Spitfire List Web site and blog of anti-fascist researcher and radio personality Dave Emory.

For The Record  

FTR#‘s 1366 & 1367 Miscellaneous Articles and Updates, Parts 1 and 2

WFMU-FM is pod­cast­ing For The Record–You can sub­scribe to the pod­cast HERE.

Mr. Emory’s entire life’s work is avail­able on a 64GB flash dri­ve, avail­able for a con­tri­bu­tion of $65.00 or more (to KFJC). (This is a new feature–the old, 32GB flash­drive will not hold the new mate­r­i­al. Click Here to obtain Dav­e’s 45+ years’ work, com­plete through fall/early win­ter of 2024 and con­tain­ing the Con­ver­sa­tions with Monte .)

“Polit­i­cal language…is designed to make lies sound truth­ful and mur­der respectable, and to give an appear­ance of solid­i­ty to pure wind.”

Mr. Emory has launched a new Patre­on site. Vis­it at: Patreon.com/DaveEmory

FTR#1366 This pro­gram was record­ed in one, 60-minute seg­ment.

FTR#1367 This pro­gram was record­ed in one, 60-minute seg­ment.

Peter Thiel
Pho­to Cred­it: Wikipedia.org

NB: This descrip­tion con­tains mate­r­i­al not con­tained or ref­er­enced in the orig­i­nal pro­grams.

Intro­duc­tion: Bring­ing up to date a num­ber of points of inquiry, the pro­gram details the pro­found role of Peter Thiel’s pro­fes­sion­al orbit in the make-up of Team Trump.

Pro­found­ly influ­enced by the writ­ings and views of Third Reich the­o­reti­cian Carl Schmitt, Thiel is at least as well-posi­tioned as for­mer Pay­Pal bud­dy Elon Musk to prof­it from the incom­ing Trump admin­is­tra­tion.

Of par­tic­u­lar sig­nif­i­cance is the ABN milieu’s craft­ing of a cur­ricu­lum to be taught to school chil­dren!

“. . . . The Vic­tims of Com­mu­nism Memo­r­i­al Foun­da­tion is an out­growth of the Nation­al Cap­tive Nations Com­mit­tee, a group found­ed by Ukrain­ian nation­al­ist Lev Dobri­an­sky to lob­by against any effort for detente with the Sovi­et Union. Its co-chair­man, Yaroslav Stet­sko, was a top leader of the fas­cist OUN‑B mili­tia that fought along­side Nazi Ger­many dur­ing its occu­pa­tion of Ukraine in World War Two. Togeth­er, the two helped found the World Anti-Com­mu­nist League that was described by jour­nal­ist Joe Cona­son as ‘the orga­ni­za­tion­al haven for neo-Nazis, fas­cists, and anti-Semit­ic extrem­ists from two dozen coun­tries.’. . .”

The cur­ricu­lum man­i­fests fas­cist ide­ol­o­gy: ” . . . . Its method­ol­o­gy was also uni­ver­sal­ly panned, with many point­ing out that the tens of mil­lions of Sovi­et and Nazi loss­es dur­ing World War II were attrib­uted to com­mu­nist ide­ol­o­gy. This means that both Adolf Hitler him­self and many of his vic­tims are count­ed towards the vast­ly over­in­flat­ed fig­ure. . . . The prin­ci­pal orga­ni­za­tion pro­mot­ing the 100 mil­lion fig­ure today is the Vic­tims of Com­mu­nism Memo­r­i­al Foun­da­tion . . . . The group, set up by the U.S. gov­ern­ment in 1993, added all world­wide Covid-19 deaths to the vic­tims of com­mu­nism list, argu­ing that the coro­n­avirus was a com­mu­nist dis­ease because it orig­i­nat­ed in Chi­na. . . .”

Ante Pavel­ic
Pho­to Cred­it: Wikipedia.org

The Vic­tims of Com­mu­nism Memo­r­i­al Foun­da­tion lion­izes fas­cists and Nazis” . . . . Those includ­ed Roman Shukhevych, a Ukrain­ian nation­al­ist and Nazi col­lab­o­ra­tor, as well as Ante Pavelić who ran a Nazi pup­pet regime in Croa­t­ia and is con­sid­ered a chief per­pe­tra­tor of the Holo­caust in the Balka­ns . . . .”

Dis­cus­sion and Analy­sis IncludesAn alleged Chi­nese hack that will ben­e­fit Elon Musk’s Star­link; A recent post by Pter­rafractyl about cyber­hacks; A Musk asso­ciate named by Trump to head NASA; The found­ing of a firm called Sauron by a Thiel asso­ciate; Spec­u­la­tion about the pos­si­ble effects of Lui­gi Man­gione’s alleged mur­der of Unit­ed­Health Care CEO Thomp­son; The pos­si­ble appoint­ment of RFK, Jr’s cam­paign man­ag­er “ex” CIA agent Amaryl­lis Fox to be a Deputy Direc­tor of CIA; Fox’s long, close asso­ci­a­tion with Tul­si Gab­bard; Elon Musk’s social media sup­port of the AfD; The pro-AfD posts of the accused Magde­burg Christ­mas mas­sacre “perp;” The chron­i­cling of the ascent of Mr. Julani (Al-Qae­da, ISIS) in Syr­ia in Sep­tem­ber of 2018; Mr. Julani’s being mint­ed as Syr­i­an head of state fol­low­ing the fall of Asad; The assas­si­na­tion of Russ­ian Gen­er­al Kir­illov, who opined that Covid was an Amer­i­can BW weapon.

1.   “How Peter Thiel’s net­work of right-wing techies is infil­trat­ing Don­ald Trump’s White House” by Jes­si­ca Math­ews; msn.com.

It was Pay­Pal cofounder and ven­ture cap­i­tal­ist Peter Thiel who intro­duced his mentee, JD Vance, to Pres­i­dent-elect Don­ald Trump at Mar-a-Lago in 2021. Three years later—with Trump and Vance just weeks from the White House—it’s Thiel who is sit­ting pret­ty as many peo­ple with­in his net­work head for offi­cial or advi­so­ry posi­tions in the next admin­is­tra­tion.

David Sacks—who worked with Thiel at Pay­Pal and wrote for the Stan­ford Review, the stu­dent news­pa­per Thiel found­ed as an under­grad­u­ate at Stan­ford Uni­ver­si­ty in 1987—was named as the White House’s incom­ing “AI and cryp­to czar” on Wednes­day. Jim O’Neill, for­mer CEO of Thiel’s per­son­al foun­da­tion, has been picked as deputy sec­re­tary of the Depart­ment of Health and Human Ser­vices. Elon Musk, whose finan­cial and vocal sup­port helped elect Trump, will be run­ning the so-called Depart­ment of Gov­ern­ment Effi­cien­cy, or DOGE. Musk had worked close­ly with Thiel at Pay­Pal; and Thiel’s ven­ture fund, Founders Fund, was an ear­ly investor in sev­er­al of Musk’s com­pa­nies, includ­ing space car­go busi­ness SpaceX, tun­nel­ing firm the Bor­ing Com­pa­ny, and brain-chip start­up Neu­ralink.

Carl Schmitt
Pho­to Cred­it: Wikiedia.org

Trae Stephens,  a gen­er­al part­ner at Founders Fund, is report­ed­ly being con­sid­ered for deputy sec­re­tary of defense, accord­ing to the Wall Street Jour­nal. And Michael Krat­sios, Thiel Capital’s for­mer chief of staff and a direc­tor at Founders Fund–backed Scale AI, is report­ed­ly han­dling tech pol­i­cy dur­ing the Trump tran­si­tion.

Then, of course, there is Vance, who worked for Thiel at one of his funds, Mithril Cap­i­tal, then launched a ven­ture fund that Thiel backed. Founders Fund still lists Vance’s ven­ture firm, Narya Cap­i­tal, as an “affil­i­ate” on reg­u­la­to­ry fil­ings.

All of these indi­vid­u­als, includ­ing the vice president–elect, sit with­in pow­er­ful Sil­i­con Val­ley net­works with one man at their cen­ter: Thiel. There’s the Pay­Pal Mafia, the group of ear­ly employ­ees of the dig­i­tal pay­ments com­pa­ny that includes Thiel and Musk. There’s the con­ser­v­a­tive stu­dent paper, the Stan­ford Review. There’s Founders Fund, the $12 bil­lion ven­ture cap­i­tal firm that has invest­ed in the major star­tups work­ing most close­ly with the U.S. Depart­ment of Defense—SpaceX, Palan­tir, and Anduril. And then there’s also Thiel’s per­son­al endeav­ors, like his fam­i­ly office, foun­da­tion, or oth­er funds.

Trump pulled peo­ple from these same net­works dur­ing his first pres­i­den­cy, when Thiel was the sole voice of Trump sup­port in Sil­i­con Valley—donating more than $1 mil­lion and speak­ing at the Repub­li­can Nation­al Con­ven­tion in 2016. Dur­ing that first admin­is­tra­tion, Trump select­ed Ken How­ery, a Stan­ford Review and Pay­Pal alum, as the U.S. ambas­sador to Swe­den (How­ery was also report­ed­ly at Mar-a-Lago dur­ing the 2024 elec­tion night). Trump also appoint­ed Krat­sios, Thiel Capital’s for­mer chief of staff, as the White House’s deputy chief tech­nol­o­gy offi­cer. And Mark Wool­way, who was an ear­ly employ­ee at Pay­Pal and now works at Sacks’ Craft Ven­tures, was on Trump’s tran­si­tion team for the Trea­sury Depart­ment in 2016.

While Thiel still describes him­self as pro-Trump, he’s tak­en a step back com­pared with pre­vi­ous elec­tion cycles. By the time of the 2024 elec­tion, Thiel had made a deci­sion not to donate to any cam­paign, which he told For­tune was because he was no longer con­vinced mon­ey mat­tered at the fed­er­al lev­el and hadn’t been per­suad­ed that this elec­tion would focus on “end­ing our decades-long tech­no­log­i­cal and eco­nom­ic stag­na­tion.”

But while Thiel is no longer a finan­cial sup­port­er, his close­ness to those who will soon wield pow­er and influ­ence, includ­ing the vice pres­i­dent, is notable—and his long­time invest­ments in com­pa­nies that work close­ly with the U.S. gov­ern­ment are like­ly to ben­e­fit.

Thiel’s pol­i­tics are com­pli­cat­ed and have evolved—and it’s dif­fi­cult to place him in a par­tic­u­lar buck­et, though he’s been described as a con­ser­v­a­tive lib­er­tar­i­an, and is also known for hav­ing nation­al­ist ten­den­cies. He is a backer of cryp­to and cryp­to com­pa­nies and has warned against gov­ern­ment reg­u­la­tion, par­tic­u­lar­ly in the field of AI.

Thiel seems to already be think­ing ahead. In an inter­view with The Free Press founder Bari Weiss short­ly after the elec­tion, Thiel gave advice about what Vice President–elect Vance could do to be elect­ed pres­i­dent in 2028, after Trump’s term ends.

2. “Chi­nese Hack Means Bei­jing Read­ing and Hear­ing All US Mil­i­tary and Intel­li­gence Clas­si­fied Phone Com­mu­ni­ca­tions” by Lar­ry C. John­son; Sonar21.com; 10/12/2024.

. . . . This is going to have an eco­nom­ic effect — very neg­a­tive for the telecom­mu­ni­ca­tions giants, who are like­ly to lose prof­itable USG con­tracts, and is lucra­tive for Elon Musk. Why Musk? His net­work of satel­lites han­dling clas­si­fied com­mu­ni­ca­tions — i.e., StarShield — is, I am told, seen by the Defense Infor­ma­tion Sys­tems Agency (DISA) as the ONLY solu­tion to secure the com­pro­mised mil­i­tary and intel­li­gence net­works. Musk may be on his way to becom­ing the first Tril­lion Dol­lar man. . . .

3. The CIA’s hack­ing tools are specif­i­cal­ly craft­ed to mask CIA author­ship of the attacks. Most sig­nif­i­cant­ly, for our the pur­pos­es of the present dis­cus­sion, is the fact that the Agen­cy’s hack­ing tools are engi­neered in such a way as to per­mit the authors of the event to rep­re­sent them­selves as Chi­nese.

Pter­rafractyl has done a char­ac­ter­is­ti­cal­ly excel­lent job on cyber­hacks, attri­bu­tion for same and the use of those attacks as provo­ca­tions: https://spitfirelist.com/news/cyber-attribution-the-mega-hacks-of-2021-and-the-existential-threat-of-blind-faith-in-bad-faith/

” . . . . These tools could make it more dif­fi­cult for anti-virus com­pa­nies and foren­sic inves­ti­ga­tors to attribute hacks to the CIA. Could this call the source of pre­vi­ous hacks into ques­tion? It appears that yes, this might be used to dis­guise the CIA’s own hacks to appear as if they were Russ­ian, Chi­nese, or from spe­cif­ic oth­er coun­tries. . . . This might allow a mal­ware cre­ator to not only look like they were speak­ing in Russ­ian or Chi­nese, rather than in Eng­lish, but to also look like they tried to hide that they were not speak­ing Eng­lish . . . .”

“Wik­iLeaks Vault 7 Part 3 Reveals CIA Tool Might Mask Hacks as Russ­ian, Chi­nese, Ara­bic” by Stephanie Dube Dwil­son; Heavy; 4/3/2017.

This morn­ing, Wik­iLeaks released part 3 of its Vault 7 series, called Mar­ble. Mar­ble reveals CIA source code files along with decoy lan­guages that might dis­guise virus­es, tro­jans, and hack­ing attacks. These tools could make it more dif­fi­cult for anti-virus com­pa­nies and foren­sic inves­ti­ga­tors to attribute hacks to the CIA. Could this call the source of pre­vi­ous hacks into ques­tion? It appears that yes, this might be used to dis­guise the CIA’s own hacks to appear as if they were Russ­ian, Chi­nese, or from spe­cif­ic oth­er coun­tries. These tools were in use in 2016, Wik­iLeaks report­ed.

It’s not known exact­ly how this Mar­ble tool was actu­al­ly used. How­ev­er, accord­ing to Wik­iLeaks, the tool could make it more dif­fi­cult for inves­ti­ga­tors and anti-virus com­pa­nies to attribute virus­es and oth­er hack­ing tools to the CIA. Test exam­ples weren’t just in Eng­lish, but also Russ­ian, Chi­nese, Kore­an, Ara­bic, and Far­si. This might allow a mal­ware cre­ator to not only look like they were speak­ing in Russ­ian or Chi­nese, rather than in Eng­lish, but to also look like they tried to hide that they were not speak­ing Eng­lish, accord­ing to Wik­iLeaks. This might also hide fake error mes­sages or be used for oth­er pur­pos­es. . . .

4. “Fear­ful of crime, the tech elite trans­form their homes into mil­i­tary bunkers” by Nitasha Tiku; msn.com.

In the future, your home will feel as safe from intrud­ers as a state-of-the-art mil­i­tary base.

Cam­eras and sen­sors sur­veil the perime­ter, scan­ning bystanders’ faces for poten­tial threats. Drones from a “deter­rence pod” scare off tres­passers by pro­ject­ing a search­light over any sus­pi­cious move­ments. A vir­tu­al view of the home is ren­dered in 3D and updat­ed in real time, just like a Tesla’s dig­i­tal dis­play. And pri­vate secu­ri­ty agents mon­i­tor alerts from a cen­tral hub.

By incor­po­rat­ing tech­nol­o­gy devel­oped for autonomous vehi­cles, robot­ics and bor­der secu­ri­ty, Sauron has built a super­charged bur­glar alarm, Hartz argued.

The con­cept has res­onat­ed in Bay Area tech cir­cles, where crime in San Fran­cis­co is a con­stant sub­ject on tech pod­casts, social media and exec­u­tive group chats. While sta­tis­tics from the San Fran­cis­co Police Depart­ment from Octo­ber show that prop­er­ty crime and car theft has dropped in 2024 and that the homi­cide rate sits at a five-year low, the data has done lit­tle to appease the public’s fears.

Last month, San Fran­cis­co elect­ed a may­or who ran on a plat­form of enhanc­ing pub­lic safe­ty and passed a propo­si­tion allow­ing the police more lee­way to sur­veil res­i­dents. Around the coun­try, vot­ers have respond­ed to sim­i­lar per­cep­tions of dan­ger by rolling back police reforms insti­tut­ed dur­ing the George Floyd protests.

. . . . This is the vision of home secu­ri­ty pitched by Sauron, a Sil­i­con Val­ley start-up boast­ing a wait­ing list of tech CEOs and ven­ture cap­i­tal­ists.

Co-founder Kevin Hartz, a tech entre­pre­neur and for­mer part­ner at Peter Thiel’s ven­ture firm Founders Fund, named the com­pa­ny after the vil­lain in J.R.R. Tolkien’s “The Lord of the Rings,” a dis­em­bod­ied evil spir­it depict­ed as a fiery, all-see­ing eye in the sky. . . .

5. “Trump Picks Jared Isaac­man, an Entre­pre­neur and Pri­vate Astro­naut, to Lead NASA” by Ken­neth Chang; The New York Times; 04/12/2024.

Pres­i­dent-elect Don­ald J. Trump will nom­i­nate Jared Isaac­man, a bil­lion­aire entre­pre­neur who led two pri­vate mis­sions to orbit on SpaceX rock­ets, as the next NASA admin­is­tra­tor.

Mr. Isaac­man, the chief exec­u­tive of the pay­ment pro­cess­ing com­pa­ny Shift4 Pay­ments, is a close asso­ciate of Elon Musk, the founder of SpaceX, and, if con­firmed to the post by the Sen­ate, would bring the per­spec­tive of an out­sider to the space agency and its $25 bil­lion bud­get. . . .

6.“Trump Con­sid­ers Kennedy’s Daugh­ter-in-Law for C.I.A. Deputy Direc­tor” by Julian E. Barnes, Mag­gie Haber­man and Jonathan Swan; The New York Times; 11/12/2024.

Amaryl­lis Fox Kennedy, a for­mer C.I.A. offi­cer who is mar­ried to the son of Robert F. Kennedy Jr., raised alarms for pub­lish­ing a book about her work at the agency with­out going through a review process.

Pres­i­dent-elect Don­ald J. Trump is con­sid­er­ing Robert F. Kennedy Jr.’s daugh­ter-in-law to serve as the deputy direc­tor at the C.I.A., accord­ing to four peo­ple briefed on the mat­ter.

Amaryl­lis Fox Kennedy, 44, a for­mer C.I.A. offi­cer who is mar­ried to Mr. Kennedy’s son, met with Mr. Trump last week to dis­cuss the job, the peo­ple said. The posi­tion does not require Sen­ate con­fir­ma­tion, unlike the direc­tor job.

Mr. Kennedy, who is the president-elect’s choice to lead the Depart­ment of Health and Human Ser­vices, is among those encour­ag­ing Mr. Trump to hire her, accord­ing to two peo­ple close to the Trump tran­si­tion team. Like oth­ers inter­viewed for this arti­cle, they spoke on con­di­tion of anonymi­ty to dis­cuss pri­vate delib­er­a­tions.

In an inter­view in 2023, Mr. Kennedy said it was “beyond a rea­son­able doubt” that the C.I.A. was involved in the assas­si­na­tion of his uncle, Pres­i­dent John F. Kennedy, in 1963.

Ms. Fox Kennedy, who served as her father-in-law’s cam­paign man­ag­er, has raised alarms with­in the agency and among some law­mak­ers, in part because she pub­lished a book about her time in the C.I.A. in 2019 — while Mr. Trump was pres­i­dent — with­out going through the lengthy gov­ern­ment review process required to check that clas­si­fied infor­ma­tion is not made pub­lic.

Some for­mer offi­cials ques­tioned details in the book about Ms. Fox Kennedy’s meet­ings in Pak­istan with Islam­ic extrem­ists.

Anoth­er book, writ­ten by the for­mer admin­is­tra­tion offi­cial John R. Bolton, was also pub­lished with­out a sign-off, and the Trump admin­is­tra­tion tried to seize his book advance.

The dis­cus­sions about Ms. Fox Kennedy being con­sid­ered for the C.I.A. role were report­ed ear­li­er by Axios.

The Wash­ing­ton Post report­ed ear­li­er this year that Ms. Fox Kennedy had been crit­i­cal of Mr. Trump’s abil­i­ty to man­age the nuclear arse­nal, as well as Pres­i­dent Biden’s abil­i­ty to per­form the job at his age, in an email to Democ­rats. She lat­er played a key role in nego­ti­at­ing Mr. Kennedy’s endorse­ment of Mr. Trump.

Edi­tors’ Picks

Ms. Fox Kennedy has said she worked for the C.I.A. from 2002 to 2010, at one point pos­ing as an art deal­er in a for­eign coun­try under “unof­fi­cial cov­er,” mean­ing she did not have diplo­mat­ic immu­ni­ty.

She has made com­ments on for­eign pol­i­cy that are at odds with how Repub­li­cans, includ­ing Mr. Trump, have approached adver­saries in the Mid­dle East. In an inter­view with Al Jazeera in 2016, she seemed to sug­gest that a prob­lem in U.S. nation­al secu­ri­ty pol­i­cy was that gov­ern­ment lead­ers had not spent enough time lis­ten­ing to America’s ene­mies, includ­ing orga­ni­za­tions that have spon­sored ter­ror­ism, although agree­ment with them isn’t required.

“I think the ques­tion we need to be ask­ing as Amer­i­cans exam­in­ing our for­eign pol­i­cy is whether we’re pour­ing kerosene on a can­dle,” she said, sug­gest­ing that the idea is to go beyond car­i­ca­tures and more ful­ly under­stand what moti­vates them. “The only real way to dis­arm your ene­my is to lis­ten to them.”

The inter­view was giv­en at a time when Pres­i­dent Barack Oba­ma had broad­ened the drone pro­gram he had relied on for coun­tert­er­ror­ism oper­a­tions, which led to large num­bers of civil­ian deaths. She is crit­i­cal of the agency’s post‑9/11 empha­sis on coun­tert­er­ror­ism and asym­met­ri­cal war­fare more gen­er­al­ly and wants to see a rebuild­ing of human intel­li­gence gath­er­ing capac­i­ty in rival pow­ers like Chi­na, Rus­sia and Iran, accord­ing to a per­son with knowl­edge of her think­ing.

Ms. Fox Kennedy is liked by a num­ber of peo­ple in Mr. Trump’s orbit, and she is close with Tul­si Gab­bard, Mr. Trump’s choice to serve as direc­tor of nation­al intel­li­gence. She has been dis­cussed for oth­er jobs in the admin­is­tra­tion, includ­ing an ambas­sador­ship, but she has want­ed a role at the C.I.A. for some time, accord­ing to one of the peo­ple briefed on the mat­ter.

Ms. Fox Kennedy is expect­ed to meet with John Rat­cliffe, Mr. Trump’s choice for C.I.A. direc­tor, this week.

Through a spokes­woman, both Mr. Kennedy and Ms. Fox Kennedy declined to com­ment. Through an aide, Mr. Rat­cliffe declined to com­ment.

Karo­line Leav­itt, the incom­ing White House press sec­re­tary, declined to address ques­tions about Ms. Fox and the C.I.A. role, say­ing only that Mr. Trump is choos­ing “the best and the bright­est indi­vid­u­als” and will announce appoint­ments when they’re ready.

It is not clear how seri­ous Mr. Trump is about choos­ing her for the role. While some deputy direc­tors are cho­sen by the head of the C.I.A., oth­ers are tapped by the pres­i­dent. David Cohen, the cur­rent deputy direc­tor, was the sug­ges­tion of the White House and then endorsed by William J. Burns, who took the top job.

Ms. Fox Kennedy’s ties to Ms. Gab­bard will put some­one trust­ed by an out­spo­ken crit­ic of the U.S. intel­li­gence com­mu­ni­ty and mil­i­tary in a piv­otal posi­tion at the C.I.A. In late Octo­ber, Ms. Fox Kennedy wrote on social media that she had known Ms. Gab­bard for rough­ly a decade.

“Don­ald Trump has sur­round­ed him­self with the pre­cious few Amer­i­can lead­ers who still speak the truth at great per­son­al cost,” she wrote, count­ing Ms. Gab­bard among them.

John Maguire, a for­mer C.I.A. offi­cer who became known for catch­ing a spy named Harold “Jim” Nichol­son, spoke in favor of Ms. Fox Kennedy.

“She’s infi­nite­ly qual­i­fied for the job,” he said. “She’s a very tal­ent­ed woman.”

7a. “Musk Express­es Sup­port for Far-Right Par­ty in Germany’s Election“by Christo­pher F. Schuet­ze and Mark Landler; The New York Times; 20/12/2024.

It was not the first online inter­ven­tion by Elon Musk, the entre­pre­neur and advis­er to Don­ald Trump, on behalf of once-fringe anti-immi­grant par­ties in Europe.

Elon Musk, the world’s rich­est man and a close advis­er to Pres­i­dent-elect Don­ald J. Trump, on Fri­day endorsed Germany’s far-right par­ty, a group with ties to neo-Nazis whose youth wing has been clas­si­fied as “con­firmed extrem­ist” by Ger­man domes­tic intel­li­gence.

“Only the AfD can save Ger­many,” Mr. Musk post­ed to X, refer­ring to the anti-immi­grant par­ty, the Alter­na­tive for Ger­many, by its Ger­man ini­tials.

In doing so, he is wad­ing into Ger­man pol­i­tics at a moment of acute tur­moil, and at the very same time that he has wield­ed his influ­ence in Wash­ing­ton to help blow up a bipar­ti­san spend­ing deal that was meant to avoid a gov­ern­ment shut­down over Christ­mas. The Ger­man gov­ern­ment recent­ly col­lapsed, result­ing in ear­ly elec­tions, which are planned for next year. . . .

. . . . News that mem­bers of the AfD attend­ed a secret meet­ing with the Aus­tri­an extreme-right provo­ca­teur Mar­tin Sell­ner, who has admit­ted to once being a mem­ber of a neo-Nazi group and has called for deport­ing migrants en masse, led to large protests ear­ly this year. Then, start­ing in May, a lead­ing light of the par­ty was twice giv­en a hefty fine for using Nazi-era slo­gans dur­ing cam­paign stops. . . .

. . . . Last month in the east­ern state of Sax­ony, police arrest­ed eight peo­ple sus­pect­ed of being mem­bers of what they called a right-wing extrem­ist ter­ror­ist orga­ni­za­tion, which they said had been plot­ting to over­throw the gov­ern­ment. Three of the eight were AfD mem­bers; one was an elect­ed local offi­cial. . . .

. . . . It also echoed in Wash­ing­ton, where Democ­rats and even a few Repub­li­cans raised alarms, point­ing out Mr. Musk’s heavy influ­ence on Mr. Trump.

“Lit­er­al­ly is a neo-Nazi par­ty. Not even jok­ing,” Adam Kinzinger, a Repub­li­can for­mer con­gress­man from Illi­nois and long­time crit­ic of Mr. Trump, post­ed on X.

Sen­a­tor Chris Mur­phy, Demo­c­rat of Con­necti­cut, said in an inter­view with CNN, ”This is not nor­mal.” He added, “What Elon Musk thinks tends to even­tu­al­ly be what the pres­i­dent of the Unit­ed States thinks. And if the Unit­ed States takes an offi­cial posi­tion in favor of neo-Nazis in Ger­many, I mean, it is absolute­ly cat­a­stroph­ic.”. . . .

7b. Insane Anti-Mus­lim Jihadist Ter­ror­izes Christ­mas Mar­ket; Moon of Alabama.org; 12/2024.

Yes­ter­day Elon Musk laud­ed the Ger­man right wing (but in my opin­ion not rad­i­cal) AfD par­ty as the only one “that can save Ger­many”.

A few hours lat­er a Sau­di man, liv­ing in Ger­many, drove a car into a crowd attend­ing a Christ­mas mar­ket in Magde­burg:

Ger­mans on Sat­ur­day mourned both the vic­tims and their shak­en sense of secu­ri­ty after a Sau­di doc­tor inten­tion­al­ly drove into a Christ­mas mar­ket teem­ing with hol­i­day shop­pers, killing at least five peo­ple, includ­ing a small child, and wound­ing at least 200 oth­ers.

Author­i­ties arrest­ed a 50-year-old man at the site of the attack in Magde­burg on Fri­day evening and took him into cus­tody for ques­tion­ing. He has lived in Ger­many since 2006, prac­tic­ing med­i­cine in Bern­burg, about 40 kilo­me­ters (25 miles) south of Magde­burg. offi­cials said.

The state gov­er­nor, Rein­er Haseloff, told reporters that the death toll rose to five from a pre­vi­ous fig­ure of two and that more than 200 peo­ple in total were injured.

Before details were known fol­low­ers of the AfD and oth­er famous anti-immi­gra­tion politi­cians, jumped onto the case with tirades against Mus­lims and immi­grants.

Unfor­tu­nate­ly for them the facts of the case were not in their favor.

The cul­prit is nei­ther an Islamist, nor an ille­gal immi­grant or asy­lum seek­er. He in fact is a sup­port­er of the AfD’s and Elon Musk’s opin­ions.

Dr. Taleb Al Abdul­mohsen, a Sau­di cit­i­zen of Shia her­itage, had come to Ger­many eigh­teen years ago to learn his med­ical spe­cial­ty, psy­chi­a­try. He had stayed in Ger­many and worked at a local men­tal hos­pi­tal.

Over time he had dis­avowed Islam. A few years ago he had launched a web forum, WeAreSaudis.net, which helped peo­ple from Islam­ic coun­tries, who were alleged­ly endan­gered for repu­di­at­ing their faith, to find asy­lum:

Describ­ing him­self as a for­mer Mus­lim, the sus­pect shared dozens of tweets and retweets dai­ly focus­ing on anti-Islam themes, crit­i­ciz­ing the reli­gion and con­grat­u­lat­ing Mus­lims who left the faith.

He also accused Ger­man author­i­ties of fail­ing to do enough to com­bat what he said was the “Islamism of Europe.” Some described him as an activist who helped Sau­di women flee their home­land. He has also voiced sup­port for the far-right and anti-immi­grant Alter­na­tive for Ger­many (AfD) par­ty.

The man was well know. The BBC as well as the Ger­man broad­sheet FAZ had inter­viewed him.

In a very long Twit­ter thread, writ­ten in Ara­bic on August 20 2024 and pinned to his account, Tal­ib Al Abdul­mohsen describes his years-long fight with oth­er athe­ist activists in Ger­many who were also try­ing to arrange refuge for Sau­di asy­lum seek­ers.

He alleged that some of them were active­ly prey­ing on female Sau­di asy­lum seek­ers who were liv­ing with them. He went to the police and filed com­plains with sev­er­al pros­e­cu­tors to get the Ger­man state to act against those he accused.

He how­ev­er did not present evi­dence to sup­port his claims. Asked by the police the female Sau­di asy­lum seek­ers reject­ed to file claims.

A civ­il suit for defama­tion launched by the oth­er activists against him was suc­cess­ful.

Some three years ago Taleb Al Abdul­mohsen began to show signs of per­se­cu­tion mania. He claimed that let­ters from a pros­e­cu­tor had van­ished from his mail box. Two lawyers he had hired soon reject­ed to work on his cas­es. He start­ed to accuse the Ger­man and Sau­di gov­ern­ment of work­ing against him.

In mid 2023 there were first signs and warn­ings that he might go berserk.

He again and again filed his ‘evi­dence’ against oth­er athe­ist activists to which the pros­e­cu­tion did not react with the urgency he had thought was required. (machine trans­la­tion):

Do you know where the biggest con­tra­dic­tion is? If a Sau­di cit­i­zen blows up a Ger­man embassy or ran­dom­ly slaugh­ters Ger­man cit­i­zens, they call him a ter­ror­ist. But when a Sau­di cit­i­zen uses all peace­ful means to pro­tect him­self and Sau­di cit­i­zens, you find the police and the pros­e­cu­tion tram­pling on the law as if there is no law in the first place!

His out­rage got ever stranger (machine trans­la­tion):

This is a pic­ture of a let­ter writ­ten by the Pub­lic Pros­e­cu­tor the next day, in which he says, “Yes­ter­day they brought me the file because the whistle­blow­er (Tal­ib Al-Abdul Mohsen) is at the ser­vice cen­ter.” Then he briefly recounts what hap­pened between me and him, and then asks the police to inves­ti­gate the mat­ter through the file and even through social media.

But the police refused to inves­ti­gate the mat­ter!!!

After that, the pros­e­cu­tor sus­pend­ed the inves­ti­ga­tion again!!

What is this farce?!

If they act like this, why is it that when a Sau­di cit­i­zen blows up a Ger­man embassy or ran­dom­ly slaugh­ters Ger­man cit­i­zens, they call him a ter­ror­ist??? What is the alter­na­tive to bomb­ing and slaugh­ter­ing when seek­ing jus­tice in Ger­many? Where is the peace­ful alter­na­tive?

I need to know the peace­ful alter­na­tive, please tell me about it.

Taleb Al Abdul­mohsen could not grasp that he sim­ply had no legal case to make. His mind wan­dered off into con­spir­a­cy the­o­ries:

British Pak­istani Index @PakistaniIndex — 22:29 UTC · Dec 21, 2024

(2/2) ⬆️ A video inter­view fea­tur­ing Dr. Taleb Al Abdul­mohsen, the sus­pect in the Magde­burg Christ­mas mar­ket attack, has sur­faced, spark­ing fur­ther ques­tions about his motives.

In the 45-minute video, pub­lished eight days before the attack on the US-based Islam­o­pho­bic blog RAIR Foun­da­tion, found­ed by Amy Mek, Dr. Taleb claimed that the Ger­man gov­ern­ment was con­duct­ing a “covert secret oper­a­tion” to “hunt down Sau­di ex-Mus­lims and destroy their lives” glob­al­ly. He also alleged that Syr­i­an jihadists were being grant­ed asy­lum in Ger­many.
...

The not so peace­ful alter­na­tive Taleb Al Abdul­mohsen found for him­self was to imi­tate ISIS Jihadis and to dri­ve a car into a crowd at a Christ­mas mar­ket .

His rants, fil­ings and acts do not sup­port the anti-Islam, anti-immi­grant claims Elon Musk, the AfD and oth­er such types have made.

Tal­ib Al-Abdul Mohsen has in fact long sup­port­ed them:

Taleb Al Abdul­mohsen @DrTalebJawad — 13:40 UTC · Jun 18, 2016

Ich und AfD bekämpfen den gle­ichen Feind um Deutsch­land zu schützen.
I and AfD are fight­ing the same ene­my to pro­tect Ger­many.

The anti-Mus­lim, pro Israel ‘activist’ com­mit­ted a ter­ror­ist act in Europe because, he alleged, the ‘left’ wants to ‘destroy Europe with Islam’.

There are of course a lot of polit­i­cal points one could make about this case.

But to me this sim­ply looks like a sad sto­ry of some­one who’s mind got seri­ous­ly dis­lo­cat­ed when he moved from the stric­tures of his own soci­ety into a more lib­er­al one he was unable to real­ly under­stand.

8. “US Con­gress Revives Cold War Tac­tics With New Anti-Com­mu­nism School Cur­ricu­lum” by Alan Mcleod; Con­sor­tium News; 12/08/2024.

Alan MacLeod on the “Cru­cial Com­mu­nism Teach­ing Act,” which is now being read in the U.S. Sen­ate, where it is all but cer­tain to pass.

Con­gress has just passed a bill that will see the U.S. spend huge sums of mon­ey redesign­ing much of the pub­lic school sys­tem around the ide­ol­o­gy of anti-com­mu­nism.

The “Cru­cial Com­mu­nism Teach­ing Act” is now being read in the Sen­ate, where it is all but cer­tain to pass. The move comes amid grow­ing pub­lic anger at the eco­nom­ic sys­tem and increased pub­lic sup­port for social­ism.

The Cru­cial Com­mu­nism Teach­ing Act, in its own words, is designed to teach chil­dren that

“cer­tain polit­i­cal ide­olo­gies, includ­ing com­mu­nism and total­i­tar­i­an­ism … con­flict with the prin­ci­ples of free­dom and democ­ra­cy that are essen­tial to the found­ing of the Unit­ed States.”

Although spon­sored by Repub­li­cans, it enjoys wide­spread sup­port from Democ­rats and is focused on Chi­na, Venezuela, Cuba and oth­er tar­gets of U.S. empire. The word­ing of the bill has many wor­ried that this will be a cen­ter­piece of a new era of anti-com­mu­nist hys­te­ria, sim­i­lar to pre­vi­ous McCarthy­ist peri­ods.

The cur­ricu­lum will be designed by the con­tro­ver­sial Vic­tims of Com­mu­nism Memo­r­i­al Foun­da­tion and will ensure all Amer­i­can high school stu­dents “under­stand the dan­gers of com­mu­nism and sim­i­lar polit­i­cal ide­olo­gies” and “learn that com­mu­nism has led to the deaths of over 100,000,000 vic­tims world­wide.” It will also devel­op a series titled “Por­traits in Patri­o­tism,” that will expose stu­dents to indi­vid­u­als who are “vic­tims of the polit­i­cal ide­olo­gies” in ques­tion.

A Dis­cred­it­ed Book

The 100 mil­lion fig­ure orig­i­nates with the noto­ri­ous pseu­do­science text, The Black Book of Com­mu­nism. A col­lec­tion of polit­i­cal essays, the book’s cen­tral claim is that 100 mil­lion peo­ple have per­ished as a result of the com­mu­nist ide­ol­o­gy.

How­ev­er, even many of its con­trib­u­tors and co-writ­ers have dis­tanced them­selves from it, claim­ing that the lead author was “obsessed” with reach­ing the 100 mil­lion fig­ure, to the point that he sim­ply con­jured mil­lions of deaths from nowhere.

Its method­ol­o­gy was also uni­ver­sal­ly panned, with many point­ing out that the tens of mil­lions of Sovi­et and Nazi loss­es dur­ing World War II were attrib­uted to com­mu­nist ide­ol­o­gy. This means that both Adolf Hitler him­self and many of his vic­tims are count­ed towards the vast­ly over­in­flat­ed fig­ure.

The book was con­demned by Holo­caust remem­brance groups as white­wash­ing and even lion­iz­ing geno­ci­dal fas­cist groups as anti-com­mu­nist heroes.

The prin­ci­pal orga­ni­za­tion pro­mot­ing the 100 mil­lion fig­ure today is the Vic­tims of Com­mu­nism Memo­r­i­al Foun­da­tion, which has shown a sim­i­lar lev­el of both anti-com­mu­nist devo­tion and method­olog­i­cal rig­or.

The group, set up by the U.S. gov­ern­ment in 1993, added all world­wide Covid-19 deaths to the vic­tims of com­mu­nism list, argu­ing that the coro­n­avirus was a com­mu­nist dis­ease because it orig­i­nat­ed in Chi­na.

It is these peo­ple who will be design­ing the new cur­ricu­lum that will be taught in social stud­ies, gov­ern­ment, his­to­ry, and eco­nom­ics class­es across the Unit­ed States.

Chi­na Hawks

One of the cen­tral goals of the bill is also to “ensure that high school stu­dents in the Unit­ed States under­stand that 1,500,000,000 peo­ple still suf­fer under com­mu­nism.” This is a clear ref­er­ence to Chi­na, a rapid­ly devel­op­ing coun­try that, in just two gen­er­a­tions, has gone from one of the poor­est on Earth to a glob­al super­pow­er, chal­leng­ing and even sur­pass­ing the Unit­ed States on many qual­i­ty-of-life indi­ca­tors.

The bill goes on to detail how the school cur­ricu­lum will “focus on ongo­ing human rights abus­es by such regimes, such as the treat­ment of Uyghurs in the Xin­jiang Uyghur Autonomous Region” by the Chi­nese “regime” and its “aggres­sion” towards “pro-democ­ra­cy protests in Hong Kong,” and Tai­wan, who it labels “a demo­c­ra­t­ic friend of the Unit­ed States.”

Fur­ther­more, many of the Vic­tims of Com­mu­nism Memo­r­i­al Foundation’s “Wit­ness Project” case stud­ies – like­ly the source for the “Por­traits in Patri­o­tism” series – are from Chi­na.

This includes Rushan Abbas, the founder and exec­u­tive direc­tor of the Cam­paign for Uyghurs, a pres­sure group fund­ed by C.I.A. front orga­ni­za­tion, the Nation­al Endow­ment for Democ­ra­cy. Abbas was also pre­vi­ous­ly employed as a trans­la­tor at the noto­ri­ous Guan­tá­namo Bay tor­ture camp.

The U.S. is cur­rent­ly engaged in a quick­ly-esca­lat­ing Cold War against Chi­na that includes chan­nel­ing mon­ey and sup­port to sep­a­ratist move­ments, includ­ing those in Xin­jiangHong Kong and Tai­wan, as Mint­Press News has report­ed.

In Sep­tem­ber, the House of Rep­re­sen­ta­tives passed a bill that autho­rized $1.6 bil­lion to be spent on anti-Chi­nese mes­sag­ing world­wide.

Latin Amer­i­ca: Mod­el & Tar­get

The oth­er major tar­get of the bill will like­ly be social­ist or com­mu­nist-led gov­ern­ments in Latin Amer­i­ca. The act’s spon­sor is Maria Elvi­ra Salazar, a Repub­li­can Con­gressper­son rep­re­sent­ing Mia­mi.

A part of Florida’s famous­ly con­ser­v­a­tive Cuban-Amer­i­can com­mu­ni­ty, in 2023, she intro­duced the FORCE Act, which attempt­ed to block any U.S. pres­i­dent from nor­mal­iz­ing rela­tions with Cuba unless its gov­ern­ment is over­thrown. She has repeat­ed­ly con­demned Pres­i­dent Biden for eas­ing the (ille­gal) U.S. sanc­tions on Venezuela.

And in July, she denounced what she described as the “social­ist curse in Cen­tral Amer­i­ca and the Caribbean,” sin­gling out Cuban, Venezuela, Hon­duras and Nicaragua as coun­tries requir­ing regime change.

She is, how­ev­er, an avid sup­port­er of the far-right pres­i­dent of Argenti­na, Javier Milei, accept­ing his invi­ta­tion to attend his inau­gu­ra­tion. Argenti­na, she said,

“is going to set the course and point of ref­er­ence for the rest of Latin Amer­i­ca as to the way that a coun­try should be gov­erned… Free mar­ket econ­o­my, small gov­ern­ment, indi­vid­ual lib­er­ties, free­dom, pri­vate sec­tor, no cor­rup­tion, that’s what we’re try­ing to do.”

Per­haps the only for­eign coun­try she prais­es more than Argenti­na is Israel, whose actions she has sup­port­ed at every step, even going so far as to denounce what she called the “one-sided pres­sure for a cease­fire” in Gaza.

Salazar’s bill passed eas­i­ly, 327–62, with lim­it­ed oppo­si­tion from Democ­rats or Repub­li­cans, who vot­ed for and against it in rough­ly equal mea­sures. Even many mem­bers of the Pro­gres­sive Cau­cus vot­ed in favor, prov­ing that anti-com­mu­nism is as pop­u­lar on the left as it is on the right.

A New McCarthy­ism?

The immi­nent pass­ing of the Cru­cial Com­mu­nism Teach­ing Act harkens back to ear­li­er anti-com­mu­nist peri­ods in Amer­i­can his­to­ry, name­ly the Red Scare of the 1910s and the McCarthy­ist era of the 1940s and 1950s.

Dur­ing those times, orga­nized labor move­ments were ruth­less­ly attacked, work­ers from all pro­fes­sions, includ­ing pro­fes­sors, gov­ern­ment offi­cials, and teach­ers, were fired en masse, and some of America’s bright­est minds had their careers derailed due to their polit­i­cal lean­ings. This includ­ed singer Paul Robe­son, actors like Char­lie Chap­lain and Mar­i­lyn Mon­roe, play­wright Arthur Miller and sci­en­tist Albert Ein­stein.

The point of these oper­a­tions was to break any oppo­si­tion to the pow­er of the state and big busi­ness and ensure the Unit­ed States main­tained its cap­i­tal­ist course. Today, how­ev­er, few­er Amer­i­cans than ever are hap­py with the cur­rent polit­i­cal and eco­nom­ic sys­tem.

1977: Roy Cohn, chief coun­sel to Sen. Joseph McCarthy dur­ing the McCarthy hear­ings, debates Amer­i­can author Gore Vidal on McCarthy­ism.

A recent Gallup study found that only 22 per­cent of the pub­lic are sat­is­fied with how things are going, with a major­i­ty respond­ing that they are “very dis­sat­is­fied.” Liv­ing stan­dards have been stag­nat­ing or drop­ping for decades, and alter­na­tive eco­nom­ic sys­tems are becom­ing more desir­able.

A 2019 poll from Axios found that 48 per­cent of adults under 35 pre­fer social­ism to cap­i­tal­ism, includ­ing 57 per­cent of female respon­dents.

There are some signs that Wash­ing­ton is slow­ly mov­ing towards a new McCarthy­ist era. Pres­i­dent-elect Don­ald Trump [whose lawyer in the 1970s and 80s was McCarthy coun­sel Roy Cohn], for exam­ple, has promised to car­ry out mass depor­ta­tions of left­ists once he becomes pres­i­dent, stat­ing:

“I will order my gov­ern­ment to deny entry to all com­mu­nists and all Marx­ists. Those who come to join our coun­try must love our coun­try. We don’t want them if they want to destroy our coun­try … So we’re going to be keep­ing for­eign Chris­t­ian-hat­ing com­mu­nists, social­ists, and Marx­ists out of Amer­i­ca.”

