#Illegal orders

[dreaminginthedeepsouth]

Barbara Rogan

* * * *

LETTERS FROM AN AMERICAN

February 1, 2025

Heather Cox Richardson

Feb 02, 2025

Throughout now-president Donald Trump’s 2024 campaign, it was clear that his support was coming from three very different factions whose only shared ideology was a determination to destroy the federal government. Now we are watching them do it.

The group that serves President Donald Trump is gutting the government both to get revenge against those who tried to hold him accountable before the law and to make sure he and his cronies will never again have to worry about legality.

Last night, officials in the Trump administration purged the Federal Bureau of Investigation of all six of its top executives and, according to NBC’s Ken Dilanian, more than 20 heads of FBI field offices, including those in Washington, D.C., and Miami, where officials pursued cases against now-president Trump. Acting deputy attorney general Emil Bove, who represented Trump in a number of his criminal cases, asked acting FBI director Brian J. Driscoll Jr. for a list of FBI agents who had worked on January 6 cases to “determine whether any additional personnel actions are necessary.”

Clarissa-Jan Lim of MSNBC reported that Trump denied knowing about the dismissals but said the firings were “a good thing” because “[t]hey were very corrupt people, very corrupt, and they hurt our country very badly with the weaponization.”

Officials also fired 25 to 30 federal prosecutors who had worked on cases involving the rioters who attacked the U.S. Capitol on January 6, 2021, and reassigned others. Bove ordered the firings. Career civil servants can’t be fired without cause, and these purges come on top of the apparently illegal firing of 18 inspectors general across federal agencies and a purge of the Department of Justice of those who had worked on cases involving Trump.

Phil Williams of NewsChannel 5 in Nashville, Tennessee, reported on Friday that federal prosecutors were withdrawn from a criminal investigation of Representative Andy Ogles (R-TN) for election fraud; Ogles recently filed a House resolution to enable Trump to run for a third term and another supporting Trump’s designs on Greenland. On Wednesday, federal prosecutors asked a judge to dismiss an election fraud case against former representative Jeffrey Fortenberry (R-NE). Trump called Fortenberry’s case an illustration of “the illegal Weaponization of our Justice System by the Radical Left Democrats.”

That impulse to protect Trump showed yesterday in what a local water manager said was an “extremely unprecedented” release of water from two dams in California apparently to provide evidence of his social media post that the U.S. military had gone into California and “TURNED ON THE WATER.” In fact, water was released from two reservoirs that hold water to supply farmland in the summer. They are about 500 miles (800 km) from Los Angeles, where the fires were earlier this year, and the water did not go to Southern California. “This is going to hurt farmers,” a water manager said, “This takes water out of the summer irrigation portfolio.” But Trump posted that if California officials had listened to him six years ago, there would have been no fires. Shashank Joshi of The Economist called it “real ‘mad king’ stuff.”

Trump’s loyalists overlap with the MAGA crew that embraces Project 2025, a plan that mirrors the one used by Hungarian prime minister Viktor Orbán to overthrow democracy in Hungary. Operating from the position that modern democracy destroys a country by treating everyone equally before the law and welcoming immigrants, it calls for discrimination against women and gender, racial, and religious minorities; rejection of immigrants; and the imposition of religious laws to restore a white Christian patriarchy.

Former Fox News Channel host Tucker Carlson has been a vocal proponent of Orbán’s ideology, and J.D. Vance this week hired Carlson’s son, 28-year-old Buckley, as his deputy press secretary. Although Trump claimed during the campaign he didn't know anything about Project 2025, Steve Contorno and Casey Tolan of CNN estimate that more than two thirds of Trump’s executive orders mirror Project 2025.

You can see the influence of this faction in the indiscriminate immigration sweeps the administration has launched, Trump’s announcement that he is opening a 30,000-bed migrant detention center at Guantanamo Bay, and officials’ revocation of protection for more than 600,000 Venezuelans legally in the U.S. and possibly also for Cubans, Haitians, and Nicaraguans. You can see it in the administration’s attempt to end the birthright citizenship written into the U.S. Constitution in 1868.

