Men claiming to be from DOGE at San Francisco City Hall were wearing cryptocurrency t-shirts
Officials with the San Francisco Sheriff's Office on Tuesday confirmed that three men claiming to work for the Department of Government Efficiency who demanded information from city officials last week were wearing t-shirts for the cryptocurrency Dogecoin.
The sheriff's office issued the update Tuesday afternoon, saying the incident that happened at San Francisco City Hall on Friday, Feb. 14, remained under investigation.
The San Francisco Sheriff's Office continues to investigate the incident at City Hall where three men, claiming to work for the Department of Government Efficiency, entered offices on 2/14/25.
The individuals demanded access to office computers and handed over a USB drive to… pic.twitter.com/M7gcJHSNZl
— SF Sheriff's Office (@SheriffSF) February 19, 2025
On Friday, authorities in San Francisco said they were investigating the incident that happened at City Hall at around noon. The men went to several offices and demanded employees turn over digital information"related to alleged wasteful government spending and fraud."
In the update, authorities said the "individuals demanded access to office computers and handed over a USB drive to employees to upload information." It also noted that the thee men "were verbally aggressive" and insulted staff." When the men couldn't produce any credentials proving they were from DOGE, the employees "did not comply with the men's requests."
The new details about what the men were wearing came from City Hall surveillance footage, the release said.
"Upon review of City Hall surveillance footage, it appears that the men were wearing DOGECOIN (a cryptocurrency) t-shirts and non-descriptive hats. Due to the ongoing investigation, no further information will be released at this time," the statement read.
Dogecoin was a cryptocurrency developed as a joke by software engineers in late 2013 and is commonly referred to as the first "meme coin."
The original report from authorities indicated the men were wearing hats with the pro-Trump slogan "Make America Great Again," while the update indicated that was not the case. Due to the ongoing nature of the investigation, the sheriff's office said no further details were being released at this time.
The new information comes the same day a federal judge declined to stop Musk and DOGE from accessing data systems at seven federal agencies and firing or putting their employees on leave. California Attorney General Rob Bonta was among 14 attorneys general who filed a lawsuit last week challenging Musk and DOGE's authority to access sensitive government data.
Operating under the direction of billionaire Elon Musk, DOGE was created by President Trump through an executive order he signed shortly after his inauguration with the stated mission of slashing federal spending.
According to social media posts from the task force and Musk, DOGE is seeking to identify federal contracts and spending on issues that don't align with Mr. Trump's policies, including DEI and foreign aid.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Vox
27 minutes ago
- Vox
Why Donald Trump soured on some of his own judges
Late last month, approximately 1 billion news cycles ago, an obscure federal court made President Donald Trump very, very mad. The US Court of International Trade ruled unanimously on May 28 that the massive tariffs Trump imposed after taking office again are illegal. That ruling was suspended the next day by the US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, and the tariffs will be allowed to remain in effect pending a ruling (arguments are scheduled for late July). But the appellate court's decision didn't soothe Trump. He took to Truth Social on May 29 to post a 510-word screed attacking the judges on the Court of International Trade, before turning his ire toward a more surprising candidate — Leonard Leo, the most important person in the conservative legal movement. 'I was new to Washington, and it was suggested that I use The Federalist Society as a recommending source on Judges,' Trump wrote, reminiscing about his first term. 'I did so, openly and freely, but then realized that they were under the thumb of a real 'sleazebag' named Leonard Leo, a bad person who, in his own way, probably hates America, and obviously has his own separate ambitions.' This breakup surprised many commentators. But not David French. 'If you're familiar with how the conservative legal movement has interacted with MAGA, you have seen this coming for a while,' French, a New York Times columnist, lawyer, and onetime member of the Federalist Society, told Today, Explained co-host Sean Rameswaram. 