difference between such an arrangement and an anarcho-capitalist system is what anarcho-capitalists see as the voluntary nature of organization within anarcho-capitalism contrasted with a "centralized ideology" and a "paired enforcement mechanism" which they believe would be necessary under what they describe as a "coercively" egalitarian-anarchist system.[118]

Rothbard also argued that the non-laissez-faire capitalist system of today is not properly anarchistic because it often colludes with the state. According to Rothbard, "what Marx and later writers have done is to lump together two extremely different and even contradictory concepts and actions under the same portmanteau term. These two contradictory concepts are what I would call 'free-market capitalism' on the one hand, and 'state capitalism' on the other". "The difference between free-market capitalism and state capitalism", writes Rothbard, "is precisely the difference between, on the one hand, peaceful, voluntary exchange, and on the other, violent expropriation". He continues: "State capitalism inevitably creates all sorts of problems which become insoluble".[49]

Left-anarchist argue that anarcho-capitalism is not anarchism for several reasons.[124][125][46] Albert Meltzer argued that anarcho-capitalism simply cannot be anarchism because, according to him, capitalism and the state are inextricably interlinked and because capitalism exhibits domineering hierarchical structures such as that between an employer and an employee.[126] Anna Morgenstern approaches this topic from the opposite perspective, claiming that anarcho-capitalists are not really capitalists because "mass concentration of capital is impossible" without the state.[127] According to Jeremy Jennings, "[ i]t is hard not to conclude that these ideas," referring to anarcho-capitalism, have "roots deep in classical liberalism" and "are described as anarchist only on the basis of a misunderstanding of what anarchism is." For Jennings, "anarchism does not stand for the untrammelled freedom of the individual (as the 'anarcho-capitalists' appear to believe) but, as we have already seen, for the extension of individuality and community."[128] Similarly, Barbara Goodwin, Emeritus Professor of Politics at the University of East Anglia, Norwich, argues that anarcho-capitalism's "true place is in the group of right-wing libertarians", not in anarchism, despite the fact that right-wing libertarianism itself is largely Rothbardian and based around a moderated form of Rothbard's ideas in the modern day as opposed to the other way around.[129]

Some right-libertarian scholars like Michael Huemer, who identify with the ideology, describe anarcho-capitalism as a "variety of anarchism".[50] British author Andrew Heywood also believes that "individualist anarchism overlaps with libertarianism and is usually linked to a strong belief in the market as a self-regulating mechanism, most obviously manifest in the form of anarcho-capitalism".[51] Frank H. Brooks, author of The Individualist Anarchists: An Anthology of Liberty (1881–1908), believes that "anarchism has always included a significant strain of radical individualism, from the hyperrationalism of Godwin, to the egoism of Stirner, to the libertarians and anarcho-capitalists of today".[52]

While both anarchism and anarcho-capitalism are in opposition to the state, it is a necessary but not sufficient condition because left-anarchists and anarcho-capitalists interpret state-rejection differently.[130][131][132][133] Austrian school economist David Prychitko, in the context of anarcho-capitalism says that "while society without a state is necessary for full-fledged anarchy, it is nevertheless insufficient".[133] In the opinion of Ruth Kinna, anarcho-capitalists are anti-statists who draw more on right-wing liberal theory and the Austrian School than anarchist traditions. Kinna writes that "[ i]n order to highlight the clear distinction between the two positions", anarchists describe anarcho-capitalists as "propertarians".[58] Anarcho-capitalism is usually seen as part of the New Right.[53][54]

Some anarcho-capitalists argue that, according to them, anarchists consider the word "anarchy" as to be the antithesis of hierarchy, and therefore, that "anarcho-capitalism" is sometimes considered to be a term with differences philosophically to what they personally consider to be true anarchism, as an anarcho-capitalist society would inherently contain hierarchy.[5][134][135] Additionally, Rothbard discusses the difference between "government" and "governance"[136] thus, proponents of anarcho-capitalism think the philosophy's common name is indeed consistent, as it promotes private governance, but is vehemently anti-government.[104][105]