It shows in the new administration's persecution of transgender Americans, including Trump’s executive order purging trans service members from the military, another limiting access to gender-affirming care for transgender youth, and yet another ordering trans federal prisoners to be medically detransitioned and then moved to facilities that correspond to their sex at birth, an outcome that a trans woman suing the administration calls “humiliating, terrifying, and dangerous.”

The administration has ordered that federal employees must remove all pronouns from their email signatures and, as Jeremy Faust reported in Inside Medicine, that researchers for the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention must scrub from their work any references to “[g]ender, transgender, pregnant person, pregnant people, LGBT, transsexual, non-binary, nonbinary, assigned male at birth, assigned female at birth, biologically male, biologically female.” Faust notes that the requirements are vague and that because “most manuscripts include demographic information about the populations or patients studied,” the order potentially affects “just about any major study…including studies on Covid-19, cancer, heart disease, or anything else.”

Those embracing this ideology are also isolationist. As soon as he took office, Trump imposed a freeze on foreign aid except for military aid to Israel and Egypt, abruptly cutting off about $60 billion in funding—less than 1% of the U.S. budget—to the U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID), which provides humanitarian assistance to fight starvation and provide basic medical care for the globe’s most vulnerable and desperate populations. The outcry, both from those appalled that the U.S. would renege on its promises to provide food for children in war-torn countries and from those who recognize that the U.S. withdrawal from these popular programs would create a vacuum China is eager to fill, made Trump’s new secretary of state, Marco Rubio, say that “humanitarian programs” would be exempted from the freeze, but that appears either untrue or so complicated to negotiate that programs are shutting down anyway.

Senator Chris Murphy (D-CT) appears to be beside himself over this destruction. “Let me explain why the total destruction of USAID…matters so much,” he posted on social media. “China—where Musk makes his money—wants USAID destroyed. So does Russia. Trump and Musk are doing the bidding of Beijing and Moscow. Why?” “The U.S. is in full retreat from the world,” he wrote, and there is “[n]o good reason for it. The immediate consequences of this are cataclysmic. Malnourished babies who depend on U.S. aid will die. Anti-terrorism programs will shut down and our most deadly enemies will get stronger. Diseases that threaten the U.S. will go unabated and reach our shores faster. And China will fill the void. As developing countries will now ONLY be able to rely on China for help, they will cut more deals with Beijing to give them control of ports, critical mineral deposits, etc. U.S. power will shrink. U.S. jobs will be lost.” Murphy speculated that “billionaires like Musk who make $ in China” or “someone buying all that secret Trump meme coin” would benefit from deliberately sabotaging eighty years of U.S. goodwill on the international stage.

And that brings us to the third faction: that of the tech bros, led by billionaire Elon Musk, who according to year-end Federal Election Commission filings spent more than $290 million supporting Trump and the Republicans in 2024. Musk appears to consider colonizing space imperative for the survival of humanity, and part of that goal requires slashing government regulations, as well as receiving government contracts that help to fund his space program.

Before he took office, Trump named Musk and another billionaire, Vivek Ramaswamy, to an extra-governmental group called the Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE), but Musk has assumed full control of the group, whose mission is to cut the federal budget by as much as $2 trillion.

Musk is interested in the government for future contracts, although a report from January 30, when Musk’s Tesla company filed its annual financial report, showed that the company, which is valued at more than $1 trillion and which made $2.3 billion in 2024, paid $0 in federal income tax. Today, Musk’s X social media company became a form of state media when the National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB) said it would no longer email updates about this week’s two plane crashes—one in Washington, D.C., and one in Philadelphia—and that reporters would have to get their information through X.

Musk’s goal might well be the crux of the drastic cuts to federal aid, as well as the attempt last week from the Office of Management and Budget to “pause” federal funding and grants to make sure funding reflected Trump’s goals. After a public outcry over the loss of payments to local law enforcement, Meals on Wheels for shut-ins, supplemental nutrition programs, and so on, the OMB rescinded its first memo, but then White House Press Secretary Karoline Leavitt immediately contradicted the new memo, saying the cuts were still in effect.

