Latest news with #DOGE-affiliated
Newsweek
3 days ago
- Business
- Newsweek
Van Jones Says Trump Should Fire, Prosecute DOGE Staffers: If He's 'Smart'
Based on facts, either observed and verified firsthand by the reporter, or reported and verified from knowledgeable sources. Newsweek AI is in beta. Translations may contain inaccuracies—please refer to the original content. Van Jones, political analyst and former special adviser to ex-President Barack Obama, said that "if Donald Trump is smart," he would fire, investigate and prosecute employees of the Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE) who worked under billionaire Elon Musk. Newsweek reached out to the White House via email for comment Thursday night. Why It Matters The public quarrel between Musk and Trump over the spending bill that Trump named the "big, beautiful bill" escalated on social media Thursday, drawing national attention to the high-stakes battle touching on issues of trust in public institutions, government funding and political polarization. The remarks arrived amid a broader public dispute involving Musk, DOGE and the Trump administration that has been taking place throughout the president's second term, with heightened scrutiny over DOGE's access to sensitive taxpayer information. What To Know While speaking with CNN's Anderson Cooper on Thursday, Jones said, "Those DOGE employees, the people that [David] Axelrod was just talking about, are very dangerous. If Donald Trump is smart, the first thing he's going to do is fire, investigate and prosecute all of Elon's people who are all throughout government with their laptops downloading data right now." "I don't think that what they're doing is legal," Jones said. "A lot of them don't have the proper clearances and I think that if you investigate, you'll find they've uploaded data into servers ... that are the wrong thing to do. So, I think there should definitely be an investigation there." DOGE's processes are not known to Newsweek at the time of publication. Jones added that in the short-term, Trump should go after DOGE, and long term, he should focus on the Republican Party in general as Musk holds hundreds of millions of dollars to potentially drop in close elections. Meanwhile, numerous DOGE-affiliated staffers at federal agencies resigned in protest after Musk's decision to slash government roles and entire programs. These resignations followed growing unease about DOGE's role in accessing sensitive government data, with critics warning of "potential security breaches" and advocates arguing for innovation and efficiency. DOGE's pursuit of access to IRS taxpayer data, in particular, further heightened concerns. There were growing fears that DOGE staff working within government agencies could potentially obtain information unrelated to their immediate operational needs, increasing risk for exposure or misuse of tax records. DOGE has also been embroiled in numerous lawsuits related to its pursuit of access to both public and government data. Van Jones poses for a portrait during the 85th Annual Peabody Awards at Beverly Wilshire, A Four Seasons Hotel, on June 1 in Beverly Hills, California. (Photo by) Van Jones poses for a portrait during the 85th Annual Peabody Awards at Beverly Wilshire, A Four Seasons Hotel, on June 1 in Beverly Hills, California. (Photo by) What People Are Saying Trump posted to Truth Social on Thursday: "I don't mind Elon turning against me, but he should have done so months ago. This is one of the Greatest Bills ever presented to Congress. It's a Record Cut in Expenses, $1.6 Trillion Dollars, and the Biggest Tax Cut ever given. If this Bill doesn't pass, there will be a 68% Tax Increase, and things far worse than that. I didn't create this mess, I'm just here to FIX IT. This puts our Country on a Path of Greatness. MAKE AMERICA GREAT AGAIN!" Musk posted to X on Wednesday: "This spending bill contains the largest increase in the debt ceiling in US history! It is the Debt Slavery Bill." David Axelrod, former Obama adviser on CNN Thursday, when asked if Musk got played by Trump in part: "Well, I mean Trump is president and that's what he wanted. Musk has actually suffered financially as a result of this, and it could be worse if Trump really leans in. I mean he lost, Tesla lost 14 percent of its value today because of this exchange between Trump and Musk. So, I don't know if he got played." "But Donald Trump, like I said, he's not a sentimentalist. He uses people, he uses everybody. And I think he used ... Musk, but I think Musk used him as well." Axelrod went on to point out that Musk does wield his own power through X, his wealth and the following he has built for himself. What Happens Next Musk has left his position in Washington, D.C., leading DOGE as the initiative's future is immediately unclear. Meanwhile, Trump has handed down a deadline to Senate Republican leaders to get the spending bill passed and on his desk before July 4th.
