US judge temporarily blocks Trump buyout offer for government workers by Daniel Wiessner, Tim Reid and Nathan Layne Reuters February 6, 20254:06 PM MST Updated a few seconds ago https://www.reuters.com/world/us/us-gov ... 025-02-06/
Summary
• Administration targets poor-performing employees • Administration says those who do not take offer could still lose their jobs • Labor unions warn buyout offer may lack authority or funds
Feb 6 (Reuters) - A U.S. judge on Thursday temporarily blocked the Trump administration's proposed buyout for federal workers until at least Monday, giving an initial win to labor unions that sued to stop it.
Even as the program was stayed, more than 60,000 federal employees have already accepted the buyout offer, a source told Reuters.
The ruling by U.S. District Judge George O'Toole in Boston pushes back a midnight deadline set by the Trump administration, which is pressuring federal workers to leave their jobs in an unprecedented drive to overhaul the federal government.
O'Toole could opt to delay the buyout further or block it on a more permanent basis when he next considers the legal challenge by the unions at a hearing on Monday.
The buyout proposal has upended Washington, sparking street protests and accusations by labor unions and opposition Democrats that Republican President Donald Trump is violating multiple laws.
The offer promises to pay employees' salaries until October, but that may not be ironclad. Current spending laws expire on March 14 and there is no guarantee that salaries will be funded beyond that point.
The Education Department told staffers that those who accept the buyout could see their paychecks stop at any time, media outlets reported. Labor unions and Democrats have said the offer is not trustworthy.
Some federal employees said they were heartened by Thursday's court ruling.
"It's a glimmer of hope that the courts might help us and block the whole resignation program," said an employee at the General Services Administration, which manages federal properties.
ANOTHER LAWSUIT
Trump has tasked the world's richest person, Elon Musk, to oversee a drastic slashing of the government workforce. As part of that effort, staffers working for Musk have sought access to government personnel files and payment records at a number of agencies, raising privacy and security concerns.
Trump's government overhaul has already resulted in staff purges at several agencies and dramatically scaled-back operations at America's main humanitarian aid agency, the U.S. Agency for International Development.
New York Attorney General Letitia James said she and seven other Democratic state attorneys general would sue to stop Musk's quasi-governmental "Department of Government Efficiency" from accessing sensitive data.
"The president does not have the power to give away our private information to anyone he chooses," she said in a statement.
U.S. Representative Rashida Tlaib (D-MI) speaks as demonstrators rally during a protest against U.S. President Donald Trump and the actions he has taken in the first weeks of his presidency, outside of the Department of Labor in Washington, U.S., February 5, 2025. REUTERS/Nathan Howard Purchase Licensing Rights
The White House says it is following through on Trump's campaign promise to cut wasteful spending and slim down a bureaucracy that many conservatives see as left-leaning and unresponsive to the president's agenda.
60,000 ACCEPT OFFER SO FAR
Some federal workers say they are operating in a climate of fear and uncertainty.
Workers said they were downloading pay and benefit records that they feared could be erased from government computers as they weighed whether to take a buyout deal that might not be honored or stay on with the knowledge they could be fired.
"In the halls most people are stopping to ask one another what their decision will be, with many people saying they are scared because we are caught between two bad choices and very little time to make the decision," said one Treasury Department executive, who spoke on condition of anonymity.
The 60,000 or so who have accepted the buyout constitute a little more than 2.5% of the 2.3 million federal workforce. It was unclear from which agencies those employees are leaving.
Roughly 6% of federal workers retire or resign in a typical year, according to the nonprofit Partnership for Public Service.
The administration has told workers they could lose their jobs if they do not accept the buyout. Federal workers say they have been told to brace for dramatic cuts.
"We were told that nothing that is happening is normal and the goal is to reduce the workforce as fast as possible," said an executive at the Internal Revenue Service.
The White House continues to target new categories of workers for potential dismissal.
The Trump administration sent a new memo on Thursday to agency heads across government ordering them to provide by March 7 a list of all employees who received less than a “fully successful” performance rating in the past three years.
The memo said barriers should be eliminated so agencies can “swiftly terminate poor performing employees.”
The White House has also sought to identify workers hired within the last two years, who lack full civil-service protections and would be easier to fire.
And it has also ordered agency officials to identify those appointed by Trump's predecessor, former President Joe Biden, who remain in civil-service jobs, as well as those who have received poor performance ratings.
The Wall Street Journal reported that the White House is planning to order the Food and Drug Administration and other health-care agencies to fire thousands of workers. The White House denied the report.
Reporting by Tim Reid, Nathan Layne, Daniel Wiessner, Mike Stone, Maggie Fick, Jasper Ward, Richard Cowan, Gabriella Borter, Alexandra Ulmer, Ned Parker, Nathan Layne and Andy Sullivan; Writing by Andy Sullivan and James Oliphant; Editing by Ross Colvin, Marguerita Choy and Deepa Babington
Elon Musk DATA LEAK Sparks URGENT WARNING: FIVE ALARM FIRE! MeidasTouch Feb 6, 2025
Nobody elected Elon Musk, a corrupt, near trillionaire who has implanted himself in our government. Musk, with the permission of the equally corrupt, Donald Trump, now has the keys to our Treasury and Americans' most sensitive information. How do we fight back? Suri Crowe has some ideas.
Transcript
[Sen. Ron Wyden, Ore.] Our Finance investigators got confirmation from whistleblowers late Friday that the treasury secretary had turned the keys over to the musk Hatchet Squad. And here's where we are now.
It is clear that unqualified and unaccountable people have seized control of the flow of taxpayer funds, and a trove of extremely sensitive data. They are seizing the tools you need for a coup. Their first target out of the gate wasn't anything to do with fraud or waste. It was a religious charity for poor people. If Donald Trump cared about improper payments, he wouldn't have fired the Inspectors General. Nobody should fall for that bit of misdirection.
Now, a few hours ago Trump claimed that Musk only looks at payments, and doesn't have the authority to shut any down. That's Donald Trump. It's pretty clear folks, that Musk sees it differently. As Trump and Musk continue targeting Americans they don't like, there's nothing to stop them from cutting off Social Security, Medicare or Medicaid, and penalizing cities and states that defy Trump's illegal orders.
And a lot of us care deeply, as our constituents do, about privacy. Musk has access to to the personal information of hundreds of millions of Americans' bank accounts, tax data, Social Security numbers, home addresses. If people are creeped out at Elon Musk and his Hatchet Squad having your bank accounts, your home address, social security number. Musk Hatchet Brigade has infiltrated a goldmine of data that every foreign spy, and every corrupt actor, would love to see. It is a prescription for nightmares.
[Suri Crowe] That is Senator Ron Wyden of Oregon, doing the most to warn Americans of the dire situation that Donald Trump and his creepy first buddy and fellow psychopath Elon Musk, have put all of us Americans in. My name is Suri Crowe, and you are watching the MeidasTouch network.
Does anyone else feel like we're living in a real life Bond movie, but with two Bond villains, except where is James and Jane Bond? Well I will tell you at the end of this video, but you got to hang with me.
A group of senators and Congressional reps are now getting the message that this is a five alarm fire! And not a minute too soon! Here is more from Senators Wyden and Elizabeth Warren.
[Sen. Ron Wyden, Ore.] Let's remember that Musk reportedly couldn't get a security clearance because of his financial ties to the Chinese government, and his other foreign connections. That's the guy, folks, who's now got his hands on the personal data of hundreds of millions of Americans and some unknown number of businesses and groups.
Last point: the Trump Administration caused chaos in Medicaid and other services that are important to Americans last week when they shut down the primary payment portals to States and social service agencies. These are incompetent people! They don't care about the damage they're doing! And now they may be in charge of the tight-rope walk the Treasury has to do to avoid defaulting on out of debt. We're one mistake away from economic catastrophe.
[Sen. Elizabeth Warren] I just want to be clear about what's going on here. The system that makes sure that your granddad gets his social security check; the system that makes sure that your Mom's doctor gets Medicare payment to cover her medical appointment; and the system that makes sure that you get the tax refund that you're owed, has been taken over by Elon Musk. And every organization, from your State government that uses Federal money on that bridge project, to the local Head Start that takes care of little kids while their mommies and daddies go to work, is now at the mercy of Elon Musk. Maybe you get paid, or maybe you don't. Because now it appears that all of us work for Elon Musk.
Elon just grabbed the controls of our whole payment system, demanding the power to turn it on for his friends, or turn it off for anyone he doesn't like. One guy deciding who gets paid and who doesn't. It is not the law, but it is the reality.
[Suri Crowe] So it is patently obvious to any of us who are not watching propaganda networks like Fox, OAN, Charlie Kirk, or crazy Alex Jones, that Elon Musk who is a non-elected, foreign-born, openly white supremacist, is now running our government with a band of teenage hackers. In addition to firing the head of the FAA, because the man was doing his job, and investigating Elon's Space X for safety violations, Musk also illegally fired Phyllis Fong, who was the Inspector General of the USDA. She was a 22-year nonpartisan veteran. And Fong, who contested her firing because Trump did not follow legal termination protocols, refused to leave her office. And so Trump had her physically removed from her office to degrade her. But Fong did not obey in advance. A lawsuit is coming, likely a successful lawsuit, and bravo to Phyllis Fong for holding her ground. Way to go; way to go.
Fong was overseeing investigations into consumer food safety; violations of Animal Welfare laws; including the spread of the Avian flu, which is spreading among cattle and chickens, and as of this recording has has killed at least one person.
And here's the kicker: the US Department of Agriculture is responsible for investigating Animal Welfare at zoos; research labs, etc., which most Americans are completely unaware of. I am, because I did several investigations on animal cruelty at roadside zoos, some of which I won investigative journalism awards for.
And Fong was specifically looking into Elon Musk's brain implant startup, Neuralink, for animal abuse allegations. So, of course, this monster wanted her gone.
The bottom line is that Trump's regime is lawless, doesn't want any checks and balances, or oversight, and that is why they are getting rid of career Federal prosecutors, career FBI agents, Inspectors Generals -- anyone who would say, "Stop! You are breaking the law!"
And all of his cabinet picks are enablers, and will destroy the very agencies that they are in charge of, which is why it is inexcusable, in my opinion, that any Democrat is voting to confirm Trump's nominations.
Ruben Gallego (Ariz.) : 7 Maggie Hassan (N.H.: 7 Jeanne Shaheen (N.H.): 7 John Hickenlooper (Colo.): 6 Tim Kaine (Va.): 6 Mark Kelly (Ariz.): 6 Michael Bennett (Colo.): 5 John Fetterman (Pa.): 5 Kirsten Gillibrand (N.Y.): 5 Gary Peters (Mich.: 5
The Democratic senators most aligned with Trump in the inaugural tracker are:
· Jeanne Shaheen, New Hampshire · Maggie Hassan, New Hampshire · Gary Peters, Michigan · Tim Kaine, Virginia
Here is a list of Democrats in the Senate who have voted for the most of Trump's picks. Pause to read.
Thirteen Democratic and independent senators were initially tied for the highest score, including our very own Patty Murray ()hurrah for Senator Murray!):
· Richard Blumenthal, Connecticut · Catherine Cortez Masto, Nevada · Tammy Duckworth, Illinois · Martin Heinrich, New Mexico · Mazi Hirono, Hawaii · Ben Ray Lujan, New Mexico · Ed Markey, Massachusetts · Chris Murphy, Connecticut · Patty Murray, Washington · Jack Reed, Rhode Island · Bernie Sanders, Vermont · Chris Van Hollen, Maryland · Elizabeth Warren, Massachusetts
Here's a list of Senate Democrats who have opposed Trump's cabinet picks. And this is what we should be expecting. Note that Senators Patty Murray, Chris Murphy, Elizabeth Warren, to name a few, they are leading the way of how we behave when we are the party of opposition and pro democracy.
[Sen. Ron Wyden, Ore.] These are incompetent people. They don't care about the damage they're doing. And now they may be in charge of the tightrope walk the Treasury has to do to avoid defaulting on out of debt. We're one mistake away from economic catastrophe.
[Suri Crowe] So here is my wrap up. Where is James Bond? Where is Jane Bond? We are he and she. We are the ones we have been waiting for. Tthere are far more of us than this 1% of corrupt criminal hoarders.
Take a look at Elon Musk before his multiple plastic surgeries and hormones. etc. The very stuff he wants to take away from everyone else, including his trans daughter. He is an almost trillionaire, where no amount of money will ever make him feel secure enough. He and Trump are insecure bullies, weak men, an orange freak and a weird nerd.
So we oppose, we obstruct, we tell Representatives that they represent us, and we demand that they do not play footsie with Nazis. Look what the Canadians did. And what the Mexicans did. They stood up to these bullies, and we can too. They said, "We're not buying your American liquor; we're not going to buy any American Products; we're not going to abide by Elon Musk's Starlink contract." They said, "No!" And Trump folded. Paralysis is what authoritarians want. They flood the zone with shit. That is the Playbook. Putin is the master of this, so that people feel overwhelmed and helpless.
So step away if you must, but then, get back in the game. Call your representatives: MAGA or Democrats. And let them know that you are watching them, and that you are doing everything you can to put people in Congress who will represent your rights. And that you are talking to friends and family, and spreading the word about what they are doing to take away your rights and freedom. Because at the end of the day, these people just want to stay in power, which is pathetic! Yes, I agree. But that's what they want to hold on to. So remind them who votes them in.
And lastly, people, say they want "small" government, but do they really? Because the USDA regulates food safety/ Do you really want another E. coli/Listeria outbreak from your food, like the recent huge outbreak of Lysteria at a Boar's head plant in Northern Virginia? You take away the regulators in aviation safety, and planes are crashing, and falling out of the sky, as we have seen recently. You deregulate banks, your money is no longer guaranteed or safe. We need to be grateful for big government that is accountable and works for us. Because this -- what we have right now -- is a king and his corrupt court, looting our rights and our earned income benefits. It is inexcusable.
And lastly, before I sign off, I just want to remind people that when we rise up all together, we do have power. Trump tried to sneak in the turning off of faucets of trillions of dollars of money last week when he shut off Medicaid, Snap, WIC, veterans benefits, etc. And people became furious. I was one of them, Because at that very moment, my cancer surgery was temporarily cancelled. So I called my MAGA representative Jen Kiggins, I called my Senators Tim Kaine and Mark Warner, and I didn't let up. And neither did millions of you. And as a result, there are now 2 federal district judges that said "No you don't, Donald Trump. You cannot do that." And there is now pending litigation, and he had to back off. And I am happy to say that, as of this recording, tomorrow I am going under the knife for my next cancer surgery, and I am excited. But we have to keep the pressure on, and that's how it works.
So I will be checking out, but I can't wait to be back here soon.
My name is Suri Crowe, and you are watching the Meidastouch Network. I hope to be back here very soon, and while I am gone, please you guys, keep up the pressure. Do not be weary and well-doing, for in due time you will reap a harvest of good. Okay? Peace.
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA
Alliance for Retired Americans, 815 16th Street NW, 4th Floor Washington, DC 20006,
American Federation of Government Employees, AFL-CIO, 80 F Street NW, Washington, D.C. 20001, and
Service Employees International Union, AFL-CIO, 1800 Massachusetts Ave. NW, Washington, DC 20036,
Plaintiffs,
v.
Scott Bessent, in his official capacity as Secretary of the Treasury, 1500 Pennsylvania Ave. NW Washington, DC 20220,
Department of the Treasury, 1500 Pennsylvania Ave. NW Washington, DC 20220, and
Bureau of the Fiscal Service, 3201 Pennsy Drive, Building E Landover, MD 20785,
Defendants.
