The Wizard of Oz
No elected official has had access to Treasury payment systems in eight decades.
Access to the Books Is the Key to Control
The presumption that a small coterie of unnamed civil servants has merit while everyone else in the President’s political suite is a bunch of corrupt numbskulls is … heroic.
We may just find that it is worse than anyone can imagine?
‘I had to read that several times to believe my eyes. Did you know that presidents and their appointments have not had access to payment systems since 1946? I did not. Did you know that the entire nation has been dependent on “a very small group” of career bureaucrats to manage the multiple trillions coming and going without oversight from anyone who voters have elected? I did not know that.’
According to the order from the Court, politicians exist to take responsibility for whatever happens in their agencies, as decided and executed by the civil service. The politicians aren’t permitted to do anything. Not even the Treasury Secretary is allowed to access the agency’s payment systems. (The court subsequently relented on Bessent, alone.)
Oh, contractors can still access the data, according to the court.
The Administration objects.
‘At approximately 1:00 a.m. on Saturday, February 8, 2025, this Court issued an ex parte Temporary Restraining Order that purported to limit access to a vast swath of Treasury systems to only “civil servants,” while prohibiting “all political appointees” from doing the same. On its face, the Order could be read to cover all political leadership within Treasury—including even Secretary Bessent. This is a remarkable intrusion on the Executive Branch that is in direct conflict with Article II of the Constitution, and the unitary structure it provides. There is not and cannot be a basis for distinguishing between “civil servants” and “political appointees.” Basic democratic accountability requires that every executive agency’s work be supervised by politically accountable leadership, who ultimately answer to the President. A federal court, consistent with the separation of powers, cannot insulate any portion of that work from the specter of political accountability. No court can issue an injunction that directly severs the clear line of supervision Article II requires. Because the Order on its face draws an impermissible and anti-constitutional distinction, it should be dissolved immediately.’
Why it is hard for the Executive to disobey the judiciary
We’ve argued that this disruptive phase shift will lead to a new equilibrium in the distribution of powers, in practice, between the branches. It’s going to be an epic battle.
‘I have pointed out already that Elon Musk has massive economic interests in cases currently before the federal courts. That is reason enough he would have to obey an order or resign if Trump demanded he not do so. A federal court could default him on those suits.
‘But more generally federal courts can issue writs that can be levied on bank accounts and properties. These could effectively freeze the assets of ANY noncompliant government official. Yes, even the President. And no, President Trump couldn’t order then unfrozen.’
The Answer to Charges of ‘Nobody Elected Elon Musk’
The resistance is flailing. It’s neither logically persuasive nor politically savvy to argue that Musk is an unelected official.
‘It is true that no one cast a ballot for Musk in 2024. Born in Pretoria, South Africa, Musk is not a natural-born U.S. citizen, and is ineligible to be president under the U.S. Constitution. But no one in the president’s cabinet was elected to their jobs, other than the vice president. Back in 2020, nobody voted to put Alejandro Mayorkas in charge of the border, Antony Blinken in charge of foreign policy, Jake Sullivan in charge of national security, or Janet Yellen in charge of the economy. You don’t vote for the guys around the president, other than the vice president. You vote for a president, who selects his team and, in positions where it’s required, gets them confirmed by the U.S. Senate.
‘And Donald Trump gave America plenty of advance notice that he intended to put Musk in a role looking for ways to cut federal spending.’
No taxation without representation started one revolution.
No administration without elected oversight seems to be starting another one.
‘Here is the federal government org chart. Observe what the president controls vs. what the judiciary controls. These are executive agencies the actions of which only the president is held responsible.’
Asserting that there isn’t fraud when the GAO calls it out is … misinformation? Am I saying that correctly?
‘The New York Times says “Musk Asserts Without Proof That Bureaucracy Is Rife With Fraud.” Seriously? The GAO — under Biden — estimated last year that we are losing $233-$521 billion *per year* to fraud. Guys, it’s right there. Why do you continue with this… fraud? SMH’
Federal workers sue Elon Musk and DOGE to cut off data access
How do civil servants have standing to sue here? I guess it’s because their personal information was in jeopardy.
But anyone could make that argument. Why is it civil servants?
‘More than 100 current and former federal workers have sued Elon Musk and the Department of Government Efficiency agency he runs for allegedly accessing highly sensitive personnel records without proper vetting or authorization, according to a new federal lawsuit filed Tuesday.
‘The lawsuit was filed in the Southern District of New York by the Electronic Frontier Foundation and other privacy groups on behalf of 103 workers and various government worker unions. The plaintiffs are asking for the government’s main HR agency, the Office of Personnel Management (OPM), to cut off access to DOGE and its agents.
DOGE is pyramiding its success to be bolder by the day.
‘The biggest news of the day should once again be about DOGE. A new Executive Order was passed a few minutes ago. It empowers DOGE to spearhead the complete reorganization of the federal government’’
Warren, Waters Warn Bank Regulators Against Aiding ‘Unlawful’ DOGE Actions
How is DOGE different than a contractor given access to this data?
‘Key Democrats are calling on the heads of the Federal Reserve, the Federal Deposit Insurance Corp. and others to safeguard the sensitive data they hold after the Trump administration threw one of the nation’s banking regulators into turmoil.’
All The President’s Legal Antagonists
Did Trump learn anything about why he lost so many legal fights in his first term?
We’re about to find out.
‘The Donald Trump “resistance” is alive and well, though this time it’s centering nearly all its efforts on the legal system. Just three weeks into this administration, nonprofits and coalitions of Democratic state attorneys general have already filed nearly 60 lawsuits in federal court. Don’t think this litigation is ad hoc. Activists and attorneys general have been meeting since Trump won the nomination, debating his likely moves, hiring lawyers, strategizing legal responses and coordinating who would lead cases and where.
‘One result is that this resistance is on track to dwarf even the legal assault on Trump’s first term—which was itself unprecedented in size and scope. Just one stat: State attorneys general filed 160 multistate lawsuits against the federal government in Trump’s first term, compared with 80 over Barack Obama’s entire tenure. The left tends to overstate its track record in first-term Trump litigation, using minor rulings to inflate its “percentage won” number, while glossing over the Trump team’s wins on big issues—like his travel ban, or major rules related to the Occupational Safety and Health Administration and religious freedom.
‘Still, the Trump first-termers did lose a shocking number of rulings—many more than they should have (see below).
‘The difference this time: The president’s forces have spent years analyzing what went wrong and devising plans to avoid a repeat. That’s what the “chaos” coverage is missing.’