Judge temporarily limits DOGE access to Treasury Department payment system
A federal judge signed off on an agreement Thursday that would temporarily limit the Department of Government Efficiency's access to sensitive Treasury Department payment systems. The ruling is part of a broader case brought against the Treasury Department, which a coalition of federal employee unions as accused of illegally sharing access to their members' information withElon Musk's quasi-governmental operation charged with slashing the federal budget.
The lawsuit was filed by liberal nonprofit Public Citizen on behalf of the AFL-CIO and other groups.
U.S. District Judge Colleen Kollar-Kotellyon issued her ruling with the consent of both the unions and the Treasury Department, which is now barred from providing DOGE access to 'to any payment record or payment system of records maintained by or within the Bureau of the Fiscal Service."
There are, however, exceptions.
Tom Krause, chief executive of Cloud Software Group Inc., and Marko Elez, an engineer who has worked for Musk's private companies, will both retain ostensibly read-only access to payment information. Despite Treasury Department denials to the contrary, though, a WIRED report stated that DOGE staffers have actually enjoyed read-write access, which could allowed them to rewrite code that controls Social Security, tax payments and more.
According to CNN, Krause and Elez led DOGE's efforts to shut down payments to USAID employees using the Treasury Department's payment processing system, a step so out of line with normal process that former Acting Secretary David Lebryk, a career civil servant, told DOGE agents that he did not believe 'we have the legal authority to stop an authorized payment certified by an agency."
Lebryk suggested a 'legally less risky approach' that would involve the State Department rescinding the payments and examining whether they complied with President Donald Trump's executive order to freeze foreign development aid. Krause, in turn, told Lebryk that if he did not immediately comply, he could put himself at legal risk. Lebryk announced his resignation from government service last Friday.
The exchange underscores how far Musk and his underlings are willing to go in using their access to government agencies to cut off money to programs he doesn't like, which circumvents Congress' constitutional power over the federal budget. The speed and forcefulness of the Trump administration, while initially catching its opponents off-guard, has now provoked a flurry of lawsuits and rallies outside government buildings — and now the first time the judge has put binding limits on DOGE access.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Time Magazine
33 minutes ago
- Time Magazine
Social Security and Medicare Trust Funds Are on Track to Run Out in Less Than a Decade. Here's What to Know
Social Security and Medicare are expected to need to cut monthly benefits in less than a decade as the trust funds for both programs are on track to run dry earlier than previously predicted. A report released on Wednesday from the Social Security and Medicare Boards of Trustees pushed up the programs' go-broke dates, meaning the point at which they would not have enough money to fully cover benefits. The worsening projections are in part because of a new law impacting Social Security and increasing health care costs, according to the report. Here's what to know about the approaching funding cliffs. How long will Social Security stay solvent? The go-broke date for Social Security's trust funds was pushed up to 2034, from last year's estimate of 2035. The funds cover old age and disability recipients. The program covers more than 60 million people in the U.S. What about Medicare? Last year's report set the go-broke date for Medicare's hospital insurance trust fund as 2036. But the latest report pushed up that date to 2033. Medicare is a federal health insurance program that offers coverage for people 65 and older, as well as people with certain disabilities. More than 68 million people in the U.S. are enrolled in the program. The hospital insurance trust fund pays for Medicare Part A, which covers care provided in hospitals and skilled nursing facilities, as well as some in-home care. It also helps pay for hospice care. Why have the go-broke dates moved up? The report largely attributes the Social Security go-broke date being pushed up to a new law, the Social Security Fairness Act, which took effect in January. The law repealed the Windfall Elimination and Government Pension Offset provisions of the Social Security Act, which 'increased projected Social Security benefit levels for some workers' and affected the go-broke date for Social Security's trust funds, according to the report. Last year's expenses for Medicare's hospital insurance trust fund were also greater than initially anticipated, according to the report, which contributed to the go-broke date for the program being pushed up. What happens after the go-broke dates? The funds hitting their go-broke dates doesn't mean that there won't be any funds to cover any benefits after that point. After 2034, Social Security would only have enough funds to cover 81% of benefits. After 2033, Medicare's hospital insurance trust fund would only be able to pay 89% of costs.