Civil Action No. 25-313
COMPLAINT FOR DECLARATORY AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF
1. Plaintiffs Alliance for Retired Americans, American Federation of Government Employees, AFL-CIO, and Service Employees International Union, AFL-CIO, file this action against defendants Scott Bessent, in his official capacity as Secretary of the Treasury, the Department of the Treasury, and the Bureau of the Fiscal Service, agencies of the United States, for declaratory and injunctive relief to halt Defendants’ unlawful ongoing, systematic, and continuous disclosure of personal and financial information contained in Defendants’ records to Elon Musk and other members of the so-called “Department of Government Efficiency” (DOGE), or to any other person.
2. Millions of individuals engage in financial transactions with the federal government. The government collects trillions of dollars from individuals who pay their income taxes, obtain government services, and pay back loans and other debts that they owe. People also receive money from the federal government. Social security retirement and disability payments, federal tax refunds, veterans’ benefits, and salaries and wages for federal workers are some examples of payment transactions that occur between ordinary individuals and federal agencies.
3. The job of effectuating these financial transactions for the federal government belongs to the Department of the Treasury (the Department), operating through the Bureau of the Fiscal Service (the Bureau). To carry out its duties, the Department collects and maintains sensitive personal and financial information about the individuals who are the counterparties to the transaction. Names, Social Security numbers, birth dates, birth places, home addresses and telephone numbers, email addresses, and bank account information about millions of individuals are maintained within the Department’s records to enable the secure and timely transfer of funds between federal agencies and members of the public.
4. Federal laws protect sensitive personal and financial information from improper disclosure and misuse, including by barring disclosure to individuals who lack a lawful and legitimate need for it.
5. In his first week as Treasury Secretary, defendant Bessent violated these restrictions. Elon Musk and/or other DOGE members had sought access to the Bureau’s records for some time, only to be rebuffed by the employee then in charge of the Bureau. Within a week of being sworn in as Treasury Secretary, Mr. Bessent placed that civil servant on leave and granted DOGE-affiliated individuals full access to the Bureau’s data and the computer systems that house them. He did so without making any public announcement, providing any legal justification or explanation for his decision, or undertaking the process required by law for altering the agency’s disclosure policies.
6. The scale of the intrusion into individuals’ privacy is massive and unprecedented. Millions of people cannot avoid engaging in financial transactions with the federal government and, therefore, cannot avoid having their sensitive personal and financial information maintained in government records. Secretary Bessent’s action granting DOGE-affiliated individuals full, continuous, and ongoing access to that information for an unspecified period of time means that retirees, taxpayers, federal employees, companies, and other individuals from all walks of life have no assurance that their information will receive the protection that federal law affords. And because Defendants’ actions and decisions are shrouded in secrecy, individuals will not have even basic information about what personal or financial information that Defendants are sharing with outside parties or how their information is being used.
7. People who must share information with the federal government should not be forced to share information with Elon Musk or his “DOGE.” And federal law says they do not have to. The Privacy Act of 1974 generally, and the Internal Revenue Code with respect to taxpayer information, make it unlawful for Secretary Bessent to hand over access to the Bureau’s records on individuals to Elon Musk or other members of DOGE. Plaintiffs file this action to put an immediate stop to Defendant’s systematic, continuous, and ongoing violation of federal laws that protect the privacy of personal information contained in federal records. This Court’s exercise of equitable authority is the only adequate avenue available to Plaintiffs to protect the trust that Plaintiffs’ members, and other citizens, taxpayers, and workers, have placed in the federal government in reliance of the laws that Congress enacted to assure the public that what Secretary Bessent is doing would never happen.
JURISDICTION AND VENUE
8. This Court has statutory jurisdiction over this action pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1331, because this action arises under the laws of the United States, namely, the Administrative Procedure Act (APA), 5 U.S.C. §§ 702, 706.
9. Venue is proper in this judicial district under 28 U.S.C. § 1391(e)(1)(A) because defendants are officers and agencies of the United States and because at least one defendant resides in Washington, D.C.
PARTIES
10. Plaintiff Alliance for Retired Americans is a grassroots advocacy organization with 4.4 million members. Founded by the AFL-CIO in 2001, the Alliance now has 39 state alliances and members in every state. The Alliance’s retiree activists are from all walks of life. They are former teachers, industrial workers, state and federal government workers, construction workers, and community leaders united in the belief that every American deserves a secure and dignified retirement after a lifetime of hard work.
11. Plaintiff American Federation of Government Employees, AFL-CIO (AFGE) is a labor organization and unincorporated association that represents approximately 800,000 federal civilian employees through its affiliated councils and locals in every state in the United States. AFGE members include nurses caring for our nation’s veterans, border patrol agents securing our borders, correctional officers maintaining safety in federal facilities, scientists conducting critical research, health care workers serving on military bases, civilian employees in the Department of Defense supporting our military personnel and their families, and employees of the Social Security Administration making sure retirees receive the benefits they have earned.
12. Plaintiff Service Employees International Union (SEIU) is a labor union of approximately two million diverse workers who provide public services, healthcare, and property services throughout the United States, Canada, and Puerto Rico. SEIU represents approximately 80,000 federal sector employees in the U.S., including nurses, doctors, other healthcare workers, police officers, firefighters, correctional officers, office workers, scientists, engineers, analysts, maintenance workers, and more, who are employed by and receive paychecks from the federal government. SEIU also represents approximately 30,000 retiree members, many of whom receive checks from the Social Security Administration.
13. Defendant Scott Bessent is the Secretary of the Treasury.
14. Defendant Department of the Treasury is an agency of the United States, headquartered in Washington, D.C.
15. Defendant Bureau of the Fiscal Service is an agency of the United States headquartered in Landover, Maryland, and a component of the Department.
FACTS
Defendants’ Collection and Maintenance of Information on Individuals
16. Defendants are responsible for managing the finances of the United States Government. Their responsibilities include collecting receipts owed to the government and making payments to recipients of public funds. 31 U.S.C. §§ 3301, 3321. In fiscal year 2024, the Department processed nearly $5 trillion in receipts, including $2.4 trillion from individual income taxes, $1.7 trillion from social security taxes, and $530 billion from corporate income taxes. In that fiscal year, the Department handled $6.752 trillion in outlays, including $1.46 trillion for social security payments and $874 billion in defense spending.1 The U.S. Treasury is the largest collections, payments, cash management, and financial operation in the world.
17. To engage in financial transactions with individuals, Defendants must collect and maintain personal and financial information about those individuals.As federal agencies, the Department and the Bureau are subject to the requirements of the Privacy Act, 5 U.S.C. § 552a, with respect to records that it maintains on individuals.
18. Under the Privacy Act, an agency must prepare a notice in the Federal Register “of the existence and character of the system of records” when such a system is established or revised. 5 U.S.C. § 552a(e)(4). This notice is referred to as a System of Records Notice (SORN). At least 30 days before publishing a SORN, an agency must “publish in the Federal Register notice of any new use or intended use of the information in the system, and provide an opportunity for interested persons to submit written data, views, or arguments to the agency.” Id. § 552a(e)(11).
19. The Privacy Act requires a SORN to disclose, among other things, “the categories of individuals on whom records are maintained in the system,” “the categories of records maintained in the system,” “each routine use of the records contained in the system, including the categories of users and the purpose of such use,” and “the policies and practices of the agency regarding storage, retrievability, access controls, retention, and disposal of the records.” 5 U.S.C. § 552a(e)(4).
20. The current SORN for the Bureau was published in the Federal Register on February 27, 2020. 85 Fed. Reg. 11776. The Federal Register publication describes 20 systems of records for the Bureau.
21. SORN .002 concerns payment records, which are records “collected from federal government entities that are requesting disbursement of domestic and international payments to their recipients and is used to facilitate such payments.” 85 Fed. Reg. at 11779. Personal information contained in these records include “a payee’s name, Social Security number, employer identification number, or other agency identification or account number; date and location of birth, physical and/or electronic mailing address; telephone numbers; [and] payment amount,” as well as “financial institution information, including the routing number of his or her financial institution and the payee’s account number at the financial institution.” SORN .002 states that “[o]nly employees whose official duties require access are allowed to view, administer, and control these records.”
22. SORN .012 concerns records about individuals who owe a debt to the government. 85 Fed. Reg. at 11793. Personal information contained in these records include debtor names; taxpayer identifying numbers ( i.e., Social Security number or employer identification number); contact information, such as work and home addresses, email addresses, and work, home and cellular numbers; “information concerning the financial status of the debtor and his/her household, including income, assets, liabilities or other financial burdens, and any other resources from which the debt may be recovered”; and the name of employer or employer contact information. Id. at 11794. SORN .012 states that “[o]nly employees whose official duties require access are allowed to view, administer, and control these records.” Id. at 11796.
23. SORN .013 concerns records “about individuals who electronically authorize payments to the Federal Government.” 85 Fed. Reg. at 11796. Personal information contained in these records include names; taxpayer identifying numbers (i.e., Social Security numbers or employer identification numbers); contact information, such as work and home addresses, email addresses, and work, home, and cellular telephone numbers; the name and contact information of employers; dates of birth; driver’s license numbers; bank account information; credit and debit card numbers; individual payment information; and user names and passwords. Id. at 11796–97. SORN .013 states that “[o]nly employees whose official duties require access are allowed to view, administer, and control these records.” Id. at 11798.
24. The Privacy Act prohibits the disclosure of a record about an individual to any person or another agency unless “the individual to whom the record pertains” consents or a statutory exception applies. 5 U.S.C. § 552a(b).
25. One exception to the Privacy Act prohibition on disclosure allows disclosure to “those officers and employees of the agency which maintains the record who have a need for the record in the performance of their duties.” Id. § 552a(b)(1).
26. Another exception permits disclosure for a “routine use” if the agency describes the routine use in a SORN. Id. § 552a(b)(3). The Bureau’s SORN, including SORN .002, .012, and .013 specify the routine uses for which records on individuals may be disclosed.
27. Because Defendants process tax-related transactions, they are also subject to the confidentiality requirements of the Internal Revenue Code, 26 U.S.C. § 6103. Section 6103 provides that “[r]eturns and return information shall be confidential,” and cannot be disclosed by a federal officer and employee unless authorized by statute. Return and return information include the taxpayer’s identity, mailing address, taxpayer identification number, claims for refund, and other information on tax returns. Id. § 6103(b)(1), (2), (6). The officers and employees of the Treasury Department may access return and return information if their “official duties require such inspection or disclosure for tax administration purposes.” Id. § 6103(h)(1).
Defendants’ Disclosure of Bureau Records on Individuals to DOGE
28. President Trump was inaugurated as President on January 20, 2025. The same day, he issued an executive order establishing a so-called “Department of Government Efficiency.” Under the executive order, the United States Digital Service was renamed the United States DOGE Service (USDS) and a “temporary organization” was established under 5 U.S.C. § 3161 entitled “the U.S. DOGE Service Temporary Organization.”
29. The executive order directs the USDS Administrator to “work with Agency Heads to promote inter-operability between agency networks and systems, ensure data integrity, and facilitate responsible data collection and synchronization.” It also directs agency heads to “take all necessary steps, in coordination with the USDS Administrator and to the maximum extent consistent with law, to ensure USDS has full and prompt access to all unclassified agency records, software systems, and IT systems.” The executive order “displaces all prior executive orders and regulations, insofar as they are subject to direct presidential amendment, that might serve as a barrier to providing USDS access to agency records and systems as described above.”
30. Since his inauguration, President Trump has not formally identified the individual who would serve as USDS Administrator or the full list of individuals that are part of the U.S. DOGE Service Temporary Organization.
31. During the presidential campaign, President Trump announced that billionaire entrepreneur Elon Musk would have a leadership role in DOGE. It is widely reported that, since the inauguration, Mr. Musk has played a leadership role in DOGE activities across the federal government.
32. The Trump administration has not publicly revealed whether Mr. Musk has been made an officer or employee of the U.S. government or remains a private citizen. The Trump administration also has not publicly revealed the employment status of other individuals who are part of DOGE.
33. Sometime after November 5, 2024, DOGE representatives reportedly approached officials in the Department seeking access to the agency’s payment systems. DOGE’s efforts to obtain access continued after President Trump’s inauguration.
34. Initially, DOGE’s requests for access to the Treasury’s payment systems were reportedly rebuffed by David A. Lebryk, the highest-ranking career official at the agency and the individual who had been in charge of the Bureau. According to press reports, Mr. Lebryk advised DOGE representatives during the transition period that the information contained in the payment systems was proprietary and should not be shared outside of the government.
35. On January 27, 2025, the Senate confirmed Mr. Bessent as President Trump’s Treasury Secretary, and he was sworn in the following day. On information and belief, Secretary Bessent and his chief of staff Dan Katz had a meeting with Mr. Lebryk later that week, after which Mr. Lebryk was placed on administrative leave. On Friday, January 31, Mr. Lebryk announced that he was retiring from the Treasury after 35 years in federal service.
36. On information and belief, on Friday evening, January 31, defendant Bessent gave representatives of DOGE full access to the federal payment system.2 Senator Ron Wyden, Ranking Member of the Senate Committee on Finance, has reported that DOGE’s access to Treasury’s payment system is complete. He has stated that DOGE has “*full* access to this system. Social Security and Medicare benefits, grants, payments to government contractors…. All of it.”3
37. Defendants have not released the full list of DOGE-affiliated individuals who have been provided access to the Treasury’s payment systems, or whether those individuals are employees of the Bureau, the Department, another agency, or a private enterprise. Tom Krause, the Chief Executive Officer of Cloud Software Group (according to that company’s website, see https://www.cloud.com/leadership (Feb. 3, 2025)) is reported to be working at the Treasury Department.4 And Secretary Bessent has reportedly “signed off on a plan to give access to the payment system to a team led by” Mr. Krause, who is identified in the article as “a liaison to Musk’s DOGE group that operates out of” the USDS.5 Defendants have not publicly disclosed the members of Mr. Krause’s team or provided the details of the “plan” for access that Secretary Bessent reportedly signed off on. Although an anonymous source assured that “no one outside Treasury would have access” to the payment system, the source apparently did not indicate whether information contained in the payment system would be disseminated outside of the Bureau.
38. Mr. Musk has suggested that the DOGE team has the authority to control disbursements at the Bureau. In response to an allegation by General Mike Flynn (ret.) that certain federal grants to Lutheran Family Services and affiliated organizations should end, Mr. Musk responded on X (formerly Twitter) that “The @DOGE team is rapidly shutting down these illegal payments.”6
Defendants’ Unlawful Actions Harm Plaintiffs’ Members
39. Plaintiffs’ members are among the millions of people who send or receive money to the federal government using the Bureau’s payment, collections, and electronic funds systems.
40. Plaintiff Alliance for Retired Americans has members who receive monthly Social Security retirement payments from the Treasury Department. It also has members who receive other forms of retirement and health-related benefits, such as Railroad Retirement Benefits, pension income for federal government service, disability and workers compensation benefits under the Federal Employees’ Compensation Program, federal black lung benefits and veterans benefits. Plaintiffs AFGE and SEIU each have members who are federal employees and who work in a wide variety of positions, in every state and the District of Columbia. Their members who are actively working must engage in transactions with Defendants to receive their salaries and wages from their federal employment, while their retired members must do so to receive their pension benefits.
41. Each Plaintiff also has members who pay federal income taxes or receive refunds and who have done so and will do so again in the current tax season.
42. The Bureau will collect and maintain personal and financial information about Plaintiffs’ members to make the income payments and benefits they are owed and to process their tax payments or refunds.
43. Defendants have the statutory responsibility to protect the sensitive personal and financial information that they collect and maintain about individuals from unnecessary and unlawful disclosure to third parties. Defendants have acted inconsistently with that responsibility by granting individuals associated with DOGE access to the extensive records that the Bureau maintains on every individual with whom it engages in financial transactions. Moreover, Defendants have taken this action without obtaining or even asking for the consent of affected individuals.
44. Plaintiffs’ members rely on Defendants’ payment, collection, and other systems to make and receive payments from the government. They do not have the option of avoiding dealing with Defendants to avoid improper disclosure or misuse of their personal and financial information. Defendants’ actions have thus harmed Plaintiffs’ members by depriving them of privacy protections guaranteed to them by federal law and, consequently, the ability to decide for themselves whether Elon Musk or other individuals should be able to obtain and use their personal data to advance DOGE’s agenda.
