Altruistic World Online Library

BREAKING: Trump Federal Funding Freeze Blocked for Third Time
by Marc Elias and Paige Moskowitz
Democracy Docket
Feb 3, 2025

-- USDC: NATIONAL COUNCIL OF NONPROFITS, et al., Plaintiffs, v. OFFICE OF MANAGEMENT AND BUDGET, et al., Defendants. Civil Action No. 25 - 239 (LLA). MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER.

Another federal judge — this one for the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia — granted a temporary restraining order to block President Donald Trump’s freeze on all agency grants and loans.

The order stems from a lawsuit filed by Democracy Forward and a coalition of nonprofits, public health organizations and small businesses seeking to block guidance from the Trump administration that effectively pauses all federal funding via agency grants and loans. Marc Elias and Paige Moskowitz discuss.



Transcript

[Marc Elias] In a blockbuster decision a federal
judge in Washington DC has blocked
Donald Trump's effort to freeze federal
spending and loans. Welcome back to
democracy docket. I'm Marc Elias ... and I'm
Paige Moskowitz .

Let's get started Paige. This
is literally breaking news, and it is a
big one. A federal district court judge
in the District of Colombia has issued a
temporary restraining order blocking the
effect of Donald Trump's effort to put a
government-wide freeze on spending under
grants and loans. This will have big
impact for the various organizations and
individuals that are counting on that
money, and it is a huge loss for Donald
Trump's effort to wrestle control of the
federal spending power. Even though
Congress was not willing to put up a
fight, the good folks at Democracy
Forward and their nonprofit clients were.
And so to them, congratulations to
them and the American people!

[Paige Moskowitz] This all
started a week ago when the Office of
Management and Budget, or OMB, issued a
memo basically telling all the federal
agencies to stop spending money while
the Trump Administration tried to root
out "woke ideology, DEI, the
Green New Deal," which is not a law; it's
just proposed legislation, and do all
these things. And Marc, I don't want to
undercut the breaking news here but it
also kind of feels like a broken
record, because this is what, like the
third time we're saying that this memo
has been blocked? So explain to us kind
of the state of litigation at play.

[Marc Elias] Yeah,
so you're right. It may feel repetitive,
but this is the biggest one yet, okay? So
when this freeze was put in place
by OMB, this case was filed, and the
judge put a temporary halt on that
freeze pending the adjudication
of the claims. Then another case was
filed in the district of Rhode Island by
the various States Attorneys General,
and that Court also ordered it blocked.
But it only ordered it blocked for those
States. And after that order
was entered there still clearly was
activity going on within the federal
government, as if this memo was still in
effect. In other words, yes, the Rhode
Island Court had blocked it for the 20
some odd states that have been involved [in the case],
but it was clearly still the case that
agencies were not dispersing
funds. They were not making the loans.
They were not doing the things they were
supposed to do.

And so in now comes the
Democracy Forward case back into federal
court today, before a federal judge that
had a few choices. Number one, she could
say, you know what? You're right, government.
This has already been sort of
mooted, because it's all worked
itself out, and there's no harm. Or, the
Federal Judge could do exactly as she
did and say look, whether you are trying
to play games, or whether you are
operating in good faith, clearly this
memo is still having an impact, because I
am looking at the testimony and the
statements of real life plaintiff
organizations that are saying they're
not getting their grants, they're not
getting their loans, and this was never a
problem, but now all of a sudden there is
a freeze. So I want to be 100%
clear. The Judge basically said this
memo is suspended. Agencies are to act
as if it was never issued. And this
applies to all federal agencies.
It applies to grants in all 50
states. So enough with the nonsense.

So it
is a very broad relief that
this judge entered. And now
we're going to see whether the games end.
I kind of suspect they won't. I think
that we'll now have a game of cat and mouse.
But here's my message to the people
working in these federal agencies,
whether their career, or their political.
You've now got two federal judges who
have issued blocks of this order,
and this federal judge clearly means
business. And she's located in your
backyard. She's in Washington DC. So if I
were you, I would turn on the spigot for
those grants and loans that
were authorized by Congress, and stop
playing games. Otherwise, you may
find yourself on the losing end of a
contempt citation.

And by the way, Donald
Trump may have immunity, but no one else
in the federal government does from
criminal contempt and civil contempt.
No one has immunity from that.

So we'll see
whether this ends. Like I said, I'm not
naive. I'm not saying it won't.
But this gives a powerful new tool to
the people who are trying to rightfully
turn the spigot back on.

And let me say one
more word about this, Paige. You know
Democracy Docket has been all over this
from the very first filing, through this
order. And you know the Legacy Media has
been on and off while it focuses on a
bunch of other stuff. So please, if
you're not already, subscribe to
Democracy Docket, and it's free daily and
weekly newsletters. Click on the link
above, or in the show notes below, because
that is where you're going to get the
most unadulterated, honest coverage of
this. It is fiercely independent,
unabashedly pro-democracy. So sign up now.

[Paige Moskowitz] Marc, and in the middle of all this
litigation you had an interesting
development from the White House itself.
So last week, last Monday, the OMB issues
this memo. Litigation was filed, and the first
temporary block goes into effect,
blocks the memo. The next day, the OMB
rescinds the memo, and said and takes it
away that act like it never happened. Shortly
thereafter, you have White House Press
Secretary Karoline Leavitt post on Twitter,
saying that the memo may be rescinded,
but everything's still in effect: the
president still has the power to control
spending as he wishes. And that sent off
a new flurry of Court activity, right?
The Judge in Rhode Island said,
you're telling me this memo is rescinded, but
I have a tweet from the press secretary
saying it's basically still in effect.
You have the judge in DC today also
citing this tweet from Karoline Leavitt
saying the memo itself may be gone, but
the intention is still there. Which leads
to this very specific wording
from the Judge saying that the
defendants are enjoined from
implementing, giving effect to, or
reinstating under a different name the
directives in OMB memorandum
M-25-13 with respect to the disbursement of
federal funds under all open awards.

[Marc Elias] Yeah, that's exactly right. And so I'm
glad you mentioned this. Because
this is what I
described as the game of cat and mouse,
right ? Here, a federal judge
had blocked this memo, and what does the
White House do? It sends its press
secretary out, just as you described,
to tweet and say, oh yeah, that may have
been rescinded, but it's still in effect
over here. And there is no way to read
this Court's order other than to say, "Cut
it out. Cut it out!"

And look, this judge went out of her way to say,
in pretty direct terms, that
what's going on here is
"disingenuous." That's her word, not mine.
And when you are disingenuous with a
Judge, and you're a lawyer, you
face one set of consequences when you
are working at a federal agency, and you face
a whole bunch more problems.

And like I said, I doubt
that the gamesmanship is over, but I
do believe we have a committed federal
judge right now who is going to see to
it that it doesn't
continue.

[Paige Moskowitz] So Marc, this order today is
from the Washington DC case. Now we have
in the second lawsuit in Rhode Island
a very interesting update happening
there today. The DOJ filed a brief in the
Rhode Island case basically saying it
doesn't think that the judge's order to
freeze the memo has any effect, and that they
don't have to implement it.

[Marc Elias] Yeah, and
again, I think this judge read that, and
took that into account in this
order. I mean, this judge makes
clear, as as you have said that
whatever name they put to this memo,
if they try to implement the policy in
the memo, they're going to be in contempt
of this court. This judge
ordered that the government must provide
written notice of the Court's order to
all agencies that received it, right? So
part of what the Department of Justice
did in the Rhode Island case, they said, well, we assume
we only have to send it to places that
were sued. And here
the judge is saying nope, it goes to
everybody who got your OMB memo, which is
basically the entire federal government, and
that the written notice shall instruct
the agencies that they may not take any
steps to implement, or give effect to, or
reinstate under a different name the
directives in that OMB memo. And that
the agencies are to release
disbursements on open awards that were
paused during the memo.

Finally it tells
them that they have to
file a status report on or
before February 7th showing that they've
complied with it. And this is the Court's
way of saying, all right, you got to send
this out, and I expect you back in my
courtroom in a week -- less than a week -- to
explain that you've done, what I've
ordered you to do. And boy, I don't want
to be a lawyer for the government who
has to show up and explain, if the other
side says that there were violations,
why the hell there were violations.

This is really good news. I cannot state
enough the tremendous work that
Democracy Forward did in
pursuing this like a dog with a bone.
Paige, you may or may not know this. I
helped create and found Democracy
Forward. I am the chair of their board.
And I'm very proud of them today. So good
work everybody. Let's take a moment to
celebrate this!

Unfortunately, this is not the only case
going on. And Paige,
we're going to be following a lot of
them at Democracy
Docket.

[Paige Moskowitz] Right, Marc. And we follow all of
these cases, because the impact of these
laws and decisions by the Trump
Administration are real. As the judge
noted in her order today, the potential
scope of the freeze is as great as $3
trillion dollars. And its effects are
difficult to fully grasp. Plaintiffs
point to news reports detailing
far-reaching effects: preschools could
not pay their staff; Los Angeles and
North Carolina were denied disaster
relief aid, and elderly Americans who
relied on subsidized programs for food
did not know if their next meal would
come. The importance of lawyers showing
up in court to fight these memos, these
executive actions issued by the
Trump Administration, are not just to
help our big picture Democracy, but
really make sure that the everyday lives
of Americans are not interrupted by
these anti-democratic forces.

[Marc Elias] That's
exactly right. And I'm glad you mention
that. Because it's too easy
sometimes to look at what Donald Trump
is doing around the federal government
and say, this is him seizing power. And
it's easy to say that this is him
empowering oligarchs, and it is. But at
the other end of this, the people who
will lose when that happens are the
people who don't get the
payments they deserve, the communities
that are not getting the money they
deserve, the people whose
citizenship is being threatened by his
unconstitutional Birthright Citizenship
order. You know, I can go on and on
down the line. And believe me: Paige
and I, we read your emails. We read your
comments. We know how worried you are. And
we take that seriously. It is one of the
jobs of Democracy Docket to cover what's
happening to democracy in courts, because
of the fear that this has engendered,
because of the concern that this has
created, because of the real world
consequences it has created for everyday
Americans, including so many of you who
are watching.

So keep keep sending us
your comments. Keep sending us your
emails. And please, make sure you are
subscribed to Democracy Docket. There is a
free option.

It is again in
the show notes below, and a link above.

And we will see you next time.

Quakers Sue to Block ICE Agents from Houses of Worship This Weekend
by Marc Elias and Paige Moskowitz
Democracy Docket
Jan 31, 2025

A group of Quaker meetings, represented by Democracy Forward, have filed a lawsuit challenging the Department of Homeland Security's plan to enable federal immigration enforcement officials to enter houses of worship for their immigration enforcement actions. Now, the plaintiffs are seeking emergency relief to pause ICE enforcement on all houses of worship across the country in advance of weekend services. Marc Elias and Paige Moskowitz discuss.



Transcript

[Marc Elias] If you had any doubt about the depravity
of the Trump Administration consider
this the Quakers have had to go to
Federal Court to prevent DHS from
raiding houses of worship this weekend
welcome back to democracy doet I'm Mark
Elias and I'm Paige mosites let's get
started Paige I I have to say that I am
rarely shocked by anything that Donald
Trump is capable of I you know I
understand that he's an election denier
I understand his appointments or
election reers I understand that you
know some of his nominees don't believe
in vaccines even though they're going to
oversee vaccines they have you know
sucked up to Vladimir Putin even though
they're going to be you know potentially
in charge of the nation's intelligence
but page this one seems too far even for
Republicans Mark I agree wholeheartedly
now for decades US policy has been that
immigration wouldn't enforce their
actions at what was called sensitive
locations or protected locations these
are places like schools houses of
worship uh hospitals shelters things of
that nature the Trump Administration has
revoked that memo and said that DHS and
I would be enforcing immigration laws at
places like schools and houses of
worship yeah Paige and you know what's
really unbelievable about this you know
during covid we were constantly being
lectured by Republicans and their
right-wing allies about how terrible it
is and how constitutional it it it is
for States and localities that were
trying to control the spread of that
deadly virus putting in place
restrictions on public Gatherings and
one of the things they said is churches
and synagogues and mosques well maybe
they were mostly talking about churches
but places of worship have to be allowed
to continue to meet in person because of
religious freedom and we are constantly
lectured page also in the context of of
uh employers uh providing Health Care to
women
about the sensitive nature of of
religious rights and how religious
institutions should not be burdened with
having to provide basic health care to
women well here we are and you have uh
one of the oldest denominations in the
United States saying we are concerned
that when we hold our religious uh
meetings ice could break down the doors
and that would infringe on our
constitutional rights to practice our
religion and you know where where is the
rightwing standing up for the for the
Quakers today right Mark one of the
Quaker groups involved in this lawsuit
the Baltimore yearly meeting said in a
statement the very threat of government
officials wearing ice and blazoned
jackets outside of our religious service
will have a significant impact on our
communities and ability to practice our
faith we remain committed to our
religious command and will use the tools
available to defend our membership and
Faith yeah Paige and you know the
hypocrisy of this is just unending I
mean here is a political party that has
built itself around the notion of
protecting religious liberty uh and of
making sure that Christians in
particular can practice their faith you
know as you know Paige there was a
long-standing war on Christmas
apparently um but in any event uh you
know this is what they the propaganda
that they that they spew on Fox News and
elsewhere and yet when it comes to
immigration enforcement as terrible as
the Trump Administration wants to be in
a number of contexts. Did they really
have to start by targeting places of
worship
schools and hospitals? I mean really,
really? There was no other place
for them to start with executive orders
than in their first round to target
schools, places of worships, and hospitals?

[Paige Moskowitz] Mark, and to your point defending
religious freedom and freedom of
religion is a core American value right
like we have seen con we have seen
lawsuits come up again and again about
how the government has infr has
infringed on religious freedom now in
this lawsuit the Quaker groups and
democracy forward are asking for
emergency relief to block all ice
activities at all houses of worship
across the country this weekend so that
everyone could be able to go to their
own house of worship this weekend and
practice their Faith freely without fear
of interference from the government and
you know PA I think this brings up
another really important issue that I
want everyone to focus on which is the
role of of lawyers in the courts you
know there was a lot of bowing down in
advance of Donald Trump taking office
there has been a lot of bowing down to
Donald Trump since he's been in office
but it has really been the lawyers and
the legal organizations like democracy
forward that have been at the Forefront
of pushing back and they have had some
success I mean democracy forward itself
is the same organization page that you
and I talked about uh in the context of
the um anti- impoundment of funds you
know the the OMB effort to freeze
federal grants and uh uh and Loans uh
they and others also uh successfully
challenged the uh Birthright citizenship
order so I know that it is very it is
very um popular uh on the left for
people to bash the courts and Bash the
Supreme Court but I think we also have
to give do where it is earned and so far
Donald Trump for all of his alleged
competence coming in this time they have
not look that competent and they have
actually been losing case after case
after case right Mark in the case of the
birthright citizenship order we saw
multiple lawsuits filed very quickly
both by Democratic State Attorneys
generals as well as private civil and
immigrants rights groups that executive
order was blocked very quickly the OM
funding memo that you mentioned that was
blocked it's now been rescinded but you
know thanks to Caroline L it it's kind
of unclear what the status is so the
courts are ready to get involved there
toed then there she like tweeted but
back to this you know it's going to be
very interesting to see whether the the
the cons the Christian conservative
organizations that are usually very
litigious and are usually very organized
to file amicus briefs and to otherwise
get involved in cases it'll be very
interesting to see what they do here
whether they sit on the side lines uh
and act like they don't know that the
case is going on right which is like a
classic Republican politician response
right they they're like oh did Donald
Trump tweet something right like we'll
see whether these interest groups these
conservative groups take that approach
whether they show an ounce of principle
and actually stand with the Quakers uh I
wouldn't hold your breath for that or
whether they find some way to say oh no
no we as As Leaders of religious
institutions we want uh federal law
enforcement to be kicking down our doors
and uh searching our back rooms our
basements and our attics so we're going
to have to wait and see their
page I also think it's really
interesting how states are responding or
have already gotten involved in this ice
and immigration enforcement business
Texas for example before the Trump
Administration came back into Power had
passed a law requiring Health Care
settings to ask for immigration status
of patients and you're like why would
that matter they're there to receive
Healthcare it it's not it's not an
institution that would deal with
immigration in that way in Oklahoma
reportedly the state has plans there to
have schools ask their students about
their immigration status and again
citizenship status in those places
shouldn't matter because it's not a
government entity regulating and
enforcing immigration laws right and
this though goes even further than that
and nobody should should and this page
goes much fur further than that and
everyone needs to be paying attention to
this case specifically because you know
we have talked over and over again how
little spine there is to stand up
against Donald Trump in the Republican
part how Republican Senators Republican
house members have turned over their
constitutional rights and obligations to
to Donald Trump's WIS and how much of
the conservative movement has
compromised itself in terms itself into
pretzels to accommodate Donald Trump but
page this one
just have to wonder if it's a bridge too
far our Christian conservatives our
Republicans go our evangelicals going to
say we're fine with this we're fine with
an executive order that allows the
violation of houses of worship on the
weekends when houses of worships are
having uh their various Services uh at
meetings and celebrations so everyone
needs to pay attention to this make sure
you're subscribed to democracy. free
daily and weekly newsletters where
you'll be kept up to date on this and
all of the pro-democracy news going on
in America we'll see you next time
[Music]

Tech’s Trump Backers—Zuckerberg, Musk—Hate CFPB [Consumer Financial Protection Bureau]. It’s Now Been Paused.
by Sara Dorn
Forbes Staff
Feb 4, 2025,10:57am EST
https://www.forbes.com/sites/saradorn/2 ... en-paused/

Topline: Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent ordered the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau to halt work Monday, following months of anti-CFPB sentiment from President Donald Trump’s billionaire backers, including Mark Zuckerberg and Elon Musk, with Musk advocating for “deleting” the agency in his efforts to cut government spending.

• Key Facts: Bessent told agency staff in an email that it must stop all regulatory work and “public communications of any type,” citing the need to ensure operations are consistent with Trump’s executive orders, according to multiple reports.
• Staff were also reportedly instructed not to pursue enforcement actions or litigation.
• The move comes after work at the U.S. Agency for International Development was also halted over the weekend following an executive order during Trump’s first week in office ordering a temporary pause in U.S. foreign assistance.
• Reining in the CFPB has long been a target of Republicans and tech executives after the Biden administration implemented new regulations to address predatory lending and credit card and banking fees.
• Trump appointed Bessent to take over the agency after firing Biden-era director Rohit Chopra over the weekend.

What Has Elon Musk Said About Cfpb?

The world’s wealthiest person, Elon Musk, has attacked the CFPB, joining a chorus of tech and finance titans who claim the agency has taken a heavy-handed approach to regulation. Musk, who is advising Trump on ways to scale back the size of the federal government, said in November he wanted to “delete CFPB” because “there are too many duplicative regulatory agencies,” shortly after the agency announced a new rule to enhance oversight of big tech companies and others offering digital funds transfers and payment wallet apps.

What Have Mark Andreessen And Mark Zuckerberg Said About Cfpb?

Billionaires Marc Andreessen and Mark Zuckerberg also lashed out at the agency, which threatened to sue Meta last year over allegations it improperly used financial data in its advertising business. Zuckerberg told Joe Rogan in a podcast interview the CFPB “found some theory they wanted to investigate” and questioning whether there was “a quiet consensus” among regulators that they wanted to punish the tech industry. Andreessen—who has advised some members of the Trump administration—also alleged in an interview with Rogan the agency is “terrorizing anybody who tries to do anything new in financial services.”

What Have Republicans Said About Cfpb?

Republicans have sought to defund the CFPB and praised Chopra’s termination. Rep. French Hill, R-Ark., vowed Monday in a statement to help Bessent “finally rein in this unaccountable agency by putting the CFPB under the appropriations process, making it a bipartisan commission and providing appropriate statutory guardrails.” The CFPB receives its funding directly from the Federal Reserve, rather than through the congressional appropriations process, a mechanism designed to preserve its impartiality.

