logo
Inside DOGE's Plan to Invade the Treasury—and Throttle USAID

Inside DOGE's Plan to Invade the Treasury—and Throttle USAID

WIRED26-03-2025

Vittoria Elliott Matt Giles Mar 26, 2025 1:06 PM Court filings show that from the earliest days of the second Trump administration, Elon Musk's DOGE had a plan to infiltrate US Treasury payment systems—and turn them against USAID. Photograph:From the beginning of President Donald Trump's administration, Elon Musk's so-called Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE) had a plan to monitor USAID payments and was preparing to use US Treasury systems to halt them, according to new court documents, emails, and affidavits obtained by WIRED.
Court documents in Alliance for Retired Americans et al v. Bessent et al and American Federation of Teachers et al v Bessent et al reveal the extent of DOGE's penetration into the most sensitive systems at the Treasury, including the Bureau of Fiscal Service (BFS), and what exactly DOGE was hoping to accomplish. The bureau is nested within the US Treasury and handles most federal payments, to the tune of more than $5 trillion a year.
WIRED first reported that Marko Elez, a former engineer at X, the social media company owned by Musk, had read/write access to two BFS systems: the Payment Automation Manager (PAM) and Secure Payment System (SPS). But documents now reveal that Elez also had 'read' access to Automated Standard Application for Payments (ASAP), an accounting system where federal funds are stored in pre-authorized accounts. Court documents shared by the government reveal Elez had access as of February 1.
From court filings, it appears this access was in service of the administration's plans to target USAID.
USAID was one of the earliest targets of DOGE and the Trump administration. Less than two weeks after Trump's inauguration, the majority of the agency's staff were placed on administrative leave and funding to many partner organizations was cut off. The documents appear to show how plans were in place for this sudden strangulation in payments to happen.
In a January 26 email between Matthew Garber, a top Treasury official, and the Treasury secretary's chief of staff, Garber outlined the new administration's plan to utilize BFS access to halt payments to USAID.
'Fiscal will intercept USAID payments files prior to ingestion into our PAM/SPS systems (this is in place now and can begin immediately),' Garber wrote. 'We developed a process to intercept the file, and additional flags to ensure we catch all USAID payment requests through our systems.' (This email chain was included as part of documents shared in the Alliance for Retired Americans lawsuit.)
'Fiscal will manually pull an unredacted and unmodified copy to share with State officials,' Garber continued, outlining plans from his team. "State officials will review and provide a determination to Fiscal on whether or not to release the file into our normal payment processes.'
A top Treasury official's calendar shows that a few days later, Elez arrived in Kansas City, one of the Bureau's main sites, and had a full docket of meet and greets and several deep dives with the teams responsible for each of the systems. The plan was for Elez to spend the next month at the facility to identify 'opportunities to advance payment integrity and fraud reduction goals.' According to a planning sheet, which was also shared with the court, 'only (1) individual (i.e. the designated technical team member)'—which was Elez—'requires access to Fiscal Service systems and data at this time.'
Records show that in the final days of January, a request was placed to grant Elez access to both systems. On January 31, David Lebryk, who had been acting Treasury secretary and at one point was the commissioner of BFS, abruptly announced he would retire after he had been placed on administrative leave for refusing to provide DOGE with access to these payment systems. For those who knew the Treasury intimately, this set off alarm bells. That same day, according to an attachment provided by the government, at 6:07 PM, a ticket was filed disregarding a previous order just a day before to give Elez just read only access: 'sorry read/write is needed.'
At the same time Lebryk stepped away, DOGE gained access to the entirety of USAID's IT systems and network, according to reporting from ProPublica. The next day, as the dismantling of USAID was underway, according to court documents, Elez was granted access to the source codes of ASAP, SPS, and PAM. He was also granted read-only access to the production database for the SPS and PAM.
People with knowledge of Treasury systems tell WIRED that it would be uncommon, if not 'unheard of,' for a BFS employee to have access to all these systems simultaneously.
'Within Fiscal, the mainframe guys don't have write access to the databases and vice versa,' says a former BFS employee who requested anonymity in order to speak freely. Normally, they say, employees at BFS are given the minimum amount of access to systems required to do their jobs. 'No BFS employee would normally have this kind of access.'
According to an affidavit from another top Treasury official, though, that plan to isolate USAID payment files outlined by Garber was temporarily paused for the next several days—the State Department had decided it would instead intercept the files. However, on February 4 and February 5, USAID payments flowed to the PAM portal designed by Garber's team.