The chaos surrounding the cuts could have been designed to make it difficult for opponents to sue over them. This method of changing government priorities through “impoundment” is illegal. Congress—which is the body that represents the American people—appropriates the money for programs, and the president takes an oath to execute the laws. After President Richard M. Nixon tried it, Congress passed a 1974 law making impoundment expressly illegal. But the on-again-off-again confusion appeared at first to stand a chance of stopping lawsuits. It didn’t work: a federal judge halted the funding freeze, suggesting it was a blatant violation of the Constitution.

But then, yesterday, Elon Musk forced the resignation of David A. Lebryk, the highest-ranking career official at the Treasury Department. Lebryk had been at Treasury since 1989 and had risen to become the person in charge of the U.S. government payment system that disburses about $6 trillion a year through Social Security benefits, Medicare, Medicaid, contracts, grants, salaries for federal government workers, tax refunds, and so on, essentially managing the nation’s checkbook.

According to Jeff Stein, Isaac Arnsdorf, and Jacqueline Alemany of the Washington Post, Musk’s team wanted access to the payment system. Senator Ron Wyden (D-OR) demanded answers from Trump’s new Treasury secretary, Scott Bessent, warning that “these payment systems simply cannot fail, and any politically-motivated meddling in them risks severe damage to our country and the economy. I am deeply concerned that following the federal grant and loan freeze earlier this week, these officials associated with Musk may have intended to access these payment systems to illegally withhold payments to any number of programs. I can think of no good reason why political operators who have demonstrated a blatant disregard for the law would need access to these sensitive, mission-critical systems.”

Now, though, with Musk’s people at the computers that control the nation’s payment system, they can simply stop whatever payments they want to.

Wyden continued by reminding Bessent that the press has reported that Musk has previously been “denied a high-level clearance to access the government’s most sensitive secrets. I am concerned that Musk’s enormous business operation in China—a country whose intelligence agencies have stolen vast amounts of sensitive data about Americans, including U.S. government employee data by hacking U.S. government systems—endangers U.S. cybersecurity and creates conflicts of interest that make his access to these systems a national security risk.”

This afternoon, Wyden posted that he has been told that Bessent has given the Department of Government Efficiency full access to the system. “Social Security and Medicare benefits, grants, payments to government contractors, including those that compete directly with Musk's own companies. All of it.”

Josh Marshall of Talking Points Memo posted: “This is more or less like taking the gold from Fort Knox and putting it in Elons basement. Anyone who gets a check from soc sec or anything else[,] he can cut it off or see all y[ou]r personal and financial data.” Pundit Stuart Stevens called it “the most significant data leak in cyber history.”

All three of these factions are focused on destroying the federal government, which, after all, represents the American people through their elected representatives and spends their taxpayer money. Musk, who is an unelected adjunct to Trump, this evening gleefully referred to the civil servants in the government who work for the American people as “the opposing team.”

But something jumps out from the chaos of the past two weeks. Instructions are vague, circumstances are chaotic, and it’s unclear who is making decisions. That confusion makes it hard to enforce laws or sue, although observers note that what’s going on is “illegal and a breach of the constitutional order.”

Our federal government rests on the U.S. Constitution. The three different factions of Trump's MAGA Republicans agree that the government must be destroyed, and they are operating outside the constitutional order, not eager to win legal victories so much as determined to slash and burn down the government without them.

Today, senior Washington Post political reporter Aaron Blake noted that while it is traditional for cabinet nominees to pledge that they will refuse to honor illegal presidential orders, at least seven of Trump’s nominees have sidestepped that question. Attorney general nominee Pam Bondi, director of national intelligence nominee Tulsi Gabbard, now-confirmed defense secretary nominee Pete Hegseth, small business administrator nominee Kelly Loeffler, Veterans Affairs secretary nominee Douglas A. Collins, and commerce secretary nominee Howard Lutnick all avoided the question by saying that Trump would never ask them to do anything illegal. FBI director nominee Kash Patel just said he would “always obey the law.”

LETTERS FROM AN AMERICAN

HEATHER COX RICHARDSON

[tomorrowusa]

In the US military, you swear an oath to the Constitution – not to the President. If Trump issues an illegal order then officers may wish to punt by taking the matter to court rather than defying Trump or breaking an oath they could face a court-martial for.