Key Background

The CFPB was formed in 2011, in the aftermath of the 2008 financial crisis, by the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act. Trump previously sought to limit the CFPB’s authority during his first term, appointing former Rep. Mick Mulvaney, R-S.C., as its acting director. Mulvaney subsequently sent a budget request for the CFPB to the Federal Reserve for $0, ordered a hiring freeze and halted new enforcement actions, according to The New York Times. Former President Joe Biden subsequently hired Chopra to undo the deregulatory actions, and the agency under Chopra’s direction repeatedly clashed with big banks as Chopra spearheaded rules to limit overdraft fees, credit card late fees and eliminate medical debt from credit reports.

“Troubling”: Panama Agrees to Anti-Migrant Collaboration After Trump Threatens to Retake Canal
by Amy Goodman
DemocracyNow!
February 04, 2025
https://www.democracynow.org/2025/2/4/t ... transcript

Secretary of State Marco Rubio is visiting Latin America on his first foreign trip in his new post. One of his stops is Panama, where President Trump has threatened to invade and take over control of the critical trade route of the Panama Canal in response to its growing ties to China. It is a deeply unpopular proposition in Panama, seen as a “reversion to the mid-20th century imperial encroachment that Panama so intentionally confronted over the course of the Canal transition.” It is also, “on a logistical level,” essentially “impossible,” according to Panama City-based scholar Miriam Pensack. In what Pensack calls a “troubling” development, Panama has announced it will more closely cooperate with Trump’s policing of migration from Central America to the United States as a diplomatic concession to his threats.

Transcript

This is a rush transcript. Copy may not be in its final form.

AMY GOODMAN: U.S. Secretary of State Marco Rubio is traveling to Costa Rica and Guatemala City today before heading to the Dominican Republic as part of his first foreign trip in his new post. Rubio was just in Panama and El Salvador.

After meeting with Rubio on Monday, El Salvador’s President Nayib Bukele announced in a statement his country would receive immigrants and asylum seekers of any nationality deported from the United States. He also offered to jail U.S. citizens who are convicted of crimes for a fee in El Salvador’s troubled maximum-security mega-prison complex. Bukele said the fee would be, quote, “low for the U.S. but significant for us, making our entire prison system sustainable,” he said. Rubio spoke on Monday.

SECRETARY OF STATE MARCO RUBIO: He has agreed to accept for deportation any illegal alien in the United States who is a criminal, from any nationality, be they MS-13 or Tren de Aragua, and house them in his jails. And third, he has offered to house in his jails dangerous American criminals in custody in our country, including those of U.S. citizenship and legal residence.

AMY GOODMAN: Secretary of State Rubio praised Salvadoran President Bukele, who’s been accused of gross human rights abuses and of violating Salvador’s constitution by remaining in power for a third presidential term. Bukele has been enforcing a state of emergency for nearly three years, leading to the detention of over 83,000 people without access to due process. Human rights groups estimate hundreds of people have died in Bukele’s prisons since March 2022.

This comes after far-right immigration hard-liner, White House Deputy Chief of Staff for Policy Stephen Miller said last week Bukele could become one of the strongest partners in the Central American region.

STEPHEN MILLER: The president, Bukele, has graciously offered tremendous degrees of cooperation with the United States on all things migration. And we’re hoping that will provide a framework for migration cooperation all throughout the region. And I think it’s very clear that President Bukele is going to be a very great and strong partner for this administration and for the United States.

AMY GOODMAN: Trump has long admired El Salvador’s prisons. The Trump administration is working with El Salvador on what is known as a safe third country agreement that would allow the U.S. to block migrants from requesting asylum in the U.S. and deport them to El Salvador, which would be designated a safe third country where they could seek asylum.

Rubio’s began his trip in Panama, though, as Trump reiterated his threat to retake the Panama Canal, claiming it’s being operated by China.

PRESIDENT DONALD TRUMP: China is running the Panama Canal. That was not given to China. That was given to Panama, foolishly. But they’ve violated the agreement, and we’re going to take it back, or something very powerful is going to happen. … I don’t think troops will be necessary in Panama. What Panama has done is terrible for national security for this part of the world. And, you know, 70% of the signage on the Panama Canal was written in Chinese. That’s not right. It wasn’t meant for China.

AMY GOODMAN: Speaking to reporters, Panama’s President José Raúl Mulino said he may expand an existing agreement with the U.S. to begin direct deportations of non-Panamanian migrants who make the dangerous journey through the Darién Gap jungle along Panama’s southern border with Colombia.

PRESIDENT JOSÉ RAÚL MULINO: [translated] On the aspect of immigration, we agreed to explore the possibility of expanding the memorandum of understanding that we signed on July 1st along with United States Department of Homeland Security to better articulate the issue of repatriation from the Darién. Anything that is going to be done, I’ve offered the area of the Nicanor track, the Metetí, Darién, so that it is from where the process of repatriation of people from different parts, such as Venezuela, Colombia, Ecuador, among other nationalities, is supplied.

AMY GOODMAN: All of this comes as one country is not on Rubio’s itinerary, Cuba, which he was asked about on Fox News, as the State Department website now outlines a plan for, quote, “Restoring a Tough U.S.-Cuba Policy.”

SECRETARY OF STATE MARCO RUBIO: I have no intention of going to Havana with his regime in place, other than to discuss when they’re going to leave.

AMY GOODMAN: But Trump has announced plans to hold some 30,000 immigrants and asylum seekers in a mass detention camp at Guantánamo Bay in Cuba on the U.S. naval base there.

For more, we’re joined by two guests. Roman Gressier is a French American journalist based in Guatemala City, where he’s the editor of El Faro English and host of the podcast Central America in Minutes. And in Panama City, we’re joined by Miriam Pensack, postdoctoral fellow in the History Department at Princeton University, historian of modern Latin America.

We welcome you both to Democracy Now! Miriam, let’s begin with you. You’re in Panama City. Rubio was just there. He’s saying he’s taking Panama Canal back, essentially, from China. Can you talk about the threats and what the Panamanian president agreed to?

MIRIAM PENSACK: Hi, Amy. Thank you for having me.

Yes, so, Rubio was here. He arrived Saturday night. He had a two-hour meeting, one hour privately with Mulino and then another hour with his ministers. Afterwards, Mulino gave a press conference in which he essentially said, “Don’t worry. We won’t be invaded” — which the fact that that was one of the first things he had to say is, of course, a bit troubling, to say the least.

What Panama has agreed to, effectively, is to further collaborate on immigration, or, rather, deportation and repatriation for migrants moving through the Darién Gap. There has already been a pretty extensive degree of collaboration between the United States government and the Panamanian equivalent of the Border Patrol, which is called SENAFRONT. There’s an ICE office in the U.S. Embassy here in Panama City. So, that collaboration has been underway for a long time.

Something that Rubio did mention and Mulino agreed to is this use of this airstrip in the Darién, which has a certain degree of, I suppose, geographic utility insofar as Panama is this infrastructural hub for the Americas in general. On Monday, yesterday, Rubio oversaw a deportation flight leaving from the former U.S. base at Albrook in Panama City to repatriate — or, deport, rather, upwards of 40 Colombians who came from the United States.

So, that’s what we’ve seen so far. There’s still a lot of pressure in terms of undoing the relationship with China that Panama has forged since it took up formal diplomatic relations with Beijing in 2017.

JUAN GONZÁLEZ: And, Miriam, could you talk to us more about the current president of Panama, Mulino? Because there were mass protests not only to Rubio’s visit, but against Mulino’s administration, as well. How is he seen among the Panamanian people in terms of his connection or relations to the U.S.?

MIRIAM PENSACK: Sure. So, Panama, in general, it should be stated — and Rubio mentioned this — Panama is, you know, extremely friendly to the United States and to U.S. interests. It’s very pro-business. There’s really no meaningful articulation of the left in terms of electoral politics here.

Something that has happened with Mulino’s government, you know, he’s amidst a reform of the Social Security and pension system here, which will be unpopular. So these threats from the United States have, I think, to a certain degree, united the country behind him, which he can probably use to push through legislation and pension reforms and things of that nature.

Now, that being said, sovereignty has long been, understandably, because of the former Panama Canal Zone here that was operated exclusively by the United States for the majority of the 20th century — Panama has long been concerned with the question of sovereignty. So, kowtowing to the United States on these issues is not popular, shall we say? Some of the protests that you saw, the burning of American flags, posters of Rubio with swastikas over his face, things like that, most of that is carried out by a syndicalist group, a sort of union conglomerate, if you will, called SUNTRACS. They shut down the city, many streets on Friday. They protested in front of the U.S. Embassy. And there is just this notion that this is a reversion to the sort of mid-20th century imperial encroachment that Panama so intentionally confronted over the course of the canal transition in the last two decades of the 20th century.

President Trump, Fascist


Marco Rubio, Fascist

JUAN GONZÁLEZ: And this whole issue of Chinese alleged control of the canal, the reality is, Panama became the first country in Latin America to sign on to the Belt and Road Initiative of infrastructure projects of China, but there are now 22 countries in Latin America who are part of the Belt and Road Initiative. The importance of Mulino saying that they’re going to review and possibly withdraw from the Belt and Road Initiative? And how expensive is Chinese investment in Panama, given the fact that the United States has largely ignored major investments in much of the region?

MIRIAM PENSACK: Sure. So, yes, the question of China. In 2017, under the government of Juan Carlos Varela, Panama did what a lot of the region has done in recent years, which is to cut ties with Taiwan and to formalize relations with Beijing, at which point there was certainly an uptick and entrance into this Belt and Roads Initiative that you mentioned, so an uptick in Chinese investment, a sort of movement towards greater trade with China.

Something that bears mentioning is that following the election of Donald Trump, the U.S. ambassador, then-ambassador, departed not long after. And in fact, the Trump administration and the State Department appointed no ambassador to Panama for, effectively, the entirety of the first Trump administration. So, this really left — as Mulino said in his speech, his press conference following his meeting with Rubio, this left a lot of empty chairs, into which China slid.

So, this Belt and Roads Initiative, Mulino said that he will not renew the agreement. That was one of the concessions that he offered Rubio and the United States. He also sort of got ahead of things. This happened in early January. So, maybe after the first or second time that Trump mentioned that he was going to, quote, “retake the Panama Canal,” he began auditing the — Mulino, excuse me — Mulino began auditing the Hong Kong-based company that won concession bids to operate these two ports on the Atlantic and Pacific side of the canal. So, that audit was, I think, a sort of preemptive attempt to hopefully find — you know, hopefully for the Panamanian government, it would be a fortuitous out to their current predicament — to hopefully find some degree of wrongdoing in the bookkeeping, something to that effect, so that there would be a reason to annul the contracts and potentially open up bids to U.S. companies to take control of those ports.

AMY GOODMAN: Miriam Pensack, very quickly, what would it take for the U.S. to, quote, “take back” — what Trump keeps threatening — take back the Panama Canal?

MIRIAM PENSACK: On a logistical level, it’s impossible, because the entity that runs the Panama Canal, an autonomous — effectively, a state within a state of Panama, the Panama Canal Authority, operates the lock system and the pilot system, which moves — you know, it sort of leads these large container ships through the canal. It’s run by roughly 8,800 Panamanian employees. So, the notion that the United States could take over that — you know, the transition to have Panama take over that operation required 23 years of collaboration between the two governments. So the notion that that can be done overnight with something like, say, an executive order, or something to that effect, on a logistical level, is quite impossible.

***

Trump-Bukele Alliance Grows as El Salvador Offers to Imprison U.S. Citizens & Deported Migrants
by Amy Goodman
DemocracyNow!
February 04, 2025
https://www.democracynow.org/2025/2/4/r ... in_america

As Secretary of State Marco Rubio visits Latin America on his first foreign trip in his new post, we look at the Trump administration’s policy orientation toward the right-wing government of El Salvador and the left-wing government of Guatemala with journalist Roman Gressier. Rubio is visiting both countries during his trip, which is expected to cement Trump’s ties to Salvadoran strongman enthusiast Nayib Bukele and to the conservative opposition in Guatemala. Rubio’s top agenda items are anti-immigration enforcement and U.S. competition with China.

Transcript

This is a rush transcript. Copy may not be in its final form.

AMY GOODMAN: We want to bring Roman Gressier into this conversation. He’s in Guatemala City, where Secretary of State Rubio will be. Roman, first we want to talk about what happened in Salvador. President Trump made his first call to a foreign leader, Saudi Arabia. His second was to Bukele in El Salvador. And now Bukele, as Rubio was just leaving there, has promised to imprison American prisoners for a fee at the much admired, by Trump, but horrified by human rights groups, prison system in El Salvador and also to take deportees from any country. The significance of this?

ROMAN GRESSIER: Hi. It’s great to be back with you.

Look, I think, in terms of the legal U.S. courts question and international law, I’m not sure how that latter promise will play out. But what we can observe is that a — look, Bukele was close to Trump in his first term, and this is a way of cementing that closeness into a migration-driven alliance in his second term.

From the rhetorical, where we saw a couple months ago, last June to be exact, we saw Trump Jr., we saw Tucker Carlson and other figures in the MAGA sphere at Bukele’s unconstitutional inauguration of his second term, and that was already on the rhetorical end. And then there’s the anti-woke discourse that they share and a certain affinity rhetorically again. And then, now they’re moving more formally into the realm of migration cooperation.

Now, in 2019, the Trump administration had negotiated with El Salvador a safe third country agreement. And this would clearly, at least on the rhetorical end, go much further than that. We’ll have to see what actually — parsing the language a little bit, Rubio said that Bukele had “offered” to receive U.S. citizens convicted of crimes and incarcerated in the United States. But the other things were “Bukele agreed to.” So I think that the Tren de Aragua and MS-13 deportees are perhaps more immediately likely or possible than the latter.

JUAN GONZÁLEZ: And, Roman, I wanted to ask you — of the five countries that Rubio is visiting, all of them have relatively conservative governments, and with the exception of Guatemala. What do you expect — what’s your sense of what Rubio hopes to get out of Guatemala and how that government may respond?

ROMAN GRESSIER: I think migration is the item of the day. Rubio will be arriving this afternoon, and he’ll be here tomorrow — excuse me. And tomorrow afternoon, he’ll be giving a press conference summing up his Guatemala trip.

The Arévalo administration, since the transition, has been meeting with Trump officials and the Heritage Foundation to promote the idea that they can get along and that, as they told the U.S. press on background — I don’t think they wanted to put a name to it, perhaps for optics, but they told the U.S. press on background that the Arévalo administration would be open to discussing the possibility of receiving regional return deportees. So, I think, on that plane, that will be a topic of discussion, and it’s certainly of interest to Marco Rubio.

But there’s a broader political issue where the Arévalo administration has been trying to send the signal that they can get along, in part because the public prosecutor’s office, which has been working to — which first worked to prevent Arévalo from taking office in January 2024, has now been working to put him on trial, remove him from office, etc. And just last week, the Supreme Court decided to move forward with a probe of Arévalo that could possibly lead to the revocation of his immunity from prosecution. Anyhow, it’s a very drawn-out process, but the Supreme Court kicked the ball forward on that last week. So I think that domestic context is very important, given that the attorney general and her office have been eagerly courting Trump’s support and trying to promote the idea that they defend a conservative agenda.

JUAN GONZÁLEZ: And I’m wondering if you could — if we could look back at the broader picture of this indication of the Trump administration focusing on Latin America in its first days in office, ostensibly over the migration crisis and fentanyl, but also over China’s growing influence. Isn’t the reality already that China has become the main economic partner of South America? It’s the largest trading partner with South America and the second largest with Latin America as a whole. So, really, the United States has been for now decades losing control of the markets of Latin America for its goods. Your sense of whether this has any impact on how the Trump administration is approaching the region?

ROMAN GRESSIER: Yeah, I think you’re right about that. It does have Marco Rubio’s fingerprint on it. And even in his recent Senate hearings during the Biden administration, he would frequently talk about Chinese influence in the region. Honduras broke relations with Taiwan two years ago. And Guatemala and Belize, which is part of the Commonwealth, the British Commonwealth, are the only two remaining countries now. Guatemala has kind of a balancing act, where they maintain historic relations with Taiwan while also having informal commercial ties to China. And I think that that could possibly be a topic of discussion for the visit, too, especially given that Marco Rubio is very interested in China policy as it pertains to Central America and the broader region, as you pointed out.

AMY GOODMAN: And very quickly, Roman, Latin America and particularly Central America, a place for the Trump administration to actually make money. You have President Trump’s nominee to be secretary of commerce, Howard Lutnick, also has ties to El Salvador. He’s the billionaire CEO of the Wall Street firm Cantor Fitzgerald, which is a major backer of Tether, a cryptocurrency firm that recently announced it’s relocating to El Salvador. Bloomberg recently ran an article headlined “Commerce Nominee Lutnick Is Backer of Outlaws’ Favorite Cryptocurrency.” The article states that Tether is used by, quote, “drug traffickers, terrorists and scammers to move money around the world.” Your response, Roman?

ROMAN GRESSIER: I don’t want to get in over my head on that. I wasn’t aware of Lutnick’s relationship, but it is true that Tether does have a presence in El Salvador. And an array of cryptocurrency companies, major players on the global scale, have had some type of presence in El Salvador since 2021, when the bitcoin law was passed, though I would note that the bitcoin law was basically gutted in recent days. And, for example, any language referencing bitcoin as moneda, or currency, was struck from the law, among others, as part of an IMF financing deal. So, I’m not sure what exactly the political implications would be of Lutnick’s appointment, but we’ll have to watch and see.

Part 1 of 2

CREW, Democracy Forward sue to block Trump’s illegal plan to fire government workers
January 28, 2025
Updated
January 29, 2025
https://www.citizensforethics.org/legal ... s-illegal/



President Trump’s executive order paving the way to convert potentially tens of thousands of merit-based civil servants to at-will employees, enabling political appointees to fire and replace them with loyalists, is unlawful and exceeds the president’s authority, according to a lawsuit filed today in Maryland federal court by Public Employees for Environmental Responsibility (PEER). PEER is represented in the suit by Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington (CREW) and Democracy Forward.

“Donald Trump’s executive order reverses course on 140 years of civil service reform meant to ensure federal employees have the required skills and expertise to best serve the American people and protect the civil service from dangerous nepotism and cronyism,” said CREW President Noah Bookbinder. “With one of his first acts in office, Donald Trump put the country on a path toward getting rid of merit-based hiring and staffing crucial government functions with unqualified loyalists.”

Trump’s order, nearly identical to his previous Schedule F executive order in 2020, would lay the groundwork to convert a huge percentage of the federal civil service from employees who can only be fired for cause to at-will employees who can be fired for any reason at all. Thousands of employees—including those who protect our public health, the environment and our food and water—who were hired for their expertise and serve in non-partisan positions could be stripped of vested job protections in one fell swoop, in violation of their due process rights and in excess of the president’s constitutional authority.

“The American people rely on non-partisan and professional civil servants to serve the public. There are 2.2 million civil servants that work in every community across our country to, among other things, make sure that our communities and our nation are protected, our food and medicine are safe, our air and water are clean, and our children have access to education.

“The Administration’s efforts, outlined in Project 2025, to decimate the ability of our government to do work for the people will harm everyday Americans. We are challenging these actions in court,” said Skye Perryman, President and CEO of Democracy Forward.

For more than 30 years, PEER has provided pro bono legal services and other support to scientists, public health professionals and other civil servants who seek to uphold high standards of scientific integrity within their agencies, including by defending whistleblowers and shining a light on illegal government actions. The renewed Schedule F order has already directly impacted PEER’s clients and PEER’s ability to fulfill its mission.

“This profoundly troubling move advances efforts by the administration to politicize policymaking by removing scientists and experts and inserting, instead, those who will follow the wishes of political leaders,” said Tim Whitehouse, PEER Executive Director. “It would allow political leaders to reach deep into federal agencies to remove and replace unknown and unheralded civil servants whose work is critical to keeping our country safe but whose viewpoints may run afoul of the prevailing political narrative of the day.”

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

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF MARYLAND

PUBLIC EMPLOYEES FOR ENVIRONMENTAL RESPONSIBILITY
962 Wayne Avenue, Suite 610
Silver Spring, MD 20910
Plaintiff,
v.
DONALD J. TRUMP, in his official capacity as President of the United States of America,
1600 Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W.
Washington, DC 20500,

CHARLES EZELL, in his official capacity as Acting Director of Office of Personnel Management,
1900 E Street, N.W.
Washington, D.C. 20415,

And

OFFICE OF PERSONNEL MANAGEMENT,
1900 E Street, N.W.
Washington, D.C. 20415
Defendants.