“At the end of the day, either the com­mu­nists destroy Amer­i­ca, or we destroy the com­mu­nists,” he explained. But he also stat­ed that Amer­i­can cit­i­zens espous­ing anti-cap­i­tal­ist views would be purged. “My ques­tion is, what are we going to do with the ones that are already here, that grew up here? I think we have to pass a new law for them,” he said.

That Trump would actu­al­ly deport mil­lions of Amer­i­can cit­i­zens en masse appears like too dras­tic a step right now, but it is clear that both Democ­rats and Repub­li­cans are seri­ous in their anti-com­mu­nist con­vic­tions. There­fore, the Cru­cial Com­mu­nism Teach­ing Act will like­ly only be the start of this cam­paign.

9. “Vic­tims of Com­mu­nism faces call to remove over 330 names linked to Nazis, fas­cists” by David Pugliese; Ottawa Cit­i­zen; 7/10/2024.

The memo­r­i­al was sup­posed to be unveiled in Novem­ber 2023 but that was put on hold after ques­tions sur­faced about many of te names list­ed.

The Depart­ment of Cana­di­an Her­itage is being told that more than half of the 550 names on the Memo­r­i­al to the Vic­tims of Com­mu­nism should be removed because of poten­tial links to the Nazis or ques­tions about affil­i­a­tions with fas­cist groups, accord­ing to gov­ern­ment records.

As orig­i­nal­ly planned, there were to be 553 entries on the Ottawa memorial’s Wall of Remem­brance.

The depart­ment had deter­mined that 50 to 60 of the names or orga­ni­za­tions were like­ly direct­ly linked to the Nazis, accord­ing to the doc­u­ments obtained by the Ottawa Cit­i­zen through an access to infor­ma­tion request.

A 2023 report for Cana­di­an Her­itage rec­om­mend­ed more than 330 names be exclud­ed to be on the safe side, the records not­ed. The exclu­sions were rec­om­mend­ed because of the lack of infor­ma­tion about the indi­vid­u­als or orga­ni­za­tions and whether they might have links to fas­cist orga­ni­za­tions or the Nazis. Some of the entries could also be removed because they have no direct link to Cana­da.

The memo­r­i­al, which is locat­ed near the cor­ner of Welling­ton and Bay streets, is sup­posed to hon­our those who suf­fered under com­mu­nism.

But con­cerns have been raised over the years by Jew­ish orga­ni­za­tions and his­to­ri­ans that names of east­ern Euro­peans who col­lab­o­rat­ed with the Nazis in the Holo­caust have been put for­ward in an attempt to white­wash their past.

The memo­r­i­al was sup­posed to be unveiled in Novem­ber 2023 but that was put on hold after mem­bers of Par­lia­ment hon­oured Yaroslav Hun­ka, a Ukrain­ian sol­dier with the Waf­fen-SS Gali­cia Divi­sion, a vol­un­tary unit that was under the com­mand of the Nazis. That inci­dent became an inter­na­tion­al embar­rass­ment for Cana­da.

Cana­di­an Her­itage spokesper­son Car­o­line Cza­jkows­ki told the Ottawa Cit­i­zen that a new date for the memo­r­i­al unveil­ing has not yet been set. Asked whether the more than 330 entries on the Wall of Remem­brance will be removed, Cza­jkows­ki replied “the review of the com­mem­o­ra­tive ele­ments is ongo­ing.”

The main spokesper­son for Trib­ute to Lib­er­ty, the orga­ni­za­tion which advo­cat­ed for the memo­r­i­al, did not respond to a request for com­ment.

Jaime Kirzn­er-Roberts, a senior direc­tor at the Friends of Simon Wiesen­thal Cen­tre, said her Holo­caust edu­ca­tion orga­ni­za­tion has been rais­ing con­cerns for years with Cana­di­an Her­itage regard­ing the poten­tial inclu­sion of Nazi war crim­i­nals in the memo­r­i­al.

“In 2021, we dis­cov­ered that one par­tic­u­lar Nazi leader was being hon­oured by the Memo­r­i­al and it took us more than a year of very active advo­ca­cy efforts before his name was final­ly removed,” she said. “We told offi­cials repeat­ed­ly that we believed there could be a great num­ber of Nazis being com­mem­o­rat­ed but sad­ly this prob­lem did not appear to be a pri­or­i­ty for the depart­ment.”

Kirzn­er-Roberts said the recent report com­mis­sioned by the depart­ment con­firmed her organization’s worst fears. “It finds that more half of the indi­vid­u­als com­mem­o­rat­ed in the memo­r­i­al may have been Nazis or Nazi col­lab­o­ra­tors,” she said. “It is total­ly unac­cept­able for Nazis and col­lab­o­ra­tors to be hon­oured by a Cana­di­an pub­lic memo­r­i­al, espe­cial­ly one meant to rec­og­nize vic­tims of state vio­lence and tyran­ny.”

Fed­er­al offi­cials in oth­er depart­ments have con­tin­ued to warn Cana­di­an Her­itage that the inclu­sion of Nazi col­lab­o­ra­tors on the memo­r­i­al will cause inter­na­tion­al embar­rass­ment.

“It is impor­tant to note that many anti-com­mu­nist and anti-Sovi­et advo­cates and fight­ers were also active Nazi col­lab­o­ra­tors, who com­mit­ted doc­u­ment­ed mas­sacres,” Glob­al Affairs Cana­da offi­cials warned their coun­ter­parts at Cana­di­an Her­itage in 2021.

Pri­vate dona­tions had already been made to the mon­u­ment in the names of Nazi col­lab­o­ra­tors, the CBC report­ed in July 2021. Those includ­ed Roman Shukhevych, a Ukrain­ian nation­al­ist and Nazi col­lab­o­ra­tor, as well as Ante Pavelić who ran a Nazi pup­pet regime in Croa­t­ia and is con­sid­ered a chief per­pe­tra­tor of the Holo­caust in the Balka­ns, the CBC report­ed.

Cana­di­an Her­itage offi­cials were also voic­ing their own con­cerns in inter­nal mes­sages.

“It has come to our atten­tion that a num­ber of entries that have been put for­ward for recog­ni­tion may have been affil­i­at­ed in some capac­i­ty to fas­cist and Nazi orga­ni­za­tions,” wrote Tristan‑E. Landry, a deputy direc­tor at the depart­ment. “For exam­ple, some of pro­posed indi­vid­u­als were linked to the Orga­ni­za­tion of Ukrain­ian Nation­al­ists and its mil­i­tary, the Ukrain­ian Insur­gent Army….and to a less­er extent with Baltic nation­al­ist groups (i.e. mem­bers of the Lat­vian SS).”

Kirzn­er-Roberts said the Friends of Simon Wiesen­thal Cen­tre is urg­ing the fed­er­al gov­ern­ment to imple­ment new, rig­or­ous vet­ting pro­ce­dures so this type of sit­u­a­tion does not hap­pen again.

The Memo­r­i­al to the Vic­tims of Com­mu­nism has already been the focus of mul­ti­ple con­tro­ver­sies over its exact pur­pose, loca­tion, size and cost over the last 15 years. The price tag for the project has bal­looned to an esti­mat­ed $7.5 mil­lion — includ­ing $6 mil­lion in pub­lic funds — from an orig­i­nal bud­get of $1.5 mil­lion that was sup­posed to be fund­ed entire­ly through pri­vate dona­tions from Trib­ute to Lib­er­ty.

9.“Ju st Say No: Con­gress Con­sid­ers Neo­con Les­son Plans to Keep Kids Off Com­mu­nism” by Noah Hurowitz; The Inter­cept; 12/05/2024

. . . . Under the guise of pro­mot­ing free­dom, orga­ni­za­tions like the Anti-Bol­she­vik Bloc of Nations often act­ed as a vehi­cle for fas­cist emi­gres to regroup and exploit Cold War ten­sions . . . . in the West to rewrite his­to­ry in a way that would equate com­mu­nist atroc­i­ties with the Holo­caust, Boeck­n­er said.

“They basi­cal­ly brain poi­soned an entire gen­er­a­tion or two of Cana­di­ans into think­ing that the Sovi­ets were the bad guys dur­ing World War II,” Boeck­n­er told The Inter­cept. . . .

10. “Chi­na detain­ing mil­lions of Uyghurs? Seri­ous prob­lems with claims by US-backed NGO and far-right researcher ‘led by God’ against Bei­jing” by Ajit Singh and Max Blu­men­thal; The Gray Zone; Decem­ber 21, 2019.

. . . . ‘Lead­ing expert’ on Xin­jiang relies on spec­u­la­tion and one ques­tion­able media report . . . .

The sec­ond key source for claims that Chi­na has detained mil­lions of Uyghur Mus­lims is Adri­an Zenz. He is a senior fel­low in Chi­na stud­ies at the far-right Vic­tims of Com­mu­nism Memo­r­i­al Foun­da­tion, which was estab­lished by the US gov­ern­ment in 1983.

The Vic­tims of Com­mu­nism Memo­r­i­al Foun­da­tion is an out­growth of the Nation­al Cap­tive Nations Com­mit­tee, a group found­ed by Ukrain­ian nation­al­ist Lev Dobri­an­sky to lob­by against any effort for detente with the Sovi­et Union. Its co-chair­man, Yaroslav Stet­sko, was a top leader of the fas­cist OUN‑B mili­tia that fought along­side Nazi Ger­many dur­ing its occu­pa­tion of Ukraine in World War Two. Togeth­er, the two helped found the World Anti-Com­mu­nist League that was described by jour­nal­ist Joe Cona­son as “the orga­ni­za­tion­al haven for neo-Nazis, fas­cists, and anti-Semit­ic extrem­ists from two dozen coun­tries.”

Today, Dobriansky’s daugh­ter, Paula, sits on the board of the Vic­tims of Com­mu­nism Memo­r­i­al Foun­da­tion. A for­mer Rea­gan and George HW Bush offi­cial and sig­na­to­ry of the orig­i­nal Project for a New Amer­i­can Cen­tu­ry doc­u­ment, Paula Dobri­an­sky has become a fix­ture in neo­con­ser­v­a­tive cir­cles on Capi­tol Hill.

11. “Alleged Killer of Gen­er­al Kir­illov Arrest­ed, But Holes Remain in the Sto­ry” by Lar­ry C. John­son; sonar21.com; 12/18/2024.

Akhmad Kur­banov is sus­pect­ed of mur­der­ing Lt. Gen. Igor Kir­illov, the head of the Radi­o­log­i­cal, Chem­i­cal, and Bio­log­i­cal Defense Troops of the Russ­ian Armed Forces. He was locat­ed and detained short­ly after plant­i­ng the bomb that killed Kir­illov and his aide. In the pho­to above, report­ed­ly lift­ed from social media by the FSB, Kur­banov is chant­i­ng, “I’m num­ber one.” (Okay, that’s a joke.)

Russ­ian author­i­ties made quick work of scour­ing sur­veil­lance video feeds to iden­ti­fy the sus­pect car and cap­ture Mr. Kur­banov. With­in 24 hours, with no signs of tor­ture or duress, Kur­banov was spilling his guts:

I came to Moscow on instruc­tions from the Ukrain­ian spe­cial ser­vices”: inter­ro­ga­tion of Igor Kir­illov, the head of the RKhBZ troops, and his assis­tant Ilya Polikar­pov, detained for the mur­der. The cit­i­zen of Uzbek­istan faces pun­ish­ment up to life impris­on­ment, the FSB report­ed.

“Why did I do this, for what? They offered me 100 thou­sand dol­lars and a Euro­pean pass­port”

On instruc­tions from the Ukrain­ian spe­cial ser­vices, a native of Uzbek­istan installed a high-pow­er IED on an elec­tric scoot­er, which he parked near the entrance to Kirillov’s house. For obser­va­tion, I rent­ed a car shar­ing car and installed a Wi-Fi video cam­era there – the film­ing was broad­cast online to the city of Dnepr. When the offi­cers left the entrance, the con­trac­tor remote­ly acti­vat­ed the IED.

Here is a video of Kurbanov’s con­fes­sion:

Here is what we do not know: How did the Ukrain­ian SBU iden­ti­fy and recruit Kur­banov to car­ry out this attack? I doubt that the SBU adver­tised it as a job open­ing on social media. Kur­banov report­ed­ly has ties to an ISIS group based in Uzbek­istan. The most like­ly expla­na­tion is that the SBU has reg­u­lar con­tact with Uzbek­istan mil­i­tants and con­sult­ed with the lead­ers of Kurbanov’s Islam­ic group in com­ing up with a vol­un­teer to car­ry out the oper­a­tion, i.e., Mr. Kur­banov and his accom­plice.

There are oth­er per­ti­nent ques­tions. Did Kur­banov have pri­or train­ing in build­ing and plant­i­ng an impro­vised explo­sive device (IED) and wiring it cor­rect­ly to be remote­ly det­o­nat­ed? Did Kur­banov build the bomb or was it pre­pared by some­one else and deliv­ered to him? How did Kur­banov ver­i­fy that the video cam­era used to trans­mit images of the entrance to Kirillov’s apart­ment build­ing was func­tion­ing and point­ed in the right direc­tion? At a min­i­mum, Kur­banov had to do a com­mu­ni­ca­tions check with his SBU han­dlers to ensure all sys­tems were func­tion­ing prop­er­ly pri­or to the attack. Rus­sia, like the Unit­ed States, is able to inter­cept such com­mu­ni­ca­tions.

I am sur­prised that some­one in Kirillov’s posi­tion did not have bet­ter secu­ri­ty. At a min­i­mum, he should have had secu­ri­ty sur­veil­lance cov­er­ing the entry and exit points to his build­ing. That would have alert­ed author­i­ties when the scoot­er was parked adja­cent to the entry. Even bet­ter, a per­ma­nent assign­ment of secu­ri­ty guards to patrol out­side the build­ing. None of those mea­sures were in place.

Press reports reveal that Gen­er­al Kir­illov believed he was a tar­get, not just of Ukraine, but by the West, because of his role in reveal­ing the nefar­i­ous work of more than 40 US-fund­ed bio­log­i­cal lab­o­ra­to­ries in Ukraine and his belief that the US used COVID as a bio­log­i­cal weapon. In mak­ing this charge, he also accused US phar­ma­ceu­ti­cal com­pa­nies of being col­lab­o­ra­tors . . . .

12. “Al Qaeda’s Res­ur­rec­tion” by Bruce Hoff­man; Coun­cil on For­eign Rela­tions; 3/6/2018.

Next, we excerpt of an arti­cle by CFR mem­ber Bruce Hoff­man. Not­ing Al Qaeda’s resur­gence and Al Qaeda’s empha­sis on the Syr­i­an con­flict, Hoff­man cites the so-called “Arab Spring” as the key event in Al Qaeda’s resur­gence. ” . . . . The thou­sands of hard­ened al-Qae­da fight­ers freed from Egypt­ian pris­ons in 2012–2013 by Pres­i­dent Mohammed Mor­si gal­va­nized the move­ment at a crit­i­cal moment, when insta­bil­i­ty reigned and a hand­ful of men well-versed in ter­ror­ism and sub­ver­sion could plunge a coun­try or a region into chaos. Whether in Libya, Turkey, Syr­ia, or Yemen, their arrival was prov­i­den­tial in terms of advanc­ing al-Qaeda’s inter­ests or increas­ing its influ­ence. . . . It was Syr­ia where al-Qaeda’s inter­ven­tion proved most con­se­quen­tial. One of Zawahiri’s first offi­cial acts after suc­ceed­ing bin Laden as emir was to order a Syr­i­an vet­er­an of the Iraqi insur­gency named Abu Moham­mad al-Julani to return home and estab­lish the al-Qae­da fran­chise that would even­tu­al­ly become Jab­hat al-Nus­ra. . . .”

Hoff­man notes that Al-Qae­da and the Islam­ic State were, at one time, part of a uni­fied orga­ni­za­tion: ” . . . . Al-Qaeda’s cho­sen instru­ment was Jab­hat al-Nus­ra, the prod­uct of a joint ini­tia­tive with al-Qaeda’s Iraqi branch, which had rebrand­ed itself as the Islam­ic State of Iraq (ISI). But as Nus­ra grew in both strength and impact, a dis­pute erupt­ed between ISI and al-Qae­da over con­trol of the group. In a bold pow­er grab, ISI’s leader, Abu Bakr al-Bagh­da­di, announced the forcible amal­ga­ma­tion of al-Nus­ra with ISI in a new orga­ni­za­tion to be called the Islam­ic State of Iraq and Syr­ia (ISIS). Julani refused to accede to the uni­lat­er­al merg­er and appealed to Zawahiri. The quar­rel inten­si­fied, and after Zawahiri’s attempts to medi­ate it col­lapsed, he expelled ISIS from the al-Qae­da net­work. . . .”

13. “Biden Admin­is­tra­tion Admits that Glob­al War on Ter­ror­ism is Total B.S.” by Lar­ry C. John­son; sonar21.com; 20/12/2024.

After today’s events in Syr­ia, US cred­i­bil­i­ty as a major play­er in the glob­al war on ter­ror­ism — Islam­ic ter­ror­ism to be pre­cise — is destroyed. Despite spend­ing ten years on the US list of bad ter­ror­ists and earn­ing a $10 mil­lion boun­ty on his head, Abu Muham­mad al-Jawlani wel­comed a US del­e­ga­tion, led by Assis­tant Sec­re­tary of State for Near East­ern Affairs Bar­bara Leaf, to Dam­as­cus.

She was accom­pa­nied by for­mer U.S. envoy to Syr­ia Daniel Rubin­stein who will stay in Syr­ia as the top U.S. diplo­mat on the ground.

Leaf greet­ed Jawlani with the news that the US was lift­ing the $10 mil­lion boun­ty as long as Jawlani pinky-swore “to not allow ter­ror­ist orga­ni­za­tions to oper­ate with­in Syr­i­an ter­ri­to­ry or pose threats to the US or neigh­bor­ing coun­tries.”

What a dif­fer­ence two years makes! I guess the fol­low­ing US pol­i­cy to, “defeat ISIS,” is no longer in effect. . .

Discussion

6 comments for “FTR#‘s 1366 & 1367 Miscellaneous Articles and Updates, Parts 1 and 2”

  1. The Big Lie has final­ly been exposed. Hitler was­n’t some sort of far right fas­cist. No, no. He was vir­u­lent­ly left-wing. A com­mu­nist, in fact! And now the world knows the truth. Thanks to Elon Musk and AfD chief Alice Wei­del.

    Yes, that was lit­er­al­ly the mes­sage to the pub­lic deliv­ered to a glob­al audi­ence dur­ing a live dis­cus­sion on X.com between Elon Musk and AfD chief Alice Wei­del. A very real dis­cus­sion about how the Nazis were actu­al­ly a bunch of left­ist com­mu­nists. Com­ing just weeks after Musk gave his full-throat­ed endorse­ment of the AfD in Ger­many’s upcom­ing elec­tions next month. This was­n’t some ran­dom inter­view. It was an endorse­ment and a pro­mo­tion.

    Of course, this was­n’t just a pro­mo­tion of the AfD. It was also a pro­mo­tion of one of the most insid­i­ous and Orwellian memes of our times. A meme that has a lot more than just Wei­del and Musk pro­mot­ing it. This is a good time to recall how now-failed 2024 North Car­oli­na GOP Guber­na­to­r­i­al can­di­date Mark Robin­son — noto­ri­ous for his ‘Some Folks Need Killing’ call for the exe­cu­tion of left­ists — made this same ‘Hitler was a left­ist’ argu­ment dur­ing a speech at the sec­ond annu­al Moms for Lib­er­ty sum­mit, which is a reminder that the Chris­t­ian Nation­al­ist move­ment behind the Trump admin­is­tra­tion is keen on pro­mot­ing the ‘Hitler was a com­mu­nist’ meme too. This is a very pop­u­lar idea these days. That’s part of the con­text here. This isn’t just a Musk/Weidel thing. This is a glob­al far right thing.

    But as we’re going to see, there’s anoth­er very intrigu­ing angle to this sto­ry: in engag­ing in that inter­view with Wei­del, Musk may have been vio­lat­ing EU law. Specif­i­cal­ly, the laws against media plat­forms giv­ing unfair pro­mo­tion to one politi­cian or par­ty over anoth­er. And it sounds like EU reg­u­la­tors are now active­ly inves­ti­gat­ing. With the kind of pow­ers that could make this a very messy, and expen­sive, inves­ti­ga­tion if it pans out. Not only is there a team of up to 150 bureau­crats tasked worth enforc­ing the Dig­i­tal Ser­vices Act (DSA) but there’s also a team of experts at the Euro­pean Cen­tre for Algo­rith­mic Trans­paren­cy that can be brought in should an exam­i­na­tion of X.com’s inter­nal algo­rithms be deemed nec­es­sary. Algo­rithms that are pre­sum­ably sys­tem­at­i­cal­ly pro­mot­ing far right con­tent at this point based on user expe­ri­ences. Oth­er DSA pow­ers include dis­cov­ery pow­ers that could involve exam­in­ing X.com’s inter­nal com­mu­ni­ca­tions, such as Slack mes­sages.

    Impor­tant­ly, the DSA team isn’t just poten­tial­ly inves­ti­gat­ing whether or not X.com has been unfair­ly pro­mot­ing the AfD in Ger­many’s elec­tions. Any sort of unfair pro­mo­tion is poten­tial­ly a grounds for pun­ish­ment and that includes the pro­mo­tion of Musk’s own tweets. Which is some­thing he is noto­ri­ous for doing, algo­rith­mi­cal­ly. And if the DSA deems pun­ish­ment nec­es­sary, that can include fines up to 6 per­cent of X.com’s glob­al rev­enues. That’s not chump change.

    So what should we expect from this inves­ti­ga­to­ry threat by the EU? That’s unclear at this point, but we can be pret­ty con­fi­dent how Musk will response: task­ing Don­ald Trump to serve as Musk’s pit bull and demand the EU back down. Not only would it be unimag­in­able at this point that Musk won’t be ask­ing Trump to inter­vene on his behalf, but it’s already start­ed. Except it’s not Musk doing the ask­ing. Mark Zucker­berg is now pub­licly call­ing on Don­ald Trump to pro­tect Sil­i­con Val­ley from EU reg­u­la­tions and fines. That was Zucker­berg’s mes­sage to Trump dur­ing a recent appear­ance on the Joe Rogan Expe­ri­ence, along with the a gen­er­al mes­sage of how excit­ed Zucker­berg is to see some­one with Trump’s mas­cu­line ener­gy lead­ing the coun­try.

    Zucker­berg’s self-debase­ment also come less than two months after Meta was slapped with an $841 mil­lion EU fine over abu­sive mar­ket­place prac­tices. The lat­est in a series of large fines levied against not just Meta but a num­ber of oth­er Sil­i­con Val­ley giants. Which is why it’s impor­tant to keep in mind that Zucker­berg’s pub­lic feal­ty ges­tures to Trump weren’t just done on his own behalf. He was squirm­ing on behalf of the Tech Indus­tri­al Com­plex.

    That’s all part of the gross con­text of Elon Musk’s deci­sion to pro­mote the ‘Hitler was a com­mu­nist’ meme in an inter­view designed to throw the upcom­ing Ger­man elec­tions in favor of the AfD. It was­n’t a move intend­ed to install a far right gov­ern­ment in Ger­many. It’s also part of a larg­er move­ment to use the return of an overt­ly fas­cist admin­is­tra­tion in the US to extend oli­garchic pow­er as much as pos­si­ble. The sec­ond Gild­ed Age will be a tech oli­garch-owned and oper­at­ed Gold­en Age. If Ger­many’s elec­torate does­n’t choose a far right gov­ern­ment on board with the tech oli­garchic agen­da, Trump the Mad Man will bul­ly them into it. It’s a glob­al pow­er play and, at this point, the tech oli­garchs have the momen­tum. So much momen­tum they are appar­ent­ly feel­ing ready to go with the ‘actu­al­ly, Hitler was a com­mu­nist’ meme. Which is kind of pow­er play one should expect short­ly before the ‘actu­al­ly, we’re Nazis and it’s too late for you rubes’ end game move:

    Deutsche Welle

    Fact check: AfD head called Hitler ‘com­mu­nist.’ He was not

    In a live talk with X own­er Elon Musk, Alter­na­tive for Ger­many chan­cel­lor can­di­date Alice Wei­del claimed that Nazi leader Adolf Hitler was not “right-wing,” but a com­mu­nist instead. His­to­ri­ans vehe­ment­ly dis­agree.

    Kathrin Wesolows­ki | Tetyana Klug
    01/11/2025

    Dur­ing Thurs­day’s live dis­cus­sion between Elon Musk and Alice Wei­del, the chan­cel­lor can­di­date for the nation­al­ist Alter­na­tive for Ger­many (AfD) par­ty in Feb­ru­ary’s elec­tion, on the X (for­mer­ly Twitter)platform, both par­tic­i­pants made many hard-to-ver­i­fy claims, sev­er­al of which DW’s fact check­ers have already looked into.

    But one claim in par­tic­u­lar, about the Nation­al Social­ist Ger­man Work­ers Par­ty (NSDAP), or Nazis, and World War II, was par­tic­u­lar­ly off: Wei­del said Adolf Hitler was not “right-wing,” but a “com­mu­nist.” This his­tor­i­cal revi­sion­ism, an attempt to retell the his­to­ry of Nation­al Social­ism, is not new. As nation­al­ists rise in inter­na­tion­al pol­i­tics, it is fre­quent­ly being repeat­ed.

    Claim: “[The Nation­al Social­ists] nation­al­ized the entire indus­try. ... The biggest suc­cess after that ter­ri­ble era in our his­to­ry was to label Adolf Hitler as right and con­ser­v­a­tive. He was exact­ly the oppo­site. He was­n’t a con­ser­v­a­tive. ... He was a com­mu­nist, social­ist guy,” Wei­del told Musk. In a fol­low-up inter­view with the Ger­man broad­cast­er ntv, she repeat­ed­ly empha­sized: “I don’t devi­ate from this either: Adolf Hitler was a left­ist.”.

    DW Fact check: False

    This claim is false and triv­i­al­izes the atroc­i­ties com­mit­ted under Hitler and the Nazis from 1933 through 1945. The AfD, which in Ger­many is often clas­si­fied as far right to extreme right, has repeat­ed­ly tried to dis­tance itself from Nazism. Right-wing politi­cians in the Unit­ed States, includ­ing Vice Pres­i­dent-elect JD Vance, have also spread false state­ments about Ger­many’s Nazi his­to­ry (read DW’s fact check on these claims here). Many peo­ple online seem to believe the AfD lead­er’s asser­tion nonethe­less.

    ...

    Michael Wildt, a promi­nent his­to­ri­an of the Third Reich, also told DW that Wei­del’s claim was “huge non­sense.”

    “Hitler fought Marx­ism fierce­ly and bru­tal­ly right from the start,” Wildt said, “and the first vic­tims to be impris­oned, tor­tured and killed in the con­cen­tra­tion camps in 1933 were left­ists, com­mu­nists, Social Democ­rats and social­ists.”

    Hitler’s poli­cies direct­ly con­tra­dict­ed the goals of com­mu­nism. “From an eco­nom­ic point of view in par­tic­u­lar, Hitler was not a com­mu­nist,” Thomas Weber, his­to­ri­an and author of the book Becom­ing Hitler: The Mak­ing of a Nazi, told DW. “Eco­nom­i­cal­ly, com­mu­nism aims to over­come pri­vate prop­er­ty, to over­come a prof­it-ori­ent­ed econ­o­my and to trans­fer the most impor­tant means of pro­duc­tion (like mines and fac­to­ries) and nat­ur­al resources into com­mon prop­er­ty,” Weber said. Hitler reject­ed these aims.

    ‘He was an anti­semite and a racist’

    Hitler also can’t be described as a com­mu­nist “because he was an anti­semite and a racist,” Wildt said. “And that has noth­ing to do with the idea of a com­mu­nist soci­ety in which peo­ple are equal — rather, it is exact­ly the oppo­site.”

    The polit­i­cal move­ment of Nation­al Social­ism was not in fact social­ism. And it did not just emerge dur­ing Hitler’s time, but had already emerged after World War I, becom­ing increas­ing­ly entrenched toward World War II. “Nation­al Social­ism was extreme­ly nation­al­ist, anti-demo­c­ra­t­ic, anti-plu­ral­ist, anti­se­mit­ic, racist, impe­ri­al­ist and anti-com­mu­nist,” accord­ing to the Bran­den­burg Cen­ter for Polit­i­cal Edu­ca­tion web­site, which adds that the racist exclu­sion of minori­ties up to and includ­ing geno­cide played a cen­tral role in the ide­ol­o­gy.

    Nation­al Social­ism ben­e­fit­ed from some of the ideas of social­ism, using them to win work­ing-class votes en route to tak­ing pow­er in 1933. How­ev­er, the Nazi labor and social leg­is­la­tion that fol­lowed led to the sup­pres­sion, per­se­cu­tion and mur­der of com­mu­nists, Social Democ­rats and trade union­ists.

    “The essen­tial point here is that, from Hitler’s and many Nation­al Social­ists’ point of view, the ‘social­ism’ in the par­ty name was not an emp­ty for­mu­la or a trick,” Weber said. “Rather, it defined how Hitler saw him­self and how he want­ed to rebuild the world. He repeat­ed­ly empha­sized this in pri­vate and in pub­lic.”

    In the ear­ly days of the NSDAP, there was a self-pro­claimed social­ist wing, but this was elim­i­nat­ed before the par­ty came to pow­er in 1933. Hitler had Gre­gor Strass­er, a lead­ing fig­ure in this wing, killed in June 1934, along with oth­er oppo­nents with­in the par­ty. Though the so-called Strass­er wing sought a nation­al social­ism in favor of the Ger­man work­ing class, it was just as racist and anti­se­mit­ic as the rest of the NSDAP.

    ...

    “This ques­tion is usu­al­ly dis­cussed too nar­row­ly — along the lines of: was Hitler left-wing or right-wing?” Weber said. “And then either the right-wing side tries to por­tray Hitler as a clas­sic social­ist and left­ist, which makes no sense, or there is an attempt to reduce the use of the term ‘social­ism’ by Hitler and the Nation­al Social­ists to an elec­tion cam­paign ploy. That does­n’t make sense either, because it ignores how Hitler and the Nation­al Social­ists defined them­selves, how they saw the world, and how they tried to change the world.”

    ———–

    “Fact check: AfD head called Hitler ‘com­mu­nist.’ He was not” by Kathrin Wesolows­ki and Tetyana Klug; Deutsche Welle; 01/11/2025

    “But one claim in par­tic­u­lar, about the Nation­al Social­ist Ger­man Work­ers Par­ty (NSDAP), or Nazis, and World War II, was par­tic­u­lar­ly off: Wei­del said Adolf Hitler was not “right-wing,” but a “com­mu­nist.” This his­tor­i­cal revi­sion­ism, an attempt to retell the his­to­ry of Nation­al Social­ism, is not new. As nation­al­ists rise in inter­na­tion­al pol­i­tics, it is fre­quent­ly being repeat­ed.

    Hitler was actu­al­ly a left-wing com­mu­nist. If only the world under­stood. That was the gist of the con­ver­sa­tion between Elon Musk and AfD head Alice Wei­del, host­ed on Musk’s X.com plat­form, ensur­ing a mas­sive glob­al audi­ence for a meme that has been aggres­sive­ly pro­mot­ed in recent years:

    ...
    Claim: “[The Nation­al Social­ists] nation­al­ized the entire indus­try. ... The biggest suc­cess after that ter­ri­ble era in our his­to­ry was to label Adolf Hitler as right and con­ser­v­a­tive. He was exact­ly the oppo­site. He was­n’t a con­ser­v­a­tive. ... He was a com­mu­nist, social­ist guy,” Wei­del told Musk. In a fol­low-up inter­view with the Ger­man broad­cast­er ntv, she repeat­ed­ly empha­sized: “I don’t devi­ate from this either: Adolf Hitler was a left­ist.”.

    DW Fact check: False

    This claim is false and triv­i­al­izes the atroc­i­ties com­mit­ted under Hitler and the Nazis from 1933 through 1945. The AfD, which in Ger­many is often clas­si­fied as far right to extreme right, has repeat­ed­ly tried to dis­tance itself from Nazism. Right-wing politi­cians in the Unit­ed States, includ­ing Vice Pres­i­dent-elect JD Vance, have also spread false state­ments about Ger­many’s Nazi his­to­ry (read DW’s fact check on these claims here). Many peo­ple online seem to believe the AfD lead­er’s asser­tion nonethe­less.
    ...

    As his­to­ri­an Thomas Weber points out, it’s not that the Nazis did­n’t uti­lize the word “social­ism”. There was even a more explic­it­ly social­ist wing of the par­ty led by Gre­gor Strass­er. A wing that hap­pened to be mass mur­dered in June of 1934, a ref­er­ence to the Night of the Long Knives. So, sure, there was a more social­ist-lean­ing wing of the Nazi par­ty. It just hap­pened to be the wing that was mass mur­dered by Hitler’s unam­bigu­ous­ly fas­cist wing. And yet, as Weber notes, Hitler still viewed him­self as a kind of ‘social­ist’. A fas­cist far right con­cep­tion of ‘social­ism’ that isn’t remote­ly close to the tra­di­tion­al def­i­n­i­tions of social­ism. In oth­er words, a fas­cist word game is what com­pris­es the ker­nel of truth under­ly­ing the claims that Hitler was a com­mu­nist:

    ...
    Hitler’s poli­cies direct­ly con­tra­dict­ed the goals of com­mu­nism. “From an eco­nom­ic point of view in par­tic­u­lar, Hitler was not a com­mu­nist,” Thomas Weber, his­to­ri­an and author of the book Becom­ing Hitler: The Mak­ing of a Nazi, told DW. “Eco­nom­i­cal­ly, com­mu­nism aims to over­come pri­vate prop­er­ty, to over­come a prof­it-ori­ent­ed econ­o­my and to trans­fer the most impor­tant means of pro­duc­tion (like mines and fac­to­ries) and nat­ur­al resources into com­mon prop­er­ty,” Weber said. Hitler reject­ed these aims.

    ...

    Nation­al Social­ism ben­e­fit­ed from some of the ideas of social­ism, using them to win work­ing-class votes en route to tak­ing pow­er in 1933. How­ev­er, the Nazi labor and social leg­is­la­tion that fol­lowed led to the sup­pres­sion, per­se­cu­tion and mur­der of com­mu­nists, Social Democ­rats and trade union­ists.

    “The essen­tial point here is that, from Hitler’s and many Nation­al Social­ists’ point of view, the ‘social­ism’ in the par­ty name was not an emp­ty for­mu­la or a trick,” Weber said. “Rather, it defined how Hitler saw him­self and how he want­ed to rebuild the world. He repeat­ed­ly empha­sized this in pri­vate and in pub­lic.”

    In the ear­ly days of the NSDAP, there was a self-pro­claimed social­ist wing, but this was elim­i­nat­ed before the par­ty came to pow­er in 1933. <i>Hitler had Gre­gor Strass­er, a lead­ing fig­ure in this wing, killed in June 1934, along with oth­er oppo­nents with­in the par­ty. Though the so-called Strass­er wing sought a nation­al social­ism in favor of the Ger­man work­ing class, it was just as racist and anti­se­mit­ic as the rest of the NSDAP.

    ...

    “This ques­tion is usu­al­ly dis­cussed too nar­row­ly — along the lines of: was Hitler left-wing or right-wing?” Weber said. “And then either the right-wing side tries to por­tray Hitler as a clas­sic social­ist and left­ist, which makes no sense, or there is an attempt to reduce the use of the term ‘social­ism’ by Hitler and the Nation­al Social­ists to an elec­tion cam­paign ploy. That does­n’t make sense either, because it ignores how Hitler and the Nation­al Social­ists defined them­selves, how they saw the world, and how they tried to change the world.
    ...

    What kind of impact will Musk’s dis­turbing­ly cozy inter­view and full-throat­ed endorse­ment of the AfD have on Ger­many’s elec­tions? Time will tell. Soon too, with Ger­many’s elec­tions set for Feb­ru­ary 23, less than 5 weeks away. And as the fol­low­ing arti­cle describes, the groups try­ing to answer that ques­tion include the EU reg­u­la­tors tasked with ensur­ing media out­lets oper­at­ing in the EU are treat­ing politi­cians fair­ly, and not giv­ing one par­ty an unfair boost over oth­ers. And this team of EU Dig­i­tal Ser­vices Act enforcers aren’t just tasked with answer­ing that ques­tion. They also have the pow­er to issue fines up to 6 per­cent of glob­al annu­al rev­enues. But per­haps even scari­er, from Musk’s per­spec­tive, is that this group of reg­u­la­tors has dis­cov­ery pow­er that gives them access to X.com’s inter­nal mem­os and even the algo­rithms dri­ving X.com’s behav­ior. Which makes this the kind of inves­ti­ga­tion that could expose the pro-fas­cist secret sauce that has been guid­ing Twit­ter ever since it became X.com:

    Politi­co

    Brus­sels will be watch­ing whether Musk breaks EU law in far-right livestream

    Up to 150 experts in Brus­sels and Seville will be check­ing whether Musk’s livestream inter­view boosts the Ger­man far right.

    Jan­u­ary 9, 2025 4:27 am CET
    By Pieter Haeck

    BRUSSELS — When tech tycoon Elon Musk inter­views Ger­man far-right leader Alice Wei­del on X on Thurs­day night, Europe’s pow­er­ful tech reg­u­la­tors will be watch­ing close­ly for pos­si­ble vio­la­tions of EU law.

    They’ll be less con­cerned with the ban­ter than with how the Musk-owned plat­form and algo­rithm push­es the livestream to its more than 100 mil­lion EU users. In par­tic­u­lar, they’ll be eval­u­at­ing whether X gives an unfair cam­paign advan­tage to Wei­del’s Alter­na­tive for Ger­many (AfD) par­ty over its rivals.

    Musk’s online inter­view comes just weeks before Germany’s Feb. 23 gen­er­al elec­tion, with the anti-immi­gra­tion AfD cur­rent­ly polling sec­ond. Musk recent­ly praised the group as the “last spark of hope” for Ger­many, draw­ing wide­spread accu­sa­tions of elec­tion inter­fer­ence.

    A team of up to 150 Euro­pean Com­mis­sion offi­cials in Brus­sels and Seville will help scru­ti­nize whether Musk’s social media site plays by the Euro­pean Union’s tech rules. They wield far-reach­ing inves­tiga­tive pow­ers that allow them to vis­it X’s offices and request access to its algo­rithm and inter­nal cor­re­spon­dence.

    The Brus­sels-based enforcers of the Dig­i­tal Ser­vices Act (DSA) at the Commission’s DG CONNECT tech depart­ment are assist­ed by experts from the Euro­pean Cen­tre for Algo­rith­mic Trans­paren­cy in Spain.

    Evi­dence gath­ered Thurs­day evening could bol­ster the EU’s land­mark case against X under the DSA. The bloc for­mal­ly charged Musk’s plat­form with fail­ing to respect EU rules in July and is final­iz­ing its deci­sion — a first-of-its-kind ver­dict under the tech law.

    Don’t expect an out­come by Fri­day morn­ing, how­ev­er. The time­line is flu­id, and fin­ing X would like­ly trig­ger a diplo­mat­ic war with the incom­ing U.S. admin­is­tra­tion of Don­ald Trump, who has tak­en on Musk as a close advi­sor.

    ...

    EU tech czar Hen­na Virkkunen and her col­league Michael McGrath told law­mak­ers in a let­ter this week that the Com­mis­sion plans to “ener­get­i­cal­ly advance with the case” and “come to a con­clu­sion as ear­ly as legal­ly pos­si­ble.”

    The Com­mis­sion hasn’t yet imposed any of its poten­tial DSA penal­ties. Fines could go as high as 6 per­cent of glob­al year­ly rev­enue, and reg­u­la­tors could order firms in breach to take action to stop any prob­lems. Offi­cials can also put a com­pa­ny on watch via “an enhanced super­vi­sion peri­od to ensure com­pli­ance,” and issue dai­ly fines until they obey.

    Boost­ing the algo­rithm

    The EU’s dig­i­tal enforcers have already said their focus is on whether Musk bends the X algo­rithm in his favor, such as by boost­ing his con­tent or poten­tial­ly by giv­ing the AfD leader a larg­er plat­form and down­grad­ing con­tent from her rivals. Doing so would be con­sid­ered an unfair advan­tage and could be seen as a breach of EU social media law.

    ...

    X is such a large plat­form that it’s under the direct super­vi­sion of the EU’s DG CONNECT dig­i­tal depart­ment. The social media plat­form was the first tar­get of the DSA in Decem­ber 2023, with a probe that esca­lat­ed to charges in July for mis­lead­ing users, lack­ing trans­paren­cy, and fail­ing to share some pub­lic data.

    Reg­nier told POLITICO that the Commission’s DSA enforce­ment team could decide to widen the ongo­ing probe and send new requests to access infor­ma­tion based on how the algo­rithm han­dled the AfD livestream.

    Shiny new pow­ers

    Researchers note that the Com­mis­sion now has “shiny” new addi­tion­al pow­ers to assess whether the stream got a boost.

    The first option is to ask X for “any inter­nal mem­os or com­mu­ni­ca­tions on the top­ic,” said Math­ias Ver­meulen, pub­lic pol­i­cy direc­tor at the AWO Agency law firm.

    Ver­meulen point­ed to media inves­ti­ga­tions sug­gest­ing that when Musk’s 2023 post about the Super Bowl received less engage­ment than a post from U.S. Pres­i­dent Joe Biden, Musk’s inner cir­cle took the mat­ter to the company’s Slack mes­sag­ing plat­form to ral­ly a team of engi­neers to boost his reach.

    If some­thing sim­i­lar hap­pens now, the EU exec­u­tive could look for traces of such cor­re­spon­dence.

    “The [Euro­pean Com­mis­sion] can request mes­sages that are pub­licly post­ed on Slack,” Ver­meulen said.

    Anoth­er route is to pull apart the platform’s rec­om­men­da­tion algo­rithm.

    The EU’s social media law impos­es extra trans­paren­cy require­ments on plat­forms using rec­om­mender sys­tems. This is where the EU’s algo­rithm experts in Seville come in, a team of some 30 peo­ple who can help ana­lyze how the plat­form decides what to pro­mote.

    “The Com­mis­sion could look at whether Alice Wei­del, or any oth­er user for that mat­ter, received a so-called pow­er user mul­ti­pli­er score in its rec­om­men­da­tion algo­rithms,” Ver­meulen explained.

    ...

    A study at Queens­land Uni­ver­si­ty last year found indi­ca­tions that X might have tweaked its algo­rithm to boost the reach and engage­ment of Musk’s posts.

    Prob­ing self-pro­mo­tion

    Musk has emerged in recent months as a top ally of U.S. Pres­i­dent-elect Don­ald Trump, fir­ing off heat­ed com­ments about Euro­pean pol­i­tics. Euro­pean politi­cians and law­mak­ers have react­ed by press­ing the Com­mis­sion to inves­ti­gate his pos­si­ble self-pro­mo­tion.

    “What I’m try­ing to find out is if Musk is using a large infor­ma­tion plat­form that he owns in ways which could dimin­ish the free­dom of speech of oth­ers, by hard-cod­ing a mul­ti­pli­er into his own reach,” Ger­man Greens MEP Dami­an Boe­se­lager told POLITICO on Mon­day, hav­ing for­mal­ly asked Virkkunen to exam­ine the issue.

    ...

    ———–

    “Brus­sels will be watch­ing whether Musk breaks EU law in far-right livestream” By Pieter Haeck; Politi­co; 01/09/2025

    “A team of up to 150 Euro­pean Com­mis­sion offi­cials in Brus­sels and Seville will help scru­ti­nize whether Musk’s social media site plays by the Euro­pean Union’s tech rules. They wield far-reach­ing inves­tiga­tive pow­ers that allow them to vis­it X’s offices and request access to its algo­rithm and inter­nal cor­re­spon­dence.

    Far-reach­ing inves­tiga­tive pow­ers that include gain­ing access to not just inter­nal cor­re­spon­dences but even X’s algo­rithms. This isn’t a low stakes threat. A probe like that might start off inves­ti­gat­ing with­er or not X.com was giv­ing an unfair advan­tage to the AfD, but who knows what else they could end up dis­cov­er­ing:

    ...
    They’ll be less con­cerned with the ban­ter than with how the Musk-owned plat­form and algo­rithm push­es the livestream to its more than 100 mil­lion EU users. In par­tic­u­lar, they’ll be eval­u­at­ing whether X gives an unfair cam­paign advan­tage to Wei­del’s Alter­na­tive for Ger­many (AfD) par­ty over its rivals.

    Musk’s online inter­view comes just weeks before Germany’s Feb. 23 gen­er­al elec­tion, with the anti-immi­gra­tion AfD cur­rent­ly polling sec­ond. Musk recent­ly praised the group as the “last spark of hope” for Ger­many, draw­ing wide­spread accu­sa­tions of elec­tion inter­fer­ence.

    ...

    The EU’s dig­i­tal enforcers have already said their focus is on whether Musk bends the X algo­rithm in his favor, such as by boost­ing his con­tent or poten­tial­ly by giv­ing the AfD leader a larg­er plat­form and down­grad­ing con­tent from her rivals. Doing so would be con­sid­ered an unfair advan­tage and could be seen as a breach of EU social media law.

    ...

    X is such a large plat­form that it’s under the direct super­vi­sion of the EU’s DG CONNECT dig­i­tal depart­ment. The social media plat­form was the first tar­get of the DSA in Decem­ber 2023, with a probe that esca­lat­ed to charges in July for mis­lead­ing users, lack­ing trans­paren­cy, and fail­ing to share some pub­lic data.

