Judge pauses Trump plan to put USAID staff on leave by Kevin Breuninger @KevinWilliamB CNBC Published Fri, Feb 7 20254:43 PM EST Updated 4 Hours Ago
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.
-- Office of Public Safety, by Wikipedia, Accessed: 2/7/25
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).
• A federal judge on Friday paused the Trump administration from carrying out its plan to place thousands of workers at the U.S. Agency for International Development on administrative leave. • The American Foreign Service Association and the American Federation of Government Employees, had asked the judge to order the Trump administration to halt its efforts to “shut down” USAID.
A worker removes the U.S. Agency for International Development sign on their headquarters on Feb. 7, 2025 in Washington, DC., by Kayla Bartkowski | Getty Images
A federal judge on Friday said he would temporarily pause the Trump administration’s plan to place thousands of workers at the U.S. Agency for International Development on administrative leave.
About 2,200 USAID employees were set to be placed on leave Friday night at 11:59 p.m. ET, as part of President Donald Trump’s efforts to shut down the independent government agency.
Five hundred USAID workers are already on administrative leave, a lawyer for the U.S. Department of Justice said in court.
Judge Carl Nichols, a Trump appointee, delivered the ruling after hearing arguments from the Trump administration and two groups representing federal workers in U.S. District Court in Washington, D.C.
The workers’ groups, the American Foreign Service Association and the American Federation of Government Employees, had asked Nichols to order the Trump administration “to immediately cease actions to shut down USAID’s operations.”
They had argued a court filing earlier Friday that USAID “is suffering an onslaught of unconstitutional and illegal attacks, leaving its workers, contractors, grantees, and beneficiaries deserted in the wreckage and a global humanitarian crisis in the wake.”
The Trump administration has “deliberately dismantled USAID’s infrastructure” and is “poised for a near-final killing blow,” they wrote.
Nichols said Friday afternoon that he would be entering a “very limited” temporary restraining order before midnight directed at the 2,200 at-risk USAID workers.
The judge said he has yet to decide if his ruling will rescind the Trump administration’s take-leave order for the 500 employees who have already received it.
During the hearing, Nichols questioned DOJ attorney Brett Shumate about why the Trump administration needed to place 2,200 USAID workers on leave so quickly.
“What is the urgency of this?” the judge asked.
“The President has decided there is corruption and fraud at USAID,” Shumate replied.
USAID was established in 1961 by President John F. Kennedy following the passage of the Foreign Assistance Act. It administers foreign aid and conducts a variety of other field missions around the world.
Foreign aid in recent years has comprised about 1% of the federal budget and less than 0.33% of GDP, according to a Brookings Institution report from September.
But USAID has nevertheless become a major target of Trump and Elon Musk, who have accused the agency of being an unaccountable magnet for fraud and corruption.
“THE CORRUPTION IS AT LEVELS RARELY SEEN BEFORE. CLOSE IT DOWN!” Trump wrote on Truth Social on Friday morning.
Musk, who is leading a sweeping effort to slash the size of government through the White House’s so-called Department of Government Efficiency, or DOGE, has taken credit for dismantling USAID.
“We spent the weekend feeding USAID into the wood chipper,” Musk wrote on his social media platform X.
Elon Musk @elonmusk
We spent the weekend feeding USAID into the wood chipper.
Could gone to some great parties.
Did that instead.
Mike Benz @MikeBenzCyber
it ain’t dead yet, but already, and for the very first time, a hole has been put in the Terror Titanic
Kash Patel Took $25,000 From Russia-Linked Firm to Appear on an Anti-FBI TV Series: The documentary was produced by a filmmaker tied to Russian propaganda efforts. by David Corn & Dan Friedman Mother jones February 7, 2025 https://www.motherjones.com/politics/20 ... ine-putin/
Last year, Kash Patel, the MAGA provocateur whom Donald Trump has nominated to head the FBI, received $25,000 from a Russia-linked production company to participate in a documentary in which he assailed the FBI and called for closing its headquarters.
In November, Tucker Carlson’s online network released a six-part series called All the President’s Men: The Conspiracy Against Trump that purported to chronicle the familiar MAGA conspiracy theory that a Deep State plotted against Donald Trump while he was a presidential candidate in 2016 and when he was president. The fourth episode focused on Patel and his years-long crusade to depict the Trump-Russia scandal—Moscow’s attack on the 2016 election and Donald Trump’s efforts to cover up its existence—as nothing but a total hoax orchestrated by nefarious Democrats and rogue government operatives.
In this film—which credits Patel as an executive producer—he offers a blistering attack on the FBI. He calls it a “corrupt” enterprise and claims it has been on the Democratic Party’s “payroll.” He says, “I’m the guy that’s going to tell you they need major reforms. I’m going to tell you to shut down the FBI headquarters building and open it up as a museum of the Deep State the next day. Seriously, you need 50 guys in Washington running the FBI.” He pushes the false claim that the FBI launched its Russia investigation in 2016 on the basis of the infamous and unconfirmed Steele memos. And he insists that the FBI and the rest of the US intelligence community that investigated Russian interference in the 2016 election “knew it didn’t exist.” He also asserts that “globalists” have been working with Al Qaeda to make a profit.
The series was produced for Carlson, who is featured in the final episode, by Global Tree Pictures, a Los Angeles-based firm run by Ukrainian-American-Russian filmmaker Igor Lopatonok. He and Russian-born film director Vera Tomilova, the chief financial officer of Global Tree Pictures, who holds a US green card, are listed in the film’s credits as its producers. Global Tree raised the financing for the series, according to a contract filed in Rudy Giuliani’s bankruptcy proceedings. (Giuliani also starred in the documentary.)
Lopatonok has ties to Russian propaganda and disinformation efforts.
In recent years, he has helped lead a Kremlin-financed effort to persuade Westerners to move to Russia. In 2023, he chaired a competition dubbed “To Russia With Love” that invited bloggers to produce content that would show the “most appealing side of Russia” and encourage people to emigrate there. This project was funded by the Presidential Foundation for Cultural Initiatives, a state entity that Putin created in 2021 to “support projects in the field of culture, art and the creative industries.”
One of Lopatonok’s colleagues in this project was John Mark Dougan, a former deputy sheriff in Palm Beach County, Florida, who received political asylum in Russia and who has been a key player in Russia’s disinformation operations against the West. In May, the New York Times reported, “Dougan has built an ever-growing network of more than 160 fake websites that mimic news outlets in the United States, Britain and France.” Dougan was listed on material as a member of the “Expert Council” of the “To Russia with Love” project and as a “mentor” for the winners.
Lopatonok has worked with famed director Oliver Stone on two documentaries on Ukraine that were widely described as pro-Kremlin, One of these films, titled Revealing Ukraine and released in 2019, was apparently financed in part by Ukrainian oligarch and pro-Kremlin politician Viktor Medvedchuk, according to the Organized Crime and Corruption Reporting Project and Vlast.kz, an independent media outlet in Kazakhstan. The film prominently featured Medvedchuk, a long-time ally of Vladimir Putin who was sanctioned by the United States in 2014 in response to Russia’s annexation of Crimea. (Medvedchuk was arrested in Ukraine in 2021 and charged with treason; he was later traded to Russia in a prisoner swap.)
So, according to Patel’s own financial disclosure statement, he pocketed $25,000 from a production company operated by a filmmaker associated with a Kremlin-subsidized propaganda project, a pro-Putin oligarch, and a pro-Kremlin disinformation agent.
Lopatonok also appears to have been doing business—or trying to do business— in Russia. Last year, he and Tomilova set up a company there called Global 3 Pictures, according to Russian corporate records. This is the same name as a corporation they established in California in 2011. The Russian firm, according to the records, intended to produce films and television shows. The corporate listings note that the firm maintained a bank account at state-owned VTB, a bank subject to US sanctions. The records also note that Global 3 Pictures failed to submit a tax return.
Mother Jones sent Lopatonok and Patel each a list of questions and a request for comment. Neither responded.
The All The President’s Men series was loaded with Russian connections. Its director, Sean Stone, a son of Oliver Stone, hosted a show on RT America, the Russian state-funded network until it was shut down in 2022 after Russia’s invasion of Ukraine. For this docuseries, Stone conducted the on-air interviews with Simona Mangiante, the wife of George Papadopoulos, a Trump foreign policy adviser who pleaded guilty to making false statements to FBI agents during the Russia investigation and served 12 days in federal prison.
In another Global Tree Picture film released last year, Hunter’s Laptop—Requiem for Ukraine, a documentary about alleged Biden corruption in Ukraine, Mangiante interviewed Andrii Derkach, whom the US Treasury Department sanctioned in 2020 for serving as a “Russian agent” and spreading disinformation to influence the American election that year—that is, disseminating false stories about then-candidate Joe Biden. The Office of the Director of National Intelligence later noted that Putin “had purview over” Derkach’s activities, meaning Moscow was running an operation to discredit Biden and help Trump. With this film, Lopatonok and Mangiante amplified the phony assertions peddled by an identified Russian agent.
The scriptwriting team for All the President’s Men included Lopatonok, Tomilova, and George Eliason, an editor at a website called Intelligencer that posts conservative and Putin-friendly material. Lopatonok and Tomilova are on its editorial board.
All the President’s Men featured the usual assortment of Trump champions who have for years pushed the Deep-State-is-after-Trump conspiracy tale, including Michael Flynn, Roger Stone, and Papadopoulos. It’s full of paranoia and debunked claims.
Despite Carlson’s backing, Lopatonok and Tomilova’s series didn’t register much on the media landscape. But it has one intriguing piece of information: Patel’s financial relationship with a production company tied to Russian propaganda and disinformation activity. That is hardly a reassuring credential for an FBI chief.
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
STATE OF NEW YORK; STATE OF ARIZONA, STATE OF CALIFORNIA, STATE OF COLORADO, STATE OF CONNECTICUT, STATE OF DELAWARE, STATE OF HAWAII, STATE OF ILLINOIS, STATE OF MAINE, STATE OF MARYLAND, COMMONWEALTH OF MASSACHUSETTS, STATE OF MINNESOTA, STATE OF NEVADA, STATE OF NEW JERSEY, STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA, STATE OF OREGON, STATE OF RHODE ISLAND, STATE OF VERMONT, and STATE OF WISCONSIN,
Plaintiffs,
-v-
DONALD J. TRUMP, IN HIS OFFICIAL CAPACITY AS PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES; U.S. DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY; and SCOTT BESSENT, IN HIS OFFICIAL CAPACITY AS SECRETARY OF U.S. DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY,
Defendants.