'You knew this was coming after 2020. Because in 2020, after Trump had really stocked the federal judiciary with an awful lot of FedSoc judges and justices…none of them, zero of them, helped him try to steal the election.' French spoke with Today, Explained about the origins of the (other) big, beautiful breakup and what it means for the Trump administration and the future of the federal judiciary. Below is an excerpt of the conversation, edited for length and clarity. There's much more in the full podcast, so listen to Today, Explained wherever you get podcasts, including Apple Podcasts, Pandora, and Spotify. Are you now or have you ever been a member of the Federalist Society? I am not now, but I have been a member of the Federalist Society. I was a member of the Federalist Society either all three years of law school or the first two years of law school. But it was also a very different time. I think the Federalist Society at the law school at that time, when we would have meetings, maybe 10 or 12 people would show up. Things have changed. One of the most conspicuous changes is that FedSoc has become an enemy of the president of the United States. From [2020] forward, you began to see this drifting apart between FedSoc and MAGA. When Trump comes back into office and he doubles down on being Donald Trump, all of this became very, very predictable. Because if the Trump administration's argument dovetailed with their originalist legal philosophy, they would rule for it. But if it was just simply Trump's lawless demands, they were going to reject it. And Trump is baffled by this distinction. He's baffled by it because congressional Republicans haven't drawn this line at all. When Trump's demands conflict with conservative principles, they will yield to Trump's demands every time. And the judges and justices have taken the opposite tack to such an extent that Republican-nominated judges have ruled against Trump about 72 percent of the time, which is remarkably close to about the 80 percent or so of the time that Democratic-appointed judges have ruled against Trump. You mentioned a whole host of issues where FedSoc judges have perhaps not given Trump what he wanted. Does the one that finally tips Trump off to go for it on Truth Social surprise you? It doesn't, because what really set him off was striking down tariffs. To the extent that Trump loves a policy, he loves tariffs. The Court of International Trade struck it down, and it was pointed out to him that one of the judges on the Court of International Trade that struck down the tariffs was appointed by him. He had been ranting about judges in general. Now he got specific with Leonard Leo; he got specific with the FedSoc. People like me who'd been watching this for a very long time were not wondering if this was going to happen. We were just wondering what was going to be the tipping point: Was it going to be a Supreme Court case? Was it going to be an appellate court? It turns out it was the Court of International Trade that brought us to this moment. Leonard Leo did not author a decision from this court. Why is he mad at Leonard Leo? Leonard Leo has long been a key figure in the Federalist Society and was very much a part of the first Trump administration, working closely with the administration to put forward judges. For a long time, Trump looked at his judicial nominations and waved them like a flag to the American conservative public saying, look what I did. But the more the American conservative public started loving Trump as Trump, versus Trump as what policy wins he could deliver, the less he started waving these other ideological flags, and the more it became all about him. And so this meant that this marriage was going to be temporary almost from the beginning, unless FedSoc capitulated. And if you know anything about FedSoc and the people who belong to it, and the people who've come up as judges, I knew they weren't going to capitulate. It's a very different culture from political conservatism. Do you think Donald Trump didn't realize that? I don't think he realized that at all. He's had this entire history politically of when Republicans disagree with him, they either fall in line or they're steamrolled. And so it's so interesting to me that he actually began that Truth Social rant that lacerated Leonard Leo and the FedSoc with this question: What's going on? Why is this happening? And I totally understand his bafflement. Because all of the political people had surrendered, or almost all of them. And so when he turns around and these judges and justices just keep ruling against him, you can understand why he would take that as, 'What's going on here? I don't get this. I don't understand this. I've been assured that these were good judges.' And so that's where you get to that real tension. Do you think this rift with the Federalist Society will affect how he appoints judges going forward? The short answer to that question is yes. The longer answer to that question is heck yes. A lot of people were worried about this because they were thinking, Okay, Trump 1.0: He has General Mattis as his secretary of defense. Trump 2.0: He has Pete Hegseth. You can do this all day long. The Trump 1.0 early nominations — sound, serious, establishment conservatives. Trump 2.0 — often MAGA crazies. The question was, 'Is this same pattern going to establish itself in Trump 2.0 on judges?' And then he appointed to the Third Circuit Emil Bove, this DOJ enforcer of his who was responsible for the effort to dismiss the Eric Adams case. He's nominated him for the Third Circuit, and a lot of people are now saying, 'Oh, now that's your harbinger right there.'