    Reg­nier told POLITICO that the Commission’s DSA enforce­ment team could decide to widen the ongo­ing probe and send new requests to access infor­ma­tion based on how the algo­rithm han­dled the AfD livestream.

    ...

    Anoth­er route is to pull apart the platform’s rec­om­men­da­tion algo­rithm.

    The EU’s social media law impos­es extra trans­paren­cy require­ments on plat­forms using rec­om­mender sys­tems. This is where the EU’s algo­rithm experts in Seville come in, a team of some 30 peo­ple who can help ana­lyze how the plat­form decides what to pro­mote.

    “The Com­mis­sion could look at whether Alice Wei­del, or any oth­er user for that mat­ter, received a so-called pow­er user mul­ti­pli­er score in its rec­om­men­da­tion algo­rithms,” Ver­meulen explained.

    ...

    A study at Queens­land Uni­ver­si­ty last year found indi­ca­tions that X might have tweaked its algo­rithm to boost the reach and engage­ment of Musk’s posts.
    ...

    And note how this isn’t just an inves­ti­ga­tion into whether or not X.com was giv­ing the AfD an unfair boost. The boost­ing of Elon Musk’s own speech on the plat­form — which he is most assured­ly doing — is also a poten­tial grounds for fines under EU law. It’s the kind of reg­u­la­to­ry over­sight that is bound to trig­ger Musk’s ire, in part because the evi­dence will like­ly be over­whelm­ing and prob­a­bly found in the com­pa­ny’s own Slack mes­sages:

    ...
    Researchers note that the Com­mis­sion now has “shiny” new addi­tion­al pow­ers to assess whether the stream got a boost.

    The first option is to ask X for “any inter­nal mem­os or com­mu­ni­ca­tions on the top­ic,” said Math­ias Ver­meulen, pub­lic pol­i­cy direc­tor at the AWO Agency law firm.

    Ver­meulen point­ed to media inves­ti­ga­tions sug­gest­ing that when Musk’s 2023 post about the Super Bowl received less engage­ment than a post from U.S. Pres­i­dent Joe Biden, Musk’s inner cir­cle took the mat­ter to the company’s Slack mes­sag­ing plat­form to ral­ly a team of engi­neers to boost his reach.

    If some­thing sim­i­lar hap­pens now, the EU exec­u­tive could look for traces of such cor­re­spon­dence.

    “The [Euro­pean Com­mis­sion] can request mes­sages that are pub­licly post­ed on Slack,” Ver­meulen said.

    ...

    Musk has emerged in recent months as a top ally of U.S. Pres­i­dent-elect Don­ald Trump, fir­ing off heat­ed com­ments about Euro­pean pol­i­tics. Euro­pean politi­cians and law­mak­ers have react­ed by press­ing the Com­mis­sion to inves­ti­gate his pos­si­ble self-pro­mo­tion.

    “What I’m try­ing to find out is if Musk is using a large infor­ma­tion plat­form that he owns in ways which could dimin­ish the free­dom of speech of oth­ers, by hard-cod­ing a mul­ti­pli­er into his own reach,” Ger­man Greens MEP Dami­an Boe­se­lager told POLITICO on Mon­day, hav­ing for­mal­ly asked Virkkunen to exam­ine the issue.
    ...

    And as the arti­cle reminds us, the poten­tial inves­ti­ga­tion into X.com’s boost­ing of the AfD would be on top of an land­mark case against X.com already under­way, with fines that could go as high as 6 per­cent of glob­al year­ly rev­enue. These are reg­u­la­tions with teeth:

    ...
    The Brus­sels-based enforcers of the Dig­i­tal Ser­vices Act (DSA) at the Commission’s DG CONNECT tech depart­ment are assist­ed by experts from the Euro­pean Cen­tre for Algo­rith­mic Trans­paren­cy in Spain.

    Evi­dence gath­ered Thurs­day evening could bol­ster the EU’s land­mark case against X under the DSA. The bloc for­mal­ly charged Musk’s plat­form with fail­ing to respect EU rules in July and is final­iz­ing its deci­sion — a first-of-its-kind ver­dict under the tech law.

    Don’t expect an out­come by Fri­day morn­ing, how­ev­er. The time­line is flu­id, and fin­ing X would like­ly trig­ger a diplo­mat­ic war with the incom­ing U.S. admin­is­tra­tion of Don­ald Trump, who has tak­en on Musk as a close advi­sor.

    ...

    EU tech czar Hen­na Virkkunen and her col­league Michael McGrath told law­mak­ers in a let­ter this week that the Com­mis­sion plans to “ener­get­i­cal­ly advance with the case” and “come to a con­clu­sion as ear­ly as legal­ly pos­si­ble.”

    The Com­mis­sion hasn’t yet imposed any of its poten­tial DSA penal­ties. Fines could go as high as 6 per­cent of glob­al year­ly rev­enue, and reg­u­la­tors could order firms in breach to take action to stop any prob­lems. Offi­cials can also put a com­pa­ny on watch via “an enhanced super­vi­sion peri­od to ensure com­pli­ance,” and issue dai­ly fines until they obey.
    ...

    It’s hard to imag­ine Musk is just going to accept an EU inves­ti­ga­tion with all of these poten­tial ram­i­fi­ca­tions. And yet, it’s not clear what Musk on his own can do oth­er than threat­en­ing to pull out of the EU mar­ket. Oth­er than run­ning to Don­ald Trump for pro­tec­tion. Which is exact­ly what appears to be hap­pen­ing. Except it’s not Musk ask­ing for this favor. As we can see, cajol­ing Don­ald Trump into behav­ing Sil­i­con Val­ley’s pit-bull is turn­ing into a group effort, with Mark Zucker­berg serv­ing as grov­el­er-in-chief:

    Politi­co

    Zucker­berg urges Trump to stop the EU from fin­ing US tech com­pa­nies

    Com­par­ing the bloc’s antitrust penal­ties to tar­iffs, the Meta boss argued that Brus­sels is “screw­ing with” Amer­i­can indus­try.

    Jan­u­ary 11, 2025 11:18 am CET
    By Aitor Hernán­dez-Morales

    The U.S. gov­ern­ment under incom­ing Pres­i­dent Don­ald Trump should inter­vene to stop the EU from fin­ing Amer­i­can tech com­pa­nies for breach­ing antitrust rules and com­mit­ting oth­er vio­la­tions, Meta chief exec­u­tive Mark Zucker­berg said late Fri­day.

    “I think it’s a strate­gic advan­tage for the Unit­ed States that we have a lot of the strongest com­pa­nies in the world, and I think it should be part of the U.S. strat­e­gy going for­ward to defend that,” Zucker­berg said dur­ing an appear­ance on the Joe Rogan Expe­ri­ence pod­cast.

    “And it’s one of the things that I’m opti­mistic about with Pres­i­dent Trump,” he added. The U.S. pres­i­dent-elect appeared on the same pro­gram on the eve of Novem­ber’s Amer­i­can pres­i­den­tial elec­tion and cit­ed Rogan’s endorse­ment as a fac­tor in his sup­port among vot­ers. “I think he just wants Amer­i­ca to win,” Zucker­berg said about Trump.

    Zucker­berg com­plained that the EU had forced U.S. tech com­pa­nies oper­at­ing in Europe to pay “more than $30 bil­lion” in penal­ties for legal vio­la­tions over the past two decades. Last Novem­ber, the tech chief’s Meta con­glom­er­ate, which oper­ates Face­book, Insta­gram, What­sApp and oth­er social media and com­mu­ni­ca­tions plat­forms, was fined €797 mil­lion for breach­ing EU antitrust rules by impos­ing unfair trad­ing con­di­tions on ads ser­vice providers.

    Zucker­berg argued that the Euro­pean Com­mis­sion’s appli­ca­tion of com­pe­ti­tion rules is “almost like a tar­iff” on Amer­i­can tech com­pa­nies and said that U.S. Pres­i­dent Joe Biden’s out­go­ing admin­is­tra­tion had failed to deal with the sit­u­a­tion.

    ...

    Zucker­berg’s appear­ance on Rogan’s pod­cast comes just days after he announced that Meta will end its third-par­ty fact-check­ing pro­gram and move to a so-called com­mu­ni­ty notes mod­el. The move has been wide­ly inter­pret­ed as an attempt by Zucker­berg to ingra­ti­ate him­self with the incom­ing Trump admin­is­tra­tion, which has long denounced the mod­er­a­tion pol­i­cy as cen­sor­ship with a left-wing bias.

    Acknowl­edg­ing the chang­ing “legal and pol­i­cy land­scape,” Meta on Fri­day also said that it would ter­mi­nate its diver­si­ty, equi­ty and inclu­sion (DEI) pro­grams.

    ————

    “Zucker­berg urges Trump to stop the EU from fin­ing US tech com­pa­nies” By Aitor Hernán­dez-Morales; Politi­co; 01/11/2025

    “Zucker­berg’s appear­ance on Rogan’s pod­cast comes just days after he announced that Meta will end its third-par­ty fact-check­ing pro­gram and move to a so-called com­mu­ni­ty notes mod­el. The move has been wide­ly inter­pret­ed as an attempt by Zucker­berg to ingra­ti­ate him­self with the incom­ing Trump admin­is­tra­tion, which has long denounced the mod­er­a­tion pol­i­cy as cen­sor­ship with a left-wing bias.

    As we can see, the grov­el­ing is in full swing. Zucker­berg has a clear strat­e­gy for dodg­ing EU fines and reg­u­la­tions: befriend Trump and have him bul­ly the EU into drop­ping the rules. Or at least drop­ping the rules when it comes to US tech firms.

    It’s not par­tic­u­lar­ly sur­pris­ing to see Zucker­berg pub­licly pros­trate him­self like this. As the fol­low­ing Reuters piece from back in Novem­ber notes, Meta was just fined near­ly $841 mil­lion by the EU for abu­sive mar­ket­place prac­tices and that’s just the lat­est in a series of sig­nif­i­cant fines levied against not just Meta for a range of Sil­i­con Val­ley giants, includ­ing Apple and Google. Which is a reminder that Zucker­berg was­n’t just pros­trat­ing him­self for his own sake. He was doing it on behalf of the Tech Indus­tri­al Com­plex:

    Asso­ci­at­ed Press

    EU slaps Meta with a near­ly 800 mil­lion euro fine for engag­ing in ‘abu­sive’ Mar­ket­place prac­tices

    By KELVIN CHAN
    Updat­ed 9:39 AM CST, Novem­ber 14, 2024

    LONDON (AP) — Euro­pean Union reg­u­la­tors issued their first antitrust fine to Face­book par­ent Meta on Thurs­day with a penal­ty of near­ly 800 mil­lion euros for what they call “abu­sive prac­tices” involv­ing its Mar­ket­place online clas­si­fied ads busi­ness.

    The Euro­pean Com­mis­sion, the 27-nation bloc’s exec­u­tive branch and top antitrust enforcer, issued the 797.72 mil­lion euro ($841 mil­lion) penal­ty after its long-run­ning inves­ti­ga­tion found that the com­pa­ny abused its dom­i­nant posi­tion and engaged in anti-com­pet­i­tive behav­ior.

    It’s the first time the EU has imposed a fine on the social media giant for breach­es of the bloc’s com­pe­ti­tion law. Brus­sels has already slapped Big Tech rivals Google and Apple with bil­lions in antitrust penal­ties.

    The com­mis­sion had accused Meta of dis­tort­ing com­pe­ti­tion by tying its online clas­si­fied ad busi­ness to its social net­work, auto­mat­i­cal­ly expos­ing Face­book users to Mar­ket­place “whether they want it or not” and shut­ting out com­peti­tors.

    It was also con­cerned that Meta was impos­ing unfair trad­ing con­di­tions with terms of ser­vice that autho­rized the com­pa­ny to use ad-relat­ed data — gen­er­at­ed from com­pet­ing clas­si­fied ad plat­forms who adver­tise on Face­book or Insta­gram — to ben­e­fit Mar­ket­place.

    Meta’s prac­tices gave it “advan­tages that oth­er online clas­si­fied ads ser­vice providers could not match,” Mar­grethe Vestager, the commission’s exec­u­tive vice-pres­i­dent in charge of com­pe­ti­tion pol­i­cy, said in a press release “This is ille­gal under EU antitrust rules. Meta must now stop this behav­iour.”

    ...

    Meta said it would com­ply with the Commission’s order to end the offend­ing con­duct and not repeat it, but also vowed to appeal.

    The case dates back to 2021, when Euro­pean Union reg­u­la­tors and their coun­ter­parts in Britain opened dual inves­ti­ga­tions into the clas­si­fied busi­ness. The British reg­u­la­tor wrapped up its inves­ti­ga­tion last year after Meta made con­ces­sions.

    The com­pa­ny con­tin­ues to face EU scruti­ny on oth­er fronts, includ­ing inves­ti­ga­tions into whether Face­book and Insta­gram child safe­ty and elec­tion integri­ty mea­sures com­ply with the bloc’s dig­i­tal rule­book. Meta has pre­vi­ous­ly been hit with a series of fines for breach­es of the EU’s strin­gent pri­va­cy laws, includ­ing a record 1.2 bil­lion euro penal­ty last year.

    ———-

    “EU slaps Meta with a near­ly 800 mil­lion euro fine for engag­ing in ‘abu­sive’ Mar­ket­place prac­tices” By KELVIN CHAN; Asso­ci­at­ed Press; 11/14/2024

    “It’s the first time the EU has imposed a fine on the social media giant for breach­es of the bloc’s com­pe­ti­tion law. Brus­sels has already slapped Big Tech rivals Google and Apple with bil­lions in antitrust penal­ties.”

    It’s a first for the EU. Will it be the last? That’s for Trump to decide. At least that’s the par­a­digm we appear to have entered. The US bul­ly­ing oth­er coun­tries isn’t a new thing. But it’s not usu­al­ly this explic­it. Trump’s sov­er­eign­ty knows no bounds. The bul­ly-in-chief on the world’s play­ground.

    Or at least that’s the plan for the sec­ond Trump admin­is­tra­tion. Trump’s plan. But also, obvi­ous­ly, the tech oli­garchy’s plan. And when it all hap­pens to end in some sort of glob­al dis­as­ter, they can just even­tu­al­ly explain to every­one how Trump was actu­al­ly a com­mu­nist.

    Posted by Pterrafractyl | January 18, 2025, 7:27 pm
  2. No one said the Project 2025 purge was going to be pret­ty. Or polite. Or con­sti­tu­tion­al. And as we’re all learn­ing, just because some­thing isn’t con­sti­tu­tion­al does­n’t mean it can’t hap­pen. And it’s hap­pen­ing. It’s uncon­sti­tu­tion­al­ly exec­u­tive order after anoth­er. A “a blitzkrieg on the law and the con­sti­tu­tion,” as Lau­rence Tribe put it. And very much in keep­ing with the Repub­li­can Par­ty’s decades long quest to estab­lish the Uni­tary Exec­u­tive.

    But the uncon­sti­tu­tion­al­i­ty of this moment isn’t lim­it­ed to Pres­i­dent Trump’s litany of exec­u­tive orders. Orders which were large­ly pre­pared well in advance from the Project 2025 play­book. There’s also the increas­ing­ly uncon­sti­tu­tion­al behav­ior of the ‘Depart­ment of Gov­ern­ment Effi­cien­cy’ (DOGE), which has been effec­tive­ly oper­at­ing like the Project 2025 tech­nol­o­gy arm and engag­ing in what amounts to a kind of ‘hack’ of the US gov­ern­men­t’s tech­ni­cal infra­struc­ture. The ran­dom peo­ple — large­ly young men — tapped by Elon Musk to car­ry out his ‘DOGE’ activ­i­ties now have more pow­er than almost any­one in the US. And no one under­stands what their plans are and what lim­its there are on their activ­i­ties. We real­ly are in unchart­ed ter­ri­to­ry here.

    Not entire­ly unchart­ed ter­ri­to­ry, of course. The US’s has arguably had an out-of-con­trol nation­al secu­ri­ty state effec­tive­ly covert­ly run­ning many aspects of the coun­try since at least Novem­ber 22, 1963. But this real­ly is new in terms of how out in the open it all is. Made all the weird­er by the absur­dist ‘anti-Deep State’ MAGA nar­ra­tive under­pin­ning the whole thing.

    And that brings us to one of the more remark­able actions in these open­ing Project 2025 salvos: the uni­lat­er­al deci­sion by the Trump admin­is­tra­tion to dis­solve U.S. Agency for Inter­na­tion­al Devel­op­ment (USAID) and have the State Depart­ment sub­sume its oper­a­tions. A deci­sion that involved send­ing Elon Musk and his team of hack­ers to the USAID head­quar­ters that result­ed in a show­down between the ‘DOGE’ team and USAID’s secu­ri­ty offi­cers. A shut­down won DOGE team and result­ing in the fir­ing of USAID’s secu­ri­ty offi­cers, along with the res­ig­na­tion of USAID’s recent­ly appoint­ed new chief. And, in turn, the DOGE team was grant­ed to the entire­ty of the USAID head­quar­ters includ­ing the ‘sen­si­tive com­part­ment­ed infor­ma­tion facil­i­ty’ aka the SCIF.

    Now, it’s not hard to imag­ine a US agency tasked with glob­al char­i­ta­ble work would have the need for all sorts of sen­si­tive doc­u­ments that could end up in a SCIF. But, of course, USAID isn’t just a char­i­ta­ble orga­ni­za­tion. It’s also a known front for all sorts of US intel­li­gence work, with makes the grant­i­ng of this SCIF access to Musk’s team of DOGE hack­ers all the more remark­able. What kinds of nation­al secu­ri­ty secrets did the DOGE team just access? And what are they doing with that infor­ma­tion?

    So is Musk fram­ing the dis­so­lu­tion of USAID as part of the ‘war on the Deep State’? Well, sort of. But it’s real­ly being frame more as the more on ‘DEI’, with Musk and Trump both char­ac­ter­iz­ing the agency as being run by a bunch of ‘rad­i­cal Marx­ists’. It’s the kind of fram­ing con­sis­tent with the absur­dist far right nar­ra­tive about the ‘Deep State’ some­how being a left-wing enti­ty. Sort of like Musk’s recent boost­ing of the far right meme that Hitler was actu­al­ly a com­mu­nist. This is a good time to recall how the Vic­tims of Com­mu­nism Memo­r­i­al Foun­da­tion received mil­lions of dol­lars in grants from US gov­ern­ment agen­cies, includ­ing USAID. It’s hard to get more anti-com­mu­nist than the Vic­tims of Com­mu­nism Memo­r­i­al Foun­da­tion.

    But there’s anoth­er very inter­est­ing area of USAID’s his­to­ry that Musk has explic­it­ly cit­ed as an exam­ple of the agen­cy’s ill intent: USAID’s fund­ing of the Eco­Health Alliance’s gain-of-func­tion research on coro­n­avirus­es. Now, on the one hand, that’s an accu­sa­tion based on very real his­to­ry. But on the oth­er hand, it’s the kind of his­to­ry that Musk, and espe­cial­ly Trump, may not want to talk about. At least not accu­rate­ly. After all, the US’s mora­to­ri­um on gain-of-func­tion research was lift­ed in Decem­ber of 2017, dur­ing Trump’s first term. And as we’ve also seen, while that mora­to­ri­um was lift­ed in Decem­ber of 2017, it appears the Eco­Health Alliance was allowed to fund the research in Wuhan while the mora­to­ri­um was in place. The Trump admin­is­tra­tion extend­ed the Eco­Health Alliance’s con­tract for anoth­er five years in 2019 before ter­mi­nat­ing it in April of 2020. And while the nar­ra­tive con­ser­v­a­tive push about the Eco­Health Alliance’s alleged role in the COVID pan­dem­ic is almost uni­form­ly focused on the fund­ing of the Chi­nese lab in Wuhan, the much larg­er sto­ry also involves exten­sive par­al­lel research con­duct­ed inside in Unit­ed States. Any hon­est inves­ti­ga­tion of the lab ori­gins of the pan­dem­ic would have to include that domes­tic research. Much of which, again, hap­pened dur­ing Trump’s first term. Are the ‘DOGE’ hack­ers going to be inves­ti­gat­ing that his­to­ry with their unprece­dent­ed access to these agency records? Of course not.

    And then there’s anoth­er major are of USAID’s focus in recent years: Ukraine. As we’re going to see, USAID alone had donat­ed rough­ly $46 bil­lion in aid to Ukraine since 2022 alone. What kind of covert intel­li­gence pro­grams might there be hid­ing in that $46 bil­lion in aid? How about covert sup­port for Ukraine’s many Nazi-affil­i­at­ed orga­ni­za­tions like Azov of Right Sec­tor? How will DOGE’s mass audit of USAID han­dle those kinds of rev­e­la­tions. The Ukrain­ian Nazis’ ide­ol­o­gy of a glob­al white suprema­cist strug­gle is very much align with Musk’s world­view at this point, after all. And let’s not for­get about the Russ­ian alle­ga­tions of Pen­ta­gon-fund­ed Ukrain­ian bio­labs where migra­to­ry birds were being weaponized to spread dis­eases in a tar­get­ed man­ner. Is the DOGE team plan­ning on reveal­ing those kinds of pro­grams too?

    That’s all part of the grim con­text of this deci­sion to send a team of DOGE hack­ers into the USAID’s head­quar­ters to grant them access to vir­tu­al­ly all of the agen­cy’s most secure doc­u­ments. There is undoubt­ed­ly A LOT hid­ing under that rock. USAID real­ly is a covert intel­li­gence front. But, con­trary to the ‘rad­i­cal Marx­ist’ nar­ra­tive that has cap­tures MAG­A­’s imag­i­na­tion when it comes to the US nation­al secu­ri­ty state, the scan­dals hid­ing under that rock are almost cer­tain­ly right-wing in nature, whether they were approved by a Demo­c­ra­t­ic or Repub­li­can admin­is­tra­tion. The under­ly­ing agen­da of US’s nation­al secu­ri­ty state is very much a con­ser­v­a­tive agen­da that is extreme­ly aligned with the Trump/Musk far right ide­ol­o­gy, after all. Which is also a reminder that this push to ‘expose the Deep State’ also serves as a won­der­ful excuse to purge the US gov­ern­men­t’s of the records of the egre­gious crimes com­mit­ted under the first Trump admin­is­tra­tion and all the yet-to-be-exposed crimes from decades past. Along with an excuse to put the Uni­tary Exec­u­tive in place and final­ly do away with con­sti­tu­tion­al checks and bal­ances:

    The Wash­ing­ton Post

    Trump moves to wrest con­trol of USAID as Musk says ‘we’re shut­ting it down’

    In the lat­est action, two top secu­ri­ty offi­cials at the inde­pen­dent agency were removed after they refused access to restrict­ed spaces to Elon Musk’s rep­re­sen­ta­tives. Musk said ear­ly Mon­day he’s in the process of clos­ing the agency.

    Updat­ed
    Feb­ru­ary 3, 2025 at 2:45 a.m. EST
    By John Hud­son, Ellen Nakashima, Mis­sy Ryan, Mar­i­ana Alfaroand Faiz Sid­diqui

    The Trump admin­is­tra­tion and its allies moved to tight­en con­trol of the U.S. Agency for Inter­na­tion­al Devel­op­ment over the week­end, sig­nal­ing an intent to act force­ful­ly to bring the U.S. for­eign pol­i­cy appa­ra­tus in line with the president’s “Amer­i­ca First” approach to engag­ing with the world.

    Cur­rent and for­mer offi­cials said the admin­is­tra­tion removed two top secu­ri­ty offi­cials at USAID on Sat­ur­day after they refused to allow rep­re­sen­ta­tives of the office led by bil­lion­aire Elon Musk access to restrict­ed spaces at the agency.

    The place­ment of the secu­ri­ty offi­cials — John Voorhees and his deputy — on admin­is­tra­tive leave is alarm­ing sev­er­al law­mak­ers con­cerned about secu­ri­ty pro­to­cols as the Trump admin­is­tra­tion and Musk aim to wrest con­trol of the world’s largest provider of food assis­tance. Since Pres­i­dent Don­ald Trump took office two weeks ago, the agency has been under siege and whip­sawed by aid freezes, per­son­nel purges and con­fu­sion.

    Musk, head­ing a gov­ern­ment effi­cien­cy effort under Trump, said on X ear­ly Mon­day that he is in the process clos­ing the agency with Trump’s bless­ing.

    “I went over it with him in detail, and he agreed that we should shut it down,” Musk said. “And I actu­al­ly checked with him a few times [and] said ‘are you sure?’”

    The answer was yes, he said.

    “And so we’re shut­ting it down,” Musk said.

    ...

    Amid the tur­moil, Matt Hop­son, the USAID chief of staff and a polit­i­cal appointee, resigned, accord­ing to a cur­rent and for­mer USAID offi­cial who spoke on the con­di­tion of anonymi­ty to dis­cuss a sen­si­tive sit­u­a­tion. Hop­son did not respond to requests for com­ment.

    Voorhees was put on leave after he did not allow offi­cials from the “Depart­ment of Gov­ern­ment Effi­cien­cy” to access a sen­si­tive com­part­ment­ed infor­ma­tion facil­i­ty — com­mon­ly known as a SCIF — an ultra-secure room where offi­cials and gov­ern­ment con­trac­tors take extra­or­di­nary pre­cau­tions to review high­ly clas­si­fied infor­ma­tion, accord­ing to three cur­rent and for­mer USAID offi­cials.

    A group of about eight DOGE offi­cials entered the USAID build­ing Sat­ur­day and demand­ed access to every door and floor, despite only a few of them hav­ing secu­ri­ty clear­ance, accord­ing to a Sen­ate Demo­c­ra­t­ic staff mem­ber who spoke on the con­di­tion of anonymi­ty to describe the inci­dent.

    When USAID per­son­nel attempt­ed to block access to some areas, DOGE offi­cials threat­ened to call fed­er­al mar­shals, the aide said. The DOGE offi­cials were even­tu­al­ly giv­en access to “secure spaces” includ­ing the secu­ri­ty office.

    The Sen­ate staffer also said top offi­cials from USAID’s office and the bulk of the staff in USAID’s Bureau for Leg­isla­tive and Pub­lic Affairs were put on leave lat­er Sat­ur­day. Some of them were not noti­fied but had their access to agency ter­mi­nals sus­pend­ed.

    ...

    Over the week­end, Musk repeat­ed­ly den­i­grat­ed USAID with­out offer­ing evi­dence that those work­ing there were cor­rupt. On X, he called the long-stand­ing gov­ern­ment agency “evil” and a “viper’s nest of rad­i­cal-left marx­ists who hate Amer­i­ca.”

    “USAID is a crim­i­nal orga­ni­za­tion,” he added. “Time for it to die.”

    Musk also had sharp words for the agency dur­ing an X Spaces livestream ear­ly Mon­day, when he was joined by Vivek Ramaswamy — for­mer co-head of DOGE in its pri­or iter­a­tion, when it was an out­side group empow­ered to make rec­om­men­da­tions — and Sen. Joni Ernst (R‑Iowa).

    “USAID is a ball of worms,” Musk said. “There is no apple.”

    “It’s got­ta go. It’s beyond repair,” he added.

    Estab­lished in 1961 by Pres­i­dent John F. Kennedy, USAID over­sees a vast port­fo­lio of pro­grams designed to pro­vide human­i­tar­i­an relief, com­bat pover­ty, sup­port glob­al health and more. In 2023, it man­aged appro­pri­a­tions worth $40 bil­lion, accord­ing to the Con­gres­sion­al Research Ser­vice. USAID is present in more than 100 coun­tries from Ukraine to Peru. The agency’s staff num­bers more than 10,000, the major­i­ty of whom are over­seas.

    ...

    The purge of USAID per­son­nel and freez­ing of for­eign assis­tance have caused ten­sion between Trump offi­cials and con­gres­sion­al staff mem­bers, who have clashed over the val­ue of key projects and the administration’s plans to fold USAID with­in the State Depart­ment, said U.S. offi­cials famil­iar with the mat­ter.

    Dur­ing those dis­cus­sions, senior State Depart­ment offi­cial Peter Maroc­co was unable to pro­vide answers on what aid was paused, includ­ing sen­si­tive pro­grams in Ukraine, which is fend­ing off an inva­sion from Rus­sia, the offi­cials said. State Depart­ment spokes­peo­ple have also been unable to pro­vide answers about what cas­es are exempt from Trump’s freeze.

    The news of the top two secu­ri­ty offi­cials being put on leave was ear­li­er report­ed by CNN. News of Hopson’s res­ig­na­tion was first report­ed by Reuters.

    Late Sun­day, Trump also implied that the ousters of USAID offi­cials were jus­ti­fied, with­out cit­ing any evi­dence.

    “It’s been run by a bunch of rad­i­cal lunatics. And we’re get­ting them out,” he told reporters after return­ing to Wash­ing­ton from spend­ing the week­end in Palm Beach, Flori­da.

    ...

    Ten Demo­c­ra­t­ic sen­a­tors, includ­ing Sen. Jeanne Sha­heen (D‑New Hamp­shire), the top Demo­c­rat on the Sen­ate For­eign Rela­tions Com­mit­tee, warned Sec­re­tary of State Mar­co Rubio in a let­ter that any steps to dis­man­tle USAID would need con­gres­sion­al approval and asked for an update on the weekend’s events.

    Sha­heen, in a sep­a­rate mes­sage to The Wash­ing­ton Post, said she is “seek­ing imme­di­ate answers about any impli­ca­tions for our nation­al secu­ri­ty and … bring­ing a group of bipar­ti­san Sen­a­tors togeth­er on this as soon as the Sen­ate comes back tomor­row.”

    “Reports that indi­vid­u­als with­out appro­pri­ate clear­ance may have accessed clas­si­fied USAID spaces as well as Amer­i­can cit­i­zens’ per­son­al infor­ma­tion are incred­i­bly seri­ous and unprece­dent­ed,” Sha­heen said.

    Sen. Tim Kaine (D‑Virginia), who sits on the same com­mit­tee, said there is “no cir­cum­stance under which indi­vid­u­als with­out prop­er secu­ri­ty clear­ances should be giv­en access to our nation’s most sen­si­tive secrets and sys­tems.”

    “This is exact­ly what Chi­na, Rus­sia and Iran want,” Kaine said. “This poten­tial­ly crim­i­nal inci­dent must be inves­ti­gat­ed thor­ough­ly and imme­di­ate­ly. I com­mend the efforts of USAID staff who have shown time and again that their first and fore­most pri­or­i­ty is serv­ing their coun­try, not the whims of an unelect­ed and cor­rupt bil­lion­aire.”

    But con­gres­sion­al Repub­li­cans have expressed inter­est in shrink­ing — or los­ing — USAID as an inde­pen­dent agency. Rep. Bri­an Mast (R‑Florida), chair­man of the House For­eign Affairs Com­mit­tee, told CBS News’s “Face the Nation” Sun­day that he “absolute­ly” would be in sup­port of chang­ing USAID’s sta­tus.

    Mast, how­ev­er, did not answer a ques­tion on whether con­gres­sion­al approval would be required to close USAID as an inde­pen­dent agency, as would like­ly be required by law. Instead, he said that the office needs to be restruc­tured and that “purg­ing” offi­cials through­out the State Depart­ment and oth­er agen­cies, as well as the freez­ing of for­eign aid, are all “very impor­tant and nec­es­sary steps to make sure that we secure Amer­i­ca.”

    Trump named Musk as the head of DOGE, a new gov­ern­ment office that was ini­tial­ly promised to comb through the whole fed­er­al bureau­cra­cy search­ing for deep spend­ing cuts. Since then, Musk has sought to exert sweep­ing con­trol over the inner work­ings of the U.S. gov­ern­ment, installing long­time sur­ro­gates at sev­er­al agen­cies, includ­ing the Office of Per­son­nel Man­age­ment, which essen­tial­ly han­dles fed­er­al human resources, and the Gen­er­al Ser­vices Admin­is­tra­tion, which man­ages real estate.

    DOGE is now housed in a White House office for­mer­ly known as the U.S. Dig­i­tal Ser­vice but now called the U.S. DOGE Ser­vice and has broad vis­i­bil­i­ty into tech­nol­o­gy across the gov­ern­ment.

    The administration’s move to push out the top secu­ri­ty offi­cials at USAID came a day after Musk’s DOGE deputies gained access to a sen­si­tive Trea­sury Depart­ment sys­tem respon­si­ble for tril­lions of dol­lars in U.S. gov­ern­ment pay­ments after the admin­is­tra­tion oust­ed a top career offi­cial at the depart­ment, accord­ing to three peo­ple who spoke on the con­di­tion of anonymi­ty to describe gov­ern­ment delib­er­a­tions.

    ————

    “Trump moves to wrest con­trol of USAID as Musk says ‘we’re shut­ting it down’” By John Hud­son, Ellen Nakashima, Mis­sy Ryan, Mar­i­ana Alfaroand Faiz Sid­diqui; The Wash­ing­ton Post; 02/02/2025

    “Estab­lished in 1961 by Pres­i­dent John F. Kennedy, USAID over­sees a vast port­fo­lio of pro­grams designed to pro­vide human­i­tar­i­an relief, com­bat pover­ty, sup­port glob­al health and more. In 2023, it man­aged appro­pri­a­tions worth $40 bil­lion, accord­ing to the Con­gres­sion­al Research Ser­vice. USAID is present in more than 100 coun­tries from Ukraine to Peru. The agency’s staff num­bers more than 10,000, the major­i­ty of whom are over­seas.”

    Can Pres­i­dent Trump just uni­lat­er­al­ly shut­down a con­gres­sion­al­ly autho­rized agency with a $40 bil­lion bud­get? That’s part of what we’re going to find out. But this isn’t just a sto­ry about a pos­si­ble ille­gal move the shut down USAID. It’s also about the aggres­sive push by Elon Musk’s DOGE team to gain access to restrict­ed sys­tems at the agency, result­ing in the removal of USAID’s top two secu­ri­ty offi­cials. There was a show­down over access to those secure sys­tems, and the DOGE team won. And the over­ar­ch­ing jus­ti­fi­ca­tion for all of these moves appears to be the asser­tion that USAID is run by a bunch of ‘rad­i­cal lunatics’ and ‘rad­i­cal-left marx­ists who hate Amer­i­ca.’ It’s quite a fram­ing for this shut­down. Espe­cial­ly since USAID actu­al­ly funds the Vic­tims of Com­mu­nism Memo­r­i­al Foun­da­tion. It’s the kind of fram­ing that, if suc­cess­ful, can pre­sum­ably be applied to vir­tu­al­ly any oth­er gov­ern­ment agency. The long-feared Project 2025 ide­o­log­i­cal purge isn’t just purg­ing indi­vid­u­als. It’s purg­ing entire agen­cies, under the premise that these agen­cies are nests of ‘rad­i­cal-left marx­ists who hate Amer­i­ca’:

    ...
    Cur­rent and for­mer offi­cials said the admin­is­tra­tion removed two top secu­ri­ty offi­cials at USAID on Sat­ur­day after they refused to allow rep­re­sen­ta­tives of the office led by bil­lion­aire Elon Musk access to restrict­ed spaces at the agency.

    ...

    Musk, head­ing a gov­ern­ment effi­cien­cy effort under Trump, said on X ear­ly Mon­day that he is in the process clos­ing the agency with Trump’s bless­ing.

    “I went over it with him in detail, and he agreed that we should shut it down,” Musk said. “And I actu­al­ly checked with him a few times [and] said ‘are you sure?’”

    The answer was yes, he said.

    “And so we’re shut­ting it down,” Musk said.

    ...

    Over the week­end, Musk repeat­ed­ly den­i­grat­ed USAID with­out offer­ing evi­dence that those work­ing there were cor­rupt. On X, he called the long-stand­ing gov­ern­ment agency “evil” and a “viper’s nest of rad­i­cal-left marx­ists who hate Amer­i­ca.”

    “USAID is a crim­i­nal orga­ni­za­tion,” he added. “Time for it to die.”

    Musk also had sharp words for the agency dur­ing an X Spaces livestream ear­ly Mon­day, when he was joined by Vivek Ramaswamy — for­mer co-head of DOGE in its pri­or iter­a­tion, when it was an out­side group empow­ered to make rec­om­men­da­tions — and Sen. Joni Ernst (R‑Iowa).

    “USAID is a ball of worms,” Musk said. “There is no apple.”

    “It’s got­ta go. It’s beyond repair,” he added.

    ...

    Late Sun­day, Trump also implied that the ousters of USAID offi­cials were jus­ti­fied, with­out cit­ing any evi­dence.

    “It’s been run by a bunch of rad­i­cal lunatics. And we’re get­ting them out,” he told reporters after return­ing to Wash­ing­ton from spend­ing the week­end in Palm Beach, Flori­da.
    ...

    And note that it was­n’t just the top secu­ri­ty offi­cials at USAID who were fired. The polit­i­cal appointee, who was just nom­i­nat­ed by Trump days ago, resigned too. But in the end, the DOGE employ­ees gained access to all the sys­tems they demand­ed, includ­ing the con­tents of USAID’s SCIF. Inter­est­ing­ly, it looks like those top USAID secu­ri­ty offi­cials were let go the day after the DOGE employ­ees were giv­en access to the SCIF. It’s that kind of purge:

    ...
    Amid the tur­moil, Matt Hop­son, the USAID chief of staff and a polit­i­cal appointee, resigned, accord­ing to a cur­rent and for­mer USAID offi­cial who spoke on the con­di­tion of anonymi­ty to dis­cuss a sen­si­tive sit­u­a­tion. Hop­son did not respond to requests for com­ment.

    Voorhees was put on leave after he did not allow offi­cials from the “Depart­ment of Gov­ern­ment Effi­cien­cy” to access a sen­si­tive com­part­ment­ed infor­ma­tion facil­i­ty — com­mon­ly known as a SCIF — an ultra-secure room where offi­cials and gov­ern­ment con­trac­tors take extra­or­di­nary pre­cau­tions to review high­ly clas­si­fied infor­ma­tion, accord­ing to three cur­rent and for­mer USAID offi­cials.

    A group of about eight DOGE offi­cials entered the USAID build­ing Sat­ur­day and demand­ed access to every door and floor, despite only a few of them hav­ing secu­ri­ty clear­ance, accord­ing to a Sen­ate Demo­c­ra­t­ic staff mem­ber who spoke on the con­di­tion of anonymi­ty to describe the inci­dent.

    When USAID per­son­nel attempt­ed to block access to some areas, DOGE offi­cials threat­ened to call fed­er­al mar­shals, the aide said. The DOGE offi­cials were even­tu­al­ly giv­en access to “secure spaces” includ­ing the secu­ri­ty office.

    The Sen­ate staffer also said top offi­cials from USAID’s office and the bulk of the staff in USAID’s Bureau for Leg­isla­tive and Pub­lic Affairs were put on leave lat­er Sat­ur­day. Some of them were not noti­fied but had their access to agency ter­mi­nals sus­pend­ed.

    ...

    The administration’s move to push out the top secu­ri­ty offi­cials at USAID came a day after Musk’s DOGE deputies gained access to a sen­si­tive Trea­sury Depart­ment sys­tem respon­si­ble for tril­lions of dol­lars in U.S. gov­ern­ment pay­ments after the admin­is­tra­tion oust­ed a top career offi­cial at the depart­ment, accord­ing to three peo­ple who spoke on the con­di­tion of anonymi­ty to describe gov­ern­ment delib­er­a­tions.
    ...

    And as we can see, when Repub­li­can rep­re­sen­ta­tive Bri­an Mast was asked whether or not it would be legal for the Trump admin­is­tra­tion to uni­lat­er­al­ly shut­down a con­gres­sion­al­ly autho­rized agency, he dodged the ques­tion. It’s a clue as to how this pow­er grab is going to play out. The con­gres­sion­al major­i­ty looks like to just go along with these moves. Keep in mind that, with majori­ties in both cham­bers of Con­gress, it’s not like the Trump admin­is­tra­tion could­n’t shut down USAID legal­ly. The major­i­ty votes would prob­a­bly be there. But that’s not the path they are choos­ing. Which is also a reminder that this move is very much in keep­ing with the GOP’s decades-old desire to estab­lish the Uni­tary Exec­u­tive. A king-like exec­u­tive office that does­n’t need to deal with pesky con­straints like checks and bal­ances and who can sim­ply anoint fig­ures like Elon Musk with near com­plete pow­er over gov­ern­ment func­tions:

    ...
    But con­gres­sion­al Repub­li­cans have expressed inter­est in shrink­ing — or los­ing — USAID as an inde­pen­dent agency. Rep. Bri­an Mast (R‑Florida), chair­man of the House For­eign Affairs Com­mit­tee, told CBS News’s “Face the Nation” Sun­day that he “absolute­ly” would be in sup­port of chang­ing USAID’s sta­tus.

    Mast, how­ev­er, did not answer a ques­tion on whether con­gres­sion­al approval would be required to close USAID as an inde­pen­dent agency, as would like­ly be required by law. Instead, he said that the office needs to be restruc­tured and that “purg­ing” offi­cials through­out the State Depart­ment and oth­er agen­cies, as well as the freez­ing of for­eign aid, are all “very impor­tant and nec­es­sary steps to make sure that we secure Amer­i­ca.”

    Trump named Musk as the head of DOGE, a new gov­ern­ment office that was ini­tial­ly promised to comb through the whole fed­er­al bureau­cra­cy search­ing for deep spend­ing cuts. Since then, Musk has sought to exert sweep­ing con­trol over the inner work­ings of the U.S. gov­ern­ment, installing long­time sur­ro­gates at sev­er­al agen­cies, includ­ing the Office of Per­son­nel Man­age­ment, which essen­tial­ly han­dles fed­er­al human resources, and the Gen­er­al Ser­vices Admin­is­tra­tion, which man­ages real estate.

    DOGE is now housed in a White House office for­mer­ly known as the U.S. Dig­i­tal Ser­vice but now called the U.S. DOGE Ser­vice and has broad vis­i­bil­i­ty into tech­nol­o­gy across the gov­ern­ment.
    ...

    And as the arti­cle notes, the sen­si­tive pro­grams those DOGE employ­ees gained access to include pro­grams in Ukraine. As we’re going to see, Ukraine is has been far and away the largest recip­i­ent of USAID fund­ing in recent years:

    ...
    The purge of USAID per­son­nel and freez­ing of for­eign assis­tance have caused ten­sion between Trump offi­cials and con­gres­sion­al staff mem­bers, who have clashed over the val­ue of key projects and the administration’s plans to fold USAID with­in the State Depart­ment, said U.S. offi­cials famil­iar with the mat­ter.

    Dur­ing those dis­cus­sions, senior State Depart­ment offi­cial Peter Maroc­co was unable to pro­vide answers on what aid was paused, includ­ing sen­si­tive pro­grams in Ukraine, which is fend­ing off an inva­sion from Rus­sia, the offi­cials said. State Depart­ment spokes­peo­ple have also been unable to pro­vide answers about what cas­es are exempt from Trump’s freeze.
    ...

    So how much has USAID giv­en to Ukraine? Well, as the fol­low­ing Forbes piece describes, USAID has actu­al­ly giv­en $46 bil­lion in aid to Ukraine since the start of the war in 2022 alone. It’s going to be inter­est­ing to see what this alleged USAID ‘Deep State’ audit reveals when it comes to all that bil­lions in aid. Espe­cial­ly when it comes to aid know­ing­ly going to far right groups like Azov or Right Sec­tor. Groups very much aligned with Musk’s emerg­ing glob­al­ist white suprema­cist world­view. All alleged­ly being orches­trat­ed by ‘rad­i­cal Marx­ists’ run­ning the agency, we are assured.

    But there’s anoth­er area of Musk’s ire against USAID that should be extreme­ly inter­est­ing to see play out: his accu­sa­tions about USAID’s role in financ­ing the Eco­Health Alliance’s gain-of-func­tion research. How will Musk’s team han­dle a top­ic that large­ly played out dur­ing Trump’s first term. After all, it was Decem­ber of 2017 when the US lift­ed its gain-of-func­tion research mora­to­ri­um. Which, again, is a reminder that this mas­sive purge dou­bles as an excuse to purge the gov­ern­ment of all the evi­dence of wrong­do­ing left behind from the first admin­is­tra­tion:

    Forbes

    Why Is Elon Musk Attack­ing USAID? How Par­ti­san Pol­i­tics Made For­eign Aid Agency Sud­den­ly So Con­tro­ver­sial

    Ali­son Dur­kee
    Forbes Staff
    Ali­son is a senior news reporter cov­er­ing US pol­i­tics and legal news.

    Feb 3, 2025,02:14pm EST
    Updat­ed Feb 3, 2025, 02:17pm EST

    Topline

    Bil­lion­aire Elon Musk said ear­ly Mon­day that Pres­i­dent Don­ald Trump agreed to shut down the U.S. Agency for Inter­na­tion­al Devel­op­ment (USAID)—which he can­not legal­ly uni­lat­er­al­ly do —as the for­eign aid agency has become embroiled in par­ti­san con­tro­ver­sy thanks to right-wing claims it sup­port­ed “rad­i­cal” caus­es that remain unsup­port­ed or debunked.

    Key Facts

    * Musk said on an X Spaces con­ver­sa­tion ear­ly Mon­day he “went over” the “USAID stuff” with Trump and “[the pres­i­dent] agreed that we should shut it down,” after Trump told reporters Sun­day about USAID, “It’s been run by a bunch of rad­i­cal lunatics, and we’re get­ting them out, and then we’ll make a deci­sion [about its future].”