That same affidavit outlined the next steps: BFS was instructed to focus on flagging, quarantining, and sending several payments to State officials that fell under President Donald Trump's foreign aid executive order that stated there would be a 90-day pause on this aid as the State Department reviewed each program. This plan, according to an email chain included in one of the lawsuits, was vetted by Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent, who was 'comfortable proceeding.' These payments, which originated from the Department of Health and Human Services, included funding for 'Refugee and Entrant Assistance,' 'Gifts and Donations Office of Refugee Resettlement,' and 'Refugee Resettlement Assistance.'
By then, Musk had doubled down on his contempt for USAID: In a February 2 post on X, Musk wrote, 'USAID is a criminal organization. Time for it to die.'
DOGE operatives, including Luke Farritor, a young member, had gained 'super administrator' access to USAID's systems, according to ProPublica. Farritor, who had also been at the Department of Health and Human Services as well as the General Services Administration (GSA), was reportedly going through USAID's payment system manually, shutting off agency funding, according to the Washington Post. Elez was in the midst of a similar operation in Kansas City: according to that Treasury official's affidavit, the engineer began to manually identify and review the foreign aid payment files that had been sequestered in the folder Garber outlined in that late January email.
Meanwhile, Treasury officials sought to give Elez even further access. A February 3 IT ticket, included in case documents from the Alliance for Retired Americans lawsuit, reveals that requests were made for Elez to access the Central Accounting Reporting System (CARS), 'the electronic system of record for the government's financial data.'
That same day, a motion filed by the plaintiffs in another lawsuit alleges Elez copied and downloaded a pair of USAID files from the PAM database to his laptop; around that same time, an affidavit from the Bureau's chief security officer said Elez emailed a spreadsheet with personally identifiable information to two GSA officials via unencrypted channels. (Both of these actions are at the core of one of the lawsuits against Bessent and the Treasury Department; the plaintiffs in that suit were recently granted expedited discovery to access records related to Elez's tenure at BFS.)
A DOGE team had already established a presence at GSA, which included Farritor, as well as former Tesla employee Thomas Shedd and other DOGE members Ethan Shaotran and Edward Coristine.
After WIRED reported on February 4 that Elez had unprecedented access to the Treasury's payments systems, Bessent asserted in a letter to Congress that Tom Krause, then a special government employee associated with DOGE at the Treasury, only had 'read' access. Elez was not mentioned in that letter. In her memo granting a preliminary injunction in the American Federation of Teachers lawsuit, filed on March 24, Judge Deborah Boardman wrote, 'according to a spreadsheet attached to a February 3, 2025 email from a Treasury executive point person for the engagement, as of February 1, Elez had access to Treasury systems including PAM, SPS, and ASAP, and it was recommended that his access to other Treasury systems be expanded.'
On February 5, while Elez had access to Treasury's most sensitive systems, he received an email from the deputy assistant commissioner for enterprise IT operations noting that, though he had been issued a BFS laptop, he had yet to sign the Bureau's 'rules of behavior.' (This email was included amongst documents shared by the government in one of the lawsuits.) Those rules include, following 'laws, regulations, and policies governing the use and entrance to such facilities,' and protecting any 'Fiscal Service data, equipment and IT systems from loss, theft, damage, and unauthorized use or disclosure.' Elez, it would appear, had already violated these rules by sharing the data with the GSA officials.
The next day, Elez resigned after the Wall Street Journal sought comment for a report about racist posts on social media accounts that appeared to belong to him. Elez is now one of the many DOGE operatives working at the Social Security Administration.
In late February, USAID said it would cancel 90 percent of the agency's contracts. The contract cancelations threw nonprofits around the world into chaos, and slowed the response to infectious diseases. Earlier this month, a federal judge said the dismantling of USAID 'likely violated the United States Constitution in multiple ways.'
The Treasury did not immediately respond to a request for comment.
This week, Trump signed an executive order stating that all federal payments should be consolidated within the Treasury. The order claims that doing so will help fight fraud, waste, and abuse.
Don Moynihan, a professor of public policy at the University of Michigan, believes the order means that, 'instead of having to send some DOGE guy into an agency to control the payments, it all happens in one place. It moves power away from agencies and centralizes it in the White House.' In his order, Trump claimed that $1.5 trillion passes through other avenues, known as non-Treasury disbursing offices. These are nested within certain agencies that are able to disburse funds without going through the BFS system.
Moynihan alleges that the strangulation of USAID's funding could be a 'harbinger' of potential changes at other agencies. The administration appears particularly focused, he says, on 'the president having absolute power and control over where money goes regardless of laws on impoundment or statutes on agencies.'
'It's a consolidation of power in the name of efficiency,' he claims.