COMPLAINT FOR DECLARATORY AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF

Case No. 8:25-cv-00260-PX

Plaintiff Public Employees for Environmental Responsibility (PEER) hereby sues Defendants Donald J. Trump, Charles Ezell, and the Office of Personnel Management (OPM) and alleges as follows:

1. Selecting and removing federal career employees on the basis of merit—their ability to do the jobs for which they are hired—is neither a new concept nor, until recently, a controversial one. For more than 140 years, meritocratic principles have been essential to the efficient and continuous operation of the career civil service.

2. Before that, a “spoils system” reigned and each successive president simply filled federal jobs with political allies. Under this patronage system, positions were not filled based on qualifications or merit, and when presidential administrations changed, employees were regularly dismissed from government regardless of how well they had performed their duties. The spoils system was rife with corruption. By 1832, Senator Henry Clay called it

a detestable system. . . And if it were to be perpetuated—if the offices, honors, and dignities of the people were to be put up to public scramble, to be decided by the result of every presidential election—our Government and institutions, becoming intolerable, would finally end in despotism.

Jay M. Shafritz et al., Personnel Management in Government: Politics and Process (5th ed. 2001).

3. Congress eventually repudiated the spoils era and created the modern civil service on which this country depends and under which it has thrived. Today, civil servants

print and mint; our money, control narcotics, regulate immigration, and collect taxes and duties. They help to conserve land and revitalize land that is unproductive, bring electricity into rural homes, enforce Federal laws, and administer Social Security. They operate the atomic energy program, forecast the weather, and protect national parks and forests. They conduct research—in physics, electronics, meteorology, geology, metallurgy, and other scientific fields—which has far-reaching effects on the health, welfare, economy, and security of our Nation. They control our airways, standardize our weights and measures, develop flood-control measures, and perform hundreds of other services required by the American people.

U.S. Civ. Serv. Comm., Pub. Info. Off., Biography of an Ideal: A History of the Federal Civil Service 2 (1974).

4. Congress’ requirement of merit-based hiring and its attendant protections were initially limited to a small number of federal jobs, but the share of the federal workforce that Congress has determined should be selected on the basis of merit grew steadily, now comprising the vast majority of the country’s 2.3 million federal workers. Over decades, merit-based selection and retention of employees have produced a stable and successful civil service that effectively carries out the ordinary and continuous work of the federal government and has effectuated the president’s policies and Congress’ programs regardless of political party.

5. To ensure accountability to the president, new administrations appoint approximately 4,000 noncareer employees to direct their agendas’ implementation. These appointees direct and work in concert with career civil servants, whose expertise, experience, and skills allow them to effectively carry out policy direction while completing the nonpartisan work of government. Without these talented career employees’ expertise, presidential administrations would be significantly limited in their ability to implement their agendas, and the operations of the federal government—everything from Social Security to national parks—would grind to a halt.

6. Now, however, the President seeks to do just that by way of an Executive Order, “Restoring Accountability to Policy-Influencing Positions Within the Federal Workforce” (Jan. 20, 2025) (“the Executive Order,” or “E.O.”), which would undermine the meritocratic system Congress enacted and return to a spoils system, with all the dangers it entails.

7. PEER, a nonprofit provider of legal services to federal employees and whistleblowers, brings this suit to challenge the E.O. as ultra vires and as directing agency action contrary to the Administrative Procedure Act.

SUMMARY OF THE CASE

8. Since the Pendleton Act ended the spoils system and created the competitive civil service in 1883, subsequent congressional and executive actions have consistently moved the federal civil service in one direction: toward greater protections and political insulation for members of the career civil service, and toward a greater proportion of the federal workforce being covered by these protections. This progress has been charted for one purpose: to improve the efficiency and effectiveness of the federal government as it works for the American people. The civil service system was intended to eliminate the myriad ills of the spoils system: the inefficiency of quadrennial patronage scrambles, the inferior quality of civil servants selected for reasons besides merit, the loss of expertise attendant to regular purges of the civil service ranks, and the perils of a civil service loyal to an individual president or administration.

9. The creation of a robust, professional civil service began with a commitment to competitive, merit-based hiring. It expanded with a commitment to retention of civil servants and then insulation of civil servants from demands of party or personal allegiance that could interfere with the non-partisan workings of government. Along the way, limited exceptions to these principles were defined to shape a federal workforce that is directed by political appointees at the top, managed by a small cadre of career, non-partisan employees with executive skills, and populated by a large force of career, non-partisan employees. Security from arbitrary and politically-motivated termination for career employees was written into law with the encouragement of numerous presidents. The sharpest departure from that historical trend was the unprecedented attempt by the first Trump Administration to establish “Schedule F” of the excepted service, which the Executive Order reinstated nearly identically as “Schedule Policy/Career” (“renewed Schedule F”).

10. The longstanding policies now being reversed have been codified in the Civil Service Reform Act and other enactments as well as regulations issued by OPM. They are well supported by social science, empirical research, and historical experience.

11. Statutory adverse action rights—the rights of civil servants to challenge removals from service, suspensions, or demotions—allow civil servants to serve the nation without fear of political reprisal and allow the agencies they serve to rely on their continued expertise and diligence, including through and during periods of presidential transition.

12. The procedural and substantive protections of civil servants against adverse employment actions are a key safeguard against partisan influence in civil service employment decisions. Absent such protections, there is no barrier to a presidential administration simply clearing the career ranks of subject matter experts and putting in place political cronies who lack requisite experience to perform critical jobs on behalf of the American public.

13. The Executive Order now seeks to eliminate those protections for many federal employees without due process of law, as well as eliminate merit-based hiring requirements.

14. The Executive Order is contrary to law in several respects. It exceeds the President’s authority under the Civil Service Reform Act, purports to deprive federal employees of property rights without due process required by the Fifth Amendment, and requires federal agencies to violate the Administrative Procedure Act.

PARTIES

15. Plaintiff PEER (Public Employees for Environmental Responsibility) is a nonprofit, non-partisan organization headquartered in Maryland. PEER provides direct services to environmental and public health professionals, land managers, scientists, enforcement officers, and other civil servants dedicated to upholding environmental laws and values. PEER provides pro bono legal services to current and former public employees who hold government accountable to environmental ethics, compliance with environmental laws, and scientific integrity standards. PEER represents and defends federal whistleblowers, investigates and exposes improper or illegal government actions, and works to improve laws and regulations impacting PEER’s clients.

16. Defendant Donald J. Trump is the President of the United States. He is sued in his official capacity.

17. Defendant Office of Personnel Management (OPM) is a federal agency that serves as the chief human resources agency and personnel policy manager for the Federal government.

18. Defendant Charles Ezell is the Acting Director of OPM. He is sued in his official capacity.

JURISDICTION AND VENUE

19. This Court has jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1331. This Court has further remedial authority under the Declaratory Judgment Act, 28 U.S.C. §§ 2201 and 2202 et. seq and the Administrative Procedure Act, 5 U.S.C. §§ 701 et seq.

20. Venue properly lies within the District of Maryland because Plaintiff resides in this judicial district. 28 U.S.C. § 1391(e)(1).

BACKGROUND

The Transition from the Spoils System to a Modern, Professional Civil Service

21. Since 1870, Congress and the presidents have consistently sought to ensure that selection and retention of federal career civil servants are based on merit, and isolated from the risk of undue partisan influence. These efforts grew out of the failures and corruption of the spoils system, and have all been directed at the improvement and professionalization of the civil service for the benefit of the government and the nation.

22. In 1870, President Ulysses S. Grant asked Congress to undertake “a reform in the civil service of the country,” recognized that the spoils system “does not secure the best men, and often not even fit men, for public place. The elevation and purification of the civil service of the Government will be hailed with approval by the whole people of the United States.” Ulysses S. Grant, Second Annual Message (Dec. 5, 1870).

23. Congress obliged, authorizing the formation of a commission to study rules and regulations concerning civil service hiring that would “best promote the efficiency” of the civil service. George William Curtis, U.S. Civ. Serv. Comm., The Reform of the Civil Service: A Report to the President, U.S. Gov’t Printing Off. 5 (1871).

24. The commission concluded that, under the prevailing spoils system, “both selection and removal are largely determined, not by the welfare of the service, but by political stress and exigency.” Id. at 16.

25. The inevitable result of such a system was that civil servants of the time were generally not the best people for their jobs. Indeed, “[t]he doctrine of rotation in office implies that merit should not be considered.” Id. at 17.

26. Nor did the damage end there. Besides suffering from an inferior workforce, government was derailed by staff turnover following each administration change.

In obedience to this system, the whole machinery of the government is pulled to pieces every four years . . . The business of the nation, the legislation of Congress, the duties of the Departments, are all subordinated to the distribution of what is well called “the spoils.” . . . Presidents, Secretaries, Senators, Representatives, are pertinaciously dogged and besought on the one hand to appoint, on the other to retain subordinates.

Id. at 6.

27. To protect career Federal employees from undue partisan influence and ensure that the public would benefit from a professional and competent civil service regardless of political affiliation, civil service advocates and then Congress sought to establish a federal nonpartisan career civil service selected on the basis of merit rather than political affiliation. The reform movement culminated in 1883 when Congress passed the Pendleton Civil Service Reform Act. The Pendleton Act established merit-based hiring for federal positions “as nearly as the conditions of good administration will warrant,” 22 Stat. 403 (Jan. 16, 1883), and provided some employment protections to employees hired in those positions.

28. In 1897, President William McKinley issued Executive Order 101, mandating that “[n]o removal shall be made from any position subject to competitive examination except for just cause and upon written charges filed with the head of the Department, or other appointing officer, and of which the accused shall have full notice and an opportunity to make defense.”

29. Congress subsequently codified similar protections in 1912’s Lloyd-La Follette Act, prohibiting removal of employees in the “classified [i.e., competitive] civil service” “except for such cause as will promote the efficiency of said service,” and mandating an opportunity for an employee to respond to the basis for removal. See 37 Stat. 555 (Aug. 24, 1912).

30. The Lloyd-La Follette Act was motivated, in part, by an effort to “do away with the discontent and suspicion which now exists among [civil service] employees and . . . restore that confidence which is necessary to get the best results from the employees.” 48 Cong. Rec. 4654 (1912) (remarks of Rep. Calder).

31. As time went on, Congress continued to bolster civil service protections. In 1944, Congress passed the Veterans’ Preference Act, providing additional procedural protections to veterans serving in the civil service.

32. In 1962, President John F. Kennedy issued Executive Order 10988, extending Veterans’ Preference Act rights and protections to non-veteran competitive service employees.

33. Despite these advances in civil service protections, the Nixon administration undertook a “concerted and concealed endeavor ‘to politicize’ the executive branch,” Senate Aides See Bureaucracy Use For Political Gain, N.Y. Times (June 8, 1974), and to populate the government with loyalists. U.S. Cong., Subcomm. on Manpower & Civ. Serv., Final Report on Violations and Abuses of Merit Principles in Federal Employment, Together with Minority Views, at 147 (Dec. 30, 1976).

34. As part of that effort, Nixon’s White House Personnel Office sought to gain greater “accountability” throughout the executive branch, including by “reorganiz[ing] sections of an agency and, in doing so, eliminate the jobs of” employees the administration wanted to purge. Id.

35. Even for positions that were “technically nonpartisan civil service posts, the White House team [looked] not only for ability to perform the task but also ‘political compatibility’ with the Nixon administration.” Id. Unsurprisingly, the head of the White House Personnel Office “realized some [patronage] referrals ended up in career jobs.” Id. at 148.

36. Whistleblowers at the Senate Watergate hearings later showed that the Nixon Administration tried to implement the “Malek Manual,” a secret blueprint to replace the civil service merit system with a political hiring scheme that would have begun by purging all Democrats from federal employment. See Joseph D. Gebhardt et al., Blueprint for Civil Service Reform, Fund for Constitutional Government (1976).

37. Following Nixon’s resignation, President Gerald R. Ford distanced himself from the Nixon White House Personnel Office’s disregard for the merit system, reaffirming the importance of the federal civil service and the merit principles that underpin it. President Ford wrote to department and agency heads that the federal government’s ability “to function and move ahead even under the most difficult circumstances . . . is due chiefly to more than two million career civil servants who, day-in and day-out, give of themselves in a thoroughly dedicated and efficient manner.” Gerald R. Ford, Memorandum on the Career Civil Service (Sep. 20, 1974).

38. He instructed agency heads “to see to it that the merit principles contained in the [Pendleton] Act and the personnel laws and regulations are fully and effectively carried out.” Id.

The Creation of a Comprehensive Merit-Based Civil Service System

39. Faced by what he called the “bureaucratic maze” created by the patchwork of authorities governing the civil service and the rights of civil servants, President Jimmy Carter proposed a “comprehensive program to reform the Federal Civil Service system,” intending:

To strengthen the protection of legitimate employee rights; To provide incentives and opportunities for managers to improve the efficiency and responsiveness of the Federal Government; To reduce the red tape and costly delay in the present personnel system; To promote equal opportunity; [and] To improve labor management relations.

Jimmy Carter, Federal Civil Service Reform Message to the Congress (Mar. 2, 1978).

40. In response, Congress recognized that a system of federal employment “consistent with merit system principles and free from prohibited personnel practices” would best “provide the people of the United States with a competent, honest, and productive Federal work force reflective of the Nation’s diversity” and enacted the Civil Service Reform Act of 1978 (“CSRA”). 92 Stat. 1111-12. The CSRA “comprehensively overhauled the civil service system,” Lindahl v. OPM, 470 U.S. 768, 773 (1985), strengthening civil service protections in the process.

41. The CSRA’s comprehensive “new framework,” id. at 774, protected career federal employees from undue partisan political influence, and extended adverse action rights to a larger cohort of employees, so that the business of government could be carried out efficiently and effectively, in compliance with the law, and in a manner that encourages individuals to apply to participate in the civil service. It is the principal foundation of the modern merit system.

42. The CSRA makes clear the paramount place of meritocracy in the selection and retention of federal civil servants. It provides that “[f]ederal personnel management should be implemented consistent with [nine] merit system principles.” 5 U.S.C. § 2301(b).

43. The CSRA’s merit system principles apply to all executive agencies, and include: a) “All employees and applicants for employment should receive fair and equitable treatment” without regard to a range of personal characteristics, including political affiliation; b) “The Federal work force should be used efficiently and effectively;” c) “Employees should be retained on the basis of the adequacy of their performance, inadequate performance should be corrected, and employees should be separated who cannot or will not improve their performance to meet required standards;” and d) Employees should be “protected against arbitrary action, personal favoritism, or coercion for partisan political purposes.” See 5 U.S.C. §§ 2301(a), (b)(1)-(8).

44. Giving teeth to these principles, Congress barred federal employees from engaging in certain prohibited personnel practices in the civil service. Federal employees are prohibited from, inter alia: a) discriminating “for or against any employee or applicant for employment . . . on the basis of . . . political affiliation;” b) coercing “the political activity of any person” or taking “any action against any employee or applicant for employment as a reprisal for the refusal of any person to engage in such political activity;” c) granting “any preference or advantage not authorized by law, rule, or regulation to any employee or applicant for employment;” d) retaliating against lawful disclosure of information that an employee reasonably believed evinces “any violation of any law, rule, or regulation,” or “gross mismanagement, a gross waste of funds, an abuse of authority, or a substantial and specific danger to public health or safety” (whistleblowing); e) discriminating “for or against any employee or applicant for employment on the basis of conduct which does not adversely affect the performance of the employee or applicant or the performance of others;” and f) taking or failing “to take any other personnel action if the taking of or failure to take such action violates . . . the merit system principles.” 5 U.S.C. §§ 2302(b)(1)-(12).

45. In addition to the codification of the merit system principles and the enumeration of the prohibited personnel practices, the CSRA created a “‘new framework for evaluating adverse personnel actions against’” federal employees. United States v. Fausto, 484 U.S. 439, 443 (U.S. 1988) (quoting Lindahl, 470 U.S. at 774).

46. That framework includes rights and procedures by which civil service employees may challenge adverse actions, including those resulting from prohibited personnel practices.

47. In the 142 years since the Pendleton Act, Congress has further modified the selection criteria and the specific protections available to members of the civil service, including via the Civil Service Due Process Amendments Act of 1990, which, among other things, extended appeal rights to a large swath of excepted service employees. Pub. L. 101-376, 104 Stat. 461.

48. Throughout these enactments, the basic principles of the federal civil service have remained the same: career civil servants are selected on the basis of merit and are not removed simply on account of their political views or those of the president.

The Civil Service Today

Classifications of Employees

49. Federal law generally classifies civil service employees into three categories – the competitive service, the excepted service, and the Senior Executive Service (“SES”), each with distinct selection, compensation, and adverse action rights. See generally Cong. Rsch. Serv., Categories of Federal Civil Service Employment: A Snapshot (March 26, 2019), https://tinyurl.com/akrc8hs6 (“CRS Categories”).

50. Roughly 70% of all federal workers are in the competitive service. Id. at 4.

51. Congress made the competitive service the default for civil service employees in the executive branch; all federal employees are presumed part of the competitive service unless specifically excluded. See 5 U.S.C. §§ 2102(a)(1), 2103; 5 C.F.R. pts. 213, 302; Upholding Civil Service Protections and Merit System Principles, 89 Fed. Reg. 24982-01, 24988 (April 9, 2024) (“OPM Final Rule” or “Final Rule”).

52. By statute, the president possesses authority to exclude employees from the competitive service under specific circumstances. The president is permitted to “prescribe rules governing the competitive service,” but may make only “necessary exceptions of positions from the competitive service” when warranted by “conditions of good administration.” 5 U.S.C. § 3302.

53. Prior to the E.O., there were five categories of positions, or schedules, excepted from the competitive service: Schedules A-E. 5 C.F.R. § 6.2. Schedules A, B, and D provide an exception for positions where it is “not practicable” or “impracticable” to impose a hiring condition. 5 C.F.R. § 6.2. Schedules C and E are for the special and limited categories of political appointees and administrative law judges. See, e.g., 5 C.F.R. §§ 6.2, 734.104.

Civil Service Protections

54. As detailed above, Congress determined it was imperative to protect career federal employees from partisan and other improper influences to ensure a competent, effective, and professional workforce. Accordingly, Congress enacted statutes, including the CSRA, to ensure that hiring, removal, and other employment actions would be based on merit.

55. Hiring into the competitive service is conducted by examinations, which are designed to be “practical in character and relate to matters that fairly test the relative capacity and fitness of the applicants for the appointment sought.” CRS Categories at 2 (internal quotations omitted). See also 5 U.S.C. § 3304; 5 C.F.R. § 332.101.

56. Employees in the competitive service may be subjected to adverse personnel actions only for good cause, where the adverse action will promote “the efficiency of the service.” 5 §§ U.S.C. 7503(a), 7513(a). See also 5 C.F.R. §§ 752.102(a), 752.202(a).

57. To protect employees from adverse actions without good cause, Congress created procedural protections and a structure to ensure that agencies provide reasons for adverse actions.

58. For minor adverse actions, competitive service employees who have completed probationary periods have notice and appeal rights and receive written notice that identifies the reason for the action, a reasonable time to respond, and a written decision. See 5 U.S.C. § 7503(b).

59. For more significant adverse actions, such as termination, reduction in pay or grade, or long suspensions, employees may also appeal to the Merit Systems Protection Board (“MSPB”), which reviews and adjudicates actions against qualifying federal employees. See 5 U.S.C. § 7513. Employees may appeal MSPB decisions to federal court. See 5 U.S.C. §§ 7513(d), 7701-7703.

60. The MSPB will not sustain an adverse employment action that is unsupported by a sufficient evidentiary basis, 5 U.S.C. § 7701(c)(1), is not accordance with law, or is based on a “prohibited personnel practice.” 5 U.S.C. § 7701(c)(2).

61. Prohibited personnel actions include discrimination on the basis of political affiliation or activity, granting any preference “not authorized by law, rule, or regulation” to an employee or applicant, discrimination “on the basis of conduct which does not adversely affect” performance, or any other personnel action, “if the taking or failure to take such action violates … the merit system principles,” including whistleblower protections. 5 U.S.C. § 2302(b). Under 5 U.S.C. § 7515, supervisors are subject to penalties for retaliation against whistleblowers.