"I define anarchist society as one where there is no legal possibility for coercive aggression against the person or property of any individual. Anarchists oppose the State because it has its very being in such aggression, namely, the expropriation of private property through taxation, the coercive exclusion of other providers of defense service from its territory, and all of the other depredations and coercions that are built upon these twin foci of invasions of individual rights." —Murray Rothbard in Society Without a State[136]

Classical liberalism

Main article: Classical liberalism

Historian and libertarian Ralph Raico argued that what liberal philosophers "had come up with was a form of individualist anarchism, or, as it would be called today, anarcho-capitalism or market anarchism".[137] He also said that Gustave de Molinari was proposing a doctrine of the private production of security, a position which was later taken up by Murray Rothbard.[137] Some anarcho-capitalists consider Molinari to be the first proponent of anarcho-capitalism.[138] In the preface to the 1977 English translation by Murray Rothbard called The Production of Security the "first presentation anywhere in human history of what is now called anarcho-capitalism", although admitting that "Molinari did not use the terminology, and probably would have balked at the name".[139] Hans-Hermann Hoppe said that "the 1849 article 'The Production of Security' is probably the single most important contribution to the modern theory of anarcho-capitalism". According to Hans-Hermann Hoppe, one of the 19th century precursors of anarcho-capitalism were philosopher Herbert Spencer, classical liberal Auberon Herbert and liberal socialist Franz Oppenheimer.[7]

Paul Dragos Aligica writes that there is a "foundational difference between the classical liberal and the anarcho-capitalist positions". Classical liberalism, while accepting critical arguments against collectivism, acknowledges a certain level of public ownership and collective governance as necessary to provide practical solutions to political problems. In contrast anarcho-capitalism, according to Aligica, denies any requirement for any form of public administration, and allows no meaningful role for the public sphere, which is seen as sub-optimal and illegitimate.[140]

Individualist anarchism

Main article: Individualist anarchism


Lysander Spooner, an American individualist anarchist and mutualist, who is claimed to have influenced anarcho-capitalism

Murray Rothbard, a student of Ludwig von Mises, stated that he was influenced by the work of the 19th-century American individualist anarchists.[141] In the winter of 1949, Rothbard decided to reject minimal state laissez-faire and embrace his interpretation of individualist anarchism.[142] In 1965, Rothbard wrote that "Lysander Spooner and Benjamin R. Tucker were unsurpassed as political philosophers and nothing is more needed today than a revival and development of the largely forgotten legacy they left to political philosophy".[143] However, Rothbard thought that they had a faulty understanding of economics as the 19th-century individualist anarchists had a labor theory of value as influenced by the classical economists, while Rothbard was a student of Austrian School economics which does not agree with the labor theory of value.[13] Rothbard sought to meld 19th-century American individualist anarchists' advocacy of economic individualism and free markets with the principles of Austrian School economics, arguing that "[t]here is, in the body of thought known as 'Austrian economics', a scientific explanation of the workings of the free market (and of the consequences of government intervention in that market) which individualist anarchists could easily incorporate into their political and social Weltanschauung".[144] Rothbard held that the economic consequences of the political system they advocate would not result in an economy with people being paid in proportion to labor amounts, nor would profit and interest disappear as they expected. Tucker thought that unregulated banking and money issuance would cause increases in the money supply so that interest rates would drop to zero or near to it.[143] Peter Marshall states that "anarcho-capitalism overlooks the egalitarian implications of traditional individualist anarchists like Spooner and Tucker".[41] Stephanie Silberstein states that "While Spooner was no free-market capitalist, nor an anarcho-capitalist, he was not as opposed to capitalism as most socialists were."[74]