COUNT I
(Contrary to law)
45. The APA directs courts to hold unlawful and set aside agency actions that are found to be arbitrary, capricious, an abuse of discretion, or otherwise not in accordance with law. 5 U.S.C. § 706(2)(A).
46. The Privacy Act prohibits Defendants from disclosing records on individuals to Mr. Musk, other individuals associated with DOGE, or any other person without the individual’s consent except in specified circumstances.
47. The Internal Revenue Code, 26 U.S.C. § 6013, prohibits Defendants from disclosing return and return information about taxpayers to Mr. Musk, other individuals associated with DOGE, or any other person except for officers or employees of the Treasury Department whose official duties require such inspection or disclosure for tax administration purposes.
48. Defendants have implemented a continuous and ongoing system for disclosing records on Plaintiffs’ members without obtaining consent from each member.
49. Defendants have implemented a system for disclosing records on Plaintiffs’ members to individuals who are not officers or employees of the Bureau who have a need for the records in the performance of their duties.
50. Defendants have implemented a system for disclosing records on Plaintiffs’ members to individuals for purposes other than the routine uses specified in the Bureau’s SORNs.
51. Defendants have implemented a system for disclosing tax returns and return information of Plaintiffs’ members to individuals who are not officers and employees involved in tax administration as part of their official duties.
52. Defendants’ actions violate the prohibitions in the Privacy Act and Section 6103 of the Internal Revenue Code and are thus contrary to law.
53. Defendants’ action is “final agency action for which there is no other adequate remedy in a court.” 5 U.S.C. § 704. An individual action against the agency for damages under the Privacy Act or the Internal Revenue Code would not put a stop to the ongoing unlawful access that Defendants have granted to the personal and financial information of Plaintiffs’ members. Defendants’ action therefore is “subject to judicial review.” Id. § 702.
COUNT II
(Arbitrary and capricious)
54. The APA directs courts to hold unlawful and set aside agency actions that are found to be arbitrary, capricious, an abuse of discretion, or otherwise not in accordance with law. 5 U.S.C. § 706(2)(A).
55. Agency action is arbitrary and capricious when an agency fails to engage in reasoned decision-making when it adopts or alters its policies.
56. Defendants failed to engage in reasoned decision-making when they implemented a system under which Elon Musk or other individuals associated with DOGE could access the Bureau’s records for purposes other than those authorized by the Privacy Act, the Bureau’s SORNs, and the Internal Revenue Code. In particular, Defendants failed to consider their legal obligations under federal law, the harm that their actions would cause to the objectives that those statutes sought to achieve, or the harm caused to Plaintiffs’ members or the general public.
57. Defendant’s action is final agency action for which there is no other adequate remedy in a court and therefore is subject to judicial review. Id. § 704; see id. § 702.
COUNT III
(Excess of statutory authority)
58. Defendants have a non-discretionary duty to protect records on individuals, and the returns and return information of taxpayers, from unauthorized disclosure.
59. Defendants’ ongoing, systematic, and continuous action in permitting Elon Musk and/or other individuals associated with DOGE to access the Bureau’s records and the personal and financial information contained therein violates that duty and is in excess of their statutory authority. Id. § 706(2)(C).
PRAYER FOR RELIEF
WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs pray that this Court:
a. Declare that Defendants’ decision to implement a system by which Elon Musk or other DOGE-affiliated individuals may access the Bureau’s records and obtain personal information about individuals and taxpayers contained there is unlawful.
b. Enjoin Defendants from continuing to permit such access or obtain such personal information.
c. Enjoin Defendants to ensure that future disclosure of individual records will occur only in accordance with the Privacy Act, the Internal Revenue Code, and the SORNs applicable to the system of records at issue.
d. Grant any temporary, preliminary, or permanent injunctive relief necessary to protect the privacy of individuals whose information is contained within the system of records.
e. Award Plaintiffs their costs and attorneys’ fees for this action; and
f. Grant any other relief as this Court deems appropriate.
Dated: February 3, 2025
Respectfully submitted,
/s/ Nandan M. Joshi Nandan M. Joshi (DC Bar No. 456750) Nicolas Sansone (DC Bar No. 1686810) Allison M. Zieve (DC Bar No. 424786) Public Citizen Litigation Group 1600 20th Street NW Washington, DC 20009 (202) 588-1000
Norman L. Eisen (DC Bar No. 435051) State Democracy Defenders Fund 600 Pennsylvania Avenue SE, #15180 Washington, DC 20003
_______________
Notes:
1 U.S. Dep’t of Treas., Bur. of Fiscal Serv., Final Monthly Treasury Statement, Receipts and Outlays of the United States Government For Fiscal Year 2024 Through September 30, 2024, and Other Periods 4.
2 Andrew Duehren et al., Elon Musk’s Team Now Has Full Access to Treasury’s Payments System, N.Y. Times, Feb. 1, 2025.
US judge blocks Trump from sending transgender women to men's prisons by Mike Scarcella, Nate Raymond and Luc Cohen Reuters February 5, 20251 0:28 AM MST Updated a day ago https://www.reuters.com/legal/us-judge- ... 025-02-05/
WASHINGTON, Feb 4 (Reuters) - A U.S. judge on Tuesday blocked President Donald Trump's administration from moving transgender women to men's prisons and ending their gender-affirming care.
In a broad ruling temporarily halting an executive order that Trump, a Republican, signed on his first day back in office on Jan. 20, U.S. District Judge Royce Lamberth in Washington found that three transgender inmates who sued would likely succeed in arguing the policy was unconstitutional.
The decision marked the second time that a federal judge had sided with LGBTQ legal rights groups who sued to prevent the U.S. Bureau of Prisons from implementing the order.
Lamberth's order applies to all 16 transgender women currently housed in federal women's prisons. It goes further than a Jan. 26 decision by a federal judge in Boston blocking prison officials from transferring an individual transgender woman to a men's facility.
A spokesperson for the Justice Department, which defended the Trump administration in court, declined to comment. The Bureau of Prisons did not immediately respond to a request for comment.
The three transgender women who brought the Washington, D.C. case argued transgender women would face violence and sexual assault in men's prisons, which would violate their right to not be subjected to cruel and unusual punishment as guaranteed by the Eighth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution.
U.S. Justice Department attorney John Robinson had argued that the Bureau of Prisons has broad authority to make inmate placement decisions. He urged Lamberth, an appointee of Republican President Ronald Reagan, to wait for the agency to revise its policies before issuing any order compelling the continuation of medical treatment.
In his decision, Lamberth wrote that the government did not dispute the plaintiffs' assertion that transgender persons were at a higher risk of physical and sexual violence than other inmates when housed in a facility corresponding to their biological sex.
Trump's executive order directed the federal government to only recognize two, biologically distinct sexes, male and female; house transgender women in men's prisons; and cease funding for any gender-affirming medical care for inmates.
Prior to Trump's order, the Bureau of Prisons had been operating under guidelines adopted in 2022 during Democratic former President Joe Biden's tenure requiring prisons to consider inmates' "current gender expression" when deciding where to house them.
Biden's policy was a reversal from earlier guidance during Trump's first term.
The lawsuit filed on Jan. 30 also argued that Trump's executive order discriminates against transgender people on the basis of sex in violation of the U.S. Constitution's Fifth Amendment.
About 2,230 transgender inmates are housed in federal custodial facilities and halfway houses, according to the U.S. Department of Justice. About two thirds of them, 1,506, are transgender women, most of whom are housed in men's prisons.
Reporting by Mike Scarcella in Washington and Nate Raymond in Boston; Additional reporting by Luc Cohen in New York; Editing by Alexia Garamfalvi, Noeleen Walder and Christopher Cushing
New attorney general moves to align Justice Department with Trump's priorities: Trump and Attorney General Pam Bondi have both argued the Justice Department under Biden unfairly targeted conservatives, most notably Trump himself. by Ryan Lucas Houston Public Media: A Service of the University of Houston February 5, 2025, 8:36 PM
On her first day in charge at the Justice Department, Attorney General Pam Bondi on Wednesday issued a series of directives aimed at aligning the department with President Trump and his agenda, including establishing a task force to examine the alleged weaponization of the justice system and reviving the federal death penalty.
The Senate confirmed Bondi on Tuesday evening and she was sworn in Wednesday in a ceremony at the White House. Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas administered the oath of office for Bondi, whose husband and mother were by her side.
She takes over at a time of tumult at the Justice Department, where the Trump administration has pushed out several senior career officials over the past few weeks as the new leadership looks to assert control over the department and implement the president's agenda.
Justice Department changes rattle current and former agency veterans
In little more than a week, the Trump administration has fired people who prosecuted the president and reassigned other career officials.
On her first day on the job, Bondi signed 14 memos addressed to all Justice Department employees. Some of the directives roll back guidelines put in place under the Biden administration, while others strike new ground. Many appear to offer details to implement executive orders President Trump signed, including on the weaponization of the federal government and on combatting antisemitism.
One of the memos, for example, establishes the "Weaponization Working Group," which is tasked with reviewing "the activities of all department and agencies exercising civil or criminal enforcement authority of the United States over the last four years."
Trump and Bondi have both argued that the department under the Biden administration unfairly targeted conservatives, most notably Trump himself. Trump was charged in two federal cases: for election interference in 2020 and for hoarding classified documents. Both cases were dropped after he won election to a second term.
The department's previous leadership rejected the allegation of political motivations, and pointed to multiple criminal cases against prominent Democrats during the Biden administration.
Focus on "improper aims"
According to the Bondi memo, the new working group will "identify instances where a department's or agency's conduct appears to have been designed to achieve political objectives or other improper aims rather than pursuing justice of legitimate governmental objectives."
It mentions several specific things that it will examine, including "weaponization" by former special counsel Jack Smith, the prosecutors and the investigators who took part in the "unprecedented raid on President Trump's home." FBI agents searched Trump's Mar-a-Lago club and his residence as part of its classified documents case.
It also will examine "federal cooperation with the weaponization" by the Manhattan district attorney and the New York state attorney general "to target President Trump, his family and his businesses." The Manhattan district attorney brought state criminal charges against Trump for falsifying business records to conceal a payment to an adult film star.
The Jan. 6 Capitol riot will also come under review, it says. The working group will look at "the pursuit of improper investigative tactics and unethical prosecutions" related to the Jan. 6, 2021, Capitol attack. Trump granted clemency to every defendant accused of committing crimes that day in one of his first acts after returning to the White House.
The memo says the Justice Department will provide quarterly reports to the White House on the review's progress.
Another memo sets up a Joint Task Force for Oct. 7 to "prioritize seeking justice for victims" of the Hamas-led attacks on Israel. The task force also aims to address the "ongoing threat posed by Hamas and its affiliates" and to combat "antisemitic acts of terrorism and civil rights violations in the homeland."
Two other memos relate to the federal death penalty.
One lifts the moratorium on federal executions, and instructs federal prosecutors to seek the death penalty in cases involving the murder of a law enforcement official and capital crimes "committed by aliens who are illegally present in the United States."
The other relates to President Biden's decision in his waning days in office to commute the death sentences of 37 people on federal death row to life in prison. The Bondi memo directs the Justice Department to, among other things assist local prosecutors in pursuing death sentences under state law against the 37 individuals who received commutations.
Bondi also signed a memo that puts department attorneys on notice that they are expected to "zealously" defend, advance and protect the interests of the United States—interests that are set by the president.
It says that when DOJ attorneys "refuse to advance good-faith arguments by declining to appear in court or sign briefs, if undermines the constitutional order and deprives the President of the benefit of his lawyers."
It goes on to say that any department attorney who "because of their personal views or judgments declines to sign a brief or appear in court, refuses to advance good-faith arguments on behalf of the Administration, or otherwise delays or impedes the Department's mission will be subject to discipline and potentially termination."
***********************
New Attorney General Vows to Have DOJ Go After Trump Foes by Glenn Kirschner Justice Matters Feb 6, 2025 All the "King's" Men: Trump's lackeys and their disservice to America
Shortly after being sworn in, Attorney General Pam Bondi published a memo regarding "ending the weaponization of the federal government."
The problem is, the priorities in this memo signal the death of the independence of the Department of Justice. DOJ's priorities will shift from focusing on crimes that impact the American people to seeking revenge against Donald Trump's foes.
The Bondi memo promises to pursue "Special Counsel Jack Smith and his staff," "Manhattan District Attorney Alvin Bragg (and) New York Attorney General Letitia James, and their respective staffs," and those who investigated and prosecuted the crimes committed at the US Capitol on January 6, 2021.
This obscene pervasion of the rule of law and the independence of the Department of Justice constitutes ACTUAL weaponization of the DOJ.
This video discusses the new reporting and the rule-of-law--busting Bondi memo.
Transcript
[Glenn Kirschner] So friends, today is a sad and somber day, because today we are mourning the death of an independent Department of Justice. Please join me in a moment of silence. Thank you. Let's talk about that, because Justice matters.
Hey all. Glenn Kirschner here. So friends, upon being sworn in as attorney general Pam Bondi issued a memo a bunch of memos actually but we're going to focus on one in particular because it signals the death of an independent Department of Justice and the birth of a department of justice that protects Donald Trump and pursues his enemies rather than remaining loyal to the rule of law and protecting the American people let's start with the new report reporting this from USA Today headline AG Pam Bondi sworn in vows to end weaponization of justice department and that article begins moving swiftly to align the justice department with Donald Trump's agenda attorney general Pam Bondi on Wednesday issued a flurry of directives including the creation of a weaponization working group to investigate Federal and local prosecutions of trump that she said were overly politicized so she won't be focusing on making America safe for the people of the United States rather she'll be focusing on making America unsafe if not a living hell for anybody who dared cross Donald Trump anybody who DED to investigate or prosecute the obvious crimes Donald Trump committed all my editorial addition the article continues although the department historically has insisted on remaining independent of the White House Bondi made clear that she was working to overhaul a doj that Trump had insisted is both biased against him and against political conservatives in general the weaponization working group will look at everything from the investigations into Trump's actions before during and after his first term in office cases brought against him by Manhattan district attorney Alvin Bragg and New York attorney general Leticia James it will also look at doj's investigations into crimes we saw committed with our own eyes the January 6 2021 assault on the US Capital by a violent mob of trump supporters the moves came on the same day Bondi was sworn in as the nation's top law enforcement officer in a ceremony at the White House by Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas at that ceremony Trump lavished Praise on Bondi his former criminal defense attorney who was also a two-term Florida attorney general and fr have a gander at this picture here Pam Bondi showing her independence of Donald Trump and the independence of the department she is now leading the Department of Justice how did she show that independence by sprinting over to the White House entering the Oval Office and being sworn in by Justice Clarence Thomas now let's have a quick look at select portions of Attorney General bondi's weap ionization memo memorandum for all Department employees from the attorney general subject restoring the integrity and credibility of the Department of Justice the Department of Justice must take immediate and overdue steps to restore the integrity and credibility with the public that we are charged with protecting and to ensure that the Department's Personnel are ready and willing to Faithfully implement the policy agenda of the duly elected president of the United States sorry I was just looking for the part where the Attorney General said that she and the employees of the Department of Justice would support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies foreign and domestic but no it's just pretty much supporting and defending Donald Trump these steps are required because as president Trump pointed out following his second inauguration the prior Administration and allies throughout the country engaged in an unprecedented third world weaponization of prosecutorial power to upend the Democratic process sounds more like a 2 A.M rambling Donald Trump social media post doesn't it thus the American people have witnessed the previous administration engage in a systematic campaign against its perceived political opponents weaponizing the legal force of numerous federal law enforcement agencies and the intelligence Community against those perceived political opponents in the form of Investigations prosecutions civil enforcement actions and other related actions and so the Attorney General I guess thinks that the way to remedy the evil of using the Department of Justice to go after one's political enemies is to use the Department of Justice to go after one's political enemies the reconciliation and restoration of the department of Justice's core values can only be accomplished through review and accountability the department has already started this process but much more work is required.