25 Civ. 1144 (JAV)
ORDER
PAUL A. ENGELMAYER, District Judge:
This Court, sitting in its Part I capacity, this evening received an application for a temporary restraining order filed by the Attorneys General of the 19 States identified as plaintiffs above. The States’ lawsuit challenges a new policy by the United States Department of the Treasury, at the direction of the President and the Secretary of the Treasury, which, as alleged, expands access to the payment systems of the Bureau of Fiscal Services (BFS) to political appointees and “special government employees.” The States contend that this policy, inter alia, violates the Administrative Procedure Act (“APA”), 5 U.S.C. §§ 551 et seq., in multiple respects; exceeds the statutory authority of the Department of the Treasury; violates the separation of powers doctrine; and violates the Take Care Clause of the United States Constitution. The States seek declaratory and injunctive relief. Later this evening, upon the States’ successful filing of their submissions, this matter was assigned on a permanent basis to the Hon. Jeannette A. Vargas, United States District Judge.
The Court has reviewed the affirmation of Colleen K. Faherty, dated February 7, 2025, in support of the States’ motion for a temporary restraining order, the States’ memorandum of law in support of that motion, the States’ motion for a temporary restraining order, dated February 7, 2025, and the Complaint. The Court’s firm assessment is that, for the reasons stated by the States, they will face irreparable harm in the absence of injunctive relief. See Winter v. Nat. Res. Def. Council, Inc., 555 U.S. 7, 20 (2008). That is both because of the risk that the new policy presents of the disclosure of sensitive and confidential information and the heightened risk that the systems in question will be more vulnerable than before to hacking. The Court’s further assessment is that, again for the reasons given by the States, the States have shown a likelihood of success on the merits of their claims, with the States’ statutory claims presenting as particularly strong. The Court’s further assessment is that the balance of the equities, for the reasons stated by the States, favors the entry of emergency relief.
The Court accordingly:
ORDERS that the defendants show cause before the Hon. Jeannette A. Vargas, at Courtroom 14C, United States Courthouse, 500 Pearl Street, New York, New York, at 2 p.m. on Friday, February 14, 2025, why an order should not be issued pursuant to Rule 65 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure preliminarily enjoining the defendants during the pendency of this action from granting to political appointees, special government employees, and any government employee detailed from an agency outside the Treasury Department access to Treasury Department payment systems or any other data maintained by the Treasury Department containing personally identifiable information; and further
ORDERS that, sufficient reason having been shown therefor, pending the hearing of the States’ application for a preliminary injunction, pursuant to Rule 65 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, the defendants are (i) restrained from granting access to any Treasury Department payment record, payment systems, or any other data systems maintained by the Treasury Department containing personally identifiable information and/or confidential financial information of payees, other than to civil servants with a need for access to perform their job duties within the Bureau of Fiscal Services who have passed all background checks and security clearances and taken all information security training called for in federal statutes and Treasury Department regulations; (ii) restrained from granting access to all political appointees, special government employees, and government employees detailed from an agency outside the Treasury Department, to any Treasury Department payment record, payment systems, or any other data systems maintained by the Treasury Department containing personally identifiable information and/or confidential financial information of payees; and (iii) ordered to direct any person prohibited above from having access to such information, records and systems but who has had access to such information, records, and systems since January 20, 2025, toimmediately destroy any and all copies of material downloaded from the Treasury Department’s records and systems, if any; and further
ORDERS that any opposition submission by defendants be filed by 5 p.m. on Tuesday, February 11, 2025; and that any reply by the States be filed by 5 p.m. on Thursday, February 13, 2025; and further
ORDERS that personal service of a copy of this order and the States’ above-described affidavit, memorandum of law, and Complaint, be filed upon the defendants or their counsel on or before February 8, 2025, by 12 noon; and that the States forthwith serve these materials by email on Government counsel Bradley Humphreys and Jeffrey Oestericher, whom the Court understands have independently been emailed the States’ filings; and further
ORDERS that plaintiffs post security in the amount of $10,000 prior to Friday, February 14, 2025, at 2 p.m.
SO ORDERED.
PAUL A. ENGELMAYER United States District Judge, sitting in Part I Dated: February 8, 2025 New York, New York
*****************************
NY AG delivers MASSIVE BLOW to Trump in LATE NIGHT ORDER by Michael Popok MeidasTouch Feb 8, 2025
Michael Popok reports on a win by NY AG Letitia James after a federal judge in Manhattan temporarily blocked Trump and Elon Musk’s associates from accessing the U.S. Treasury Department’s payment system as a result of a multi-state legal challenge she led.
Transcript
got breaking news a New York federal judge on an emergency basis has blocked by issuing a temporary restraining order Elon Musk and others from rumaging around the treasury Department servers looking for our medical information our most Private Financial information in fact the judge has ordered that anyone including Elon Musk the quote world's richest man anyone who's already obtained such information over the last week or two has to destroy it until there's a subsequent hearing this was led by Leticia James the New York attorney general who already took down Donald Trump once for over $450 million in a civil fraud case she's back and she's joined with 18 other Attorneys General to bring Justice and to stop Donald Trump and Elon Musk dead in their tracks I'm Michael popok you're on the mest touch Network in legal AF let's dive into the New Order on an emergency basis by judge Paul Meer of the southern district of New York which means Manhattan on an emergency application filed by 19 different states led by Attorneys General uh attorney general Leticia James they argued that all of the access given to Elon Musk as special governmental employees by the treasury Department and Trump violated the violate the administrative procedures act and violate the take care Clause of the United States Constitution and they're seeking temporary relief because of how fast these things have already been moving the judge was concerned that before they could even have a full-blown hearing on the temporary restraining order which he has assigned already to judge Janette Vargas um on to take place on the 14th of February on Friday he needed to put an administrative temporary restraining order in place now because of the nature of the uh harm that's being presented here and the likelihood of success on the merits so here is the actual order the court on this emergency application orders that the defendants show cause and the defendants here of course are the Donald Trump in His official capacity as the President of the United States Scott bassent uh for the treasury Department and the treasury Department so all of those defendants have to appear before judge Vargas on Friday to show cause why a preliminary injunction that's one step up from a temporary restraining order should not be issued so it's on they have the burden to show why it shouldn't be issued um during the pendency of this action concerning political appointees special government employees employees and any government employee detailed from an agency outside the treasury Department why they should not be stopped from accessing the treasury Department payment systems or any other data maintained by the treasury Department containing personal identifiable information the judge also ordered that there has been sufficient cause being shown that pending the the hearing of the state's application for a preliminary injunction on Friday that the defendants Trump musk bent are restrained from granting to any Treasury Department payment record they're restrained from granting access to any Treasury Department payment record payment system or any other Data Systems maintained by the treasury Department containing personally identifiable information and or confidential financial information of pay payes other than to civil servants with a need for access to perform their job within the Bureau of fiscal Services who have passed background checks and security clearances and taken all information security trading uh called for in federal statutes and Treasury Department regulations that means not you Elon Musk they are restrained from granting access to all political appointees special government employees and government employees detailed from an agency outside the treasury Department that's Doge that's musk um giving them access to any payment record payment system or any other data maintained by the treasury Department including personally identifiable information and confidential financial information of taxpayers and they are ordered to direct any person prohibited from above from having access to that information but who has already accessed that information records or systems since January 20th of 2025 to immediately destroy any and all copies of the material downloaded from the from the treasury Department's records and systems and then they got a then he said sets up a briefing schedule to get this whole thing set up in front of Judge Vargas for Friday and they'll have to post a bond U the states will post the bond for $10,000 to pay for some of this stuff so that's a um in a two cases now two uh injunctions that are now in place on the Doge access through the treasury Department of recordkeeping um I'm going to show you now a clip from attorney general uh Laticia James so you know how serious this all is is and here here's her post now
[Leticia James]
In the past week Elon Musk and his so-called Department of government efficiency have accessed the personal private information of tens of millions of Americans and sensitive data about public and private entities Social Security numbers addresses tax returns and more this unelected group led by the world's richest man is not authorized to have this information and they explicitly sought this unauthorized access to illegally blocked payments that millions of Americans rely on payments for Health Care Child Care and other essential programs today Democratic Attorneys General are taking action to keep Americans personal data secure to keep sensitive information about Americans private and to hold our constitution we have filed a lawsuit against the Trump Administration for giving unauthorized individuals access to these immensely sensitive records in violation of the law president Trump does not have the power to give our private information away to whomever he wants and he does not have the power to cut federal spending that Congress approved much less to do so by giving the richest man in the world the keys to all Americans most sensitive information as Democratic Attorneys General we are suing to stop this unprecedented and unauthorized attack and to protect your personal information as I've said before no one is above the law and I will not hesitate to uphold the rule of law and protect New Yorkers. Thank you.