Orange background

Try Our AI Features

Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:

Comments

No comments yet...

Related Articles

‘Never use violence': Camp Pendleton Marines could be deployed to LA protests as governor continues to push back
‘Never use violence': Camp Pendleton Marines could be deployed to LA protests as governor continues to push back

Yahoo

time31 minutes ago

  • Yahoo

‘Never use violence': Camp Pendleton Marines could be deployed to LA protests as governor continues to push back

SAN DIEGO (FOX 5/KUSI) — President Trump is deploying 2,000 California National Guard troops to Los Angeles after two days of clashes between immigration authorities and demonstrators following several raids across the city, and the Secretary of Defense has put Camp Pendleton Marines on high alert to be deployed if needed. Governor Newsom has been vocal Saturday, taking to X to push back against President Trump's orders to deploy the state National Guard, saying, in part, 'This is the wrong mission and will erode public trust. Never use violence. Speak out peacefully.' Federal agents conducting immigration raid in Los Angeles County; protest quickly erupts While protestors and federal immigration authorities in riot gear continued to clash Saturday and tear gas and smoke filled the air on and off, the U.S. Secretary of Defense, Pete Hegseth, posted on X Saturday night he was mobilizing the National Guard immediately to support federal law enforcement in Los Angeles, and placed active duty Marines at Camp Pendleton on high alert to be mobilized 'if violence continues.' Governor Newsom responded on X, saying, 'the Secretary of Defense is now threatening to deploy active-duty Marines on American soil against its own citizens. This is deranged behavior.' It began Friday when ICE and federal immigration authorities raided several businesses in the Los Angeles area and people took to the streets to push back. Large groups of protestors gathered near the site of the raids on Friday and again on Saturday. Trump deploying California National Guard over governor's objections to LA to quell protests Law enforcement in riot gear and gas masks were seen blocking streets, firing tear gas and smoke bombs as protestors continued to gather, in some cases throwing cement pieces and firing off fireworks. Watch a live feed of the scene of ICE activity in Paramount here. Viewer discretion is advised. This is developing. Stay with FOX 5/KUSI for the latest updates Copyright 2025 Nexstar Media, Inc. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.

What will the Spending Review mean for NI public services?
What will the Spending Review mean for NI public services?

Yahoo

time31 minutes ago

  • Yahoo

What will the Spending Review mean for NI public services?