No one who has acted with a righteous spirit and just intentions has any cause for concern about efforts to root out corruption and weaponization.
Okay, color me cynical, but I don't believe the Attorney General when she says no one who has acted with a righteous spirit and just intentions will have any cause for concern. Why don't I believe that? Well, because FBI agents who followed the evidence regarding the January 6 crimes at the Capitol, crimes we all saw with our own eyes, have already been forced out of government, retaliated against, and 25-30 federal prosecutors who followed the facts and applied the law to the January 6th cases have been fired. So if attorney general Bondi is speaking the truth, I very much look forward to those FBI officials and those Federal prosecutors being reinstated to their jobs.
I hereby establish the weaponization working group which will be led by the Office of the Attorney General and supported by the office of the Deputy attorney general the office of legal policy the Civil Rights division the US attorney's office for the District of Colombia and other personnel as necessary to achieve the objectives set forth here in in other words we are are all in to protect Donald Trump and punish his foes and we will be going after special counsel Jack Smith and his staff Manhattan district attorney Alvin Bragg and his staff New York attorney general Leticia James and her staff and anybody who prosecuted the criminal cases at the United States capital on January 6th 202.
[Crumples up Memorandum]
So friends, let's finish with this. Rest in peace independent Department of Justice, date of birth July 1st 1870 and date of death February 5th 2025.
You know friends when we write the American ship and we will I look forward to seeing what Rises Up From the Ashes of a once proud once independent Department of Justice because Justice matters friends as always please stay safe please stay tuned and I look forward to talking with you all again tomorrow [Music]
Judge issues nationwide injunction blocking Trump's bid to end birthright citizenship: The judge heard arguments from lawyers for five pregnant undocumented women. by Selina Wang, Laura Romero, and Peter Charalambous abcnews February 5, 2025, 9:17 AM https://abcnews.go.com/US/judge-future- ... =118460936
A federal judge in Maryland has issued a nationwide preliminary injunction against President Donald Trump's executive order aimed at ending birthright citizenship.
U.S. District Judge Deborah Boardman heard arguments Wednesday over a request by five pregnant undocumented women to block Trump's Day-1 executive order seeking to redefine the meaning of the 14th Amendment to exclude the children of undocumented immigrants from birthright citizenship.
"The denial of the precious right to citizenship will cause irreparable harm," Judge Boardman said in handing down her order. "It has been said the right to U.S. citizenship is a right no less precious than life or liberty. If the court does not enjoin enforcement of the executive order, children subject to the order will be denied the rights and benefits of U.S. citizenship and their parents will face instability."
"A nationwide injunction is appropriate and necessary because it concerns citizenship," Judge Boardman said.
The ruling comes two weeks after a federal judge in Seattle criticized the Department of Justice for attempting to defend what he called a "blatantly unconstitutional" order and issued a temporary restraining order.
In her ruling, Judge Boardman said Trump's executive order "conflicts with the plain language of the 14th Amendment."
"The U.S. Supreme court has resoundingly rejected the president's interpretation of the citizenship clause," Boardman said. "In fact, no court has endorsed the president's interpretation, and this court will not be the first."
She added that the plaintiffs would "very likely" succeed on the merits in their case against Trump's order.
During the hearing, plaintiffs' attorney Joseph Mead called the DOJ's argument a "reimagination of the 14th Amendment phrase 'subject jurisdiction.'"
"The executive order's departure from settled law is so abrupt ... it is such a departure from what we've been doing for over a century," Mead argued. "Being a citizen is the foundation for so many rights."
The five women, along with two nonprofits, filed the lawsuit against the Trump administration last month, arguing that Trump's executive order violated the constitution and multiple federal laws.
"If allowed to go into effect, the Executive Order would throw into doubt the citizenship status of thousands of children across the country, including the children of Individual Plaintiffs and Members," the lawsuit said.
Lawyers for the Department of Justice have claimed that Trump's executive order attempts to resolve "prior misimpressions" of the 14th Amendment, arguing that birthright citizenship creates a "perverse incentive for illegal immigration." If permitted, Trump's executive order would preclude U.S. citizenship from the children of undocumented immigrants or immigrants whose presence in the United States is lawful but temporary.
"Text, history, and precedent support what common sense compels: the Constitution does not harbor a windfall clause granting American citizenship to, inter alia: the children of those who have circumvented (or outright defied) federal immigration laws," DOJ lawyers argued.
The executive order had already been put on hold by U.S. District Judge John Coughenour in Seattle.
"I have difficulty understanding how a member of the bar can state unequivocally that this is a constitutional order. It boggles my mind," said Coughenour last month when he issued his temporary restraining order. "Where were the lawyers when this decision was being made?"
Because Judge Coughenour's order only blocked the executive order temporarily, Judge Boardman had been asked to consider a longer-lasting preliminary injunction against the executive order.
With Trump vowing to appeal a ruling that finds his executive order unconstitutional, Wednesday's preliminary injunction could be his first opportunity to appeal to a higher court.
Members of the Trump administration spent months crafting this executive order with the understanding that it would inevitably be challenged and potentially blocked by lower courts, according to sources familiar with their planning.
While the lawsuit challenging the executive order in Seattle was brought by four state attorneys general, the five pregnant undocumented women who filed the Maryland case argued that they would be uniquely harmed by the order. With individual states and undocumented women suffering different harms under the order, the cases could present different reasons to justify blocking the order.
Monica -- a medical doctor from Venezuela with temporary protected status who joined the lawsuit under a pseudonym -- said she joined the suit because she fears her future child will become stateless, with her home country facing an ongoing humanitarian, political and economic crisis.
"I'm 12 weeks pregnant. I should be worried about the health of my child. I should be thinking about that primarily, and instead my husband and I are stressed, we're anxious and we're depressed about the reality that my child may not be able to become a U.S. citizen," she said.
*************************
Trump LOSES BIG in Court as JUDGE HITS HIM HARD by Michael Popok Legal AF Podcast MeidasTouch Feb 6, 2025
In breaking news, we have our FIRST preliminary injunction (nationwide) entered against the Trump Administration to block Trump’s executive order denying birthright citizenship to those born on US Soil. Michael Popok reports on why this is so important, how it shows the strategy of suing Trump 2-3x a day in Federal Court is working, with 32 suits, 4 TROs, and 1 Preliminary Injunction in the first 15 days of his administration, and what it means for future wins to support the rule of law.
Transcript
we got breaking news on day 15 of the Trump Administration the first Nationwide preliminary injunction has been entered by a federal judge against Donald Trump's Administration for their depraved unconstitutional Birthright citizenship executive order denying babies born on us soil US citizenship guaranteed them by the US Constitution that's a big no and a big unconstitutional for judge Deborah Borman out of the District of Maryland I want to break it down for you I want to compare it to the other four temporary restraining orders against different executive orders uh for Donald Trump so let's just do the math 32 cases have been filed against the Trump Administration that he's obtained against him four separate temporary restraining orders and one preliminary injunction by federal judges and a lot of them are the Biden federal judges so isn't that isn't that Poetic Justice isn't that Cosmic Justice I'll break it down right now I'm Michael Popo you're here on mest touch and on legal AF preliminary injunctions in my world as a lawyer are big deals and they are uh bigger batter Bolder than temporary restraining orders when you're looking at the level of types of orders that a federal judge can can issue there's like an administrative stay which is for hours sometimes days while the judge gets their mind around the briefing and the evidence for a matter that's been put before them that's on the the bottom of it right the next level up is a Full temporary restraining order which is the judge taking a Peak at the uh underlying facts and evidence as presented in a very short amount of time and saying well it looks like it's more likely than not the other party's got a very good argument here there is a constitutional violation a statutory violation a violation of something so I'm going to put a pin in this I'm going to hold the status quo now to allow for full briefing and full evidence and an evidentiary hearing and a record presentation at some later time in the very very near future that's the temporary restraining orders that we've been talking about a lot on legal a and the Midas Dutch Network the temporary restraining order about Birthright citizenships executive order stopping it in its place that was issued by judge kenor in Seattle Washington the temporary restraining order that was obtained against by two judges issued against the Trump Administration by two judges McConnell in um in Rhode Island and Ali Khan in the District of Columbia against his attempts to cut off Federal funding to all not for-profits and States those have been temporarily restrained subject to a future hearing on preliminary injunction that brings us to judge bourman who issued From the Bench it's going to be in writing soon we'll get her hands on it but she read out loud her tempor her per sorry her preliminary injunction against the Trump Administration for trying to continue to enforce the birthright citizenship executive order denying children babies born on us soil their citizenship and let me listen let me tell you what she basically said and I'm going to read to you from her her ruling her oral ruling subject to we're going to get it in writing she said the argument by the Trump Administration has been rejected by every judge that's ever looked at it that it runs counter to our nation's 250 years of history of citizenship by birth it runs counter to um aund 125 years of Supreme Court president everything about the 14th Amendment and no court has ever found that that kind of executive order uh is going to be constitutional or has adopted the interpretation of the 14th amendment by the Trump Administration and she wasn't going to be the first let me tell you a little bit about Borman before I read you from the language of her order that she read out loud what it means as a nationwide injunction and then and then also some comments made by some of the plaintiffs including pregnant women from Trinidad and other places that will just Will Make You Weep about the real life impact IRL as they say of what these depraved positions taken by the Department of Justice for Donald Trump what it means in the real world first let me tell you a little bit about judge bourman judge bourman is one of the um uh Biden appointees got confirmed by the Senate who started out as a federal public defender it's very rare she's one of very few all put on by Biden who weren't prosecutors who weren't you know Elite lawyers at some big law firms or corporations or right-wing public interest firms she she was a federal public defender and I know Federal public defenders first day on the job you get a 100 files those are your clients who are indigenous who can't afford private representation and they're looking at drug charges and immigration charges and other and other and other types of charges and she was a federal public defender doing doing God's work there she then became a Magistrate Judge which is not an article 3 confirmed by Senate judge but a judge just below that who handles a lot of the day-to-day in federal practice so she served in that role for a few years and then Biden elevated her to full-blown confirmed article 3 judge and boy she couldn't have come along quick enough for me let me read to you from her actual words so you know where this is coming from in a nationwide injunction this is what she had to say and then I want to talk to you about the back and forth she had with the Trump lawyers who lost all credibility in her courtroom I mean they've lost all credibility in all courtrooms at this point with their ridiculous ludicrous intellectually dis honest position taking with no case law and and no nothing just Donald Trump's talking points she said um she said that it was very likely that the that the plaintiff's here would succeed on the merits she said no court in the country has ever endorsed the president Trump's interpretation and this court will not be the first um particularly she said that um she looked at the 14th Amendment which was ratified in 1868 which provides automatic citizenship to those born on us soil who are subject to the jurisdiction of the federal government and which has traditionally applied to nearly everyone other than children of foreign diplomats um the lawyer for the Department of Justice for Trump said oh we don't think the framers of the 14th Amendment meant to create a loophole to give people with uncertain status or undocumented status citizenship really where does it say that everybody that came here was undocumented originally you know the people that came over on the Mayflower you know were were they documented no as a kid I loved eating cereal but as an adult I don't want all that sugar and most cereals don't give me the protein I need then I found magic spoon a nostalgically delicious cereal that tastes just like my childhood favorites but without the sugar and with a ton of protein and if you're already a magic spoon fan I've got big news magic spoon has turned their super popular cereal into high protein treats that are light crispy and taste just like those classic crunchy cereal bars magic spoons brand new treats are so delicious and have already become my favorite before or after gym snack magic spoon has literally changed the way we view our pantry in my family now when my wife and I are looking for a quick high protein snack that makes us instantly nostalgic with that warm and fuzzy comfort food feeling we reach for magic spoon new cereal bars every fre serving of magic spoon cereal has 13 g of protein 0 g of sugar and 4 G of net carbs so you can feel good about what you're eating the most popular flavors are fruity and cocoa and there's so many more magic spoon brand new treats are Crispy Crunchy Airy and an easy way to get 12 grams of protein on the go and for the first time ever magic spoon treats are available in grocery stores with delicious flavors like marshmallow and chocolatey peanut butter magic spoon Treats have replaced all my other bars just the right balance of delicious flavor great mouth feel and texture and the best part they are high in protein and low in carbs don't tell my wife but after a long day of legal AF video recording and research magic spoon has become my occasional midnight snack treat honey we're out of magic spoon again a common refrain in my household get $5 off your next order at magpole or look for magic spoon on Amazon or in your nearest grocery store that's magpole for $5 off magic spoon hold on to the dream the Justice uh sorry Boardman had to say this about it Boardman said I am not going to be the first judge to take away somebody's constitutional rights there is no she turned to the lawyer for the Department of Justice she said cite for me one case one case that is cided with your interpretation of the 14th Amendment of course there aren't any she then turned to judge kenor who is her colleague but in the Seattle branch of the federal uh court system and said judge cenor was right this is blatantly unconstitutional now his was a temporary restraining order that held the ring until we got here he's going to issue his preliminary injunction too as I've said before I've done Federal practice for 35 years I've I think one time in my entire career I ever had a temporary restraining order that didn't convert into a preliminary injunction at some point so that preliminary injunction now on full briefing and with the order that'll be coming out will give the Trump Administration the right to take an appeal that appeal because she sits in Maryland I think it's going to go to the third or fourth I think it's the fourth the fourth Circuit Court of Appeals and then based on the rulings there and I'm expecting a loss for the Trump Administration it'll go to the United States Supreme Court that's the pathway here that's why it was filed in Maryland to get a favorable appell court and a fast track over the United States Supreme Court but in the meantime this is a preliminary injunction this is a big deal uh let me let me take a moment and show you the the personal impact of these types of depraved positions by the um Trump Administration this is a um a pregnant plf in the case identified only by her pseudonym and the judge allowed Janee doe and John do because of fear of Retribution in the listing on the case said and she's from Trinidad she said quote all I have wanted is to focus on my baby being born healthy and safe but instead even though my baby will be born in the US because she's here residing in the US I have been worried that they will be denied a right that has guaranteed them under the Constitution the right to be a US citizen this ruling will give mothers like me a bit of temporary relief as we navigate pregnancy and the uncertain future of our babies I agree with her agree with her wholeheartedly um so what does it mean it means that the blueprint for how the Democrats and progressives and public interest groups and Attorneys General are handling these cases is working is winning we are winning in the right courts filed by in front of the right judges on the right arguments the arguments are constitutional violations 14th Amendment violations due process violations First Amendment violations depending upon the case administrative procedures act violation I mean Donald Trump can issue an executive order that doesn't violate one aspect of congressional law or the Constitution and that's where we got him and that's where we got him so watching somebody try to rule by Fiat and by executive order and floundering and doing so is actually an advantage to the Democrats and progressives and those in favor of the rule of law because I know we lost a lot of confidence in our federal court system not in individual judges but in the court system overall but at least particularly at the Supreme Court level about the criminal matters of Donald Trump but forget that we're not in the criminal matters of Donald Trump anymore this is the Revenge of the Biden judges this is the Revenge of the DC judges who are handling most of these cases I mean out of 32 cases filed against the Trump Administration uh 15 were filed in the District of Columbia for a reason and these judges are ready right um they were shocked uh they were shocked and horrified by what they heard during the trials of the Jan 6 Insurrection is shocked and horrified by what saw with the United States Supreme Court in letting Donald Trump off the hook shocked and horrified during the sentencing process for these people and shocked and horrified When Donald Trump let them all out of jail now it's their turn and that's what we're watching here on on legal AF and on the mest touch Network so big headline here 15 days in first preliminary injunction trust the process the process is working you don't get to day 15 with four temporary restraining orders and four different judges on three different matters and a preliminary injunction if you don't know what you're doing trust the process trust the public interest groups trust the NAACP the ACLU democracy forward democracy Now Court accountability action the Attorneys General in 22 States they know what they're doing they know where to file they know how to file this is not their first rodeo they beat Donald Trump 80% of the time in a thousand cases in the first Administration so if Donald Trump we're gonna have triple now we're going to have 3,000 cases I've said it before we're already up to two plus cases a day and that will only continue that's why you got to keep track with the headlines here and our banners here about which case I'm talking about I'm going to talk about so many Jane Doe and John Doe cases against some aspect of Donald Trump you'll think didn't poac already give us that analysis no these are different cases we're keeping them straight for you here at the intersection of Law and politics
Conway Explains: Here’s How We STOP This Psycho George Conway Explains It All (To Sarah Longwell) The Bulwark Feb 6, 2025
We are on the edge of a dark precipice where the rule of law doesn't exist at least at the federal level I mean we're talking about psychopaths here. We're talking about sociopaths here. We're talking about people with no morals, no conscience, no nothing. Why are they going to obey a court order? And that to me is the scariest aspect of all.