[Michael Popok] welcome back so um she takes it one step further she said this morning we want a court order blocking Elon Musk the world's richest man from accessing America's private data musk and his doge employees must destroy all records they've obtained I've said it before I'll say it again no one is above the law now Leticia James that's the one that there's people on the Maga side who literally said out loud during the campaign that they wanted to put her quote fat ass in jail she's back as I've said there are 22 at least Attorneys General around the country who are Democrats who are going to be going after Donald Trump twice a day three times a day every day twice on Sunday until his administration is over and they have an over 80% winning percentage from the first Trump Administration and right now they are collectively in these suits they are 9 and0 almost 10 and0 in these cases that Donald Trump hasn't won one of these Federal hearings nine different injunctions two preliminary injunctions already issued on various things now there's two competing court cases about Doge access of these servers by the treasury Department you're in my personal classified information financial information healthc care information and the rest think about all the things you've had to submit in order to get your benefits from the uh from the government it's all there um there's a case in front of Judge Kolar Catelli who's in the district of Colombia Federal bench she's forced the Department of Justice and the government to enter into a consent temporary restraining order that covers uh many of the same issues here but this new temporary restraining order by judge Angel Meer is even broader it's even broader and they can exist parallel to each other there was with some overlap this is what happens when you file multiple cases and multiple courts you want to do that because in case you get a bad ruling at least you've got three or four different judges all looking at the same thing right now the Attorneys General the civil liberty groups the the naacp's and ACLU of the world they don't have to worry about conflicting decisions because they're just winning it's just winning they're not tired of winning but it's all they're doing is winning got 11 separate court appearances they're 11 and0 Donald Trump has a one one and the Trump Department of Justice is in shreds and terms of its credibility in front of these judges so so that's where we are right now in New York but this is a effectively a nationwide bang it stops the Trump Administration from doing this now Steve bassent the treasury secretary I saw his comments on uh on Bloomberg recently where he he just said no no no no there's there's no bad stuff going on here with me giving complete and total access to a stranger who doesn't have a national security clearance or hasn't been confirmed by the Senate to go rooting around in your most personal information no no no he's going to do things about efficiency he's going to make this work more efficient does anybody believe this does anybody believe Scott Scott bent sorry our treasury secretary about about what he thinks the um that Elon Musk is doing there rooting around in our most private information here's the quote from bassent that almost I almost like fell out of my chair when I read it um he said must Doge isn't altering treasury data he said it's an operational review it's not an ideological review he told Bloomberg television the ability to change the system sits over at the Federal Reserve we don't we don't even run the system he said he said these are highly trained professionals do the Doge musk people this is not some roving ban running around doing things this is methodical and it's going to yield big savings um so I mean not according to this judge it's not and you're not going to allow you're not allowed to do it right now especially if it violates the administrative procedures act because the treasury Department is changing the way that it it secures data without telling the American people that they've done that so that's inappropriate and it's a improper delegation and savings clause or takings Clause under the uh under the um uh take care Clause sorry under the US Constitution we'll get to the bottom of it but only in federal courts and right here on Midas Touch and on legal AF continue to follow all of these stories we got 33 34 lawsuits that are out there right this is they're already 0 and 11 at the Trump Administration they haven't lost they haven't won yet because they're on the wrong side of the law on the wrong side of history in each one of these cases Elon mus shut down and congratulations to uh New York attorney general Laticia James she's going to be out there leading the way among these 22 I mean you know they're all kind of you know their own Attorneys General but look for her over and over and over again beating the Trump Administration with both ends of the stick and I I'm here for it and I know you are here too so until my next reporting I'm Michael popuk in collaboration with the midest touch Network we just launched the legal AF YouTube channel help us build this pro-democracy channel where I'll be curating the top stories the intersection of Law and politics go to YouTube now and free subscribe @ legal AF MTN that's @ legal l a fmtn [Music]
BREAKING: Trump loses EMERGENCY CASE in "BLOCKBUSTER" ruling Brian Tyler Cohen Feb 9, 2025 Democracy Watch with Marc Elias Democracy Watch episode 257: Marc Elias discusses Trump losing an emergency case.
... ORDERS that, sufficient reason having been shown therefor, pending the hearing of the States’ application for a preliminary injunction, pursuant to Rule 65 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, the defendants are (i) restrained from granting access to any Treasury Department payment record, payment systems, or any other data systems maintained by the Treasury Department containing personally identifiable information and/or confidential financial information of payees, other than to civil servants with a need for access to perform their job duties within the Bureau of Fiscal Services who have passed all background checks and security clearances and taken all information security training called for in federal statutes and Treasury Department regulations; (ii) restrained from granting access to all political appointees, special government employees, and government employees detailed from an agency outside the Treasury Department, to any Treasury Department payment record, payment systems, or any other data systems maintained by the Treasury Department containing personally identifiable information and/or confidential financial information of payees; and (iii) ordered to direct any person prohibited above from having access to such information, records and systems but who has had access to such information, records, and systems since January 20, 2025, to immediately destroy any and all copies of material downloaded from the Treasury Department’s records and systems, if any; and further
ORDERS that any opposition submission by defendants be filed by 5 p.m. on Tuesday, February 11, 2025; and that any reply by the States be filed by 5 p.m. on Thursday, February 13, 2025; and further
ORDERS that personal service of a copy of this order and the States’ above-described affidavit, memorandum of law, and Complaint, be filed upon the defendants or their counsel on or before February 8, 2025, by 12 noon; and that the States forthwith serve these materials by email on Government counsel Bradley Humphreys and Jeffrey Oestericher, whom the Court understands have independently been emailed the States’ filings; and further
ORDERS that plaintiffs post security in the amount of $10,000 prior to Friday, February 14, 2025, at 2 p.m.
This is democracy watch. Marc, we have major news on pretty much the biggest story in the country right now which is this idea that Elon musk's Doge commission has access to all Americans sensitive data, including Social Security numbers. For example, a federal judge has finally stepped in. Can you explain what just happened?
[Marc Elias] This is a blockbuster ruling from a federal judge in New York City who was asked on an emergency basis to block DOGE's access to these very sensitive databases at the US Treasury Department, not just to block Elon Musk's access, right? In some of the earlier cases we've talked about there has been this kind of parsing about whether Doge could still be in the treasury Department, but it was read only, and they couldn't write, or whether only the special government employees could have access to the information but not others. What this judge did is said nobody from Doge can have access to these databases, only career civil servants within the treasury Department can have access to these databases, and that any materials, or printouts, or downloads of any information from these databases, have to be destroyed by anyone associated with those who may have them. So this judge has really, at this point, put a complete halt on the exfiltration of data, the infiltration with personnel, the embedding of personnel into these databases that have personally identified information like people's Social Security numbers. This is a big bold order from a very good experienced federal judge in New York City. It's only a temporary hold until the case can be ultimately heard on the merits and decided. That is true about all these cases we're hearing about. And no one should worry about that. That's how the system works, right? First there's an emergency order, and there's sort of a status quo put in place. And then the case is decided from there.
[Brian Tyler Cohen] Marc, this might be the cynic in me coming out, but who is to say that they're actually going to comply with this order?
[Marc Elias] You sound like the comments that we've gotten at democracy docket when democracy docket reported this. And you sound like my Blue Sky feed of people who say great Marc, but they're not going to comply. And I understand the skepticism, Brian, because Mr Big Balls, the one guy, and I don't remember. Is he the one that's has sort of a Nazi problem?
[Brian Tyler Cohen] When we can't remember which one is big balls, and which one is the guy who wants to normalize Indian hate, I think that's when there's a general culture problem. I think that's a larger problem here .
[Marc Elias] Right, and of course the vice president, with no other official duties to do, decided to weigh in in favor of rehiring the guy in favor of Indian hate.
[Brian Tyler Cohen] While he has to go home to his indian-american wife and his three indian-american kids. But I guess that's the cost of loyalty to Donald Trump.
[Marc Elias] Right. So look, I understand the skepticism that people have here, but what I can tell you is that this federal judge, by issuing this order as quickly as he did -- I mean, the state of New York and the other states that brought this lawsuit, brought it on Friday, and by early in the morning on Saturday, this order was already in place. And like I said, it is a very sweeping order. You know, anyone who is caught with those materials, or where there is evidence that they did not destroy them, will be subject to contempt of court, which can be quite serious and the lawyers associated with it, they face problems if they don't make sure that their clients and the executive branch knows this. Other employees in the Department of Justice, or in the treasury Department, could face problems. But you know, this is in some sense the most sweeping action we have seen any judge take in any of the cases against Donald Trump and the whole dismantling of government since he became president.
[Brian Tyler Cohen] so this was with regard to treasury we have seen Doge um gain access into the Department of Labor Doge gain access into a a variety of other organizations so is a ruling like this going to apply to other agencies or do we just have to wait for those agencies to be harmed so that they have standing to go in and do the same thing but really by then we're just we're just kind of chasing after Doge as opposed to take any taking any um proactive action against something that we all know that they're going to do anyway so could this could this apply to other agencies even before Doge goes in or do we have to wait for Doge to kind of wreak havoc before we can do something about it look I I think you've hit the nail on the head so you know this order only applies to treasury but it speaks to a larger sort of norms and culture uh and expectations problem that we have which it it is good to see the judges are coming around on like so to be clear this is this is a big this this is a big deal this case in that Journey but let me explain it to you so normally when a federal judge is has a lawsuit against the United States against the president of the United States against you know cabinet officials you can understand why they are typically skeptical of private litigant coming in and saying we would like you to shut down the way in which the executive branch is operating in some key faction and when the Department of Justice lawyers show up in their courtrooms and say look your honor we're operating according to what the president wants and what the Secretary of Treasury wants and like this is all about board courts are normally predisposed to be like okay I've got the Department of Justice they speak on behalf of the you know the federal government I've got cabinet officials you know like in the normal course they are not inclined to think the worst of what is going on they they assume that all things being equal it is probably the private litigant who is on the wrong side not the government who's on the wrong side so what we have seen though over the course of just the last seven days is a real attitude shift right the first lawsuits that were filed the courts were entering orders that you and I talked about that were being easily evaded you know they were they it was like a game of cat and mouse they would issue an order and then the government would say oh well we only assumed it applied to these people and not those people and then we started to see the courts issue broader orders you know we saw that order from a judge in Washington DC about the OM memo who said look I don't care if it's an OM memo I don't care if it's a tweet from a press secretary like it's it applies my order prohibits you from defunding these grants in any fashion that was the first time we saw a federal judge really like the aha moment went on that deference to the federal government is not going to work here right you need to do these broader orders here we saw the judge do it off the back and said I'm going to apply this basically this order to everyone other than career civil servants if you are not a career civil servant if you are part of Doge you know hands off and you got to destroy it now I understand this is we are still on the journey that you are laying out you're you're like when can this just be prophylactic to the federal entire federal government we're not there would