Chicago Tribune
an hour ago
- Chicago Tribune
An immigrant in Wisconsin has been released on bond after false accusation he threatened Trump
MADISON, Wis. — A man who was falsely accused of threatening to assassinate President Donald Trump and threatened with deportation to Mexico was released Thursday from a Wisconsin jail on bond, three weeks after federal immigration agents arrested him. Ramón Morales Reyes, 54, was accused of a writing a letter threatening Trump in a social media post by Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem that got widespread national coverage. The post includes Morales Reyes' photo and an excerpt from the letter he purportedly wrote in English. But the claims quickly fell apart as Wisconsin authorities determined that Reyes, who doesn't speak English well or write in the language, was framed. Morales Reyes was a victim in a violent 2023 attack where his bike was stolen. According to authorities, the alleged attacker, Demetric D. Scott, forged the letter to try to clear his case. Morales Reyes was set to be a witness in Scott's July trial for armed robbery and aggravated battery. Morales Reyes was released in the afternoon after paying the $7,500 bond that an immigration judge set on Tuesday. Speaking to WISN-TV, Morales Reyes said he and his lawyer will fight his deportation. 'I believe (the lawyer) knows the history and all of you know what happened,' he said. He was later met by relatives and members of the Milwaukee-based immigrant rights group Voces de la Frontera, which has helped work on his case. Christine Neumann-Ortiz, the organization's executive director, said Morales Reyes was 'relieved' and 'very grateful for all of the support he's received.' Judge Carla Espinoza said at the immigration court hearing in Chicago that Morales Reyes was not a threat to the community. Morales Reyes, a married father of three U.S. citizen children, works as a dishwasher in Milwaukee. He was arrested by immigration agents last month after dropping a child off at school. He immigrated from Mexico in the 1980s and doesn't have legal permission to be in the U.S. This year, he applied for a U visa, which is for people in the country illegally who are victims of serious crimes. Getting such a visa can take years. Homeland Security issued a statement to reporters last week saying that although Morales Reyes was no longer considered a threat to Trump, federal attorneys would still pursue an immigration case. The government alleges that Morales Reyes reentered the U.S. numerous times without a visa. Morales Reyes had been held in the Dodge Detention Center in Juneau, about 70 miles (113 kilometers) north of Milwaukee. He was released after the federal government did not appeal the setting of his bond. Noem's social media post blaming Morales Reyes for an assassination attempt, which was circulated by Trump supporters, remains online.
Yahoo
an hour ago
- Yahoo
5 takeaways from the Alex Padilla furor
Chaotic scenes in which Sen. Alex Padilla (D-Calif.) was pressed to the ground and handcuffed by federal agents set the political world aflame on Thursday. Padilla had come to a news conference being held by Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem, raising his voice to ask questions. Agents, reportedly including at least one member of Noem's official security detail, swarmed Padilla, moving him to a corridor before pressing him to the ground and placing the handcuffs on him. The stunning moment played out against the political backdrop of disorder in California. President Trump's administration is seeking to crack down even harder on immigrants without legal status, and pro-immigrant activists are trying to block Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) agents from detaining people. Anti-ICE demonstrators have hurled debris at police and set cars ablaze. The strife — and the political debate — intensified after Trump ordered the deployment of the National Guard and the Marines. He did so in contravention of the wishes of California Gov. Gavin Newsom (D) and Los Angeles Mayor Karen Bass (D). Here are the main takeaways from the Padilla episode. The sheer potency of the Padilla video is more powerful than anything else. The most widely circulated clip, which lasts less than a minute, begins with Padilla standing relatively close to where Noem is speaking, but not within arm's reach or making any sudden move toward her. Agents begin to push him further away. As they continue physically pressing in on him, the senator says, 'I am Sen. Alex Padilla, I have questions for the secretary.' Padilla begins to make remarks that he never gets to finish related to 'violent criminals,' and he is pushed into an adjacent corridor, briefly out of view of the camera. A voice — presumably Padilla's — says 'hands off.' Moments later, with three agents surrounding him, he is told to get 'on the ground' and to put his hands behind his back. At least two of the agents have their hands on Padilla holding him to the ground at this point, and cuffs are placed on him. A voice from an unidentified man then tells the person filming the events on their cellphone that no recording is allowed. The brief clip ends. But the shocking nature of seeing a sitting senator treated in such a way resonated immediately, taking over cable TV networks and social media and sparking a political firestorm. Democrats responded with fury to the treatment of Padilla, casting it as horrifying in itself — and as emblematic of the Trump administration's broader approach. Former Vice President Kamala Harris wrote on social media that the way Padilla was treated was a 'shameful and stunning abuse of power.' Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.) said he was 'sickened to my stomach' by what he had seen. Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.) called it 'a horrifying moment in our nation's history.' Democrats, and millions of liberal Americans, were already outraged about Trump's deployment of the National Guard and the Marines, which they argue was an unnecessary and purposefully inflammatory move. Several media outlets reported that Padilla's attempt to question Noem took place after she had claimed federal agents were going 'to liberate this city' from its 'socialist' leaders. Soon after the incident on Thursday, Newsom called the treatment of Padilla 'outrageous, dictatorial and shameful,' and Bass said it was 'absolutely abhorrent.' But liberals also see the immigration question as part of a bigger picture, in which Trump has sought to exert his muscle against universities, the media, judges and law firms, as well as his political foes. To them, he is a president exceptional in all the wrong ways — in his intolerance of dissent, and his willingness to use the levers of government power to crush it. The images of Padilla being handcuffed crystallizes their case. The White House has vigorously defended the agents' treatment of Padilla. They are saying the senator is to blame. White House spokesperson Abigail Jackson said in a statement, 'Padilla stormed a press conference, without wearing his Senate pin or previously identifying himself to security, yelled, and lunged toward Secretary Noem.' The video of the incident does not appear to show Padilla wearing the pin that identifies senators, but it also does not include images of him lunging at Noem. Moreover, he clearly does inform the agents who swarm him that he is a senator. The White House's argument is that he did not do so early enough in the encounter. Jackson added, 'Padilla didn't want answers; he wanted attention.' The official X account of the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) also contended that Padilla had 'interrupted a live press conference without identifying himself' and had 'lunged' at Noem. The DHS also alleged that Padilla was 'told repeatedly to back away and did not comply with officers' repeated commands.' Noem herself told Fox News soon after, 'He was never arrested. … Nobody knew who he was when he came into the room creating a scene. He was removed from the room. Yes, they started to put handcuffs on him — when he finally identified himself and then that was stopped.' Padilla says it's false to suggest nobody knew who he was, even before the melee erupted, because a member of the National Guard and an FBI agent escorted him into Noem's press conference from elsewhere in the building in the first place. Even so, members of the Trump administration plainly believe that adopting the president's 'never back down' approach will pay political dividends. The Padilla episode plainly helps Democrats make their case that the Trump administration is prone to repressive tactics. But the image of the senator on the ground also has to compete, in a political sense, with some of the equally compelling images of disorder in Los Angeles. Images of anti-ICE protesters using Molotov cocktails, carrying Mexican flags and setting fire to vehicles have been potent, especially with audiences that lean to the right. The latter images have been used to make the case that Democrats are soft on immigration — and on crime, especially if it relates to protests for causes they believe in. Those images, in turn, feed the belief that Trump is justified in mobilizing troops to restore order. Immigration was Trump's strongest issue in the general election campaign against Harris last year. He argued that former President Biden had been far too lax on the issue, in effect facilitating a massive influx at the southern border. Voters have mostly approved of Trump's efforts on border security while in office, as unauthorized crossings have fallen precipitously. But his poll ratings on immigration writ large are much more mixed. It's plausible that the apparent discrepancy stems from a public disquiet with some of the tactics used by immigration agents, and with Trump's often fractious attitude toward the courts when they rule against him. An Economist/YouGov poll this week highlighted the split. It found that 47 percent of surveyed Americans believe Trump's approach to immigration it too harsh, 40 percent believe it is about right, and 7 percent believe it is too soft. The same poll found 87 percent of surveyed Americans supporting the deportation of migrants without legal status who have committed violent crimes — but 61 percent opposed to deportations of those who had not committed violent crimes. In short, the politics of immigration is more nuanced and more changeable than hard-liners on either side make it appear. Copyright 2025 Nexstar Media, Inc. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.
