Federal judge hands Musk’s DOGE a win on data access at 3 agencies
Andrew Harnik/Getty Images
(WASHINGTON) — Elon Musk’s Department of Government Efficiency can continue to access sensitive records from at least three federal agencies after a federal judge in Washington denied a request to block Musk’s budget-slashing team from the Department of Labor, Department of Health and Human Services and the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau.
U.S. District Judge John Bates, in a late-night ruling, denied a request made by a group of unions and nonprofits to issue a temporary order blocking DOGE from the sensitive records maintained by the three agencies.
Elon Musk has repeatedly targeted Bates over the last week on X – including calling for the judge’s impeachment – after Bates issued a decision in another case ordering multiple agencies to restore public health data after the Trump administration suddenly removed it.
“There needs to be an immediate wave of judicial impeachments, not just one,” Musk wrote on Wednesday in response to a post about the judge.
The tech billionaire celebrated Friday’s ruling in a post on X.
The judge’s decision came down to the question of whether DOGE has the authority to “detail” its people to individual parts of the federal government where – as employees of that department or agency – the individuals associated with DOGE could legally access the sensitive records. To have that authority, DOGE would have to be considered an “agency” in the eyes of the law, Bates wrote.
Lawyers for the plaintiffs argued that DOGE is not an agency — because it was created via an executive order — and therefore is not entitled to detail its employees to parts of the federal government.
Curiously, lawyers for DOGE have attempted to avoid the “agency” label during court hearings despite its “strong claim” to agency status, Bates wrote.
“This appears to come from a desire to escape the obligations that accompany agencyhood” — such as being subject to the Freedom of Information Act, the Privacy Act and the Administrative Procedures Act — “while reaping only its benefits,” the judge wrote.
Ultimately, the disagreed with DOGE’s own interpretation of its status — determining it likely is an “agency” — and delivering it a surprise win by determining that DOGE has the authority to continue to access to sensitive records.
“For the reasons explained above, on the record as it currently stands and with limited briefing on the issue, the case law defining agencies indicates that plaintiffs have not shown a substantial likelihood that [DOGE] is not an agency. If that is so, [DOGE] may detail its employees to other agencies consistent with the Economy Act,” he wrote.
(WASHINGTON) — President Donald Trump’s sweeping pardons and commutations for nearly all of the rioters charged with joining the Jan. 6 assault on the U.S. Capitol was “disturbing” and an affront to the law enforcement officers who were assaulted at the hands of the pro-Trump mob, a former top prosecutor from the D.C. U.S. attorney’s office told ABC News in an exclusive interview Tuesday.
“It’s disturbing because what it says to the victims, to the officers who put their lives on the line that day to defend the country, and also to the officers who then went and told their stories and testified in court — reliving the trauma of that day over and over and subjected themselves to cross-examination,” Alexis Loeb, who oversaw multiple high profile Jan. 6 cases during her time as deputy chief of the office’s Capitol Breach section, told ABC news.
“It’s disturbing because of what it says about the rule of law and the message it sends about political violence being acceptable and attacks on the peaceful transfer of power, something that has distinguished our nation, being acceptable,” Loeb said.
Trump has defended his decision to hand down pardons and halt the ongoing prosecutions for nearly all of the more than 1,500 people charged in the four years since the attack on the Capitol, even in the face of criticism from some Republican Senators.
Many of those pardoned were convicted in engaging in brutal attacks against the roughly 140 law enforcement officers injured in the attack — documented through thousands of hours of videos and police body camera footage — using weapons from bats, hockey sticks, bear spray and stun guns.
“I’m the friend of — I am the friend of police, more than any president that’s ever been in this office,” Trump said. Sixteen other Jan. 6 rioters had their sentences commuted.
“As you know, we commuted about 16 of them because it looks like they could have done things that were not acceptable for a full pardon, but these people have served years of jail. Their lives have been ruined …, ” Trump said at an event Tuesday night. “They served years in jail. And if you look at the American public, the American public is tired of it. Take a look at the election. Just look at the numbers on the election.”
Loeb told ABC News Trump’s pardons may have wiped away the cases and guilty verdicts against the rioters, but they could not erase the historical record of their many crimes.
“These were prosecutions staffed by career prosecutors and FBI agents of all sorts of political persuasions who came together and prosecuted these cases because they all recognized that attacking police officers was wrong, breaking into the Capitol was wrong,” Loeb said. “And what the pardons did do, was that they wiped away the verdicts and the sentences, not the historical record of what happened, but the verdicts and the sentences and the verdicts and the sentences were handed down by juries made up of ordinary citizens and judges appointed by both political parties, including several judges who were appointed by President Trump.”