it surprise me if we start to get there next week no it would because I think these federal judges are getting tired about two things number one they are annoyed undoubtedly that they keep being told that there that there is an emergency that they have to rule on immediately judges have schedules like everybody else they don't like having to set everything aside and they definitely don't like having to set everything aside when it turns out that the government is consistently on the wrong side right which is that the government keeps losing these emergency hearings so what's happening is the judges are getting in their heads like I don't understand this other judge told them to cut it out and they're still doing it and now it's interfering my docket and so as this starts to snowball I think you're going to start to get judges more and more annoyed with these and start to issue broader orders the second part though Brian and this is what we have to be on the lookout for are we starting to see cracks in the lawyers in the Department of Justice or in these agencies you know I took note that in one of the hearings uh late last week it was actually a very senior supervisor who argued the case now that is highly unusual you don't usually have senior lawyers in a Department of Justice in a supervisory role having to show up in court and I'm starting to wonder not that it's a good thing if you start to see resignations not that it's a good thing if you start to see the good people you know uh uh uh leaving but I'm starting to see the early signs of the willingness of some government lawyers to fight these absurdly illegal fights I'm starting to see that crack and so I think a combination of those two things may come to a boiling point in the next you know in the next five days next seven days and I think you and I will then be doing an episode to talk about where we go from there because that would be Uncharted Territory well Mark isn't it true that for some of these lawyers who don't want to put their own jobs on the line I mean they they can be predisposed to uh to sanctions or even losing their law license if they're going to go in because they've been you know thrown to the Wolves by the Trump Administration who frankly could care l if if some disposable um lawyer loses his law license because there's going to be a line of other lawyers who are willing to take their place but aren't aren't some of these folks I guess deferring more to the longevity of their own career than than looking to do something illegal for Trump I think that some of them are doing that some of them are looking out for the longevity of their career I think some of them are also just dispirited by it you know I mean you know you could you could be a doj lawyer for five years and argue cases regularly and never lose you know let's be honest like the doj usually wins their cases because like I said I think their success rate is something like 98 or 99% and in fact we we we've spoken at length about the fact that if anything the doj is too timid to take on to take an aggressive posture on some of these cases because they are so predisposed to only taking cases that they're guaranteed to win and so when you have you know Donald Trump engaging in in the January 6 stuff or in the classified document case it takes so long because the natural predisposition is not to say yeah let's just let's just you know go for it even though it's it's it's not a home run no that's exactly right and I think that that you know a lot of the criticisms we had about mer Garland and and as you say in the January 6 prosecutions also in the voting Arena you know the place that I litigate most uh they were too timid uh for precisely the reasons you say but I think that that so part of it is I think these lawyers looking out for the longevity of their career but part of it is also they are just shell shocked at the prospect of continuously going to court and being scolded I mean you know these these lawyers are having a rough go of it in front of these these these these judges because the positions they are advocating I mean you know in a different case uh that you know involved usaid you know you had you had a trump appointed judge write an opinion that is like you know there's a difference between putting someone on leave in Bethesda Maryland than putting them on leave in Syria I mean that doesn't sound like a big deal maybe to your audience but that's a really biting and sharp retort for a career uh doj lawyer or any doj lawyer to hear from a federal judge no less one appointed uh by the by the by by Donald Trump uh so you know I I I just I think we may get to the point where where we get to an inflection point where the courts become very very irritated much more aggressive in the scope of their orders and the Department of Justice lawyers become just look themselves in the mirror and like what am I doing and and finally let's finish off with this I I'm cautiously feeling heartened about the prospect of the Court actually doing what what you for so long have said it would do which is to to serve as an effective Bull workk against the worst excesses of the Trump Administration does it look like in fact the court is able to stand up and and do what for example republicans in Congress won't do which is to to assert its Authority retain its autonomy and and and uphold the law so the answer is yes with an as okay so you and I have talked about this a lot and I've said you know the trial courts in this country the federal district courts in this country are are as good as they have been in a very long time Joe Biden appointed a lot of Judges some of the Trump judges as we've seen are not amused by these Antics um even a Ronald Reagan appointee in Washington state as you recall was you know uh sort of read the riot act to doj over Birthright citizenship right then you get to the courts of appeals right which we really haven't heard from yet we haven't yet heard the DC circuit or the second circuit or the first circuit or the fifth circuit or any of those we haven't heard them weigh in yet right that'll be the next thing and I and I kind of think they'll hold I think that you know when you look at where these cases have been filed they've been filed in Washington DC the DC circuit's pretty reasonable the ones in Massachusetts go to the first circuit that's a fairly um uh Progressive circuit the second circuit New York more mixed but but also very a very smart circuit um so I kind of think things will hold there but then the big wild card is what does the Supreme Court do at that point yeah you know and they have kind of three choices Brian one is they just say you know what not it like you know what we don't have to hear these cases the lower courts are flooded with them the lower courts are sorting them out they we don't we the Supreme Court don't at least not on an emergency basis have to get involved you know maybe we'll hear a case for next term you know in 20126 but we don't need to do anything now right it's already February our term ends in June we're just going to let be that's option one option two is they actually want to show solidarity with the lower courts and they actually just sarily affirm these Lower Court decisions I I I'm not you know I didn't fall off a turnup truck that is that is that is not the most likely outcome the third is that they that a conservative majority of the Supreme Court decides they want to dive in that would be as that would be such a terrible thing not just subsid on the law but also for the Court's credibility you know for the Chief Justice keeps talking about you know there are no Democratic judges and Republican judges or justices and you know their ethics are perfect and all of that there this is working itself through the lower courts just fine the Supreme Court doesn't need to be in a hurry to jump into these cases and that would be my advice to them if they were ever ask my advice which they're not um but that is of course going to be the first test and that will probably come in one of the birthright citizenship cases just because those are a little bit further ahead but you know my advice to Chief Jud is Rob Bert just tell his colleagues no one no one needs to hear quickly from the US Supreme Court in any of these cases well I know that you have been covering this relentlessly democracy docket is where I get all of my news in terms of what happens in the courts and these Court decisions these Monumental Court decisions being handed down so highly recommend for anybody watching not just to hear about this stuff as soon as it breaks but also to support Mark and his team which is um what we should be doing right now please make sure to sign up for democracy doet I'll put the link right here on the screen and also in the post description of this video I'm Brian teller Cohen I'm Mark Elias this is democracy watch.
Musk calls to impeach judge whose order blocks DOGE from Treasury systems access by Lora Kolodny @in/lorakolodny/ CNBC Published Sun, Feb 9 20253:42 PM EST
Key Points
• Elon Musk lashed out at a federal judge over an order that temporarily restricts the billionaire and his DOGE team from accessing U.S. Department of Treasury payment systems and data. • AGs from 19 states sued President Donald Trump, saying he violated constitutional law by giving Musk nearly unfettered access to the Treasury Department. • Musk has repeatedly accused judges of corruption and called to have them impeached after rulings or orders that didn’t go his way.
Elon Musk has called to impeach a federal judge in New York, Paul Engelmayer, over an order that temporarily restricts the tech centi-billionaire and his DOGE team from accessing U.S. Department of Treasury payment systems and sensitive data.
Over the weekend an outraged Musk posted on X, the social network he owns, calling Engelmayer, “A corrupt judge protecting corruption,” adding, “he needs to be impeached NOW!” He also posted an explanation on X of what he wants to do with the Treasury Department.
Musk and his special government employees, who are part of his DOGE initiative, are tasked by President Donald Trump with finding ways to slash the federal budget, massively reduce the federal workforce, and eliminate as many federal regulations and agencies as possible.
Thus far, Musk’s DOGE team has mostly targeted agencies that use a tiny portion of the overall federal budget, including the foreign humanitarian assistance agency, USAID. DOGE specifically “sought access to the U.S. Department of Treasury payment system to stop money from flowing to the U.S. Agency for International Development,” the Associated Press previously reported.
Engelmayer, a U.S. District Judge appointed by former President Barack Obama, issued an order temporarily blocking DOGE from accessing those systems on Saturday in response to a complaint brought by 19 states’ attorneys general against President Trump, the Treasury and its newly appointed Secretary Scott Bessent.
Musk subsequently posted on X, “This ruling is absolutely insane! How on Earth are we supposed to stop fraud and waste of taxpayer money without looking at how money is spent? That’s literally impossible! Something super shady is going to protect scammers.”
In response to Musk’s remarks, New Jersey Attorney General Matthew Platkin, who is among the plaintiffs in the case, told CNBC via e-mail, “What’s shady is a tech billionaire breaking the law to try to steal millions of Americans’ sensitive data.”
The attorneys general from 19 states argued in their complaint that President Trump failed to “faithfully execute the laws enacted by Congress,” in giving Musk and his team unparalleled access to the treasury’s computer systems and taxpayers’ sensitive data stored or processed in them.
After the order was issued, Musk shared a post from a follower on X who suggested DOGE should defy the court’s order.
On Sunday, Vice President JD Vance, who is a Yale-educated attorney, posted on X that in his view, “If a judge tried to tell a general how to conduct a military operation, that would be illegal. If a judge tried to command the attorney general in how to use her discretion as a prosecutor, that’s also illegal. Judges aren’t allowed to control the executive’s legitimate power.”
New Jersey Attorney General Platkin said, via an e-mailed statement, “We absolutely expect the defendants to comply with the order, which the court issued in light of the egregiously illegal actions at issue and the enormous risk they pose to cybersecurity and privacy. Our nation is built on the rule of law, and we intend to pursue it to the maximum extent to protect our residents.”
According to legal scholars, the judiciary historically has been able to restrain the executive branch from violating the Constitution and other laws.
Joyce White Vance, a law professor at the University of Alabama School of Law and legal analyst for NBC News, wrote in an e-mail on Sunday: “The Constitution and our rule of law tradition are set up so that the courts have jurisdiction to consider the scope of power possessed by the executive branch (the president), when his actions are challenged. That’s why we are seeing groups of state AGs go to court to challenge whether Trump has legal authority to take steps like canceling birthright citizenship, suspending Congressionally authorized spending, and sending DOGE out to federal agencies.”
She noted that “centuries of precedent establish the role of the courts in checking overreach by the executive branch,” including cases like Youngstown Sheet & Tubing Company v. Sawyer, where the U.S. Supreme Court refused to let President Harry S. Truman take over U.S. steel mills during the Korean War.
Marin K. Levy, professor of law at Duke Law School, told CNBC via e-mail on Sunday: “The State Attorneys General and the judge in this case were all acting well within their authority. What we saw here was the judicial system working as it is supposed to.”
She also emphasized what the court decided yesterday was not a final ruling on the merits of the case. Rather, the court has granted a request for emergency relief (also known as TRO, or temporary restraining order) by the attorneys general. The professor explained, “This is done in cases in which there is concern that irreparable harm will occur before a court can even decide the merits of the case. And now another judge will decide the merits.”
Musk has repeatedly accused judges of corruption, illegal or suspicious conduct after he was displeased with their orders or opinions.
For example, he lashed out at Chancellor Kathaleen McCormick in the Delaware court of Chancery, after she found Musk’s 2018 Tesla CEO compensation package, worth tens of billions, had been granted illegally and must be rescinded.
He also repeatedly lashed out at the head of Brazil’s Supreme Court, Justice Alexandre de Moraes, as the country pushed X (formerly Twitter) to comply with its social media regulations. After months of legal battles there, and posts denigrating de Moraes on X, Musk acquiesced to the court’s demands, paid fines and complied with Brazilian laws.