Pentagon officials are holding informal discussions about how the Department of Defense would respond if Donald Trump issues orders to deploy active-duty troops domestically and fire large swaths of apolitical staffers, defense officials told CNN. Trump has suggested he would be open to using active-duty forces for domestic law enforcement and mass deportations and has indicated he wants to stack the federal government with loyalists and “clean out corrupt actors” in the US national security establishment. Trump in his last term had a fraught relationship with much of his senior military leadership, including now-retired Gen. Mark Milley who took steps to limit Trump’s ability to use nuclear weapons while he was chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff. The president-elect, meanwhile, has repeatedly called US military generals “woke,” “weak” and “ineffective leaders.”

As if we don't have enough to worry about, the military must deal with a demented president with his finger on the nuclear button.

In general, the options are limited to keep Trump from doing crazy things ahead of time.

There is not much the Pentagon can do to pre-emptively shield the force from a potential abuse of power by a commander in chief. Defense Department lawyers can and do make recommendations to military leaders on the legality of orders, but there is no real legal safeguard that would prevent Trump from deploying American soldiers to police US streets.

Beware of misuse of the Insurrection Act.

The president’s powers are especially broad if he chooses to invoke the Insurrection Act, which states that under certain limited circumstances involved in the defense of constitutional rights, a president can deploy troops domestically unilaterally.

There's certainly potential for a constitutional crisis if Trump provokes tension with the military.

[msbarrows]

Not formally schooled in WW2 history and most of what I have read is related to European theatre not Pacific but stuff related to their reasons, off the top of my head beyond checking some dates?

This is going to be long because I surprised myself with how much I knew that I didn't realize I knew, and it goes back to almost a century before the attack itself. Ack.

(Also yes 'I just followed orders' is never a defence, and that's why people are not supposed to follow illegal orders. Though it's rather a Catch-22 since depending on whose orders it is you might well end up being punished in either case.)

Forced opening of Japan's previous closed borders by a fleet of US battleships (see the Perry Expedition in the mid 1800s) is the earliest history related to why Japan was not favourably inclined to the US to start with (ever heard the phrase 'gunboat diplomacy'? Yeah. Because the US has pretty much always seen itself as Hot Shit and felt that its perceived interests overrode everyone else's sovereignty - look up 'manifest destiny' and the Monroe Doctrine while you're at it for further evidence of US attitudes to everyone not US).

The US and Europeans overthrow the Hawaiian monarchy and then the US annexes the Hawaiian kingdom in the late 1800s giving them a mid-Pacific foothold for expansion further westwards. Note that Japan is also a monarchist island nation, who have already been forced to interact with the US. If you don't think they (and everyone else in the Pacific theatre area) saw this as red flags, you're not putting yourself in their shoes.

At about the same time Spain cedes Guam and the Phillipines to the US as part of the ongoing Spanish-American war (beef between the US and Cuba traces back to then). The Philippine-American war results, with the US eventually winning control of the area. More Pacific footholds even further west.

1900-1911 - US annexes parts of Samao, forming what is now known as American Samoa. (Oh look, even more aggressive US actions in the south-west Pacific area.)

Early 20th century saw boat-building infrastructure built on Hawaii centred on Pearl Harbour. It's mid-Pacific location makes it a very key foothold (and bottleneck) to US trade and military function further westwards.

1919 - Japan proposes that the post-WW1 Treaty of Versailles include a bit about the racial equality of all members of the League of Nations (they're the only non-western Great Nation). The US and the UK slap it down (what, let PoC be equal to their lily white purity? How ludicrous!) The US enacts a bunch of racist anti-Japanese laws.

1930s - Japan goes to war for a mix of reasons, largely economic (wanting to claim areas with resources of metal and oil they need and therefor feel a right to take - just like the western Great Nations have been doing all along). They withdraw from the League of Nations and ally with Germany and Italy. The US levies trade embargoes and restrictions that largely cease the trade of scrap metal and oil to Japan and prevent their ships from using the Panama canal, cutting them off even further from resources they feel they need to support themselves and their war effort.