-- George Conway
Sarah Longwell and George Conway take on Trump 2.0's grim vision of a government stripped of legal limits. Agencies dismantled, courts defied, and the Constitution in jeopardy. When no one enforces the law, will chaos prevail?
Transcript
[George Conway] We are on the edge of a dark precipice where the rule of law doesn't exist at least at the federal level I mean we're talking about psychopaths here. We're talking about sociopaths here. We're talking about people with no morals, no conscience, no nothing. Why are they going to obey a court order? And that to me is the scariest aspect of all.
[Sarah Longwell] Hello everyone, and welcome to George Conway explains it all to Sarah. I'm Sarah Longwell, publisher of the Bulwark. And because I'm not a lawyer, I've asked my good friend George Conway, from the society for the rule of law, to explain the illegal news to me, because that's all we got, George. We got illegal news. It is just a Festivus of illegality that we have here in the United States of America, and I don't think I can explain it all. I think I'm going to be completely stumped, because I don't think you can possibly catch up to all the things that are happening as they happen, which is by design, right? I mean this is how it's supposed to go. We're supposed to be overwhelm with this stuff.
[George Conway] I think that's right. I always hesitate when anybody ever associates the name Donald Trump with the word "strategy." I don't think he's strategic in his thinking. I do think that the people around him, to some extent, I don't think they're the brightest people in the world. All of them do have a strategy of just overwhelming everybody, and they have an advantage. Not that they're smart, it's that they're evil. And they have an advantage in that normally, if you or I took over the government and wanted to turn it around in some fashion suitable to our beliefs and desires, we'd be sitting around figuring out carefully what the plan is, what are the side effects of the plan, what what harm could it do, would our plan work? And we'd be consulting with lawyers to figure out whether the plan is legal, and what authorizations does it require; which parts of the United States Code impact it. And that's a process that takes a while.
They don't believe in any of that. They don't care about the side effects of anything they're doing. They're not doing it necessarily because they have hard and fast beliefs on what a good world should be, a better world should be, they're doing it out of desires for revenge, and just outright nihilism, and they certainly do not care about legality. And that's the advantage they have. That's the reason why they can proceed so quickly.
And then the other aspect of it is and again this isn't you know even Trump can understand that it's not strategy as such it's bullies act in an unrestrained fashion to intimidate okay and that's that's what the instinctual source of all of this is with Trump you intimidate and the way you intimidate is by you just com at everybody all at once and you know it's that basically what we have in America today is I've heard the you know I've heard all sorts of phrases to describe trumpism as fascistic or want to be fascists or fascist or authoritarian or autocratic um the word that one word that I've heard in the past is ocracy is what is what we were have been headed for what we had during the first Trump Administration which I have now taken to call [ __ ] show one I think it's even more specific than PA pathocracy which is a word that somebody I don't know who coined what what is this word pathocracy pathocracy in other words it's pathological it's a pathological form of government I mean there lots of other words you have kakistocracy for the government by the worst is that a real world or did you just invent that word no I did not invent pathocracy I'm about to tell you the word that I did invent I think I because I see no trace of it ever in any dictionary or writing and I probably should save it because I want to write something about but I'm gonna I'll for the for Bart viewers so since they pay so much money do they pay money no this is free this is free we giving meow for free I mean no advertisers are on it they gotta watch ads okay psychopath psychopathy yeah rolls off the tongue I can see how this could be is if you take all the characteristics that I was talking about last year about Psychopaths malignant narcissists narcissistic sociopaths whatever phrase you want to use to describe them because all of those phrases are like overlapping circles in a V diagram you you have a government that is psychopathic because it is being run by Psychopaths for Psychopathic ends um and Psychopaths seek destruction this is what they are seeking and you know I I that's where we are today and it's a really really I don't think people are starting to catch on to it a few days late a few years l um but that's where we are uh okay I Che it's cheerful yeah I do want to kind of I'm TR I have been trying in this way that just sort of overwhelms the senses like part of what's difficult is that you're trying to pull apart like you're right if if we were if both of us who I think have would have Ambitions if you gave us magic wands we were running the government we would have Ambitions around po IDE not all of them be work but yeah yeah to how you constrain the government how you limit uh the government perhaps how you how you shrink the government a little bit um but you would also recognize that uh you had to do it in ways that were careful um ways that would likely have blowback and so like rather than rather than stressing themselves with learning about any of the functions of these things who might be harmed what do they actually do what is essential what is non-essential or what is less essential and making those careful judgments they're just he's got the Twitter Playbook and he's just like we're just going to fire everybody we're just stop up for work um now it it took a while for and it was funny not funny like haha but like he did it over the weekend too and he tweeted about this right I I gotta tell you yesterday he tweeted 200 times I don't know is ketamine does ketamine what does it do that allows you to tweet 200 times while you're dismantling the government um because it's a it's like a lot to do but they they went in over the weekend and started just like shutting down systems you know demanding sort of ke to all of the confidential things in the metime they managed to make a bunch of CIA uh Chinese CIA types like expose them just like out them um now like there there is collateral damage that's happening from this Beyond just what they're doing at these governments but I was like when is this is illegal Congress has appropriated money for these people we talked about this last week this is it is approved by Congress you can't just stop it all so it's it is illegal it's seems like on its face but I was like where why isn't anything happening but subsequently uh there's been a flurry of litigation pushing back against everything going on from birth rght citizenship to the establishment of uh Doge to disclosure of personal and financial information to Doge so is there any of the litigation that you're particularly hopeful about like is is this going to work are they going to be able to slow these guys down you well this is that you've asked the correct question great news in an Ordinary World yes because they're going to get you know they're going to win some the plaintiffs they're going to lose some that some some claims are not yet fully developed because they need Discovery but by and large these complaints do point out a SM a slew of illegalities I mean there are literally dozens of them I now and I can't it's hard to keep track of them all but here's the problem and this is why I've been very pessimistic over the last few days at least pessimistic in the short and medium anything but the long term maybe in the long term there'll be something positive out of all of this when it's all over Trump's gonna lose some of these cases no question they may even get Tred in the FBI agents case today what does trro mean means temp there's a tempor law you're right temporary restraining order what happens when you file a lawsuit that ultimately seeks relief to stop somebody from doing something like you know your neighbor wants to build a big uh you know uh something or other it's going to pollute onto your land you want to stop the government from doing something you seek a permanent injunction and you have to go through a trial to get that but in to prevent the harm before you get all the way to a trial you get temporary relief and one thing you can do is you can walk into a court and say Here's an affidavit look at the things that are going on and please give us a temporary restraining order so that there'll be something left for you to decide judge tomorrow and then you can have a quick hearing and have a preliminary injunction and then you go on to the full trial it's just a whole process of trying to protect the status quo so that ultimately fin or relief can be granted and then you'll take an appeal and so on so today there may be a trro granted in there at least three cases in the US District Court downtown here in DC that are attacking the you know the requests the basically the inquiries being made of FBI agents about whether they had anything to do with January 6 prosecutions and so on and the claim the principal claim as I understand it and I've only skimmed these complaints they were literally just filed within the last 48 hours um is that the the there there there about to be violations or have been violations of the Privacy Act and the Privacy Act is an act that protects your and my and government employees confidential information in other words between if an agency has you know data about Sarah Longwell it is prohibited from taking that personal data personal information and Publishing it on the internet also prohibited is the sending of such information from one agency to another absent your consent and so what the FBI agents claims are is that these the the the government is contemplating or engaging in massive violations of the Privacy Act because they want you know they want to compile a list of FBI agents who participated in some fashion in j January 6th prosecutions and investigations and they want to purge them and so you know you wouldn't be surprising to see that go over to the White House or whatever and and that's what's the allegation the problem with the the allegation is although it's probably true the defendants the government is saying well you don't really have any proof that's what's going on and which is true because it's just news it's it's there's a lot of speculation about what are they doing with this stuff it hasn't happened yet and so sometimes you know one one one defense it's not a crazy defense is this is all speculative on the other hand on a trro basis you don't have to you don't have to prove your case you just have to show look there's some something really bad going on here judge we don't know you know you may not we may not have it all figured out yet but you can see that you can see the outlines in the night here um but anyway to go to the main topic that I'd like to discuss is okay what happens when Trump loses some of these cases and he will lose some of these cases this is on my list to talk about I well this is the most important thing because basically we could be just days away from the complete abandonment of federal rule of law in this country and here's here's let me explain this and I know this sounds very alarmist um but we should be alarmed this guy doesn't care about laws psychopath the principal psychopath the elected psychopath doesn't care about laws and obeying rules and then the his his minion who is really exercising more power with than he is the guy running around the government hooking up to computer sites he doesn't care about rules either yeah what happens when somebody gets enjoined by a federal judge judge issues an order saying Thou shalt not do X okay so somebody gets enjoined and go and they say [ __ ] you I'm going to do X anyway well what the judge does next would be to basically have US Marshals go out and arrest person why who's doing X in violation of a court order and bring them in and hold them in contempt of court problem is all the mechanisms by which federal judges can do that go through the Executive Branch the United States Marshall service which goes out and executes warrants and would execute would be the person who would take some would be the people who would take somebody into contempt is part of United States Department of Justice and that United States Department of Justice reports to president Donald J Trump and so what happens when Trump decides I'm not we're not obeying that order and he tells Pam Bondi to tell the US Marshall service to stand down what good is a federal court order and once you get to that point yeah there is no law and you know why why are we pay you know and and it means why should anyone obey the law at this point the federal law why should you and I pay taxes the government's not going to comply by the law is the government going to come after us for not paying taxes who's going to do that they probably took they probably took elon's us I mean we are on the edge of a dark precipice where the rule of law doesn't exist at least at the federal level and that I don't think people fully understand that yet but I don't I've been gaining this out in my head and what makes anyone believe that a court order is going to be enforceable now I don't I don't know I I don't see why the you know I mean we're talking about psychopathy here we're talking about soci here we're talking about people with no morals no conscience no nothing why are they going to obey a court order and that to me is the scariest aspect of all this all right so some you know I mean it's there's all sorts of terrible things that can happen that the the federal government cannot you know I mean these specific line items that were appropriated may not get spent that's illegal absolutely that's nothing compared to what happens if courts cannot enforce their orders and if we are I don't think we're that far away from this okay so let me ask you this because I so I I was this is the rub of what I want to talk about although it was sort of a different example so I was on Nicole yesterday and John hman was on and it was like he'd had JVL on his podcast and JVL sort of laid out this doomsday scenario but we were talking about birth right citizenship and I naively you know was like well here's the thing here's what it says like here's the express language of the cons couldn't be clearer like I was like this isn't a public opinion question it's not even barely a legal question it's a constitutional question the Constitution is like just completely straightforward I like read it out loud on live TV to be like this is what it says and John hman said okay Sarah well here's the thing I I've got I've had JVL on my podcast and I was like oh no here we go darkest time line uh and he's like but but what happens if the Supreme Court because it'll go up to the Supreme Court and the Supreme Court upholds it because the letter like obviously there's two supreme court justices that might not do it anyway because they're Clarence Thomas And Justice Alo but like Amy Cony Barrett does and Kavanagh does because it's just about having reading comprehension which I still think most of the people in the Supreme Court have y um and then Trump says I don't care we're going to stop issuing birth certificates cuz here's the thing once he does it in one area you do it in all the areas correct right what happens the point that I was just making no I know it is I know it is but I guess like it's if he just defies the Supreme Court like I could see them trying to overrun lower level courts or I don't know like acting until it got but like if he just says like dares the Supreme Court to stop him like what happens next look I don't think there's a difference actually I don't think there's a practical difference between defying the Supreme Court and defying the lower courts and here's why because at the end of the day if the Supreme Court rules against the government in a Birthright citizenship case as as you pause it and I think they will I think the Supreme Court's never going to uphold the crazy theory of of that the government is pushing the case gets sent back to the district court the district court is the court that is charged with enforcing what the law is okay they're at the front lines and how do they enforce it just give granularly again no they get what I describe the process basically let's say the government stops issuing birth certificates to people who are entitled to birth certificates on the cookie Theory Supreme Court says Kookie Theory um uh we're affirming The District Court decision which probably will have already been defied by the government um and so it goes back to The District Court District Court says You must issue these birth certificates and the head of in says no and what would normally happen would be that person would be held in contempt and that person could be fined and that person could be hauled off by the US Marshals and held in civil contempt until he complies and usually it doesn't get to that because nobody wants to be held in civil contempt until they comply and the person underneath them doesn't want that too so they will obey they'll obey the court order even if president United States that's what normally would happen but as I said who's going to take these people off to jail for civil for for to be held in civil contempt and you're saying that the marshals themselves the US Marshal Service enforces if if I violate a federal court order and I'm held in contempt because contempt is the way civil contempt is the way you enforce you viol an order the judge and you refuse to obey the order the judge says you need to obey the order and you you defy them you get held in civil contempt the judge will then the GU judge can find you or the judge can you know basically keep finding you until you comply or the judge can basically send the US Marshall service out at you that's what and then right okay so but then like so you're a marshall let's just this Marshall's name is Joe and Joe Joe Marshall is like all right well the told me to go do this that's what I normally do who then who stops Joe does Trump call Joe and say Joe don't do this Joe Joe will get have gotten a memo from his superiors saying you shall not do this or you will be fired and does the court then go to the superior and give them a similar none of these people report to the court that's the point this Marshall reports to some supervisor who ultimately reports to the head of US Marshall service who reports to Pam to to the probably associate or Deputy attorney general I don't know and then who then reports to Pam Bondi who then reports to pus okay if Trump it's I'm not saying this any of this is legal because none of this is legal but Trump can basically take out the mechanisms by which court orders can be enforced and you know he'll enjoy that you know what he thinks of the courts he has nothing but contempt for courts l i mean I don't mean that in the legal sense but he has nothing but contempt this will you know the courts have done bad things to him okay so here's why I think look here's where I think we are or we possibly could end up courts will not be able to enforce their orders against Trump because Trump will disobey them and will basically Wipe Out the mechanism by which I I hope this isn't true but I don't just doing the math and extrapolating and conducting the experiment in my head with these sociopaths who really don't have any limiting you know they're not limited by law or conscience or anything this is where this is happening so he can he will not obey court orders so the law cannot be enforced and at the same time he's going to try to enforce his will upon people legally or illegally by you know firing them or by Prosecuting them or by rounding them up or by having the calling out the National Guard or the military or whatever he's going to issue orders and I think those orders May well be disobeyed too because I do think government employees and soldiers and and people at some point are going to say I can't these are illegal orders I'm not going to obey them okay we're already we're we're going to see some of that and he won't have actually he will not have a way to enforce his orders not not not completely what we have so what I'm saying is we're going to have chaos there are going to be no rules there GNA be no laws at least at the federal level and that's what I think is terrifying I hope it doesn't happen but I just you know it just it's sort of like you know how I have scientist friends who will just cringe at this but it's sort of how they figured out what the where how the Big Bang occurred they just sort of logically traced the principles and the and the things that are affecting the system back to the very beginning well this is tracing the actors in their behavioral modes into the future I don't see them obeying the law I don't see a future for the rule of law right now in in in in under the Federal Constitution I I think we are that close to the precipice didn't get what you wanted for Christmas it's time to give yourself what you really wanted cooking is easy