The case impacting Musk’s access to treasury data and computer systems is State of New York, et al v. Donald Trump, et al in the Southern District of New York (Case 1:25-cv-01144-JAV). Read the judge’s order here.
King, Intel Colleagues Sound Alarm About “DOGE” Risk to National Security and American Privacy in Letter to White House: Senators call for answers to 22 questions, saying “the executive branch cannot operate without regard to rules, regulations, or Congressional oversight” by king.senate.gov/newsroom February 05, 2025 https://www.king.senate.gov/newsroom/pr ... hite-house
WASHINGTON, D.C. –U.S. Senator Angus King (I-ME), a member of the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence (SSCI), joined his committee colleagues to sound the alarm on the new national security risks that present themselves with the current operations of the Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE). In a letter to White House Chief of Staff Susie Wiles, the Senators write about the risks to national security by allowing unvetted DOGE staff and representatives to access classified and sensitive government materials.
The Committee members demanded that the administration provide details to Congress about how DOGE staff and representatives are being vetted, which systems, records and information are being shared, and what steps the administration is taking to safeguard them from misuse or disclosure.
“According to press reports, DOGE inspectors already have gained access to classified materials, including intelligence reports, at the United States Agency for International Development (USAID), sensitive government payment systems, including for Social Security and Medicare, at the Treasury Department, and federal personnel data from the Office of Personnel Management. Further, as of today the scope of DOGE’s access only seems to be expanding, as reports indicate DOGE has now entered the Department of Labor and other agencies,” the Senators wrote. “No information has been provided to Congress or the public as to who has been formally hired under DOGE, under what authority or regulations DOGE is operating, or how DOGE is vetting and monitoring its staff and representatives before providing them seemingly unfettered access to classified materials and Americans’ personal information.”
The Senators added, “As you know, information is classified to protect the national security interests of the United States. Government employees and contractors only receive access to such information after they have undergone a rigorous background investigation and demonstrated a ‘need to know.’ Circumventing these requirements creates enormous counterintelligence and security risks. For example, improper access to facilities and systems containing security clearance files of Intelligence Community personnel puts at risk the safety of the men and women who serve this country. In addition, unauthorized access to classified information risks exposure of our operations and potentially compromises not only our own sources and methods, but also those of our allies and partners. If our sources, allies, and partners stop sharing intelligence because they cannot trust us to protect it, we will all be less safe.”
“Unclassified government systems also contain sensitive data, the unintended disclosure of which could result in significant harm to individuals or organizations, including financial loss, identity theft, and exposure of medical and other private personal information. The U.S. Treasury payment systems, in particular, are used to disburse trillions of dollars each year, and contain everyday Americans’ personal information, such as Social Security numbers, home addresses, and bank accounts. Allowing DOGE access to this information raises unprecedented risks to Americans’ private personal and financial information,” the Senators continued.
They concluded, “Such unregulated practices with our government’s most sensitive networks render Americans’ personal and financial information, and our classified national secrets, vulnerable to ransomware and cyber-attacks by criminals and foreign adversaries. The recent unprecedented Salt Typhoon and Change Healthcare attacks that affected tens of millions of Americans further underscore the importance of rigorously fortifying our government systems.”
Joining King on the letter are Senators Mark Warner (D-VA), Ron Wyden (D-OR), Martin Heinrich (D-NM), Michael Bennet (D-CO), Kirsten Gillibrand (D-NY), Jon Ossoff (D-GA), and Mark Kelly (D-AZ).
The full text of the letter is available here and below.
+++
Dear Ms. Wiles,
We write to express our grave concern with the illegal actions currently being undertaken by the Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE), which risk exposure of classified and other sensitive information that jeopardizes national security and violates Americans’ privacy. The January 20 Executive Order establishes DOGE under the Executive Office of the President with DOGE Teams established by Agency Heads within their respective agencies, and requires the Administrator of DOGE to report to the White House Chief of Staff. According to press reports, DOGE inspectors already have gained access to classified materials, including intelligence reports, at the United States Agency for International Development (USAID), sensitive government payment systems, including for Social Security and Medicare, at the Treasury Department, and federal personnel data from the Office of Personnel Management. Further, as of today the scope of DOGE’s access only seems to be expanding, as reports indicate DOGE has now entered the Department of Labor and other agencies.
No information has been provided to Congress or the public as to who has been formally hired under DOGE, under what authority or regulations DOGE is operating, or how DOGE is vetting and monitoring its staff and representatives before providing them seemingly unfettered access to classified materials and Americans’ personal information.
As you know, information is classified to protect the national security interests of the United States. Government employees and contractors only receive access to such information after they have undergone a rigorous background investigation and demonstrated a “need to know.” Circumventing these requirements creates enormous counterintelligence and security risks. For example, improper access to facilities and systems containing security clearance files of Intelligence Community personnel puts at risk the safety of the men and women who serve this country. In addition, unauthorized access to classified information risks exposure of our operations and potentially compromises not only our own sources and methods, but also those of our allies and partners. If our sources, allies, and partners stop sharing intelligence because they cannot trust us to protect it, we will all be less safe.
Unclassified government systems also contain sensitive data, the unintended disclosure of which could result in significant harm to individuals or organizations, including financial loss, identity theft, and exposure of medical and other private personal information. The U.S. Treasury payment systems, in particular, are used to disburse trillions of dollars each year, and contain everyday Americans’ personal information, such as Social Security numbers, home addresses, and bank accounts. Allowing DOGE access to this information raises unprecedented risks to Americans’ private personal and financial information.
Moreover, there are strict cybersecurity controls for accessing federal networks, which DOGE does not seem to be following, including by reportedly connecting personal devices to sensitive government systems. Such unregulated practices with our government’s most sensitive networks render Americans’ personal and financial information, and our classified national secrets, vulnerable to ransomware and cyber-attacks by criminals and foreign adversaries. The recent unprecedented Salt Typhoon and Change Healthcare attacks that affected tens of millions of Americans further underscore the importance of rigorously fortifying our government systems.
The Executive Branch cannot operate without regard to rules, regulations, or Congressional oversight. The American people, and our intelligence officials, deserve to know that their information is being appropriately safeguarded. We therefore respectfully request written responses to the following questions by February 14, 2025:
1. Provide a list of personnel operating under DOGE, their position or role, and their duties. 2. Pursuant to the Executive Order, DOGE teams are to be established by Agency Heads within their respective agencies. Provide a list of each agency that has established a DOGE team, and the agency personnel overseeing such team. 3. Under what authorities is DOGE conducting its operations? 4. Who is overseeing DOGE’s operations? 5. Provide a list of each agency DOGE has requested information from. 6. Provide a list of all unclassified systems, records, or other information DOGE has requested and/or gained access to. 7. Provide a list of all classified systems, records, or other information DOGE has requested and/or gained access to. 8. Do DOGE staff or representatives have access to any Intelligence Community systems, networks, or other information? If so, please specify the extent of such access. 9. Under what authority is DOGE requesting and/or gaining access to classified information? 10. What security clearances have been provided to DOGE staff or representatives, and who has authorized such clearances? 11. What processes have been followed prior to granting security clearances to DOGE staff or representatives? 12. What vetting for potential conflicts of interest has been conducted prior to granting clearances or access to government systems, records, or other information to DOGE staff or representatives? 13. Provide a list of each DOGE staff or representative who has requested and/or gained access to classified information, what clearance each such individual holds, and who authorized each security clearance. 14. Who is supervising and/or monitoring DOGE employee access to classified information? 15. What processes have been followed prior to granting DOGE staff or representatives access to sensitive government systems and networks, and who has authorized such access? 16. Who is supervising and/or monitoring DOGE employee access to sensitive government systems and networks? 17. Has DOGE briefed you, the White House Chief of Staff, on the counterintelligence and other risks of DOGE staff or representatives accessing classified and other sensitive information? If so, please specify the date of the briefing and those in attendance. 18. Has DOGE briefed you, the White House Chief of Staff, on the counterintelligence and other risks of DOGE staff or representatives accessing government networks and systems? If so, please specify the date of the briefing and those in attendance. 19. Has the Office of the Director of National Intelligence and/or the Central Intelligence Agency been briefed on the counterintelligence and other risks of DOGE staff or representatives accessing Treasury’s payment systems? If so, please specify the date of the briefing and those in attendance. 20. Has the Office of the Director of National Intelligence and/or the Central Intelligence Agency been briefed on the counterintelligence and other risks of DOGE staff or representatives accessing USAID’s classified and other sensitive information, including security clearance files? If so, please specify the date of the briefing and those in attendance. 21. What actions if any has the Office of the Director of National Intelligence and/or the Central Intelligence Agency taken to ensure DOGE employee access does not create counterintelligence risks? 22. What actions if any has the Office of the Director of National Intelligence and/or the Central Intelligence Agency taken to ensure DOGE employee access does not compromise classified or other sensitive intelligence and/or personal information of intelligence community officials?
To underscore, DOGE seems to have unimpeded access to some of our nation’s most sensitive information, including classified materials and the private personal and financial information of everyday Americans. In light of such unprecedented risks to our national and economic security, we expect your immediate attention and prompt response.
A US Treasury Threat Intelligence Analysis Designates DOGE Staff as ‘Insider Threat’: An internal email reviewed by WIRED calls DOGE staff’s access to federal payments systems “the single greatest insider threat risk the Bureau of the Fiscal Service has ever faced.” by Vittoria Elliott & Leah Feiger Wired Feb 7, 2025 2:47 PM https://www.wired.com/story/treasury-bf ... er-threat/
NOTICE: THIS WORK MAY BE PROTECTED BY COPYRIGHT
YOU ARE REQUIRED TO READ THE COPYRIGHT NOTICE AT THIS LINK BEFORE YOU READ THE FOLLOWING WORK, THAT IS AVAILABLE SOLELY FOR PRIVATE STUDY, SCHOLARSHIP OR RESEARCH PURSUANT TO 17 U.S.C. SECTION 107 AND 108. IN THE EVENT THAT THE LIBRARY DETERMINES THAT UNLAWFUL COPYING OF THIS WORK HAS OCCURRED, THE LIBRARY HAS THE RIGHT TO BLOCK THE I.P. ADDRESS AT WHICH THE UNLAWFUL COPYING APPEARED TO HAVE OCCURRED. THANK YOU FOR RESPECTING THE RIGHTS OF COPYRIGHT OWNERS.