&w=3840&q=100)
Business Standard
28-05-2025
- Business
- Business Standard
Elon Musk must face lawsuit over power as Trump's aide, says judge
Elon Musk will have to face a lawsuit that claims the billionaire wielded illegal power by orchestrating President Donald Trump's dramatic cuts in federal government jobs and spending, a judge ruled. US District Judge Tanya Chutkan on Tuesday denied a request by the Justice Department to toss the case filed by Democratic state attorneys general against Musk and the Department of Government Efficiency. But she dismissed a claim against Trump, saying courts can't limit the actions of a president performing his official duties. Chutkan ruled the states presented specific enough allegations and preliminary evidence to proceed with claims that Musk was granted the same authority as Trump's Senate-confirmed cabinet. While Musk has been the public face of DOGE, he's denied he holds a formal position or has any authority to direct agencies to carry out the president's cost-cutting agenda. Musk said last month he'll significantly scale back his DOGE work to be 'super focused' on his businesses, including Tesla Inc. and SpaceX. The judge found that the Trump administration had adopted a 'perverse reading' of the US Constitution's system of checks and balances and appeared 'to sanction unlimited executive power.' 'Under this reasoning, the President could authorize an individual to act as a Prime Minister who vetoes, amends, or adopts legislation enacted by Congress, as an Ultimate Justice who unilaterally overrules any decision by the Supreme Court, as a King who exercises preeminent authority over the entire nation, or allow a foreign leader to direct American armed forces,' Chutkan wrote. A White House spokesperson and representative of the New Mexico attorney general's office, which is leading the 14-state coalition that sued, did not immediately respond to requests for comment. Musk and his US DOGE Service have faced a slew of legal challenges since Trump took office in January. In addition to questioning the role of Musk and his DOGE-affiliated staff, some suits are seeking to block their access to agency systems and records that contain vast troves of Americans' financial and personal information. While rulings to deny motions to dismiss normally can't be appealed, the Justice Department could argue for an exception because the case presents significant questions about presidential power and interpreting the US Constitution. The lawsuit accuses Musk of violating the Constitution's Appointments Clause, which limits high-level decisions about US agency operations and personnel to officials who are nominated by the president and confirmed by the Senate. The states argued Trump 'bypassed' Congress and 'unilaterally granted massive, unchecked executive authority to Elon Musk and DOGE to destabilise the government.' In court papers, the Democratic officials highlighted public statements Trump made about putting Musk in charge and Musk's comments appearing to take ownership of moves to shutter USAID and carry out a barrage of federal funding cuts, among other things. They argued that he wasn't simply making recommendations to Senate-confirmed agency heads, but rather was 'compelling' and 'directing' them to act or 'overruling' decisions they'd made. No 'Formal Power' In urging Chutkan to dismiss the case, Justice Department lawyers argued that even if they conceded Musk had 'massive' or even 'decisive' influence over US domestic policy, he didn't have the 'formal power to act.' As long as a Senate-confirmed official 'takes formal responsibility' for decisions that Musk recommended, there couldn't be a constitutional violation, the government said. Chutkan wrote that Musk's title of 'special government employee' might be his 'formal classification' but 'not necessarily the position he holds.' She said the government had unsuccessfully tried to 'minimize' Musk's role and that the states put forward enough evidence at this stage that he was directing the actions of DOGE-affiliated staff at 17 federal agencies. The government argued the states lacked standing to file the suit because they couldn't prove they faced imminent and concrete injuries from Musk and DOGE's efforts to carry out Trump's directive to identify waste, fraud and abuse at federal agencies. But Chutkan again concluded that the states put forward enough evidence for now that their government offices and public institutions were affected by cuts to federal funding and programs that they allege Musk spearheaded. The attorneys general also argued that DOGE staff 'created a substantial risk of cybersecurity breaches' by improperly getting access to 'sensitive' state data. Chutkan's decision comes after the US Court of Appeals for the DC Circuit in March paused her earlier ruling allowing the state attorneys general to demand records and information from Musk and the US DOGE Service. The appeals court had delayed that fight until Chutkan ruled on whether to let the case go forward. The case is New Mexico v. Musk, 25-cv-429, US District Court, District of Columbia (Washington).