62. Hiring works differently for the excepted service, and applicants for excepted positions are not subject to an examination process. However, excepted service applicants are still to be considered “solely on the basis of relative ability, knowledge, and skills, after fair and open competition which assures that all receive equal opportunity.” 5 U.S.C. § 2301(b)(1). See also 5 U.S.C. § 3320.

63. In general, excepted service employees have the same notice and appeal rights for adverse personnel actions, though they typically must satisfy longer durational requirements before they become entitled to these rights. See CRS Categories at 5; 5 U.S.C. § 7511(a)(1).

64. As with the competitive service, members of the excepted service who meet the requisite durational requirements may only be terminated for cause. See 5 U.S.C. §§ 7503(a), 7513(a); 5 C.F.R. § 752.102(a); 5 C.F.R. § 752.202(a).

65. And so long as an excepted service member is in a “covered position,” they likewise have protections against “prohibited personnel practices” like discrimination on the basis of political affiliation. See OPM Final Rule, 89 Fed. Reg. at 24987-88; 5 U.S.C. §§ 2302(a)-(b).

66. The vast majority of federal workers, whether in the competitive or excepted service, are entitled to the robust protections outlined above once they have been in service for a period of 1 or 2 years and are beyond any probationary period.

Civil Service by the Numbers

67. The modern federal workforce consists of approximately two million civilian employees. See Elizabeth Byers & Kennedy Teel, A Profile of the 2023 Federal Workforce, P’ship for Pub. Serv. (2024), https://tinyurl.com/bddbn8mz.

68. Roughly 20% of the federal workforce is located inside the Washington, D.C. metropolitan area, with the rest of the federal civilian workforce spread across all fifty states. For example, 5.7% of the federal civilian workforce, or more than 110,000 employees, are located in Texas; 4.2% (or more than 84,000) in Florida; 6.6% (or more than 131,000) in California. Id.

69. The federal workforce is a diverse one, with nearly 40% of employees comprised of individuals who identify as part of a racial or ethnic minority group. Id. Veterans comprise roughly 30% of the federal civilian workforce; more than 20% of the workforce identifies as having a disability or serious health condition. Id.

70. Roughly 53% of the federal civilian workforce possesses a bachelor’s degree or beyond, and 27% has a high school or equivalent education, or less. Id.

71. Public sector jobs have long been a source of opportunity and security that help individuals and families, particularly from historically marginalized groups, build economic security and move into the middle class. See, e.g., Michael Madowitz et al., Public Work Provides Economic Security for Black Families and Communities, Ctr. for Am. Progress (2020), https://tinyurl.com/5fuuncfx.

ALLEGATIONS

The Creation of Renewed Schedule F Upends Longstanding Law and Practice

72. Renewed Schedule F would run contrary to the core principles of the federal civil service established by Congress.

The Executive Order Discards Protections Requested by Previous Executives, Enacted by Congress, and Accepted by All Three Branches of Government

73. This E.O. will, in effect, reinstate a spoils system, untethered from merit.

74. The E.O. purports to amend 5 C.F.R. § 6.2 to create a new, broad category: “Positions of a confidential, policy-determining, policy-making, or policy-advocating character not normally subject to change as a result of a Presidential transition.” E.O. § 2 (reinstating Exec. Order 13957 § 4(i) in relevant part).

75. The purpose of this broad, new category of renewed Schedule F is plain from the text of the E.O. – it will make it easier to fire career civil servants. See E.O. § 1.

76. The E.O. purports to except these positions from the protections that Congress set forth in Chapter 75. See E.O. § 2 (reinstating Exec. Order 13957 in relevant part).

77. Under the terms of the E.O., these career civil servants would, if terminated, no longer have the right to receive notice or any reason at all as to why they are being terminated, and would no longer be provided an opportunity to be heard or to appeal their termination.

78. At the same time, the E.O. purports to remove competitive hiring processes which ensure that positions are filled by merit. See E.O. § 2, § 1 (reinstating E.O. 13957 in relevant part).

79. The workers subject to reclassification under the E.O. were chosen on the basis of merit but will now face the specter of demotion, disciplinary actions, or dismissal on the basis of political allegiance or for other improper reasons.

80. Disciplinary actions or dismissals of employees for ideological or political loyalty reasons will deprive the federal government of experienced, expert workers and undermine the efficient administration of government operations.

81. The E.O. claims that civil servants in “policy-influencing positions” must be “accountable” to the president. It further asserts, without evidence, that there have been “numerous and well-documented cases of career Federal employees resisting and undermining the policies and directives of their executive leadership,” and concludes that there is a need to “restore accountability” to the civil service. E.O. § 1. The E.O. implies that the alleged difficulty in removing employees who are insubordinate, perform poorly, or commit serious misconduct is an obstacle to this “accountability.” See id.

82. The CSRA, however, already provides for well-established and robust processes to remove federal employees who are insubordinate, perform poorly, or commit serious misconduct. See 5 U.S.C. §§ 4303; 7511-15; 5 C.F.R. part 432; 5 C.F.R. part 752.

83. The provisions to remove employees who are insubordinate, perform poorly, or commit serious misconduct already allow removal of employees who resist or undermine policies and directives of political leadership. But the E.O. does not seek to remove procedural protections based on poor performance or failure to enact policy directives; it instead solely seeks to streamline terminations based on the type of work the employee performs, and does not require any showing of poor performance, misconduct, or insubordination. But an employee’s work portfolio – including whether they work on policy – has nothing to do with their performance or conduct.

84. Indeed, the E.O. purports to exclude affected workers from the purview of chapter 23, which prohibits officials from, inter alia, making personnel recommendations based on political connections or influence, coercing employees into engaging in political activities, engaging in nepotism, or retaliating against whistleblowers. See 5 U.S.C. § 2302(b).

85. The E.O. directs agencies to establish rules similar to those in Chapter 23 regarding prohibited personnel practices, E.O. § 6, but provides no timeline for agencies to do so, nor any recourse for employees denied such protections. And since the Executive Order permits agencies to terminate renewed Schedule F employees without providing any basis, agencies are effectively free to fire workers for prohibited reasons – they just need not give any reason at all.

86. Congress provided that workers should not be subject to discipline for “refusing to obey an order that would require the individual to violate a law, rule, or regulation.” 5 U.S.C. § 2302(b)(9)(D). But far from recognizing employees’ ultimate obligation to uphold the rule of law, the E.O. instead threatens employees with dismissal for failing to “faithfully implement administration policies to the best of their ability.” E.O. § 2 (reinstating Exec. Order 13957 § 6 in relevant part and adding section § 6(b)).

87. This carte blanche to fire federal employees defies congressional mandates, leaving “innumerable ways for politics to factor into these traditionally merit-based decisions in a manner that would be difficult to detect or remedy.” 89 Fed. Reg. at 24994.

88. In short, the E.O. unilaterally abrogates protections that Congress created to protect against partisan encroachment into hiring and firing decisions.

The Executive Order Dramatically Expands Congress’ Narrow Exclusions From Civil Service Protections

89. Congress has crafted narrow exclusions from civil service protections for limited categories of employees, including those who are Senate confirmed; whose positions are “of a confidential, policy-determining, policy-making or policy-advocating character” (who are listed on Schedule C); were appointed directly by the president; members of the Foreign Service, the Central Intelligence Agency and several other specifically identified agencies; non-citizens who occupy positions outside of the United States; and some retired annuitants. 5 U.S.C. §§ 7511(b)(1)- (10). See also 5 U.S.C. § 2302(a)(2)(B).

90. Since the CSRA was enacted in 1978, administrations have limited Schedule C exceptions to fewer than 2,000 employees, less than 0.1 percent of the federal workforce. See U.S. Civ. Serv. Comm’n, Maintaining the Integrity of the Career Civil Service, 10 (1960); U.S. Off. Of Pers. Mgmt., General, Questions and Answers, https://tinyurl.com/y8wtp9yk (last visited Jan. 16, 2025) (detailing different political appointment types); Ctr. for Presidential Transition, Frequently Asked Questions About the Political Appointment Process, P’ship for Pub. Serv., https://tinyurl.com/ycyph42y (last accessed Jan. 16, 2025) (estimating there are 1,200 PAS positions, 750 noncareer SES positions, 450 PA positions, and 1,550 Schedule C positions).

91. Schedule C consists of “confidential, policy-determining, policy-making or policy-advocating” positions not directly appointed by the president but brought on by the incoming administration to serve in supporting roles like policy advisors, deputy counsels, and special assistants. See, e.g., S. Rept. No. 118–27 (2024).

92. Just 0.02% of the federal workforce, roughly 4,000 people, serve as political appointees, including Senate-confirmed, presidentially appointed, and Schedule C officials.

93. The exception for employees whose positions are “of a confidential, policy-determining, policy-making or policy-advocating character” in 5 U.S.C. § 7511(b)(2) is limited to employees who do not have an expectation of continued employment after the presidential administration in which they serve.

94. Were positions “of a confidential, policy-determining, policy-making or policy-advocating character” expanded to include career employees, it would undercut the CSRA, which establishes protections for both competitive and excepted service employees.

Renewed Schedule F Is Not Warranted by Good Administration

95. The E.O. asserts that the removal of civil service protections is necessary and warranted by good administration as required by 5 U.S.C. § 3302, but the opposite is true.

Prior Government Actions Reflect that Only Narrow Exceptions to the Competitive Service are Necessary to Promote Good Administration

96. Prior determinations to except narrowly-defined groups from the competitive service demonstrate that renewed Schedule F is an aberration—it is neither necessary nor warranted by good administration. In prior exceptions to the competitive service, the president or OPM carefully considered the necessity of such exceptions, tailoring new schedules and exceptions to the specific factual circumstances that required deviating from the default of competitive service.

97. For example, in 2009, OPM conducted a review of the government’s ability to recruit and hire students and recent graduates. This review included an interagency team to examine relevant federal recruiting and hiring processes, a roundtable to explore relevant barriers to hiring, a public hearing and invitation for comments on the necessity for an exception to competitive service, review of scholarly literature and empirical data, and expert analysis. See generally Excepted Service, Career and Career-Conditional Employment; and Pathways Programs, 76 Fed. Reg. 47495, 47496-97 (Aug. 5, 2011) (describing review).

98. OPM then prepared a report for the president, concluding that, inter alia, barriers to hiring students and recent graduates, combined with the value of such hiring to effective governing, necessitated an exception to the competitive service. Id. at 47497.

99. President Obama subsequently issued Executive Order No. 13562, creating Schedule D, which excepted certain students and recent graduates temporarily from the competitive service. Relying on OPM’s report, the President articulated the necessity of these new exceptions in light of identified barriers to employment, the benefits recent graduates provide to the federal workforce, and the merit system principle set forth in 5 U.S.C. § 2301(b)(1) for the federal government “to achieve a work force from all segments of society.” See Executive Order No. 13562, 75 Fed. Reg. 82,585 (Dec. 30, 2010). In addition to narrowly tailoring the new schedule to the needs identified by an extensive factual record, the Schedule D exceptions included a pathway to conversion to the competitive service. See 5 C.F.R. § 362.107.

100. Other competitive service exceptions were tied to specific and narrow factual circumstances that made deviating from competitive service necessary. The first Trump Administration made such an exception in response to the COVID-19 pandemic. See Michael J. Rigas, U.S. Off. of Pers. Mgmt., OPM Memorandum Coronavirus Schedule A Hiring Authority (March 20, 2020), https://tinyurl.com/mutxdp6h; see also Nat’l Treasury Emps. Union v. Helfer, 53 F.3d 1289, 1294 (D.C. Cir. 1995) (detailing OPM’s history of occasionally approving (excepted hiring authorities for the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation when hiring demands caused by the burgeoning number of bank failures made competitive examination impracticable).

101. In 2023, OPM engaged in notice-and-comment rulemaking to ascertain how best to “enhance the efficiency of the Federal civil service and promote good administration.” Upholding Civil Service Protections and Merit System Principles, 88 Fed. Reg. 63862-01 (Sept. 18, 2023) (“OPM NPRM”).

102. As part of this process, OPM received and reviewed extensive submissions, including by Plaintiff. More than 4,000 commenters weighed in, including from “a variety of individuals (including current and former civil servants), organizations, and Federal agencies.” OPM Final Rule, 89 Fed. Reg. at 24984.

103. In addition to carefully considering these comments, OPM reviewed scholarly literature and empirical studies, analyzed the history of the civil service, and examined Congress’ frequent statutory actions in this space. See generally id.

104. Following this comprehensive process, OPM concluded that strengthening and clarifying civil service protections—not removing them, as proposed by the E.O.—would promote good administration.

105. For example, the Final Rule cataloged existing and effective mechanisms for “appropriate management oversight” of employees. 89 Fed. Reg. at 24990; id. at 24995-96.

106. The Rule also evaluated empirical studies and literature relating to state and international efforts to remove civil service protections, concluding that removing civil service protections did not improve performance or the delivery of government services. See 89 Fed. Reg. at 24998, 25002-03. The Rule concluded that instead of ensuring accountability and effective government, the evidence confirmed that Schedule F would open the door to partisan hiring and firing that risks ushering in the return of the spoils system that Congress has long sought to stamp out. By converting positions to at-will employment, career employees would lose their entitlement to written notice of the reasons for adverse action and other procedural protections. Removal of civil service protections would therefore make employees unable to

protect themselves from actions based on political beliefs or party allegiance because no cause (or evidence) would be required prior to such an action. Under Schedule F, because such an employee would be at-will, the employer would need to give little or no reason prior to a termination. In short, Schedule F leaves innumerable ways for politics to factor into these traditionally merit-based decisions in a manner that would be difficult to detect or remedy.

89 Fed. Reg. at 24994.

107. In sum, despite the Administration’s contention that removing civil service protection is necessary for good administration, OPM’s recent and careful consideration of a voluminous administrative record shows the opposite. Civil service protections are strongly associated with better government administration, including improved government performance, more effective delivery of services, and reduced corruption. Id. at 25002-05. Excepting such workers from the competitive service would “inject[] politicization into the nonpartisan career civil service” and “would not only harm government employees, agencies, and services, but also the American people that rely on them.” Id. at 24995.

Social Science Confirms that the Merit Protections and Procedural Safeguards Targeted by the Executive Order Promote Government Performance

108. Extensive social science research confirms that renewed Schedule F is neither necessary nor warranted by good government administration.

109. For example, a meta-analysis looking at the impact of merit principles examined nearly 100 peer-reviewed studies across more than 150 countries. The analysis showed that use of merit principles and tenure protection for civil servants was positively and consistently associated with government performance and negatively associated with corruption. See Eloy Oliveira et al., What Does the Evidence Tell us about Merit Principles and Government Performance?, 102 Pub. Admin. 668, 683 (2023), https://tinyurl.com/2xcpf7x9.

110. Other studies confirm the importance of civil service protections for the effective delivery of government services, including that adopting civil service reforms reduced errors and increased productivity. See Abhay Aneja & Guo Xu, Strengthening State Capacity: Civil Service Reform and Public Sector Performance during the Gilded Age, 114 Am. Econ. Rev. 2352 (2023), https://tinyurl.com/mn8jcnu4.

111. Social science research confirms reduced merit protections drive experts out of the government and make it harder to recruit motivated, effective workers. See Mark D. Richardson, Politicization and Expertise: Exit, Effort, and Investment, 81 J. Pol., 878-891 (2019).

History Reflects that Renewed Schedule F is Neither Necessary Nor Warranted by Conditions of Good Administration

112. Since 1883, career civil servants have conducted the business of government for the American people in a non-partisan manner.

113. They have advised incoming administrations regardless of party affiliation, carried out presidential priorities and Congress’ programs, all while ensuring the timely delivery of public benefits to the countless Americans who depend on them.

114. And they have led some of the largest and most influential undertakings in modern times; American civil servants have both figuratively and literally put men on the Moon.

115. The smooth and continuous operation of the United States government has depended on the continuity and qualifications of its career civil service.

116. Across seventeen switches in party control of the White House since the Pendleton Act, American civil servants have dutifully carried out the work of the government and given effect to the policies of each president under whom they have served.

117. This was as true under President Trump as it was for his predecessors.

118. Among hundreds of “Trump Administration Accomplishments” on the White House’s website as of January 2021, the first Trump Administration touted that it: a) effectuated a deregulatory agenda, undertaking the expert and technical work necessary to repeal eight regulations for every new regulation; b) distributed record amounts of aid to American farmers; c) implemented numerous new or expanded tax credits; d) distributed 125 million face masks to school districts to help combat COVID-19; e) expanded Veterans Administration services; f) distributed over $300 million in grants to support programs focused on career development services for formerly incarcerated people; and g) launched multiple initiatives to combat drug abuse. Trump Administrative Accomplishments, https://tinyurl.com/38yprasx (last accessed Jan. 14, 2025). The list does not reflect the full scope of the first Trump Administration’s initiatives, many of which were complicated, time-intensive, resource-intensive, or otherwise difficult.

119. President Trump and his political appointees did not do these things alone. The career civil servants who constitute most of the federal workforce were responsible for the vast majority of the work needed to effectuate President Trump’s decisions and priorities—as they were for his predecessors.

120. If this E.O. stands, future administrations are unlikely to retain employees chosen on the basis of political loyalty to a predecessor and will likely seek to replace them. “[W]hen a man has not been appointed by reason of his fitness, he must not ask that he be retained on account of his merit. . . . It treats the public service as a huge soup-house, in which needy citizens are to take turns at the table, and they must not grumble when they are told to move on.” The Reform of the Civil Service, 17.

121. The E.O. will resurrect quadrennial “public scrambles” for appointment to a vast swath of federal posts, undermining government efficiency at times of presidential transition.

The Executive Order is Aimed at Politicizing the Civil Service, and Any Claimed Benefits to Good Administration are Pretext

122. President Trump and his surrogates have made clear that renewed Schedule F, far from being a tool to drive effective government and improve performance, is based on a desire to drive out career civil servants, including those who may not share his politics, and to expedite the process of hiring political loyalists into positions previously staffed on the basis of merit.

President Trump Has Previously Attempted to Politicize the Civil Service

123. This is not the first time that a Trump Administration has attempted to gut civil service protections from the career workforce.

124. On October 21, 2020, President Trump issued Executive Order No. 13957, “Creating Schedule F in the Excepted Service,” excepting from the competitive service “positions of a confidential, policy-determining, policy-making, or policy-advocating character not normally subject to change as a result of a Presidential transition.” 85 Fed. Reg. 67631, 67632 (Oct. 26, 2020).

125. Executive Order No. 13957 included a bald assertion that “conditions of good administration,” specifically “the need to provide agency heads with additional flexibility to assess prospective appointees without the limitations imposed by competitive service procedures,” made the creation of Schedule F necessary. 85 Fed. Reg. at 67631.

126. Executive Order No. 13957 further asserted that conditions of good administration made it necessary to except Schedule F positions from certain adverse action protections. In other words, Schedule F sought to radically alter federal hiring and firing of career civil servants in a manner at odds with the CSRA and its amendments.

127. Because the first Trump Administration ended shortly after Executive Order No. 14003 was signed, no position in the federal civil service was ever moved to Schedule F. The Trump Administration’s Office of Management and Budget, however, provided a preview of what was expected, designating 68 percent of its employees as Schedule F, including lower-level GS-9 and 10 positions. U.S. Gov’t. Accountability Off., GAO-22-105504, Agency Responses and Perspectives on Former Executive Order to Create a New Schedule F Category of Federal Positions, at 14, 19 n.14 (2022), https://tinyurl.com/ycxbj56d.

128. On January 22, 2021, President Biden issued Executive Order No. 14003, Protecting the Federal Workforce, revoking Executive Order No. 13957. 86 Fed. Reg. 7231 (Jan. 22, 2021).

129. Executive Order No. 14003 determined that the creation of Schedule F “not only was unnecessary to the conditions of good administration, but also undermined the foundations of the civil service and its merit systems principles.” 86 Fed. Reg. at 7231.

President Trump and His Surrogates Have Expressly Admitted Their Desire and Intent to Illegally Politicize the Civil Service

130. President Trump stated that he seeks to make “every executive branch employee fireable by the president of the United States. The deep state must and will be brought to heel.” Donald J. Trump, Speech at Political Rally in Florence, South Carolina (March 12, 2022), https://tinyurl.com/3k6km35w.