Members of Elon Musk’s Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE) team have had access to the US Treasury Department’s payment systems for over a week [since Jan. 20]. On Thursday, the threat intelligence team at one of the department's agencies recommended that DOGE members be monitored as an “insider threat.”
Sources say members of the Bureau of the Fiscal Service’s IT division and others received an email detailing these concerns.
“There is ongoing litigation, congressional legislation, and widespread protests relating to DOGE’s access to Treasury and the Bureau of the Fiscal Service,” reads a section of the email titled “Recommendations,” reviewed by WIRED. “If DOGE members have any access to payment systems, we recommend suspending that access immediately and conducting a comprehensive review of all actions they may have taken on these systems.”
Although Treasury and White House officials have repeatedly denied it, WIRED has reported that DOGE technologists had the ability to not only read the code of sensitive payment systems but also rewrite it. Marko Elez, one of a number of young men identified by WIRED who have little to no government experience but are associated with DOGE, was granted read and write privileges on two of the most sensitive systems in the US government: the Payment Automation Manager and Secure Payment System at the BFS, an agency that according to Treasury records paid out $5.45 trillion in fiscal year 2024.
“There is reporting at other federal agencies indicating that DOGE members have performed unauthorized changes and locked civil servants out of the sensitive systems they gained access to,” the “Recommendations” portion of the email continues. “We further recommend that DOGE members be placed under insider threat monitoring and alerting after their access to payment systems is revoked. Continued access to any payment systems by DOGE members, even ‘read only,’ likely poses the single greatest insider threat risk the Bureau of the Fiscal Service has ever faced.”
The recommendations were part of a weekly report sent out by the BFS threat intelligence team to hundreds of staffers. “Insider threat risks are something [the threat intelligence team] usually covers,” a source told WIRED. “But they have never identified something inside the bureau as an insider threat risk that I know of.”
The Treasury Department and the White House did not immediately respond to a request for comment.
The email also details this week’s Treasury lawsuit, which resulted in a federal judge granting an order on February 6 to temporarily restrict DOGE staffers from accessing and altering payment system information.
In a section of the email titled “Analyst Notes,” the email delves into the fallout from the suit.
“A court order formalizing an agreement reportedly restricting DOGE’s access to Treasury was issued, but specifically provides ‘read only’ exemptions for Marko Elez (DOGE member at Fiscal Service and Treasury) and Thomas (aka Tom) Krause (DOGE member at Treasury),” it states. “This access still poses an unprecedented insider threat risk.”
Elez previously worked for SpaceX, Musk’s space company, and X, Musk’s social media company. Elez resigned Thursday after The Wall Street Journal inquired with the White House about his connections to “a deleted social-media account that advocated for racism and eugenics.” Elez did not immediately respond to a request for comment.
In a letter to Treasury secretary Scott Bessent on February 7, Senator Ron Wyden of Oregon said that “Treasury’s refusal to provide straight answers about DOGE’s actions, as well as its refusal to provide a briefing requested by several Senate committees only heightens my suspicions” and requested that Bessent provide the logs of Elez and any other DOGE-affiliated personnel regarding their access to the Treasury’s systems.
Vittoria Elliott is a reporter for WIRED, covering platforms and power. She was previously a reporter at Rest of World, where she covered disinformation and labor in markets outside the US and Western Europe. She has worked with The New Humanitarian, Al Jazeera, and ProPublica. She is a graduate of Columbia Journalism School and, before transitioning to journalism, worked with startups in Kenya and India.
Leah Feiger is WIRED's senior politics editor. She is the former managing editor of VICE News.
As Elon Musk Warns of Persecution of White People, Trump Says He Will Block Aid to South Africa: In recent days, Musk and Trump have discussed halting aid to the country. The president said “certain classes” [White Guys] are being treated “VERY BADLY.” by Noah Lanard Mother Jones February 4, 2025 https://www.motherjones.com/politics/20 ... twitter-x/
NOTICE: THIS WORK MAY BE PROTECTED BY COPYRIGHT
YOU ARE REQUIRED TO READ THE COPYRIGHT NOTICE AT THIS LINK BEFORE YOU READ THE FOLLOWING WORK, THAT IS AVAILABLE SOLELY FOR PRIVATE STUDY, SCHOLARSHIP OR RESEARCH PURSUANT TO 17 U.S.C. SECTION 107 AND 108. IN THE EVENT THAT THE LIBRARY DETERMINES THAT UNLAWFUL COPYING OF THIS WORK HAS OCCURRED, THE LIBRARY HAS THE RIGHT TO BLOCK THE I.P. ADDRESS AT WHICH THE UNLAWFUL COPYING APPEARED TO HAVE OCCURRED. THANK YOU FOR RESPECTING THE RIGHTS OF COPYRIGHT OWNERS.
On Sunday, President Donald Trump posted on Truth Social that the United States would cut aid to South Africa because the country is “confiscating land, and treating certain classes of people [White Guys] VERY BADLY” and committing a “massive Human Rights VIOLATION.” The South African-born Elon Musk responded with his own posts endorsing Trump’s claims.
Trump and Musk did not need to say who was allegedly taking whose land. Their far-right followers, who have fixated on the prospect of “white genocide” in South Africa for years, knew the two billionaires were invoking the specter of a race war in which Black citizens “steal” the land of their compatriots. The people who seem most excited by Trump and Musk’s recent defense of South African white people appear to be far-right X users known for posting about race, IQ, and the JQ, an anti-semitic abbreviation for the “Jewish Question.”
When asked to clarify by the press later on Sunday, Trump claimed much the same and said South Africa was “doing things that are perhaps far worse.” He repeated that aid would be on hold until a vague investigation was finished.
Musk has kept at it as well by writing “Yes” in response to a post on X that stated: “White South Africans are being persecuted for their race in their home country. Also White South Africans are one of the few population groups that are fiscally positive when immigrating to Europe. We should allow more immigration of White South Africans.” (The Danish man Musk was responding to at 3:36 a.m. is a transparently racist poster who has written that “Non-Western immigration to Northern European countries is morally indefensible.”)
South African President Cyril Ramaphosa did recently sign a controversial law that expands the state’s ability to expropriate land—in some cases without providing compensation. But the law, which was signed by a democratically elected government and is motivated by a desire to address severe injustices imposed on Black people by past regimes, is not what Trump and Musk are making it out to be.
President Ramaphosa wrote on social media that the law is not “a confiscation instrument, but a constitutionally mandated legal process that ensures public access to land in an equitable and just manner as guided by the constitution.”
The Democratic Alliance, a more centrist and white-led party in South Africa, has opposed the law and has argued it needs to be amended. Nevertheless, the party strongly objected to Trump’s recent move and said in a statement released on Monday that “it is not true that the Act allows land to be seized by the state arbitrarily.” It added that funding cuts could have devastating consequences for vulnerable South Africans, explaining that the country is slated to receive $439 million this year for HIV/AIDs treatment and support. “It would be a tragedy if this funding were terminated because of a misunderstanding of the facts,” the party stressed.
More broadly, land reform is a response to the staggering inequity that still plagues South Africa. As of 2018, nearly two-thirds of Black South Africans lived in poverty, compared to just one percent of white South Africans. And as the New York Times has reported:
In 1913, the colonial government passed a law confining Black South Africans to just 7 percent of the country’s territory, essentially dispossessing many Black people from their land. Although the Black population would make slight gains in land ownership in subsequent decades, that uneven distribution remained largely in place.
Since the end of apartheid in 1994, the government has made efforts to redistribute some land to Black people. But white South Africans, who comprise about 7 percent of the population, continue to dominate land ownership. White-owned farms occupy about half of South Africa’s surface area.
Trump’s claims about the law are also at odds with experts who represent major business interests in South Africa. In response to an interview request, Wandile Sihlobo, the Chief Economist of the Agricultural Business Chamber of South Africa, directed me to an article he recently wrote about why there was no need to panic about the law. Fasken, a major international law firm, has taken a similar perspective. South African lawyers at the firm concluded that, while they have some reservations about sections of the law, it is generally “doubtful if the Expropriation Act will generally affect private property rights as envisaged” in the country’s constitution. Even the leader of AfriForum, a far-right group that largely advocates on behalf of white Afrikaners and vehemently opposes the Expropriation Act, has expressed concern with Trump’s decision to target South Africa so broadly.
This is not the first time that Musk or Trump have weighed in on the side of right-wing white people in South Africa. In 2018, Trump tweeted that he had ordered then Secretary of State Mike Pompeo to “closely study the South Africa land and farm seizures and expropriations and the large scale killing of farmers.” (Tucker Carlson had recently aired a segment that made those claims.) In 2023, Musk wrote on X that “They are openly pushing for genocide of white people in South Africa.”
Musk’s comments would likely have made his late maternal grandfather, Joshua Haldeman, proud. Jill Lepore wrote in 2023 about Haldeman in The New Yorker:
Haldeman was born in Minnesota in 1902 but grew up mostly in Saskatchewan, Canada. A daredevil aviator and sometime cowboy, he also trained and worked as a chiropractor. In the nineteen-thirties, he joined the quasi-fascistic Technocracy movement, whose proponents believed that scientists and engineers, rather than the people, should rule. He became a leader of the movement in Canada, and, when it was briefly outlawed, he was jailed, after which he became the national chairman of what was then a notoriously antisemitic party called Social Credit. In the nineteen-forties, he ran for office under its banner, and lost. In 1950, two years after South Africa instituted apartheid, he moved his family to Pretoria, where he became an impassioned defender of the regime.
Musk’s father, who the billionaire is estranged from, has been more blunt about his former in-laws. “They were very fanatical in favor of apartheid,” he once said. “They used to support Hitler and all that sort of stuff.”
Seven decades after they moved to South Africa, their grandson, the richest man in the world, is defending white people in his homeland as he pursues a version of anti-democratic (and perhaps more than quasi-fascistic) rule by engineer in the United States with his Department of Government Efficiency. The results are predictably bleak.
Trump dealt HUMILIATION in court as judge issues major rebuke by Brian Tyler Cohen and Marc Elias Democracy Watch with Marc Elias Feb 10, 2025 Democracy Watch episode 258: Marc Elias discusses Trump suffering a major rollback from judge.