In "The Spooner-Tucker Doctrine: An Economist's View", Rothbard explained his disagreements. Rothbard disagreed with Tucker that it would cause the money supply to increase because he believed that the money supply in a free market would be self-regulating. If it were not, then Rothbard argued inflation would occur so it is not necessarily desirable to increase the money supply in the first place. Rothbard claimed that Tucker was wrong to think that interest would disappear regardless because he believed people, in general, do not wish to lend their money to others without compensation, so there is no reason why this would change just because banking was unregulated.[143] Tucker held a labor theory of value and thought that in a free market people would be paid in proportion to how much labor they exerted and that exploitation or usury was taking place if they were not. As Tucker explained in State Socialism and Anarchism, his theory was that unregulated banking would cause more money to be available and that this would allow the proliferation of new businesses which would, in turn, raise demand for labor.[145] This led Tucker to believe that the labor theory of value would be vindicated and equal amounts of labor would receive equal pay. As an Austrian School economist, Rothbard did not agree with the labor theory and believed that prices of goods and services are proportional to marginal utility rather than to labor amounts in the free market. As opposed to Tucker he did not think that there was anything exploitative about people receiving an income according to how much "buyers of their services value their labor" or what that labor produces.[143]


Benjamin Tucker, another individualist anarchist, who identified as a socialist and his individualist anarchism as anarchistic socialism versus state socialism, said to have influenced anarcho-capitalism

Without the labor theory of value,[63] some argue that 19th-century individualist anarchists approximate the modern movement of anarcho-capitalism,[13][14][15] although this has been contested[43] or rejected.[146][147][148] As economic theory changed, the popularity of the labor theory of classical economics was superseded by the subjective theory of value of neoclassical economics and Rothbard combined Mises' Austrian School of economics with the absolutist views of human rights and rejection of the state he had absorbed from studying the individualist American anarchists of the 19th century such as Tucker and Spooner.[149] In the mid-1950s, Rothbard wrote an unpublished article named "Are Libertarians 'Anarchists'?" under the pseudonym "Aubrey Herbert", concerned with differentiating himself from communist and socialistic economic views of anarchists, including the individualist anarchists of the 19th century, concluding that "we are not anarchists and that those who call us anarchists are not on firm etymological ground and are being completely unhistorical. On the other hand, it is clear that we are not archists either: we do not believe in establishing a tyrannical central authority that will coerce the noninvasive as well as the invasive. Perhaps, then, we could call ourselves by a new name: nonarchist."[150] Joe Peacott, an American individualist anarchist in the mutualist tradition, criticizes anarcho-capitalists for trying to hegemonize the individualist anarchism label and make appear as if all individualist anarchists are in favor of capitalism.[147] Peacott states that "individualists, both past and present, agree with the communist anarchists that present-day capitalism is based on economic coercion, not on voluntary contract. Rent and interest are the mainstays of modern capitalism and are protected and enforced by the state. Without these two unjust institutions, capitalism could not exist".[151]

Historical precedents

Several anarcho-capitalists and right-libertarians have discussed historical precedents of what they believe were examples of anarcho-capitalism.[152]

Free cities of medieval Europe

Economist and libertarian scholar Bryan Caplan considers the free cities of medieval Europe as examples of "anarchist" or "nearly anarchistic" societies,[19] further arguing:

One case that has inspired both sorts of anarchists is that of the free cities of medieval Europe. The first weak link in the chain of feudalism, these free cities became Europe's centers of economic development, trade, art, and culture. They provided a haven for runaway serfs, who could often legally gain their freedom if they avoided re-capture for a year and a day. And they offer many examples of how people can form mutual-aid associations for protection, insurance, and community. Of course, left-anarchists and anarcho-capitalists take a somewhat different perspective on the free cities: the former emphasize the communitarian and egalitarian concerns of the free cities, while the latter point to the relatively unregulated nature of their markets and the wide range of services (often including defense, security, and legal services) which were provided privately or semi-privately.[19]

Medieval Iceland


19th-century interpretation of the Althing in the Icelandic Commonwealth which authors such as David D. Friedman believe to have some features of anarcho-capitalist society