Next week the Chancellor Rachel Reeves will reveal the outcome of her Spending Review. It will allocate money to day-to-day public services for the next three years. It will also set infrastructure budgets for the next four years. The review will directly impact on what Stormont Ministers have to spend on public services in Northern Ireland. Last year Reeves set what is known as the "spending envelope" – the amount by which total government spending will change in a given period. Day-to-day spending is planned to grow by an average of 1.2% above the rate of inflation each year for the next three years. Infrastructure spending is planned to grow by 1.3% above inflation a year over the next four years. These are much lower growth rates than this year and last year, reflecting the new government's "emergency" injection of cash into the health service and public sector pay deals. On Wednesday the Chancellor will break it down further, making allocations to each central government department. The precise allocation of this money matters for Stormont's spending plans. More than 90% of what Stormont ministers have to spend comes from the Treasury through what is known as "the block grant." The increase in the block grant is worked out using a calculation known as the Barnett formula, which is based on the annual changes in UK central government departmental budgets. It gives Stormont an equivalent spending increase for the size of the NI population, adjusted for the extent to which each service is devolved. Some services, like health, are almost entirely devolved but defence is not devolved. If the government decides it is going to spend more on defence at the expense of other services that will have an impact on the amount of extra money in the Stormont pot. In simple terms: If the UK Department of Health sees its budget increase by £100m, then Northern Ireland would get approximately £3m extra. If the Ministry of Defence budget increases by £100m Stormont does not get anything extra. When devolution was restored in 2024 the government agreed a financial package which included an automatic top-up of any money awarded by the Barnett formula. The government was persuaded that the level of need in Northern Ireland means it requires spending of £124 per head for every £100 per head spent in England. As Northern Ireland was funded below that level, the government said that in future every £1 that comes through the Barnett formula will now come with an extra 24p. That will apply until the overall level of funding need is reached. The independent Fiscal Council has estimated that will be worth £815m over five years. The government said the size of the top up could be reviewed if "independent and credible sources" provide evidence. To that end the Executive commissioned a study from the economist Prof Gerry Holtham, an expert in the devolution of public finances. The BBC understands that his work has come back with a range of possible funding need. The central estimates are £123 per head, for every £100 spent in England, if agricultural spending is excluded and £128 per head if agriculture forms part of the calculation. If the Treasury is persuaded to accept the higher end of the range it will be worth tens of millions of pounds extra over the next five years. The devolution financial package also brought a large dollop of one-off UK government funding, largely to pay for public sector pay deals. However that creates a cliff-edge drop in Stormont funding of about £500m in 2026/27 when that short term money runs out. The government committed to review "concerns about 2026-27 funding" at the Spending Review. The Fiscal Council has suggested options to tackle the cliff edge could include more one-off funding or setting a new, higher baseline for Stormont's budget. However, it is also possible that the normal operation of Spending Review will allocate enough money to largely remove the cliff edge. The Chancellor will be allocating trillions of pounds in the Spending Review but it is a tiny fraction of that which may have most political impact in Northern Ireland. There is a growing expectation that the UK government will come up with additional money for the construction of a new GAA stadium at Casement Park in Belfast. That project has been bogged down in labyrinthine planning and funding issues. The GAA official leading the project has told the BBC he is cautiously optimistic that the Spending Review will include a new financial contribution for the redevelopment project. Spending Review: When is it and what might Rachel Reeves announce? Reeves admits some will lose out in spending review

