patrick.net

... the Party of Chaos using federal judges to oppose the dismantling of their gigantic grift scaffold. In other words, more lawfare to obstruct any earnest effort to effectively reform the management of our country. So, last week, you get Judge Carl J. Nichols in the DC District arguing that the DOGE shutdown of USAID was unauthorized and potentially illegal, lacking congressional approval.

Then, late Friday (when most citizens are checking out of the week’s struggles) Judge Paul Engelmayer out of the Southern District of New York blocked DOGE and other executive branch officials from accessing US Treasury records of expenditures. The injunction, comically, prevents Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent from seeing what his agency doles out money for — that is, from managing anything his department does. The suit that prompted the ruling was brought by nineteen states’ Attorneys General led by NY AG Letitia James. So, you see how this works.

You must also imagine that the White House was prepared for these lawfare shenanigans, though they haven’t shown their hand in response so far. This is a constitutional quarrel, of course, since it concerns who has authority between the executive, the legislature, and the judiciary over agency spending and, in particular, who gets to audit it. The actual objective by the plaintiff in these cases (the Party of Chaos) is simply to delay any corrective action.

The DOJ under Pam Bondi can designate the US Solicitor General to petition the Supreme Court (SCOTUS) for certiorari — to expedite the resolution of this constitutional issue as to whether Mr. Trump, as chief executive, and his bona fide appointees, can carry out executive functions. The arguments against that appear to be weak.

It is the President’s duty to see that the laws are faithfully executed, meaning that the departments under him do their jobs correctly, which would give him inherent authority to audit and restructure agencies like USAID. Both judges Nichols and Engelmayer are arrogating executive and legislative functions on policy-making to themselves, triggering a separation-of-powers dispute that the SCOTUS must adjudicate promptly.

What matters most in these cases is that SCOTUS has an opportunity to put up new guardrails against the hijacking of the federal courts for the purpose of lawfare — that is, for political dirty-fighting under color-of-law. The law is slow-moving, arcane, and incomprehensible to most non-lawyer citizens and that is why the Party of Chaos has misused it so liberally.

In any event, DOGE is moving ahead on many other fronts and the next battleground looks like the US Department of Education, an agency which, since its creation in 1979, has only presided over an epic degeneration in the academic performance of young people. The agency has grown since 1979 to 4,400 employees overseeing a $238-billion budget. Otherwise, what it’s mainly accomplished is to enrich the various teachers’ unions and to raise the cost of college tuitions astronomically while degenerating the purpose and value of higher ed. The fifty states were arguably doing a better job on their own without any DOE on the scene.

The Wall Street Journal carefully curated the first major challenge to the Trump agenda into a story misleadingly headlined, “Vance, Musk Criticize Federal Judge for Blocking DOGE From Treasury System.” But the judge went much further than the headline suggests. Astonishingly, he enjoined all non-career officials from accessing the Treasury system— right up to the Senate-confirmed Treasury Secretary himself.



The biggest problem with the judge’s decision appeared right in the story. “The Democratic attorneys general,” the WSJ admitted, “said the true limitations on DOGE’s access remain unclear.” In other words, the plaintiffs didn’t know, and can’t prove, whatever they think DOGE might be doing. Under the high injunction standard, tangible evidence of irreparable harm is normally needed to get an injunction.

I reviewed U.S. District Judge Paul Engelmayer’s order. It seemed weak. The order —written in whole part by the Democrat AGs— founded the decision to temporarily stay all access to Treasury systems by “political appointees” (including the Secretary!), by citing an unnamed “heightened risk that the systems in question will be more vulnerable than before to hacking.” That unquantifiable “heightened risk of hacking,” whatever that means, seemed far from sufficient to justify a temporary restraining order.

In New York, as in most places, “a showing of irreparable harm is the single most important prerequisite for the issuance of a preliminary injunction.” Heightened risks, regardless of their speculative stature, hardly show irreparable harm.

Judge Englemayer, an Obama appointee, didn’t cite a single piece of evidence supporting the alleged threat. The hearing (if there was one) was held ex parte, meaning the Trump Administration wasn’t permitted to participate, and it looks like the “evidence” was pure guesswork by the blue-state Attorneys General. Nor did Englemayer’s order explain how state Attorneys General have standing to interfere with the federal government’s internal processes and procedures.

The whole thing was sketchy. According to the docket, the states’ motion was filed at 9:30pm on Friday night, and Judge Englemayer signed the AGs’ pre-drafted order three hours later at 1am. Since Englemayer was acting as an emergency duty judge, the case was automatically assigned to a full-time federal judge.