Mint
28-05-2025
- Business
- Mint
Musk Must Face Suit Challenging Power as Trump Aide, Judge Says
Elon Musk will have to face a lawsuit that claims the billionaire is wielding illegal power by orchestrating President Donald Trump's dramatic cuts in federal government jobs and spending, a judge ruled. US District Judge Tanya Chutkan on Tuesday denied a request by the Justice Department to toss the case filed by Democratic state attorneys general against Musk and the Department of Government Efficiency. But she dismissed the case against Trump, saying courts can't limit the actions of a president performing his official duties. Chutkan ruled the states presented specific enough allegations and enough preliminary evidence to proceed with claims that Musk was granted the same authority as Trump's Senate-confirmed cabinet. While Musk has been the public face of DOGE, he's denied he holds a formal position or has any authority to direct agencies to carry out the president's cost-cutting agenda. Musk said last month he'll cut back significantly on his DOGE work to be 'super focused' on his businesses, including Tesla Inc. and SpaceX. Musk and his US DOGE Service have faced a slew of legal challenges since Trump took office in January. In addition to questioning the role of Musk and his DOGE-affiliated staff, some suits are seeking to block their access to agency systems and records that contain vast troves of Americans' financial and personal information. While rulings to deny motions to dismiss normally can't be appealed, the Justice Department could argue for an exception because the case presents significant questions about presidential power and interpreting the US Constitution. Chutkan's decision comes after the US Court of Appeals for the DC Circuit in March paused her earlier ruling allowing the state attorneys general to demand records and information from Musk and the US DOGE Service. The appeals court had delayed that fight until Chutkan ruled on whether to let the case go forward. The case is New Mexico v. Musk, 25-cv-429, US District Court, District of Columbia . This article was generated from an automated news agency feed without modifications to text.
Politico
18-04-2025
- Business
- Politico
Federal judge in Baltimore temporarily limits DOGE access to Social Security data
A federal judge on Thursday imposed new restrictions on billionaire Elon Musk's Department of Government Efficiency, limiting its access to Social Security systems that hold personal data on millions of Americans. U.S. District Judge Ellen Hollander issued a preliminary injunction in the case, which was brought by a group of labor unions and retirees who allege DOGE's recent actions violate privacy laws and present massive information security risks. Hollander had previously issued a temporary restraining order. The injunction does allow DOGE staffers to access data that's been redacted or stripped of anything personally identifiable, if they undergo training and background checks. Hollander said DOGE and any DOGE-affiliated staffers must purge any of the non-anonymized Social Security data that they have received since Jan. 20. They are also barred from making any changes to the computer code or software used by the Social Security Administration, must remove any software or code they might have already installed, and are forbidden from disclosing any of that code to others. 'The objective to address fraud, waste, mismanagement, and bloat is laudable, and one that the American public presumably applauds and supports,' Hollander wrote in the ruling issued late Thursday night. 'Indeed, the taxpayers have every right to expect their government to make sure that their hard earned money is not squandered.' But that's not the issue, Hollander said — the issue is with how DOGE wants to do the work. 'For some 90 years, SSA has been guided by the foundational principle of an expectation of privacy with respect to its records. This case exposes a wide fissure in the foundation,' the judge wrote. During a federal court hearing Tuesday in Baltimore, Hollander repeatedly asked the government's attorneys why DOGE needs 'seemingly unfettered access' to the agency's troves of sensitive personal information to uncover Social Security fraud. Union members and retirees gathered outside the courthouse to protest DOGE's actions, which they consider a threat to the future of Social Security benefits. 'What is it we're doing that needs all of that information?' Hollander said, questioning whether most of the data could be anonymized, at least in the early stages of analysis. Attorneys for the Trump administration said changing the process would slow down their efforts. 'While anonymization is possible, it is extremely burdensome,' Justice Department attorney Bradley Humphreys told the court. He argued the DOGE access doesn't deviate significantly from normal practices inside the agency, where employees and auditors are routinely allowed to search its databases. But attorneys for the plaintiffs called it unprecedented and 'a sea change' in terms of how the agency handles sensitive information, including medical and mental health records and other data pertaining to children and people with disabilities — 'issues that are not only sensitive but might carry a stigma.' The access alone is a privacy violation that causes harm to Social Security recipients, said Alethea Anne Swift, an attorney with the legal services group Democracy Forward, which is behind the lawsuit. 'That intrusion causes an objectively reasonable unease,' she said. The Social Security Administration has experienced turmoil since President Donald Trump began his second term. In February, the agency's acting commissioner Michelle King stepped down from her role after refusing to provide DOGE staffers with the access they wanted. The White House replaced her with Leland Dudek — who failed to appear at Tuesday's hearing after Hollander requested his presence to testify about recent efforts involving DOGE. The judge issued a letter last month rebuking Dudek's threats that he might have to shut down agency operations or suspend payments because of Hollander's temporary restraining order. Hollander made clear that her order didn't apply to SSA workers who aren't affiliated with or providing information to DOGE, so they can still access any data they use in the course of ordinary work. But DOGE staffers who want access to the anonymized data must first undergo the typical training and background checks required of other Social Security Administration staffers, she said. In recent weeks, Dudek has faced calls to resign after he issued an order that would have required Maine parents to register their newborns for Social Security numbers at a federal office rather than the hospital. The order was quickly rescinded. But emails showed it was political payback to Maine Gov. Janet Mills, a Democrat who has defied the Trump administration's push to deny federal funding to the state over transgender athletes. Despite the fraught political context surrounding the DOGE access case, Hollander admonished Humphreys when he suggested during Tuesday's hearing that her questioning was starting to 'feel like a policy disagreement.' 'I do take offense at your comment because I'm just trying to understand the system,' the judge said during Tuesday's hearing. Hollander, 75, who was nominated to the federal bench by President Barack Obama, is the latest judge to consider a DOGE-related case. Many of her inquiries Tuesday focused on whether the Social Security case differs significantly from another Maryland case challenging DOGE's access to data at three other agencies: the Education Department, the Treasury Department and the Office of Personnel Management. In that case, an appeals court recently blocked a preliminary injunction and cleared the way for DOGE to once again access people's private data. Hollander's injunction could also be appealed to the 4th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, which sided with the Trump administration in other cases, including allowing DOGE access to the U.S. Agency for International Development and letting executive orders against diversity, equity and inclusion move forward.