with hexclad whose one pan has both the performance of stainless steel and the convenience of nonstick their dishwashers safe and simple to wipe clean after use as well as oven safe handles heat up to 500° fah the patented hexagon design protects against scratches even when using metal utensils and hexclad isn't just about pots and pans their knives are made of 67 layers of Japanese Damascus steel for a Sharper Edge that stays sharp longer for effortless slicing Gordon Ramsey even uses hexclad in his restaurants and his home and he's the toughest critic on the planet I always see that guy yelling at people for a limited time only our listeners get 10% off your order with our exclusive link just head to hexclad decom ask George that's h eex c a d.com forward slash ask George guys I don't do a lot of cooking you know that I talk about this but I do make spaghetti for my kids that's like the one thing I can really make and every time I make spaghetti for my kids before with other pans I would always burn my hand on the pot it's one of the reasons that I keep like out of the kitchen because I'm always burning myself on the super hot handle when you take it off the stove these handles don't get hot it's like the greatest invention ever had uh in my life where it just it doesn't it's something about the way that this what did they call it the uh the Japanese Damascus steel or something like it doesn't doesn't get so hot that you burn yourself these are the best pots and pans we've ever had our family loves them you'll love them too so again our listeners get 10% off your order with our exclusive link head to hexclad dcom askgeorge support our show and check them out at heex a.com askgeorge make sure to let let them know we sent you bone Appetit let's eat with hexclad revolutionary cookware you know one of the things it's so alarming about you saying this is like I expect this from JVL JVL is always the darkest has The Darkest Timeline and take you usually kind of feel like you know the courts will function normally like even as we've watched every other back stop fall away you know you've always kind of had the courts uh and the law they going to lose some of these cases and but the thing is now is what we are seeing is inconsistent with anybody obeying the law yeah and unless somebody gets a spying real fast in the justice department or somewhere I mean we see this guy uh who who they accidentally I mean they're just so incompetent they accidentally put in charge of the FBI he kind of stood up to them a little but you know I don't see how this plays out without complete chaos okay well that's good great great stuff I mean this is this is how I see it right now I hope I'm I hope I'm rat of I hope I'm just insanely wrong but I just don't see you know I just I mean I mean they're crazy these people that were running the government are either crazy some of them are crazy others are just um craving look at look at let's take the Gaza thing okay it's it's almost it's so ridiculous you couldn't have made it up but Trump goes out there and basically says he wants to basically ethnically cleanse Gaza send the Palestinians to Jordan and Egypt or wherever and turn turn it into turn Gaza into the Riviera with probably with a Trump Hotel and everybody freaks out the entire planet freaks out because no one thinks this is possible no one thinks it's not immoral and illegal it violates basic international law violates the law it violate it's a war crime and it's a crime against humanity and it's just you know how are you going to actually physically do this without you know murdering 100 thousand people right this is completely insane on many levels and so the White House walks it back yesterday oh no no no blah blah blah you know they're with [ __ ] the way they always used to you know back in [ __ ] show one they used to always have to do this all the time although this one was really really insane um and what does he do at 5:00 this morning he puts out a true social post saying how wonderful it's going to be when we got all the Palestinians out of Gaza and it's a wonderful beautiful place to live let's talk about Gaza for a hot second but on my point is he's [ __ ] nuts no I know and there's nothing there's there's he's completely beyond control right now did you see Susie W's face when he's saying that that was not a thing they had discussed previously he just decided to throw it all out there you know what's interesting about both Elon I didn't find surprising because I know that's what he thinks no I know and Jared I saw clips of Jared saying this like years ago this like you know we're gonna make it you know we're you mean wrong in the sense that is that should be an idilic place on the Mediterranean if it weren't for the political issues and the history and everything like that I mean in terms of as a real estate play it ought to be good but these people are so psychotic they can't understand it well these are actually people who live there real people with lives and they may not behave the way you want them to behave but you can't just you just can't you know how are you going to get them all out how how what right do you have to do that like none of these things occur to these people because they are all so narcissistic and sociopathic well part of what's funny too is like he literally ran on an an anti- interventionist platform the America we are I mean are we going to be gritted as liberators uh like what is the the plan like the whole thing was like we are in too many forever Wars we're doing all this stuff we shouldn't do all this adventurism abroad and now what we're invading Canada we're invading Greenland we're gonna take over Gaza and the Panama Canal yeah just start is that's just the warm-up act but you know what listen it's like but you're using logic okay you canot I I know that that's I know that that's a mistake but here's another piece of logic let me just or or like what it seems like to me though is that Trump trump and Elon are both just doing the thing that they know like Trump like is like I'm president now so I'm going to develop I like want to go purchase other places and develop them because that's like what he is a developer at his core and Elon is like a person who dismantles he's just doing to the federal government exactly what he did to Twitter Twitter corre uh and so they're just like using the same oh they know in that sense they're both you know onetick ponies okay and you know I mean but I'll give Elon credit for zeroing it I mean this is the one everything else I am not surprised by right the one thing that I think is new that I would which is not on my bingo card was that Elon would zero in on the computer systems and take those over I mean it's sort of life but it makes sense now in hindsight because like you you know you're Dracula what do you do you go for the circulatory part and this is what and he's he's not wrong you can you can cut off the money you can shut down the government tomorrow of course you could also crash the national debt you could destroy the global economy I mean there are all sorts of collateral effects we may ought to be ought to be concerned by um but yeah I mean that's they're just sticking to I mean they have they have limited playbooks they you know and and there there's somebody wrote something yesterday I saw on on social media where um elon's very smart in a lot of ways but the so there was like the definition of idiot back in Roman or Greek times was somebody who didn't understand how they relate to the society around them okay what Elon thinks Elon thinks and and a lot of these Tech oligarchs brchs or whatever you want to call them they think that they exist solely because of their own Brilliance not because they existed within a legal and social structure that allowed them to prosper the rule of law for example you could not have you know I mean all this all the stuff that that has been done by Silicon Valley and silicon you know it's all basically because we have a rule of law where you can have intellectual property and those rights can be enforced and people can't just copy stuff and people can't just break contracts all of this stuff he's like we but none of this matters to these two to Trump and Elon but actually you just raised something that I was thinking about before when you were talking about it so if if let's just say Trump stops abiding by the law we are thrust into this constitutional crisis and you were saying we don't have laws anymore you know at least at the federal level does that apply to everyone like or like does everybody stop obeying the law like what's the or or or let me and sorry let me ask just a second part of this question and also let's say Trump wants to Trump trump is actively trying to litigate against other people right he's going after CBS he's going after so do the courts allow him to litigate against other people if he's refusing to abide by their rulings in other cases that's a very good question that's a very good question um I think they will probably try to act in the normal fashion and handle the cases if nothing else is going on um but that being said you know who's enforcing all these judgments that get issued I don't know maybe only maybe only judgments that Trump gets will be enforced I don't know um but I have to say one of the I mean what why do we all obey the law why don't we why don't we just go and walk down the street and kill somebody for their lunch money well there a bunch of different reasons one is we have moral consciences right another is we fear the impa We Fear prosecution right if you have a legal system that shows itself not to be able to enforce the law you lose one of those important constraints and if you have a government where basically nobody has the moral as moral constraints or is willing to act on moral constraints you know we don't have law we have absolute chaos and that is I mean that's where I'm afraid we're headed I'm just putting it another way and I hope I'm wrong I would love to be able to be wrong in two weeks two months two years well you're gonna forgive me but I I'm going to sit here and I'm going to keep trying to work up alternate scenarios of how you would put guard rails around this system as the guard rails collapse from the courts but like let's say Trump just okay so he does this thing you're saying thrust us into a constitutional crisis he's not obeying now I know that everything we've seen from Congress so far indicates that there is no limiting principle for them on like what they will tolerate from Trump if he just yes the Republicans if he just refuses to start to obey the courts will no Republicans do anything about that well what are they going to do well they could say something I know I know I know no I heard something that Tom Tillis I I I got to look it up but I saw some Tom Tillis who basically said well maybe all maybe this some of this stuff is legal but some of the stuff isn't it doesn't really matter sometimes you just have to do stuff I mean basically it was equ to that effect I don't think they have the spine and even if you have a few of them what are they gonna do Chuck Schumer is introducing a bill to say you can't do all the things that are illegal that they're doing Bill's never going to pass but so what so so let's make it you know something's illegal 50 times over what what what difference does it make if we say it's illegal for a 501st time in the Neco what what does what does Congress get us and there is an answer the answer is provided by the framers was if you have a president who is violating his oath of office which this guy is he's you know he's he's clearly basically that's what I mean like teritory if I can finish oh oh did I interrupt you oh I'm so sorry I'm so sorry I interrupted you I can't imagine how that works I know right um he's basically cast his legal and constitutional obligations to the win he's his he violates his oath of office almost every minute now yeah he has delegated executive power to somebody who's not even a permanent employee of the government let alone a prince officer I mean it's so it's IL and this person is usurping article one powers of the purse I mean you've got so much unconstitutionality here um I mean the answer would be impeachment right that should be the answer you should be impeached and removed from office and but here's the thing how's that GNA go okay but hold on hold on just one second if he was doing this McConnell if he's still up I mean this guy McConnell McConnell you know I mean M M Makowski Collins like you could How You Gonna what do they do they're not going to get to they're not gonna get you know we're they're not gonna get maybe if you got five or six house members you could get you could you could vote it through a bill of impeachment but I don't see that happening um but if it did are you gonna get this are you really gonna get 66 V 67 votes in the Senate it's got to get things got to get a lot worse before that happens yeah okay and at that point you think he's really going to leave office all right so here's my next all right next next possibility so this is and this was you know obviously I'm I'm kicking around these other things but I I see I mean I obviously see the futility of of trying to say like boy Congress could do something or maybe they're like at this point of just refusing to obey the law people in the streets is probably your last Bingo last option Bingo that's all we got at the end of the day that's what's going to have to come down to yes and he'll deploy the military against them it will be go back to the other point that I was making which is I don't know whether some people are GNA B obey those orders which is a good thing I don't know but this is you know no but but you're seeing the point I've been making is as you gain this stuff out you don't see a positive outcome you don't see anything but chaos and violence and I mean play Devil's Advocate where where if which logical step in this chain am I wrong I don't think it's wrong I mean I think because I think it's conceivable I think part of what is where where's it gonna where where it where's the what's the break in the chain that says it's not going to happen I can't figure that out yeah I mean the break in the chain would be that they would abide by the court ruling because I you know and maybe they will maybe maybe they will I don't see it though I think these people are that far gone I think there's not many people in government who will have the backbone to stand up to Trump and they will be removed hey let me ask you a different question so I see Trump's Complete embolden because the Supreme Court right gave him total immunity from these actions right so he gets out let's say one of the limiting again one of the fears is some point he's not in office and he spends his very last years in prison but he can't now because he's immune uh I mean I don't know if he's immune from all this stuff but elon's not immune elon's not immune yeah but Elon can be pardoned what What Fear Does Elon what about after though what about after they're out of power what do you mean when are they going to be out of power well so I mean I guess okay so so that's that in this scenario they don't they don't abide by the court rulings and they stop having elections well I mean maybe but how do we 2026 2026 right but so we have to get to 2026 and 2028 I'm worried we're not even going to get there but the bottom line is why should Elon Musk fear anything well we'll get there in the sense that those days will come but he will he's you know this is this is what Trump trump told people this in during [ __ ] show one just build a wall just do this do all that I will pardon you and all of these people have nothing to fear because they actually have potentially broader immunity than Trump has because Trump is why well because Trump is only immune from Criminal prosecution for his official ads which is why he could have been prosecuted and sent to jail for what he for shenanigans relating to the 2020 election because not everything he did was an official act or even could be characterized as an official act his pining of documents was not official his um what he did with his books and records in the stormmy Daniel case was not official conduct he's still subject to prosecution for those things um let's leave aart of the state and federal thing because that that's that's a little wrinkle on it but if you're Elon or your Kash or your pondi or pick somebody in the government and Trump pardons you he can pardon you for for for stealing money from a grandmother you know under federal law not under state law so basically but this scenario only works if Trump never leaves power well it doesn't matter he could he could issue a he could he could issue a pardon today for every crime that has been committed since the beginning of his administration or the beginning of time by all the people right so if he ever did leave office let's say it's at noon on January 20th 2029 he'd basically issue pardons to everybody who D did his bidding during his four years in office let's Assuming he's leaving office not you know and they would have B immunity than he would have he probably want a pardon himself too just to get see if he could get the benefit of that broader immunity because those people can be Pro you know pardon can cover unofficial acts so if if if somebody if one of these Doge kids decides to hey let's use the payment system to send me a billion dollars to my Swiss bank account that kid could be pardoned yeah okay okay I'm I'm I'm extremely depressed uh and I didn't mean to be depressed no no no no no no no no I think it's this is I don't even mean it's not about it's not about being depressed this is this is clarifying in ways I and I wanted to to get into this I want to ask you one other question that I've been kicking around which is um and and maybe I mean in your previous scenario like if everything's Lawless then the answer to my questions all of my questions about like can this be done is like well technically no but nobody's abiding by it so it's all Lawless but like can without Congress can the president just dissolve usaid um yes probably because again I'm I'm not a bureaucratic expert or expert in any of this stuff but my understanding is usaid is not a statutory creation of Congress what it does is it does dispense money that has been appropriated by Congress So to that extent whether or not usaid exists they cannot basically just say we're not spending money for these purposes that Congress provided that we spend the money for but my understanding is that USA ID was created by an executive order President Kennedy and it was it's not a statutory creation and and you know well Congress no in 1998 Congress established USA ID as its own agency oh did it okay okay all right well then they can't they can't disestablish it then if that's true I mean they just so moving into the state department like I guess I'm wondering like is that move legal it may not be again I'd have to I'd have to see what this what the statute did not know that they had been that the usid has had been created as a separate agency I thought it was something that sort of existed and that Congress you know once it's like the EPA for a long time was not a statutorily created agency it was basically a President Nixon repurposed some you know office in the EOB and then you know it basically created this agency by executive order that to enforce all the en environmental mandates that had been passed by Congress which made sense so you know president has the power to create structures to carry out congress's you know instructions even if they don't actually create the department so he has he has some res residual authority to do that well then let's just take one that we where it's not even a question um which is like Ed Department of Education can he cannot dissolve the Department of Education and he he cannot refuse to spend the money that has been appropriated to be spent through the Department of Education correct absolutely that would be profoundly illegal you know what's crazy to me about all this stuff with the they could just pass a new budget like like I I like if if they instead of they're they're gonna they're going to pass a budget soon like the budget stuff is so like why not just do this through the normal budgetary process and cut everything because they don't have the votes because even republicans in Congress won't give it to them right well you know we we don't have I mean if this stuff all this we have been marching in the fields of the right for decades you and I okay um at least until [ __ ] show one there are always people who wanted to basically dismantle the government sure from you know I mean like uh like Grover NorQuest who basically said he wants to make the government so small he could strangle it in the bathtu drown it in the bathtub drown it in the bathtub that old famous thing and the reason why that never happened or anything close to it never happened is because there just isn't political support for it and that's what they you know the ultimate reason why this all of this is anti-democratic apart from the fact that you know they're just running rough shod over statutes and constitutional restrictions is that we've never had the will as a people people to vote in legislators to do these things okay because it's you know basically dissolve the entire that's crazy right nobody everybody has their little their little things