    * USAID is the pri­ma­ry fed­er­al agency pro­vid­ing for­eign aid to coun­tries around the world, and has been under siege by the Trump admin­is­tra­tion in recent days amid rumors Trump wants to move it under the State Depart­ment, with staff being cut, its web­site shut down and Trump freez­ing near­ly all for­eign aid, while staffers from Musk’s Depart­ment of Gov­ern­ment Effi­cien­cy (DOGE) already access­ing and scru­ti­niz­ing the agency’s clas­si­fied data.

    * Musk and oth­er Trump offi­cials have claimed USAID is staffed by Democ­rats and sup­ports left-wing caus­es, with Musk repeat­ed­ly crit­i­ciz­ing the agency on social media and claim­ing in his X Spaces con­ver­sa­tion Mon­day the agency is “incred­i­bly polit­i­cal­ly par­ti­san” and has sup­port­ed “rad­i­cal­ly left caus­es through­out the world includ­ing things that are anti-Amer­i­can.”

    * Trump advi­sor Stephen Miller also claimed on CNN that “98%” of the agency’s staff donat­ed to for­mer Vice Pres­i­dent Kamala Har­ris or oth­er Demo­c­ra­t­ic can­di­dates in the Novem­ber elec­tion, while Trump’s envoy for spe­cial mis­sions Richard Grenell claimed for­mer USAID head Saman­tha Pow­er “used [tax­pay­er] mon­ey to fund crazy rad­i­cal pro­grams and far Left activists” and State Depart­ment spokesper­son Tam­my Bruce post­ed a thread of what she called “unjus­ti­fied” for­eign aid spend­ing.

    * Nei­ther the claims of USAID staffers donat­ing to Democ­rats or “rad­i­cal” fund­ing have proven true, and oth­er GOP claims also have been debunked, such as the Trump administration’s claim the agency sent $50 mil­lion worth of con­doms to Gaza.

    Why Is Usaid Con­tro­ver­sial With Trump, Musk And Oth­er Repub­li­cans?

    The agency has fund­ed groups on issues that Repub­li­cans and the Trump admin­is­tra­tion now deem to be con­tro­ver­sial, not­ing a focus on “equi­ty and inclu­sion” and LGBTQ rights ini­tia­tives in its 2024 annu­al report. The Trump admin­is­tra­tion has tak­en a hard­line stance against “DEI” pro­grams and trans­gen­der rights ini­tia­tives and sought to elim­i­nate them from the fed­er­al gov­ern­ment. USAID said it also worked with dozens of coun­tries on cli­mate change mit­i­ga­tion efforts last year and mobi­lized $16.7 bil­lion in out­side fund­ing on cli­mate change, while Trump has broad­ly tried to cut Biden-era cli­mate pro­grams and get rid of gov­ern­ment pro­grams on renew­able ener­gy.

    Did Usaid Fund Covid 19 “lab Leak”?

    A charge that’s been lev­eled at USAID, which Musk ampli­fied Mon­day, is that the agency sent funds to Eco­Health Alliance, a med­ical research group that’s been tar­get­ed by pro­po­nents of the the­o­ry that COVID 19 orig­i­nat­ed in a lab in Wuhan, Chi­na. USAID has giv­en Eco­Health Alliance fund­ing, with the health orga­ni­za­tion not­ing on its web­site the agency estab­lished an “Emerg­ing Pan­dem­ic Threats” pro­gram that seeks to iden­ti­fy emerg­ing dis­eases that could spread from ani­mals to humans. While the Nation­al Insti­tutes of Health has pre­vi­ous­ly raised some con­cerns with Eco­Health Alliance for fail­ing to prop­er­ly dis­close infor­ma­tion, there’s no evi­dence link­ing the group’s work to the COVID 19 pan­dem­ic. Robert Kessler, a spokesper­son for the orga­ni­za­tion, told The New York Times in 2021 that none of the virus­es Eco­Health has stud­ied are sim­i­lar enough to the virus behind COVID-19 to sug­gest they played a role in the virus’ ori­gins.

    Did Usaid Spend $50 Mil­lion On Con­doms In Gaza?

    No. Trump and his admin­is­tra­tion have claimed the Biden admin­is­tra­tion spent $50 mil­lion on “con­doms in Gaza,” with White House press sec­re­tary Karo­line Leav­itt call­ing the expen­di­ture a “pre­pos­ter­ous waste of tax­pay­er mon­ey” and using it to jus­ti­fy the Trump administration’s freeze on for­eign aid. Trump even ramped up the accu­a­tions Mon­day, telling reporters Musk had found evi­dence of $100 mil­lion worth of con­doms going to Hamas. There is no evi­dence to sup­port the White House’s claims. The Wash­ing­ton Post notes the Biden-era State Depart­ment signed a $50 mil­lion deal for health­care in Gaza but that did not include sup­ply­ing any con­doms, and while USAID did send $60.8 mil­lion in con­tra­cep­tion and con­doms to oth­er coun­tries in fis­cal year 2023, none of those ship­ments were sent to Gaza. The first Trump admin­is­tra­tion also sent con­tra­cep­tion and con­doms abroad through USAID, the News Lit­er­a­cy Project first not­ed, send­ing $51.5 mil­lion worth of con­tra­cep­tives in 2018 and $39.1 mil­lion in 2019.

    What Does Usaid Spend Its Funds On?

    USAID spent more than $43 bil­lion in fis­cal year 2023 pro­vid­ing aid to approx­i­mate­ly 130 coun­tries, accord­ing to the Con­gres­sion­al Research Ser­vice. The biggest recip­i­ent of USAID’s fund­ing has been Ukraine, which CRS not­ed has received more than $46 bil­lion since its war with Rus­sia began in Feb­ru­ary 2022, fol­lowed by Ethiopia, Jor­dan, Demo­c­ra­t­ic Repub­lic of Con­go, Soma­lia, Yemen, Afghanistan, Nige­ria, South Sudan, and Syr­ia. The agency’s mis­sion has con­sis­tent­ly received bipar­ti­san sup­port in the past, and The Wash­ing­ton Post not­ed in 2017 mil­i­tary lead­ers also view the agency as essen­tial because it helps to pre­vent for­eign wars that the U.S. could oth­er­wise have to step in to help with. USAID pro­vides fund­ing to com­bat issues like pover­ty and dis­ease, as well as pro­vides strate­gic assis­tance for for­eign con­flicts and sup­ports devel­op­ing coun­tries’ eco­nom­ic growth. For­mer offi­cials with the agency have sug­gest­ed cuts to its fund­ing will impact ongo­ing issues like inter­na­tion­al Ebo­la out­breaks, the bird flu epi­dem­ic and world­wide HIV treat­ment and pre­ven­tion.

    Has Usaid Done Any­thing Wrong?

    Trump offi­cials and Musk’s con­cerns about USAID are pri­mar­i­ly based on par­ti­san con­cerns, rather than any actu­al wrong­do­ing by the agency. The Office of the Inspec­tor Gen­er­al that over­sees USAID has said in recent reports the agency does have some room for improve­ment, cit­ing issues with ensur­ing the Unit­ed Nations and oth­er orga­ni­za­tions inform USAID of any mis­con­duct with­in the groups its fund­ing, fail­ures by the UN and oth­er groups to pro­vide the inspec­tor general’s office with infor­ma­tion to help its inves­ti­ga­tions, and juris­dic­tion issues mak­ing it hard for USAID to sue any for­eign orga­ni­za­tions that mis­use its funds. The inspec­tor gen­er­al also argued USAID needs a bet­ter sys­tem to iden­ti­fy whether the groups it’s fund­ing have any ties to ter­ror­ist groups or “cor­rupt actors,” after House Repub­li­cans expressed con­cern in 2023 that the agency’s human­i­tar­i­an aid being sent to Gaza could be sent to groups with ties to Hamas.

    Did Usaid Fund Al-Qai­da-Affil­i­at­ed Ter­ror­ist Groups?

    No—a non-gov­ern­men­tal orga­ni­za­tion alleged­ly stole from USAID. Fed­er­al pros­e­cu­tors, includ­ing USAID’s inspec­tor general’s office, brought crim­i­nal charges in Novem­ber against a Syr­i­an nation­al who alleged­ly divert­ed $9 mil­lion from a $122 mil­lion USAID human­i­tar­i­an aid pro­gram meant to com­bat hunger in Syr­ia but was sent to com­bat­ant groups aligned with al-Qai­da.

    Sur­pris­ing Fact

    Anony­mous USAID offi­cials cit­ed by PBS News report while the Trump admin­is­tra­tion is now report­ed­ly tar­get­ing offi­cials at USAID who work on gen­der-focused pro­grams, much of that work orig­i­nat­ed dur­ing the first Trump admin­is­tra­tion, when Trump’s daugh­ter Ivan­ka Trump cre­at­ed a Women’s Glob­al Devel­op­ment and Pros­per­i­ty Ini­tia­tive.

    ...

    Can Trump Get Rid Of Usaid?

    It remains to be seen what actions Trump will take on USAID, but since Con­gress passed a fed­er­al statute declar­ing it an inde­pen­dent agency, the pres­i­dent can’t uni­lat­er­al­ly close it or move it to be under the State Depart­ment. That isn’t to say Trump could still try to close it him­self any­way, however—regardless of whether doing so would be legal—though that’s like­ly to result in law­suits from human­i­tar­i­an groups or Demo­c­ra­t­ic law­mak­ers. Some anony­mous USAID offi­cials sug­gest­ed to Politi­co Trump could try to inten­tion­al­ly keep any orders he issues on the agency “vague” in order to avoid accu­sa­tions that he’s unlaw­ful­ly shut­ter­ing it with­out con­gres­sion­al approval.

    Key Back­ground

    USAID has emerged as one of Trump and his offi­cials’ biggest tar­gets in the ear­ly days of his sec­ond term, with the pres­i­dent and Musk attack­ing the agency as crit­ics had already feared Trump would try to get rid of gov­ern­ment agen­cies if elect­ed. The attacks on USAID come after Trump report­ed­ly pre­vi­ous­ly tried to move the agency to be under the State Depart­ment dur­ing his first term, which Politi­co notes ulti­mate­ly failed due to bipar­ti­san oppo­si­tion to the move. Trump and his admin­is­tra­tion have issued a slew of orders in the first weeks of Trump’s pres­i­den­cy seek­ing to reshape the fed­er­al gov­ern­ment to be in line with his ide­o­log­i­cal goals, and the freeze on for­eign aid came right before the Trump admin­is­tra­tion tried to halt near­ly all fed­er­al assistance—a move that it soon had to walk back, and was lat­er blocked in court. Trump has sought to pause fed­er­al spend­ing in order to con­duct “reviews” of whether mon­ey is going to caus­es he sup­ports, even when those funds have already been approved by Con­gress, which Democ­rats warn he doesn’t have the author­i­ty to do.

    —————

    “Why Is Elon Musk Attack­ing USAID? How Par­ti­san Pol­i­tics Made For­eign Aid Agency Sud­den­ly So Con­tro­ver­sial” by Ali­son Dur­kee; Forbes; 02/03/2025

    Trump offi­cials and Musk’s con­cerns about USAID are pri­mar­i­ly based on par­ti­san con­cerns, rather than any actu­al wrong­do­ing by the agency. The Office of the Inspec­tor Gen­er­al that over­sees USAID has said in recent reports the agency does have some room for improve­ment, cit­ing issues with ensur­ing the Unit­ed Nations and oth­er orga­ni­za­tions inform USAID of any mis­con­duct with­in the groups its fund­ing, fail­ures by the UN and oth­er groups to pro­vide the inspec­tor general’s office with infor­ma­tion to help its inves­ti­ga­tions, and juris­dic­tion issues mak­ing it hard for USAID to sue any for­eign orga­ni­za­tions that mis­use its funds. The inspec­tor gen­er­al also argued USAID needs a bet­ter sys­tem to iden­ti­fy whether the groups it’s fund­ing have any ties to ter­ror­ist groups or “cor­rupt actors,” after House Repub­li­cans expressed con­cern in 2023 that the agency’s human­i­tar­i­an aid being sent to Gaza could be sent to groups with ties to Hamas.”

    Yeah, as we can see from the litany of com­plaints about USAID, the pri­ma­ry ‘evil’ the agency is accused of by the MAGA move­ment appears to be too much ‘wok­e­ness’ and a gen­er­al sense that the agency is run by a bunch of ‘rad­i­cal Marx­ists’. In oth­er words, it’s a nar­ra­tive that serves as an exten­sion of Project 2025 and the planned mass bureau­crat­ic purge. It’s just, in this case, the purge involves shut­ter­ing an entire inde­pen­dent agency:

    ...
    Key Facts

    * Musk said on an X Spaces con­ver­sa­tion ear­ly Mon­day he “went over” the “USAID stuff” with Trump and “[the pres­i­dent] agreed that we should shut it down,” after Trump told reporters Sun­day about USAID, “It’s been run by a bunch of rad­i­cal lunatics, and we’re get­ting them out, and then we’ll make a deci­sion [about its future].”

    * USAID is the pri­ma­ry fed­er­al agency pro­vid­ing for­eign aid to coun­tries around the world, and has been under siege by the Trump admin­is­tra­tion in recent days amid rumors Trump wants to move it under the State Depart­ment, with staff being cut, its web­site shut down and Trump freez­ing near­ly all for­eign aid, while staffers from Musk’s Depart­ment of Gov­ern­ment Effi­cien­cy (DOGE) already access­ing and scru­ti­niz­ing the agency’s clas­si­fied data.

    * Musk and oth­er Trump offi­cials have claimed USAID is staffed by Democ­rats and sup­ports left-wing caus­es, with Musk repeat­ed­ly crit­i­ciz­ing the agency on social media and claim­ing in his X Spaces con­ver­sa­tion Mon­day the agency is “incred­i­bly polit­i­cal­ly par­ti­san” and has sup­port­ed “rad­i­cal­ly left caus­es through­out the world includ­ing things that are anti-Amer­i­can.”

    * Trump advi­sor Stephen Miller also claimed on CNN that “98%” of the agency’s staff donat­ed to for­mer Vice Pres­i­dent Kamala Har­ris or oth­er Demo­c­ra­t­ic can­di­dates in the Novem­ber elec­tion, while Trump’s envoy for spe­cial mis­sions Richard Grenell claimed for­mer USAID head Saman­tha Pow­er “used [tax­pay­er] mon­ey to fund crazy rad­i­cal pro­grams and far Left activists” and State Depart­ment spokesper­son Tam­my Bruce post­ed a thread of what she called “unjus­ti­fied” for­eign aid spend­ing.

    * Nei­ther the claims of USAID staffers donat­ing to Democ­rats or “rad­i­cal” fund­ing have proven true, and oth­er GOP claims also have been debunked, such as the Trump administration’s claim the agency sent $50 mil­lion worth of con­doms to Gaza.
    ...

    But, of course, with USAID long serv­ing as both a kind of US char­i­ty but also a US intel­li­gence front, those accu­sa­tions against USAID about ‘rad­i­cal Marx­ism’ also serve to frame all of the var­i­ous ques­tion­able ‘Deep State’ actions of the agency as some­how being in the ser­vice of a ‘rad­i­cal Marx­ist’ agen­da, in keep­ing with the larg­er delu­sion­al MAGA nar­ra­tive about the ‘Deep State’ some­how being left­ist in ori­en­ta­tion. And that brings us to the very real accu­sa­tions around USAID’s role in the fund­ing of the Eco­Health Alliance and the key role Eco­Health Alliance played in the fund­ing of gain-of-func­tion research around coro­n­avirus­es in the lead up to the COVID-19 pan­dem­ic. Of course, as we’ve seen, the US’s gain-of-func­tion mora­to­ri­um put in place dur­ing Barack Oba­ma’s sec­ond term was actu­al­ly lift­ed in 2017 under the first Trump admin­is­tra­tion. And as we’ve also seen, while that mora­to­ri­um was lift­ed in Decem­ber of 2017, it appears the Eco­Health alliance was allowed to fund the research in Wuhan while the mora­to­ri­um was in place. The Trump admin­is­tra­tion extend­ed the Eco­Health Alliance’s con­tract for anoth­er five years in 2019 before ter­mi­nat­ing it in April of 2020 And that’s just one exam­ple of the very real and very scan­dalous behav­ior of the Eco­Health Alliance in rela­tion to the COVID pan­dem­ic. Scan­dalous behav­ior that has yet to be real­ly mean­ing­ful­ly under­stood by the world and that most­ly took place under Trump’s first term. So when we see Musk mak­ing hay of USAID’s role in the financ­ing of the Eco­Health Alliance’s gain-of-func­tion research, keep in mind how there is still much about that chap­ter of his­to­ry that we have yet to learn. And destroy­ing USAID would prob­a­bly be a great way to ensure we nev­er learn it:

    ...
    Did Usaid Fund Covid 19 “lab Leak”?

    A charge that’s been lev­eled at USAID, which Musk ampli­fied Mon­day, is that the agency sent funds to Eco­Health Alliance, a med­ical research group that’s been tar­get­ed by pro­po­nents of the the­o­ry that COVID 19 orig­i­nat­ed in a lab in Wuhan, Chi­na. USAID has giv­en Eco­Health Alliance fund­ing, with the health orga­ni­za­tion not­ing on its web­site the agency estab­lished an “Emerg­ing Pan­dem­ic Threats” pro­gram that seeks to iden­ti­fy emerg­ing dis­eases that could spread from ani­mals to humans. While the Nation­al Insti­tutes of Health has pre­vi­ous­ly raised some con­cerns with Eco­Health Alliance for fail­ing to prop­er­ly dis­close infor­ma­tion, there’s no evi­dence link­ing the group’s work to the COVID 19 pan­dem­ic. Robert Kessler, a spokesper­son for the orga­ni­za­tion, told The New York Times in 2021 that none of the virus­es Eco­Health has stud­ied are sim­i­lar enough to the virus behind COVID-19 to sug­gest they played a role in the virus’ ori­gins.
    ...

    Sim­i­lar­ly, with USAID play­ing a mas­sive role in the US’s over­all aide pack­age to Ukraine — $46 bil­lion since Feb­ru­ary 2022 — there is no doubt a larg­er num­ber of intel­li­gence-relat­ed covert activ­i­ties involved in that mas­sive flow of aid. Includ­ing, poten­tial­ly, the Russ­ian claims of Pen­ta­gon-fund­ed Ukrain­ian bio­labs explor­ing the use of migra­to­ry birds for the tar­get­ed dis­sem­i­na­tion of dis­eases on ene­my coun­tries. It’s going to be very inter­est­ing to see what, if any­thing, we hear from the Trump/Musk admin­is­tra­tion about claims like that now that they’ve made the ‘expo­sure of the Deep State’ an appar­ent core tenet of the sec­ond Trump term and are car­ry­ing out some sort of mass gov­ern­ment audit of every­thing. Again, let’s not for­get that many of these pro­grams would have start­ed dur­ing the first Trump term:

    ...
    What Does Usaid Spend Its Funds On?

    USAID spent more than $43 bil­lion in fis­cal year 2023 pro­vid­ing aid to approx­i­mate­ly 130 coun­tries, accord­ing to the Con­gres­sion­al Research Ser­vice. The biggest recip­i­ent of USAID’s fund­ing has been Ukraine, which CRS not­ed has received more than $46 bil­lion since its war with Rus­sia began in Feb­ru­ary 2022, fol­lowed by Ethiopia, Jor­dan, Demo­c­ra­t­ic Repub­lic of Con­go, Soma­lia, Yemen, Afghanistan, Nige­ria, South Sudan, and Syr­ia. The agency’s mis­sion has con­sis­tent­ly received bipar­ti­san sup­port in the past, and The Wash­ing­ton Post not­ed in 2017 mil­i­tary lead­ers also view the agency as essen­tial because it helps to pre­vent for­eign wars that the U.S. could oth­er­wise have to step in to help with. USAID pro­vides fund­ing to com­bat issues like pover­ty and dis­ease, as well as pro­vides strate­gic assis­tance for for­eign con­flicts and sup­ports devel­op­ing coun­tries’ eco­nom­ic growth. For­mer offi­cials with the agency have sug­gest­ed cuts to its fund­ing will impact ongo­ing issues like inter­na­tion­al Ebo­la out­breaks, the bird flu epi­dem­ic and world­wide HIV treat­ment and pre­ven­tion.

    ...

    And, of course, there’s the real­i­ty that this uni­lat­er­al dis­so­lu­tion of USAID and merg­er into the State Depart­ment does­n’t appear to actu­al­ly be con­sti­tu­tion­al. And yet it’s hap­pen­ing. Uni­tary Exec­u­tive here we come:

    ...
    Can Trump Get Rid Of Usaid?

    It remains to be seen what actions Trump will take on USAID, but since Con­gress passed a fed­er­al statute declar­ing it an inde­pen­dent agency, the pres­i­dent can’t uni­lat­er­al­ly close it or move it to be under the State Depart­ment. That isn’t to say Trump could still try to close it him­self any­way, however—regardless of whether doing so would be legal—though that’s like­ly to result in law­suits from human­i­tar­i­an groups or Demo­c­ra­t­ic law­mak­ers. Some anony­mous USAID offi­cials sug­gest­ed to Politi­co Trump could try to inten­tion­al­ly keep any orders he issues on the agency “vague” in order to avoid accu­sa­tions that he’s unlaw­ful­ly shut­ter­ing it with­out con­gres­sion­al approval.
    ...

    So is USAID just going to be uni­lat­er­al­ly dis­solved and merged into the State Depart­ment with­out any con­gres­sion­al push­back or approval? Yeah, it appears so. Or at least that’s the declared plan. With no plans declared yet to stop it:

    CBS News

    USAID to be merged into State Depart­ment, 3 U.S. offi­cials say

    By Sara Cook, Jen­nifer Jacobs
    Updat­ed on: Feb­ru­ary 3, 2025 / 4:31 PM EST

    USAID, the Unit­ed States Agency for Inter­na­tion­al Devel­op­ment, will be merged into the State Depart­ment with sig­nif­i­cant cuts in the work­force, but it will remain a human­i­tar­i­an aid enti­ty, three U.S. offi­cials told CBS News.

    ...

    Mr. Trump made Sec­re­tary of State Mar­co Rubio the act­ing admin­is­tra­tor of USAID, sources said, and Rubio him­self soon con­firmed it to reporters trav­el­ing with him in El Sal­vador. ABC News ear­li­er report­ed his sta­tus as chief. Rubio said in a let­ter to con­gres­sion­al lead­ers that he has autho­rized Peter Maroc­co, direc­tor of for­eign assis­tance at State, to per­form the duties of deputy admin­is­tra­tor of USAID and to begin a “review and poten­tial reor­ga­ni­za­tion of USAID’s activ­i­ties to max­i­mize effi­cien­cy and align oper­a­tions.”

    USAID over­sees human­i­tar­i­an, devel­op­ment and secu­ri­ty pro­grams in about 120 coun­tries around the world. Accord­ing to the non­par­ti­san Con­gres­sion­al Research Ser­vice, USAID “pro­vides assis­tance to strate­gi­cal­ly impor­tant coun­tries and coun­tries in con­flict; leads U.S. efforts to alle­vi­ate pover­ty, dis­ease, and human­i­tar­i­an need; and assists U.S. com­mer­cial inter­ests by sup­port­ing devel­op­ing coun­tries’ eco­nom­ic growth.”

    For­eign aid over­all, of which USAID is one part, accounts for less than 1% of the fed­er­al bud­get.

    Rubio told reporters that U.S. tax dol­lars need to fur­ther U.S. nation­al inter­ests, and “USAID has a his­to­ry of sort of ignor­ing that and decid­ing that they’re some­how a glob­al char­i­ty.”

    The move to merge USAID with the State Depart­ment and reduce its fund­ing may raise legal ques­tions, how­ev­er. USAID was estab­lished in 1961 by an act of Con­gress, so the pres­i­dent would require con­gres­sion­al approval to shut it down. USAID, like most of the rest of the fed­er­al gov­ern­ment, has been oper­at­ing under a tem­po­rary fund­ing mea­sure that expires in March.

    ...

    USAID head­quar­ters was closed on Mon­day because of a secu­ri­ty inci­dent, sources said, but the inci­dent stemmed from efforts over the week­end by per­son­nel from the Elon Musk-run Depart­ment of Gov­ern­ment Effi­cien­cy, known as DOGE, to access USAID sys­tems.

    Sources told CBS News it was relat­ed to the USAID chief of staff, Matt Hop­son, a recent Trump appointee, who attempt­ed to block DOGE offi­cials from get­ting access to USAID sys­tems. Two top secu­ri­ty offi­cials were fired Mon­day for attempt­ing to block access to DOGE, accord­ing to mul­ti­ple sources. Hop­son resigned Sun­day.

    ...

    ————-

    “USAID to be merged into State Depart­ment, 3 U.S. offi­cials say” By Sara Cook, Jen­nifer Jacobs; CBS News; 02/03/2025

    “Mr. Trump made Sec­re­tary of State Mar­co Rubio the act­ing admin­is­tra­tor of USAID, sources said, and Rubio him­self soon con­firmed it to reporters trav­el­ing with him in El Sal­vador. ABC News ear­li­er report­ed his sta­tus as chief. Rubio said in a let­ter to con­gres­sion­al lead­ers that he has autho­rized Peter Maroc­co, direc­tor of for­eign assis­tance at State, to per­form the duties of deputy admin­is­tra­tor of USAID and to begin a “review and poten­tial reor­ga­ni­za­tion of USAID’s activ­i­ties to max­i­mize effi­cien­cy and align oper­a­tions.””

    Yes, the State Depart­ment is ful­ly on board with the order to just sub­sume USAID, with Peter Maroc­co get­ting assigned to take over the agen­cy’s oper­a­tions under the State Depart­ment. Maroc­co, unsur­pris­ing­ly, has already been iden­ti­fied as one of the indi­vid­u­als who stormed the US Capi­tol on Jan­u­ary 6. Very on brand. And it’s hap­pen­ing. Just because it’s uncon­sti­tu­tion­al does­n’t mean it can’t hap­pen. It’s not the first time Amer­i­cans get to learn this les­son. We’ll see how well it gels after four years of learn­ing it non-stop. Because that’s what the emerg­ing Uni­tary Exec­u­tive pres­i­den­cy is going to be: one long con­sti­tu­tion­al cri­sis. The kind of cri­sis where recent appointees, like Trump’s new­ly appoint­ed USAID chief Matt Hop­son, end up in the kind of sit­u­a­tion where they have to either accept the uncon­sti­tu­tion­al upheaval of the agen­cies they were tasked with man­ag­ing. Or resign, like Hop­son did after refus­ing the Musk-led col­lapse of his agency:

    ...
    The move to merge USAID with the State Depart­ment and reduce its fund­ing may raise legal ques­tions, how­ev­er. USAID was estab­lished in 1961 by an act of Con­gress, so the pres­i­dent would require con­gres­sion­al approval to shut it down. USAID, like most of the rest of the fed­er­al gov­ern­ment, has been oper­at­ing under a tem­po­rary fund­ing mea­sure that expires in March.

    ...

    USAID head­quar­ters was closed on Mon­day because of a secu­ri­ty inci­dent, sources said, but the inci­dent stemmed from efforts over the week­end by per­son­nel from the Elon Musk-run Depart­ment of Gov­ern­ment Effi­cien­cy, known as DOGE, to access USAID sys­tems.

    Sources told CBS News it was relat­ed to the USAID chief of staff, Matt Hop­son, a recent Trump appointee, who attempt­ed to block DOGE offi­cials from get­ting access to USAID sys­tems. Two top secu­ri­ty offi­cials were fired Mon­day for attempt­ing to block access to DOGE, accord­ing to mul­ti­ple sources. Hop­son resigned Sun­day.
    ...

    It’s all quite the show of pow­er. Extra-con­sti­tu­tion­al pow­er. And, so far, they’re get­ting away with it. Which is a reminder that the Uni­tary Exec­u­tive was unlike­ly to ever by for­mal­ly declared. It’s more of a de fac­to thing, made de fac­to one suc­cess­ful pow­er grab at a time.

    Posted by Pterrafractyl | February 5, 2025, 7:10 pm
  3. It’s not an uncon­sti­tu­tion­al pow­er grab. That’s the assur­ance we keep hear­ing in the face of what sure looks like an uncon­sti­tu­tion­al pow­er grab, with one fed­er­al agency after anoth­er fac­ing some form of exis­ten­tial threat under the grow­ing pow­er of an exec­u­tive branch that has ful­ly embraced a strat­e­gy of imple­ment­ing Project 2025 through the man­i­fes­ta­tion of Karl Rove’s Uni­tary Exec­u­tive The­o­ry, car­ried out under the guise the guise of ‘DOGE audits’. Teams loy­al to Elon Musk are being sent into fed­er­al agen­cies with ambigu­ous claims of com­plete author­i­ty to car­ry out what­ev­er agen­da they choose. And, at this point, it’s an agen­da that has most­ly suc­ceed­ed. USAID is appar­ent­ly gone now, with­out con­gres­sion­al input. But USAID’s demise is just pre­lude to a much larg­er tar­get that is already suc­cumb­ing to a DOGE takeover: The US Trea­sury.

    Yes, the US Trea­sury Depart­ment has been ran­sacked, dig­i­tal­ly speak­ing, with teams of DOGE employ­ees being grant­ed unprece­dent­ed access to some of the most sen­si­tive sys­tems in the US gov­ern­ment tasked with hand­ing tril­lions of dol­lars in pay­ments annu­al­ly. Unprece­dent­ed access that, as we’ll see, not only includes the abil­i­ty to read sen­si­tives infor­ma­tion about hun­dreds of mil­lions of US res­i­dents but mod­i­fy the source code that han­dles those pay­ments. In effect, these DOGE teams were grant­ed the pow­er to uni­lat­er­al­ly cut off access to fed­er­al funds to not just agen­cies but indi­vid­u­als of their choice. In oth­er words, the takeover at the Trea­sury is putting in place the abil­i­ty to exe­cute the uncon­sti­tu­tion­al “impound­ment” strat­e­gy the Project 2025 plan­ners have long been dis­cussing and that would fur­ther cement Trump’s Uni­tary Exec­u­tive sta­tus. It’s hap­pen­ing.

    So has there been any insti­tu­tion­al push­back to this pow­er grab? Sure. With mixed suc­cess. On the one hand, the career civ­il ser­vant who was a top offi­cial at the Trea­sury and who refused to grant the DOGE team access to the Trea­sury’s sys­tems ulti­mate­ly end­ed up being put on leave and sud­den­ly retir­ing fol­low­ing a stand­off. And the DOGE got its unprece­dent­ed access to not just mod­i­fy those pay­ment sys­tems but do so in secret with­out the Trea­sury’s staff being aware of what they were chang­ing. Pos­si­bly irre­versible changes. And accord­ing to anony­mous sources, exten­sive changes have already been made. Changed made by a team of DOGE staffer that includes as 19 year old high school grad­u­ate and a series of ear­ly 20-some­things whose salient work expe­ri­ence appears to be past jobs or intern­ships at com­pa­nies own by Musk or Peter Thiel.

    The DOGE employ­ee who has report­ed­ly made those exten­sive changes has run into a bit of trou­ble him­self already. But just a bit. That employ­ee, 25 year old Marko Elez, turns out to have a his­to­ry of proud­ly racist social media posts. With the most recent racist posts from just back in Sep­tem­ber, less than 6 months ago. Posts like “I was racist before it was cool” and “Nor­mal­ize Indi­an hate!”. Elez resigned from DOGE fol­low­ing report­ing by the Wall Street Jour­nal on Elez’s his­to­ry.

    So is a his­to­ry of racist posts now a point too far for the new Trump admin­is­tra­tion? Of course now. Fol­low­ing Elez’s res­ig­na­tion, Vice Pres­i­dent JD Vance post­ed on social media his view that Elez should­n’t be pun­ished for his past trans­gres­sions because that would just reward jour­nal­ists who want to destroy peo­ple. Instead, Elez should be for­giv­en and rein­stat­ed in his DOGE posi­tion. Keep in mind Vance has an Indi­an Amer­i­can wife and half-Indi­an chil­dren. But he was very keen on for­giv­ing the “Nor­mal­ize Indi­an hate” guy. That sure is some remark­able for­give­ness in JD Vance’s heart. The kind of for­give­ness he does­n’t seem to have a capac­i­ty for when it comes to child­less cat ladies for some rea­son. Soon after Vance made his posi­tion clear, Pres­i­dent Trump fol­lowed suite and also called for Elez’s rein­state­ment. Elon Musk then rehired Elez and called for the pun­ish­ment of the Wall Street Jour­nal reporter who wrote the ini­tial report.

    Oh, and it turns out the 19 high school grad­u­ate DOGE team mem­ber has already been found to have been fired from a pre­vi­ous job for leak­ing data. Yep. He has yet to be fired.

    But there is a bit of good news here: A fed­er­al judge has now blocked the DOGE team’s access to the Trea­sury’s sys­tems entire­ly on Sat­ur­day morn­ing, cit­ing a risk of “irrepara­ble harm”. A hear­ing on the mat­ter is set­ting for Feb­ru­ary 14th. So the DOGE cap­ture of the Trea­sury has been put on hold. For maybe a week.

    We’ll see what ulti­mate­ly hap­pens, but at this point, with the Repub­li­can-con­trolled con­gress seem­ing­ly ful­ly on board with this Uni­tary Exec­u­tive pow­er grab, it appears fed­er­al judges are the only check remain­ing in the sys­tem of checks and bal­ances. The kind of check that is like­ly to be over­ruled by the far right Supreme Court at some point. In oth­er words, it’s prob­a­bly just a mat­ter of time before the DOGE team regains its Trea­sury access. Mean­ing it’s also just a mat­ter of time before the mass uncon­sti­tu­tion­al impound­ing of the fed­er­al gov­ern­ment makes Project 2025 the New Nor­mal:

    The New York Times

    Elon Musk’s Team Now Has Access to Treasury’s Pay­ments Sys­tem

    Trea­sury Sec­re­tary Scott Bessent gave Mr. Musk’s rep­re­sen­ta­tives at the so-called Depart­ment of Gov­ern­ment Effi­cien­cy a pow­er­ful tool to mon­i­tor and poten­tial­ly lim­it gov­ern­ment spend­ing.

    By Andrew Duehren, Mag­gie Haber­man, Theodore Schleifer and Alan Rappe­port
    Feb. 1, 2025

    Trea­sury Sec­re­tary Scott Bessent gave rep­re­sen­ta­tives of the so-called Depart­ment of Gov­ern­ment Effi­cien­cy access to the fed­er­al pay­ment sys­tem late on Fri­day, accord­ing to five peo­ple famil­iar with the change, hand­ing Elon Musk and the team he is lead­ing a pow­er­ful tool to mon­i­tor and poten­tial­ly lim­it gov­ern­ment spend­ing.

    The new author­i­ty fol­lows a stand­off this week with a top Trea­sury offi­cial who had resist­ed allow­ing Mr. Musk’s lieu­tenants into the department’s pay­ment sys­tem, which sends out mon­ey on behalf of the entire fed­er­al gov­ern­ment. The offi­cial, a career civ­il ser­vant named David Lebryk, was put on leave and then sud­den­ly retired on Fri­day after the dis­pute, accord­ing to peo­ple famil­iar with his exit.

    The sys­tem could give the Trump admin­is­tra­tion anoth­er mech­a­nism to attempt to uni­lat­er­al­ly restrict dis­burse­ment of mon­ey approved for spe­cif­ic pur­pos­es by Con­gress, a push that has faced legal road­blocks.

    Mr. Musk, who has been giv­en wide lat­i­tude by Pres­i­dent Trump to find ways to slash gov­ern­ment spend­ing, has recent­ly fix­at­ed on Treasury’s pay­ment process­es, crit­i­ciz­ing the depart­ment in a social media post on Sat­ur­day for not reject­ing more pay­ments as fraud­u­lent or improp­er.

    ...

    The Depart­ment of Gov­ern­ment Effi­cien­cy, or DOGE, is not a gov­ern­ment depart­ment, but a team with­in the admin­is­tra­tion. It was put togeth­er at Mr. Trump’s direc­tion by Mr. Musk to fan out across fed­er­al agen­cies seek­ing ways to cut spend­ing, reduce the size of the fed­er­al work force and bring more effi­cien­cy to the bureau­cra­cy. Most of those work­ing on the ini­tia­tive were recruit­ed by Mr. Musk and his aides.

    Sim­i­lar DOGE teams have begun demand­ing access to data and sys­tems at oth­er fed­er­al agen­cies, but none of those agen­cies con­trol the flow of mon­ey in the way the Trea­sury Depart­ment does.

    One of the peo­ple affil­i­at­ed with DOGE who now has access to the pay­ment sys­tem is Tom Krause, the chief exec­u­tive of a Sil­i­con Val­ley com­pa­ny, Cloud Soft­ware Group, accord­ing to one of the peo­ple famil­iar with the sit­u­a­tion .

    Last week­end, Mr. Krause had pushed Mr. Lebryk for entry into the sys­tem. Mr. Lebryk refused and then was sub­se­quent­ly put on admin­is­tra­tive leave, accord­ing to peo­ple famil­iar with the mat­ter.

    ...

    In a process typ­i­cal­ly run by civ­il ser­vants, the Trea­sury Depart­ment car­ries out pay­ments sub­mit­ted by agen­cies across the gov­ern­ment, dis­burs­ing more than $5 tril­lion in fis­cal year 2023. Access to the sys­tem has his­tor­i­cal­ly been close­ly held because it includes sen­si­tive per­son­al infor­ma­tion about the mil­lions of Amer­i­cans who receive Social Secu­ri­ty checks, tax refunds and oth­er pay­ments from the fed­er­al gov­ern­ment.

    For­mer offi­cials said the onus was on indi­vid­ual agen­cies to ensure their pay­ments are prop­er, not the rel­a­tive­ly small staff at the Trea­sury Depart­ment, which is respon­si­ble for mak­ing more than one bil­lion pay­ments per year.

    Mr. Lebryk, the career Trea­sury offi­cial who retired on Fri­day, had resist­ed requests from mem­bers of Mr. Trump’s tran­si­tion team for access to the data last month. After Mr. Trump took office, the White House indi­cat­ed that he should be removed from the job and, accord­ing to a per­son famil­iar with the mat­ter, Mr. Bessent sug­gest­ed putting him on leave.

    ...

    Dur­ing the tran­si­tion, Mr. Musk vocal­ly opposed Mr. Bessent being picked as Mr. Trump’s Trea­sury sec­re­tary. Mr. Musk, then just an empow­ered advis­er to Mr. Trump, went pub­lic with his opin­ion that he pre­ferred Howard Lut­nick, a Wall Street exec­u­tive, for the role because Mr. Bessent was “a busi­ness-as-usu­al choice.” Mr. Lut­nick became Mr. Trump’s choice for Com­merce sec­re­tary.

    ————-


    Elon Musk’s Team Now Has Access to Treasury’s Pay­ments Sys­tem” By Andrew Duehren, Mag­gie Haber­man, Theodore Schleifer and Alan Rappe­port; The New York Times; 02/01/2025

    “The new author­i­ty fol­lows a stand­off this week with a top Trea­sury offi­cial who had resist­ed allow­ing Mr. Musk’s lieu­tenants into the department’s pay­ment sys­tem, which sends out mon­ey on behalf of the entire fed­er­al gov­ern­ment. The offi­cial, a career civ­il ser­vant named David Lebryk, was put on leave and then sud­den­ly retired on Fri­day after the dis­pute, accord­ing to peo­ple famil­iar with his exit.”

    New sweep­ing author­i­ties obtained fol­low­ing a stand­off with agency lead­ers who are even­tu­al­ly fired or resign. It’s a theme. But as we can see, the hijack­ing of the Trea­sury Depart­ment isn’t quite the same as the hijack­ing of the rest of the gov­ern­ment agen­cies cur­rent­ly get­ting over­run with DOGE min­ions. Because if you con­trol the flow of the mon­ey in and out of the Trea­sury’s core sys­tems, you effec­tive­ly con­trol the rest of the fed­er­al gov­ern­ment. In oth­er words, they’re putting in place the pow­er to deploy the uncon­sti­tu­tion­al “impound­ment” strat­e­gy for car­ry­ing out Project 2025 that would fur­ther cement Trump’s Uni­tary Exec­u­tive sta­tus. Uni­lat­er­al exec­u­tive branch con­trol over fed­er­al spend­ing. That’s pret­ty clear­ly the plan under­way, with the GOP major­i­ty in con­gress appar­ent­ly ful­ly on board with this his­toric exec­u­tive branch pow­er grab:

    ...
    The sys­tem could give the Trump admin­is­tra­tion anoth­er mech­a­nism to attempt to uni­lat­er­al­ly restrict dis­burse­ment of mon­ey approved for spe­cif­ic pur­pos­es by Con­gress, a push that has faced legal road­blocks.

    ...

    The Depart­ment of Gov­ern­ment Effi­cien­cy, or DOGE, is not a gov­ern­ment depart­ment, but a team with­in the admin­is­tra­tion. It was put togeth­er at Mr. Trump’s direc­tion by Mr. Musk to fan out across fed­er­al agen­cies seek­ing ways to cut spend­ing, reduce the size of the fed­er­al work force and bring more effi­cien­cy to the bureau­cra­cy. Most of those work­ing on the ini­tia­tive were recruit­ed by Mr. Musk and his aides.

    Sim­i­lar DOGE teams have begun demand­ing access to data and sys­tems at oth­er fed­er­al agen­cies, but none of those agen­cies con­trol the flow of mon­ey in the way the Trea­sury Depart­ment does.
    ...

    And note how the peo­ple who have been grant­ed this kind of deep access to these crit­i­cal fed­er­al pay­ment sys­tems include ran­dom Sil­i­con Val­ley exec­u­tives like Tom Krause, who now appar­ent­ly has access to sen­si­tive per­son­al infor­ma­tion about the mil­lions of Amer­i­cans who receive Social Secu­ri­ty checks, tax refunds and oth­er pay­ments from the fed­er­al gov­ern­ment. Infor­ma­tion the career offi­cials refused to grant access to...before they were fired. What is Krause doing with that data? And who else is get­ting access to it?

    ...
    One of the peo­ple affil­i­at­ed with DOGE who now has access to the pay­ment sys­tem is Tom Krause, the chief exec­u­tive of a Sil­i­con Val­ley com­pa­ny, Cloud Soft­ware Group, accord­ing to one of the peo­ple famil­iar with the sit­u­a­tion .

    Last week­end, Mr. Krause had pushed Mr. Lebryk for entry into the sys­tem. Mr. Lebryk refused and then was sub­se­quent­ly put on admin­is­tra­tive leave, accord­ing to peo­ple famil­iar with the mat­ter.

    ...

    In a process typ­i­cal­ly run by civ­il ser­vants, the Trea­sury Depart­ment car­ries out pay­ments sub­mit­ted by agen­cies across the gov­ern­ment, dis­burs­ing more than $5 tril­lion in fis­cal year 2023. Access to the sys­tem has his­tor­i­cal­ly been close­ly held because it includes sen­si­tive per­son­al infor­ma­tion about the mil­lions of Amer­i­cans who receive Social Secu­ri­ty checks, tax refunds and oth­er pay­ments from the fed­er­al gov­ern­ment.

    ...

    Mr. Lebryk, the career Trea­sury offi­cial who retired on Fri­day, had resist­ed requests from mem­bers of Mr. Trump’s tran­si­tion team for access to the data last month. After Mr. Trump took office, the White House indi­cat­ed that he should be removed from the job and, accord­ing to a per­son famil­iar with the mat­ter, Mr. Bessent sug­gest­ed putting him on leave.
    ...

    And note how the pre­text for this coup at the Trea­sury is to hunt down improp­er fed­er­al pay­ments and yet it’s not actu­al­ly the Trea­sury’s job to do the vet­ting for all these recip­i­ents. That task is, log­i­cal­ly, done by the agen­cies that direct­ed the pay­ments in the first place:

    ...
    For­mer offi­cials said the onus was on indi­vid­ual agen­cies to ensure their pay­ments are prop­er, not the rel­a­tive­ly small staff at the Trea­sury Depart­ment, which is respon­si­ble for mak­ing more than one bil­lion pay­ments per year.
    ...

    And as the fol­low­ing Wired piece describes, the DOGE team tasked with this weird public/private coup at the Trea­sury isn’t just fol­low­ing dis­turb­ing orders from Elon Musk. It’s a shock­ing­ly inex­pe­ri­enced DOGE team, large­ly con­sist­ing of young men in their ear­ly 20s, includ­ing one 19 year old high school grad­u­ate. That’s who is being grant­ed access to some of the most sen­si­tive sys­tems in the fed­er­al gov­ern­ment. What makes them qual­i­fied for the job? Being in the orbit of Musk or Peter Thiel, appar­ent­ly:

    Wired

    The Young, Inex­pe­ri­enced Engi­neers Aid­ing Elon Musk’s Gov­ern­ment Takeover

    Engi­neers between 19 and 24, most linked to Musk’s com­pa­nies, are play­ing a key role as he seizes con­trol of fed­er­al infra­struc­ture.

    Vit­to­ria Elliott
    Pol­i­tics
    Feb 2, 2025 2:02 PM

    Elon Musk’s takeover of fed­er­al gov­ern­ment infra­struc­ture is ongo­ing, and at the cen­ter of things is a coterie of engi­neers who are bare­ly out of—and in at least one case, pur­port­ed­ly still in—college. Most have con­nec­tions to Musk, and at least two have con­nec­tions to Musk’s long­time asso­ciate Peter Thiel, a cofounder and chair of the ana­lyt­ics firm and gov­ern­ment con­trac­tor Palan­tir who has long expressed oppo­si­tion to democ­ra­cy.