Yahoo
18-04-2025
- Business
- Yahoo
Federal judge temporarily restricts DOGE access to personalized Social Security data
A federal judge in Baltimore issued a preliminary injunction Thursday restricting the Department of Government Efficiency's access to Social Security data. U.S. District Judge Ellen Hollander, an Obama appointee, said DOGE-affiliated staffers must purge any of the non-anonymized Social Security data that they have received since Jan. 20. They are also barred from making any changes to the computer code or software used by the Social Security Administration, must remove any software or code they might have already installed, and are forbidden from disclosing any of that code to others. The injunction does allow DOGE staffers to access data that's been redacted or stripped of anything personally identifiable, if they undergo training and background checks. "The objective to address fraud, waste, mismanagement, and bloat is laudable, and one that the American public presumably applauds and supports," Hollander wrote in the ruling issued late Thursday night. "Indeed, the taxpayers have every right to expect their government to make sure that their hard earned money is not squandered." Biden Returns To Podium For First Time To Slam Trump's Social Security Plans: 'Wreck It So They Could Rob It' But that's not the issue, Hollander said — the issue is with how DOGE, led by billionaire Elon Musk, wants to do the work. Read On The Fox News App "For some 90 years, SSA has been guided by the foundational principle of an expectation of privacy with respect to its records. This case exposes a wide fissure in the foundation," the judge wrote. The case was brought by a group of labor unions and retirees who allege DOGE's recent actions violate privacy laws and present massive information security risks. During a federal court hearing Tuesday in Baltimore, Hollander repeatedly asked the government's attorneys why DOGE needs "seemingly unfettered access" to the agency's troves of sensitive personal information to uncover Social Security fraud. Texas Poised To Create Its Own Version Of Doge As Bill Passes Both Chambers "What is it we're doing that needs all of that information?" Hollander said, questioning whether most of the data could be anonymized. Attorneys for the Trump administration said changing the process would slow down their efforts. "While anonymization is possible, it is extremely burdensome," Justice Department attorney Bradley Humphreys told the court. He argued the DOGE access doesn't deviate significantly from normal practices inside the agency, where employees and auditors are routinely allowed to search its databases. But attorneys for the plaintiffs called it "a sea change" in terms of how the agency handles sensitive information. Skye Perryman, President and CEO of the legal services group Democracy Forward, which is behind the lawsuit, said the ruling has brought "significant relief for the millions of people who depend on the Social Security Administration to safeguard their most personal and sensitive information." Schumer Calls On Leland Dudek, Acting Commissioner Of Ssa, To Resign Hollander made clear that her order didn't apply to SSA workers who aren't affiliated with DOGE, so they can still access any data they use in the course of ordinary work. But DOGE staffers who want access to the anonymized data must first undergo the typical training and background checks required of other Social Security Administration staffers, she said. Hollander, 75, is the latest judge to consider a DOGE-related case. Many of her inquiries Tuesday focused on whether the Social Security case differs significantly from another Maryland case challenging DOGE's access to data at three other agencies: the Education Department, the Treasury Department and the Office of Personnel Management. In that case, an appeals court recently blocked a preliminary injunction and cleared the way for DOGE to once again access people's private data. Hollander's injunction could also be appealed to the 4th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, which sided with the Trump administration in other cases, including allowing DOGE access to the U.S. Agency for International Development and letting executive orders against diversity, equity and inclusion move article source: Federal judge temporarily restricts DOGE access to personalized Social Security data