According to the libertarian theorist David D. Friedman, "[m]edieval Icelandic institutions have several peculiar and interesting characteristics; they might almost have been invented by a mad economist to test the lengths to which market systems could supplant government in its most fundamental functions".[20] While not directly labeling it anarcho-capitalist, Friedman argues that the legal system of the Icelandic Commonwealth comes close to being a real-world anarcho-capitalist legal system.[153] Although noting that there was a single legal system, Friedman argues that enforcement of the law was entirely private and highly capitalist, providing some evidence of how such a society would function. Friedman further wrote that "[e]ven where the Icelandic legal system recognized an essentially 'public' offense, it dealt with it by giving some individual (in some cases chosen by lot from those affected) the right to pursue the case and collect the resulting fine, thus fitting it into an essentially private system".[20]

Friedman and Bruce L. Benson argued that the Icelandic Commonwealth saw significant economic and social progress in the absence of systems of criminal law, an executive, or bureaucracy. This commonwealth was led by chieftains, whose position could be bought and sold like that of private property. Being a member of the chieftainship was also completely voluntary.[6]

American Old West

According to Terry L. Anderson and P. J. Hill, the Old West in the United States in the period of 1830 to 1900 was similar to anarcho-capitalism in that "private agencies provided the necessary basis for an orderly society in which property was protected and conflicts were resolved" and that the common popular perception that the Old West was chaotic with little respect for property rights is incorrect.[154] Since squatters had no claim to western lands under federal law, extra-legal organizations formed to fill the void. Benson explains:

The land clubs and claim associations each adopted their own written contract setting out the laws that provided the means for defining and protecting property rights in the land. They established procedures for registration of land claims, as well as for the protection of those claims against outsiders, and for adjudication of internal disputes that arose. The reciprocal arrangements for protection would be maintained only if a member complied with the association's rules and its court's rulings. Anyone who refused would be ostracized. A boycott by a land club meant that an individual had no protection against aggression other than what he could provide himself.[155]

According to Anderson, "[d]efining anarcho-capitalist to mean minimal government with property rights developed from the bottom up, the western frontier was anarcho-capitalistic. People on the frontier invented institutions that fit the resource constraints they faced".[citation needed]

Gaelic Ireland


Provinces of Ireland in 900

In his work For a New Liberty, Murray Rothbard has claimed ancient Gaelic Ireland as an example of nearly anarcho-capitalist society.[16] In his depiction, citing the work of Professor Joseph Peden,[156] the basic political unit of ancient Ireland was the tuath, which is portrayed as "a body of persons voluntarily united for socially beneficial purposes" with its territorial claim being limited to "the sum total of the landed properties of its members".[16] Civil disputes were settled by private arbiters called "brehons" and the compensation to be paid to the wronged party was insured through voluntary surety relationships. Commenting on the "kings" of tuaths,[16] Rothbard stated:

The king was elected by the tuath from within a royal kin group (the derbfine), which carried the hereditary priestly function. Politically, however, the king had strictly limited functions: he was the military leader of the tuath, and he presided over the tuath assemblies. But he could only conduct war or peace negotiations as an agent of the assemblies, and he was in no sense sovereign and had no rights of administering justice over tuath members. He could not legislate, and when he himself was party to a lawsuit, he had to submit his case to an independent judicial arbiter.[16]

Law merchant, admiralty law, and early common law

Some libertarians have cited law merchant, admiralty law and early common law as examples of anarcho-capitalism.[157][158][failed verification][159]

In his work Power and Market,[60] Rothbard stated:

The law merchant, admiralty law, and much of the common law began to be developed by privately competitive judges, who were sought out by litigants for their expertise in understanding the legal areas involved. The fairs of Champagne and the great marts of international trade in the Middle Ages enjoyed freely competitive courts, and people could patronize those that they deemed most accurate and efficient.[60]: 1051