Transcript
[Brian Tyler Cohen] This is democracy watch. Marc, Donald Trump just got some bad news from a federal judge. As you know, he moved to fire thousands of usaid employees. That effort didn't work especially well in court. Can you explain what just happened?
[Marc Elias] Yeah, this is breaking news. And this is really, really important, because we have seen Donald Trump Target usaid, we have seen Marco Rubio, who by the way used to say he was a big fan of usaid, he turned out to go along with this, and we saw Elon Musk most importantly perhaps target usaid. And the net effect of this was to try to put on administrative leave 2700 employees of usaid overseas, and 500 of them were put on administrative leave before this lawsuit was filed. As of Friday night at midnight, the remaining 2200 were supposed to be put on administrative leave.
Well, this judge, appointed, by the way, by Donald Trump in his first term [Judge Nichols] blocked it and said, "Nope, those 2200 people cannot be put on an administrative leave, and the 500 people that were put on administrative leave need to be taken off administrative leave.
So this was a big win for democracy forward, the legal organization that brought this lawsuit on behalf of these folks, a big win for usaid obviously, the people who do the work, and a bit of a surprising black eye to Elon Musk and Donald Trump.
[Brian Tyler Cohen] Marc, before we go further into the legal implications of all this, can you just talk about what usaid is, what it does, and really frankly, why Americans should even care about the preservation of this program?
[Marc Elias] Yeah, I mean what's interesting is that usaid was created during the Cold War as a tool to win the Cold War. The idea was that we needed it in order to win the fight against the Soviet Union against Chinese influence in southeast Asia. We needed an agency that would deliver aid to people and thereby garner goodwill towards the United States. Because in many, many parts of the world, the delivery of aid is inextricably linked to the hearts and minds of the local population. So the idea was that if people were getting bags of grain that had an American flag on it saying, "Courtesy of the American people," and there were workers on the ground who are vaccinating their children, or helping build roads, that this was a way to help win the Cold War, to defeat communism, defeat the Soviet Union. It was part and parcel of a number of other programs like this, for example the Peace Corp right? The Peace Corp was also a program built by John Kennedy to defeat the Cold War by, again, creating this sort of soft power. And so over the years, Brian, and this is really important for people, over the years some of the biggest proponents of usaid have actually been conservative, pro-military Hawks, because if you are a foreign policy Hawk, if you're anti-russia, anti China, usaid has been viewed as one of the most effective tools to defeat China's expansionist plans, to defeat Russia's expansionist plans, and like I said, garner the goodwill of the local populations in a lot of parts of the world.
So the undoing of this is just a gift to the communists in Beijing; this is a gift to Vladimir Putin; this is not helping America maintain its position of strength around the world.
[Brian Tyler Cohen] Well, can you dig into that further, because now what happens if usaid goes away, which, by the way, I know that the Elon's of the world will frame this as some massive example of waste, fraud and abuse, this is about a half of 1% of the federal budget, and in exchange for that, to your exact point, we garner goodwill across the world without having to engage in any conflict, without having to fire any bullets. That's just a way to win over countries across the entire planet. So what happens in the absence of usaid given the fact that we would no longer be there?
[Marc Elias] Yeah, so I mean China has its own program along these lines, as does Russia, as does Isis, as does Iran, right? I mean like every time we talk about these programs of influence, you know, how is it that Isis gains a foothold in a place, or how does China expand into Africa, it is oftentimes by setting up local Aid Services, setting up clinics, providing services at the local level. And usaid is a critical piece of doing that for the American public so that people who feel like they are being fed by the United States, or getting vaccines from the United States, are less likely to be susceptible to Russian, to Chinese, to other terrorist movements who are otherwise competing to do that.
So this is a huge win for China. I mean the biggest single victor of this plan is going to be China, because China has been actively acting to get into this area. And they have a very well-funded program. And they will step into the void, right? And China's program is the the Belt and Road initiative.
And to your exact point that the US will kind of seed this ground to China, China is perfectly content to go against the interests of the United States for a fraction of the cost of having to go to war in any of these countries across the world.
Just doing goodwill, aside from the fact that it's just virtuous to do HIV prevention, it's virtuous to do clean water programs, and on and on, we also get to garner that goodwill, and that'll help us economically, it'll help us with our national security, it'll help us militarily across the world. And so [shutting down that program] would be against the interest of the United States. But it's not against the interest of somebody like Elon Musk who has business interests in Beijing, who has business interest in Shanghai. And so he has a vested interest in making sure that he can help out China. And by dismantling usaid, even before he goes into the obvious departments like DOD, for example, which has failed the last almost dozen audits, he'll go into usaid, and the only people that will be better off in the long run as the result of this are going to be the only country that Elon is looking to expand his foothold in, which is China.
I mean what is really sad is that there has been so much misinformation and disinformation spread about us Aid and about what has been going on that as you said you know in sort of your initial question like if you're just an average American and you're reading about this you're thinking oh this is good they're saving money they're not you know they're not uh taking our taxpayer money and using it abroad but the fact is that that that the way in which US Aid money is spent as as you said is some of the most effective ways to make sure that you have pro- us governments you have Pro us populations you have folks who you know Aspire and see the United States as a friendly force and what does that do that means that as those societies develop they become friendlier for American Products as governments form around them they become more friendly to the United States not just on a military basis by the way but also on all these other on all these other bases I mean every time we withdraw from the world's stage it is not just that China China is offering more Aid or you know Military Support or anything else they're also looking to build trading uh trading uh uh partners and that is that is why it is so inexplicable that this is but Brian I want to say there was a lot of talk at the beginning of this Administration about how competent they were going to be remember that like they were going to come in and they were going to be super competent they keep losing court case after court case after court case and I want to bring it back to something that I said this they lost this case before a judge appointed by Donald Trump in his first term now you know that that there are I think two things to take away from that the first is that I think people assume that every judge appointed by Donald Trump is gonna always rule in his favor I don't think we should look at a judge in Florida for example as the iconic example of how all judges uh uh work uh this judge I think had a very thoughtful hearing wrote a very thoughtful opinion uh but the second thing is that you know people can't give up the fight they can't think that there is no way to fight back against these things because the fact is Donald Trump keeps losing these lawsuits I mean Donald Trump has now lost lawsuit after lawsuit after lawsuit his Department of Justice the lawyers there must be Shell Shocked by the number of cases they are having to defend and make fools out of themselves frankly in some of them but they and they keep losing them and the Department of Justice is not used to losing cases and and that's really the point I want to hammer to everyone it is very unusual very unusual for a federal judge to slap down the Department of Justice over executive power that's just like you know I mean you really have to go a long way to overstep and yet we keep seeing in case after case after case that's what's happening and so I'm sure these doj lawyers don't know what to do of course they're also potentially being asked to retire to to to take early retirement or being threatened with being fired so I'm sure that's not helping but but it's showing that the fight in court is working so I just want to make sure everyone knows that well that's a good opportunity to underscore that you know you you have been consistent in pointing out that the courts are going to serve as our our last and most effective Bull workk against the worst excesses of the Trump Administration and you obviously cover them extensively on a daily basis with democracy docket which is the news Outlet you found it to focus on everything voting in elections highly recommend if you are looking for any news regarding what's happening in the courts which which again are proving that they are up to the task right now of standing up to the Trump Administration in the same way that these republicans in Congress are not please make sure to sign up for democracy. I'll put the link right here on the screen and also in the post description of this video I'm Brian teller Cohen I'm Mark Elias this is democracy watch [Music]a
WASHINGTON — A U.S. judge on Friday said he would enter a "limited" order temporarily blocking the Trump administration from taking some steps to dismantle the U.S. Agency for International Development, adding that 2,200 employees from the agency would not immediately be placed on administrative leave.
U.S. District Judge Carl Nichols in Washington, who was nominated by Trump during his first term, announced the decision at a hearing on a lawsuit from the largest U.S. government workers' union and an association of foreign service workers, who sued to stop the administration from dismantling the agency.
Nichols said the written ruling would be issued later Friday.
The administration in a notice sent to the foreign aid agency's workers on Thursday said it would keep 611 essential workers on board at USAID out of a worldwide workforce that totals more than 10,000.
"The major reduction in force, as well as the closure of offices, the forced relocation of these individuals were all done in excess of the executive’s authority in violation of the separation of powers," Karla Gilbride, a lawyer for the unions, said at the hearing.
A Justice Department official, Brett Shumate, told Nichols that about 2,200 USAID employees would be put on paid leave under the administration's plans, adding that 500 had already been placed on leave.
"The president has decided there is corruption and fraud at USAID," Shumate said.
However, the judge said his order would prevent those 2,200 employees from being immediately placed on administrative leave and would also pause the relocation of certain humanitarian workers stationed outside the United States.
Hours after he was inaugurated on Jan. 20, Trump ordered all U.S. foreign aid be paused to ensure it was aligned with his "America First" policy. Chaos has since consumed USAID, which distributes billions of dollars of humanitarian aid around the world.
The State Department issued worldwide stop-work directives after the executive order was issued, effectively freezing all foreign aid with the exception of emergency food assistance. That brought USAID programs covering lifesaving aid around the globe to a grinding halt, in a move that experts warned risked killing people.
The gutting of the agency has largely been overseen by businessman Elon Musk, the world's richest man and a close Trump ally spearheading the president's effort to shrink the federal bureaucracy.
In fiscal 2023, the United States disbursed, partly via USAID, $72 billion of aid worldwide on everything from women's health in conflict zones to access to clean water, HIV/AIDS treatments, energy security and anti-corruption work.
The U.S. provided 42% of all humanitarian aid tracked by the United Nations in 2024, yet that represents less than 1% of its total budget.
WASHINGTON (AP) — A federal judge on Friday temporarily blocked the Trump administration from placing 2,200 employees of the U.S. Agency for International Development on paid leave.
U.S. District Judge Carl Nichols, who was nominated by President Donald Trump, sided with two federal employee associations in agreeing to a pause in plans to put the employees on paid leave as of midnight Friday.
The workers associations argue that Trump lacks the authority for his swift dismantling of a six-decade-old aid agency enshrined in congressional legislation.
“CLOSE IT DOWN,” Trump said Friday on social media of USAID.
Crews used duct tape to block out the agency’s name on a sign outside its Washington headquarters Friday, and a flag was taken down. Someone placed a bouquet of flowers outside the door.