What to know about Trump's deployment of National Guard troops to LA protests

time36 minutes ago

What to know about Trump's deployment of National Guard troops to LA protests

President Donald Trump says he's deploying 2,000 California National Guard troops to Los Angeles to respond to immigration protests, over the objections of California Gov. Gavin Newsom. It's not the first time Trump has activated the National Guard to quell protests. In 2020, he asked governors of several states to send troops to Washington, D.C. to respond to demonstrations that arose after George Floyd was killed by Minneapolis police officers. Many of the governors he asked agreed, sending troops to the federal district. The governors that refused the request were allowed to do so, keeping their troops on home soil. This time, however, Trump is acting in opposition to Newsom, who under normal circumstances would retain control and command of California's National Guard. While Trump said that federalizing the troops was necessary to 'address the lawlessness' in California, the Democratic governor said the move was 'purposely inflammatory and will only escalate tensions.' Here are some things to know about when and how the president can deploy troops on U.S. soil. Generally, federal military forces are not allowed to carry out civilian law enforcement duties against U.S. citizens except in times of emergency. An 18th-century wartime law called the Insurrection Act is the main legal mechanism that a president can use to activate the military or National Guard during times of rebellion or unrest. But Trump didn't invoke the Insurrection Act on Saturday. Instead, he relied on a similar federal law that allows the president to federalize National Guard troops under certain circumstances. The National Guard is a hybrid entity that serves both state and federal interests. Often it operates under state command and control, using state funding. Sometimes National Guard troops will be assigned by their state to serve federal missions, remaining under state command but using federal funding. The law cited by Trump's proclamation places National Guard troops under federal command. The law says that can be done under three circumstances: When the U.S. is invaded or in danger of invasion; when there is a rebellion or danger of rebellion against the authority of the U.S. government, or when the President is unable to 'execute the laws of the United States,' with regular forces. But the law also says that orders for those purposes 'shall be issued through the governors of the States.' It's not immediately clear if the president can activate National Guard troops without the order of that state's governor. Notably, Trump's proclamation says the National Guard troops will play a supporting role by protecting ICE officers as they enforce the law, rather than having the troops perform law enforcement work. Steve Vladeck, a professor at the Georgetown University Law Center who specializes in military justice and national security law, says that's because the National Guard troops can't legally engage in ordinary law enforcement activities unless Trump first invokes the Insurrection Act. Vladeck said the move raises the risk that the troops could end up using force while filling that 'protection' role. The move could also be a precursor to other, more aggressive troop deployments down the road, he wrote on his website. 'There's nothing these troops will be allowed to do that, for example, the ICE officers against whom these protests have been directed could not do themselves,' Vladeck wrote. The Insurrection Act and related laws were used during the Civil Rights era to protect activists and students desegregating schools. President Dwight Eisenhower sent the 101st Airborne to Little Rock, Arkansas, to protect Black students integrating Central High School after that state's governor activated the National Guard to keep the students out. George H.W. Bush used the Insurrection Act to respond to riots in Los Angeles in 1992 after the acquittal of white police officers who were videotaped beating Black motorist Rodney King. National Guard troops have been deployed for a variety of emergencies, including the COVID pandemic, hurricanes and other natural disasters. But generally, those deployments are carried out with the agreements of the governors of the responding states. In 2020, Trump asked governors of several states to deploy their National Guard troops to Washington, D.C. to quell protests that arose after George Floyd was killed by Minneapolis police officers. Many of the governors agreed, sending troops to the federal district. At the time, Trump also threatened to invoke the Insurrection Act for protests following Floyd's death in Minneapolis – an intervention rarely seen in modern American history. But then-Defense Secretary Mark Esper pushed back, saying the law should be invoked 'only in the most urgent and dire of situations.' Trump never did invoke the Insurrection Act during his first term. But while campaigning for his second term, he suggested that would change. Trump told an audience in Iowa in 2023 that he was prevented from using the military to suppress violence in cities and states during his first term, and said if the issue came up again in his next term, 'I'm not waiting.' Trump also promised to deploy the National Guard to help carry out his immigration enforcement goals, and his top adviser Stephen Miller explained how that would be carried out: Troops under sympathetic Republican governors would send troops to nearby states that refuse to participate, Miller said on 'The Charlie Kirk Show,' in 2023. After Trump announced he was federalizing the National Guard troops on Saturday, Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth said other measures could follow. Hegseth wrote on the social media platform X that active duty Marines at Camp Pendleton were on high alert and would also be mobilized 'if violence continues.'

DOWNLOAD THE APP

Get Started Now: Download the App

Ready to dive into the world of global news and events? Download our app today from your preferred app store and start exploring.
app-storeplay-store