in the government some of us like some stuff some of us like don't like other stuff okay and we all have different preferences and what the democratic system what our constitutional system does is it provides a mechanism by which we work that out so I have to take I have to accept some stuff I don't like in order to accept the things that I like and they don't want to play by that anymore and that's where we are they are doing things they could not possibly have the political support to do or they are trying to do things that they don't have the political support to do because if they had the political support to done it they would have been done they would would have been done during [ __ ] show one would have been done during the Reagan Administration right and you know one of the things have to accept living in a constitutional democracy is you don't get everything you want yeah I guess the only push back I would have to this is that if if you think every Republican would give him right they've got this tiny majority in Congress uh and if you think every Republican would be on his side about everything else every all the Lawless stuff but they would stand up to him on funding on the budget like why well I you know I never has happened before right they've never actually you know when the Republicans have had control of both the presidency and Congress we've never seen serious fiscal restraint on there I mean we see a little bit on the margins for some things I but if Trump was like past this budget where I cut the hell out of all this stuff why wouldn't they do it they take his if they're taking his marching orders on everything else well they don't want to do it because they don't want to accept political responsibility for it you think the one thing that still exists for them is the incentive of keeping their positions that's all they care about so they're afraid they're afraid of him because he can create a backlash and have get them primary but they're also afraid of the backlash if they take responsibility for anything so they basically sit on their hands and they do nothing I mean this is why this is how Trump survives committing all these um High crimes and misdemeanors they didn't want they knew he was guilty like I mean how many times do we have to listen to Mitch mcon say that the criminal law was a you know he he knew what what this guy did was criminal but he didn't want to take the political responsibility for taking him out right so these people are just gonna be ciphers and maybe one or two of them will show some courage maybe three or four but it's not enough because the only mechanism that Congress has to control an executive that is completely out of control and completely define the constitution and his oath of office is impeachment and removal yeah and at the end of the day if he doesn't go who's gonna who's who who takes him out of the White House who's there to order that to happen and so yeah so the only listen everything everything comes down to as you pointed out and I've been saying online the streets yeah man you look distressed and I I don't blame you well yeah what what do we what do we have to go leave a protest now in the streets and yeah we're all gonna believe me we're all gonna be out there we we we have to be out there because this is where it's you know unless somebody decides all of a sudden Donald Trump grows a conscience and and Elon and all of these people decide to put their loyalty to this one guy aside and honor the Constitution and the laws of the United States unless enough people do that all at once in the in the executive branch we are going to see essentially the dissolution of the federal rule of law I I just don't you know I just I I keep running this in my head and I can't think of the scenario where that happens where all of a sudden these people decide oh my gosh we've gone too far we have to obey the law even if we don't like it I don't see that happening and and as as as I point out Congress can't do anything unless the only mechanism Congress Congress has is impeachment and removal and we know where that goes yeah so you know what I'm describing here is essentially the potential destruction in a matter of weeks and again I I it's I mean we used to say stuff like this during the 2024 campaign during 2020 campaign during the during [ __ ] show one that you know we run the risk of the complete Devolution of the rule of law in America nobody knew what that meant yeah and it sounded crazy right it sounds crazy because things are you go out walk out on the street it's all fine everything's fine stre everybody's going to work I'm gonna go to the Super Bowl this weekend everything's gonna be fun but where I you know when you actually talk is through we are at very close to that point where all of these things all these nightmare scenarios could come to pass and people don't fully appreciate that yet including the media is starting to catch up a little bit but you know I mean it's like Oliver garcy who writes this amazing column every day for his basically he used to work at CNN as a as a media critic and now he has his own not substack it's a competitor of substack but basically says you know the the the on the ground reporting is explaining this reasonably well after kind of a being thrown for a loop for a couple days but we're not seeing screaming headlines like you know crisis in America people don't we have become numb to what's happening here and how pathological and destructive it is and how close we are to the precipice I don't think I I don't think anyone who doesn't walk carefully in and try to thinks it doesn't think about these issues can fully appreciate it but when you actually try to focus on well where where's the stopping point it's hard to reach to to to it's hard not to reach the conclusion that there is none yeah which is why you're listening to me all depressed and you're not even saying George I don't I don't think it's that bad I mean I I've been I've been I've been saying this for the last two or three days over the weekend to some very very smart people professors of political scientists other Boyers and I say tell me I'm wrong and they can't well you know I'm with JVL if JBL agrees is that if that's what JVL is saying then I thoroughly agree with JBL yeah it's always The Darkest Timeline um that's what we walk through today but it is it is real um we are really confronting right that people haven't caught up I'm not I'm not apocalyptic and I'm not I'm usually you're the opposite you're like no here's how he's gonna go down right and and you see that completely gone because now it's like we're stri down to the last defense and I don't there's nobody there basically there's a gap in our lines the last defense is the American people the last defense is basically all these people coming up and basically throwing their bodies in front of the tanks like the like the Mia tianan Square this is where we this is where we possibly are okay throwing your bodies in front of Tanks that's where we're going to leave you guys this week um Good Luck America as JVL says uh thanks George for talking us through that I it is something I've been trying to think through so I appreciate the conversation we'll see you guys next week um I usually say a closing but right now I'm all whatever and so uh let's see uh thanks George Conway for explaining it all thanks to all of you for listening to another episode don't forget to subscribe listen to us on Apple podcast do all the subscribing let's all be in this together way he's a man with plan got to sit down with s long will take a stand explain all the legal problems they're piling high with Donald Trump oh my oh my oh my he said Sarah let me break it down for you there's destruction Justice corruption to the legal Tangles and troubles the growing fast it's a storm that's going to last and last oh can't way tell on well all about it those legal problems can't live without it from the m to the Russian ties oh Sarah listen close
During a press conference Friday, Trump was asked about the Department of Government Efficiency’s unfettered access to trillion-dollar payment systems such as the U.S. Treasury Department, as well as the personal information of millions of Americans, including their Social Security numbers, home addresses, and bank account numbers.
[Reporter] “Why does DOGE need all of that?” asked one reporter.
[Donald Trump] “Well, it doesn't, but they get it very easily. I mean, we don't have very good security in our country. And they get it very easily. And what we're doing, if you look at what has just taken place with respect to some of their investments that have been made on another Agency that people have been talking about for years, but nobody did anything about, it's absolutely obscene, dangerous, bad, very costly. I mean, virtually every investment made is a con job. There's nothing of value to anybody, unless there's a kickback scheme going on, which is possible. And we're going to be doing more and more of that. We're going to be looking at the Department of Education; we're going to be looking at even our military; we're going to be looking at tremendous amounts of money, Peter, being spent on things that bear no relationship to anything, and have no value. We're talking about trillions of dollars. It will be, in the end, trillions of dollars being absolutely wasted, and perhaps illegally. I would say certainly, in many cases, illegally, but perhaps illegally overall. And I'm very proud of the job that this group of young people -- generally young people, but very smart people -- they're doing. They’re doing it at at my insistence. It would be a lot easier not to do it, but we have to take some of these things apart to find the corruption. We found tremendous corruption.
Donald Trump doesn’t care that Elon Musk and his nerd squad have access to the private information of millions of Americans.
During a press conference Friday, Trump was asked about the Department of Government Efficiency’s unfettered access to trillion-dollar payment systems such as the U.S. Treasury Department, as well as the personal information of millions of Americans, including their Social Security numbers, home addresses, and bank account numbers.
“Why does DOGE need all of that?” asked one reporter.
“Well, it doesn’t, but they get it very easily,” Trump admitted. “I mean, we don’t have very good security in our country, and they get it very easily.”
Trump appeared completely unbothered by the massive intrusion on the privacy of U.S. citizens—in fact, he seemed to suggest it was the fault of government agencies for not better concealing this information from Musk’s goons.
Trump rambled on, describing how DOGE needed to audit certain investments the government had made because they were “obscene, dangerous, bad, very costly.”
The Bulwark @BulwarkOnline
Reporter: "DOGE engineers have access to treasury payment systems...social security numbers, home addresses, bank accounts. Why does DOGE need all of that?"
Trump: "Well, it doesn't, but they get it very easily. We don't have very good security in our country."
Concerns over DOGE’s “insider threat” have only grown in recent days, as they take over agency after agency, acquiring access to more troves of sensitive information. Trump has already said he couldn’t care less about Musk’s conflicts of interest, and the White House said that the DOGE czar would self-determine what projects were appropriate for him to work on.
As DOGE continues to extend its reach, members of Musk’s team are simultaneously being revealed to be a group of twenty-something failsons.
Musk announced Friday that he would be rehiring the DOGE employee who was fired over a range of racist posts because, as he wrote, “to err is human, to forgive divine.” Still, on X, Musk waged war against the journalist who reported on the posts in the first place, so it’s considerably more likely that, to him, there was nothing to forgive.
Additionally, Bloomberg reported Friday that another one of the 19-year-old wards on Musk’s DOGE team had been fired from an internship after he was accused of sharing company secrets with a competitor. Seems like the perfect person to have access to a trove of sensitive information, right?
This article provides evidence for the first time of a systematic policy of direct collusion between the Time Inc. media empire and the U.S. Central Intelligence Agency (CIA).
The OPS [Office of Public Safety] originated in the Public Safety program under the International Cooperation Administration (ICA) in 1954. In 1962, when the ICA was replaced by the USAID, the program was reorganised under the new title of 'Office of Public Safety', consolidating various disparate overseas police training and assistance projects across the globe. Its director, CIA operative and police reformer Byron Engle, served from 1962 until his retirement in 1973....
International development programs could present the modernisation and expansion of security infrastructure as growing stability and preventing crime in these nations, without the bad optics of the CIA or the military...
The OPS operated in at least fifty-two countries in Asia, Africa and the Americas. One of its main functions was counterinsurgency, aiding governments in the suppression of communist groups. In total, it provided over $200M of USAID and CIA funds to recipient countries in weaponry, communications equipment and tactical equipment. Its other functions were to facilitate the planting of CIA operatives within police forces of at-risk regions, and to find suitable candidates within these foreign forces to enrol in the CIA.
The standoff at 1300 Pennsylvania Avenue was not much of a spectacle. On the first day of February, a handful of men working for Elon Musk had come to the U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID), a few blocks from the White House, demanding full access to its headquarters. The agency’s staff refused. No guns were drawn. No punches thrown. Nobody involved the police. But in these early days of the Trump Administration, perhaps no other scene revealed more clearly the forces reshaping America’s government.
On one side stood an institution with a 64-year history, a $35 billion budget, and a mission enshrined in federal law. On the other stood Musk’s political wrecking crew. They identified themselves as members of the Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE), a collection of temporary staffers with no charter, no website, and no clear legal authority. Its power derives from Musk, the wealthiest person on the planet, who has been deputized to dismantle vast swaths of the federal bureaucracy—slashing budgets, gutting the civil service, and stripping independent agencies of the ability to impede the President’s objectives.
USAID leadership had allowed Musk’s team, a group of his young and eager followers, to spend several days inside their headquarters at the end of January. “The DOGE kids,” as some of the staffers called them in private, walked the halls with clipboards in their hands, examining desks and questioning managers, according to several USAID officials who described the events to TIME. But as the weekend arrived, their demands—including access to sensitive facilities designed to store classified information—went too far for the agency’s heads of security. The men from DOGE threatened to call the U.S. Marshals and have them clear the building. They also informed Musk about the problem. “USAID is a criminal organization,” Musk wrote to his 215 million followers on his social media platform, X, soon after. “Time for it to die.”
The cause of Musk’s crusade remained unclear. But regardless of the reason, by the following morning, an agency that annually disburses tens of billions of dollars across the globe, fighting famine and disease and bringing clean water to millions, had mostly ceased to function. Within a week, nearly all its staff were placed on leave, its offices around the world shut down.
Photo-Illustration by TIME (Source Photos: Chip Somodevilla—Getty Images; Anna Moneymaker—Getty Images)
Every other government bureau got the message loud and clear. No single private citizen, certainly not one whose wealth and web of businesses are directly subject to the oversight of federal authorities, has wielded such power over the machinery of the U.S. government. So far, Musk appears accountable to no one but President Trump, who handed his campaign benefactor a sweeping mandate to bring the government in line with his agenda. DOGE directed all of TIME’s questions about its work to the White House, which declined to comment.
Already, the DOGE team has taken over the U.S. Digital Service and established a beachhead within the federal human-resources department, the Office of Personnel Management (OPM). The Education Department is on edge, fearing a self-decapitation mandate is in the offing. Few agencies seem safe. Musk has shown that he will tolerate no opposition, no matter how justified. Days before the drama at USAID, a Treasury official refused DOGE access to the U.S. federal payment system. The official was forced to retire, and the newly appointed Treasury Secretary, Scott Bessent, gave DOGE the access it demanded. The Administration agreed on Feb. 5 to restrict that access, at least temporarily, after a group of past and present employees sued.
These are just the first ripples in a massive antigovernment wave. Budgets will be hacked. Valuable programs will be eliminated. Career civil servants will be purged, replaced with political appointees whose primary qualification is apparent fealty to the President. This is the course the electorate chose. And to many, the idea of one of the world’s most accomplished entrepreneurs attacking a sprawling, sclerotic federal bureaucracy with the same velocity and determination he brought to his car startup or rocket company is cause for celebration, not alarm. “The federal government is so big that there are surely significant opportunities for saving and efficiency,” says Robert Doar, president of the American Enterprise Institute, a center-right think tank. “The fact that the President and his team is giving this a lot of attention is a good thing.”
But a public backlash may be growing to Musk’s mission, and far more is at stake than the size of the federal balance sheet, the head count at agencies inside the Beltway, or the dangers of one unelected man possessing such unconstrained power. Soon Americans are going to learn where they interact with the federal government in ways they didn’t realize or took for granted. Companies that export tech products to China may no longer have State or Commerce Department employees available to explain, for free, how to avoid violating criminal law. Farmers in the Midwest may soon find USAID-funded buyers no longer paying for sacks of flour to send to refugee camps. Around the world, millions of people who depend on the U.S. for food, medicine, and shelter are suddenly on their own.
For now, millions of government workers find themselves at Musk’s mercy. One described her team at the Department of Homeland Security assuming a “defensive crouch” as they awaited a visit from the DOGE. For an inkling of their fate, she added, her colleagues had turned to a book called Character Limit, which chronicles the way Musk took over Twitter two years ago and fired 80% of its staff, often with chaotic and lasting results.
The similarities to his assault on the bureaucracy have been uncanny. On Jan. 28, millions of civil servants across government received an email offering them eight months’ pay in exchange for their resignation. Musk had proposed much the same deal to Twitter’s employees two years earlier. He even used the same subject line: “Fork in the road.”
None of this came without warning. Among Musk’s friends in Silicon Valley, many understood his takeover of Twitter as preparation for a greater cause. “The mood is that hopefully Musk can do the same thing with the U.S. government,” one told TIME in November. Veterans of Trump’s first Administration likewise laid out their plans long before the elections, publishing a 900-page report known as Project 2025. One of its lead authors, Russell Vought, said in a speech two years ago that he wanted civil servants to be “traumatically affected” by the purge he envisioned. “We want their funding to be shut,” he said. “We want to put them in trauma.”
Russell Vought, Trump’s pick to lead the Office of Management and Budget, at a confirmation hearing on Jan. 15.Andrew Harnik—Getty Images
On the campaign trail, Trump swore he had nothing to do with the plan. “It was inappropriate that they would come out with a document like that,” he told TIME in November. “Some things I vehemently disagreed with.” But once in office, he picked Vought to be in charge of the White House Office of Management and Budget, which now works closely with Musk to enact crucial parts of Project 2025. So far, the frenetic opening moves of the Trump presidency have tracked nearly two-thirds of its prescriptions, according to a TIME analysis.
Musk never hid his intentions. Two weeks after the election, he co-wrote a piece in the Wall Street Journal that promised DOGE would help Trump “hire a lean team of small-government crusaders,” who would work to bring “mass head-count reductions across the federal bureaucracy.” That recruitment drive began soon after the elections, drawing from Musk’s acolytes in Silicon Valley, some barely out of college, and priming them to fan out across Washington.