    WIRED has iden­ti­fied six young men—all appar­ent­ly between the ages of 19 and 24, accord­ing to pub­lic data­bas­es, their online pres­ences, and oth­er records—who have lit­tle to no gov­ern­ment expe­ri­ence and are now play­ing crit­i­cal roles in Musk’s so-called Depart­ment of Gov­ern­ment Effi­cien­cy (DOGE) project, tasked by exec­u­tive order with “mod­ern­iz­ing Fed­er­al tech­nol­o­gy and soft­ware to max­i­mize gov­ern­men­tal effi­cien­cy and pro­duc­tiv­i­ty.” The engi­neers all hold neb­u­lous job titles with­in DOGE, and at least one appears to be work­ing as a vol­un­teer.

    The engi­neers are Akash Bob­ba, Edward Coris­tine, Luke Far­ri­tor, Gau­ti­er Cole Kil­lian, Gavin Kliger, and Ethan Shao­tran. None have respond­ed to requests for com­ment from WIRED. Rep­re­sen­ta­tives from OPM, GSA, and DOGE did not respond to requests for com­ment.

    ...

    “What we’re see­ing is unprece­dent­ed in that you have these actors who are not real­ly pub­lic offi­cials gain­ing access to the most sen­si­tive data in gov­ern­ment,” says Don Moyni­han, a pro­fes­sor of pub­lic pol­i­cy at the Uni­ver­si­ty of Michi­gan. “We real­ly have very lit­tle eyes on what’s going on. Con­gress has no abil­i­ty to real­ly inter­vene and mon­i­tor what’s hap­pen­ing because these aren’t real­ly account­able pub­lic offi­cials. So this feels like a hos­tile takeover of the machin­ery of gov­ern­ments by the rich­est man in the world.”

    Bob­ba has attend­ed UC Berke­ley, where he was in the pres­ti­gious Man­age­ment, Entre­pre­neur­ship, and Tech­nol­o­gy pro­gram. Accord­ing to a copy of his now-delet­ed LinkedIn obtained by WIRED, Bob­ba was an invest­ment engi­neer­ing intern at the Bridge­wa­ter Asso­ciates hedge fund as of last spring and was pre­vi­ous­ly an intern at both Meta and Palan­tir. He was a fea­tured guest on a since-delet­ed pod­cast with Aman Man­azir, an engi­neer who inter­views engi­neers about how they land­ed their dream jobs, where he talked about those expe­ri­ences last June.

    Coris­tine, as WIRED pre­vi­ous­ly report­ed, appears to have recent­ly grad­u­at­ed from high school and to have been enrolled at North­east­ern Uni­ver­si­ty. Accord­ing to a copy of his résumé obtained by WIRED, he spent three months at Neu­ralink, Musk’s brain-com­put­er inter­face com­pa­ny, last sum­mer.

    Both Bob­ba and Coris­tine are list­ed in inter­nal OPM records reviewed by WIRED as “experts” at OPM, report­ing direct­ly to Aman­da Scales, its new chief of staff. Scales pre­vi­ous­ly worked on tal­ent for xAI, Musk’s arti­fi­cial intel­li­gence com­pa­ny, and as part of Uber’s tal­ent acqui­si­tion team, per LinkedIn. Employ­ees at GSA tell WIRED that Coris­tine has appeared on calls where work­ers were made to go over code they had writ­ten and jus­ti­fy their jobs. WIRED pre­vi­ous­ly report­ed that Coris­tine was added to a call with GSA staff mem­bers using a non­govern­ment Gmail address. Employ­ees were not giv­en an expla­na­tion as to who he was or why he was on the calls.

    Far­ri­tor, who per sources has a work­ing GSA email address, is a for­mer intern at SpaceX, Musk’s space com­pa­ny, and cur­rent­ly a Thiel Fel­low after, accord­ing to his LinkedIn, drop­ping out of the Uni­ver­si­ty of Nebraska—Lincoln. While in school, he was part of an award-win­ning team that deci­phered por­tions of an ancient Greek scroll.

    Kliger, whose LinkedIn lists him as a spe­cial advis­er to the direc­tor of OPM and who is list­ed in inter­nal records reviewed by WIRED as a spe­cial advis­er to the direc­tor for infor­ma­tion tech­nol­o­gy, attend­ed UC Berke­ley until 2020; most recent­ly, accord­ing to his LinkedIn, he worked for the AI com­pa­ny Data­bricks. His Sub­stack includes a post titled “The Curi­ous Case of Matt Gaetz: How the Deep State Destroys Its Ene­mies,” as well as anoth­er titled “Pete Hegseth as Sec­re­tary of Defense: The War­rior Wash­ing­ton Fears.”

    Kil­lian, also known as Cole Kil­lian, has a work­ing email asso­ci­at­ed with DOGE, where he is cur­rent­ly list­ed as a vol­un­teer, accord­ing to inter­nal records reviewed by WIRED. Accord­ing to a copy of his now-delet­ed résumé obtained by WIRED, he attend­ed McGill Uni­ver­si­ty through at least 2021 and grad­u­at­ed high school in 2019. An archived copy of his now-delet­ed per­son­al web­site indi­cates that he worked as an engi­neer at Jump Trad­ing, which spe­cial­izes in algo­rith­mic and high-fre­quen­cy finan­cial trades.

    Shao­tran told Busi­ness Insid­er in Sep­tem­ber that he was a senior at Har­vard study­ing com­put­er sci­ence and also the founder of an Ope­nAI-backed start­up, Ener­gize AI. Shao­tran was the run­ner-up in a hackathon held by xAI, Musk’s AI com­pa­ny. In the Busi­ness Insid­er arti­cle, Shao­tran says he received a $100,000 grant from Ope­nAI to build his sched­ul­ing assis­tant, Spark.

    ...

    Sources tell WIRED that Bob­ba, Coris­tine, Far­ri­tor, and Shao­tran all cur­rent­ly have work­ing GSA emails and A‑suite lev­el clear­ance at the GSA, which means that they work out of the agency’s top floor and have access to all phys­i­cal spaces and IT sys­tems, accord­ing a source with knowl­edge of the GSA’s clear­ance pro­to­cols. The source, who spoke to WIRED on the con­di­tion of anonymi­ty because they fear retal­i­a­tion, says they wor­ry that the new teams could bypass the reg­u­lar secu­ri­ty clear­ance pro­to­cols to access the agency’s sen­si­tive com­part­ment­ed infor­ma­tion facil­i­ty, as the Trump admin­is­tra­tion has already grant­ed tem­po­rary secu­ri­ty clear­ances to unvet­ted peo­ple.

    ...

    ———-

    “The Young, Inex­pe­ri­enced Engi­neers Aid­ing Elon Musk’s Gov­ern­ment Takeover” by Vit­to­ria Elliott; Wired; 02/02/2025

    WIRED has iden­ti­fied six young men—all appar­ent­ly between the ages of 19 and 24, accord­ing to pub­lic data­bas­es, their online pres­ences, and oth­er records—who have lit­tle to no gov­ern­ment expe­ri­ence and are now play­ing crit­i­cal roles in Musk’s so-called Depart­ment of Gov­ern­ment Effi­cien­cy (DOGE) project, tasked by exec­u­tive order with “mod­ern­iz­ing Fed­er­al tech­nol­o­gy and soft­ware to max­i­mize gov­ern­men­tal effi­cien­cy and pro­duc­tiv­i­ty.” The engi­neers all hold neb­u­lous job titles with­in DOGE, and at least one appears to be work­ing as a vol­un­teer.”

    Yes, Elon’s gov­ern­ment wreck­ing crew con­sists of a group of young men, ages 19–24, whose pri­ma­ry life expe­ri­ence prepar­ing them for this awe­some respon­si­bil­i­ty appears to be a brief work his­to­ry in Musk’s orbit. And as these anony­mous sources warn, there’s very lit­tle vis­i­bil­i­ty on what Musk’s squad of hack­ers is actu­al­ly doing because these aren’t actu­al­ly pub­lic offi­cials. It’s more like a hos­tile takeover of the gov­ern­ment:

    ...
    “What we’re see­ing is unprece­dent­ed in that you have these actors who are not real­ly pub­lic offi­cials gain­ing access to the most sen­si­tive data in gov­ern­ment,” says Don Moyni­han, a pro­fes­sor of pub­lic pol­i­cy at the Uni­ver­si­ty of Michi­gan. “We real­ly have very lit­tle eyes on what’s going on. Con­gress has no abil­i­ty to real­ly inter­vene and mon­i­tor what’s hap­pen­ing because these aren’t real­ly account­able pub­lic offi­cials. So this feels like a hos­tile takeover of the machin­ery of gov­ern­ments by the rich­est man in the world.”

    ...

    Sources tell WIRED that Bob­ba, Coris­tine, Far­ri­tor, and Shao­tran all cur­rent­ly have work­ing GSA emails and A‑suite lev­el clear­ance at the GSA, which means that they work out of the agency’s top floor and have access to all phys­i­cal spaces and IT sys­tems, accord­ing a source with knowl­edge of the GSA’s clear­ance pro­to­cols. The source, who spoke to WIRED on the con­di­tion of anonymi­ty because they fear retal­i­a­tion, says they wor­ry that the new teams could bypass the reg­u­lar secu­ri­ty clear­ance pro­to­cols to access the agency’s sen­si­tive com­part­ment­ed infor­ma­tion facil­i­ty, as the Trump admin­is­tra­tion has already grant­ed tem­po­rary secu­ri­ty clear­ances to unvet­ted peo­ple.
    ...

    And note how it’s not just that the DOGE squad was select­ed from com­pa­nies asso­ci­at­ed with Musk or Peter Thiel. They are par­tic­u­lar­ly inex­pe­ri­enced employ­ees at these com­pa­nies, with one of the mem­bers of the DOGE team appar­ent­ly a recent high school grad­u­ate. But he spent three-months as an intern at Musk’s Neu­ralink so appar­ent­ly he’s qual­i­fied:

    ...
    Bob­ba has attend­ed UC Berke­ley, where he was in the pres­ti­gious Man­age­ment, Entre­pre­neur­ship, and Tech­nol­o­gy pro­gram. Accord­ing to a copy of his now-delet­ed LinkedIn obtained by WIRED, Bob­ba was an invest­ment engi­neer­ing intern at the Bridge­wa­ter Asso­ciates hedge fund as of last spring and was pre­vi­ous­ly an intern at both Meta and Palan­tir. He was a fea­tured guest on a since-delet­ed pod­cast with Aman Man­azir, an engi­neer who inter­views engi­neers about how they land­ed their dream jobs, where he talked about those expe­ri­ences last June.

    Coris­tine, as WIRED pre­vi­ous­ly report­ed, appears to have recent­ly grad­u­at­ed from high school and to have been enrolled at North­east­ern Uni­ver­si­ty. Accord­ing to a copy of his résumé obtained by WIRED, he spent three months at Neu­ralink, Musk’s brain-com­put­er inter­face com­pa­ny, last sum­mer.

    Both Bob­ba and Coris­tine are list­ed in inter­nal OPM records reviewed by WIRED as “experts” at OPM, report­ing direct­ly to Aman­da Scales, its new chief of staff. Scales pre­vi­ous­ly worked on tal­ent for xAI, Musk’s arti­fi­cial intel­li­gence com­pa­ny, and as part of Uber’s tal­ent acqui­si­tion team, per LinkedIn. Employ­ees at GSA tell WIRED that Coris­tine has appeared on calls where work­ers were made to go over code they had writ­ten and jus­ti­fy their jobs. WIRED pre­vi­ous­ly report­ed that Coris­tine was added to a call with GSA staff mem­bers using a non­govern­ment Gmail address. Employ­ees were not giv­en an expla­na­tion as to who he was or why he was on the calls.

    Far­ri­tor, who per sources has a work­ing GSA email address, is a for­mer intern at SpaceX, Musk’s space com­pa­ny, and cur­rent­ly a Thiel Fel­low after, accord­ing to his LinkedIn, drop­ping out of the Uni­ver­si­ty of Nebraska—Lincoln. While in school, he was part of an award-win­ning team that deci­phered por­tions of an ancient Greek scroll.
    ...

    And while the ques­tions over what exact­ly this DOGE team has been doing inside the Trea­sury looms large over this sto­ry, we have got­ten some answers. For exam­ple, it turns out 25 year old DOGE team mem­ber Mark Elez was grant­ed per­mis­sion to not just read the soft­ware code that oper­ates these sys­tems but mod­i­fy that code too. It’s the kind of access that does­n’t just poten­tial­ly grant the DOGE team the pow­er to cut off fed­er­al funds to any pro­gram, or indi­vid­ual, they choose to block, but it also grants them to pow­er to make changes that could end up be irre­versible:

    Wired

    A 25-Year-Old With Elon Musk Ties Has Direct Access to the Fed­er­al Pay­ment Sys­tem

    The Bureau of the Fis­cal Ser­vice is a sleepy part of the Trea­sury Depart­ment. It’s also where, sources say, a 25-year-old engi­neer tied to Elon Musk has admin priv­i­leges over the code that con­trols Social Secu­ri­ty pay­ments, tax returns, and more.

    Vit­to­ria Elliott, Dhruv Mehro­tra, Leah Feiger, Tim March­man
    Pol­i­tics
    Feb 4, 2025 1:02 AM

    A 25-year-old engi­neer named Marko Elez, who pre­vi­ous­ly worked for two Elon Musk com­pa­nies, has direct access to Trea­sury Depart­ment sys­tems respon­si­ble for near­ly all pay­ments made by the US gov­ern­ment, three sources tell WIRED.

    Two of those sources say that Elez’s priv­i­leges include the abil­i­ty not just to read but to write code on two of the most sen­si­tive sys­tems in the US gov­ern­ment: the Pay­ment Automa­tion Man­ag­er and Secure Pay­ment Sys­tem at the Bureau of the Fis­cal Ser­vice (BFS). Housed on a secure main­frame, these sys­tems con­trol, on a gran­u­lar lev­el, gov­ern­ment pay­ments that in their total­i­ty amount to more than a fifth of the US econ­o­my.

    Despite report­ing that sug­gests that Musk’s so-called Depart­ment of Gov­ern­ment Effi­cien­cy (DOGE) task force has access to these Trea­sury sys­tems on a “read-only” lev­el, sources say Elez, who has vis­it­ed a Kansas City office hous­ing BFS sys­tems, has many admin­is­tra­tor-lev­el priv­i­leges. Typ­i­cal­ly, those admin priv­i­leges could give some­one the pow­er to log in to servers through secure shell access, nav­i­gate the entire file sys­tem, change user per­mis­sions, and delete or mod­i­fy crit­i­cal files. That could allow some­one to bypass the secu­ri­ty mea­sures of, and poten­tial­ly cause irre­versible changes to, the very sys­tems they have access to.

    “You could do any­thing with these priv­i­leges,” says one source with knowl­edge of the sys­tem, who adds that they can­not con­ceive of a rea­son that any­one would need them for pur­pos­es of sim­ply hunt­ing down fraud­u­lent pay­ments or ana­lyz­ing dis­burse­ment flow.

    “Tech­ni­cal­ly I don’t see why this could­n’t hap­pen,” a fed­er­al IT work­er tells WIRED in a phone call late on Mon­day night, refer­ring to the pos­si­bil­i­ty of a DOGE employ­ee being grant­ed ele­vat­ed access to a gov­ern­ment serv­er. “If you would have asked me a week ago, I’d have told you that this kind of thing would nev­er in a mil­lion years hap­pen. But now, who the fu ck knows.”

    A source says they are con­cerned that data could be passed from secure sys­tems to DOGE oper­a­tives with­in the Gen­er­al Ser­vices Admin­is­tra­tion. WIRED report­ing has shown that Elon Musk’s associates—including Nicole Hol­lan­der, who slept in Twitter’s offices as Musk acquired the com­pa­ny, and Thomas Shedd, a for­mer Tes­la engi­neer who now runs a GSA agency, along with a host of extreme­ly young and inex­pe­ri­enced engi­neers—have infil­trat­ed the GSA and have attempt­ed to use White House secu­ri­ty cre­den­tials to gain access to GSA tech, some­thing experts have said is high­ly unusu­al and pos­es a huge secu­ri­ty risk.

    Elez, accord­ing to pub­lic data­bas­es and oth­er records reviewed by WIRED, is a 25-year-old who grad­u­at­ed Rut­gers Uni­ver­si­ty in 2021 and sub­se­quent­ly worked at SpaceX, Musk’s space com­pa­ny, where he focused on vehi­cle teleme­try, star­ship soft­ware, and satel­lite soft­ware. Elez then joined X, Musk’s social media com­pa­ny, where he worked on search AI. Pub­lic Github repos­i­to­ries show years of soft­ware devel­op­ment, with a par­tic­u­lar inter­est in dis­trib­uted sys­tems, rec­om­men­da­tion engines, and machine learn­ing. He does not appear to have pri­or gov­ern­ment expe­ri­ence.

    ...

    Broad­ly speak­ing, the US gov­ern­ment pays out mon­ey in one of two ways. Agen­cies like the Depart­ment of Defense and the US Postal Ser­vice are legal­ly autho­rized to orig­i­nate, cer­ti­fy, and issue pay­ments on their own. The vast major­i­ty of pay­ments, though—including fed­er­al tax returns, Social Secu­ri­ty ben­e­fits, Sup­ple­men­tal Secu­ri­ty Income ben­e­fits, and veteran’s pay—flow through the Fed­er­al Dis­burse­ment Ser­vices, which accord­ing to Trea­sury records paid out $5.45 tril­lion in fis­cal year 2024. The Bureau of the Fis­cal Ser­vice, a non­par­ti­san body, is charged with direct­ing this mon­ey appro­pri­ate­ly, mov­ing it from gov­ern­ment accounts to recip­i­ents. The Pay­ment Automa­tion Man­ag­er and the Secure Pay­ment Sys­tem are the mech­a­nisms through which the mon­ey is paid out.

    Con­trol of those mech­a­nisms could allow some­one to choke off mon­ey to spe­cif­ic fed­er­al agen­cies or even indi­vid­u­als, a fear that Democ­rats have expressed about DOGE. On Mon­day, Sen­ate Democ­rats warned of DOGE’s encroach­ment into the pay­ment sys­tem. “Will DOGE cut fund­ing to pro­grams approved by Con­gress that Don­ald Trump decides he doesn’t like,” said Sen­a­tor Chuck Schumer of New York. “What about can­cer research? Food banks? School lunch­es? Vet­er­ans aid? Lit­er­a­cy pro­grams? Small busi­ness loans?”

    ...

    Updat­ed, 2/4/2025, 11:45 AM EDT: WIRED has updat­ed the arti­cle to clar­i­fy on which main­frame the sys­tems are housed.

    ———-

    “A 25-Year-Old With Elon Musk Ties Has Direct Access to the Fed­er­al Pay­ment Sys­tem” by Vit­to­ria Elliott, Dhruv Mehro­tra, Leah Feiger, Tim March­man; Wired; 02/04/2025

    Two of those sources say that Elez’s priv­i­leges include the abil­i­ty not just to read but to write code on two of the most sen­si­tive sys­tems in the US gov­ern­ment: the Pay­ment Automa­tion Man­ag­er and Secure Pay­ment Sys­tem at the Bureau of the Fis­cal Ser­vice (BFS). Housed on a secure main­frame, these sys­tems con­trol, on a gran­u­lar lev­el, gov­ern­ment pay­ments that in their total­i­ty amount to more than a fifth of the US econ­o­my.”

    As we can see, this isn’t just a cri­sis of grant­i­ng access to sen­si­tive data. Marko Elez, a 25 year old DOGE employ­ee, has appar­ent­ly been giv­en per­mis­sions to mod­i­fy the trea­sury’s pay­ment sys­tems, caus­ing poten­tial­ly irre­versible changes. Which is the kind of pow­er that goes far beyond just ‘hunt­ing for inef­fi­cien­cies’. Elez appears to have been set­ting up the de fact pow­er of impound­ment:

    ...
    Despite report­ing that sug­gests that Musk’s so-called Depart­ment of Gov­ern­ment Effi­cien­cy (DOGE) task force has access to these Trea­sury sys­tems on a “read-only” lev­el, sources say Elez, who has vis­it­ed a Kansas City office hous­ing BFS sys­tems, has many admin­is­tra­tor-lev­el priv­i­leges. Typ­i­cal­ly, those admin priv­i­leges could give some­one the pow­er to log in to servers through secure shell access, nav­i­gate the entire file sys­tem, change user per­mis­sions, and delete or mod­i­fy crit­i­cal files. That could allow some­one to bypass the secu­ri­ty mea­sures of, and poten­tial­ly cause irre­versible changes to, the very sys­tems they have access to.

    “You could do any­thing with these priv­i­leges,” says one source with knowl­edge of the sys­tem, who adds that they can­not con­ceive of a rea­son that any­one would need them for pur­pos­es of sim­ply hunt­ing down fraud­u­lent pay­ments or ana­lyz­ing dis­burse­ment flow.

    “Tech­ni­cal­ly I don’t see why this could­n’t hap­pen,” a fed­er­al IT work­er tells WIRED in a phone call late on Mon­day night, refer­ring to the pos­si­bil­i­ty of a DOGE employ­ee being grant­ed ele­vat­ed access to a gov­ern­ment serv­er. “If you would have asked me a week ago, I’d have told you that this kind of thing would nev­er in a mil­lion years hap­pen. But now, who the fu ck knows.”

    A source says they are con­cerned that data could be passed from secure sys­tems to DOGE oper­a­tives with­in the Gen­er­al Ser­vices Admin­is­tra­tion. WIRED report­ing has shown that Elon Musk’s associates—including Nicole Hol­lan­der, who slept in Twitter’s offices as Musk acquired the com­pa­ny, and Thomas Shedd, a for­mer Tes­la engi­neer who now runs a GSA agency, along with a host of extreme­ly young and inex­pe­ri­enced engi­neers—have infil­trat­ed the GSA and have attempt­ed to use White House secu­ri­ty cre­den­tials to gain access to GSA tech, some­thing experts have said is high­ly unusu­al and pos­es a huge secu­ri­ty risk.

    ...

    Con­trol of those mech­a­nisms could allow some­one to choke off mon­ey to spe­cif­ic fed­er­al agen­cies or even indi­vid­u­als, a fear that Democ­rats have expressed about DOGE. On Mon­day, Sen­ate Democ­rats warned of DOGE’s encroach­ment into the pay­ment sys­tem. “Will DOGE cut fund­ing to pro­grams approved by Con­gress that Don­ald Trump decides he doesn’t like,” said Sen­a­tor Chuck Schumer of New York. “What about can­cer research? Food banks? School lunch­es? Vet­er­ans aid? Lit­er­a­cy pro­grams? Small busi­ness loans?”
    ...

    And as the fol­low­ing TPM piece con­firms, Elez does­n’t just have the pow­er to make changes to the Trea­sury’s pay­ment sys­tems. He already made exten­sive changes, with Trea­sury’s staff only have lim­it­ed vis­i­bil­i­ty on what he’s chang­ing. The Trea­sury is get­ting hacked from the inside:

    Talk­ing Points Memo

    Musk Cronies Dive Into Trea­sury Dept Pay­ments Code Base

    Josh Mar­shall
    Feb­ru­ary 4, 2025 9:48 a.m.

    Overnight, Wired report­ed that, con­trary to pub­lished reports that DOGE oper­a­tives at the Trea­sury Depart­ment are lim­it­ed to “read only” access to depart­ment pay­ment sys­tems, this is not true. A 25-year-old DOGE oper­a­tive named Marko Elez in fact has admin priv­i­leges on these crit­i­cal sys­tems, which direct­ly con­trol and pay out rough­ly 95% of pay­ments made by the U.S. gov­ern­ment, includ­ing Social Secu­ri­ty checks, tax refunds and vir­tu­al­ly all con­tract pay­ments. I can inde­pen­dent­ly con­firm these details based on con­ver­sa­tions going back to the week­end. I can fur­ther report that Elez not only has full access to these sys­tems, he has already made exten­sive changes to the code base for these crit­i­cal pay­ment sys­tem.

    Josh, are you a lit­tle crest­fall­en they beat you to it? Well, sure but this busi­ness is an ocean of “arrgghhs” and hon­est­ly the infor­ma­tion being out is the big thing. Here are the addi­tion­al details.

    I’m told that Elez and pos­si­bly oth­er DOGE oper­a­tives received full admin-lev­el access on Fri­day, Jan­u­ary 31st. The claim of “read only” access was either false from the start or lat­er fell through. The DOGE team, which appears to be main­ly or only Elez for the pur­pos­es of this project, has already made exten­sive changes to the code base for the pay­ment sys­tem. They have not locked out the exist­ing programmer/engineering staff but have rather leaned on them for assis­tance, which the staff appear to have pained­ly pro­vid­ed hop­ing to pre­vent as much dam­age as pos­si­ble — “dam­age” in the sense not of pre­vent­ing the intend­ed changes but avoid­ing crash­es or a sys­tem-wide break­down caused by rapid­ly push­ing new code into pro­duc­tion with a lim­it­ed knowl­edge of the sys­tem and its depen­den­cies across the fed­er­al gov­ern­ment.

    Phras­es like “freak­ing out” are, not sur­pris­ing­ly, used to describe the reac­tion of the engi­neers who were respon­si­ble for main­tain­ing the code base until a week ago. The changes that have been made all seem to relate to cre­at­ing new paths to block pay­ments and pos­si­bly leave less vis­i­bil­i­ty into what has been blocked. I want to empha­size that the described changes are not being test­ed in a dev envi­ron­ment (i.e., a not-live envi­ron­ment) but have already been pushed into pro­duc­tion. This is code that appears to be main­ly the work of Elez, who was first intro­duced to the sys­tem prob­a­bly rough­ly a week ago and cer­tain­ly not before the sec­ond Trump inau­gu­ra­tion. The most recent infor­ma­tion I have is that no pay­ments have as yet been blocked and that the incum­bent engi­neer­ing team was able to con­vince Elez to push the code live to impact only a sub­set of the uni­verse of pay­ments the sys­tem con­trols. I have also heard no spe­cif­ic infor­ma­tion about this access being used to drill down into the pri­vate finan­cial or pro­pri­etary infor­ma­tion of pay­ment recip­i­ents, though it appears that the incum­bent staff has only lim­it­ed vis­i­bil­i­ty into what Elez is doing with the access. They have, how­ev­er, looked exten­sive­ly into the cat­e­gories and iden­ti­ty of pay­ees to see how cer­tain pay­ments can be blocked.

    Adding fur­ther anx­i­ety about the sta­bil­i­ty of the sys­tem there is, I’m told, a long-sched­uled migra­tion sched­uled to take place this week­end which could inter­act in unpre­dictable ways with the code changes already described.

    ...

    ————-

    “Musk Cronies Dive Into Trea­sury Dept Pay­ments Code Base” by Josh Mar­shall; Talk­ing Points Memo; 02/04/2025

    I’m told that Elez and pos­si­bly oth­er DOGE oper­a­tives received full admin-lev­el access on Fri­day, Jan­u­ary 31st. The claim of “read only” access was either false from the start or lat­er fell through. The DOGE team, which appears to be main­ly or only Elez for the pur­pos­es of this project, has already made exten­sive changes to the code base for the pay­ment sys­tem. They have not locked out the exist­ing programmer/engineering staff but have rather leaned on them for assis­tance, which the staff appear to have pained­ly pro­vid­ed hop­ing to pre­vent as much dam­age as pos­si­ble — “dam­age” in the sense not of pre­vent­ing the intend­ed changes but avoid­ing crash­es or a sys­tem-wide break­down caused by rapid­ly push­ing new code into pro­duc­tion with a lim­it­ed knowl­edge of the sys­tem and its depen­den­cies across the fed­er­al gov­ern­ment.”

    And as we can see, Talk­ing Points Memo is con­firm­ing these insid­er accounts of what Marko Elez and his team has been up to at the Trea­sury. Claims of “read only” access are sim­ply false. The code isn’t read only. They not only can mod­i­fy the code to the Trea­sury’s pay­ment sys­tems but have already made exten­sive changes.

    It’s all quite alarm­ing. And then we got this update: it turns out Marko Elez has a his­to­ry of dis­turbing­ly racist social media posts. A very recent his­to­ry of such posts. Sur­prise!

    The Wall Street Jour­nal

    DOGE Staffer Resigns Over Racist Posts

    Employ­ee has links to a delet­ed social-media account that advo­cat­ed for racism and eugen­ics

    By Kather­ine Long
    Updat­ed Feb. 6, 2025 3:53 pm ET

    A staffer for Elon Musk’s Depart­ment of Gov­ern­ment Effi­cien­cy whose access to U.S. Trea­sury pay­ment sys­tems was approved by a fed­er­al judge on Thurs­day has links to a delet­ed social-media account that advo­cat­ed for racism and eugen­ics.

    The 25-year-old employ­ee, Marko Elez, resigned Thurs­day after The Wall Street Jour­nal asked the White House about his con­nec­tion to the account.

    The delet­ed pro­file asso­ci­at­ed with Elez, who was embed­ded in the Trea­sury Depart­ment to car­ry out effi­cien­cy mea­sures, advo­cat­ed repeal­ing the Civ­il Rights Act and backed a “eugenic immi­gra­tion pol­i­cy” in the weeks before Pres­i­dent Trump was inau­gu­rat­ed.

    “You could not pay me to mar­ry out­side of my eth­nic­i­ty,” the account wrote on X in Sep­tem­ber, accord­ing to a Wall Street Jour­nal review of archived posts. “Nor­mal­ize Indi­an hate,” the account wrote the same month, in ref­er­ence to a post not­ing the preva­lence of peo­ple from India in Sil­i­con Val­ley.

    After the Jour­nal inquired about the account, White House spokesper­son Karo­line Leav­itt said that Elez had resigned from his role.

    ...

    Thurs­day morn­ing, a U.S. Dis­trict Court judge ruled that Elez could con­tin­ue to access the department’s pay­ment sys­tems, but lim­it­ed his abil­i­ty to share the data. Elez resigned lat­er that same day.

    ...

    Elez attend­ed Rut­gers Uni­ver­si­ty, where he majored in com­put­er sci­ence. As a sopho­more, he co-found­ed a com­pa­ny, Unimetrics.io, that aimed to con­nect high-school­ers with men­tors who could help bur­nish their col­lege appli­ca­tions.

    Elez went on to work for Musk at SpaceX, Star­link, and X, where he focused on arti­fi­cial intel­li­gence, accord­ing to archives of his per­son­al web­site.

    ...

    The account, @nullllptr—a mis­spelling of a key­word in the C++ pro­gram­ming language—was delet­ed in Decem­ber, but hun­dreds of brash, some­times-sopho­moric posts have been archived.

    The user appeared to have a spe­cial dis­like for Indi­an soft­ware engi­neers. “99% of Indi­an H1Bs will be replaced by slight­ly smarter LLMs, they’re going back don’t wor­ry guys,” the user post­ed in Decem­ber.

    “Just for the record, I was racist before it was cool,” @nullllptr post­ed in July.

    In June, the user weighed in on the con­flict in the Mid­dle East, offer­ing some sym­pa­thy for Israel but also post­ing, “I would not mind at all if Gaza and Israel were both wiped off the face of the Earth.”

    The delet­ed @nullllptr account pre­vi­ous­ly went by the user­name @marko_elez, a review of archived posts shows. The user behind the @nullllptr also described them­selves as an employ­ee at SpaceX and Star­link.

    Elez cur­rent­ly oper­ates anoth­er X account, which also has the user­name @marko_elez; the two accounts often inter­act­ed with the same users and post­ed sim­i­lar con­tent, includ­ing posts com­pli­men­ta­ry of Musk and SpaceX, archives show.

    ———–

    “DOGE Staffer Resigns Over Racist Posts” By Kather­ine Long; The Wall Street Jour­nal; 02/06/2025

    “The delet­ed pro­file asso­ci­at­ed with Elez, who was embed­ded in the Trea­sury Depart­ment to car­ry out effi­cien­cy mea­sures, advo­cat­ed repeal­ing the Civ­il Rights Act and backed a “eugenic immi­gra­tion pol­i­cy” in the weeks before Pres­i­dent Trump was inau­gu­rat­ed.”

    Oh what a shock. Marko Elez has a his­to­ry of hor­ri­bly racist tweets. Recent his­to­ry, like the “You could not pay me to mar­ry out­side of my eth­nic­i­ty,” and “Nor­mal­ize Indi­an hate,” posts he made just back in Sep­tem­ber, rough­ly five months ago. These posts weren’t just the prod­uct of some long for­got­ten youth­ful phase:

    ...
    “You could not pay me to mar­ry out­side of my eth­nic­i­ty,” the account wrote on X in Sep­tem­ber, accord­ing to a Wall Street Jour­nal review of archived posts. “Nor­mal­ize Indi­an hate,” the account wrote the same month, in ref­er­ence to a post not­ing the preva­lence of peo­ple from India in Sil­i­con Val­ley.

    After the Jour­nal inquired about the account, White House spokesper­son Karo­line Leav­itt said that Elez had resigned from his role.

    ...

    The account, @nullllptr—a mis­spelling of a key­word in the C++ pro­gram­ming language—was delet­ed in Decem­ber, but hun­dreds of brash, some­times-sopho­moric posts have been archived.

    The user appeared to have a spe­cial dis­like for Indi­an soft­ware engi­neers. “99% of Indi­an H1Bs will be replaced by slight­ly smarter LLMs, they’re going back don’t wor­ry guys,” the user post­ed in Decem­ber.

    “Just for the record, I was racist before it was cool,” @nullllptr post­ed in July.

    In June, the user weighed in on the con­flict in the Mid­dle East, offer­ing some sym­pa­thy for Israel but also post­ing, “I would not mind at all if Gaza and Israel were both wiped off the face of the Earth.”
    ...

    And note this inter­est­ing fun fact about Elez’s rela­tion­ship with Musk’s com­pa­nies: he’s worked at SpaceX, Star­link, and X. You have to won­der how many more Musk firms he’s going to land at after this whole scan­dal:

    ...
    Elez attend­ed Rut­gers Uni­ver­si­ty, where he majored in com­put­er sci­ence. As a sopho­more, he co-found­ed a com­pa­ny, Unimetrics.io, that aimed to con­nect high-school­ers with men­tors who could help bur­nish their col­lege appli­ca­tions.

    Elez went on to work for Musk at SpaceX, Star­link, and X, where he focused on arti­fi­cial intel­li­gence, accord­ing to archives of his per­son­al web­site.
    ...

    Well, so long to Elez. It was quite a ride, no doubt.

    Except, of course, the ride isn’t over. Because this is the new ‘Gold­en Age’ era of Amer­i­ca, where hav­ing one’s his­to­ry of racist posts exposed is actu­al­ly a rea­son for pub­lic sym­pa­thy and for­give­ness. Specif­i­cal­ly, sym­pa­thy and for­give­ness from Pres­i­dent Trump and Vice Pres­i­dent JD Vance. And with Musk now call­ing for pun­ish­ment for the jour­nal­ist who wrote the above WSJ piece:

    The New York Times

    Vance and Trump Call for Rehir­ing of DOGE Staffer Who Quit Over Racist Posts. Musk Oblig­es.

    Soon after Mr. Trump’s remarks, Elon Musk wrote on X that the employ­ee, Marko Elez, would be rehired.

    By Ryan Mac and Kate Con­ger
    Feb. 7, 2025
    Updat­ed 5:21 p.m. ET

    Vice Pres­i­dent JD Vance on Fri­day morn­ing called for the rein­state­ment of a Depart­ment of Gov­ern­ment Effi­cien­cy staff mem­ber who had resigned after being linked to racist posts he made on X under a pseu­do­nym — a posi­tion endorsed hours lat­er by Pres­i­dent Trump.

    Mr. Vance’s dec­la­ra­tion on X came after The Wall Street Jour­nal linked a pseu­do­ny­mous account on the social plat­form with Marko Elez, a for­mer SpaceX and X employ­ee who had joined Elon Musk’s cost-cut­ting effort that is scru­ti­niz­ing gov­ern­ment spend­ing. Mr. Elez resigned on Thurs­day, after The Jour­nal report­ed that he had writ­ten posts last year declar­ing, “I was racist before it was cool” and “nor­mal­ize Indi­an hate.”

    “I obvi­ous­ly dis­agree with some of Elez’s posts, but I don’t think stu­pid social media activ­i­ty should ruin a kid’s life,” wrote Mr. Vance, whose wife, Usha Vance, is the daugh­ter of Indi­an immi­grants. “We shouldn’t reward jour­nal­ists who try to destroy peo­ple. Ever. So I say bring him back.”

    ...

    Pres­i­dent Trump, asked about the calls for rein­state­ment lat­er Fri­day at a news con­fer­ence with Japan’s prime min­is­ter, said he was not famil­iar with Mr. Elez’s posts. But after con­firm­ing with Mr. Vance, who was in the audi­ence, that the vice pres­i­dent had called for Mr. Elez’s rein­state­ment, Mr. Trump said agreed with what­ev­er the posi­tion his Vice Pres­i­dent took.

    ...

    “He will be brought back,” Mr. Musk wrote on X. “To err is human, to for­give divine.”

    Mr. Musk had appeared to favor Mr. Elez’s rein­state­ment, and led a cam­paign call­ing for the author of the Jour­nal sto­ry to be fired for pub­lish­ing pri­vate infor­ma­tion. The Jour­nal did not pub­lish pri­vate infor­ma­tion and sim­ply linked Mr. Elez’s pseu­do­ny­mous posts to his real name.

    On X, Mr. Musk posed a ques­tion to his more than 215 mil­lion fol­low­ers: “Bring back @DOGE staffer who made inap­pro­pri­ate state­ments via a now delet­ed pseu­do­nym?”

    The answer, from 78 per­cent of the more than 385,000 users who cast votes in the poll, was a resound­ing yes.

    On Fri­day, Bloomberg report­ed that anoth­er DOGE staffer, Edward Coris­tine, was fired from a pre­vi­ous job at a data secu­ri­ty firm after an inves­ti­ga­tion into the leak­ing of inter­nal infor­ma­tion.

    Before join­ing the gov­ern­ment, Mr. Coris­tine was fired in June 2022 from an intern­ship at Path, an Ari­zona-based data secu­ri­ty com­pa­ny, after “an inter­nal inves­ti­ga­tion into the leak­ing of pro­pri­etary com­pa­ny infor­ma­tion that coin­cid­ed with his tenure,” the com­pa­ny said in a state­ment obtained by The New York Times on Fri­day.

    ————

    “Vance and Trump Call for Rehir­ing of DOGE Staffer Who Quit Over Racist Posts. Musk Oblig­es.” By Ryan Mac and Kate Con­ger; The New York Times; 02/07/2025

    ““I obvi­ous­ly dis­agree with some of Elez’s posts, but I don’t think stu­pid social media activ­i­ty should ruin a kid’s life,” wrote Mr. Vance, whose wife, Usha Vance, is the daugh­ter of Indi­an immi­grants. “We shouldn’t reward jour­nal­ists who try to destroy peo­ple. Ever. So I say bring him back.””

    Fir­ing Marko Elez over his very recent racist posts would be reward­ing jour­nal­ists who try to destroy peo­ple, and there­fore Elez should be brought back to the job. That was seri­ous­ly the rea­son­ing put for­ward by Vice Pres­i­dent JD Vance. With Pres­i­dent Trump quick­ly agree­ing and Elon Musk press­ing for the pun­ish­ment of the Wall Street Jour­nal jour­nal­ists who pub­lished the ini­tial report on Elez’s racist posts. The mes­sage is clear: big­ots will be pro­tects and those who expose them will be pun­ished:

    ...
    Pres­i­dent Trump, asked about the calls for rein­state­ment lat­er Fri­day at a news con­fer­ence with Japan’s prime min­is­ter, said he was not famil­iar with Mr. Elez’s posts. But after con­firm­ing with Mr. Vance, who was in the audi­ence, that the vice pres­i­dent had called for Mr. Elez’s rein­state­ment, Mr. Trump said agreed with what­ev­er the posi­tion his Vice Pres­i­dent took.

    ...

    “He will be brought back,” Mr. Musk wrote on X. “To err is human, to for­give divine.”

    Mr. Musk had appeared to favor Mr. Elez’s rein­state­ment, and led a cam­paign call­ing for the author of the Jour­nal sto­ry to be fired for pub­lish­ing pri­vate infor­ma­tion. The Jour­nal did not pub­lish pri­vate infor­ma­tion and sim­ply linked Mr. Elez’s pseu­do­ny­mous posts to his real name.
    ...

    Final­ly, note how Elez is just one of the DOGE hack­ers who has already had their past, pret­ty recent past, catch up with them: Edward Coris­tine, the high school grad­u­ate, was fired from a pre­vi­ous job over leak­ing inter­nal infor­ma­tion. This is some­one who has been giv­en access to one of the most sen­si­tive sys­tems in the Unit­ed States:

    ...
    On Fri­day, Bloomberg report­ed that anoth­er DOGE staffer, Edward Coris­tine, was fired from a pre­vi­ous job at a data secu­ri­ty firm after an inves­ti­ga­tion into the leak­ing of inter­nal infor­ma­tion.

    Before join­ing the gov­ern­ment, Mr. Coris­tine was fired in June 2022 from an intern­ship at Path, an Ari­zona-based data secu­ri­ty com­pa­ny, after “an inter­nal inves­ti­ga­tion into the leak­ing of pro­pri­etary com­pa­ny infor­ma­tion that coin­cid­ed with his tenure,” the com­pa­ny said in a state­ment obtained by The New York Times on Fri­day.
    ...

    Will Coris­tine get let go over his past work his­to­ry of leak­ing sen­si­tive data? If so, how long before JD Vance calls for his rein­state­ment? We’ll see. But it’s not hard to imag­ine that hap­pen­ing. Then again, get­ting fired over leak­ing data prob­a­bly isn’t quite as con­tro­ver­sial as get­ting fired over racist com­ments in Trump’s new Gold­en Age Amer­i­ca. Because Project 2025 was always about a return to val­ues. 19th cen­tu­ry val­ues, specif­i­cal­ly.

    Posted by Pterrafractyl | February 8, 2025, 6:49 pm
  4. It’s been a chaot­ic open­ing for the sec­ond Trump admin­is­tra­tion. Clar­i­fy­ing chaot­ic, in many respects. Espe­cial­ly when it comes to the key goal of all this chaos. Because it’s not a giant chaos mon­ster that’s emerg­ing from all these ille­gal exec­u­tive actions. It’s the Uni­tary Exec­u­tive — Karl Rove’s decades-old ambi­tion brought back to life under Project 2025 — tak­ing form and ready to take as tight a grip as it choos­es. The kind of grip that might start with the fed­er­al gov­ern­ment but won’t end there. An uncheck grip on pow­er. No checks. No bal­ances. Just the whims of the pres­i­dent.

    It’s that uni­tary exec­u­tive image of the fed­er­al gov­ern­ment that has­n’t just been clear­ly embraced by Pres­i­dent Trump. As the fol­low­ing arti­cle makes clear, there’s a mod­ern twist on today’s uni­tary exec­u­tive the­o­ry: it’s not just that the pres­i­dent is to have pow­er unchecked by con­gress or the courts. The fed­er­al work­force task with exe­cut­ing those orders won’t real­ly have any say in the mat­ter either. Because it will be an AI-pow­ered fed­er­al work­force large­ly under the con­trol of whichev­er Sil­i­con Val­ley oli­garch is man­ag­ing that AI. That’s the vision of the uni­tary exec­u­tive com­ing into view. Fire as many fed­er­al work­ers as pos­si­ble and replace them with AI. The kind of vision that Elon Musk is obvi­ous­ly very excit­ed to make a real­i­ty.

    But not just Musk. As we’re going to see, Musk’s open pow­er grab has a num­ber of ‘usu­al sus­pect’ fans in the tech sec­tor. Fig­ures like Palan­tir co-founder Joe Lons­dale, who tells reports how, “Every­one in the DC lap­top class was extreme­ly arrogant...These peo­ple don’t real­ize there are lev­els of com­pe­tence and bold­ness that are far beyond any­thing in their sphere.” Yes, accord­ing to Lons­dale, what’s hap­pen­ing now at the fed­er­al gov­ern­ment is an explo­sion of “com­pe­tence” and “bold­ness”. That’s how it’s being spun. Because of course. Which AI com­pa­ny is more like­ly to get fed­er­al AI con­tracts than Palan­tir?

    We also get­ting more details on the tru­ly sin­is­ter plans to force as many fed­er­al employ­ees to vol­un­tar­i­ly quit as pos­si­ble. It sounds like the plan isn’t just an imme­di­ate “return to the office” order, in the hopes of get­ting remote work­ers to quit. There’s a fur­ther incen­tive planned to ‘encour­age’ the lag­gards to quit too: sell­ing off half of the fed­er­al office real estate with the inten­tion of increas­ing the dis­tance and time fed­er­al work­ers have to trav­el to make it to and from the office each day. Yes, con­gest­ing US high­ways with inten­tion­al­ly long com­mutes for fed­er­al employ­ees is the plan. Which makes this a good time to recall how Rus­sel Vought — key archi­tect of Project 2025 and now the head of the OMB and the CFPB — explic­it­ly stat­ed that a big part of Project 2025 was the plan to inflict “trau­ma” on the fed­er­al work­force.

    Also keep in mind that this sale of fed­er­al prop­er­ties will be hap­pen­ing in the con­text of an already depressed com­mer­cial real-estate mar­ket that is con­tin­u­ing to threat­en the pen­sion funds indus­try. A fed­er­al CRE fire sale, exe­cut­ed to troll the fed­er­al work­force. What a great sign for the depressed CRE mar­ket.