Late yesterday, Trump’s DOJ filed an emergency motion to dissolve the TRO. Here is the Trump motion’s first paragraph:

At approximately 1:00 a.m. on Saturday, February 8, 2025, this Court issued an ex parte
Temporary Restraining Order that purported to limit access to a vast swath of Treasury systems to
only "civil servants," while prohibiting "all political appointees" from doing the same. On its face,
the Order could be read to cover all political leadership within Treasury--including even Secretary
Bessent. This is a remarkable intrusion on the Executive Branch that is in direct conflict with
Article II of the Constitution, and the unitary structure it provides. There is not and cannot be a
basis for distinguishing between "civil servants" and "political appointees." Basic democratic
accountability requires that every executive agency's work be supervised by politically
accountable leadership, who ultimately answer to the President. A federal court, consistent with
the separation of powers, cannot insulate any portion of that work from the specter of political
accountability. No court can issue an injunction that directly severs the clear line of supervision
Article II requires. Because the Order on its face draws an impermissible and anti-constitutional
distinction, it should be dissolved immediately.

In other words, Judge Englemayer’s astonishing order inserted the courts fully inside the Executive Branch’s business, purporting to segregate Executive-branch goats from the lambs, dividing employees by labels of “civil service” and “political appointment,” in effect assuming direct micromanagement of the Treasury Department. Worse, the terms “civil servant” and “political appointee” are undefined and are not anything more than commonly understood jargon.

Yesterday, newly assigned Judge Jeanette Vargas, a Biden appointee, directed the two sides to first "meet and confer" this morning to see whether any agreement could be reached or at least narrow the disputed issues. Given the issues, that seems unlikely to happen. Barring that, the states’ response to the Motion to Dissolve the TRO is due by 5:00 pm, and Trump’s DOJ’s reply is due by 11:00 pm tonight.

My guess is that the TRO won’t survive the next 48 hours, at least not in its present, overbroad state.

This temporary restraining order is not the first, nor will it be the last, to be filed against the Trump Team’s Swamp draining efforts. After all, lawfare is one of the left’s favorite tools. Many lawsuits have already been filed, and more will surely be filed. I don’t plan to cover every lawsuit; rather, I’ll let you know if something significant happens. If I don’t mention it, that means I think it’s just normal legal wrangling and nothing to get excited about yet.

This order might be more interesting in that it shows the Swamp’s growing terror of Trump’s “political appointees.” Before Trump 2.0, career bureaucrats felt safe and insulated from political staff since the bureaucrats have so many ways of frustrating an incoming Administration’s team. This overreaching order shows that the long-established status quo is melting, and the Deep State is freaking out.

If the TRO gets slapped down quickly, it will be a helpful barometer for how much patience the judiciary has for these tactics. If it somehow survives in any meaningful way, it will be headed for the Supreme Court.

DOGE Blocks Taxpayer Funding for Fauci Museum Exhibit

What if you knew that there was an organization called the The Organized Crime and Corruption Reporting Project (OCCRP), which claims to be one of the largest news organizations in the world, with 200 staff members that is partnered with more than 50 independent media outlets worldwide, but whose fundamental mission is to instigate regime change in countries or entities deemed hostile to the United States?

How is this accomplished? With an annual budget of around 23 million, OCCRP leverages its substantial financial resources to investigate individuals and governments for crimes or misconduct in nations deemed hostile to U.S. interests. OCCRP then collaborates with the Global Anti-Corruption Consortium (GACC) to initiate criminal investigations or sanctions based on its reporting. Lastly, OCCRP joins forces with the CIA-affiliated organization "Transparency International" to develop initiatives aimed at regime change.

The Organized Crime and Corruption Reporting Project (OCCRP) is a worldwide collective of investigative journalists established in 2006, primarily funded by USAID and the Soros Foundation. It claims to focus on revealing international corrupt financial transactions, organized crime, and corruption—solely focused offshore and published through local media outlets. Its aim appears to be to influence political movements and shifts in nations not aligned with US interests, without those nations realizing that the USA and George Soros are behind this influence.

Hahahaha! Behold, the most side-splitting headline since they had to figure out how to climb down from mandatory outdoor masking. Yesterday, the New York Times ran a story headlined, and I am not making this up, “Trump Team Finds Loophole to Defy Spirit of Court Orders Blocking Spending Freezes. The sub-headline explained, “Officials cite other legal authorities — not Mr. Trump’s court-blocked directives — to keep withholding foreign aid and domestic grant money.”

Speaking as a litigator, try as hard as you like, but it is literally impossible to “defy” the “spirit” of an order—because a court doesn’t issue a “spirit.” It issues orders. Not spirits. Parties aren’t required to hold séances asking spirits what the judge really meant. ‘Spirit of the Injunction, speak to us!’