The man Musk put in charge of staffing at DOGE was an aerospace engineer named Steve Davis, who previously led his cost-cutting efforts at Twitter. In late December, as the presidential transition unfolded inside the White House, Davis took part in a series of meetings with members of the Biden Administration. The Democratic staffers noted his fixation with an obscure branch of the White House called the U.S. Digital Service. Davis wanted to know how it operated, who it reported to, and what it could access.
Created in 2014, the USDS works with federal agencies to improve computer systems and databases. It houses a map of the government’s technology infrastructure and has contact points for the technology officer at nearly every federal agency. That made it the perfect place to host the DOGE. If Musk wanted to wither the limbs of the federal government, the USDS provided the veins that would let the poison flow.
The empowerment of USDS started on Inauguration Day. One of Trump’s first Executive Orders renamed it “the United States DOGE Service,” neatly preserving the office’s acronym. The order also ensured that the new entity would report directly to the White House chief of staff. Since then, the office has set up shop inside the Departments of State and Treasury. It began accessing personnel computer systems, firing contractors, and blocking payments on their contracts.
Musk also sent a team to OPM. The office holds records on 2.1 million workers, the email address for nearly every federal employee, and tracks $59 billion per year in federal health care premiums and $88 billion per year in payments to federal retirees. The mass buyout offer to government employees originated from within Musk’s team at OPM, according to a source familiar with those actions. (Both DOGE and the White House declined to comment.)
Next, the DOGE team set to starving OPM itself. Brian Bjelde, who recently worked as vice president of human resources at Musk’s aerospace firm, told career supervisors at OPM that the “target” was to slash 70% of its staff, a move that would hobble its health care benefits and retirement-planning teams, says a current OPM official. Some senior leaders at OPM have been locked out of key databases, the official says, and political appointees have access to systems, including the Enterprise Human Resources Integration, without standard safeguard procedures designed to keep such information private. That system includes information like pay grades, length of service, Social Security numbers, dates of birth, and home addresses.
Days after Trump took office, the White House ordered a freeze on federal spending—from foreign aid to public-health programs, and everything in between. It would be lifted, the Administration said, as agencies fell in line with the President’s agenda: cracking down on immigration, ending diversity efforts, and stopping investments that reduce the impact of fossil fuels on the environment. Facing a court’s action, the White House rolled back the order.
A protest outside the U.S. Treasury building in Washington, D.C., on Feb 4.Stefani Reynolds—Bloomberg/Getty Images
Musk’s downsizing pressed ahead, and Trump continued to give his blessing. “Elon can’t do—and won’t do—anything without our approval,” Trump told reporters in the Oval Office on Feb. 4. “We’ll give him the approval where appropriate,” he added. “Where not appropriate, we won’t.” Some took it as a sign that Trump might rein in his attack dog. But civil servants are not waiting around for that to happen. In Northern Virginia, home to tens of thousands of workers on the federal payroll and military service members, the typical town-hall meeting in the town of Leesburg attracts a few dozen people. Hundreds gathered on the night Musk shut down USAID. “We’re hearing bizarre stories,” says Representative Suhas Subramanyam, the local Democratic Congressman who spoke at the event. His office has been flooded with workers describing DOGE’s takeover, and he instructed his staff to log their testimony and assist whistle-blowers. Much of what they witnessed is “simply illegal,” Subramanyam insists to TIME. “We’re almost being tested and dared to sue or investigate.”
Read More: Across Pennsylvania, Musk Deploys His Fame and Fortune For Trump.
Some lawsuits have worked. The White House complied with court orders blocking its attempt to freeze trillions of dollars in federal spending. A judge’s ruling on Feb. 6 delayed the deadline for the buyout offer to government employees. Unions have filed suits related to DOGE on behalf of federal workers. Even Musk’s usual admirers have warned he is overreaching. “The lawsuits are already flying,” a Feb. 4 Wall Street Journal editorial noted, “and courts will derail Mr. Musk’s project before it even gets off the ground if he isn’t careful.”
On Capitol Hill, Musk’s assault on the bureaucracy has set up a battle with Democrats that could determine the future of the government and the balance of power within it. “We don’t have a fourth branch of government called Elon Musk,” Maryland Democrat Jamie Raskin told a crowd outside USAID on the afternoon of Feb. 3, while the men from DOGE tried to impose their demands inside.
Raskin was right. But the agency staffers listening to him on Pennsylvania Avenue, unsure of whether they still had a job, could not tell how much power Musk had acquired, and whether he would bend the other branches of government to his will. One staffer seemed especially skeptical. Yes, she told TIME, the Constitution grants Congress the power of the purse. But Musk had shown his power to yank it away.
“There’s only so much Democrats can do,” she said, not wanting to give her name lest it attract more attention from DOGE. Her official email account had been shut down, and she could no longer access her desk at the agency. Like thousands of her colleagues, and millions of Americans, she was left to watch Musk’s moves play out, wondering how far he would go, and what, if anything, could stop him.
—With reporting by Eric Cortellessa, Philip Elliott, Nik Popli, and Tessa Berenson Rogers/Washington
After Testifying "There Will Be No Enemies List at DOJ,"' AG Bondi Releases Enemies List On Day One! by Glenn Kirschner Justice Matters Feb 7, 2025 All the "King's" Men: Trump's lackeys and their disservice to America
Donald Trump is forever whining and complaining about his enemies: Jack Smith, Alvin Bragg, Leticia James, and the FBI agents and federal prosecutors who investigated Trump's crimes.
Trump's former criminal defense attorney, Pam Bondi, testified during her Senate confirmation hearing that there will be no enemies list at the Department of Justice if she is confirmed as Attorney General.
Once confirmed, AG Bondi issue a memo announcing the DOJ will be investigating Trump's enemies: Jack Smith, Alvin Bragg, Leticia James, and the FBI agents and federal prosecutors who investigated Trump's crimes.
Transcript
So friends remember, how Pam Bondi promised Senators that there would be no enemies list at the Department of Justice if she was confirmed as attorney general? Well, on day one as attorney general, Pam Bondi drafted and released -- you guessed it -- an enemy's list. Let's talk about that because justice matters.
Hey all. Glenn Kirschner here.
So friends, you remember this bit of theater: this forceful testimony from Donald Trump's former criminal defense attorney Pam Bondi at her Senate confirmation hearing? She said the Justice department will never have an enemies' list.
Well, on day one, after being confirmed as attorney general, Pam Bondi announced the Department of Justice will be going after Trump's enemies. Here's the new reporting this from NPR.
New attorney general moves to align Justice Department with Trump's priorities by Ryan Lucas NPR Published February 5, 2025 at 5:36 PM PST
On her first day in charge at the Justice Department, Attorney General Pam Bondi on Wednesday issued a series of directives aimed at aligning the department with President Trump and his agenda, including establishing a task force to examine the alleged weaponization of the justice system and reviving the federal death penalty.
The Senate confirmed Bondi on Tuesday evening and she was sworn in Wednesday in a ceremony at the White House. Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas administered the oath of office for Bondi, whose husband and mother were by her side.
She takes over at a time of tumult at the Justice Department, where the Trump administration has pushed out several senior career officials over the past few weeks as the new leadership looks to assert control over the department and implement the president's agenda.
On her first day on the job, Bondi signed 14 memos addressed to all Justice Department employees. Some of the directives roll back guidelines put in place under the Biden administration, while others strike new ground. Many appear to offer details to implement executive orders President Trump signed, including on the weaponization of the federal government and on combatting antisemitism.
One of the memos, for example, establishes the "Weaponization Working Group," which is tasked with reviewing "the activities of all department and agencies exercising civil or criminal enforcement authority of the United States over the last four years."
Trump and Bondi have both argued that the department under the Biden administration unfairly targeted conservatives, most notably Trump himself. Trump was charged in two federal cases: for election interference in 2020 and for hoarding classified documents. Both cases were dropped after he won election to a second term.
The department's previous leadership rejected the allegation of political motivations, and pointed to multiple criminal cases against prominent Democrats during the Biden administration.
Focus on "improper aims"
According to the Bondi memo, the new working group will "identify instances where a department's or agency's conduct appears to have been designed to achieve political objectives or other improper aims rather than pursuing justice of legitimate governmental objectives."
It mentions several specific things that it will examine, including "weaponization" by former special counsel Jack Smith, the prosecutors and the investigators who took part in the "unprecedented raid on President Trump's home." FBI agents searched Trump's Mar-a-Lago club and his residence as part of its classified documents case.
It also will examine "federal cooperation with the weaponization" by the Manhattan district attorney and the New York state attorney general "to target President Trump, his family and his businesses." The Manhattan district attorney brought state criminal charges against Trump for falsifying business records to conceal a payment to an adult film star.
The Jan. 6 Capitol riot will also come under review, it says. The working group will look at "the pursuit of improper investigative tactics and unethical prosecutions" related to the Jan. 6, 2021, Capitol attack. Trump granted clemency to every defendant accused of committing crimes that day in one of his first acts after returning to the White House.
The memo says the Justice Department will provide quarterly reports to the White House on the review's progress.
Another memo sets up a Joint Task Force for Oct. 7 to "prioritize seeking justice for victims" of the Hamas-led attacks on Israel. The task force also aims to address the "ongoing threat posed by Hamas and its affiliates" and to combat "antisemitic acts of terrorism and civil rights violations in the homeland."
Two other memos relate to the federal death penalty.
One lifts the moratorium on federal executions, and instructs federal prosecutors to seek the death penalty in cases involving the murder of a law enforcement official and capital crimes "committed by aliens who are illegally present in the United States."
The other relates to President Biden's decision in his waning days in office to commute the death sentences of 37 people on federal death row to life in prison. The Bondi memo directs the Justice Department to, among other things assist local prosecutors in pursuing death sentences under state law against the 37 individuals who received commutations.
Bondi also signed a memo that puts department attorneys on notice that they are expected to "zealously" defend, advance and protect the interests of the United States—interests that are set by the president.
It says that when DOJ attorneys "refuse to advance good-faith arguments by declining to appear in court or sign briefs, if undermines the constitutional order and deprives the President of the benefit of his lawyers."
It goes on to say that any department attorney who "because of their personal views or judgments declines to sign a brief or appear in court, refuses to advance good-faith arguments on behalf of the Administration, or otherwise delays or impedes the Department's mission will be subject to discipline and potentially termination."
Copyright 2025 NPR
New attorney general moves to align justice department with Trump's priorities and there she is obviously showing her independence from the White House and the president
On her first day in charge at the Justice Department, Attorney General Pam Bondi on Wednesday issued a series of directives aimed at aligning the department with President Trump and his agenda, including establishing a task force to examine the alleged weaponization of the justice system and reviving the federal death penalty.
The Senate confirmed Bondi on Tuesday evening and she was sworn in Wednesday in a ceremony at the White House. Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas administered the oath of office for Bondi, whose husband and mother were by her side.
She takes over at a time of tumult at the Justice Department, where the Trump administration has pushed out several senior career officials over the past few weeks as the new leadership looks to assert control over the department and implement the president's agenda.
On her first day on the job, Bondi signed 14 memos addressed to all Justice Department employees. Some of the directives roll back guidelines put in place under the Biden administration, while others strike new ground. Many appear to offer details to implement executive orders President Trump signed, including on the weaponization of the federal government and on combatting antisemitism.
One of the memos, for example, establishes the "Weaponization Working Group," which is tasked with reviewing "the activities of all department and agencies exercising civil or criminal enforcement authority of the United States over the last four years."
Trump and Bondi have both argued that the department under the Biden administration unfairly targeted conservatives, most notably Trump himself. Trump was charged in two federal cases: for election interference in 2020 and for hoarding classified documents. Both cases were dropped after he won election to a second term.
The department's previous leadership rejected the allegation of political motivations, and pointed to multiple criminal cases against prominent Democrats during the Biden administration.
Focus on "improper aims"
According to the Bondi memo, the new working group will "identify instances where a department's or agency's conduct appears to have been designed to achieve political objectives or other improper aims rather than pursuing justice of legitimate governmental objectives."
It mentions several specific things that it will examine, including "weaponization" by former special counsel Jack Smith, the prosecutors and the investigators who took part in the "unprecedented raid on President Trump's home." FBI agents searched Trump's Mar-a-Lago club and his residence as part of its classified documents case.
So friends, from Donald Trump's incessant whining and complaining we know that he views as his enemies Jack Smith Alvin Bragg Leticia James the FBI investigators and federal prosecutors who worked January 6th cases and so as attorney general who did Pam Bondi vow to go after Jack Smith Alvin Bragg Leticia James the FBI investigators and federal prosecutors who handled January 6th cases maybe it's just a coincidence you know friends I know Pam Bondi has never worked at the United States Department of Justice so maybe she doesn't know that we don't talk about investigations we don't publish lists of people we intend to investigate we don't even decide who we should investigate unless there is what's called adequate predication enough evidence that someone has engaged in criminal activity before we even open an investigation never mind announce that we will be opening investigations none of this is the way a responsible law abiding Department of Justice is supposed to work and friends let's finish with this let me take on just one absurdity one obscene perversion of the mission of the Department of Justice remember when we just read that Pam Bondi said the Department of Justice will be going after the prosecutors and investigators who took part in the unprecedented raid on President Trump's home when FBI agents searched Trump's maralago club and his residence as part of its classified documents case let's be fact-based for just one minute let's return to reality Donald Trump took classified documents National Defense information some of our nation's most closely guarded Secrets he took them some might even say stole them he took them from the White House from the federal government without Authority without permission without any lawful basis when he left the presidency and he shipped them down to his social club in Florida he was then unlawfully retaining them and the federal government went about trying to negotiate the return of documents he had no right to have you know basically he held them hostage this was like a hostage negotiation for the return of our nation's classified information and Trump said I'm not giving them back and we negotiated and negotiated and negotiated and nothing came of it we would not have negotiated like that if if anybody else had been unlawfully retaining our national security secrets you can bet but we negotiated endlessly to no avail so then a grand jury issued a subpoena which has the the force of a court order saying turn the damn documents over give them back you are hereby compelled by the law to return them and Donald Trump didn't not only did he not return them he had one of his attorneys you know write an affidavit certifying they'd all been returned problem solved but they hadn't been returned and the federal government the Department of Justice the FBI had ample evidence that they hadn't been returned they were hidden they were moved around in what turned out to be a conspiracy that Trump was in with some of his workers at Mara Lago so what happened all of this evidence was presented to a federal judge in a sworn affidavit and the federal judge said oh you bet there's probable cause to believe that crimes have been committed and evidence of those crimes is presently being held retained concealed at maral Lago and the judge issued a search warrant this is not some un lawful raid on maral Lago it is the exact opposite it is our nation our law enforcement agency our department of justice doing the responsible thing trying to claw back from someone who was violating the law our national security information and lo and behold contrary to Trump's lawyer certifying they'd all been turned over there were tons of classified documents being unlawfully retained at Marl Lago and that is why Donald Trump was criminally indicted by a grand jury for unlawfully retaining those documents for obstructing justice by intentionally and knowingly violating that grand jury subpoena and for violating our nation's Espionage laws because of the sensitivity the volatility indeed the danger to our national security represented by the information Trump was unlawfully retaining and somehow law enforcement the FBI the Department of Justice they're all the bad guys because they sought to enforce the law and they did it while remaining loyal to the Constitution and Pam Bondi said for that they will pay they went after dear leader Donald Trump and we will try to make them pay I guess they believe that political leaders can commit all of the damn crimes they want and if you try to hold them accountable you are wrong FBI Federal prosecutors Department of Justice you are wrong for trying to hold powerful people accountable for their crimes this is the the legal upside down this is George Orwell's 1984 this is not a fact based Department of Justice that we will now have to suffer suffer for a while but we won't give up we won't give in because Justice matters midterms friends midterms as always please stay safe please stay tuned and I look forward to talking with you all again tomorrow