    Even CNP mem­ber Stephen Moore is warn­ing about these moves. Well, it’s not quite a warn­ing. As Moore put it, “We’re mov­ing toward an impe­r­i­al pres­i­den­cy. And whether or not that’s a good thing remains to be seen.” Yes, as Moore sees it, an impe­r­i­al pres­i­den­cy might be a good thing. Maybe. Maybe not. But that’s where we’re head­ing. This is a good time to recall how Moore hap­pens to be one of the key archi­tects of Trump’s 2017 tax cut and a an advo­cate of return­ing to the gold stan­dard. That’s the guy point­ing out that Trump is cre­at­ed an impe­r­i­al pres­i­den­cy and won­der­ing if it will be a good thing or not.

    It’s hap­pen­ing. Con­sti­tu­tion­al or not, the uni­tary exec­u­tive is com­ing into form, ush­ered along by a con­gres­sion­al Repub­li­can major­i­ty that appears very com­fort­able with the all that is hap­pen­ing. Includ­ing, it appears, being very ok with the replace­ment of the human fed­er­al work­force with untest­ed AI tech­nol­o­gy that will be oper­at­ing at the whims of the US’s new God King Pres­i­dent in charge of the AI (and the Sil­i­con Val­ley oli­garchs qui­et­ly man­ag­ing it):

    The Wash­ing­ton Post

    In chaot­ic Wash­ing­ton blitz, Elon Musk’s ulti­mate goal becomes clear

    Shrink gov­ern­ment, con­trol data and — accord­ing to one offi­cial close­ly watch­ing the billionaire’s DOGE — replace “the human work­force with machines.”

    Feb­ru­ary 8, 2025
    By Jeff Stein, Eliz­a­beth Dwoskin, Han­nah Natan­son and Jonathan O’Con­nell

    Bil­lion­aire Elon Musk’s blitzkrieg on Wash­ing­ton has brought into focus his vision for a dra­mat­i­cal­ly small­er and weak­er gov­ern­ment, as he and a coterie of aides move to con­trol, auto­mate — and sub­stan­tial­ly dimin­ish — hun­dreds if not thou­sands of pub­lic func­tions.

    In less than three weeks, Musk’s U.S. DOGE Ser­vice has fol­lowed the same play­book at one fed­er­al agency after anoth­er: Install loy­al­ists in lead­er­ship. Hoover up inter­nal data, includ­ing the sen­si­tive and the clas­si­fied. Gain con­trol of the flow of funds. And push hard — by means legal or oth­er­wise — to elim­i­nate jobs and pro­grams not ide­o­log­i­cal­ly aligned with Trump admin­is­tra­tion goals.

    The DOGE cam­paign has gen­er­at­ed chaos on a near-hourly basis across the nation’s cap­i­tal. But it appears care­ful­ly chore­o­graphed in ser­vice of a broad­er agen­da to gut the civil­ian work­force, assert pow­er over the vast fed­er­al bureau­cra­cy and shrink it to lev­els unseen in at least 20 years. The aim is a dimin­ished gov­ern­ment that exerts less over­sight over pri­vate busi­ness, deliv­ers few­er ser­vices and com­pris­es a small­er share of the U.S. econ­o­my — but is far more respon­sive to the direc­tives of the pres­i­dent.

    Though led by Musk’s team, this cam­paign is broad­ly sup­port­ed by Pres­i­dent Don­ald Trump and his senior lead­er­ship, who will be cru­cial to imple­ment­ing its next stages. And while resis­tance to Musk has emerged in the fed­er­al courts, among fed­er­al employ­ee unions and in pock­ets of Con­gress, allies say his crit­ics under­es­ti­mate the billionaire’s tal­ent for rip­ping apart and trans­form­ing insti­tu­tions — as has been proved in the scant time since Trump’s Jan. 20 inau­gu­ra­tion.

    ...

    So far, the “storm” has elicit­ed deep anx­i­ety. Late Fri­day, a fed­er­al judge in Wash­ing­ton declined to block DOGE access to Labor Depart­ment data but expressed con­cern about young DOGE staffers who “nev­er had any train­ing with respect to the han­dling of con­fi­den­tial infor­ma­tion” access­ing “the med­ical and finan­cial records of mil­lions of Amer­i­cans.” And on Sat­ur­day, a fed­er­al judge in New York tem­porar­i­ly blocked DOGE staff from access­ing sen­si­tive pay­ment sys­tems at the Trea­sury Depart­ment, cit­ing the risk of “irrepara­ble harm.”

    After the New York rul­ing, Musk defend­ed DOGE meth­ods, tweet­ing that his team had sought to add rou­tine infor­ma­tion to out­go­ing Trea­sury pay­ments to help spot fraud — “super obvi­ous and nec­es­sary changes” that “are being imple­ment­ed by exist­ing long­time career gov­ern­ment employ­ees, not any­one from @DOGE.”

    ...

    If Musk is suc­cess­ful, the fed­er­al work­force will be cut by at least 10 per­cent. A mass bid for vol­un­tary res­ig­na­tions — blocked by a fed­er­al judge in Mass­a­chu­setts who has sched­uled a Mon­day hear­ing — is expect­ed to be the first step before mass invol­un­tary dis­missals. Those are like­ly to include new hires or peo­ple with poor per­for­mance reviews, accord­ing to a plan laid out in mem­os issued over the last week by the Office of Per­son­nel Man­age­ment, which is now under Musk’s con­trol. Unions this week advised work­ers to down­load their per­for­mance reviews and per­son­nel files in prepa­ra­tion for hav­ing the infor­ma­tion used against them.

    As much as half the government’s non­mil­i­tary real estate hold­ings are set to be liq­ui­dat­ed, a move aimed at clos­ing offices and increas­ing com­mute times amid sharp new lim­its on remote and tele­work. That is intend­ed to depress work­force morale and increase attri­tion, accord­ing to four offi­cials with knowl­edge of inter­nal con­ver­sa­tions at the Gen­er­al Ser­vices Admin­is­tra­tion, anoth­er agency tak­en over by Musk.

    “We’ve heard from them that they want to make the build­ings so crap­py that peo­ple will leave,” said one senior offi­cial at GSA, which man­ages most fed­er­al prop­er­ty. “I think that’s the larg­er goal here, which is bring every­body back, the build­ings are going to suck, their com­mutes are going to suck.”

    To replace the exist­ing civ­il ser­vice, Musk’s allies are look­ing to tech­nol­o­gy. DOGE asso­ciates have been feed­ing vast troves of gov­ern­ment records and data­bas­es into arti­fi­cial intel­li­gence tools, look­ing for unwant­ed fed­er­al pro­grams and try­ing to deter­mine which human work can be replaced by AI, machine-learn­ing tools or even robots.

    That push has been espe­cial­ly fierce at GSA, where DOGE staffers are telling man­agers that they plan to auto­mate a major­i­ty of jobs, accord­ing to a per­son famil­iar with the sit­u­a­tion.

    “The end goal is replac­ing the human work­force with machines,” said a U.S. offi­cial close­ly watch­ing DOGE activ­i­ty. “Every­thing that can be machine-auto­mat­ed will be. And the tech­nocrats will replace the bureau­crats.”

    The defen­es­tra­tion of the fed­er­al work­force could clear the way for Trump and Musk to can­cel fed­er­al spend­ing or elim­i­nate entire agen­cies with­out approval of Con­gress, an unprece­dent­ed expan­sion of exec­u­tive pow­er. This week, Tom Krause, a Musk ally, was installed to over­see an agency in the U.S. Trea­sury Depart­ment respon­si­ble for exe­cut­ing tril­lions of dol­lars in annu­al pay­ments to the full array of recip­i­ents, from con­trac­tors and grantees to mil­i­tary fam­i­lies and retirees. The Bureau of Fis­cal Ser­vice has long sim­ply cut the checks as ordered by var­i­ous fed­er­al agen­cies, but Krause’s appoint­ment may change that.

    Mean­while, White House offi­cials have begun prepar­ing bud­get doc­u­ments that seek to cut some agen­cies and depart­ments by as much as 60 per­cent, accord­ing to two oth­er peo­ple famil­iar with the mat­ter, who spoke on the con­di­tion of anonymi­ty to reflect inter­nal delib­er­a­tions. It’s unclear whether Trump will feel com­pelled to ask Con­gress to approve those cuts. Though the Con­sti­tu­tion specif­i­cal­ly invests spend­ing pow­er in Con­gress, Musk and Trump bud­get chief Rus­sell Vought have argued they should have author­i­ty to slash spend­ing uni­lat­er­al­ly.

    ...

    David Super, an admin­is­tra­tive law pro­fes­sor at George­town Uni­ver­si­ty, said the pro­posed cuts would return the mod­ern civ­il ser­vice to the late 19th cen­tu­ry, before the enact­ment of anti-cor­rup­tion reforms. Super said the two biggest pre­vi­ous pow­er grabs were Pres­i­dent Richard M. Nixon’s 1973 attempt to can­cel fed­er­al pro­grams he didn’t like and Pres­i­dent Har­ry S. Truman’s 1952 effort to nation­al­ize the steel indus­try — both of which were struck down by the courts.

    “The admin­is­tra­tion is doing the equiv­a­lent of these moves sev­er­al times a day, every day,” Super said. “The divi­sion we’ve had since 1787 is checks and bal­ances — that no one branch is pre­em­i­nent, but that all three are required to work togeth­er. The vision here is an extreme­ly strong exec­u­tive and a sub­or­di­nate judi­cia­ry and Con­gress.”

    Musk’s defend­ers say he and Trump are apply­ing the long-stand­ing idea of “zero based bud­get­ing” — tak­ing all spend­ing to zero and then rebuild­ing from scratch — to the fed­er­al gov­ern­ment for the first time. The moves are also char­ac­ter­is­tic of Musk’s bound­ary-push­ing man­age­ment style. When he took over Twit­ter, he fired more than 75 per­cent of the staff. He also has had a pref­er­ence for a lean work­force at Tes­la, an oppo­si­tion to unions at all his com­pa­nies and a habit­u­al will­ing­ness every­where to push past norms and rules.

    ...

    Ini­tial­ly, few expect­ed Musk to cause such seis­mic shifts. Musk said he want­ed to remake the fed­er­al gov­ern­ment from scratch — to “delete” all that he viewed wasn’t work­ing and start over — but few took that ambi­tion lit­er­al­ly, said Joe Lons­dale, an investor and Palan­tir co-founder who is friends with Musk.

    In the weeks after the elec­tion, Trump said Musk’s “Depart­ment of Gov­ern­ment Effi­cien­cy” would be a non­govern­men­tal enti­ty pro­vid­ing non­bind­ing advice to the admin­is­tra­tion. Some Trump advis­ers described it as a place to side­line the overzeal­ous bil­lion­aires who want­ed to help Trump but knew noth­ing about how Wash­ing­ton worked.

    But with­in hours of tak­ing office, Trump signed an exec­u­tive order plac­ing DOGE square­ly inside the White House, in an office respon­si­ble for infor­ma­tion tech­nol­o­gy, the U.S. Dig­i­tal Ser­vice.

    With­in days, it became clear that Musk’s ambi­tions were not mere­ly to remake gov­ern­ment tech­nol­o­gy, as some spec­u­lat­ed, but to revamp the entire fed­er­al bureau­cra­cy. DOGE co-leader Vivek Ramaswamy, the biotech entre­pre­neur and for­mer GOP pres­i­den­tial can­di­date, quick­ly left the project amid dif­fer­ences over Musk’s plans to dis­man­tle gov­ern­ment by fore­ground­ing tech­nol­o­gy and bypass­ing Con­gress.

    “Every­one in the DC lap­top class was extreme­ly arro­gant,” Lons­dale said. “These peo­ple don’t real­ize there are lev­els of com­pe­tence and bold­ness that are far beyond any­thing in their sphere.”

    The DOGE play­book has been the same every­where, accord­ing to more than two dozen fed­er­al work­ers with direct knowl­edge of DOGE activ­i­ties, as well as records obtained by The Post. The work­ers — employed at OPM, GSA, FEMA, the U.S. Agency for Inter­na­tion­al Devel­op­ment and the Edu­ca­tion Depart­ment — spoke on the con­di­tion of anonymi­ty for fear of retal­i­a­tion.

    DOGE comes in fast, going around low­er-lev­el IT staffers, who typ­i­cal­ly raise pri­va­cy con­cerns but are over­ruled by senior lead­ers who fold to DOGE’s demands. DOGE team mem­bers are then giv­en super­pow­ered user accounts enabling them to access and edit reams of gov­ern­ment data with lit­tle to no over­sight, the peo­ple said. That allows them to make changes at light­ning speed, bypass­ing typ­i­cal secu­ri­ty pro­to­cols and alarm­ing gov­ern­ment employ­ees tasked with keep­ing sen­si­tive data secure.

    At OPM, for exam­ple, DOGE team mem­bers gained the abil­i­ty to delete, mod­i­fy or export the per­son­al infor­ma­tion of mil­lions of fed­er­al work­ers and fed­er­al job appli­cants. After The Post report­ed on secu­ri­ty con­cerns over such access, OPM’s inter­im lead­er­ship on Fri­day direct­ed DOGE agents to be removed from the sen­si­tive per­son­nel sys­tem.

    Fed­er­al work­ers who have been in meet­ings with DOGE staffers say their dri­ving mis­sion seems to be slash­ing spend­ing — both by can­cel­ing gov­ern­ment con­tracts and elim­i­nat­ing jobs. They often appear tense, as if fac­ing sig­nif­i­cant pres­sure from their boss­es to move fast, said a per­son who has worked with them.

    At the GSA, act­ing admin­is­tra­tor Stephen Ehikian — a for­mer Sil­i­con Val­ley exec­u­tive — and oth­er Trump appointees have pushed aggres­sive­ly to cut costs by at least 50 per­cent, in part by elim­i­nat­ing half of all fed­er­al real estate nation­wide. That mea­sure was out­lined in an email Tues­day to real estate staff from Michael Peters, the new head of the pub­lic build­ings ser­vice.

    The mes­sag­ing has appeared delib­er­ate­ly designed to increase attri­tion. In an email Tues­day, Ehikian warned of a “very high prob­a­bil­i­ty” that the 2,000 peo­ple who live more than 50 miles from a ser­vice sta­tion would be assigned far­ther away as part of his effort to reor­ga­nize the agency. Staff would not know whether they had been reas­signed — say, from North Car­oli­na to Col­orado — until days after they had to decide whether to accept Musk’s offer to resign with eight months pay.

    The Edu­ca­tion Depart­ment may be fur­thest along the DOGE path to demo­li­tion. DOGE staffers there have begun using AI to ana­lyze the department’s finan­cial data, aim­ing to can­cel every con­tract that is not required by law or essen­tial to the department’s oper­a­tions, accord­ing to two employ­ees.

    On Fri­day, records obtained by The Post show DOGE staffer Ethan Shao­tran edit­ing the department’s web­site. He also start­ed putting togeth­er a new web­page that will track the can­cel­la­tion of Biden-era grants that pushed “divi­sive and tox­ic ide­olo­gies through the K‑12 sys­tem,” accord­ing to the records.

    Under a head­ing called “Col­lect­ed Low­lights,” Shao­tran list­ed nixed pro­grams: A “JEDI” (Jus­tice, Equi­ty Diver­si­ty & Inclu­sion) train­ing for teach­ers; work­shops on “Decol­o­niz­ing the cur­ricu­lum” and “Becom­ing an anti-racist edu­ca­tor”; and “Using tax­pay­er funds to estab­lish an ‘Equi­ty & Social Jus­tice’ cen­ter.’”

    ...

    A nascent resis­tance may yet con­strain Musk’s ambi­tions. In addi­tion to mul­ti­ple law­suits filed to lim­it DOGE’s access to sen­si­tive fed­er­al mate­r­i­al, Con­gress may object to entire fed­er­al agen­cies being abol­ished with­out its con­sent. And the civil­ian work­force has viewed “buy­out” offers skep­ti­cal­ly, with unions telling mem­bers who work from home not to accept any offers to resign while they plan a legal chal­lenge.

    But peo­ple who have known Musk for years say his sin­gle-mind­ed will­ing­ness to break rules in ser­vice of a larg­er mis­sion is unpar­al­leled. He once told Tes­la employ­ees they would lose stock options if they joined a union — a com­ment deemed an unlaw­ful threat by the Nation­al Labor Rela­tions Board and the courts. He has tus­sled with the Fed­er­al Avi­a­tion Admin­is­tra­tion over launch­ing rock­ets with­out prop­er per­mis­sion and paid fines from the Envi­ron­men­tal Pro­tec­tion Agency for dump­ing waste­water on pro­tect­ed Texas wet­lands.

    For now, most con­gres­sion­al Repub­li­cans are sup­port­ing Trump and Musk’s trans­for­ma­tion of the fed­er­al gov­ern­ment. But even some con­ser­v­a­tives and long­time Trump allies have expressed reser­va­tions about their meth­ods.

    “It’s a wreck­ing ball, rather than a scalpel here. Not that I’d com­plain about that — I’ve always said we need a wreck­ing ball,” said Stephen Moore, an out­side advis­er to Trump who has been work­ing to shrink gov­ern­ment since the Rea­gan era.

    “But how much author­i­ty does the Con­sti­tu­tion real­ly give the pres­i­dent to com­plete­ly reor­ga­nize the gov­ern­ment on his own?” Moore said. “We’re mov­ing toward an impe­r­i­al pres­i­den­cy. And whether or not that’s a good thing remains to be seen.”

    ———–

    “In chaot­ic Wash­ing­ton blitz, Elon Musk’s ulti­mate goal becomes clear” By Jeff Stein, Eliz­a­beth Dwoskin, Han­nah Natan­son and Jonathan O’Con­nell; The Wash­ing­ton Post; 02/08/2025

    “The DOGE cam­paign has gen­er­at­ed chaos on a near-hourly basis across the nation’s cap­i­tal. But it appears care­ful­ly chore­o­graphed in ser­vice of a broad­er agen­da to gut the civil­ian work­force, assert pow­er over the vast fed­er­al bureau­cra­cy and shrink it to lev­els unseen in at least 20 years. The aim is a dimin­ished gov­ern­ment that exerts less over­sight over pri­vate busi­ness, deliv­ers few­er ser­vices and com­pris­es a small­er share of the U.S. econ­o­my — but is far more respon­sive to the direc­tives of the pres­i­dent.

    Yes, the DOGE cam­paign is wild­ly chaot­ic. But as we can see, it’s also a care­ful­ly chore­o­graphed plan exe­cut­ed with the full back­ing of the Trump White House. The chaos is hid­ing the strat­e­gy at work here. A strat­e­gy that, if suc­cess­ful, will result in the evis­cer­a­tion of fed­er­al agen­cies, with White House offi­cials already prepar­ing bud­gets that assume lay­offs as much as 60 per­cent:

    ...

    If Musk is suc­cess­ful, the fed­er­al work­force will be cut by at least 10 per­cent. A mass bid for vol­un­tary res­ig­na­tions — blocked by a fed­er­al judge in Mass­a­chu­setts who has sched­uled a Mon­day hear­ing — is expect­ed to be the first step before mass invol­un­tary dis­missals. Those are like­ly to include new hires or peo­ple with poor per­for­mance reviews, accord­ing to a plan laid out in mem­os issued over the last week by the Office of Per­son­nel Man­age­ment, which is now under Musk’s con­trol. Unions this week advised work­ers to down­load their per­for­mance reviews and per­son­nel files in prepa­ra­tion for hav­ing the infor­ma­tion used against them.

    ...

    Mean­while, White House offi­cials have begun prepar­ing bud­get doc­u­ments that seek to cut some agen­cies and depart­ments by as much as 60 per­cent, accord­ing to two oth­er peo­ple famil­iar with the mat­ter, who spoke on the con­di­tion of anonymi­ty to reflect inter­nal delib­er­a­tions. It’s unclear whether Trump will feel com­pelled to ask Con­gress to approve those cuts. Though the Con­sti­tu­tion specif­i­cal­ly invests spend­ing pow­er in Con­gress, Musk and Trump bud­get chief Rus­sell Vought have argued they should have author­i­ty to slash spend­ing uni­lat­er­al­ly.
    ...

    And note the overt­ly troll­ish bad faith nature of this plan: they are com­bin­ing ‘back-to-office’ orders with mas­sive fed­er­al real estate sales in order to force fed­er­al employ­ees to take long com­mutes so they’ll want to quit. But they won’t even tell fed­er­al work­ers whether or not they are going to be fac­ing these long com­mutes until after they’ve been giv­en the oppor­tu­ni­ty to accept the res­ig­na­tion offer. US roads are going to be even more con­gest­ed as part of this intim­i­da­tion scheme. All done in the name of “effi­cien­cy”:

    ...
    As much as half the government’s non­mil­i­tary real estate hold­ings are set to be liq­ui­dat­ed, a move aimed at clos­ing offices and increas­ing com­mute times amid sharp new lim­its on remote and tele­work. That is intend­ed to depress work­force morale and increase attri­tion, accord­ing to four offi­cials with knowl­edge of inter­nal con­ver­sa­tions at the Gen­er­al Ser­vices Admin­is­tra­tion, anoth­er agency tak­en over by Musk.

    “We’ve heard from them that they want to make the build­ings so crap­py that peo­ple will leave,” said one senior offi­cial at GSA, which man­ages most fed­er­al prop­er­ty. “I think that’s the larg­er goal here, which is bring every­body back, the build­ings are going to suck, their com­mutes are going to suck.”

    ...

    At the GSA, act­ing admin­is­tra­tor Stephen Ehikian — a for­mer Sil­i­con Val­ley exec­u­tive — and oth­er Trump appointees have pushed aggres­sive­ly to cut costs by at least 50 per­cent, in part by elim­i­nat­ing half of all fed­er­al real estate nation­wide. That mea­sure was out­lined in an email Tues­day to real estate staff from Michael Peters, the new head of the pub­lic build­ings ser­vice.

    The mes­sag­ing has appeared delib­er­ate­ly designed to increase attri­tion. In an email Tues­day, Ehikian warned of a “very high prob­a­bil­i­ty” that the 2,000 peo­ple who live more than 50 miles from a ser­vice sta­tion would be assigned far­ther away as part of his effort to reor­ga­nize the agency. Staff would not know whether they had been reas­signed — say, from North Car­oli­na to Col­orado — until days after they had to decide whether to accept Musk’s offer to resign with eight months pay.
    ...

    But this isn’t just a plan for mass lay­offs. It’s a plan to replace those laid off employ­ees with arti­fi­cial intel­li­gence. AI that will pre­sum­ably be some­how owned and oper­at­ed by the pri­vate sec­tor:

    ...
    To replace the exist­ing civ­il ser­vice, Musk’s allies are look­ing to tech­nol­o­gy. DOGE asso­ciates have been feed­ing vast troves of gov­ern­ment records and data­bas­es into arti­fi­cial intel­li­gence tools, look­ing for unwant­ed fed­er­al pro­grams and try­ing to deter­mine which human work can be replaced by AI, machine-learn­ing tools or even robots.

    That push has been espe­cial­ly fierce at GSA, where DOGE staffers are telling man­agers that they plan to auto­mate a major­i­ty of jobs, accord­ing to a per­son famil­iar with the sit­u­a­tion.

    “The end goal is replac­ing the human work­force with machines,” said a U.S. offi­cial close­ly watch­ing DOGE activ­i­ty. “Every­thing that can be machine-auto­mat­ed will be. And the tech­nocrats will replace the bureau­crats.”

    ...

    The Edu­ca­tion Depart­ment may be fur­thest along the DOGE path to demo­li­tion. DOGE staffers there have begun using AI to ana­lyze the department’s finan­cial data, aim­ing to can­cel every con­tract that is not required by law or essen­tial to the department’s oper­a­tions, accord­ing to two employ­ees.
    ...

    And as we are remind­ed of from the com­ments by Palan­tir’s Joe Lons­dale, com­pa­nies like Palan­tir are also obvi­ous­ly in a lead­ing posi­tion to play a role in pro­vid­ing the AI ser­vices that will pre­sum­ably be replac­ing all these fed­er­al work­ers. What kind of lucra­tive con­tracts will Palan­tir get as a result of the dec­i­ma­tion of the fed­er­al work­force? This is also a good time to recall how Lons­dale has also played a key role in secur­ing Sau­di invest­ments in Sil­i­con Val­ley, mak­ing this also a good time to keep in mind that the out­sourc­ing of the fed­er­al human work­force to AI firms will allow for poten­tial­ly all sorts of inter­na­tion­al investors in the AI space to play a poten­tial role in the exe­cu­tion of the US gov­ern­men­t’s poli­cies:

    ..
    Ini­tial­ly, few expect­ed Musk to cause such seis­mic shifts. Musk said he want­ed to remake the fed­er­al gov­ern­ment from scratch — to “delete” all that he viewed wasn’t work­ing and start over — but few took that ambi­tion lit­er­al­ly, said Joe Lons­dale, an investor and Palan­tir co-founder who is friends with Musk.

    ...

    “Every­one in the DC lap­top class was extreme­ly arro­gant,” Lons­dale said. “These peo­ple don’t real­ize there are lev­els of com­pe­tence and bold­ness that are far beyond any­thing in their sphere.”
    ...

    And, again, it’s all be done in the ser­vice of Karl Rove’s decades-old ques­tion to real­ize the “Uni­tary Exec­u­tive”, with an exec­u­tive branch unchecked by the leg­isla­tive and judi­cial branch­es. An AI-pow­ered exec­u­tive branch that unques­tion­ing­ly car­ries out what­ev­er orders the pres­i­dent issues. It’s such a rad­i­cal change in how the US con­sti­tu­tion­al fun­da­men­tal­ly oper­ates that even Stephen Moore is rais­ing alarms about it. This is the same CNP mem­ber Stephen Moore who hap­pens to be one of the key archi­tects of Trump’s 2017 tax cut and a an advo­cate of return­ing to the gold stan­dard. That’s the guy warn­ing that “We’re mov­ing toward an impe­r­i­al pres­i­den­cy. And whether or not that’s a good thing remains to be seen.” Which isn’t exact­ly a warn­ing. He’s open to it being a “good thing” after all:

    ...
    The defen­es­tra­tion of the fed­er­al work­force could clear the way for Trump and Musk to can­cel fed­er­al spend­ing or elim­i­nate entire agen­cies with­out approval of Con­gress, an unprece­dent­ed expan­sion of exec­u­tive pow­er. This week, Tom Krause, a Musk ally, was installed to over­see an agency in the U.S. Trea­sury Depart­ment respon­si­ble for exe­cut­ing tril­lions of dol­lars in annu­al pay­ments to the full array of recip­i­ents, from con­trac­tors and grantees to mil­i­tary fam­i­lies and retirees. The Bureau of Fis­cal Ser­vice has long sim­ply cut the checks as ordered by var­i­ous fed­er­al agen­cies, but Krause’s appoint­ment may chapel here. Not that I’d com­plain about that — I’ve always said we need a wreck­ing ball,” said Stephen Moore, an out­side advis­er to Trump who has been work­ing to shrink gov­ern­ment since the Rea­gan era.

    “But how much author­i­ty does the Con­sti­tu­tion real­ly give the pres­i­dent to com­plete­ly reor­ga­nize the gov­ern­ment on his own?” Moore said. “We’re mov­ing toward an impe­r­i­al pres­i­den­cy. And whether or not that’s a good thing remains to be seen.”
    ...

    And if you’re assum­ing that a fed­er­al AI will be fac­tor­ing in pesky details like the con­sti­tu­tion­al­i­ty of the var­i­ous orders its giv­en, don’t for­get that the upend­ing of that con­sti­tu­tion­al order is inher­ent in the estab­lish­ment of the Uni­tary Exec­u­tive. Doing what­ev­er the pres­i­dent demands will be the con­sti­tu­tion­al order under an impe­r­i­al pres­i­den­cy. The only per­son stand­ing in his way at that point will be the tech oli­garch actu­al­ly man­ag­ing the fed­er­al AI. An AI that will pre­sum­ably have immense influ­ence over what infor­ma­tion and analy­sis the pres­i­dent sees. Which is a reminder that Amer­i­ca’s new AI-pow­ered impe­r­i­al pres­i­den­cy con­sti­tu­tion­al mod­el won’t just include elect­ing a king (assum­ing there are elec­tions any­more). There’s going to be two kings. The pub­lic-fac­ing king to keep the rubes pla­cat­ed, and the real king behind him run­ning the AI.

    Posted by Pterrafractyl | February 10, 2025, 11:15 pm
  5. How do you make a bad joke worse? Have a fas­cist tell it.

    That was­n’t a joke. It’s the sad con­text of the author­i­tar­i­an ‘jokes’ Pres­i­dent Trump decid­ed to unfurl on social media this week. The kind of author­i­tar­i­an jokes a fas­cist might make before mak­ing good on the ‘joke’. Jokes that are already being spun as just ‘Trump trolling the libs’ but, as we’ll see, are more or less a dark­ly humor­ous cel­e­bra­tion of the his­toric pow­er grab under­way by the Trump admin­is­tra­tion. A Uni­tary Exec­u­tive pow­er grab that envi­sions a Pres­i­dent unchecked by both Con­gress and the courts. The kind of pow­er grab that, if suc­cess­ful, won’t just pave the way for the full real­iza­tion of Project 2025 but will also effec­tive­ly trans­form the Amer­i­can Pres­i­dent into an Amer­i­can King.

    It start­ed with a dec­la­ra­tion on Truth Social that was­n’t even real­ly a joke. Just a dec­la­ra­tion on Trump’s Truth Social account that appeared to chan­nel Napoleon’s sense of Impe­r­i­al author­i­ty: “He who saves his Coun­try does not vio­late any Law.” The post was pinned to the top of his Truth Social pro­file. The quote near­ly match­es one that appeared in a 1970 movie about Napoleon Bona­parte.

    At best, the post could be thought of as a dead­panned attempt to ‘troll the libs’. But it was­n’t pre­sent­ed as a joke. It was ‘Trump being Trump’. And Trump clear­ly views him­self as play­ing some sort of his­toric ‘nation­al sav­ior’ role. A role that will like­ly entail ille­gal acts. Trump is envi­sion­ing his sec­ond Pres­i­den­cy as one that will oper­ate out­side the Con­sti­tu­tion. And reshape Amer­i­can gov­ern­ment and soci­ety, under the guise of ‘sav­ing the coun­try’. It was­n’t just a bad joke. He’s telling us out loud.

    Also keep in mind that the sen­ti­ments in Trump’s Napoleon­ic post don’t nec­es­sar­i­ly exclu­sive­ly apply to the Pres­i­dent. He par­doned all the Jan­u­ary 6 insur­rec­tion­ists as one of his first acts, after all. That post was effec­tive­ly a pre­emp­tive ‘get out of jail free’ card to any­one who ‘takes up the fight’ to ‘save the coun­try’. Or at least that’s one way of inter­pret­ing his post. Vague author­i­tar­i­an dec­la­ra­tions are handy like that.

    And then we get the fol­lowup post a few days lat­er: first, Trump uses the pow­er of the fed­er­al gov­ern­ment to end the new con­ges­tion pric­ing sys­tem designed to decrease con­ges­tion on New York City’s streets. The fed­er­al action was fol­lowed up with a Trump Social post by Trump depict­ing a Time-mag­a­zine-like cov­er with Trump stand­ing in front of New York City in the back­ground and a crown on his head. The pic­ture declared “Long live the King!”. The mag­a­zine was named “Trump” instead of “Time”.

    It was clear­ly a bad joke. Made even worse by the fact that is came just days after the Napoleon­ic post. But as we’ve seen, the con­text that makes that “Long live the King!” joke so bad is the dark real­i­ty that the ‘saved Amer­i­ca’ that he is plan­ning on mak­ing a real­i­ty will have a pres­i­dent with king-like pow­ers. A “Uni­tary Exec­u­tive” on steroids. Even worse, this isn’t just a ‘MAGA’ agen­da or the brain­child of Trump’s fas­cist mind. This is the vision of Amer­i­ca’s ‘old-school’ fas­cist net­works like the Coun­cil for Nation­al Pol­i­cy (CNP) and the Koch net­work. The same net­works that co-orga­nized the events lead­ing up to the Jan­u­ary 6th Capi­tol insur­rec­tion along­side the first Trump White House. This is the oli­garchy’s ‘rolling back the 20th cen­tu­ry’ decades-old agen­da. Trump and Musk are just the agen­da’s con­tem­po­rary, and very enthu­si­as­tic, faces. Trump might be today’s ‘King’, but it’s this net­work that will be tru­ly anoint­ing the next one. And the one after that. As we’ve seen, the writ­ing has been on the wall for a while now that the GOP’s plans for the impo­si­tion of the Uni­tary Exec­u­tive the­o­ry were seen as cru­cial for the full exe­cu­tion of Project 2025, itself a rev­o­lu­tion­ary scheme that is effec­tive­ly a plan to undo the last cen­tu­ry. Not only rolling back the fed­er­al gov­ern­ment to a pre-New Deal sta­tus but rolling back the judi­cia­ry and rec­og­nized civ­il rights to some­thing clos­er to 19th Cen­tu­ry Amer­i­ca.

    And as we’re going to see in the third arti­cle below about the Trump admin­is­tra­tion’s plans for a show­down with the Judi­cia­ry branch, part of what makes this whole plot to make the Uni­tary Exec­u­tive a real­i­ty is that Trump admin­is­tra­tion is simul­ta­ne­ous­ly turn­ing to the courts to rat­i­fy their pow­er grab over Con­gress’s author­i­ty to des­ig­nate some fed­er­al employ­ees as pro­tect­ed from fir­ing with­out cause at the same time the admin­is­tra­tion is get­ting clos­er and clos­er to act­ing in full con­tempt of recent court rul­ings. Dark­ly cyn­i­cal but also effi­cient. Trump is grab­bing pow­er from both Con­gress and the Courts. Hav­ing the cor­rupt Supreme Court hand over Con­gres­sion­al pow­er and then defy­ing the courts when it wants is more or less how we should have expect­ed this to play out. And it’s play­ing out. It’s hap­pen­ing.

    As we’re going to see, even John Yoo — who infa­mous­ly defend­ed the George W. Bush admin­is­tra­tion’s tor­ture poli­cies and is now seen as a ‘guid­ing light’ in MAGA-world — warns that Trump has raised an issue that is as old as the repub­lic: Does the pres­i­dent have the author­i­ty to dis­re­gard a law if nec­es­sary to respond to a threat to the nation’s secu­ri­ty?” As Yoo warns, “The ques­tion is, even if such a pre­rog­a­tive pow­er exists, whether the cir­cum­stances today are so dire that jus­ti­fy its use. I don’t think so, but the pres­i­dent has access to greater infor­ma­tion, much of it secret or clas­si­fied, than the pub­lic does. I tend to think that Pres­i­dent Trump, as he often does, is rais­ing the ques­tion even though he does not intend to go this far.”

    Think about what Yoo just argued: that it’s pos­si­ble a pres­i­dent could face cir­cum­stances that jus­ti­fy the break­ing of laws to save the nation. But today is not one of those sit­u­a­tions. And yet, as Trump was ‘jok­ing’ about with his Napoleon quote, he real­ly is ‘sav­ing the coun­try’. That’s how he’s fram­ing things. A ‘sav­ing the coun­try’ under­ly­ing jus­ti­fi­ca­tion for his pre­text for his entire agen­da. An agen­da to imple­ment the Project 2025 scheme to roll back the pro­gress­es of the last cen­tu­ry and leave a king-like pres­i­den­cy in its place.

    And as is implic­it with Yoo’s inter­pre­ta­tion of the legal­i­ty of extra-con­sti­tu­tion­al actions, if the ‘safe­ty of the nation’ can be por­trayed as imper­iled, ille­gal actions will indeed be jus­ti­fied. It’s an invi­ta­tion for Trump to make things much, much worse in the hopes of cre­at­ing a sit­u­a­tion that’s so bad the coun­try gets close to col­lapse. Or, alter­na­tive­ly, an invi­ta­tion to just declare a state of emer­gency whether one exists or not. Which is more or less what’s hap­pen­ing now.

    That’s the hor­ri­ble con­text of Pres­i­dent Trump’s week of bad jokes. The joke is on us, whether we real­ize it yet or not. And the joke is only going to get worse and worse as this plays out, with Trump and his fel­low trav­el­ers laugh­ing along the way:

    The New York Times

    ‘Long Live the King’: Trump Likens Him­self to Roy­al­ty on Truth Social

    A fond­ness for regal themes was appar­ent as the pres­i­dent applaud­ed his administration’s move to kill con­ges­tion pric­ing in New York.

    By Ben­jamin Oreskes
    Feb. 19, 2025

    Pres­i­dent Trump is famous for his love of every­thing gold and oth­er trap­pings that con­note roy­al­ty, whether it be large mil­i­tary parades or extrav­a­gant inau­gur­al balls..

    But in a post on his social media plat­form Truth Social on Wednes­day, Mr. Trump went a step fur­ther, liken­ing him­self to a king as he cel­e­brat­ed his administration’s move to kill New York City’s con­ges­tion pric­ing pro­gram.

    “CONGESTION PRICING IS DEAD. Man­hat­tan, and all of New York, is SAVED,” he wrote. “LONG LIVE THE KING!”

    The White House then rein­forced the mes­sage, recir­cu­lat­ing it on Insta­gram and X with an illus­tra­tion of Mr. Trump wear­ing a crown on a mag­a­zine cov­er resem­bling Time, but called Trump.

    Mr. Trump’s expan­sive views of his pow­er have been evi­dent in his words and deeds. He has lib­er­al­ly dis­pensed exec­u­tive orders that have gone beyond what is con­sid­ered to be legal­ly per­mis­si­ble. He has fired offi­cials, run roughshod over fed­er­al agen­cies in ways that go beyond his author­i­ty and frozen funds that Con­gress had already appro­pri­at­ed.

    ...

    By killing con­ges­tion pric­ing, Mr. Trump sug­gest­ed he was sav­ing New York.

    He vowed dur­ing the elec­tion to halt the pro­gram, which charges most dri­vers $9 to enter Man­hat­tan below 60th Street, when he entered office. In an inter­view with The New York Post this month, he char­ac­ter­ized the toll as being “destruc­tive” to New York.

    “If I decide to do it, I will be able to kill it off in Wash­ing­ton through the Depart­ment of Trans­porta­tion,” Mr. Trump said in the inter­view.

    On Wednes­day, the trans­porta­tion sec­re­tary, Sean Duffy, made good on the pres­i­den­t’s wish­es. He laid out Mr. Trump’s objec­tions to the pro­gram in a let­ter sent to Gov. Kathy Hochul and said that fed­er­al offi­cials would con­tact the state to “dis­cuss the order­ly ces­sa­tion of toll oper­a­tions.”

    “I share the president’s con­cerns about the impacts to work­ing-class Amer­i­cans who now have an addi­tion­al finan­cial bur­den to account for in their dai­ly lives,” Mr. Duffy wrote.

    Mr. Trump’s first month back in the White House has been full of moments where he has invoked almost monar­chi­cal pow­er. In his Inau­gur­al Address, he said God had saved him when a would-be assas­sin made an attempt on his life in order “to make Amer­i­ca great again.”

    Some of his pol­i­cy moves have rest­ed on a far more expan­sive legal the­o­ry — known as the uni­tary exec­u­tive the­o­ry — of pres­i­den­tial pow­er.

    Part of the the­o­ry would inter­pret some of what Mr. Trump has been doing as law­ful under the belief that it is not ille­gal to dis­re­gard an uncon­sti­tu­tion­al statute. But even if the pre­vail­ing laws were valid, the pres­i­dent seems to be sug­gest­ing that he is enti­tled to break them if his motive is to save the coun­try.

    ...

    ———–

    “‘Long Live the King’: Trump Likens Him­self to Roy­al­ty on Truth Social” By Ben­jamin Oreskes; The New York Times; 02/19/2025

    ““CONGESTION PRICING IS DEAD. Man­hat­tan, and all of New York, is SAVED,” he wrote. “LONG LIVE THE KING!””

    Is Trump trolling NYC? Of course he is. But that does­n’t mean this is pure­ly a joke. Using humor as a kind of dodge for author­i­tar­i­an dec­la­ra­tions is a clas­sic ele­ment of fas­cist psy­cho­log­i­cal oper­a­tions, after all. And there’s no deny­ing that Trump’s “Long live the king!” ‘joke’ is very much aligned with the push to assert the Uni­tary Exec­u­tive the­o­ry that has ani­mat­ed the open­ing month of the sec­ond Trump admin­is­tra­tion:

    ...
    The White House then rein­forced the mes­sage, recir­cu­lat­ing it on Insta­gram and X with an illus­tra­tion of Mr. Trump wear­ing a crown on a mag­a­zine cov­er resem­bling Time, but called Trump.

    ...

    Mr. Trump’s first month back in the White House has been full of moments where he has invoked almost monar­chi­cal pow­er. In his Inau­gur­al Address, he said God had saved him when a would-be assas­sin made an attempt on his life in order “to make Amer­i­ca great again.”

    Some of his pol­i­cy moves have rest­ed on a far more expan­sive legal the­o­ry — known as the uni­tary exec­u­tive the­o­ry — of pres­i­den­tial pow­er.

    Part of the the­o­ry would inter­pret some of what Mr. Trump has been doing as law­ful under the belief that it is not ille­gal to dis­re­gard an uncon­sti­tu­tion­al statute. But even if the pre­vail­ing laws were valid, the pres­i­dent seems to be sug­gest­ing that he is enti­tled to break them if his motive is to save the coun­try.
    ...

    It’s a pret­ty sick joke for a pres­i­dent. Made all the more sick­er by the fact that Trump’s “long live the king!” ‘joke’ came just days after he made anoth­er author­i­tar­i­an post that does­n’t even appear to be a joke. The kind of dec­la­ra­tion Napoleon would have made. The kind of dec­la­ra­tion that does­n’t just excuse any action by Trump but, poten­tial­ly, any actions tak­en by those act­ing to make Trump’s author­i­tar­i­an vision for future a real­i­ty. A dec­la­ra­tion that any­thing done ‘to save the coun­try’ is legal. In oth­er words, any­thing you do ‘for the King’ will go unpun­ished, legal or not:

    CNN

    Trump appears to chan­nel Napoleon in vision for exec­u­tive author­i­ty: ‘He who saves his Coun­try does not vio­late any Law’

    By Bet­sy Klein, Kate­lyn Polantz and Zachary Cohen, CNN
    Updat­ed 9:01 PM EST, Sun Feb­ru­ary 16, 2025

    CNN — Pres­i­dent Don­ald Trump on Sat­ur­day offered a cryp­tic, one-sen­tence insight into what appears to be the guid­ing phi­los­o­phy behind the first weeks of his pres­i­den­cy — and his expan­sive and unprece­dent­ed efforts to reshape the use of exec­u­tive author­i­ty.

    “He who saves his Coun­try does not vio­late any Law,” Trump claimed in a social media post, now pinned atop his pro­file.

    Trump has dra­mat­i­cal­ly reimag­ined the scope of his exec­u­tive pow­er at the start of his sec­ond term, issu­ing scores of exec­u­tive actions. The efforts have been bol­stered by the administration’s implic­it con­fi­dence in its capac­i­ty to defend itself from legal chal­lenges as Trump, in part, sought to remake the judi­cia­ry dur­ing his first term.

    Still, Trump’s extra­or­di­nary attempts to expand the pow­er of the exec­u­tive branch have hit legal road­blocks in recent days. Dozens of court cas­es have swift­ly chal­lenged Trump’s poli­cies and prompt­ed judges to put on hold some of the imple­men­ta­tion to deter­mine whether the moves are legal. The law­suits include chal­lenges to stop­ping fed­er­al for­eign aid, fir­ing fed­er­al work­ers, end­ing gov­ern­ment pro­grams and even clos­ing agen­cies alto­geth­er.

    Trump’s Sat­ur­day social media post is like­ly to have echoes in court — and gov­ern­ment attor­neys defend­ing his pol­i­cy deci­sions against more than 60 law­suits are argu­ing to pro­tect and expand exec­u­tive pow­er.

    The court cas­es so far have prompt­ed lawyers from the Jus­tice Depart­ment to argue that Trump’s pow­er as pres­i­dent shouldn’t be lim­it­ed with­in the exec­u­tive branch and shouldn’t be tied up in the fed­er­al judi­cia­ry, espe­cial­ly as he makes deci­sions around the fed­er­al work­force and spend­ing. Sev­er­al of the cas­es have set up the Trump admin­is­tra­tion to attempt to strike down con­gres­sion­al author­i­ty, espe­cial­ly over spend­ing and mech­a­nisms that Con­gress put in place in the past to check the executive’s author­i­ty.

    ...

    One fast-mov­ing, ear­ly notable case is about the president’s pow­er over an inde­pen­dent watch­dog for fed­er­al work­ers, called the Office of Spe­cial Coun­sel. Trump fired that offi­cial weeks ago, only to have a court rein­state him quick­ly. On Sun­day, the Trump admin­is­tra­tion pushed the case to the Supreme Court for emer­gency review. It becomes the first dis­pute before the jus­tices for this admin­is­tra­tion to test the bound­aries of exec­u­tive pow­er.

    The swift pace of fir­ings appears designed to force the Supreme Court’s hand, in the same way Trump appears eager to chal­lenge oth­er long-stand­ing legal norms such as birthright cit­i­zen­ship and the president’s pow­er to pause spend­ing.