After the attack on the U.S. Capitol by rioters seeking to overturn the 2020 election, more than 1,580 people were charged criminally in federal court, according to the Department of Justice. More than 1,000 have pleaded guilty. That figure includes 608 individuals who have faced charges for assaulting, resisting or interfering with law enforcement trying to protect the complex that day, the office said. Approximately 140 law enforcement officers were injured during the riot, the DOJ has said.
The U.S. Attorney’s Office previously said it is evaluating whether to bring charges in roughly 200 cases that have been referred to them by the FBI, about 60 of which involve potential felony charges involving allegations of assault or impeding law enforcement. Trump’s executive order, however, appears to have completely shuttered the probe and the FBI removed from its website previous ‘wanted’ posters it had for violent rioters who had yet to be identified.
At least 221 individuals have been found guilty at contested trials in U.S. District Court, the DOJ said. Another 40 individuals have been convicted following an agreed-upon set of facts presented to and accepted by the court.
Some current and former DOJ officials have expressed alarm at the potential that the pardons could lead some now-freed defendants to target some of the former prosecutors who oversaw their cases, the judges who sentenced them, or witnesses who may have testified against them at trial.
Loeb declined to say whether she was personally concerned about the threat of retribution from those she prosecuted, and instead expressed confidence in the integrity of the legal system that resulted in the rioters’ convictions.
“The juries overwhelmingly found that the government had proved its case by a beyond a reasonable doubt, and the juries paid close attention throughout the trial and were just riveted by the video that came from all angles,” Loeb said. “These were some of the most documented crimes, I think, that we’ve ever seen.”
House Speaker Mike Johnson said Wednesday he supports “redemption” and “second chances” for Jan. 6 Capitol rioters after Trump’s sweeping pardons.
At his weekly press conference, Johnson was asked how Republicans can tout “backing the blue” if they support pardons for those convicted of assaulting police officers during the attack.
“The president has the pardon and commutation authority. It’s his decision,” Johnson said. “And I think what was made clear all along is that peaceful protests and people who engage in that should never be punished. There was a weaponization of the Justice Department.”
Trump’s pardons of Jan. 6 rioters received condemnation from some unions that represent law enforcement.
“The vast majority of Americans do not support letting those who assault or attack law enforcement off the hook ‘scot-free,'” the Capitol Police Officers’ Union said in a statement. “This use of presidential power is not what Americans want to see and it’s not what law enforcement officers deserve.”
“The FBI Agents Association (FBIAA) strongly condemns acts of violence targeting law enforcement officers who serve and protect our communities. Accordingly, the FBIAA does not believe granting pardons or clemency for individuals convicted of such acts is appropriate,” a statement from the union said Wednesday.
The Fraternal Order of Police, who endorsed Trump in the 2024 election, and The International Association of Chiefs of Police also criticized the pardons.
“Crimes against law enforcement are not just attacks on individuals or public safety — they are attacks on society and undermine the rule of law,” the International Association of Chiefs of Police and the Fraternal Order of Police said in a joint statement Tuesday. “Allowing those convicted of these crimes to be released early diminishes accountability and devalues the sacrifices made by courageous law enforcement officers and their families. When perpetrators of crimes, especially serious crimes, are not held fully accountable, it sends a dangerous message that the consequences for attacking law enforcement are not severe, potentially emboldening others to commit similar acts of violence.”
(WASHINGTON) — A federal judge in Maryland is set to consider whether President Donald Trump will be able to redefine the meaning of the Fourteenth Amendment to exclude the children of undocumented immigrants from birthright citizenship.
U.S. District Judge Deborah Boardman has scheduled a 10 a.m. ET hearing on Wednesday to consider a request by five pregnant undocumented women to issue a preliminary injunction blocking Trump’s Day-1 executive order on birthright citizenship.
The women and the two nonprofits filed a lawsuit against the Trump administration, arguing that the executive order — which challenged the long-settled interpretation of the Fourteenth Amendment’s citizenship clause — violated the constitution and multiple federal laws.
“If allowed to go into effect, the Executive Order would throw into doubt the citizenship status of thousands of children across the country, including the children of Individual Plaintiffs and Members,” the lawsuit said.
Lawyers for the Department of Justice have claimed that Trump’s executive order attempts to resolve “prior misimpressions” of the Fourteenth Amendment, arguing that birthright citizenship creates a “perverse incentive for illegal immigration.” If permitted, Trump’s executive order would preclude U.S. citizenship from the children of undocumented immigrants or immigrants whose presence in the United States is lawful but temporary.