131. The President has pledged to fire wide swaths of civil servants, promising to “throw off the political class that hates our country.” Donald J. Trump, Speech at Conservative Political Action Conference (March 4, 2023), https://tinyurl.com/2hjrs5ah. As he explained, “you’ll see that on the first day of my presidency, the deep state which is destroying our nation. The tables will turn and we will destroy the deep state. We’re going to destroy the deep state.” Donald J. Trump, Speech at South Carolina GOP Dinner (Aug. 5, 2023), https://tinyurl.com/36uhbe74.

132. President Trump has singled out Democrats and so-called “RINOs” (Republicans In Name Only) for termination. For example, in one video post from May 2023, Trump told a reporter that he will make “very big changes” to the FBI in a potential second term. Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump), Truth Social (May 15, 2023, 11:04 PM ET), https://tinyurl.com/bdesuz3w. The DOJ and FBI, Trump said, personify the “deep state” as they are filled with “thousands and thousands” of “RINOs and with Democrats” that have been there for decades. Rebecca Jacobs, Trump Has Said He Wants to Destroy the “Deep State” 56 Times On Truth Social, CREW (Aug. 1, 2024), https://tinyurl.com/36z27phm. In another speech, he criticized the “deep state” workers who “work with the with the Democrats and the Republicans, and those are the Republicans I don’t like.” Donald Trump, Speech at Political Rally in Sarasota, Florida (July 3, 2021), https://tinyurl.com/58r46v4a.

133. Vice President Vance reiterated that President Trump should “[f]ire every single midlevel bureaucrat, every civil servant in the administrative state, replace them with our people.” Andrew Prokop, J.D. Vance’s Radical Plan to Build a Government of Trump Loyalists, Vox (July 18, 2024), https://tinyurl.com/4rsvn7xv.

The President Lacks Authority to Strip Procedural Protections from Civil Servants Without Due Process

134. The E.O. purports to strip due process protections from current career civil servants, allowing employees placed onto renewed Schedule F to be fired at will and without procedural protections such as notice and an opportunity to be heard.

135. But once federal employees obtain tenure protections, they retain them—even if their positions are reclassified into positions no longer eligible for those protections, as the Constitution prohibits the government from stripping that interest without due process of law. See Cleveland Bd. of Educ. v. Loudermill, 70 U.S. 532, 541 (1985); U.S. Const. amend. V.

136. Here, Congress created conditions under which excepted and competitive service employees with the requisite satisfactory tenure earn a property interest in that continued employment. For such employees, Congress has mandated that removal and the other actions described in title 5 may be taken only “for such cause as will promote the efficiency of the service.” See 5 U.S.C. §§ 7503(a), 7513(a); 5 C.F.R. §§ 752.102(a), 752.202(a).

137. This property interest in continued employment has existed in the civil service since at least 1912, when the Lloyd-La Follette Act required just cause to remove a federal employee. See Bd. of Regents of State Colleges v. Roth, 408 U.S. 564, 576-77 (1972); 89 Fed. Reg. at 24987.

138. The Constitution divests the president of authority to terminate employees’ accrued property interests in continued employment, and their concomitant due process protections, simply by converting them from one federal civil service category to another. See Roth v. Brownell, 215 F.2d 500, 502 (D.C. Cir. 1954). “Neither the formula of ‘excepting’ the kind of position a person holds, nor any other formula, can obviate the requirements” for firing a civil servant. Id.

Part 2 of 2

The Executive Order Disregards Foundational Tenets of Administrative Law and Would Require Agencies to Violate the Administrative Procedure Act

139. The E.O. purports to simply disregard prior legal restraints against its implementation by nullifying regulations enacted pursuant to the Administrative Procedure Act following notice and comment.

140. Specifically, the E.O. provides that 5 C.F.R. part 302 and 5 C.F.R. § 210.102(b)(3) and (4) “shall be held inoperative and without effect” until OPM rescinds all portions of the Final Rule which would interfere with the E.O.

141. This circumvents Congress’ requirement in the Administrative Procedure Act that rulemakings and resulting regulations be promulgated, delayed, or rescinded through procedures designed “(1) to ensure that agency regulations are tested via exposure to diverse public comment, (2) to ensure fairness to affected parties, and (3) to give affected parties an opportunity to develop evidence in the record to support their objections to the rule and thereby enhance the quality of judicial review.” Int’l Union, United Mine Workers of Am. v. Mine Safety & Health Admin., 407 F.3d 1250, 1259 (D.C. Cir. 2005).

142. Congress expressly subjected OPM to the rulemaking requirements of the Administrative Procedure Act. See 5 U.S.C. §§ 553, 1103(b)(1), 1105; see also 5 C.F.R. § 110.101.

143. As described above, pursuant to its statutory authority, OPM previously engaged in comprehensive notice-and-comment rulemaking that implicated many issues relevant to the E.O. and ultimately issued final regulations that became effective on May 9, 2024.

144. The operative regulations, among other things, define the phrases “confidential, policy-determining, policy-making, or policy-advocating” and “confidential or policydetermining,” as terms of art throughout OPM’s Civil Service Regulations to describe positions of short-term, political character generally excepted from chapter 75’s protections. 5 C.F.R. § 210.102(b)(3), (b)(4). The regulations detail specific procedures that federal agencies must follow when moving individuals or positions from the competitive service to the excepted service, or from one excepted service schedule to another, including providing advance written notice and notice of appeal rights to impacted employees, see 5 C.F.R. § 302.602(c), (d), set forth a process by which employees involuntarily moved to a new schedule may file an appeal with the MSPB, including on the basis that a “facially voluntary move was coerced or otherwise involuntary,” 5 C.F.R. § 302.603, and requires agencies to identify the types, numbers, and locations of positions that the agency proposes to move and document the basis for determining that such moves are consistent with relevant standards set forth by the president, Congress, or OPM. 5 C.F.R. § 302.602(a), (b).

145. The May 9, 2024 OPM regulations are “legislative” because they were adopted “pursuant to properly delegated authority, ha[d] the force of law, and impose[d] new rights or duties.” Children’s Hosp. of the King’s Daughters, Inc. v. Azar, 896 F.3d 615, 620 (4th Cir. 2018).

146. Where the executive branch seeks to delay or rescind a legislative rule adopted through notice-and-comment rulemaking, the government must act through notice-and-comment. See, e.g., Nat’l Fam. Plan. & Reprod. Health Ass’n, Inc. v. Sullivan, 979 F.2d 227, 235 (D.C. Cir. 1992) (“It is a maxim of administrative law that . . . an amendment to a legislative rule” is “itself . . . legislative” and “notice and comment rulemaking must be followed” (internal quotations and citation omitted)); Clean Air Council v. Pruitt, 862 F.3d 1, 8-9 (D.C. Cir. 2017) (agency seeking to “brief[ly] stay” a final rule must go through notice-and-comment rulemaking).

147. Indeed, the E.O. tacitly acknowledges that OPM must rescind and amend existing regulations to effectuate the Executive Order. See E.O. § 4 (directing the Director of OPM to “promptly amend the Civil Service Regulations to rescind all changes made” by the OPM Final Rule that impact the effort to create renewed Schedule F).

148. But prior to OPM completing the process to rescind and amend, “including the resolution of any judicial review,” the E.O. declares that the existing regulations are nonetheless “inoperative and without effect.” Id. (purporting to render inoperative 5 C.F.R. part 302, subpart F, 5 C.F.R. § 210.102(b)(3), and 5 C.F.R. § 210.102(b)(4)).

149. The E.O. thus directs agencies to disregard the procedures and protections set forth in operative regulations now, without abiding by the notice-and-comment requirements of the Administrative Procedure Act.

150. On January 27, 2025, OPM Acting Director Charles Ezell issued a Memorandum to heads and acting heads of departments and agencies regarding the E.O. (“Ezell Mem.”).

151. The Ezell Memorandum acknowledged that the Executive Order “broadly directs OPM to rescind” OPM’s Final Rule and asserted that the E.O. “directly nullified some portions of that rule.” Ezell Mem. at 4. OPM directed agencies to “disregard the provisions of 5 CFR part 302, subpart F, 5 CFR 210.102(b)(3), and 5 CFR 210.102(b)(4).” Id.

152. The E.O., and OPM’s subsequent action, thereby deprive individuals, organizations, and other interested parties – including Plaintiff – from providing OPM important perspectives and data through the notice and comment process prior to subsequent final rulemaking.

153. By directing agencies to ignore regulations even before they have been properly revoked, the E.O. also mandates that agencies violate the Administrative Procedure Act, which requires courts to hold unlawful and set aside any agency action taken “without observance of procedure required by law.” 5 U.S.C. § 706(2)(D).

PEER Has Been and Will Continue to Be Harmed by the Illegal Executive Order

154. Plaintiff PEER’s mission is to protect civil servants who protect our environment and public health. The Executive Order has already caused PEER to expend additional resources and impeded its ability to fulfill its mission. Until the Executive Order and its effects are enjoined or invalidated, it will continue to frustrate PEER’s ability to fulfill its mission and will directly cause PEER to spend additional time and money addressing the impacts of the E.O.

The Executive Order Has Already Required PEER to Expend Significant Resources

155. PEER currently employs seven attorneys, who spend the bulk of their time providing legal services to federal civil servants. These employees are often whistleblowers who reveal environmental or public health abuses and other violations within their agencies and face retaliation as a result.

156. PEER represents these employees before the MSPB and the Department of Labor, assists them with the preparation of Office of Special Counsel or Inspector General complaints and disclosures, and advises them on legal matters connected to their employment. In some instances, PEER collects fees after successfully representing a client.

157. When a potential client contacts PEER, PEER spends significant time taking information from the potential client, conducting initial evaluations, and evaluating whether PEER will represent each potential client. This process can take hours, even for potential clients that PEER does not ultimately represent.

158. PEER also provides counseling, information, and referrals to civil servants that PEER ultimately chooses not to represent in litigation. PEER regularly represents and works with civil servants who are now at high risk of being reclassified under the E.O. For example, about half of PEER’s clients and potential clients review rulemakings, help write rules, or are otherwise involved in policy-related work.

159. Since January 24, 2025 alone, at least three individuals reached out to PEER because they were advised by their supervisors that they were likely subject to the E.O.

160. Since the Executive Order was promulgated on January 21, 2025, PEER has received at least fifteen inquiries from clients or potential clients who have identified Schedule F or renewed Schedule F as the reason for their outreach. That number is increasing rapidly. These inquiries have required PEER to expend additional resources counseling and advising, both because of increased call volume and lengthier counseling sessions due to new fears and concerns related to the Executive Order.

161. Since January 21, 2025, PEER has spent approximately 32 hours performing work for clients or potential clients in response to these concerns. That number is increasing rapidly since President Trump’s inauguration as PEER spends more time conducting intakes and providing legal services in connection with renewed Schedule F.

162. Because of the repeated outreach on this topic from the public and from potential clients, PEER has devoted significant communications resources to educate the public and civil servants about renewed Schedule F’s threatened revocation of legal protections, including a resource page, webinars and trainings, and blog posts on these topics.

163. Since January 21, 2025, numerous media outlets have contacted PEER seeking comment or information related to the Executive Order and its implications; this number continues to rise. PEER staff have expended time responding to these inquiries.

The Executive Order Has Already Impeded PEER’s Ability to Fulfill Its Mission

164. PEER also engages in public advocacy on behalf of civil servants and in defense of environmental ethics, public health, and integrity. For example, PEER works with whistleblowers when an agency engages in malfeasance or disregards the best available scientific evidence.

165. Several of PEER’s clients and potential clients have already indicated that they are reluctant to speak to the media or to make confidential whistleblower reports due to fear of retaliation given renewed Schedule F. For example, PEER spoke to one individual after the Executive Order was promulgated who was afraid to give even their name and hesitant to give any information because they feared summary termination due to the Executive Order.

166. These employees’ fears and hesitations are consistent with their perception that the E.O. removes or weakens protections for whistleblowers and renewed Schedule F employees.

167. This hesitation to make permitted disclosures of information impedes PEER’s ability to learn of agency practices that may impede environmental ethics, public health, and/or scientific integrity, and to take action to fulfill its mission based on that knowledge.

168. This will prevent PEER from learning about potentially dangerous policies or decisions and advocating for sound environmental and public health policies.

169. As potential whistleblowers lose protections from termination – or perceive that they have lost those protections – fewer whistleblowers will decide to participate in filing claims before the MSPB or other tribunals, undermining PEER’s core activities of representing and supporting agency whistleblowers.

170. Fewer clients willing to bring whistle-blower claims will also result in lower attorneys’ fees from MSPB proceedings accruing to PEER.

The Executive Order Will Continue to Cost PEER Time and Money and Frustrate PEER’s Fulfillment of its Mission

171. Given the increase in outreach from clients and potential clients since the E.O. was issued, PEER anticipates being flooded with new client intake and counseling requests as renewed Schedule F is actually implemented.

172. PEER has begun the process to hire a new in-house attorney to address the increased need for legal services caused in part by the planned implementation of renewed Schedule F. This hire will be a significant expenditure for a 12-employee organization that currently employs seven attorneys.

173. Because Schedule F implicates the rights of whistleblowers—the core group with whom PEER works—and because PEER has already received numerous inquiries and questions about the Executive Order from its constituents, PEER will need to conduct additional communication and training activities in response to the Executive Order.

174. Responding to the increased demand for legal services and other Schedule F-related activities requires PEER staff to divert resources from other mission-critical tasks. Time spent by PEER staff on work related to renewed Schedule F would otherwise be spent on PEER’s other work, including intake unrelated to renewed Schedule F, advocacy, education, or environmental litigation.

175. The purported rescission of OPM’s regulations also harms PEER.

176. For example, the 2024 OPM regulations require agencies to publish in the Federal Register information that OPM’s publication of this data would give PEER notice of: agencies where whistleblowers will be particularly vulnerable (and help PEER defend its clients accordingly); the need to prepare appeals of renewed Schedule F reclassifications on behalf of clients; and potential clients in need of PEER’s services. See 5 C.F.R. § 302.602(b)(6).

177. Second, the 2024 OPM regulations requiring 30-days’ advance notice would give PEER time to consult with clients and to appeal any such reclassification before it goes into effect and increases the likelihood that such clients will timely consult with PEER to protect their legal rights and assert those rights. See 5 C.F.R. § 302.602(c).

178. Third, the 2024 OPM regulations make clear that many reclassified employees would retain MSPB appeal rights. See 5 C.F.R. § 302.603. PEER’s ability to effectively defend its clients’ interests often depends on the MSPB appeals process.

179. Had the E.O. not declared substantial portions of the 2024 OPM regulations immediately “inoperative and without effect” and instead allowed for OPM to rescind the regulations through notice-and-comment rulemaking, PEER would have submitted a comment urging OPM not to rescind the regulations for the reasons outlined above.

180. The uncertainty engendered by the E.O. and renewed Schedule F will also impede PEER’s ability to provide clear and accurate answers or advice to clients and potential clients with regard to their rights and options.

CLAIMS FOR RELIEF

Count One
(Ultra Vires - Violation of 5 U.S.C. § 3302)

181. Congress made the competitive service the default for civil service employees in the executive branch, as all employees are presumed part of the competitive service unless excluded. 5 U.S.C. § 2102(a)(1).

182. Congress has granted the president authority to exclude employees from the competitive service, only where “necessary” and warranted by “conditions of good administration.” 5 U.S.C. § 3302.

183. The purported exceptions set forth in the Executive Order are neither necessary, nor warranted by conditions of good administration.

184. Accordingly, the E.O. violates 5 U.S.C. § 3302.

Count Two
(Ultra Vires – Due Process)

185. Plaintiff repeats and incorporates by reference each of the foregoing allegations as if fully set forth herein.

186. Congress has vested federal career civil servants with the requisite tenure with property interests in, and due process protections for, that continued employment.

187. The Fifth Amendment’s Due Process Clause provides that the government may not constitutionally authorize the deprivation of such an interest, once conferred, without appropriate procedural protections.

188. The Constitution does not give the president or OPM authority to unilaterally strip these vested rights without due process of law.

189. By purporting to do just that, the Executive Order was issued without legal authority and is ultra vires.

Count Three
(Ultra Vires - Violation of 5 U.S.C. §§ 553, 1103, 1105)

190. Plaintiff repeats and incorporates by reference each of the foregoing allegations as if fully set forth herein.

191. As the Executive Order acknowledges, OPM must engage in rulemaking to rescind or amend existing regulations, including those promulgated by OPM in its 2024 Final Rule, “Upholding Civil Service Protections and Merit System Principles.”

192. Defendants lack authority to circumvent the notice-and-comment rulemaking provisions of the Administrative Procedure Act by unilaterally providing that existing regulations are “inoperative and without effect.”

193. By purporting to bypass Congress’ requirements for reasoned agency rulemaking, the Executive Order violates 5 U.S.C. §§ 553, 1103, 1105.

Count Four
(Administrative Procedure Act - Violation of 5 U.S.C. §§ 553, 1103, 1105)
As against Defendants Ezell and OPM

194. Plaintiff repeats and incorporates by reference each of the foregoing allegations as if fully set forth herein.

195. The Administrative Procedure Act requires courts to hold unlawful and set aside any agency action taken “without observance of procedure required by law.” 5 U.S.C. § 706(2)(D).

196. The Act requires agencies to follow public notice-and-comment rulemaking procedures before rescinding, delaying, or amending regulations. See 5 U.S.C. § 553(b), (c).

197. Defendants Ezell and OPM failed to provide notice and an opportunity for public comment prior to regarding OPM’s 2024 regulations inoperative and without effect.

198. Accordingly, Defendants Ezell and OPM are in violation of the Administrative Procedure Act. See 5 U.S.C. §§ 706(2)(D); 553, 1103, 1105.

REQUEST FOR RELIEF

WHEREFORE, Plaintiff requests that this Court:

A. Declare that the Executive Order is contrary to 5 U.S.C. § 3302 and therefore ultra vires and null and void;

B. Declare that the Executive Order is contrary to the Fifth Amendment to the United States Constitution and therefore ultra vires and null and void, and that civil servants with accrued status and due process rights retain those rights if they are involuntarily moved between Schedules;

C. Declare that the Executive Order improperly nullifies regulations in violation of 5 U.S.C. §§ 553, 1103, 1105 and therefore ultra vires and null and void;

D. Declare that the Executive Order instructs agencies to act in a way that violates the Administrative Procedure Act;

E. Preliminarily and permanently enjoin Defendant Charles Ezell, Defendant Office of Personnel Management, and their agents and successors, from (1) implementing or otherwise giving effect to the Executive Order; and (2) failing to enforce and implement 5 C.F.R. part 302, subpart F, 5 C.F.R. 210.102(b)(3), and 5 C.F.R. 210.102(b)(4) unless and until they are rescinded after providing notice and the opportunity for comment in compliance with the Administrative Procedure Act;

F. Award Plaintiff its costs, attorneys’ fees, and other disbursements for this action; and

G. Grant any other relief this Court deems appropriate.

Dated: January 28, 2025

Respectfully Submitted,
s/ Mark B. Samburg
Mark B. Samburg (Bar No. 31090)
Elena Goldstein*
Michael Martinez*
Kevin E. Friedl* (Admitted only in New York; practice supervised by D.C. Bar members)
Victoria S. Nugent (Bar No. 15039)
DEMOCRACY FORWARD FOUNDATION
P.O. Box 34553
Washington, D.C. 20043
Telephone: (202) 448-9090
Fax: (202) 796-4426
[email protected]
[email protected]
[email protected]
[email protected]
[email protected]
Jonathan Weissglass*
LAW OFFICE OF JONATHAN WEISSGLASS
1939 Harrison St., Suite 150-B
Oakland, CA 94612
Telephone: (510) 836-4200
[email protected]

Donald K. Sherman*
Nikhel S. Sus*
CITIZENS FOR RESPONSIBILITY AND ETHICS IN WASHINGTON
P.O. Box 14596
Washington, D.C. 20044
Telephone: (202) 408-5565
Fax: (202) 588-5020
[email protected]
[email protected]
*pro hac vice motion forthcoming

Paula Dinerstein^
PUBLIC EMPLOYEES FOR ENVIRONMENTAL RESPONSIBILITY
962 Wayne Ave., Suite 610
Silver Spring, MD 20910
Telephone: (202) 265-6391
Fax: (202) 265-4192
[email protected]
^application for admission forthcoming

Elon Musk publicized the names of government employees he wants to cut. It's terrifying federal workers.
by Hadas Gold and Rene Marsh
CNN
November 28, 2024
https://www.egyptindependent.com/elon-m ... l-workers/



When President-elect Donald Trump said Elon Musk and Vivek Ramaswamy would recommend major cuts to the federal government in his administration, many public employees knew that their jobs could be on the line.