    Act­ing Solic­i­tor Gen­er­al Sarah Har­ris on Wednes­day told Sen­ate Democ­rats the Jus­tice Depart­ment “intends to urge the Supreme Court to over­rule” a 1935 prece­dent that allows Con­gress to cre­ate pro­tec­tions for cer­tain fed­er­al offi­cials so they can­not be fired with­out cause. In the Trump administration’s view, those pro­tec­tions pre­vent “the pres­i­dent from ade­quate­ly super­vis­ing prin­ci­pal offi­cers in the exec­u­tive branch who exe­cute the laws on the president’s behalf.”

    In a let­ter to Illi­nois Sen. Dick Durbin, the top Demo­c­rat on the Sen­ate Judi­cia­ry Com­mit­tee, Har­ris wrote that her office would no longer defend the con­sti­tu­tion­al­i­ty of for-cause removal pro­vi­sions for the Fed­er­al Trade Com­mis­sion, the Nation­al Labor Rela­tions Board and the Con­sumer Prod­uct Safe­ty Com­mis­sion.

    ...

    Hamp­ton Dellinger, the government’s spe­cial coun­sel, is one of sev­er­al inde­pen­dent offi­cials who are fight­ing dis­missal by the White House. In a law­suit filed in fed­er­al court in Wash­ing­ton, DC, last week, Dellinger point­ed to the 1935 deci­sion in Humphrey’s Execu­tor v. Unit­ed States as a “bind­ing Supreme Court prece­dent” that he assert­ed should bar his fir­ing by the pres­i­dent.

    Trump’s most recent sig­nif­i­cant test of exec­u­tive author­i­ty, of course, was in his crim­i­nal Jan­u­ary 6, 2021, case, where he sought and earned from the high court immu­ni­ty from pros­e­cu­tion for offi­cial actions tak­en while in office.

    “The pres­i­dent is not above the law,” Chief Jus­tice John Roberts wrote in that deci­sion. “But Con­gress may not crim­i­nal­ize the president’s con­duct in car­ry­ing out the respon­si­bil­i­ties of the exec­u­tive branch under the Con­sti­tu­tion.”

    The quote post­ed by Trump near­ly match­es one that appeared in a 1970 movie about French emper­or and mil­i­tary leader Napoleon Bona­parte, whose ambi­tions includ­ed attempts to expand French ter­ri­to­ry. Trump has indi­cat­ed a desire to annex Cana­da and Green­land.

    “Pres­i­dent Trump has raised an issue that is as old as the repub­lic: Does the pres­i­dent have the author­i­ty to dis­re­gard a law if nec­es­sary to respond to a threat to the nation’s secu­ri­ty?” con­ser­v­a­tive attor­ney John Yoo, an advo­cate of explor­ing the bound­aries of pres­i­den­tial pow­er, told CNN.

    “The ques­tion is, even if such a pre­rog­a­tive pow­er exists, whether the cir­cum­stances today are so dire that jus­ti­fy its use. I don’t think so, but the pres­i­dent has access to greater infor­ma­tion, much of it secret or clas­si­fied, than the pub­lic does. I tend to think that Pres­i­dent Trump, as he often does, is rais­ing the ques­tion even though he does not intend to go this far,” he said.

    ...

    ———–

    “Trump appears to chan­nel Napoleon in vision for exec­u­tive author­i­ty: ‘He who saves his Coun­try does not vio­late any Law’” By Bet­sy Klein, Kate­lyn Polantz and Zachary Cohen; CNN; 02/16/2025

    ““He who saves his Coun­try does not vio­late any Law,” Trump claimed in a social media post, now pinned atop his pro­file.”

    He did­n’t just post this Napoleon-inspired dec­la­ra­tion on social media. He pinned it to the top of his pro­file. Again, it may have been intend­ed as a joke but it’s obvi­ous­ly more than just a joke. And keep in mind that, unlike his “Long live the king!” dec­la­ra­tion, the idea that “He who saves his Coun­try does not vio­late any Law,” is the kind of slo­gan that could apply to all sorts of bad acts and actors. Like Jan­u­ary 6 Capi­tol insur­rec­tion. Or polit­i­cal vio­lence yet to be com­mit­ted by ‘pro-Trump’ mili­tias. In oth­er words, this is the kind of slo­gan that almost serves as an alter­na­tive to the “Stand back, and stand by” mes­sage Trump had for the Oath Keep­ers back in Sep­tem­ber 2020. Except this new mes­sage implic­it­ly sug­gests they’ll def­i­nite­ly get par­doned again in what­ev­er they do while Trump is in office as long as it can be con­strued as fight­ing to “save the coun­try”. Even John Yoo — one of the most promi­nent defend­ers of the George W. Bush admin­is­tra­tion’s tor­ture poli­cies — appears to feel that Trump’s actions are out of line. Recall how Yoo was actu­al­ly one of the lawyers who advised Mike Pence that he had no con­sti­tu­tion­al right to inter­vene in the elec­toral vote count­ing, which is a dis­turb­ing com­men­tary on the cur­rent state of affairs of US con­ser­v­a­tive legal the­o­ry. The pro-tor­ture guy — some­one char­ac­ter­ized as as “guid­ing light” to MAGA-world — felt the plot to over­throw the 2020 elec­tion through any means nec­es­sary was a bridge too far. And as we can see in Yoo’s com­ments, he does­n’t nec­es­sar­i­ly feel like a pres­i­dent won’t ever have the author­i­ty to dis­re­gard law if nec­es­sary to response to a threat to the nation’s secu­ri­ty. But Yoo appears skep­ti­cal that the US is cur­rent­ly in such a sit­u­a­tion. Which is a reminder that mak­ing the sit­u­a­tion worse, or just declar­ing it’s worse, plays direct­ly into Trump’s author­i­tar­i­an ambi­tions:

    ...
    Trump has dra­mat­i­cal­ly reimag­ined the scope of his exec­u­tive pow­er at the start of his sec­ond term, issu­ing scores of exec­u­tive actions. The efforts have been bol­stered by the administration’s implic­it con­fi­dence in its capac­i­ty to defend itself from legal chal­lenges as Trump, in part, sought to remake the judi­cia­ry dur­ing his first term.

    Still, Trump’s extra­or­di­nary attempts to expand the pow­er of the exec­u­tive branch have hit legal road­blocks in recent days. Dozens of court cas­es have swift­ly chal­lenged Trump’s poli­cies and prompt­ed judges to put on hold some of the imple­men­ta­tion to deter­mine whether the moves are legal. The law­suits include chal­lenges to stop­ping fed­er­al for­eign aid, fir­ing fed­er­al work­ers, end­ing gov­ern­ment pro­grams and even clos­ing agen­cies alto­geth­er.

    Trump’s Sat­ur­day social media post is like­ly to have echoes in court — and gov­ern­ment attor­neys defend­ing his pol­i­cy deci­sions against more than 60 law­suits are argu­ing to pro­tect and expand exec­u­tive pow­er.

    The court cas­es so far have prompt­ed lawyers from the Jus­tice Depart­ment to argue that Trump’s pow­er as pres­i­dent shouldn’t be lim­it­ed with­in the exec­u­tive branch and shouldn’t be tied up in the fed­er­al judi­cia­ry, espe­cial­ly as he makes deci­sions around the fed­er­al work­force and spend­ing. Sev­er­al of the cas­es have set up the Trump admin­is­tra­tion to attempt to strike down con­gres­sion­al author­i­ty, espe­cial­ly over spend­ing and mech­a­nisms that Con­gress put in place in the past to check the executive’s author­i­ty.

    ...

    Trump’s most recent sig­nif­i­cant test of exec­u­tive author­i­ty, of course, was in his crim­i­nal Jan­u­ary 6, 2021, case, where he sought and earned from the high court immu­ni­ty from pros­e­cu­tion for offi­cial actions tak­en while in office.

    “The pres­i­dent is not above the law,” Chief Jus­tice John Roberts wrote in that deci­sion. “But Con­gress may not crim­i­nal­ize the president’s con­duct in car­ry­ing out the respon­si­bil­i­ties of the exec­u­tive branch under the Con­sti­tu­tion.”

    The quote post­ed by Trump near­ly match­es one that appeared in a 1970 movie about French emper­or and mil­i­tary leader Napoleon Bona­parte, whose ambi­tions includ­ed attempts to expand French ter­ri­to­ry. Trump has indi­cat­ed a desire to annex Cana­da and Green­land.

    “Pres­i­dent Trump has raised an issue that is as old as the repub­lic: Does the pres­i­dent have the author­i­ty to dis­re­gard a law if nec­es­sary to respond to a threat to the nation’s secu­ri­ty?” con­ser­v­a­tive attor­ney John Yoo, an advo­cate of explor­ing the bound­aries of pres­i­den­tial pow­er, told CNN.

    “The ques­tion is, even if such a pre­rog­a­tive pow­er exists, whether the cir­cum­stances today are so dire that jus­ti­fy its use. I don’t think so, but the pres­i­dent has access to greater infor­ma­tion, much of it secret or clas­si­fied, than the pub­lic does. I tend to think that Pres­i­dent Trump, as he often does, is rais­ing the ques­tion even though he does not intend to go this far,” he said.
    ...

    And as we can see, the Trump admin­is­tra­tion is already tak­ing its push to put the Uni­tary Exec­u­tive The­o­ry into prac­tice with a court case that appears to be designed to force the Supreme Court to over­turn a 1935 prece­dent that allowed Con­gress to cre­ate fed­er­al employ­ee pro­tec­tions that pre­vents cer­tain employ­ees from being fired with­out cause. With the Supreme Court’s far right major­i­ty assist the Trump admin­is­tra­tion in its his­toric exec­u­tive branch pow­er grab? We’ll see, but that’s the Trump admin­is­tra­tion’s plan:

    ...
    One fast-mov­ing, ear­ly notable case is about the president’s pow­er over an inde­pen­dent watch­dog for fed­er­al work­ers, called the Office of Spe­cial Coun­sel. Trump fired that offi­cial weeks ago, only to have a court rein­state him quick­ly. On Sun­day, the Trump admin­is­tra­tion pushed the case to the Supreme Court for emer­gency review. It becomes the first dis­pute before the jus­tices for this admin­is­tra­tion to test the bound­aries of exec­u­tive pow­er.

    The swift pace of fir­ings appears designed to force the Supreme Court’s hand, in the same way Trump appears eager to chal­lenge oth­er long-stand­ing legal norms such as birthright cit­i­zen­ship and the president’s pow­er to pause spend­ing.

    Act­ing Solic­i­tor Gen­er­al Sarah Har­ris on Wednes­day told Sen­ate Democ­rats the Jus­tice Depart­ment “intends to urge the Supreme Court to over­rule” a 1935 prece­dent that allows Con­gress to cre­ate pro­tec­tions for cer­tain fed­er­al offi­cials so they can­not be fired with­out cause. In the Trump administration’s view, those pro­tec­tions pre­vent “the pres­i­dent from ade­quate­ly super­vis­ing prin­ci­pal offi­cers in the exec­u­tive branch who exe­cute the laws on the president’s behalf.”

    In a let­ter to Illi­nois Sen. Dick Durbin, the top Demo­c­rat on the Sen­ate Judi­cia­ry Com­mit­tee, Har­ris wrote that her office would no longer defend the con­sti­tu­tion­al­i­ty of for-cause removal pro­vi­sions for the Fed­er­al Trade Com­mis­sion, the Nation­al Labor Rela­tions Board and the Con­sumer Prod­uct Safe­ty Com­mis­sion.
    ...

    And that cyn­i­cal­ly designed legal case seem­ing­ly intend­ed to force the Supreme Court to over­turn the 1935 prece­dent that grants Con­gress some degree over over­sight on the fir­ings of fed­er­al work­ers brings us to the ultra-cyn­i­cal coun­ter­part to that strat­e­gy: at the same time the Trump admin­is­tra­tion is turn­ing to the courts to strip Con­gress of its ‘check’ on the abil­i­ty of the Pres­i­dent to fire fed­er­al work­ers with­out cause, the Trump admin­is­tra­tion is increas­ing­ly try­ing to put itself above the juris­dic­tion of the courts entire­ly:

    The Wash­ing­ton Post

    Trump comes close to the red line of open­ly defy­ing judges, experts say

    Faced with judges’ orders to block cer­tain ini­tia­tives, the Trump admin­is­tra­tion has found ways to tell courts it still has the author­i­ty to act.

    By Justin Jou­ve­nal, Leo Sands and Ann E. Mari­mow
    Feb­ru­ary 20, 2025 at 7:57 p.m. EST
    Updat­ed

    By Justin Jou­ve­nal, Leo Sands and Ann E. Mari­mow

    Fed­er­al judges have blocked Pres­i­dent Don­ald Trump’s attempts to freeze tril­lions in fed­er­al grants and loans, halt bil­lions in for­eign assis­tance and dis­man­tle the U.S. Agency for Inter­na­tion­al Devel­op­ment.

    But in each case, the admin­is­tra­tion has said it still has legal author­i­ty to do at least some of what it wants, prompt­ing judges and those chal­leng­ing Trump’s actions to accuse him of fail­ing to com­ply.

    ...

    The most dra­mat­ic exam­ple came Thurs­day. U.S. Dis­trict Court Judge Amir H. Ali ordered the Trump admin­is­tra­tion to com­ply with a tem­po­rary restrain­ing order (TRO) lift­ing its 90-day pause on for­eign aid. He stopped short of say­ing Trump offi­cials were in con­tempt of his rul­ing as the plain­tiffs in the case had want­ed.

    “The TRO does not per­mit Defen­dants to sim­ply search for and invoke new legal author­i­ties as a post-hoc ratio­nal­iza­tion for the enjoined agency action,” Ali wrote.

    On Tues­day, attor­neys for the gov­ern­ment said agen­cies could keep a hold on much of the fund­ing despite Ali’s order, based on statutes and reg­u­la­tions that exist sep­a­rate­ly from Trump’s exec­u­tive direc­tive. The gov­ern­ment said Ali’s order was “silent” on those oth­er pow­ers and vowed to con­tin­ue sus­pen­sion of aid unless the judge clar­i­fied his rul­ing.

    Legal experts and a for­mer fed­er­al judge said doing so despite a court order was extra­or­di­nary and trou­bling. David Super, a George­town Uni­ver­si­ty law pro­fes­sor, said the admin­is­tra­tion was “one step short of out­right defi­ance” of a fed­er­al judge.

    This response is quite con­sis­tent with what I am see­ing across many of the chal­lenges to the new administration’s sweep­ing actions: They insist that injunc­tions relate only to one source of legal author­i­ty and then man­u­fac­ture anoth­er to keep doing what they have been ordered not to do,” Super wrote in an email.

    He point­ed to an episode this month, when U.S. Dis­trict Judge John J. McConnell Jr. of Rhode Island ruled that the admin­is­tra­tion had vio­lat­ed the “plain text” of his order lift­ing a tem­po­rary freeze on tril­lions of dol­lars in fed­er­al grants and loans.

    In the USAID fund­ing case, the admin­is­tra­tion said it had “worked dili­gent­ly” to com­ply with Ali’s deci­sion and had released $250 mil­lion in for­eign aid this week, a frac­tion of the over­all pot of assis­tance.

    The asser­tions drew a furi­ous response from the health orga­ni­za­tions that brought the suit. They wrote in their motion to hold Trump offi­cials in con­tempt that the hold on fund­ing to com­bat dis­eases such as HIV, tuber­cu­lo­sis and malar­ia, and pro­vide cash assis­tance to for­eign gov­ern­ments, had caused deaths and “irrepara­ble harm” for mil­lions around the world.

    ...

    The fil­ing includ­ed a dec­la­ra­tion from a USAID offi­cer who said the Trump administration’s moves to oust agency employ­ees also made it impos­si­ble to com­ply with Ali’s order to restart the for­eign aid.

    ...

    The gov­ern­ment again denied vio­lat­ing the rul­ing Thurs­day, say­ing Ali’s order “clear­ly and unam­bigu­ous­ly autho­rizes Defen­dants to enforce their rights under the terms of con­tracts and grants, includ­ing by ter­mi­nat­ing them.”

    The judge’s order blocked Trump’s effort to pause the aid and a sep­a­rate State Depart­ment move that stopped near­ly all cur­rent and new fund­ing for for­eign assis­tance.

    Trump said the aid was not aligned with Amer­i­can inter­ests and val­ues. Ali, an appointee of Pres­i­dent Joe Biden, ruled that the pause was “arbi­trary and capri­cious” and not a ratio­nal pre­cur­sor to review­ing the pro­grams.

    In the Rhode Island case, McConnell accused the admin­is­tra­tion of vio­lat­ing his order after near­ly two dozen Demo­c­ra­t­ic state attor­neys gen­er­al told him mil­lions in fund­ing for clean ener­gy and trans­porta­tion projects was still being impound­ed by the Trump admin­is­tra­tion.

    The Jus­tice Depart­ment respond­ed that it had worked “in good faith” to com­ply with McConnell’s tem­po­rary restrain­ing order but believed that some fund­ing was exempt from the order and could still be frozen because it had been paused by a sep­a­rate action by the Office of Man­age­ment and Bud­get.

    McConnell, an appointee of Pres­i­dent Barack Oba­ma, reject­ed that idea, writ­ing that his order was “clear and unam­bigu­ous, and there are no imped­i­ments to the Defen­dants’ com­pli­ance.”

    On Wednes­day, U.S. Dis­trict Judge Carl J. Nichols, a Trump appointee from his first term in office, ques­tioned whether the admin­is­tra­tion was meet­ing the terms of a dif­fer­ent tem­po­rary restrain­ing order that pro­hibits an admin­is­tra­tion plan to imme­di­ate­ly place over­seas USAID work­ers on admin­is­tra­tive leave.

    ...

    Peter Maroc­co, the head of USAID, said in a sworn state­ment Feb. 10 that those sta­tioned abroad would be giv­en the choice to remain at their posts and could keep exist­ing ben­e­fits even if they were placed on leave. But Maroc­co told the court four days lat­er that any USAID employ­ee who fails to leave a post would no longer offi­cial­ly be con­sid­ered to be serv­ing over­seas and could lose access to ben­e­fits.

    Nichols called the sit­u­a­tion a “mess” dur­ing a hear­ing Wednes­day and said Marocco’s shift­ing state­ments seemed to vio­late the “crys­tal-clear” under­stand­ing of how over­seas staff should be han­dled. Nichols, who like Ali is a judge for the U.S. Dis­trict Court in D.C., is weigh­ing whether to extend his restrain­ing order.

    Nan­cy Gert­ner, a senior lec­tur­er on law at Har­vard Uni­ver­si­ty and for­mer fed­er­al judge, said attempts to skirt tem­po­rary restrain­ing orders are unusu­al because such orders in gen­er­al last only a cou­ple of weeks. After that, the admin­is­tra­tion gets a fresh chance to make its case as judges weigh whether to issue pre­lim­i­nary injunc­tions against exec­u­tive orders.

    “It’s par­tic­u­lar­ly trou­bling that some­one says they can’t wait out 14 days,” Gert­ner said. “If you don’t like the order, you oppose it at the pre­lim­i­nary injunc­tion phase, and then you appeal. You don’t thumb your nose at the courts in the inter­im.”

    ...

    Peter M. Shane, a dis­tin­guished schol­ar in res­i­dence at the New York Uni­ver­si­ty School of Law, said Trump has fre­quent­ly test­ed judges’ rul­ings but often pulls back before vio­lat­ing them.

    “His tech­nique in pri­vate lit­i­ga­tion is, ‘How close to the line can I get?’” Shane said. “Let’s see what hap­pens in the next round in court.”

    The Trump admin­is­tra­tion, which has been on the los­ing end of most of the ear­ly legal bat­tles over its exec­u­tive orders, has chafed at judges impos­ing lim­its on the government’s efforts, with Vice Pres­i­dent JD Vance and Trump aide Elon Musk issu­ing con­tro­ver­sial calls to defy court orders.

    Trump’s top advo­cate at the Supreme Court also vent­ed frus­tra­tion in fil­ings this week that asked the jus­tices to clear the way for the pres­i­dent to fire the leader of an inde­pen­dent agency that inves­ti­gates whistle­blow­er reports.

    Act­ing solic­i­tor gen­er­al Sarah M. Har­ris said the court should make clear that the pres­i­dent can imme­di­ate­ly appeal court orders that “usurp core Arti­cle II pow­ers,” a ref­er­ence to the part of the Con­sti­tu­tion that vests pow­er in the pres­i­dent. Tem­po­rary orders restrain­ing the administration’s ini­tia­tives are “not blank checks for dis­trict courts to stop any and all pres­i­den­tial actions for up to a month at a time,” Har­ris wrote.

    Shane said he sees the Trump court fil­ings as part of an effort by the pres­i­dent to amass author­i­ty. The admin­is­tra­tion has pushed an aggres­sive ver­sion of a con­ser­v­a­tive phi­los­o­phy called the uni­tary exec­u­tive the­o­ry, which posits that the exec­u­tive has total con­trol over pol­i­cy and fir­ing deci­sions.

    On Tues­day, Trump issued an exec­u­tive order chal­leng­ing the inde­pen­dence of agen­cies that han­dle trade, com­mu­ni­ca­tions and finan­cial reg­u­la­tions and have long been insu­lat­ed from the polit­i­cal influ­ence of the exec­u­tive. Trump has also assert­ed he has the right to impound funds, a key pow­er the Con­sti­tu­tion says is the pre­rog­a­tive of Con­gress. He and his aides have fired inspec­tors gen­er­al and pros­e­cu­tors who worked on his crim­i­nal cas­es.

    Trump wrote on social media over the week­end that “He who saves his Coun­try does not vio­late any Law.”

    “The pres­i­dent wants to push a view of con­sti­tu­tion­al author­i­ty where he gets the author­i­ty for how funds are spent, for how gov­ern­ment func­tions are struc­tured, for how sub­or­di­nate offi­cials behave,” Shane said. “And he wants to be able to do that with­out being checked by con­gres­sion­al over­sight or judi­cial review.”

    ———-

    “Trump comes close to the red line of open­ly defy­ing judges, experts say” by By Justin Jou­ve­nal, Leo Sands and Ann E. Mari­mow; The Wash­ing­ton Post; 02/20/2025

    “The most dra­mat­ic exam­ple came Thurs­day. U.S. Dis­trict Court Judge Amir H. Ali ordered the Trump admin­is­tra­tion to com­ply with a tem­po­rary restrain­ing order (TRO) lift­ing its 90-day pause on for­eign aid. He stopped short of say­ing Trump offi­cials were in con­tempt of his rul­ing as the plain­tiffs in the case had want­ed.

    U.S. Dis­trict Court Judge Amir H. Ali did­n’t rule that the Trump admin­is­tra­tion was in con­tempt of his court. But he came close. And based on every­thing we’re see­ing from the Trump admin­is­tra­tion’s inten­tions, get­ting away with defy­ing the courts is very much on the agen­da. That’s part of what makes the DOJ’s court case described in the pre­vi­ous arti­cle — seem­ing­ly designed to get the Supreme Court to over­rule the 1935 prece­dent that gave Con­gress the abil­i­ty to cre­ate civ­il ser­vice pro­tec­tions for some fed­er­al work­ers — so dark­ly cyn­i­cal. At the same time the Trump admin­is­tra­tion is turn­ing to the courts to strip Con­gress of its pow­ers, its also seek­ing to defy the courts. A strat­e­gy of strate­gic defi­ance that includes defy­ing tem­po­rary restrain­ing orders that were going to expire any­way in a mat­ter of days:

    ...
    “The TRO does not per­mit Defen­dants to sim­ply search for and invoke new legal author­i­ties as a post-hoc ratio­nal­iza­tion for the enjoined agency action,” Ali wrote.

    On Tues­day, attor­neys for the gov­ern­ment said agen­cies could keep a hold on much of the fund­ing despite Ali’s order, based on statutes and reg­u­la­tions that exist sep­a­rate­ly from Trump’s exec­u­tive direc­tive. The gov­ern­ment said Ali’s order was “silent” on those oth­er pow­ers and vowed to con­tin­ue sus­pen­sion of aid unless the judge clar­i­fied his rul­ing.

    Legal experts and a for­mer fed­er­al judge said doing so despite a court order was extra­or­di­nary and trou­bling. David Super, a George­town Uni­ver­si­ty law pro­fes­sor, said the admin­is­tra­tion was “one step short of out­right defi­ance” of a fed­er­al judge.

    This response is quite con­sis­tent with what I am see­ing across many of the chal­lenges to the new administration’s sweep­ing actions: They insist that injunc­tions relate only to one source of legal author­i­ty and then man­u­fac­ture anoth­er to keep doing what they have been ordered not to do,” Super wrote in an email.

    ...

    Nan­cy Gert­ner, a senior lec­tur­er on law at Har­vard Uni­ver­si­ty and for­mer fed­er­al judge, said attempts to skirt tem­po­rary restrain­ing orders are unusu­al because such orders in gen­er­al last only a cou­ple of weeks. After that, the admin­is­tra­tion gets a fresh chance to make its case as judges weigh whether to issue pre­lim­i­nary injunc­tions against exec­u­tive orders.

    “It’s par­tic­u­lar­ly trou­bling that some­one says they can’t wait out 14 days,” Gert­ner said. “If you don’t like the order, you oppose it at the pre­lim­i­nary injunc­tion phase, and then you appeal. You don’t thumb your nose at the courts in the inter­im.”
    ...

    And as the arti­cle reminds us, fig­ures like JD Vance and Elon Musk have a his­to­ry of open­ly call­ing for Trump to sim­ply defy the courts and dare them to do some­thing about it. As legal schol­ar Peter M. Shane describes, this is all part of the asser­tion of the Uni­tary Exec­u­tive the­o­ry. Whether we are talk­ing about mass indis­crim­i­nate fir­ings, the uncon­sti­tu­tion­al impound­ment of con­gres­sion­al­ly autho­rized funds, or the open defi­ance of the courts, it’s all part of a put to undo the checks on the Exec­u­tive Branch. And, in turn, the cre­ation of a king-like pres­i­dent:

    ...
    Peter M. Shane, a dis­tin­guished schol­ar in res­i­dence at the New York Uni­ver­si­ty School of Law, said Trump has fre­quent­ly test­ed judges’ rul­ings but often pulls back before vio­lat­ing them.

    “His tech­nique in pri­vate lit­i­ga­tion is, ‘How close to the line can I get?’” Shane said. “Let’s see what hap­pens in the next round in court.”

    The Trump admin­is­tra­tion, which has been on the los­ing end of most of the ear­ly legal bat­tles over its exec­u­tive orders, has chafed at judges impos­ing lim­its on the government’s efforts, with Vice Pres­i­dent JD Vance and Trump aide Elon Musk issu­ing con­tro­ver­sial calls to defy court orders.

    ...

    Shane said he sees the Trump court fil­ings as part of an effort by the pres­i­dent to amass author­i­ty. The admin­is­tra­tion has pushed an aggres­sive ver­sion of a con­ser­v­a­tive phi­los­o­phy called the uni­tary exec­u­tive the­o­ry, which posits that the exec­u­tive has total con­trol over pol­i­cy and fir­ing deci­sions.

    On Tues­day, Trump issued an exec­u­tive order chal­leng­ing the inde­pen­dence of agen­cies that han­dle trade, com­mu­ni­ca­tions and finan­cial reg­u­la­tions and have long been insu­lat­ed from the polit­i­cal influ­ence of the exec­u­tive. Trump has also assert­ed he has the right to impound funds, a key pow­er the Con­sti­tu­tion says is the pre­rog­a­tive of Con­gress. He and his aides have fired inspec­tors gen­er­al and pros­e­cu­tors who worked on his crim­i­nal cas­es.

    ...

    “The pres­i­dent wants to push a view of con­sti­tu­tion­al author­i­ty where he gets the author­i­ty for how funds are spent, for how gov­ern­ment func­tions are struc­tured, for how sub­or­di­nate offi­cials behave,” Shane said. “And he wants to be able to do that with­out being checked by con­gres­sion­al over­sight or judi­cial review.”
    ...

    As we can see, Trump knows how to weaponize a bad joke in clas­sic fas­cist fash­ion. Expect many more of them. He’s clear­ly amused.

    And why not be amused? Trump’s fas­cist purge — a purge long planned for and backed by the Coun­cil for Nation­al Pol­i­cy and its fel­low trav­el­ers — is steadi­ly becom­ing a real­i­ty. The Repub­li­can con­gres­sion­al major­i­ty is hand­ing over pow­er read­i­ly and the cor­rupt Supreme Court major­i­ty Trump installed in his first term are lying in wait to grant him the judi­cial bless­ings he needs to ful­fill his king­ly desires. They are gal­lop­ing towards unchecked pow­er with lit­tle stand­ing in their way. A real rev­o­lu­tion is under­way.

    Although it’s going to feel more like a counter-rev­o­lu­tion. A 1930s-meets-the-18th cen­tu­ry kind of rev­o­lu­tion. What’s old is new again. That’s also part of how fas­cism works. Get ready to hear a lot more bad old ‘jokes’.

    Posted by Pterrafractyl | February 21, 2025, 9:37 pm
  6. Well, the long-expect­ed Trump admin­is­tra­tion’s show­down with the US courts appears to be in full swing. A show­down with the judi­cia­ry that Elon Musk and Vice Pres­i­dent JD Vance ful­ly endorse. We aren’t quite at the stage of a ‘law­less pres­i­den­cy’ but we’re get­ting there. The Uni­tary Exec­u­tive is com­ing into view.

    But as we watch the show­down with the judi­cia­ry branch play out, it’s going to be impor­tant to keep in mind that this isn’t real­ly going to be show­down between the Trump admin­is­tra­tion and the entire Judi­cia­ry. It’s going to be indi­vid­ual judges or fed­er­al pros­e­cu­tors who make the deci­sions to defy the Trump admin­is­tra­tion’s whims and issue rul­ings or open pros­e­cu­tions that chal­lenge the admin­is­tra­tion. Indi­vid­ual pub­lic employ­ees who are, them­selves, poten­tial­ly going to be fac­ing all sorts of forms of intim­i­da­tion that the pub­lic may or may not be aware of. Intim­i­da­tion that, increas­ing­ly, can be fueled by the vast pow­ers of the fed­er­al gov­ern­ment now being turned against the fed­er­al work­force and even pesky mem­bers of the pub­lic at large. That’s the chill­ing pic­ture that has emerged in recent weeks, as a num­ber of fed­er­al employ­ees have resigned in the face of what they describe as a tru­ly dan­ger­ous incur­sion of “Depart­ment of Gov­ern­ment Effi­cien­cy” (DOGE) staffers into some of the most sen­si­tive parts of the fed­er­al bureau­cra­cy. Includ­ing more than 20 civ­il ser­vice employ­ees who resigned last month from the Unit­ed States Dig­i­tal Ser­vice (USDS) while decry­ing what they felt was a demand by DOGE to use their tech­ni­cal knowl­edge to take con­trol of high­ly sen­si­tive data­bas­es con­tain­ing the kind of infor­ma­tion that could be eas­i­ly weaponized against indi­vid­u­als. Data­bas­es that includes the largest data­base of med­ical infor­ma­tion in the world at the Social Secu­ri­ty admin­is­tra­tion. Or all of the incred­i­bly sen­si­tive infor­ma­tion at the IRS.

    But the kind of weaponiz­able infor­ma­tion now at the fin­ger­tips of DOGE employ­ees isn’t just stored in all these sen­si­tive fed­er­al data­bas­es. The grim real­i­ty is that the fed­er­al gov­ern­men­t’s vast anti-Insid­er Threat detec­tion sys­tems are now per­fect­ly in place for weaponiza­tion by DOGE against fed­er­al employ­ees. Insid­er Threat Detec­tion pro­grams set up, typ­i­cal­ly, in response to the Edward Snow­den breach and that result­ed in gov­ern­ment-issued lap­tops and com­put­ers being filled with all sorts of spy­ware osten­si­bly there to detect improp­er activ­i­ties. And as we’re as we’re going to see, reports are already com­ing in from fed­er­al employ­ees of anony­mous harass­ment cam­paigns that appear to be deploy­ing infor­ma­tion obtained from their gov­ern­ment-issued com­put­ers. This includes Andrew Bernier, a US Army Corps of Engi­neers researcher and a union leader who claims to have start­ed receiv­ing anony­mous threat­en­ing emails short­ly after he filed an offi­cial charge accus­ing the Trump admin­is­tra­tion of vio­lat­ing his union’s col­lec­tive bar­gain­ing agree­ment.

    So as we watch to see how the Trump admin­is­tra­tion’s planned defi­ance of the judi­cia­ry plays out, it’s going to be impor­tant to real­ize that the direct assault on con­sti­tu­tion­al checks and bal­ances does­n’t just nec­es­sar­i­ly include the open assault on the judi­cia­ry branch’s author­i­ty. There’s also going to be a DOGE-fueled shad­ow intim­i­da­tion cam­paign that’s already under­way. And sure, such an intim­i­da­tion cam­paign would obvi­ous­ly be incred­i­bly ille­gal. Espe­cial­ly if it was tar­get­ing fed­er­al judges and pros­e­cu­tors. But do you know what else is ille­gal? Storm­ing the Capi­tol on Jan­u­ary 6 to pre­vent the law­ful cer­ti­fi­ca­tion of an elec­tion. But we all saw how that kind of ille­gal behav­ior was han­dled. Which is a reminder that who­ev­er is wag­ing this anony­mous intim­i­da­tion cam­paign against fed­er­al work­ers is pre­sum­ably doing it with the full knowl­edge that they will prob­a­bly be par­doned at some point. That is, if they’re ever caught, which is unlike­ly to hap­pen under a Trump-led DOJ any­way. Which is all why we should get ready for more sto­ries about the mass res­ig­na­tion of fed­er­al employ­ees in protest to the crimes they are being asked to com­mit along with more sto­ries about the fed­er­al employ­ees who haven’t yet resigned being anony­mous­ly threat­ened:

    Asso­ci­at­ed Press

    Fed­er­al tech­nol­o­gy staffers resign rather than help Musk and DOGE

    By BRIAN SLODYSKO and BYRON TAU
    Updat­ed 2:48 PM CST, Feb­ru­ary 25, 2025

    WASHINGTON (AP) — More than 20 civ­il ser­vice employ­ees resigned Tues­day from bil­lion­aire Trump advis­er Elon Musk’s Depart­ment of Gov­ern­ment Effi­cien­cy, say­ing they were refus­ing to use their tech­ni­cal exper­tise to “dis­man­tle crit­i­cal pub­lic ser­vices.”

    “We swore to serve the Amer­i­can peo­ple and uphold our oath to the Con­sti­tu­tion across pres­i­den­tial admin­is­tra­tions,” the 21 staffers wrote in a joint res­ig­na­tion let­ter, a copy of which was obtained by The Asso­ci­at­ed Press. “How­ev­er, it has become clear that we can no longer hon­or those com­mit­ments.”

    The employ­ees also warned that many of those enlist­ed by Musk to help him slash the size of the fed­er­al gov­ern­ment under Pres­i­dent Don­ald Trump’s admin­is­tra­tion were polit­i­cal ide­o­logues who did not have the nec­es­sary skills or expe­ri­ence for the task ahead of them.

    The mass res­ig­na­tion of engi­neers, data sci­en­tists, design­ers and prod­uct man­agers is a tem­po­rary set­back for Musk and the Repub­li­can president’s tech-dri­ven purge of the fed­er­al work­force.. It comes amid a flur­ry of court chal­lenges that have sought to stall, stop or unwind their efforts to fire or coerce thou­sands of gov­ern­ment work­ers out of jobs.

    ...

    Musk post­ed on his social media site X that the sto­ry was “fake news” and sug­gest­ed that the staffers were “Dem polit­i­cal holdovers” who “would have been fired had they not resigned.”

    The staffers who resigned had worked for the Unit­ed States Dig­i­tal Ser­vice, but said their duties were being inte­grat­ed into DOGE. Their for­mer office, the USDS, was estab­lished under Pres­i­dent Barack Oba­ma after the botched roll­out of Healthcare.gov, the web por­tal that mil­lions of Amer­i­cans use to sign up for insur­ance plans through the Democrat’s sig­na­ture health care law.

    All pre­vi­ous­ly held senior roles at such tech com­pa­nies as Google and Ama­zon and wrote in their res­ig­na­tion let­ter that they joined the gov­ern­ment out of a sense of duty to pub­lic ser­vice.

    Trump’s empow­er­ment of Musk upend­ed that. The day after Trump’s inau­gu­ra­tion, the staffers wrote, they were called into a series of inter­views that fore­shad­owed the secre­tive and dis­rup­tive work of Musk’s’ Depart­ment of Gov­ern­ment Effi­cien­cy, or DOGE.

    Accord­ing to the staffers, peo­ple wear­ing White House vis­i­tors’ badges, some of whom would not give their names, grilled the non­par­ti­san employ­ees about their qual­i­fi­ca­tions and pol­i­tics. Some made state­ments that indi­cat­ed they had a lim­it­ed tech­ni­cal under­stand­ing. Many were young and seemed guid­ed by ide­ol­o­gy and fan­dom of Musk — not improv­ing gov­ern­ment tech­nol­o­gy.

    “Sev­er­al of these inter­view­ers refused to iden­ti­fy them­selves, asked ques­tions about polit­i­cal loy­al­ty, attempt­ed to pit col­leagues against each oth­er, and demon­strat­ed lim­it­ed tech­ni­cal abil­i­ty,” the staffers wrote in their let­ter. “This process cre­at­ed sig­nif­i­cant secu­ri­ty risks.”

    Ear­li­er this month, about 40 staffers in the office were laid off. The fir­ings dealt a dev­as­tat­ing blow to the government’s abil­i­ty to admin­is­ter and safe­guard its own tech­no­log­i­cal foot­print, they wrote.

    ...

    Rough­ly one-third of the 65 staffers who remained at USDS quit on Tues­day rather than take on new duties under DOGE.

    “We will not use our skills as tech­nol­o­gists to com­pro­mise core gov­ern­ment sys­tems, jeop­ar­dize Amer­i­cans’ sen­si­tive data, or dis­man­tle crit­i­cal pub­lic ser­vices,” they wrote. “We will not lend our exper­tise to car­ry out or legit­imize DOGE’s actions.”

    ...

    Of the 40 peo­ple let go ear­li­er this month, only one was an engi­neer — an out­spo­ken and polit­i­cal­ly active staffer name Jonathan Kamens, who said in an inter­view with the AP that he believes he was fired for pub­licly endors­ing Vice Pres­i­dent Kamala Har­ris, a Demo­c­rat, on his per­son­al blog and being crit­i­cal of Musk in chats with col­leagues.

    “I believe that Elon Musk is up to no good. And I believe that any data that he gains access to is going to be used for pur­pos­es that are inap­pro­pri­ate and harm­ful to Amer­i­cans,” Kamens said.

    U.S. Dig­i­tal Ser­vice vet­er­ans, who spoke on the con­di­tion of anonymi­ty out of fear of reprisal, recalled expe­ri­enc­ing a sim­i­lar sort of shock about how gov­ern­ment process­es worked that Musk and his team are dis­cov­er­ing. Over time, many devel­oped an appre­ci­a­tion for why cer­tain things in gov­ern­ment had to be treat­ed with more care than in the pri­vate sec­tor.

    “‘Move fast and break things’ may be accept­able to some­one who owns a busi­ness and owns the risk. And if things don’t go well, the dam­age is com­part­men­tal­ized. But when you break things in gov­ern­ment, you’re break­ing things that belong to peo­ple who didn’t sign up for that,” said Cordell Schachter, who until last month was the chief infor­ma­tion offi­cer at the U.S. Depart­ment of Trans­porta­tion.

    ...

    ————

    “Fed­er­al tech­nol­o­gy staffers resign rather than help Musk and DOGE” By BRIAN SLODYSKO and BYRON TAU; Asso­ci­at­ed Press; 02/25/2025

    “The employ­ees also warned that many of those enlist­ed by Musk to help him slash the size of the fed­er­al gov­ern­ment under Pres­i­dent Don­ald Trump’s admin­is­tra­tion were polit­i­cal ide­o­logues who did not have the nec­es­sary skills or expe­ri­ence for the task ahead of them.”

    It isn’t just the mass res­ig­na­tion of fed­er­al career staffers. It’s also he fact that the peo­ple being brought in to replace them are young polit­i­cal ide­o­logues whose loy­al­ty appears to be pri­mar­i­ly towards Elon Musk. And as we can see, even when these mass res­ig­na­tions are report­ed, Musk casu­al­ly just declares it all to be “fake news” and that the res­ig­na­tions were pure­ly just “Dem polit­i­cal holdovers” who were going to be fired any­way:

    ...
    The mass res­ig­na­tion of engi­neers, data sci­en­tists, design­ers and prod­uct man­agers is a tem­po­rary set­back for Musk and the Repub­li­can president’s tech-dri­ven purge of the fed­er­al work­force.. It comes amid a flur­ry of court chal­lenges that have sought to stall, stop or unwind their efforts to fire or coerce thou­sands of gov­ern­ment work­ers out of jobs.

    ...

    Musk post­ed on his social media site X that the sto­ry was “fake news” and sug­gest­ed that the staffers were “Dem polit­i­cal holdovers” who “would have been fired had they not resigned.”
    ...

    And as we can see, this mass res­ig­na­tion was tak­ing place insis­de the Unit­ed States Dig­i­tal Ser­vice (USDS), an office that was some­how being inte­grat­ed into DOGE, under­scor­ing the impor­tance of gain­ing access to this depart­men­t’s access and tech­no­log­i­cal skill set. Which makes the lim­it­ed tech­ni­cal under­stand­ing of the DOGE employ­ees on dis­play dur­ing the ide­o­log­i­cal purge ses­sions all the more dis­turb­ing. DOGE is assum­ing con­trol of high­ly tech­ni­cal US agen­cies and then gut­ting the agen­cies of their tech­ni­cal knowl­edge, cre­at­ing mas­sive secu­ri­ty risks in the process. Risks that don’t just stem from the dan­ger­ous ide­olo­gies ani­mat­ing the DOGE staffers. Risks that also just arise from the loss of all this exper­tise:

    ...
    The staffers who resigned had worked for the Unit­ed States Dig­i­tal Ser­vice, but said their duties were being inte­grat­ed into DOGE. Their for­mer office, the USDS, was estab­lished under Pres­i­dent Barack Oba­ma after the botched roll­out of Healthcare.gov, the web por­tal that mil­lions of Amer­i­cans use to sign up for insur­ance plans through the Democrat’s sig­na­ture health care law.

    ...

    Accord­ing to the staffers, peo­ple wear­ing White House vis­i­tors’ badges, some of whom would not give their names, grilled the non­par­ti­san employ­ees about their qual­i­fi­ca­tions and pol­i­tics. Some made state­ments that indi­cat­ed they had a lim­it­ed tech­ni­cal under­stand­ing. Many were young and seemed guid­ed by ide­ol­o­gy and fan­dom of Musk — not improv­ing gov­ern­ment tech­nol­o­gy.

    “Sev­er­al of these inter­view­ers refused to iden­ti­fy them­selves, asked ques­tions about polit­i­cal loy­al­ty, attempt­ed to pit col­leagues against each oth­er, and demon­strat­ed lim­it­ed tech­ni­cal abil­i­ty,” the staffers wrote in their let­ter. “This process cre­at­ed sig­nif­i­cant secu­ri­ty risks.”

    Ear­li­er this month, about 40 staffers in the office were laid off. The fir­ings dealt a dev­as­tat­ing blow to the government’s abil­i­ty to admin­is­ter and safe­guard its own tech­no­log­i­cal foot­print, they wrote.

    ...

    Rough­ly one-third of the 65 staffers who remained at USDS quit on Tues­day rather than take on new duties under DOGE.

    “We will not use our skills as tech­nol­o­gists to com­pro­mise core gov­ern­ment sys­tems, jeop­ar­dize Amer­i­cans’ sen­si­tive data, or dis­man­tle crit­i­cal pub­lic ser­vices,” they wrote. “We will not lend our exper­tise to car­ry out or legit­imize DOGE’s actions.”
    ...

    And as the fol­low­ing piece warns, there isn’t just a grow­ing risk that all of this sen­si­tive data held by the fed­er­al gov­ern­ment will be active­ly abused by DOGE staffers as part of their DOGE respon­si­bil­i­ties. There’s also the risk of all of that data being stolen and falling into pri­vate hands. The kind of risk that is all the more glar­ing when we find DOGE staffers like Edward Coris­tine, who was fired from a job for data theft, or Gavin Kliger, an open fan of Nick Fuentes and oth­er Holo­caust deniers. With so many new peo­ple now gain­ing access to all of this data with lit­tle over­sight over that access, the temp­ta­tion to steal it is going to be greater than ever. After all, it’s not like there’s going to be one obvi­ous cul­prit if this data sud­den­ly shows up for sale on the Dark Web or oth­er­wise falls into the hands of pri­vate bad actors:

    The Wash­ing­ton Post

    DOGE’s grab of per­son­al data stokes pri­va­cy and secu­ri­ty fears

    Twen­ty-one staffers of the U.S. DOGE Ser­vice announced their res­ig­na­tions Tues­day cit­ing, among oth­er wor­ries, “mis­han­dling sen­si­tive data.”

    By Faiz Sid­diqui, Joseph Menn and Jacob Bogage
    Feb­ru­ary 25, 2025 at 6:02 p.m. EST
    Updat­ed

    Deputies of Elon Musk have sought access to mas­sive amounts of infor­ma­tion across the fed­er­al gov­ern­ment, much of it per­son­al and high­ly rev­e­la­to­ry in its insights into the lives of every­day Amer­i­cans.