1940 - US Pacific fleet does exercises off the Hawaiian coast and then remains at Hawaii.

Feb 1941 - Pearl Harbour designated the permanent base for the fleet. The US starts or continues greatly expanding the facilities at Pearl Harbour in support of it.

The US and the Japanese are in negotiations for much of the year. They both have mutually exclusive points they're not willing to give way on. Negotiations are failing.

Japan wants the Philippines, which would both give them resources and remove a major US foothold in what they see as their own area of interest. If they take the Philippines then the US would attack from Hawaii.

Dec 1941 - Japan makes what it considers to be a pre-emptive strike against an obvious US threat. While this is always described as a 'surprise attack' it's worth noting that the US President knew of the possibility of an attack at least three days before it occurred (there's a declassified memo from Dec 4 of that year that predicted it); but much like the warnings of 9-11, they had a 'failure of imagination' to believe that it could actually occur).

So yeah there's basically a long history behind why Japan attacked Pearl Harbour, and it very much was not because they wanted the US to enter the war. In light of both countries expansionism into the SW Pacific and the US's attitudes towards their nation, they saw the war as inevitable. I don't believe they were necessarily wrong. Though that doesn't put them in the right, either.

[primobamagirl]

Learn your rights, don't consent.

[markfaustus]

[amielot]

Uno Reverse

Bonus:

@arialerendeair keeps giving me ideas to springboard off of XD

final image was referenced from Calvin and Hobbes :3

Prev

Next

Masterpost

[perrysoup]

Saving and sharing thank you

X-MEN: FIRST CLASS (2011) dir. Matthew Vaughn

[thefearofcod]

Federal GLAMs people, now is the time to look over your glasses at illegal and irresponsible and unethical orders. Push back. Make a working group. Implement and lie about restrictions on materials and access. Refuse access to collections and backend databases. Page the wrong object. If a DOGE kiddie shows up, do not comply. Make him go through your entire chain of command.

[hypogryffin]

[oc] protectors

[dreaminginthedeepsouth]

An upwelling of outrage spreads across America

January 29, 2025

Robert B. Hubbell

Trump plunged America into chaos on Tuesday as the implications of his unconstitutional “freeze” on federal grants and loans began to sink in. In a gigantic miscalculation, Trump risked driving the US economy into a tailspin that would take years to overcome.

Or not.

Trump has the opportunity to blink (voluntarily or involuntarily)—but that window is closing rapidly. There are three offramps to this crisis caused by his illegal “freeze” on all federal grants and loans:

Public outrage will force Trump to retreat. A massive upwelling of public outrage is spreading across America. It may take a day or two for MAGA members of Congress to absorb the outrage from their constituents who suddenly realize Trump's thoughtless action has threatened their constituent’s economic security. Millions of Americans have been plunged into uncertainty over government benefits, loans, grants, and payments. They are letting their representatives know how they feel. See Politico, Trump's spending freeze spreads chaos across US. Indivisible has called on congressional Democrats to oppose all nominees until Trump repeals the unconstitutional freeze, saying, “Shut down the Senate.”

The markets may tell Trump to retreat. In a day or two, the money managers on Wall Street will realize that freezing government benefits to seniors, students, veterans, families, government contractors, and people in general will cause a sudden, massive contraction in consumer spending. A shrinking economy will instill fear in the most bullish fund managers. If the markets drop over worries of recession, Trump will hear from the only constituency he fears: Megadonors upset over losses in their portfolios.

Private litigants should be able to obtain an injunction. It is also possible that a judge will pick up a copy of the Constitution and read it. If they do so, they will grant a permanent injunction against Trump's unconstitutional order. On Tuesday, a federal judge granted an “administrative stay,” but that stay was ambiguous and limited. The stay was designed to allow the parties to submit briefing for a hearing next Monday. Moreover, the stay appeared to allow some portions of the “freeze” to remain in effect. See CNN, Judge temporarily blocks part of Trump administration’s plans to freeze federal aid.