Now they have a new fear: becoming the personal targets of the world’s richest man – and his legions of followers.

Last week, in the midst of the flurry of his daily missives, Musk reposted two X posts that revealed the names and titles of people holding four relatively obscure climate-related government positions. Each post has been viewed tens of millions of times, and the individuals named have been subjected to a barrage of negative attention. At least one of the four women named has deleted her social media accounts.

Although the information he posted on those government positions is available through public online databases, these posts target otherwise unknown government employees in roles that do not deal directly with the public.

Several current federal employees told CNN they’re afraid their lives will be forever changed – including physically threatened – as Musk makes behind-the-scenes bureaucrats into personal targets. Others told CNN that the threat of being in Musk’s crosshairs might even drive them from their jobs entirely – achieving Musk’s smaller government goals without so much as a proper review.

“These tactics are aimed at sowing terror and fear at federal employees,” said Everett Kelley, president of the American Federation of Government Employees, which represents more than 800,000 of the 2.3 million civilian federal employees. “It’s intended to make them fearful that they will become afraid to speak up.”

This isn’t new behavior for Musk, who has often singled out individuals who he claims have made mistakes or stand in his way. One former federal employee, previously targeted by Musk, said she experienced something very similar.

“It’s his way of intimidating people to either quit or also send a signal to all the other agencies that ‘you’re next’,” said Mary “Missy” Cummings, an engineering and computer science professor at George Mason University, who drew Musk’s ire because of her criticisms of Tesla when she was at the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration.

Going dark after attacks

Last week Musk reposted an account with the handle Fentasyl and the name “Datahazard,” which describes itself as “Unincorporated Think Tank ~~ Focus: Govt Efficiency, Civil Rights, Victim Advocacy.”

One of the posts reads: “I don’t think the US taxpayers should pay for the employment of a ’Director of Climate Diversification (she/her)’ at the US International Development Finance Corporation,” with a partial screengrab of an employee and her location.

Musk, who called himself “super pro climate” in an X post last year, reposted and commented: “So many fake jobs.” The post has received more than 33 million views and a storm of negative comments. Some called the role a “fraud job” and others demanded Musk’s Department of Government Efficiency cut jobs like it. One user commented: “Gravy train is over.”

It appears the woman Musk targeted has since gone dark on social media, shutting down her accounts. The agency, the US International Development Finance Corporation, says it supports investment in climate mitigation, resilience and adaptation in low-income countries experiencing the most devastating effects of climate change. A DFC official said the agency does not comment on individual personnel positions or matters.

Musk also called out the Department of Energy’s chief climate officer in its loan programs office. The office funds fledgling energy technologies in need of early investment and awarded $465 million to Tesla Motors in 2010, helping to position Musk’s electric vehicle company as an EV industry leader. The chief climate officer works across agencies to “reduce barriers and enable clean energy deployment” according to her online bio.

Another woman, who serves as senior advisor on environmental justice and climate change at the Department of Health and Human Services, was another Musk target. HHS focuses on protecting the public health from pollution and other environmental hazards, especially in low-income communities and communities of color that are experiencing a higher share of exposures and impacts. The office first launched at Health and Human Services under the Biden administration in 2022.

A senior adviser to climate at the Department of Housing and Urban Development was also singled out. The original X post said the woman “should not be paid $181,648.00 by the US taxpayer to be the ‘Climate advisor’ at HUD.” Musk reposted with the comment: “But maybe her advice is amazing.” Followed by two laughing emojis.

CNN reached out to all four federal employees who either declined comment or were unable to be reached. CNN also reached out to HHS, DOE and HUD for comment.

X did not respond to an email seeking comment.

The AFGE public union pointed out that as a federal contractor, Musk himself has benefited from government programs, with $750 billion per year spent on federal contractors compared to about $200 billion for the civilian federal workforce. “We are a comparative steal, and we want to help clean it up too,” Kelley said.

Putting people in harm’s way

Musk has done this kind of thing before – and it’s led to real danger for the people named.

Missy Cummings angered Musk when she was appointed a senior advisor at the NHTSA because her research and public comments were critical of Tesla’s driver-assist programs and she had called for regulating the systems.

Musk targeted Cummings on what was then called Twitter, and his legions of fans followed.

In an interview, Cummings said she received a torrent of attacks, including death threats, and had to temporarily relocate before she eventually moved.

Cummings said she already knows of federal employees who “have dedicated their lives to civil service,” already quitting their jobs in anticipation of what’s to come.

“He intended for them, for people just like this, to be intimidated and just go ahead and quit so he didn’t have to fire them. So his plan, to some extent, is working,” she said.

CNN reached out to multiple experts and academics who specialize in cyber harassment, doxing and online abuse. But several declined to comment on the record for fear of themselves becoming Musk’s targets.

“What has happened has an incredible and horrific chilling effect,” one of them said.

Another said they are “not surprised” with Musk’s re-posts, adding they are an example of a “classic pattern” of cyber harassment.

Ramaswamy did not directly respond to questions about singling out individual federal employees but told CNN: “Most federal employees, like most human beings, are fundamentally good people and deserve to be treated with respect, but the real problem is the bureaucracy.”

“Our opponent is not any particular individual. Our opponent is the bureaucracy,” he added.

In a follow-up post, the Fentasyl account, which itself is anonymous, wrote: “It goes without saying that you should not harass someone solely because they hold a senior government plum job that should probably not exist,” the account posted. “But senior government officials are not mere rank-and-file employees. We deserve to know who is running our government & what they do.”

Cummings, who was also one of the first female fighter pilots in the US Navy, said she felt an obligation to speak out.

“Somebody has got to speak out,” she said. “I’m just not going to let him win on this point.”

FearNoneInc.@RayInsideOut
Here's a list of techies on the ground helping Musk gaining and using access to the U.S. Treasury payment system.
Akash Bobba
Edward Coristine
Luke Farritor
Gautier Cole Killian
Gavin Kliger
Ethan Shaotran
I wonder if the fired FBI agents may want dox them and maybe... twitter.com/i/web/status/1

Elon Musk @elonmusk
You have committed a crime.

This Post is from a suspended account. Learn more

Elon Musk @elonmusk
You have committed a crime.

Age: 25
Age: 22
Age: 19
Age: 23
Age: 24
Age: 21

"COUP!" Jamie Raskin issues TAKEDOWN of Elon Musk
Brian Tyler Cohen
Feb 4, 2025 Interviews with Brian Tyler Cohen

[Jamies Raskin] We need to be very clear about what's going on. And I think the easiest way to wrap your head around it is that this is a coup, which is a a seizure of state power by unelected actors by taking control over the central institutions and functions of government. So Elon Musk has essentially seized control over the financial payment systems of the US government, much of the communications systems of the United States, the data infrastructure, and of course he's got his claws also into the military infrastructure as well.

INTERVIEW - Brian interviews Jamie Raskin about his feud with Elon Musk, Trump's government overreach, and what Americans can do to fight back.



Transcript

I'm joined Now by Congressman Jamie
Raskin Congressman thank you for joining
me you bet I'm delighted to be with you
Brian all right so we are in a
constitutional crisis right now where
the executive branch led by the
unelected richest man in the world is
basically usurping all power in
government and unilaterally accessing
sensitive information has access to the
treasury he's shutting down agencies
deciding where congressionally allocated
funding can go and whe whether it can go
so I I I want to start off by channeling
The Voice of millions of people out
there who want to know really what the
hell is going on right now, and and what
Democrats are doing to push back against
this?

[Jamie Raskin] Well thank you Brian for putting
the question so clearly I do believe
that as um despondent as it is uh we
need to be very clear about what's going
on and I think the easiest way to wrap
your head around it is that this is a
coup which is a a seizure of state power
by unelected actors by taking control
over the central um institutions and
functions of government so Elon Musk
has essentially seized control over the
financial payment systems of the US
government, much of the
communications systems of the United
States, the data infrastructure, and of
course, he's got his claws also into
the military infrastructure as well
so um you know in addition to everything
that Donald Trump is doing to dismantle
every part of government that doesn't
profit him personally and his friends
personally we have this additional
problem of Elon Musk essentially
trying to consolidate state power under
him and transform the nature of our
constitutional order.



[Brian] So as it relates to
Elon I I know that the answer is that he
can't do the things that he's doing but
the reality is the the Practical reality
is that he is doing them so given that
we're beyond the point where he and
Trump are respecting the law what is our
recourse then
here well we're going to have to fight
them um in every channel and uh social
context and governmental Arena that we
can uh we're going to fight them in
subcommittees and in the Committees of
the house and of the Senate we're going
to fight them in court um there have
already been several setbacks dealt to
the administration in court as you know
Donald Trump tried to impose a new
Birthright citizenship rule basically
taking millions of people who are United
States citizens in the country and then
making them into undocumented immigrants
based on who their parents were uh that
was shut down by a Reagan appointed
judge
uh they're appealing it but that's a win
uh as you know they froze uh federal
spending um at the end of last week and
over uh the weekend completely
nullifying congressional power over
Appropriations that's a central power of
the legislative branch of government the
power of the purse um and um again a
United States district court judge in
the District of Columbia shut that down
and enjoined it and there were oral
arguments on that uh yesterday that went
very well uh for our side so uh we are
going to assert the Constitution the
rule of law the Civil Service rules as a
blockade against what they're doing at
every turn and public pressure public uh
vigilance about what's happening um are
going to be essential in this process
Congressman among your Republican
colleagues is there any red line for
them I mean to to see an unelected
bureaucrat basically on this on the
pretense of trying to block other
unelected bureaucrats even though that's
what he is at this point to see him
going in there and putting his his
Clause into everything getting access to
sensitive information putting high
school graduates in charge of payment
processing systems that that include
Social Security numbers is there any Red
Line in in public or private among your
Republican colleagues well we'll see
Brian I mean we weren't in session last
week and we weren't in session the last
couple days I think that they sent us
out of session early actually because
there was such popular and political
rejection of their Mass pardons of The
Proud boys and the oathkeepers and the
insurrectionists they wanted to change
the subject that's what I think gave a
lot of people the impression that our
leadership wasn't doing anything and
people were beating up on the Democrats
we weren't here I mean for someone like
me whose district is right next door to
Washington it's easy enough for me to go
down to usaid
and to protest and to object and we had
a bunch of the Maryland and Virginia
people there uh but in any event uh we
have gotten our fight back people are
ready to fight this now as for the
Republicans we don't know there are one
or two who have been uttering uh some of
their reservations and their objections
to what's going on but I've been
absolutely shocked and really devastated
at the way that they've fallen into line
for these completely um corrupt and
unqualified cabinet nominees that Trump
has put through including cash Patel an
election denier a
j6 uh Enthusiast and supporter um and uh
you know an avatar of Mega lawlessness
um who is just about to become the
director of the FBI I mean it's just
dumbfounding to me this is taking place
and Lincoln's party of Liberty and Union
has become a Trump's party of chaos and
dysfunction you you'd mentioned that
that there were all of one or two who
have been you know issuing some
Rumblings behind the scenes what do you
think that these same people these
Republicans would say if George Soros
all of a sudden was anointed some
special government uh adviser and got
access to every sensitive agency every
sensitive piece of information all of
Americans private data Social Security
numbers what do you think those same
Republicans all of whom are falling in
line right now would say about that well
Brian I used to perform that mental
experiment all the time including during
the impeachment crisis where I said
imagine if Bill Clinton or Barack Obama
had incited a mob of tens of thousands
of people to go and fight and fight like
hell and if you don't you're not going
to have a country anymore and sat back
and watched it eating hamburgers uh
outside of the Oval Office and not
saying anything other than my vice
president didn't have the courage to do
what need to be done and I would always
flip it over and I would POS it to them
and then I realized that that represents
an obsolete mode of thinking which is
that uh the GOP members will act
according to principles and to
principled reasons for Action they have
dissolved in into complete
tribalism they believe including the
ones they've stuck on the Supreme Court
that Donald Trump can do no wrong oras
Trump you know so vividly put it you I
could uh shoot somebody um in the middle
of Fifth Avenue and I wouldn't lose
their support he was right about that he
understood the cultish dimensions of
their support so I try to flip these
over in the mental thought experiment
that you propos but it's meaningless to
them they don't understand it for them
whatever Donald Trump does goes they
will defend it no matter what and
whatever he says about the foes or the
enemies of Donald Trump uh they will
believe and they will follow that too
right is a complete moving Target gone
are the days where there's any
long-standing principles that you can
pin them to at this point to your exact
point it's just complete difference to
whatever Trump says and does and if that
changes by by the week the day the hour
the minute so be it they they're just
along for the ride it's a completely
humiliating thing to them I mean you
have members over there like Marco Rubio
or Ted Cruz whom uh Trump has personally
insulted he's called their lives uh ugly
said Ted Cruz's father uh assassinated
John F Kennedy or was in on the plot to
do it I mean just outrageous things and
they all come and uh uh they kiss his
ring and that's not all um and so it's
utterly abasing and humiliating and
denigrating for them um but they do it
so ours in addition to being the party
of democracy and freedom now is the
party of self-respect yeah you know you
got into a public argument with Elon
Musk over the last couple of days where
you know you were standing up along with
some colleagues to protect us usaid Elon
came out he called it a coup because of
course he's trying to to draw some false
equivalency between January 6th and
rightfully standing up for an agency
that that Elon Musk has no power to
dissolve um while you were standing up
for USA ID uh Elon Musk wrote back and
I'll put the Tweet right here on the
screen what Raskin actually means is that
he wants his kickbacks and bribes to
continue. So that was obviously a
defamatory statement by Elon, because
Elon, and Trump, and Republicans now
clearly have their marching orders, and
that is to destroy everything that
really doesn't serve the ultra wealthy,
doesn't serve these Republican donors.
And so they're on this scorched earth
mission to just denigrate every agency
that doesn't help them.

First off, can you
very briefly explain what USAID is, and
why it's important?

[Jamie Raskin] [USAID] was created originally by President Kennedy and by Congress to engage in what today we call, "soft power," or the projection of American influence, and American foreign policy objectives by rendering aid to people. And that could be anything from helping people build effective water projects, to fighting HIV AIDS, to malaria nets, and antimalaria campaigns, to building up development projects, democracy -- we're all over the world with USAID. It's less than 1% of the overall budget. The whole foreign aid budget's around $40 billion a year, compared to 900 billion that goes to the Department of Defense alone, without getting into other national security agencies and departments. So it's a a tiny fraction. But that money means something, and has helped to buy lots of goodwill for America, and also help to prevent diseases that come back and haunt us, and also prevent the disease of authoritarianism and autocracy. Which is one of the key reasons that Elon Musk and Donald Trump want to dismantle it right now.

[Brian Tyler Cohen] At the risk of getting too wonky here, on that
exact point, this is a really important
point I think about USAID. China has what's called the Belt and Road
initiative. So why is USAID important to
combat Chinese soft power, and what are
the implications going to be if we cede
that ground to the Chinese?

[Jamies Raskin] But we're already hearing now, with them having pulled the plug on all foreign aid projects of USAID all over the world, that China is moving in to say, "Well, they don't want to help you, but we're happy to help you.

I mean one of the things people love about America is the compassion of America, the Democratic solidarity of America, the fact that we're a country with a big heart made up of people who come from all over the world, and we stand with people. And then suddenly, we're sending the message that we are going to stop programs to help pregnant women and infants all over the world? We're going to stop programs to bring food raised by farmers in Iowa, and Louisiana, and California, to starving people in Asia and in Africa? It just makes no sense. But it is coherent from a political philosophy. Which is that America can only get its way by being a bully.

[Brian Tyler Cohen] And we're seeing that same strategy play out right now with these tariffs and these trade Wars. In your estimation Trump
basically pushing all of our allies away
showing them that America's word is no
good anymore that if we negotiate a
trade deal by the way a trade deal like
the usmca which Trump himself signed
into law that those are only as good as
you know the person in power in the term
that he's in it and maybe not even
beyond that and so can you just speak on
what that is what the implications are
going to be what the impacts are going
to be more broadly on America's standing
in the world and our ability to even
have alliances when even among our own
closest friends we are instantly picking
fights from Canada to Mexico to Panama
to Greenland and on and on

[Jamie Raskin] I mean I've seen tv ads that the Canadian government and Ontario government are running in America saying, "Remember we are allies; we are closest trading partners; we are friends; we go back and forth; we were together in World War II fighting the Nazis." And so good for Canada reminding the American people of the relationship that we actually have. And that's something that obviously people who live in Michigan and Minnesota and the northern states understand better than people who live in the South, and so. But you know, the Wall Street Journal itself called this the Dumbest trade war in American history. Nobody can even understand why Donald Trump is doing it. It just makes no sense. It's incoherent. More chaos. More dysfunction.

[Brian Tyler Cohen] Can you speak on the fact
that really at the end of the day what
he was able to extract from the
Canadians was border security that they
had announced back in December and so it
would seem to me that what Trump is
trying to do is just create a crisis
manufacture a crisis out of nowhere look
for whatever vague excuse of a of a
concession he can he can cast out as PR
win and then and then beat his chest as
some master negotiator and that that
none of this is really amounting to
anything they're building ill will all
over the world inclus including from our
closest allies and you know it may be
that you're right Brian that he knew all
along he was going to have to give
nothing essentially or rather get
nothing because right what was given by
Canon and Mexico was already given I
think they pulled the wool over his eyes
I mean uh Mexico said they're going to
put 10,000 Troop troops on the border
they already had 15,000 troops on the
border that been negotiated I think a
year or two ago so you know he just
likes a lot of rasle Dazzle and noise
but the leaders of the world are
laughing at him um and we can recognize
what like fraudulent pretense this whole
thing was and at the same time you've
got Mexico and Canada's leaders who
recognize that Trump really just is
looking for some PR win that he's
looking for anything he can slap his
name on and say look I've averted crisis
that by the way I created but then you
look at the Chinese for example they
have placed retaliatory tariffs on the
US and so now this trade war is is
happening we're in it because they're
not they're not playing playing into his
gamesmanship and so his his effort
basically to Stave away uh again a
crisis of his own making at least as it
relates to Canada and Mexico is not
going to work with the Chinese.

[Jamie Raskin] That's right, that's right. Well, In fact, Elon Musk, who's obviously pulling Donald Trump's strings now, is completely in bed with the CCP and the Chinese government. So they're not going to do anything to help people in Taiwan, or Hong Kong, or the Tibetans. They're not going to do anything to challenge the authoritarian autocrats who they emulate. They think that there might be some political mileage in having a fake trade war with China, but everybody understands the game that's being played. This is like Orwell's 1984. They basically want to cede a sphere of influence to China so China can just stomp on the human rights of anybody under them. And they want to be able to do the same thing here. I mean, to the point of ridiculousness, of saying they're going to take over Panama and Greenland. We do need two new states in America, but it's not Panama and Greenland, it's Puerto Rico and Washington DC. That's what we're fighting for.

House Democrats say GOP caved to Musk in funding bill, protecting his China interests
by Lora Kolodny
CNBC
Published December 21, 2024 Updated on December 21, 2024 at 10:45 pm

• House Democrats Jim McGovern and Rosa DeLauro accused Republican colleagues of bending to Elon Musk's demands in sinking a bipartisan funding bill.
• Congress passed a stopgap funding bill instead on Saturday, but discarded a provision to screen and regulate U.S. investments in China.
• The scrapped provision "would have made it easier to keep cutting-edge AI and quantum computing tech — as well as jobs — in America," McGovern wrote on X.

House Democrats Jim McGovern of Massachusetts and Rosa DeLauro of Connecticut say their Republican colleagues in Congress caved to the demands of Elon Musk, sinking a bipartisan government funding bill that would have regulated U.S. investments in China.