The phrase “defying the spirit” is semantic skullduggery. It hints darkly at malfeasance without actually alleging any particular violation. It’s how journalists (or robed activists) smear someone even when they are following the rules. If a judge wanted to prohibit a specific action, they could —arguably, they are duty bound to— do so clearly. If they didn’t, but wished they had done, that’s on them.

The Times isn’t even accusing the Trump Team of malicious compliance. It should know the difference too, since the Times lovingly reported Biden’s childlike efforts to skirt the Supreme Court’s slamdown of his criminal student loan forgiveness programs. Oh, Biden’s lawyers are so creative! So brave! So persistent! But I guess when Democrats actually defy the express terms of orders, that’s okay. Just not spirits.

The Times’s knickers are twisted. It wasn’t supposed to be this way! Things were going so swimmingly. Last week, Judge Amir H. Ali —the country’s first Muslim-Canadian federal judge— ordered the Trump Administration’s foreign payments freeze to itself be frozen. In other words, get out your Ouija boards and reopen the money gates!

Biden appointed Judge Ali, 39, to the DC District Court last year based on his experience practicing as a civil rights activist lawyer. (He was confirmed 50-49.) In other words, Ali had never been a judge, not even a county judge, not even a traffic ticket magistrate. But now, he’s a brand-new federal court justice. Ta-da! And he is conjuring up restraining orders against the President of the United States faster than a drive-thru medium reading palms at an interstate travel plaza.

This week, after the payments gusher failed to resume gushing (it resumed only a flaccid trickle) as per the spirits of Judge Ali’s order, the plaintiffs complained in court they still hadn’t gotten their checks. The judge summoned the parties into court, and the Trump Team explained that they were complying, they were ignoring Trump’s instructions, as ordered, but they were still withholding payments under various other statutes, contractual and grant provisions, and other rules that have been around for a long time. The judge never ordered them to ignore other laws.

Young Judge Ali is discovering what a more seasoned benchholder might have foreseen: the vexing difficulty of micromanaging the federal bureaucracy. The bureaucrats know the byzantine laws and regulations and contract rules— and he doesn’t. So one simple order won’t resurrect USAID. He’ll need an entire team of Ghostbusters.

NBC ran a terrific story yesterday headlined, “Judge gives go-ahead for the Trump administration to gut USAID's workforce.” The sub-headline explained, “The decision comes after the judge had temporarily paused efforts to place thousands of USAID employees on administrative leave following a lawsuit by labor groups.”

Following the hearing on the preliminary injunction, Judge Terry Nichols dissolved his earlier temporary restraining order. “Weighing plaintiffs’ assertions on these questions against the government’s is like comparing apples to oranges,” the judge wrote. “Where one side claims that USAID’s operations are essential to human flourishing and the other side claims they are presently at odds with it, it simply is not possible for the Court to conclude, as a matter of law or equity, that the public interest favors or disfavors an injunction.”

Womp, womp. Judge Nichols apparently either didn’t feel like playing hero for bureaucrats, or he decided that this case wasn’t the best case to test the unitary theory of executive power on appeal.

As I’ve explained, short-term TROs are relatively easy. Longer-lasting preliminary injunctions are brutal.

The judge explained he could not find sufficient irreparable harm — an extremely difficult showing for employees getting laid off. “Plaintiffs have presented no irreparable harm they or their members are imminently likely to suffer from the hypothetical future dissolution of USAID,” Nichols wrote. He added, nor is it “clear why the speed of proceedings in the relevant agencies would be insufficient to address the only actions that have already happened and are presently ripe for review: administrative leave placements, expedited evacuations, and other changes to working conditions of the sort those bodies routinely confront.”

The plaintiff unions vowed to appeal. If there is a harder case to appeal than the denial of a preliminary injunction, I’m not sure what it could be. But if they do appeal, it will only play right into Trump’s lawyers’ hands, who are praying for a window to launch challenges over executive powers toward the Supreme Court.

The FBI wasn’t the only culprit involved in creating the two-tiered justice system that is now experiencing blowback. The Hill ran a deeply gratifying story yesterday headlined, “Angry Democratic donors turn off the flow of money.” The Democrats “have a major problem as they try to refashion their brand— the money isn’t there.” Weird. Where did all that money go? ...

The Hill said big donors were pulling back the cash pallets because they don’t see any plan. And small donors, explained the Hill, are snapping shut their change purses because they want to see more combat with Trump. The consistent theme among all levels of immigrant-loving Democrat donors is, apparently, no mas.

If I were just a little more conspiratorial, I’d suspect they are frantically trying to lower expectations for future Democrat fundraising, after Trump’s team canceled all that murky USAID funding for Nigerian trans operas. Haha! That would be crazy though!

The Democrats’ fundraising woes probably has nothing to do with the funding freezes...