Miami Herald
an hour ago
- Miami Herald
Senate proposes big change to Social Security, SALT income tax deduction
The Senate Finance Committee this week unveiled its proposed tax provisions for inclusion in the budget reconciliation bill currently under consideration in Congress. The House of Representatives passed its version of the bill, H.R. 1, known as the One Big Beautiful Bill Act, in May. Don't miss the move: Subscribe to TheStreet's free daily newsletter The Senate is now working on its own version, which must meet specific requirements to qualify for reconciliation. This would allow it to bypass the filibuster and pass with a simple majority vote, according to a report by the Journal of Accountancy. The goal? Passage by July 4. Among the provisions for individuals in the Senate version of the bill that are different from the House version, several stand out. Harold Mendoza The Senate bill, like its House counterpart, would permanently establish the expanded standard deduction amounts enacted under the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act (TCJA). Starting in tax year 2026, the standard deduction would be set at $16,000 for single filers, $24,000 for heads of household, and $32,000 for married couples filing jointly, with future adjustments for inflation. Related: Social Security income tax deduction hits major roadblock The Senate proposal also includes a temporary tax break for older Americans: a $6,000 deduction for individuals age 65 and older. The House version offered only a $4,000 "senior bonus" deduction. The Senate's senior deduction would begin to phase out at a modified adjusted gross income (MAGI) of $75,000 for single filers and $150,000 for joint filers, and would apply from 2025 through 2028. Tax expert Ted Sarenski notes that whether the additional senior deduction is $4,000 or $6,000, for joint filers with both spouses over 65, this would result in a standard deduction of $38,000 or $42,000 – amounts that exceed what the majority of seniors who currently itemize could reach, especially with the state and local tax (SALT) deduction capped at $10,000. Related: How the IRS taxes Social Security income in retirement However, Sarenski warns of potential challenges ahead: "The bigger issue: come 2028 when this bonus is set to disappear, there will be tremendous squawking about a $8,000 or $12,000 drop in the standard deduction like we see now with proposed Medicaid cutbacks today which are merely trying to put Medicaid back where it was before COVID." Under current law, the deduction for state and local taxes (SALT) is capped at $10,000. The original House bill proposed raising that cap to $30,000, but a manager's amendment increased it further – to $40,000 per household ($20,000 for married individuals filing separately), effective in 2025. Related: SALT income tax deduction takes critical step forward The Senate version, by contrast, would keep the SALT deduction cap at $10,000 and make that limit permanent. It also includes provisions to prevent taxpayers from using workaround strategies to bypass the cap. However, this provision remains a point of negotiation between the chambers. Senate Republicans, led by Majority Whip John Thune (R-S.D.), have signaled that the $10,000 cap is a negotiating position rather than a final offer, suggesting a compromise could land somewhere between the House and Senate proposals. Still, members of the House SALT Caucus, including Rep. Mike Lawler (R-N.Y.), are holding firm on the $40,000 cap. Lawler called the Senate proposal "DEAD ON ARRIVAL" and reiterated, "$40,000 is the deal – I will not accept a penny less." Sarenski emphasized that the SALT provision "is a concern for residents of high tax states like California, New York, Connecticut, etc." He anticipates that if the Senate moves to keep the cap at $10,000, "it may not pass the House," and expects "there will be a compromise somewhere in the middle of those two figures." More Social Security: Jean Chatzky sends strong message on 401(k)s, Social SecurityDave Ramsey's blunt advice regarding Social Security and 401(k)sSuze Orman addresses growing Social Security problem Harold Eisenberg, the founder and CEO of WealthTec, takes a more critical view of the overall legislation, describing the One Big Beautiful Bill as "just not sound tax policy on many levels" with "too much politics in this proposed legislation." He characterizes the temporary senior tax break as "gimmicky," though notes that this very quality "means some form of it likely passes." On the SALT deduction, Eisenberg argues that the limitation "is targeted primarily at taxpayers in Blue states, so on its face is discriminatory." The prospects for these tax changes remain uncertain, with the legislative path forward depending heavily on House dynamics. "The chances of any of these changes rests with the house," said Sarenski. "The senators can pass whatever they agree on. The house is the issue with Republicans not voting in tandem." Tax professional George Papadopoulos takes a more cautious approach to predicting outcomes, noting his long experience with the legislative process: "I have been around for a while and long enough to not really get into pending legislation matters. I know in general what is on the table and stay away from guessing what will actually be signed into law. When we actually have a law then it is time to get into analyzing it." Related: These are the most tax-friendly states if you work in retirement Despite his general reluctance to speculate, Papadopoulos does offer some measured predictions based on political realities. He expects the $10,000 SALT deduction cap will increase "but not more than doubling," suggesting a final figure well below the House's proposed $40,000 limit. He also anticipates "some form of senior deduction" will ultimately be included, driven by the political influence of older voters as "that voting block is so large." However, he expects the income thresholds for phasing out the senior deduction may be set higher than currently proposed. Eisenberg, despite his self-described role as a "federal tax policy cynic," also weighs in on the political dynamics. He believes that with the narrow House Republican majority, "keeping the SALT limitation at $10K would likely kill the bill in the house" because "too many Republicans in 'swing districts' in the Blue states are depending on raising that cap." Reflecting on the complex nature of tax legislation, Papadopoulos said: "Whoever said negotiating tax legislation is like making sausage was right." Got questions about retirement, email What is a pledged asset line? The Arena Media Brands, LLC THESTREET is a registered trademark of TheStreet, Inc.
Washington Post
2 hours ago
- Washington Post
Tracking Trump: Iran gets the ‘ultimate ultimatum'; Fed maintains interest rates; Hegseth defends Confederate base names; and more
Trump remained noncommittal about the U.S. striking Iran. The Supreme Court upheld a ban on gender transition treatments for minors. A report found Social Security will run out of money in under 10 years. The Federal Reserve said it will not drop interest rates. The defense secretary defended Confederate names for bases.