Congress passed a separate stopgap funding bill over the weekend, averting a government shutdown.

In a series of posts on X, McGovern said more could have been accomplished. The scrapped provision "would have made it easier to keep cutting-edge AI and quantum computing tech — as well as jobs — in America," he wrote. "But Elon had a problem."

Tesla, run by Musk, is the only foreign automaker to operate a factory in China without a local joint venture. Tesla also built a battery plant down the street from its Shanghai car factory this year, and aims to develop and sell self-driving vehicle technology in China.

"His bottom line depends on staying in China's good graces," McGovern wrote about Musk. "He wants to build an AI data center there too — which could endanger U.S. security. He's been bending over backwards to ingratiate himself with Chinese leaders."

SpaceX, Musk's aerospace and defense contractor, has reportedly withheld its Starlink satellite internet service over Taiwan at the request of Chinese and Russian leaders. Taiwan is a self-ruling democracy that Beijing claims as its territory. Taiwan's status is one of the biggest flashpoints in U.S.-China relations.

DeLauro, the top Democrat on the House Appropriations Committee, wrote in a letter to Congress on Friday that Musk needs "Chinese government approvals for his company's projects in the country." It's concerning, that Musk "has ingratiated himself with Chinese Communist Party leadership," she wrote.

In the letter, DeLauro referred to the Tesla and SpaceX CEO as "President" Musk, alluding to the fact that the world's richest person began railing against the prior funding bill on Wednesday, before President-elect Donald Trump came out with a statement of his own.

Trump had wanted the GOP to sink the bill, and issue a new one that would raise the debt ceiling so he could avoid that fight during the start of his second term in office. The stopgap funding bill, which President Joe Biden signed on Saturday, did not include the two-year suspension of the U.S. debt limit that Trump was seeking.

Musk responded to DeLauro's concerns by calling her an "awful creature" in a post on X.

After acquiring Twitter in 2022, Musk rebranded it X and used it to help propel Trump back into the White House, becoming a close adviser and major backer to the incoming president along the way.

Musk contributed $277 million to the Trump campaign and other Republican causes during the 2024 cycle, according to Federal Election Commission filings. Since the election in November, Musk has become a nearly constant presence at Trump's side, including in meetings with foreign leaders.

Trump appointed Musk to co-lead a group that's not yet formed, but will be tasked with finding ways to cut regulations, personnel and budgets.

[Bryan Tyler Cohen] All the while, by the way, with this
trade war in effect, that means prices
are going to go up on Americans because
we import goods
ranging from clothing, to electronics, to
to shoes, to toys, and everything in
between from China. And so that's
going to have absolutely adverse impacts
on everybody in this country thanks to a
President, by the way whose entire
election campaign was predicated on this
idea that grocery prices were too high,
and that's something that he himself
admitted that the cost of groceries is
why he won this election. And his first
act as president is to launch a
trade war for no reason at all where the
consequence of that is that Americans are
going to be paying more money for all
goods under the sun. The price of eggs by
the way have never been higher in US
history.

Yeah I want to end with this.
What can Americans be doing right now? I
I get a lot of emails from people
saying look I I I understand this is
what Democrats are doing in Congress
this is what Democrats are doing in the
Senate this is what our elected
officials are doing but what can we do
out here you know we we may not be
having women's marches with you know
millions of people taking to the streets
but there are people agitating at home
they're looking for some way to help
what can they do well first of all we're
not having marches of millions of people
right now because uh Trump would
undoubtedly deploy his private militia
of uh
pardoned oathkeepers and proud boys and
3centers and violent insurrectionist to
come and clash with protesters to claim
antifas there and to create Street
violence so as to give Trump an excuse
for imposing martial law so so uh I
think that the forces of opposition
which represent a majority of the
American people are being far more
Nimble and clever than that and there
are lots of rallies and demonstrations
breaking out all over the country in
different ways um in different places
but not allowing one to be the focus
that they can uh try to go and crack
down on but we need to be expressing
solidarity that's the watch word
solidarity with everybody who's under
attack whether it's you know high school
kids in the lgbtq
uh Community whether it's refugees and
immigrants who are under attack whether
it's federal civil service workers um
people who just did their jobs as FBI
agents and prosecutors we are defending
the whole American constitutional order
so um when people say what do we need to
do I say what day and what hour are you
talking about because we need everybody
to be vigilant uh to be awake uh to
everything that's taking place because
we are witnessing an attempt to replace
the American constitutional order but
they don't know what they're messing
with on their side because every time
they attack another institution another
Community another person that's one more
Ally for us and our forces are growing
we get stronger every day well
Congressman I appreciate you being in
this fight and for taking some time out
to talk to me today thanks for
everything that you're doing Brian
[Music]

FBI Agents file TWO LAWSUITS Against Trump's DOJ to Prevent Unlawful Firings of Agents
by Glenn Kirschner
Feb 4, 2025

In what is perhaps one of the most important developments seeking to resist the lawlessness of the Trump administration, FBI agents just filed two lawsuits against Trump's acting Attorney General and against the Department of Justice.

The FBI agents are seeking injunctive relief, asking the court to stop Trump's DOJ officials from wrongfully firing the agents who worked on the January 6 and classified document investigations.

This development also may help it make more difficult for Trump and his henchmen to plunge the nation into a constitutional crises, as this video discusses.



Transcript

So friends, FBI agents just filed a
lawsuit -- two lawsuits actually -- against
the acting Attorney General of the
United States -- one of Donald Trump's lapdogs -- and against the Department of
Justice, to put a stop to Trump's corrupt
scheme to purge the FBI of the thousands
of agents who worked on the January 6
cases and who worked on the classified
documents in the Mar-a-Lago
case. Friends, this is an enormously
important
development, and perhaps the strongest
point of light
yet. Let's talk about that, because
Justice matters
[Music]
Hey all. Glenn Kirschner here. So friends, the
men and women of our nation's preeminent
law enforcement agency, the FBI, are
standing up to, and pushing back against,
Donald Trump's
lawlessness, and the lawlessness of
Trump's henchmen at the Department of
Justice. Let's start with the new
reporting. This from
Newsweek. Headline: "FBI agents Sue
Department of Justice over unlawful and
retaliatory January 6
list." And that article begins:

"A group of
FBI agents brought a class action
lawsuit against the justice department
on Tuesday accusing it of carrying out
an unlawful and retaliatory directive
from president Donald Trump to purge the
Bureau of agents who worked on the
January 6th, 2021 Capital Riot probe and
the classified documents investigation
into Trump. The lawsuit, brought by nine
Anonymous agents, was filed as thousands
of Agency personnel have been ordered to
fill out questionnaires about their
involvement in cases related to the
deadly Capitol Riot.

On Tuesday afternoon,
the FBI turned over the names of 5,000
employees who worked on January 6 cases
to the Justice Department. CNN reported
that's about 13% of the Bureau's
workforce. Last week a top DOJ official
also ordered the acting U.S. attorney in
Washington DC to fire about 30
prosecutors who worked on Capitol riot
cases over the last four years,
prosecutors who did nothing wrong who
did everything right, who followed the
facts and applied the law went to trial
and won
convictions against January 6th
defendants. But Donald Trump didn't like
it. So he told the U.S. attorney to fire
those people -- all my editorial
addition. The article continues: "Tuesday's
lawsuit was filed against the Justice
Department and acting Attorney General,
James McKenry, but it mentioned Trump by
name multiple times: 'Upon
returning to the presidency, Mr. Trump has
ordered the DOJ to conduct a review and
purge of FBI personnel involved in these
investigations and prosecutions.' It said,
this directive is unlawful and
retaliatory and violates a federal law
protecting government employees from
unfair
treatment. The Complaint said that in
addition to grilling FBI personnel
about their involvement with the January
6 cases, the questionnaires that were
distributed last week asked them to
identify if they played a specific role
in the Special Counsel Jack Smith's
investigation into Trump's hoarding of
classified documents at Mar-a-Lago after
he left office in
2021."

So friends, how absurdly transparent
is Donald Trump and what he's trying to
accomplish here. He says, 'I want to know
all the names and the identities of the
FBI agents who worked the January 6
cases, and I want to know the names, the
identities of, all of the agents who
worked the classified documents Mar-a-Lago
case.'

This has nothing to do with the
quality, or the legality, or the
legitimacy of the work these FBI agents
performed. It's all about revenge,
retribution, retaliation. And it is
unlawful. It is an obscene abuse of power
by Donald Trump and his DOJ henchmen.
It's because Donald Trump wants them to
pay for investigating and exposing his
crimes. And this is the stuff of
dictators.

Now, let's turn briefly to the
two new lawsuits that have been filed.
The first one is Federal
Bureau of Investigation Agents
Association John Doe number one two 3 4
and Jane Doe number one two and three
plaintiffs in the case versus the United
States Department of Justice and the
United States of America defendant why
Jane do why John Doe why don't we know
the names because the extreme danger
that Donald Trump is putting putting
these people in you know first he opens
the doors of the prisons and lets all
these violent j6 convicted defendants
pour back into our streets and our
communities and you've already seen some
of the reporting they're out there
trying to you know get together to try
to find and retaliate against FBI agents
that's why John Doe that's why Jane
Doe and there's the other lawsuit that
was just filed John and Jane those
number
1-9 employees agents of the Federal
Bureau of Investigation on behalf of
themselves and those similarly situated
plaintiffs versus Department of Justice
James McKenry acting Attorney General of
the United States defendant and let me
read just a little bit of the opening
Salvo of this lawsuit that was just
filed by these FBI agents class action
complaint comes now plain
John and Jane Do's 1-9 on behalf of
themselves and all similarly situated
current and former agents Andor
employees of the Federal Bureau of
Investigation by and through undersigned
councel with their class action
complaint for injunctive Relief and
States as follows plaintiffs are
currently employed agents Andor
employees of the FBI who during the
course of their duties worked on or
participated in in the investigation of
persons suspected of criminal activity
related to the January 6th 2021 attack
on the United States capitol building at
the behest of Donald Trump Andor the
unlawful removal retention and storage
of classified documents by Mr Trump the
maralago case Upon returning to the
presidency Mr Trump has ordered the doj
to conduct a review and Purge of FBI
person
involved in these investigations and
prosecutions this directive is unlawful
and retaliatory and violates the civil
service reform act additionally honor
about February 2nd 2025 plaintiffs were
instructed to fill out a survey that
would identify their specific role in
the January 6th and marago cases some
plaintiffs were required to fill out the
survey themselves others were were told
that their supervisors would be filling
out the form plaintiffs were informed
that the aggregate information is going
to be forwarded to upper management
plaintiffs assert that the purpose for
this list is to identify agents to be
terminated or to suffer other adverse
employment action plaintiffs reasonably
fear that all or parts of this list
might be published by allies of
President Trump thus placing themselves
and their families in immediate danger
of Retribution by the now pardoned and
at large January 6th convicted
felons defendants Gathering retention
and disclosure of plaintiff's activities
related to the acts of former president
Trump is a violation of plaintiff's
rights under the First Amendment to the
Constitution it is also a violation of
plaintiff's Fifth Amendment substantive
and due process rights such that the
court has the authority to enjoin the
serious harm it is likely to cause
moreover the publication or
dissemination of the information in
these surveys would be a violation of
the Privacy Act of
1974 and would place plaintiffs in
immediate risk of serious harm
accordingly plaintiffs seek to enjoin
the publication or dissemination of the
surveys or any information derived there
from and who are the plaintiffs in this
case plaintiffs are employees of the FBI
who worked on January 6th Andor maralago
cases and who have been informed that
they are likely to be terminated in the
very near future the week of February
3rd through 9th 2025 for such activity
they intend to represent a class of at
least 6,000 thousand current and former
FBI agents and employees who
participated in some manner in the
investigation and prosecution of crimes
and abuses of Power by Donald Trump or
those acting at his
behest and friends I'm going to stop
there but I would urge you to read the
rest of this 16-page lawsuit it's pretty
short it's pretty digestible and it's
really
important but let me leave you with this
one of the reasons I think this
development is so important probably the
most important lawsuit we have seen
filed against the Department of Justice
and the Trump Administration thus far is
because of something that we call a
constitutional crisis now that's a term
of art it gets thrown around a lot and
people might disagree you know with
precisely what the most accurate
definition of a constitutional crisis is
for gosh sakes every minute Donald Trump
is in power it feels like our
constitution is in crisis but I think
the most precise definition of a
constitutional crisis is when two
co-equal branches of government start
budding heads and there is no other
Branch or authority to break the tie so
for
example if a trial court judge a federal
judge part of the co-equal
judicial branch issues an injunction
tells the Trump Administration stop you
can't do it it's unlawful and the Trump
Administration says we don't care we're
doing it
anyway that's a constitutional crisis if
the Supreme Court issues a ruling that
says something that a president wants to
do for example in an executive order is
unlawful and unconstitutional and he
can't do it but that President says I
don't care I'm doing it anyway maybe he
would even add um why don't you judicial
branch federal court judges go ahead and
send your army send your law enforcement
agency to try to stop me oh oh wait a
minute you don't have an army you don't
have a law enforcement agency only I do
in the executive branch that is a true
constitutional crisis
and I think with the FBI standing
against Trump's lawlessness formally in
these lawsuits that are being filed
makes it much harder for Donald Trump to
disobey court orders and plunge us into
a true constitutional crisis because in
part he would have to turn to his law
enforcement agency you know trying to
Rally the FBI behind him if he was is
going to act unlawfully in violation of
court orders or Court rulings so I think
this lawsuit goes a long way in making
it much harder for Donald Trump to
plunge us into a true constitutional
crisis but I can already hear what
you're saying friends you're probably
saying to yourself uh yeah but Glenn the
president has the
military so you know the FBI is no match
for the military and in one sense that's
true but in another
sense I was active dut the Army for six
and a half years before I joined the
Department of Justice and you know what
they drill into our heads as military
members one we must obey lawful orders
but two even more importantly we must
disobey unlawful orders just as the FBI
albeit a civilian um organization as
opposed to the military just as the FBI
is formally standing up in court against
Donald Trump's lawlessness and the
lawlessness of his doj henchmen I
expect our military to refuse to comply
with unlawful orders if they are issued
by Donald Trump or his
henchmen at the Department of Defense
like the Secretary of Defense I would
expect them to disobey unlawful orders
that is their sworn obligation to the
Constitution so we're not out of the
woods heck the woods are probably still
well ahead of
us but boy the FBI standing up to
Trump's lawlessness is
huge because Justice
matters friends as always please stay
safe please stay tuned and I look
forward to talking with you all again
tomorrow
[Music]

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

BREAKING: FBI agents STRIKE BACK at Trump in SHOCK move
Brian Tyler Cohen
Feb 4, 2025 The Legal Breakdown with Glenn Kirschner

Legal Breakdown episode 457: ‪@GlennKirschner2‬ discusses FBI agents filing a class action lawsuit against the DOJ and Trump.