“Text, history, and precedent support what common sense compels: the Constitution does not harbor a windfall clause granting American citizenship to, inter alia: the children of those who have circumvented (or outright defied) federal immigration laws,” DOJ lawyers argued.
The executive order has already been put on hold by a federal judge in Seattle, who last month criticized the Department of Justice for attempting to defend what he called a “blatantly unconstitutional” order.
“I have difficulty understanding how a member of the bar can state unequivocally that this is a constitutional order. It boggles my mind,” said U.S. District Judge John Coughenour. “Where were the lawyers when this decision was being made?”
Because Judge Coughenour’s order only blocked the executive order temporarily, Judge Boardman will consider a longer-lasting preliminary injunction of the executive order.
“The hearing that’s coming up is a proceeding that essentially puts a longer pause,” explained Loyola Marymount University professor Justin Levitt. “It’s an order saying, ‘Don’t implement this,’ because the plaintiffs have shown a likelihood that they’ll succeed when we finally get to a final resolution, but many substantive legal claims are effectively decided on preliminary injunctions.”
With Trump vowing to appeal a ruling that finds his executive order unconstitutional, a preliminary injunction — if granted after Wednesday’s hearing — could be his first opportunity to appeal to a higher court.
Members of the Trump administration spent months crafting this executive order with the understanding that it would inevitably be challenged and potentially blocked by lower courts, according to sources familiar with their planning.
(WASHINGTON) — Then-candidate Donald Trump, at a campaign rally last August as the 2024 race for the White House was heating up, made a promise to voters to quickly bring economic relief if elected.
“Starting on Day 1, we will end inflation and make America affordable again,” he said at a rally in Montana, where he told supporters: “This election is about saving our economy.”
A week later, he made a show of displaying cartons of eggs, bacon, milk and other grocery products outside his New Jersey golf course as he railed against the Biden administration’s policies.
“When I win, I will immediately bring prices down,” Trump said at the time.
Trump started to change his tune not long after his victory, however, saying in an interview with Time magazine, published in December, that bringing down food costs will be “very hard.”
Now, seven weeks into his administration, Trump is declining to rule out the possibility of a recession and is warning of short-term “disturbance” for American families from his tariff policies.
During his first major speech to Congress and the nation since his inauguration, Trump last week defended his imposition of steep levies on key U.S. trading partners like Canada, China and Mexico.
“Tariffs are about making America rich again and making America great again. And it’s happening, and it will happen rather quickly. There will be a little disturbance, but we’re okay with that. It won’t be much,” he said.
Since then, his back-and-forth on tariffs for Canada and Mexico roiled the stock market, with the S&P 500 recording its worst week since last September.
During an interview on Fox News “Sunday Morning Futures,” Trump was asked if he is expecting a recession this year after the Atlanta Federal Reserve projected negative GDP growth for the first quarter of 2025.
“I hate to predict things like that,” Trump responded. “There is a period of transition, because what we’re doing is very big. We’re bringing wealth back to America. That’s a big thing, and there are always periods of, it takes a little time. It takes a little time, but I think it should be great for us.”
He was pressed on his hesitation to strike down the possibility later Sunday as he spoke with reporters on Air Force One.
“I’ll tell you what, of course you hesitate. Who knows? All I know is this: We’re going to take in hundreds of billions of dollars in tariffs, and we’re going to become so rich, you’re not going to know where to spend all that money,” he said. “I’m telling you, you just watch. We’re going to have jobs. We’re going to have open factories. It’s going to be great.”
Stock losses continued Monday and Tuesday after Trump’s comments. More tariffs are being implemented against steel and aluminum products on Wednesday, and Trump’s pledging to move forward with “reciprocal” tariffs starting on April 2.
The White House on Tuesday also declined to rule out a recession, as officials sought to cast the market turmoil as a “snapshot of a moment in time” before Trump’s policies bear their intended impact.
“We are in a period of economic transition,” press secretary Karoline Leavitt told reporters when asked directly if she could reassure Americans there wouldn’t be a downturn.
Leavitt blamed the Biden administration for what she said was an “economic disaster” left to Trump — despite Biden overseeing a soft economic landing — and pointed to other indicators she said were positive signs for Americans, including a boost in manufacturing jobs last month and reports of companies looking to expand operations in America.
“The American people, CEOs, and people on Wall Street and on Main Street should bet on this president,” Leavitt told reporters. “He is a dealmaker. He is a businessman and he’s doing what’s right for our country.”