    They jus­ti­fy their work for the U.S. DOGE Ser­vice as a dogged quest for gov­ern­ment effi­cien­cy. But peo­ple with deep knowl­edge of fed­er­al data sys­tems and cyber­se­cu­ri­ty say they’re skirt­ing guardrails meant to pro­tect sen­si­tive data from mis­use.

    Before DOGE launched, most of the records at issue were kept in the hands of a select few offi­cials to pre­serve pri­va­cy and avoid cross­ing legal red lines. Now Musk’s group is seek­ing often-unfet­tered access, cit­ing sus­pi­cion of fraud and waste. In addi­tion to con­cerns about expos­ing pri­vate infor­ma­tion, some crit­ics fear that hand­ing all the data to DOGE could enable bad actors to leak sen­si­tive infor­ma­tion to com­pro­mise polit­i­cal adver­saries, act on per­son­al vendet­tas or stir up online mobs against oppo­nents.

    ...

    Musk pre­sides over DOGE from a com­mand cen­ter in a room of the old sec­re­tary of war’s suite in the Eisen­how­er Exec­u­tive Office Build­ing, where rain­bow-col­ored lights emanate from the tow­er and key­board of the pow­er­ful gam­ing com­put­er he uses to con­duct gov­ern­ment busi­ness. A “Make Amer­i­ca Great Again” hat and a plac­ard read­ing “D.O.G.E.” sit on a large wood­en desk, and cords snake across the car­pet into a surge pro­tec­tor.

    With­in the White House com­plex, the WiFi per­mis­sions — meant to bol­ster secu­ri­ty by prompt­ing users to log in fre­quent­ly — were recent­ly changed to allow guests to remain logged in for a year, up from sev­en days, because so many per­son­al devices are new­ly in use.

    Already, DOGE asso­ciates have been grant­ed access to sen­si­tive mate­r­i­al, hav­ing tar­get­ed fed­er­al pay­ment por­tals and oth­er huge datasets on gov­ern­ment expen­di­tures. Those includ­ed Trea­sury Depart­ment pay­ment sys­tems, which green-light fed­er­al dol­lars head­ed out of gov­ern­ment accounts, and high­ly guard­ed sys­tems at the IRS and the Social Secu­ri­ty Admin­is­tra­tion that include detailed finan­cial and med­ical infor­ma­tion.

    Last week, the lead engi­neer for a gov­ern­ment text-mes­sag­ing ser­vice resigned over a DOGE ally’s request for access to data includ­ing per­son­al iden­ti­fy­ing infor­ma­tion about many Amer­i­cans. On Tues­day, 21 staffers of the U.S. DOGE Ser­vice, the enti­ty formed as the U.S. Dig­i­tal Ser­vice under Pres­i­dent Barack Oba­ma and renamed in Trump’s Day 1 exec­u­tive order estab­lish­ing DOGE, or the Depart­ment of Gov­ern­ment Effi­cien­cy, announced their res­ig­na­tions in protest. The group — con­sist­ing of engi­neers, design­ers, prod­uct man­agers, and IT and oper­a­tions staff — said they had been sub­ject­ed to ques­tions about “polit­i­cal loy­al­ty” as part of a DOGE inter­view process that intro­duced “sig­nif­i­cant secu­ri­ty risks.” DOGE’s actions, they wrote, have includ­ed “mis­han­dling sen­si­tive data” and “break­ing crit­i­cal sys­tems” in ways that are incom­pat­i­ble with the orig­i­nal USDS mis­sion.

    ...

    Among its ini­tial actions, DOGE has post­ed clas­si­fied infor­ma­tion on its web­site, shar­ing the bud­get and staffing lev­el of the Nation­al Recon­nais­sance Office, a spy agency.

    Allow­ing Musk and his team to see some records isn’t ille­gal. Because they’re des­ig­nat­ed as “spe­cial gov­ern­ment employ­ees” and many are senior advis­ers at Cab­i­net agen­cies, they are enti­tled to much of the access they have sought, and some judges have declined to kick them out while hear­ing more evi­dence.

    But they need a rea­son­able basis to peruse files and data­bas­es, experts said, and a pro­ce­dure for ensur­ing pre­cau­tions are fol­lowed. And the peo­ple with access must be vet­ted and trained, said Brad Moss, an attor­ney rep­re­sent­ing plain­tiffs in one of more than a dozen law­suits con­test­ing DOGE’s han­dling of data.

    Lim­it­ing entry to sen­si­tive sys­tems guards against any one fed­er­al work­er gain­ing too much access, pro­tect­ing both the data and the over­all sys­tem, said Ter­ry Lutes, who served as IRS asso­ciate chief infor­ma­tion offi­cer from 2003 to 2006. Lutes said even the most expe­ri­enced employ­ees are giv­en only par­tial access to the IRS’s Inte­grat­ed Data Retrieval Sys­tem, or IDRS.

    DOGE last week sought access to that sys­tem, which would have pro­vid­ed the abil­i­ty to see, and in some cas­es edit, detailed records — includ­ing bank accounts, pay­ment bal­ances, Social Secu­ri­ty and oth­er per­son­al iden­ti­fi­ca­tion num­bers, and, in some instances, med­ical infor­ma­tion — for vir­tu­al­ly every indi­vid­ual, busi­ness and non­prof­it in the coun­try.

    “If any­body actu­al­ly under­stood how all these pieces work togeth­er, we’d have to shoot them. They’d be too dan­ger­ous,” Lutes said. “And I’m only halfway jok­ing.”

    Access to the IDRS, in par­tic­u­lar, would pose an enor­mous risk, he said. Entry to the sys­tem is so pro­tect­ed, “I would have fired any­one who tried to give me access.”

    An agree­ment between the White House and the Trea­sury Depart­ment lim­it­ed DOGE to anonymized data, the same vis­i­bil­i­ty that some aca­d­e­m­ic researchers get.

    ...

    One employ­ee of the U.S. Dig­i­tal Ser­vice start­ed see­ing his work dif­fer­ent­ly once Musk took the reins of the renamed agency.

    The per­son, who was involved in a gov­ern­ment pro­gram that includes a data­base of address­es, has been grap­pling with the impli­ca­tions of work he had felt proud of — but which he sud­den­ly fears could be used to go after peo­ple for pur­pos­es such as immi­gra­tion enforce­ment.

    “Now I feel like a lit­tle bit of an enabler,” said the per­son, speak­ing on the con­di­tion of anonymi­ty to dis­cuss sen­si­tive infor­ma­tion. “I feel like I’ve been a part of cre­at­ing a trap for peo­ple.”

    Clash­es over DOGE’s requests for access have also prompt­ed res­ig­na­tions. At the Trea­sury Depart­ment, the high­est-rank­ing career offi­cial left in late Jan­u­ary after a dis­pute over access to pay­ment sys­tems. Ear­li­er this month, the Social Secu­ri­ty Administration’s act­ing com­mis­sion­er depart­ed after a dis­agree­ment over DOGE’s attempts to access sen­si­tive data.

    At the IRS, tax­pay­ers whose infor­ma­tion is wrong­ful­ly dis­closed or even inspect­ed are enti­tled by law to mon­e­tary dam­ages. Social Secu­ri­ty employ­ees who vio­late pri­va­cy laws could face stiff fines and jail time.

    DOGE could use pro­tect­ed per­son­al infor­ma­tion at the Social Secu­ri­ty Admin­is­tra­tion — includ­ing the world’s largest repos­i­to­ry of med­ical infor­ma­tion — to search for improp­er pay­ments, but it wouldn’t amount to much return on invest­ment, accord­ing to for­mer senior agency offi­cials, who spoke on the con­di­tion of anonymi­ty to dis­cuss inter­nal con­ver­sa­tions.

    For years, offi­cials there have stud­ied the thresh­old at which detect­ing improp­er pay­ments becomes unprof­itable. The agency has repeat­ed­ly explored build­ing more robust sys­tems to fer­ret out over- and under­pay­ments, which account­ed for 0.3 per­cent of the more than $1.3 tril­lion in pay­ments in fis­cal 2024, adding up to rough­ly $4 bil­lion, accord­ing to fed­er­al data. But it could cost more than that to track all the mon­ey down, the for­mer offi­cials said.

    ...

    Kristofer Gold­smith, an Iraq War vet­er­an who tracks and reports vio­lent right-wing extrem­ists, said he has grown wor­ried for his safe­ty since learn­ing that some of the DOGE mem­bers had fre­quent­ed inter­net groups pop­u­lar with crim­i­nal hack­ers or espoused extrem­ist views.

    After let­ting his guard down, he said, he has gone back to wear­ing a gun in his home.

    I’m very con­cerned that the entire fed­er­al gov­ern­ment is being com­pro­mised by peo­ple who want to tar­get, harass and maybe even kill me,” Gold­smith said. He is a plain­tiff in a law­suit over DOGE’s access to per­son­al records that led to a tem­po­rary restrain­ing order Mon­day against the gov­ern­ment.

    Researchers have raised red flags about some of DOGE’s team. They include Edward Coris­tine, a 19-year-old for­mer Musk com­pa­ny intern who post­ed in chan­nels asso­ci­at­ed with the Com, a loose net­work includ­ing many young crim­i­nals. An online han­dle he used once solicit­ed an ille­gal denial-of-ser­vice attack. Coris­tine now has an email address at the Cyber­se­cu­ri­ty and Infra­struc­ture Secu­ri­ty Agency, which is in charge of defend­ing fed­er­al agen­cies and essen­tial pri­vate indus­tries from cyber­at­tacks. Coris­tine didn’t respond to emailed requests for com­ment.

    Anoth­er DOGE work­er, Gavin Kliger, who sought access to records at the IRS, has retweet­ed white nation­al­ist Nick Fuentes and writ­ten of being inspired by media crit­i­cism from a Holo­caust denier. “I am Jew­ish and any insin­u­a­tion of sup­port for ‘white nation­al­ism’ or ‘anti-semi­tism’ is false and defam­a­to­ry,” Kliger told The Wash­ing­ton Post.

    Musk has a track record of vio­lat­ing pri­va­cy norms. When he took over X, then known as Twit­ter, his deputies pub­licly post­ed some pri­vate com­mu­ni­ca­tions of for­mer employ­ees, alleg­ing that they were proof of a lib­er­al cen­sor­ship con­spir­a­cy inside Twit­ter.

    A group of FBI agents who inves­ti­gat­ed the Jan. 6, 2021, attack on the Capi­tol has also sued, argu­ing that gov­ern­ment records show­ing what they did in those cas­es could be used for harass­ment.

    Moss, their attor­ney, is try­ing to stop fur­ther dis­sem­i­na­tion of their names, argu­ing that any list being com­piled would be used not to probe wrong­do­ing but “to dox and expose the iden­ti­ties of fed­er­al offi­cials, which would ordi­nar­i­ly be respect­ed.”

    Moss and oth­ers say sweep­ing Wash­ing­ton agen­cies for data runs afoul of the Pri­va­cy Act, the Water­gate-era reform law that lim­its what offi­cials can do with infor­ma­tion on Amer­i­cans, not just fed­er­al work­ers.

    Search­ing for fraud, waste and abuse, as well as try­ing to devel­op more effi­cient gov­ern­ment sys­tems, could be valid rea­sons for DOGE to access the data, sev­er­al lawyers oppos­ing DOGE say. Feed­ing data into arti­fi­cial-intel­li­gence pro­grams, which The Post and oth­ers have report­ed the Edu­ca­tion Depart­ment is doing, and is sus­pect­ed by employ­ees else­where, may also be legal if the move involves close­ly guard­ed, in-house pro­grams.

    But such actions increase the chances of inap­pro­pri­ate access, inten­tion­al or not, said Alan But­ler, exec­u­tive direc­tor of the Elec­tron­ic Pri­va­cy Infor­ma­tion Cen­ter, a non­prof­it based in D.C. that advo­cates for pri­va­cy pro­tec­tions.

    “It’s pret­ty clear they want to use match­ing type sys­tems to find pay­ments they claim are fraud­u­lent, and match­ing against datasets or key terms would be anath­e­ma to the Pri­va­cy Act if done on a whim or with­out lim­its,” said But­ler, whose group is suing DOGE and the Office of Per­son­nel Man­age­ment claim­ing pri­va­cy and data secu­ri­ty vio­la­tions on behalf of itself and an unnamed fed­er­al employ­ee.

    ————

    “DOGE’s grab of per­son­al data stokes pri­va­cy and secu­ri­ty fears” By Faiz Sid­diqui, Joseph Menn and Jacob Bogage; The Wash­ing­ton Post; 02/25/2025

    “Before DOGE launched, most of the records at issue were kept in the hands of a select few offi­cials to pre­serve pri­va­cy and avoid cross­ing legal red lines. Now Musk’s group is seek­ing often-unfet­tered access, cit­ing sus­pi­cion of fraud and waste. In addi­tion to con­cerns about expos­ing pri­vate infor­ma­tion, some crit­ics fear that hand­ing all the data to DOGE could enable bad actors to leak sen­si­tive infor­ma­tion to com­pro­mise polit­i­cal adver­saries, act on per­son­al vendet­tas or stir up online mobs against oppo­nents.

    And then we get to the gross insid­er threat risk that has now explod­ed under DOGE. An insid­er threat that is real­ly emerg­ing from all these DOGE out­siders sud­den­ly being grant­ed unprece­dent­ed access to high­ly sen­si­tive gov­ern­ment data­bas­es with­out any real over­sight on what they are doing with all that data. Are any of these data­bas­es being down­loaded to the del­uge of per­son­al devices that have sud­den­ly inun­dat­ed the White House­’s WiFi per­mis­sions? We have no idea and prob­a­bly nev­er will unless that data sud­den­ly shows up on the dark web or oth­er crim­i­nal out­lets. And as the arti­cle warns, this isn’t just high­ly sen­si­tive data on fed­er­al employ­ees. This is high­ly sen­si­tive data on the pub­lic at large too. And while the access­ing of all this high­ly sen­si­tive data isn’t nec­es­sar­i­ly ille­gal, the inap­pro­pri­ate access­ing of that data is most def­i­nite­ly ille­gal and the bases for law­suits. Which is a reminder that the mem­bers of this DOGE team, and Musk, will prob­a­bly need par­dons by the time this is all over. Par­dons or just a gen­er­al end to the rule of law as we’ve known it:

    ...
    With­in the White House com­plex, the WiFi per­mis­sions — meant to bol­ster secu­ri­ty by prompt­ing users to log in fre­quent­ly — were recent­ly changed to allow guests to remain logged in for a year, up from sev­en days, because so many per­son­al devices are new­ly in use.

    ...

    Last week, the lead engi­neer for a gov­ern­ment text-mes­sag­ing ser­vice resigned over a DOGE ally’s request for access to data includ­ing per­son­al iden­ti­fy­ing infor­ma­tion about many Amer­i­cans. On Tues­day, 21 staffers of the U.S. DOGE Ser­vice, the enti­ty formed as the U.S. Dig­i­tal Ser­vice under Pres­i­dent Barack Oba­ma and renamed in Trump’s Day 1 exec­u­tive order estab­lish­ing DOGE, or the Depart­ment of Gov­ern­ment Effi­cien­cy, announced their res­ig­na­tions in protest. The group — con­sist­ing of engi­neers, design­ers, prod­uct man­agers, and IT and oper­a­tions staff — said they had been sub­ject­ed to ques­tions about “polit­i­cal loy­al­ty” as part of a DOGE inter­view process that intro­duced “sig­nif­i­cant secu­ri­ty risks.” DOGE’s actions, they wrote, have includ­ed “mis­han­dling sen­si­tive data” and “break­ing crit­i­cal sys­tems” in ways that are incom­pat­i­ble with the orig­i­nal USDS mis­sion.

    ...

    Allow­ing Musk and his team to see some records isn’t ille­gal. Because they’re des­ig­nat­ed as “spe­cial gov­ern­ment employ­ees” and many are senior advis­ers at Cab­i­net agen­cies, they are enti­tled to much of the access they have sought, and some judges have declined to kick them out while hear­ing more evi­dence.

    But they need a rea­son­able basis to peruse files and data­bas­es, experts said, and a pro­ce­dure for ensur­ing pre­cau­tions are fol­lowed. And the peo­ple with access must be vet­ted and trained, said Brad Moss, an attor­ney rep­re­sent­ing plain­tiffs in one of more than a dozen law­suits con­test­ing DOGE’s han­dling of data.
    ...

    And as the arti­cle warns, that high­ly sen­si­tive per­son­al infor­ma­tion includes the world’s largest repos­i­to­ry of medi­al infor­ma­tion at the Social Secu­ri­ty Admin­is­tra­tion. Again, how many par­dons is Pres­i­dent Trump going to have to issue for DOGE employ­ees alone? It’s hard to imag­ine they aren’t engaged in ram­pant law­break­ing at this point:

    ...
    DOGE could use pro­tect­ed per­son­al infor­ma­tion at the Social Secu­ri­ty Admin­is­tra­tion — includ­ing the world’s largest repos­i­to­ry of med­ical infor­ma­tion — to search for improp­er pay­ments, but it wouldn’t amount to much return on invest­ment, accord­ing to for­mer senior agency offi­cials, who spoke on the con­di­tion of anonymi­ty to dis­cuss inter­nal con­ver­sa­tions.

    ...

    Search­ing for fraud, waste and abuse, as well as try­ing to devel­op more effi­cient gov­ern­ment sys­tems, could be valid rea­sons for DOGE to access the data, sev­er­al lawyers oppos­ing DOGE say. Feed­ing data into arti­fi­cial-intel­li­gence pro­grams, which The Post and oth­ers have report­ed the Edu­ca­tion Depart­ment is doing, and is sus­pect­ed by employ­ees else­where, may also be legal if the move involves close­ly guard­ed, in-house pro­grams.

    But such actions increase the chances of inap­pro­pri­ate access, inten­tion­al or not, said Alan But­ler, exec­u­tive direc­tor of the Elec­tron­ic Pri­va­cy Infor­ma­tion Cen­ter, a non­prof­it based in D.C. that advo­cates for pri­va­cy pro­tec­tions.
    ...

    And when it comes to the prospects of the DOGE staffers engag­ing in bla­tant crimes with all the data they’ve been giv­en access to, we just have to look at the back­grounds of DOGE staffers like Edward Coris­tine or Gavin Kliger. Coris­tine was fired from a job for data theft while Kliger is an open fan of Nick Fuentes and oth­er Holo­caust deniers. What kind of crimes are indi­vid­u­als with these kinds of back­grounds going to be inclined to com­mit when they know they will like­ly be pro­tect­ed by the pres­i­dent of the Unit­ed States no mat­ter what they do? It’s not just their dan­ger­ous ide­olo­gies. It’s the implic­it enabling that comes from Trump’s par­don prece­dent:

    ...
    Researchers have raised red flags about some of DOGE’s team. They include Edward Coris­tine, a 19-year-old for­mer Musk com­pa­ny intern who post­ed in chan­nels asso­ci­at­ed with the Com, a loose net­work includ­ing many young crim­i­nals. An online han­dle he used once solicit­ed an ille­gal denial-of-ser­vice attack. Coris­tine now has an email address at the Cyber­se­cu­ri­ty and Infra­struc­ture Secu­ri­ty Agency, which is in charge of defend­ing fed­er­al agen­cies and essen­tial pri­vate indus­tries from cyber­at­tacks. Coris­tine didn’t respond to emailed requests for com­ment.

    Anoth­er DOGE work­er, Gavin Kliger, who sought access to records at the IRS, has retweet­ed white nation­al­ist Nick Fuentes and writ­ten of being inspired by media crit­i­cism from a Holo­caust denier. “I am Jew­ish and any insin­u­a­tion of sup­port for ‘white nation­al­ism’ or ‘anti-semi­tism’ is false and defam­a­to­ry,” Kliger told The Wash­ing­ton Post.
    ...

    And those con­cerns about just what all these crim­i­nal-mind­ed far right DOGE staffers might be doing with the full knowl­edge that they will like­ly be par­doned for any­thing they do should only ampli­fy wor­ries from peo­ple like Kristofer Gold­smith, an Iraq War vet­er­an who tracks and reports vio­lent right-wing extrem­ists. As Gold­smith expressed, “I’m very con­cerned that the entire fed­er­al gov­ern­ment is being com­pro­mised by peo­ple who want to tar­get, harass and maybe even kill me”:

    ...
    Kristofer Gold­smith, an Iraq War vet­er­an who tracks and reports vio­lent right-wing extrem­ists, said he has grown wor­ried for his safe­ty since learn­ing that some of the DOGE mem­bers had fre­quent­ed inter­net groups pop­u­lar with crim­i­nal hack­ers or espoused extrem­ist views.

    ...

    I’m very con­cerned that the entire fed­er­al gov­ern­ment is being com­pro­mised by peo­ple who want to tar­get, harass and maybe even kill me,” Gold­smith said. He is a plain­tiff in a law­suit over DOGE’s access to per­son­al records that led to a tem­po­rary restrain­ing order Mon­day against the gov­ern­ment.
    ...

    And as we’re going to see in the fol­low­ing Wired piece, those fears of active harass­ment and intim­i­da­tion, or maybe worse, aren’t just fan­tasies. We’re already get­ting reports of fed­er­al employ­ees receiv­ing anony­mous harass­ment, includ­ing Andrew Bernier, a US Army Corps of Engi­neers researcher and a union leader who began receiv­ing a flood of threat­en­ing emails short­ly after fil­ing an offi­cial charge accus­ing the Trump admin­is­tra­tion of vio­lat­ing his union’s col­lec­tive bar­gain­ing agree­ment. The threats sug­gest­ed this anony­mous per­son had access to Bernier’s gov­ern­ment-issued work lap­top. And as the Wired report warns, the idea that some­one might have remote access to the con­tents and activ­i­ties of Bernier’s lap­top isn’t some dystopi­an night­mare. It’s to be expect­ed thanks to the fed­er­al gov­ern­men­t’s Insid­er Threat detec­tion pro­grams. Insid­er threat detec­tion pro­grams that can now be exploit­ed anony­mous by DOGE, the great­est insid­er threat the US fed­er­al gov­ern­ment has ever faced:

    Wired

    DOGE Sparks Sur­veil­lance Fear Across the US Gov­ern­ment

    The US gov­ern­ment has increased the use of mon­i­tor­ing tools over the past decade. But Pres­i­dent Don­ald Trump’s employ­ee purges are mak­ing work­ers wor­ry about how their data could be abused.

    Paresh Dave Dell Cameron Alexa O’Brien
    Busi­ness
    Feb 21, 2025 6:30 AM

    This month, Andrew Bernier, a US Army Corps of Engi­neers researcher and a union leader, says that he has received a bar­rage of men­ac­ing mes­sages from the same anony­mous email account. Unfold­ing like short chap­ters in a dystopi­an nov­el, they have spo­ken of the genius of Elon Musk, ref­er­enced the pow­er of the billionaire’s so-called Depart­ment of Gov­ern­ment Effi­cien­cy (DOGE), and fore­told the down­fall of “cor­rupt” union boss­es.

    But the most eerie thing about the emails, which Bernier says began arriv­ing after he filed an offi­cial charge accus­ing the Trump admin­is­tra­tion of vio­lat­ing his union’s col­lec­tive bar­gain­ing agree­ment, is that they includ­ed per­son­al details about his life—some of which he believes might have come from sur­veil­lance of his work lap­top. The author ref­er­enced Bernier’s union activ­i­ties, nick­name, job, trav­el details, and even the green note­book he reg­u­lar­ly uses. The most recent email implied that his com­put­er was loaded with spy­ware. “Andy’s cru­sade, like so many before it, had been doomed from the start,” one email stat­ed. “The real tragedy was­n’t his failure—it was his belief that the fight had ever been real.”

    The unset­tling mes­sages, which were reviewed by WIRED, are an extreme exam­ple of the kinds of encoun­ters that work­ers across the US gov­ern­ment say they have had with tech­nol­o­gy since Pres­i­dent Don­ald Trump took office. WIRED spoke to cur­rent employ­ees at 13 fed­er­al agen­cies for this sto­ry who expressed fears about poten­tial­ly being mon­i­tored by soft­ware pro­grams, some of which they described as unfa­mil­iar. Oth­ers said that rou­tine soft­ware updates and noti­fi­ca­tions, per­haps once read­i­ly glossed over, have tak­en on omi­nous new mean­ings. Sev­er­al report­ed feel­ing anx­ious and hyper­aware of the devices and tech­nol­o­gy around them.

    At the Gen­er­al Ser­vices Admin­is­tra­tion (GSA), one work­er cit­ed a Chrome brows­er exten­sion called Dyna­trace, an exist­ing pro­gram for mon­i­tor­ing app per­for­mance. Inside the Social Secu­ri­ty Admin­is­tra­tion, anoth­er employ­ee point­ed to Splunk, a long-stand­ing tool that’s used to alert IT staff to secu­ri­ty anom­alies like when an unau­tho­rized USB dri­ve is plugged into a lap­top. At the US Agency for Inter­na­tion­al Devel­op­ment, one work­er was caught off guard by Google’s Gem­i­ni AI chat­bot, instal­la­tions of which kicked off days before Trump took office.

    “Every­one has been talk­ing about whether our lap­tops are now able to lis­ten to our con­ver­sa­tions and track what we do,” says a cur­rent GSA employ­ee, who like oth­er work­ers in this sto­ry was grant­ed anonymi­ty because they didn’t have autho­riza­tion to speak and feared retal­i­a­tion.

    ...

    The work­ers’ accounts come as Musk’s DOGE orga­ni­za­tion is rapid­ly bur­row­ing into var­i­ous gov­ern­ment agen­cies and depart­ments, often gain­ing access to per­son­nel records, logs of finan­cial trans­ac­tions, and oth­er sen­si­tive infor­ma­tion in the process. The efforts are part of the Trump administration’s broad­er plan to ter­mi­nate thou­sands of gov­ern­ment employ­ees and remake the face of fed­er­al agen­cies.

    Like many pri­vate com­pa­nies, US fed­er­al agen­cies dis­close to staff that they have tools to mon­i­tor what work­ers do on their com­put­ers and net­works. The US government’s capa­bil­i­ties in this area have also expand­ed over the past decade.

    ...

    “I will say my con­cerns are pri­mar­i­ly based in gen­er­al fear as opposed to spe­cif­ic knowl­edge,” says a work­er at the Depart­ment of Home­land Secu­ri­ty, who adds: “I’d love to be told I’m wrong.”

    But activ­i­ty that some work­ers per­ceive as signs of increased sur­veil­lance has prompt­ed them to take pre­cau­tions. Bernier, who works as a civ­il engi­neer for the Army Corps based in Hanover, New Hamp­shire, says the mes­sages he received spooked him enough that he asked local police to keep an eye on his home, removed the bat­tery from his work-issued lap­top, and kept his work phone on air­plane mode while trav­el­ing to a non­work con­fer­ence last week. “There are things I don’t con­trol but actions I can take to pro­tect myself and my fam­i­ly,” he says.

    ...

    A per­son inside the Envi­ron­men­tal Pro­tec­tion Agency told WIRED last week that they’ve wit­nessed cowork­ers back out of Microsoft Teams meet­ings, which can be eas­i­ly record­ed and auto­mat­i­cal­ly tran­scribed, when they are relat­ed to top­ics they believe could get them fired. “Def­i­nite chill­ing effect,” the per­son says. The EPA did not respond to a request for com­ment.

    An employ­ee at the Nation­al Ocean­ic and Atmos­pher­ic Admin­is­tra­tion, whose work with inter­na­tion­al part­ners is being audit­ed by DOGE oper­a­tives, says they and their col­leagues began avoid­ing mes­sag­ing one anoth­er and have “real­ly cut down on putting things in writ­ing” in recent weeks. They report that cor­re­spon­dence from their super­vi­sors has also sig­nif­i­cant­ly dropped off. The NOAA declined to com­ment.

    At the Fed­er­al Bureau of Inves­ti­ga­tion, anx­i­ety around offi­cials pos­si­bly tar­get­ing offi­cers and activ­i­ties per­ceived as being dis­loy­al to the pres­i­dent has cratered morale, a fed­er­al law enforce­ment source with knowl­edge of the agents’ con­cerns tells WIRED. The FBI declined to com­ment.

    ...

    Insid­er Threat

    Long before Trump’s inau­gu­ra­tion, user activ­i­ty mon­i­tor­ing was already man­dat­ed for fed­er­al agen­cies and net­works that han­dle clas­si­fied information—the result of an exec­u­tive order signed by Pres­i­dent Barack Oba­ma in the wake of a mas­sive breach of clas­si­fied diplo­mat­ic cables and infor­ma­tion about the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan in 2010. The capa­bil­i­ty is part of gov­ern­ment-wide insid­er-threat pro­grams that great­ly expand­ed after Edward Snowden’s leak of clas­si­fied sur­veil­lance doc­u­ments in 2013 and again after an Army spe­cial­ist mur­dered four col­leagues and injured 16 oth­ers at Fort Hood in 2014.

    The US government’s cur­rent approach to dig­i­tal­ly mon­i­tor­ing fed­er­al work­ers has large­ly been guid­ed by a direc­tive issued by the Com­mit­tee on Nation­al Secu­ri­ty Sys­tems in 2014, which orders rel­e­vant agen­cies to tie user activ­i­ty to “spe­cif­ic users.” The pub­lic por­tions of the doc­u­ment call for “every exec­u­tive branch depart­ment and agency” han­dling clas­si­fied infor­ma­tion to have capa­bil­i­ties to take screen­shots, cap­ture key­strokes, and inter­cept chats and email on employ­ee devices. They are also instruct­ed to deploy “file shad­ow­ing,” mean­ing secret­ly pro­duc­ing fac­sim­i­les of every file a user edits or opens.

    The insid­er threat pro­grams at depart­ments such as Health and Human Ser­vices, Trans­porta­tion, and Vet­er­ans Affairs, also have poli­cies that pro­tect unclas­si­fied gov­ern­ment infor­ma­tion, which enable them to mon­i­tor employ­ees’ clicks and com­mu­ni­ca­tions, accord­ing to notices in the Fed­er­al Reg­is­ter, an offi­cial source of rule­mak­ing doc­u­ments. Poli­cies for the Depart­ment of the Inte­ri­or, the Inter­nal Rev­enue Ser­vice, and the Fed­er­al Deposit Insur­ance Cor­po­rate, also allow col­lect­ing and assess­ing employ­ees’ social media con­tent.

    These inter­nal agency pro­grams, over­seen by a nation­al task force led by the attor­ney gen­er­al and direc­tor of nation­al intel­li­gence, aim to iden­ti­fy behav­iors that may indi­cate the height­ened risk of not only leaks and work­place vio­lence, but also the “loss” or “degra­da­tion” of a fed­er­al agency’s “resources or capa­bil­i­ties.” Over 60 per­cent of insid­er-threat inci­dents in the fed­er­al sec­tor involve fraud, such as steal­ing mon­ey or tak­ing some­one’s per­son­al infor­ma­tion, and are non-espi­onage relat­ed, accord­ing to analy­sis by Carnegie Mel­lon researchers.

    Fraud,” “dis­gruntle­ment,” “ide­o­log­i­cal chal­lenges,” “moral out­rage,” or dis­cus­sion of moral con­cerns deemed “unre­lat­ed to work duties” are some of the pos­si­ble signs that a work­er pos­es a threat, accord­ing to US gov­ern­ment train­ing lit­er­a­ture.

    Of the 15 Cab­i­net-lev­el depart­ments such as ener­gy, labor, and vet­er­ans affairs, at least nine had con­tracts as of late last year with sup­pli­ers such as Ever­fox and Dtex Sys­tems that allowed for dig­i­tal­ly mon­i­tor­ing of a por­tion of employ­ees, accord­ing to pub­lic spend­ing data. Ever­fox declined to com­ment.

    Dtex’s Inter­cept soft­ware, which is used by mul­ti­ple fed­er­al agen­cies, is one exam­ple of a new­er class of pro­grams that gen­er­ate indi­vid­ual risk scores by ana­lyz­ing anonymized meta­da­ta, such as which URLs work­ers are vis­it­ing and which files they’re open­ing and print­ing out on their work devices, accord­ing to the com­pa­ny. When an agency wants to iden­ti­fy and fur­ther inves­ti­gate some­one with a high score, two peo­ple have to sign off in some ver­sions of its tool, accord­ing to the com­pa­ny. Dtex’s soft­ware doesn’t have to log key­strokes or scan the con­tent of emails, calls, chats, or social media posts.

    ...

    Rajan Koo, the chief tech­nol­o­gy offi­cer of Dtex tells WIRED that he hopes the Trump admin­is­tra­tion will adjust the government’s approach to mon­i­tor­ing. Events such as wide­spread lay­offs cou­pled with a reliance on what Koo described as intru­sive sur­veil­lance tools can stir up an envi­ron­ment in which work­ers feel dis­grun­tled, he says. “You can cre­ate a cul­ture of rec­i­p­ro­cal loy­al­ty,” says Koo, or “the per­fect breed­ing ground for insid­er threats.”

    Already Over­whelmed

    Sources with knowl­edge of the US government’s insid­er-threat pro­grams describe them as large­ly inef­fi­cient and labor inten­sive, requir­ing over­stretched teams of ana­lysts to man­u­al­ly pore through dai­ly bar­rages of alerts that include many false pos­i­tives. Mul­ti­ple sources said that the sys­tems are cur­rent­ly “over­whelmed.” Any effort by the Trump admin­is­tra­tion to extend the reach of such tools or widen their parameters—to more close­ly sur­veil for per­ceived signs of insub­or­di­na­tion or dis­loy­al­ty to par­ti­san feal­ties, for instance—likely would result in a sig­nif­i­cant spike in false pos­i­tives that would take con­sid­er­able time to comb through, accord­ing to the peo­ple famil­iar with the work.

    In an email last month seek­ing fed­er­al employ­ees’ vol­un­tary res­ig­na­tions, the Trump admin­is­tra­tion wrote that it want­ed a “reli­able, loy­al, trust­wor­thy” work­force. Attempts to use insid­er-threat pro­grams to enforce that vision could be met by a num­ber of legal chal­lenges.

    US intel­li­gence com­mu­ni­ty ana­lysts are required by law and direc­tive to pro­vide unbi­ased and objec­tive work. That means avoid­ing cher­ry-pick­ing infor­ma­tion to delib­er­ate­ly alter judge­ments or falling prey to out­side pres­sure, includ­ing from per­son­al or polit­i­cal bias­es. These stan­dards, even when not offi­cial­ly cod­i­fied, are core to the pro­fes­sion­al ethics of any intel­li­gence prac­ti­tion­er or law enforce­ment ana­lyst con­duct­ing assess­ments of insid­er threats.

    A 2018 nation­al insid­er-threat task force frame­work notes that fed­er­al pro­grams should com­ply with “all applic­a­ble legal, pri­va­cy and civ­il lib­er­ties rights, and whistle­blow­er pro­tec­tions.” Bradley Moss, an attor­ney rep­re­sent­ing US intel­li­gence and law enforce­ment per­son­nel, says that “dis­loy­al­ty” to the Trump admin­is­tra­tion is “too vague” an excuse to ter­mi­nate employ­ees with civ­il ser­vice pro­tec­tions, adding that if “they’re going to go through the statu­to­ry process, they need to demon­strate actu­al cause for ter­mi­na­tion.”

    A fed­er­al law enforce­ment source warns that mon­i­tor­ing could the­o­ret­i­cal­ly be used to gath­er polit­i­cal intel­li­gence on fed­er­al employ­ees, while the admin­is­tra­tion looks for more palat­able rea­sons to ter­mi­nate them lat­er; sim­i­lar to how law enforce­ment may obtain evi­dence that’s inad­mis­si­ble in the course of a crim­i­nal inves­ti­ga­tion, but then search for anoth­er evi­den­tiary basis to file charges.

    Joe Spiel­berg­er, senior legal coun­sel at the Project on Gov­ern­ment Over­sight, a non­par­ti­san group fight­ing alleged cor­rup­tion, says that if Musk were seri­ous about cut­ting gov­ern­ment waste, he would be strength­en­ing pro­tec­tions for peo­ple who report cor­rup­tion and mis­man­age­ment. Any war­rant­less or mass sur­veil­lance of fed­er­al work­ers with­out trans­par­ent guide­lines, he says, would rep­re­sent a major con­cern.

    “When you cre­ate this cul­ture of fear and intim­i­da­tion and have that chill­ing effect of mak­ing peo­ple even more fear­ful about call­ing out wrong­do­ing, it ensures that cor­rup­tion goes unno­ticed and unad­dressed,” Spiel­berg­er says.

    ————-

    “DOGE Sparks Sur­veil­lance Fear Across the US Gov­ern­ment” by Paresh Dave, Dell Cameron, Alexa O’Brien; Wired; 02/21/2025

    “But the most eerie thing about the emails, which Bernier says began arriv­ing after he filed an offi­cial charge accus­ing the Trump admin­is­tra­tion of vio­lat­ing his union’s col­lec­tive bar­gain­ing agree­ment, is that they includ­ed per­son­al details about his life—some of which he believes might have come from sur­veil­lance of his work lap­top. The author ref­er­enced Bernier’s union activ­i­ties, nick­name, job, trav­el details, and even the green note­book he reg­u­lar­ly uses. The most recent email implied that his com­put­er was loaded with spy­ware. “Andy’s cru­sade, like so many before it, had been doomed from the start,” one email stat­ed. “The real tragedy was­n’t his failure—it was his belief that the fight had ever been real.””

    Anony­mous threats involv­ing per­son­al details that indi­cate some­one had been access­ing his gov­ern­ment-issued work lap­top. That’s what Andrew Bernier, a US Army Corps of Engi­neers researcher and a union leader, start­ed expe­ri­enc­ing short­ly after he filed an offi­cial charge accus­ing the Trump admin­is­tra­tion of vio­lat­ing his union’s col­lec­tive bar­gain­ing agree­ment. Anony­mous insid­er intim­i­da­tion that seems to have relied on pow­er­ful access to Bernier’s gov­ern­ment records and even his lap­top. The anony­mous intim­i­da­tion has become such a men­ac­ing pres­ence in Bernier’s life that he even asked the local police to keep an eye on his res­i­dence. The kind of request that makes a lot more sense when you keep in mind that DOGE is being staffed by crim­i­nals and white nation­al­ists who know they will like­ly be par­doned by the pres­i­dent for any­thing they do:

    ...
    “Every­one has been talk­ing about whether our lap­tops are now able to lis­ten to our con­ver­sa­tions and track what we do,” says a cur­rent GSA employ­ee, who like oth­er work­ers in this sto­ry was grant­ed anonymi­ty because they didn’t have autho­riza­tion to speak and feared retal­i­a­tion.

    ...

    But activ­i­ty that some work­ers per­ceive as signs of increased sur­veil­lance has prompt­ed them to take pre­cau­tions. Bernier, who works as a civ­il engi­neer for the Army Corps based in Hanover, New Hamp­shire, says the mes­sages he received spooked him enough that he asked local police to keep an eye on his home, removed the bat­tery from his work-issued lap­top, and kept his work phone on air­plane mode while trav­el­ing to a non­work con­fer­ence last week. “There are things I don’t con­trol but actions I can take to pro­tect myself and my fam­i­ly,” he says.
    ...

    Also note the grand irony here: the infor­ma­tion that can now be used to anony­mous­ly intim­i­date fed­er­al employ­ees is like­ly gath­ered from “insid­er threat” pro­grams. Which is a reminder that allow­ing fas­cists to gain access­ing to insid­er threat detec­tion sys­tems pos­es a pret­ty enor­mous insid­er threat:

    ...
    Long before Trump’s inau­gu­ra­tion, user activ­i­ty mon­i­tor­ing was already man­dat­ed for fed­er­al agen­cies and net­works that han­dle clas­si­fied information—the result of an exec­u­tive order signed by Pres­i­dent Barack Oba­ma in the wake of a mas­sive breach of clas­si­fied diplo­mat­ic cables and infor­ma­tion about the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan in 2010. The capa­bil­i­ty is part of gov­ern­ment-wide insid­er-threat pro­grams that great­ly expand­ed after Edward Snowden’s leak of clas­si­fied sur­veil­lance doc­u­ments in 2013 and again after an Army spe­cial­ist mur­dered four col­leagues and injured 16 oth­ers at Fort Hood in 2014.

    ...

    The insid­er threat pro­grams at depart­ments such as Health and Human Ser­vices, Trans­porta­tion, and Vet­er­ans Affairs, also have poli­cies that pro­tect unclas­si­fied gov­ern­ment infor­ma­tion, which enable them to mon­i­tor employ­ees’ clicks and com­mu­ni­ca­tions, accord­ing to notices in the Fed­er­al Reg­is­ter, an offi­cial source of rule­mak­ing doc­u­ments. Poli­cies for the Depart­ment of the Inte­ri­or, the Inter­nal Rev­enue Ser­vice, and the Fed­er­al Deposit Insur­ance Cor­po­rate, also allow col­lect­ing and assess­ing employ­ees’ social media con­tent.

    These inter­nal agency pro­grams, over­seen by a nation­al task force led by the attor­ney gen­er­al and direc­tor of nation­al intel­li­gence, aim to iden­ti­fy behav­iors that may indi­cate the height­ened risk of not only leaks and work­place vio­lence, but also the “loss” or “degra­da­tion” of a fed­er­al agency’s “resources or capa­bil­i­ties.” Over 60 per­cent of insid­er-threat inci­dents in the fed­er­al sec­tor involve fraud, such as steal­ing mon­ey or tak­ing some­one’s per­son­al infor­ma­tion, and are non-espi­onage relat­ed, accord­ing to analy­sis by Carnegie Mel­lon researchers.

    Fraud,” “dis­gruntle­ment,” “ide­o­log­i­cal chal­lenges,” “moral out­rage,” or dis­cus­sion of moral con­cerns deemed “unre­lat­ed to work duties” are some of the pos­si­ble signs that a work­er pos­es a threat, accord­ing to US gov­ern­ment train­ing lit­er­a­ture.
    ...

    And note how wide­ly used some of these insid­er threat detec­tion pro­grams are across the fed­er­al gov­ern­ment: Of the 15 Cab­i­net-lev­el depart­ments, at least nine had con­tracts as of late last year with threat detec­tion soft­ware sup­pli­ers such as Ever­fox and Dtex Sys­tems:

    ...
    Of the 15 Cab­i­net-lev­el depart­ments such as ener­gy, labor, and vet­er­ans affairs, at least nine had con­tracts as of late last year with sup­pli­ers such as Ever­fox and Dtex Sys­tems that allowed for dig­i­tal­ly mon­i­tor­ing of a por­tion of employ­ees, accord­ing to pub­lic spend­ing data. Ever­fox declined to com­ment.

    ...

    Rajan Koo, the chief tech­nol­o­gy offi­cer of Dtex tells WIRED that he hopes the Trump admin­is­tra­tion will adjust the government’s approach to mon­i­tor­ing. Events such as wide­spread lay­offs cou­pled with a reliance on what Koo described as intru­sive sur­veil­lance tools can stir up an envi­ron­ment in which work­ers feel dis­grun­tled, he says. “You can cre­ate a cul­ture of rec­i­p­ro­cal loy­al­ty,” says Koo, or “the per­fect breed­ing ground for insid­er threats.”
    ...

    And as fed­er­al law enforce­ment warns, the access­ing and uti­liza­tion of the kind of infor­ma­tion gath­ered by these threat detec­tion ser­vices won’t nec­es­sar­i­ly be obvi­ous to the pub­lic or even the fed­er­al employ­ees tar­get­ed by this purge. The infor­ma­tion can instead be used inter­nal­ly to ide­o­log­i­cal­ly pro­file employ­ees and deter­mine who should be fired based on their loy­al­ty to the MAGA agen­da, at which point oth­er excus­es can be found to fire them. Excus­es or, in the case of employ­ees like Andrew Bernier, anony­mous intim­i­da­tion that can’t be tracked back to any­one:

    ...
    A 2018 nation­al insid­er-threat task force frame­work notes that fed­er­al pro­grams should com­ply with “all applic­a­ble legal, pri­va­cy and civ­il lib­er­ties rights, and whistle­blow­er pro­tec­tions.” Bradley Moss, an attor­ney rep­re­sent­ing US intel­li­gence and law enforce­ment per­son­nel, says that “dis­loy­al­ty” to the Trump admin­is­tra­tion is “too vague” an excuse to ter­mi­nate employ­ees with civ­il ser­vice pro­tec­tions, adding that if “they’re going to go through the statu­to­ry process, they need to demon­strate actu­al cause for ter­mi­na­tion.”

    A fed­er­al law enforce­ment source warns that mon­i­tor­ing could the­o­ret­i­cal­ly be used to gath­er polit­i­cal intel­li­gence on fed­er­al employ­ees, while the admin­is­tra­tion looks for more palat­able rea­sons to ter­mi­nate them lat­er; sim­i­lar to how law enforce­ment may obtain evi­dence that’s inad­mis­si­ble in the course of a crim­i­nal inves­ti­ga­tion, but then search for anoth­er evi­den­tiary basis to file charges.
    ...

    And let’s not for­get that we are only in the open­ing phase of this gov­ern­ment takeover. The purge phase, when all non-MAGA loy­al­ists are forced out of the jobs one way or anoth­er. We haven’t yet reached the fas­cist recruit­ment phase where ide­o­log­i­cal purists are recruit­ed to take over these posi­tions. Which is also a reminder that, while the anony­mous fas­cist intim­i­da­tion is start­ing with the fed­er­al work­force, we should­n’t assume it’s going to end there. Espe­cial­ly after the Trump admin­is­tra­tion is done get­ting away with the open defi­ance of US courts. This is just the warm up act, when the fas­cists get to hone their skills.

    Posted by Pterrafractyl | March 17, 2025, 10:23 pm

Post a comment