Transcript

you're watching the legal breakdown
Glenn we have some unprecedented news
here as you know Donald Trump is seeking
retribution against the thousands of FBI
agents who participated in the
prosecutions um related to January 6th
we had spoken last week about the
prospect of some type of class action
lawsuit for example that FBI agents
could take against this Administration
we have a major update on that front can
you explain what just happened you know
Brian on the legal RoR scale between 1
and 10 this is about a 17 this is the f
FBI in a class action lawsuit brought
expressly against the leadership of the
Department of Justice but make no
mistake about it it is brought in a very
real sense against Donald Trump and his
Lawless cabal his administration these
FBI agents just went to a federal court
in Washington DC and they are seeking
injunctive relief what does that mean
they want a court to order Donald Trump
to stop you know what he's doing which
includes potentially endangering the
safety of FBI agents and employees and
wrongfully terminating FBI agents and
employees for what what was their
transgression they investigated and
assisted in Prosecuting the crimes that
we all saw committed at the US capital
on January 6th 2021 and because
apparently Prosecuting the people who
committed those crimes at Donald Trump's
urging remember that fight like hell you
won't have a a country anymore now go to
to the capital and stop the
certification stop the steal because
they make Donald Trump look bad not only
did he pardon all of the j6 criminals
but he's now trying to punish the FBI
agents and the prosecutors who did the
hard work of the American people abided
by the rule of law were loyal to the
Constitution and held those j6 criminals
accountable and the FBI just said enough
we're done we are taking the doj
leadership and by proxy Donald Trump to
court to put a damn stop to a runaway
Lawless presidential administration
because that's what it is now here is
just a little flavor Brian and I urge
all of our viewers to read the very
short and digestible 16-page lawsuit
that was just filed by nine FBI agents
who are representative of the class in
fact it says comes come now the
plaintiff
John and Jane do what does that mean
they don't even want to put their names
on this pleading for fear of retaliation
retribution by Trump and his supporters
including his January 6 mob that he
opened the prison doors for so they
could go out and continue to do his
dirty and dangerous bidding comes now
plaintiffs John and J Jane do 1-9 on
behalf of themselves and all similar ly
situated current and former agents Andor
employees of the Federal Bureau of
Investigation and they are asking that
the court put an immediate stop to what
Donald Trump has demanded the FBI agents
and supervisors do which is fill out a
questionnaire I want the names of every
FBI agent and employee who participated
in the investigation and prosecution of
January 6 defendants I want to know what
what they did and I want those names
because there is no mistaking what
Donald Trump intends to do with those
names one unlawfully terminate those
people from federal government
employment and two distribute those
names to everybody so his supporters can
potentially get after those people and
it is that second nefarious goal of
Donald Trump and his henchmen at the
Department of Justice that the
plaintiffs the FBI agents who filed this
suit zoom in on on page two plaintiffs
assert that the purpose for this list of
agents and employees who worked on
January 6th cases is to identify agents
to be terminated or to suffer other
adverse employment actions plaintiffs
reasonably fear that all or part of this
list might be published by allies of
President Trump thus placing themselves
and their families in immediate danger
of Retribution by the now pardoned and
at large January 6th convicted felons
and they go on to set out three
different counts three different causes
of action in this legal filing this
lawsuit but let me tell you this is
historic and we can talk in a few
minutes about why this lawsuit being
filed has such important implications
for not only the health
of our future democracy but the very
viability of our democracy Glenn I want
to dig into the prospect of cash Patel's
impending confirmation if if these FBI
agents are successful in in seeking
injunctive relief and then ultimately
win this case what are the implications
if cash Patel becomes FBI director
because of course he's going to want to
be deferential to Pam Bondi and the doj
and Donald Trump and so would would
would these FBI agents winning this case
um prevent cash Patel from doing what he
so clearly wants to do by by rooting out
these people from the FBI hard to say
and I can't predict just how far cash
Patel will go to um put into action the
retribution against his enemies remember
cash Patel in his book government G
gangsters has a 60 person deep State
list the Washington Post characterizes
characterizes it as an enemies list we
don't know whether this will have any
deterrent effect on cash Patel's desires
to do Donald Trump's dirty unlawful
Revenge bidding by going after this
these people I can only hope it does
deter him from you know nefarious
conduct moving forward in the horrific
event he is confirmed as director of the
FBI but I think what this tends to
suggest Brian is the FBI Rank and file
will not respect um a cash Patel if he
insists on doing Donald Trump's dirty
bidding now that the FBI agents
themselves have gone to court to ask a
federal judge to order Donald Trump to
to effing stop it I'm really agitated
right now but we can talk about why this
is so important this lawsuit because
let's let's remember there were already
lawsuits filed When Donald Trump tried
to revoke the Constitutional guarantee
of Birthright citizenship and within
about 24 hours a federal judge put a
stop to it and when he tried to pull all
federal funding I think we're up to two
federal judges who have put a stop to it
and what happened the Trump
Administration backtracked I have a
feeling that this lawsuit may not work
its way through the system it may have
the desired effect of having Donald
Trump and his henchmen at the Department
of Justice who themselves seem perfectly
willing to violate the law on behalf of
dear leader it may cause them to back up
and say okay maybe our our criminal
scheme to wrong to unlawfully terminate
FBI employees who worked on the j6 cases
wasn't so smart and maybe they will back
up on this one as well but if they don't
here is the second really important
takeaway Donald Trump has already been
flirting with ignoring court orders you
know the I think the last move of an
aspiring dictator a tyrant an autocrat
is when Court order him and his
administration to decline to do
something a an autocratic government a
dictator will say I don't care what the
courts have ordered me not to do I'm
doing it anyway and you know why because
the courts don't have an army or a law
enforcement agency to enforce their
orders it is only through the goodwi of
the executive branch that we abide by
Supreme Court rulings or court orders
and so I I have a feeling you know this
is sort of the battle being met between
the preeminent law enforcement agency
for the United States of America the FBI
and a lawless Trump Administration who
is determined to wrongfully hollow out
the FBI and I think it will make it much
much harder for the Trump Administration
if they are deprived of the law
enforcement resources of the FBI because
they choose to violate court orders that
are put in place to protect FBI agents
from wrongful termination I think it
makes it much harder for Donald Trump to
sort of wield the dictatorial power that
I think he is dying to wield you know
Glenn all of this push back Trump is
going to use this as evidence that the
that the the Deep state or these people
against him actually exist right like
he'll he'll try to do something illegal
he'll brand these people as deep State
operatives when there is inevitable push
back because what he's doing is illegal
is unlawful then that kind of feeds into
the very narrative that he's been
perpetuating he'll say well look there
wouldn't be this much push back if if I
wasn't exactly correct if I wasn't
hovering over the target so I'm
wondering if the fact that the acting
FBI director Brian Driscoll who is a a a
a trump guy right like he he is there
was there's a reason that he's elevated
to that position in anticipation of of
course cash Patel being named FBI
director but but Trump already got rid
of Christopher Ray who by the way he
himself appointed so that Brian Driscoll
could could be elevated to acting FBI
director so this is somebody who Trump
viewed as acceptable to lead the FBI
while we await cash Patel's confirmation
does the fact that even he Brian
Driscoll is pushing back against this as
a republican as somebody who was
palatable for these Maga folks does the
fact that he's pushing back kind of
undermine this this idea that Trump
trying to fire all of these FBI agents
is in fact not some deep State plot or
deep State push back but in fact just an
illegal action it's doesn't just sort of
cut against or debunk Donald Trump's
claim that the entire FBI apparatus that
investigated the January 6 crimes
they're all members of the deep state it
eviscerates that that Donald
Trump is forever spewing in the Public
Square but here's the really good news
now that this lawsuit is filed on this
precise issue doesn't it breathe life
into the deep State narrative that
Donald Trump is always SP
that narrative will not play in federal
court and at this moment that's all that
matters it might forever play with a
certain segment of Donald Trump's
hardcore supporters I mean these are the
people who when they hear Donald Trump
saying we're going to have to have a a
necessary recession and you're going to
experience a lot of pain these people
say genius I'm here for it dear leader
I'm Taking Liberties and I don't mean to
mock all of them because it's a small
segment who are just so so so sucked
into the cult that they just can't seem
to get themselves out of it or out of
their own way once it gets into court
just like he was forever spewing that he
didn't do anything wrong in New York and
yet a jury said yeah you're wrong Sport
and promptly convicted him of 34 felony
crimes so let's get these things into
court where rational Minds will win the
day and Donald Trump's uh scheme will be
defeated in the long run Glenn let's
finish off with this
while this class action lawsuit is going
on is this going to prevent Donald Trump
from even being able to fire these
people or is this just going to give
them some type of platform for example
to be able to collect collect back pay
or collect money um after they were
fired I I think the goal for us look we
want to see I think you and I are
aligned in wanting to see these people
stay at the FBI um so that they can
continue the work and won't just be
replaced by Trump acolytes right Trump
sick ofans
but I think I think the the other
possibility here is that if they are
terminated then obviously this was these
are retaliatory uh terminations the
unlawful terminations and so they're
eligible for financial compensation but
that isn't going to which is which is
the right thing to do to seek that kind
of relief but that's not going to help
our broader goal of making sure that the
FBI isn't taken over by by Trump you
know by by magga acolytes and so so what
are we looking at here are we looking at
trying to keep these people in place or
are we just looking to make sure that
they have some relief in the event that
they are indeed terminated first we're
looking for the former we want this to
be stopped dead in its tracks this
unlawful action by Donald Trump this
Revenge this retribution this
retaliation we wanted to stop this
minute and I think it is likely about to
stop given this injunctive relief this
lawsuit that was just filed by the FBI
agents because we don't want to wait for
these FBI a agents to be unlawfully
terminated only so that they have to
spend the next year or two fighting in
court they will probably win as others
before them including people from the
FBI have won wrongful termination suits
right but but they'll be gone already
and so that's not going to help the
broader goal of making sure the FBI
doesn't just turn turn into a a Maga
loyal wing of the executive branch yeah
that's exactly right and you know what
it feels like an eternity but it's only
been what 3 to four weeks since Donald
Trump was sworn in and people were like
when are when are folks going to start
filing class actions well the most
important class has just been assembled
and filed a scorched Earth pleading I
urge everybody to read it because they
set out how Donald Trump virtually
launched the attack on January 6th how
he refused to call off the attackers who
he was directing he had every power
during the three plus hours to stop the
damn attack against our police officers
and on the United States capital he
refused to it and they take the reader
through chapter and verse of Donald
Trump's Insurrection this is so
important that the preeminent law
enforcement agency for the United States
of America is the one pursuing this
lawsuit against the Department of
Justice and by proxy Donald Trump
because they are fighting back with
everything they have just like James
Dene who is the top FBI official in the
New York field office of the FBI it was
reported yesterday said to his troops
when they were being told self-report
tell them who you are tell them what you
did so you can be wrongfully terminated
he said we will not do that he said I'm
a former Marine and I'm used to digging
in foxholes getting in there having the
back of my people and hunkering down and
he said and I quote it may suck but it
works and that is what the leadership of
the FBI is doing not only up in New York
but as you say Brian Driscoll Donald
Trump's acting director of the FBI in
Washington Washington DC it seems that
the FBI is coming together against this
lawlessness and for days now Brian I've
been saying and we've been discussing
how the FBI will not take this
lawlessness lying down and they just Pro
that in the most dramatic way well
obviously this is a major story uh as
you said a 17 out of 10 on the RoR scale
so we will continue to cover it as we
have any updates we'll bring them to you
uh I will put a link to the lawsuit
itself in the post description of this
video for anybody who wants to read it
and for those who are watching right now
if you want to follow along please make
sure to subscribe we are seeing over and
over and over again that so many of the
Legacy Media sources are just looking to
defer to Donald Trump to bend the knee
to him and his administration in any way
they can Glenn and I will continue to
cover this as soon as we have any
updates so please make sure to subscribe
the links to both of our channels are
right here on this screen I'm Brian
Tyler Cohen and I'm Glenn kersner you're
watching the legal breakdown
[Music]

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

FBI Agents Sue DOJ Over 'Unlawful And Retaliatory' January 6 List
by Gabe Whisnant and Sonam Sheth
Newsweek
Published Feb 04, 2025 at 1:04 PM EST
Updated Feb 04, 2025 at 9:43 PM EST
https://www.newsweek.com/doj-sued-fbi-a ... st-2026046

A group of FBI agents brought a class-action lawsuit against the Justice Department on Tuesday, accusing it of carrying out an "unlawful and retaliatory" directive from President Donald Trump to purge the bureau of agents who worked on the January 6, 2021 Capitol riot probe and the classified-documents investigation into Trump.

Newsweek reached out to the White House and Justice Department for comment via email.

Why It Matters

The lawsuit—brought by nine anonymous agents—was filed as thousands of agency personnel have been ordered to fill out questionnaires about their involvement in cases related to the deadly Capitol riot.

On Tuesday afternoon, the FBI turned over the names of 5,000 employees who worked on January 6 cases to the Justice Department, CNN reported. That's about 13 percent of the bureau's workforce.

Last week, a top DOJ official also ordered the acting U.S. attorney in Washington, D.C. to fire about 30 prosecutors who worked on Capitol riot cases over the last four years.

What To Know

Tuesday's lawsuit was filed against the Justice Department and acting attorney general James McHenry, but it mentioned Trump by name multiple times.

"Upon returning to the Presidency, Mr. Trump has ordered the DOJ to conduct a review and purge of FBI personnel involved in these investigations and prosecutions," it said. "This directive is unlawful and retaliatory" and violates a federal law protecting government employees from unfair treatment.

The complaint said that in addition to grilling FBI personnel about their involvement with January 6 cases, the questionnaires that were distributed last week asked them to identify if they played a "specific role" in the special counsel Jack Smith's investigation into Trump's hoarding of classified documents at Mar-a-Lago after he left office in 2021.

The complaint included screenshots of a three-page survey the plaintiffs said DOJ leaders plan to use to identify thousands of agents who worked on the January 6 and Mar-a-Lago cases.

"Plaintiffs were informed that the aggregated information is going to be forwarded to upper management. Plaintiffs assert that the purpose for this list is to identify agents to be terminated or to suffer other adverse employment action," the lawsuit said. "Plaintiffs reasonably fear that all or parts of this list might be published by allies of President Trump, thus placing themselves and their families in immediate danger of retribution by the now pardoned and at-large Jan. 6 convicted felons."

They were referring to the roughly 1,500 people Trump pardoned who were convicted of crimes related to the Capitol riot, as well as 14 people, some of whom were convicted of seditious conspiracy, whose sentences Trump commuted.

The plaintiffs have reason to believe the information they provide will "be used to target them for retaliatory discharge due to the Trump administration's perception of their loyalties," the suit said.

It pointed out that Trump himself has made repeated public pronouncements of his intent to exact revenge upon persons he perceives to be disloyal to him by simply executing their duties in investigating acts incited by him and persons loyal to him."

The lawsuit said that if Trump or his allies choose to publicize the information in the surveys or if it's otherwise leaked, the impact could go beyond personal consequences for the agents involved.

"Should this information fall into the wrong hands, the national security of the Unite[d] States would be severely compromised," it said.

Second Group of FBI Agents Sues The DOJ

Shortly after Tuesday's lawsuit was filed, a second group of anonymous FBI employees sued the Justice Department, accusing it of carrying out "the mass, unlawful termination of Bureau employees" involved in the Capitol riot investigation.

The lawsuit mentioned the survey that was distributed to FBI personnel over the weekend and said that "strangely, the selection of FBI agents who received this information included many who did little to no work on January 6 investigations, while others who did work January 6 investigations did not receive a survey request."

The FBI Agents Association, which represents 14,000 current and former bureau personnel, is a plaintiff in the lawsuit, as are seven anonymous FBI employees. The anonymous plaintiffs are special agents, forensic examiners, a forensic chemist and an intelligence analyst. The complaint named the Justice Department as a defendant.

In addition to accusing the Justice Department of trying to purge as many as 6,000 agents from the bureau, the lawsuit said multiple January 6 defendants who were pardoned or had their sentences commuted by Trump have since gone on to publicly call for "retribution" against agents involved in their prosecutions.

What People Are Saying

Cheri Jacobus, a former Republican turned Trump critic, celebrated the lawsuit, writing on X: "YES! FBI employees are suing Trump acting AG for violating the Constitution and their rights."

The FBI Agents Association urged Congress to protect the jobs of FBI personnel who could be fired, saying in part: The organization has "urgent concerns about recent actions taken by acting officials at the Department of Justice that threaten the careers of thousands of FBI Special Agents and risk disrupting the Bureau's essential work."

A group of Senate Democrats said in a letter to the acting AG and acting FBI director: "Retaliating against these career public servants who were simply doing the work assigned to them is outrageous and unacceptable."

What Happens Next

The FBI complied with a Tuesday deadline to turn over the names of thousands of agency personnel who worked on Capitol riot cases, even as the nine anonymous agents brought their class-action lawsuit.

The Justice Department has not yet issued a statement on the suit but will likely seek to have it dismissed.

Update 2/4/25 1:59 p.m. ET: This story has been updated with additional information.
Update 2/4/25 2:05 p.m. ET: This story has been updated with additional information.
Update 2/4/25 4:26 p.m. ET: This story has been updated with additional information.

STUNNING update on Trump’s conviction appeal
Brian Tyler Cohen
Feb 4, 2025 Democracy Watch with Marc Elias

Democracy Watch episode 247: Marc Elias discusses Trump's new legal team in his NY appeal.



Transcript

this is democracy watch Mark we've got
some surprising news here that I
legitimately did not expect Donald Trump
was able to get representation by one of
the top legal firms not just in New York
but in the entire country for his appeal
with his 34 criminal counts his his
conviction in New York did this surprise
you um it does and it doesn't I mean it
surprises me in that Donald Trump has
not been able to attract top tier legal
Talent uh before and it's actually been
notable right it was notable that uh in
his various criminal cases you did not
have a high-profile um National Law Firm
representing him that in the post
election in 2020 remember he relied on
the likes of Rudy Giuliani uh Jenna
Ellis and uh and Sydney pal right he did
not have you know the best and the
brightest even Jones day which is a big
DC law firm uh that had done work for
Trump did not do post-election
litigation for him really in 2020 so so
we become used to the fact that that big
law firms are allergic to working for
Donald Trump for two reasons number one
he you know is not a great client he
doesn't exactly follow legal advice and
there's been questions whether he pays
his bills but second the reputational
harm the thought is that representing
Donald Trump would be an anathema to a
large number of your lawyers your your
staff at the firm uh they might be
unhappy and also to your clients right
it would be it would be alienating to
other clients well you know the fact
that Sullivan and Cromwell is
representing Donald Trump on this
criminal appeal this suiv and Cromwell
is one of the most prestigious law firms
on Wall Street uh it is one of the you
know most prestigious law firms as you
say in the country the fact that they
are taking on his appeal really tells
you not just something about that law
firm or about the big law firms in
general but about their clients right
what it really does is law firms are are
in the service business they're they're
tracking the attitudes of their clients
what it means is that the business
Community is now on board with Donald
Trump which is sort of something we we
had suspected but this is just further
proof of right I mean in in a normal
world and I I know that that ship is
long since sailed but in a normal World
there would be reputational harm by
virtue of them um representing Donald
Trump that would have a kind of a
trickle down effect with their other
clients because they wouldn't want to be
repped by the same Law Firm that is also
representing somebody who is that
deplorable that that um that even taking
him on would be enough to push these
people away but that doesn't seem to be
the case anymore that's right and that
is particularly true given the case that
they have chosen right it's not like
they're representing the Trump
organization in some real estate
transaction right or representing Donald
Trump in some ethics form filling out or
something like that right they are
actually taking the appeal of a criminal
case now historically a lot of big law
firms thought doing criminal work you
know itself had some reputational uh
risk to it that's that's not the case
any longer and there's that that isn't
true now but they are but they are
taking a criminal appeal of the stormmy
Daniels hush money case this is hardly
the kind of case that normally a big
Wall Street law firm is looking to
associate itself with right yeah I mean
it's like Donald Trump it's Donald Trump
paying off Stormy Daniels you know it it
is not it is not the thing that normally
uh one would put on the front page of
their website or in their client
brochures how much of a difference does
it make how much of an impact does it
make to have such a prestigious Law Firm
does this make the likelihood of the
appeal succeeding that much higher look
these are excellent lawyers I mean the
four lawyers who are reportedly working
on this are all former Supreme Court
clerks so these are you know these are
Elite lawyers at an elite law firm and
so yeah that that could make a
difference because they're excellent law
for lawyers um but it I think what it
really does is it sends a very very not
so subtle signal to the judges who hear
the cases to the other lawyers in the
cases to state of the lawyers for the
state of New York for example or for the
City of New York uh and the broader
legal community that Donald Trump is now
to be embraced that you know that that
the that the the the shame of this is
now shifting and you know remember some
of Donald Trump's lawyers in these cases
had to leave their big law firms in
order to work for Donald Trump because
the law firms they at wouldn't work for
them so this is a really really big deal
again for what it means for his case yes
what it means for his positioning in the
legal industry for sure but to me the
real story here is sou and Cromwell is
not doing this if their other clients
are objecting and so what it means is
that the big Fortune 500 companies the
Big Wall Street Banks the big tech
companies the big companies that are
involved in deals that they are you know
they're this is like part and parcel of
that uh because otherwise you would not
see a law firm like this get involved in
a case involving hush money to a
prostitute on on an appellate basis and
so what does it say to you that now
we've got big Tech we've got big media
and now we've got big law all of whom
are perfectly willing to openly Embrace
Donald Trump yeah I think it has both
societal consequences and it has some
real practical consequences the societal
consequences are exactly as you suggest
that

[Marc Elias] You know I wrote a piece for
democracy docket saying we're on our own.
And this is just further Evidence we're
on our own. At the time I wrote it I was really
focused mostly on the Legacy Media, like
Legacy Media is not here to help. They
are not. They are not going to be the
force that is going to protect democracy.
Big corporations -- yeah we're on our
own there too, right? Like they are they
are not going to be a force. You're not
going to see CEOs standing up against
Donald Trump's attack on Democracy.
But I think at a very practical level,
what this means is that we shouldn't
count on big law either. And that has, in
some ways, as big an impact as the others.
So at a time where Donald Trump
is engaged in a broadside against so
many aspects of American society, and so
many aspects of democracy, you know big
law firms have historically provided the
manpower, and the women power, to
staff pro bono legal matters; to
represent Indigent defendants; to
represent immigration groups; to
represent groups that are trying to
uphold the rule of law against
the government. And this is to me
a very, very chilling sign that they may
not be available that this time the
legal profession, and may also be leaving
behind, large chunks of the legal
profession may be leaving behind, the
people who need representation the most.
Again, I don't know that that will be
true for every Law Firm. I don't even
know for sure that'll be true for Sullivan &
Cromwell. But it is certainly
an early signal that you are not
going to see what we saw in 2017.
Remember, at the airports in 2017, you saw
big law firms sending their lawyers to
those airports. I've been
noticing over the last just week we are
not seeing in any of these cases we've
been talking about: the birthright
citizenship case, the cases involving the
the impoundment of funds through OMB. I
have been noting the absence of big law
firms present in taking on the Trump
Administration. And this, to me, is a
chilling sign that we may really be on
our own.

And what do you attribute this
to as far as big law is concerned
because I understand why Jeff Bezos does
it who who who is also being regulated
in his other business entities I
understand why Mark Zuckerberg is doing
it who who has too much exposure it's
not just Facebook he has too many other
things going on in front of the
government I understand why you know so
many of these of these billionaires Elon
Musk is doing it but big law isn't
necessarily overleveraged in the same
way that these that the tech
billionaires are and so they they they
risk Nothing by virtue of maintaining
their integrity and so why why do this
why take this this step and kind of and
kind of bend the knee to to to somebody
who it look is overtly Lawless in a in
front of a profession where they
literally swear an oath to uphold the
law yeah and again especially in you
know an appeals case
involving hush money payments right to
an adult film star you know like it's
not like you know there's a big money in
this for them there's not like this is
like a a prestigious client that could
lead to other things like you know there
there's this this case is kind of a dog
to take as an aell argument right but
but they're but they're taking the dog
and and I think the answer to your
question is that they want the work from
the people you just listed you know Jeff
so's companies control a lot of legal
spend uh Elon Musk has a lot of
companies that hire lawyers um you know
I listened uh recently to an interview
that um uh Mark andreon uh the big
venture capitalist out west gave um and
you know these are these businessmen
they employ a lot of lawyers and I think
that these lawyers are are or not these
lawyers specifically with these but law
firms in general they are going where
they see their clients go and so when
they see Disney giving $15 million to
Elon Musk if you're a lawyer for Disney
and again I don't know that sou
represents Disney but if you're a lawyer
for Disney you're thinking all right
well if that's what my clients want you
know like that's great and if you're a
lawyer for for um uh you know for uh The
Washington Post or for one of bezos's
you know for Amazon or for SpaceX you
know like it just I think that the
lawyers are are are not viewing this
through the prism of what is their oath
they're seeing this through the prism of
who are their clients
yeah well again that puts on full
display how important it is to have um
advocates for democracy itself and not
just folks who are chasing the money um
because that's where it is um so for
folks who are looking to support
Fearless journalism journalism that
holds power to account please make sure
to sign up for democracy docket it's the
news Outlet Mark founded to focus on
everything voting in elections I'll put
the link right here on the screen and
also in the post description of this
video again a great way to support the
invaluable work that Mark and his team
are doing right now I'm Brian teller
Cohen I'm Mark Elias this is democracy
watch watch
[Music]