A group of a half-dozen USAID officials speaking to reporters Friday strongly disputed assertions from Secretary of State Marco Rubio that the most essential life-saving programs abroad were getting waivers to continue. With all but several hundred staffers forced out and funding stopped, the agency has “ceased to exist,” one official on the call said.
The Trump administration and billionaire ally Elon Musk, who is running a budget-cutting Department of Government Efficiency, have targeted USAID hardest so far in an unprecedented challenge of the federal government and many of its programs.
The administration told remaining USAID officials on Thursday afternoon that it planned to exempt 297 employees from global leave and furloughs ordered for at least 8,000 staffers and contractors, according to USAID staffers and officials.
Late that night, a new list was finalized of 611 employees to remain on the job, many of them to manage the return home of thousands of staffers, contractors and their families abroad, the officials said. Justice Department lawyer, Brett Shumate, confirmed the 611 figure in court.
The USAID officials and staffers spoke on condition of anonymity due to a Trump administration order barring them from talking publicly.
Some of the remaining staffers and contractors, along with an unknown number of 5,000 locally hired employees abroad, would run the few life-saving programs that the administration says it intends to keep going for now.
It was not immediately clear whether the reductions would be permanent or temporary, potentially allowing more workers to return after what the Trump administration says will be a review of which aid and development programs it wants to resume.
Trump and Musk have spoken of moving surviving programs under the State Department.
Within the State Department itself, employees fear substantial staff reductions following the deadline for the Trump administration’s offer of financial incentives for federal workers to resign, according to officials who spoke on condition of anonymity for fear of reprisal. A judge temporarily blocked that offer and set a hearing Monday.
At USAID, among the programs officials said had not received waivers: $450 million in food grown by U.S. farmers sufficient to feed 36 million people, which was not being paid for or delivered; and water supplies for 1.6 million people displaced by war in Sudan’s Darfur region, which were being cut off without money for fuel to run water pumps in the desert.
The administration earlier this week gave almost all USAID staffers posted overseas 30 days, starting Friday, to return to the U.S., with the government paying for their travel and moving costs. Diplomats at embassies asked for waivers allowing more time for some, including families forced to pull their children out of schools midyear.
In a notice posted on the USAID website late Thursday, the agency clarified that none of the overseas personnel put on leave would be forced to leave the country where they work. But it said that workers who chose to stay longer than 30 days might have to cover their own expenses unless they received a specific hardship waiver.
Rubio said Thursday during a trip to the Dominican Republic that the government would help staffers get home within 30 days “if they so desired” and would listen to those with special conditions.
He insisted the moves were the only way to get cooperation because staffers were working “to sneak through payments and push through payments despite the stop order” on foreign assistance. Agency staffers deny his claims of obstruction.
Rubio said the U.S. government will continue providing foreign aid, “but it is going to be foreign aid that makes sense and is aligned with our national interest.”
Democratic lawmakers and others call the move illegal without congressional approval.
The same argument was made by the American Foreign Service Association and the American Federation of Government Employees in their lawsuit filed late Thursday. It asks the federal court in Washington to compel the reopening of USAID’s buildings, return its staffers to work and restore funding.
Government officials “failed to acknowledge the catastrophic consequences of their actions, both as they pertain to American workers, the lives of millions around the world, and to US national interests,” the suit says.
AP reporters Matthew Lee, Farnoush Amiri and Lindsay Whitehurst in Washington contributed to this report.
A federal judge today ordered the Trump administration to resume payments for federal programs after the White House violated a previous order blocking a federal funding freeze.
In a blistering order, District Court Judge John McConnell in Rhode Island warned that not complying with a court order could lead to contempt of court, which is a crime.
On Jan. 31, McConnell blocked the administration’s directive freezing federal grants and loans. On Feb. 3, another federal judge in the District of Columbia granted a similar temporary restraining order blocking the same policy.
In a legal filing last week, states said that they still could not access federal money. The Trump administration argued that they were blocking funds to “root out fraud,” but McConnell did not buy it, writing that the continued funding freeze stems from the administration’s directive and not specific findings of possible fraud. He ordered the Trump administration to immediately restore funding to agencies like the National Institutes of Health and programs created under the Inflation Reduction Act and the Infrastructure Improvement and Jobs Act — two landmark laws championed by former President Joe Biden.
“The broad categorical and sweeping freeze of federal funds is, as the Court found, likely unconstitutional and has caused and continues to cause irreparable harm to a vast portion of this country,” McConnell wrote in his order.
02/10/25 Case 1:25-cv-00039-JJM-PAS
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF RHODE ISLAND
STATE OF NEW YORK; STATE OF CALIFORNIA; STATE OF ILLINOIS; STATE OF RHODE ISLAND; STATE OF NEW JERSEY; COMMONWEALTH OF MASSACHUSETTS; STATE OF ARIZONA; STATE OF COLORADO; STATE OF CONNECTICUT; STATE OF DELAWARE; THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA; STATE OF HAWAI’I; STATE OF MAINE; STATE OF MARYLAND; STATE OF MICHIGAN; STATE OF MINNESOTA; STATE OF NEVADA; STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA; STATE OF NEW MEXICO; STATE OF OREGON; STATE OF VERMONT; STATE OF WASHINGTON; and STATE OF WISCONSIN,
Plaintiffs,
v.
DONALD TRUMP, in his Official Capacity as President of the United States; U.S. OFFICE OF MANAGEMENT AND BUDGET; MATTHEW J. VAETH, in his Official Capacity as Acting Director of the U.S. Office of Management and Budget; U.S. DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY; SCOTT BESSENT, in his Official Capacity as Secretary of the Treasury; PATRICIA COLLINS, in her Official Capacity as Treasurer of the U.S.; U.S. DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES; DOROTHY A. FINK, M.D., in her Official Capacity As Acting Secretary Of Health And Human Services; U.S. DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION; DENISE CARTER, in her Official Capacity as Acting Secretary of Education; U.S. FEDERAL EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT AGENCY; CAMERON HAMILTON, in his Official Capacity as Acting Administrator of the U.S. Federal Emergency Management Agency; U.S. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION; JUDITH KALETA, in her Official Capacity as Acting Secretary of Transportation; U.S. DEPARTMENT OF LABOR; VINCE MICONE, in his Official Capacity as Acting Secretary of Labor; U.S. DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY; INGRID KOLB, in her Official Capacity as Acting Secretary of the U.S. Department of Energy; U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY; JAMES PAYNE, in his Official Capacity as Acting Administrator of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency; U.S. DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY; KRISTI NOEM, in her Capacity as Secretary of the U.S. Department of Homeland Security; U.S. DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE; JAMES R. McHENRY III, in his Official Capacity as Acting Attorney General of the U.S. Department of Justice; THE NATIONAL SCIENCE FOUNDATION; and DR. SETHURAMAN PANCHANATHAN, in his Capacity as Director of the National Science Foundation,
Defendants.
C.A. No. 25-cv-39-JJM-PAS
ORDER
The Plaintiff States’ Motion for Enforcement of the Temporary Restraining Order (“TRO”) (ECF No. 66) is GRANTED.
[It is a] basic proposition that all orders and judgments of courts must be complied with promptly. * * * Persons who make private determinations of the law and refuse to obey an order generally risk criminal contempt even if the order is ultimately ruled incorrect. The orderly and expeditious administration of justice by the courts requires that an order issued by a court with jurisdiction over the subject matter and person must be obeyed by the parties until it is reversed by orderly and proper proceedings.
Maness v. Meyers, 419 U.S. 449, 458–59 (1975) (citations and quotations omitted) (emphasis added). The Defendants issued a broad, categorical, all-encompassing directive freezing federal funding. The plain language of the TRO entered in this case prohibits all categorical pauses or freezes in obligations or disbursements based on the OMB Directive or based on the President’s 2025 Executive Orders.1 The Defendants received notice of the TRO, the Order is clear and unambiguous, and there are no impediments to the Defendants’ compliance with the Order.
The States have presented evidence in this motion that the Defendants in some cases have continued to improperly freeze federal funds and refused to resume disbursement of appropriated federal funds. See Exhibits A-C of the States’ motion, (ECF Nos. 66-1, 66-2, and 66-3). The Defendants now plea that they are just trying to root out fraud. See ECF No. 70. But the freezes in effect now were a result of the broad categorical order, not a specific finding of possible fraud. The broad categorical and sweeping freeze of federal funds is, as the Court found, likely unconstitutional and has caused and continues to cause irreparable harm to a vast portion of this country. These pauses in funding violate the plain text of the TRO.2 In response to the Defendants’ arguments, they can request targeted relief from the TRO from this Court where they can show a specific instance where they are acting in compliance with this Order but otherwise withholding funds due to specific authority.
Therefore, consistent with the United States Constitution, United States statutes, United States Supreme Court precedent, and the TRO, the Defendants are hereby further ORDERED as follows:
1. The Defendants must immediately restore frozen funding during the pendency of the TRO until the Court hears and decides the Preliminary Injunction request.
2. The Defendants must immediately end any federal funding pause during the pendency of the TRO.
3. The Defendants must immediately take every step necessary to effectuate the TRO, including clearing any administrative, operational, or technical hurdles to implementation.
4. The Defendants must comply with the plain text of the TRO not to pause any funds based on pronouncements pausing funding incorporated into the OMB Directive, like Section 7(a) of the Unleashing Executive Order, and the OMB Unleashing Guidance. The TRO requirements include any pause or freeze included in the Unleashing Guidance.
5. The Defendants must immediately restore withheld funds, including those federal funds appropriated in the Inflation Reduction Act and the Infrastructure Improvement and Jobs Act. The directives in OMB M-25-11 are included in the TRO. 6. The Defendants must resume the funding of institutes and other agencies of the Defendants (for example the National Institute for Health) that are included in the scope of the Court’s TRO.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
/s/John J. McConnell, Jr.
Chief Judge United States District Court for the District of Rhode Island February 10, 2025
_______________
Notes:
1 The Defendants acknowledged that they understood what the TRO required: “Federal agencies cannot pause, freeze, impede, block, cancel, or terminate any awards or obligations on the basis of the OMB Memo, or on the basis of the President’s recently issued Executive Orders.” ECF No. 51-1 at 1 (emphasis added).
2 The Court disagrees with the Defendants’ Notice (ECF No. 51), particularly paragraph 2. The Court’s TRO is clear and unambiguous in its scope and effect, which is inconsistent with the Defendant’s interpretation contained in the Notice. ECF No. 51 at 2.