Trump attempted to quiet the growing sense of panic by claiming that the freeze would not affect individuals receiving “direct assistance” from the federal government. That assurance is illusory because most federal grants and loans are not paid directly to individuals but rather, are paid through states, federal agencies, and third-party programs that manage federal grants and loans—e.g., Head Start, scientific research grants, federal infrastructure projects, educational subsidies to state schools, programs to support and house veterans.

And despite the assurances from the White House that “direct assistance” to individuals would not be affected, the facts proved otherwise. The Medicaid portal was closed to states (who administer Medicaid funds) for much of the day. See Quartz, Trump Medicaid freeze locks 72 million Americans out of their health insurance. The administration claimed that the shutdown of the Medicaid portal was a “fluke” unrelated to the freeze—a lie so transparent it hurts to repeat it.

Here is the (semi) good news: The Trump administration has already begun to walk-back the reach of the ill-considered freeze, claiming that the following grants and loans are not affected by the freeze: Medicaid, student loans, small business loans, and SNAP food assistance. It is likely that as the media and constituents identify more crucial programs—like food inspection, air traffic control improvements, law enforcement subsidies, veterans’ programs--the administration will make case-by-case exceptions that will swallow the rule.

Although millions of Americans may suffer economic hardship and extreme anxiety in the short term, the financial crisis of withholding hundreds of billions of dollars with no notice may be averted. But the constitutional crisis remains front and center. We cannot allow the constitutional questions to be lost in the understandable focus on the financial implications of Trump's order.

Trump's order is unconstitutional—and it is important that we not lose sight of that fact

Many in the media are downplaying the illegality and unconstitutionality of Trump's “freeze” order. Andrea Mitchell of MSNBC described the illegal order as “controversial.” The New York Times covered the freeze order as a political kerfuffle: “Trump’s ‘Flood the Zone’ Strategy Leaves Opponents Gasping in Outrage.” The NYTimes Editorial Board had nothing to say about Trump's blatant effort to rewrite the Constitution by demoting Congress to an advisory body subject to being overridden on presidential whim.

Congressional Republicans defended the order’s legality. The few Republicans who criticized the order did so only on the ground that it “went too far” in affecting their constituents. Susan Collins said,

I think the administration needs to be more selective and look at it one department at a time, for example. But make sure important direct service programs are not affected.

Here’s the problem with Susan Collins’s analysis: The order is unconstitutional not because it is overbroad but because the president has no authority to freeze funds appropriated by Congress. Period. See ABC News, Trump funding freeze a blatant violation of Constitution, federal law: Legal experts.

As I wrote yesterday, we need to set aside euphemisms and niceties in raising the alarm. Rebecca Solnit (of The Guardian) rose to the challenge with a post on BlueSky:

[T]hat was a coup last night in case no one mentioned that to you. The executive branch seized the power of the purse the Constitution gave to Congress, which is a pretty authoritarian / illegal consolidation of powers move. Time to go yell at your reps, the media, etc.

Senator Angus King of Maine said,

This is a profound constitutional issue. What happened last night is the most direct assault on the authority of Congress, I believe, in the history of the United States.

See Charles P. Pierce, Esquire, Trump’s Federal Grant Freeze Looks Like an Assault on the Authority of Congress.

The grassroots organization Indivisible likewise pulled no punches with a special alert to its members, headlined: Trump’s Dictatorial Power Grab: Chaos, Cruelty, and Constitutional Collapse.

Indivisible wrote:

Congress Controls Federal Spending. The Constitution explicitly gives Congress—not the president—the power to allocate and control federal funds. By freezing funds Congress appropriated, Trump is undermining a foundational principle of democracy. The Impoundment Control Act (ICA). Enacted after Nixon’s abuses, the ICA explicitly prohibits the president from withholding funds appropriated by Congress without following a strict process. Trump has not followed this process, and in many cases, the ICA outright bars the impoundment of these funds.

Indivisible suggests a “no holds barred” response (with which I wholeheartedly agree):

Refuse to Negotiate. Trump is using federal programs as hostages in a power grab. Democrats must refuse to engage in any funding or debt ceiling negotiations while this freeze remains in place. No compromises with dictatorship. Sound the Alarm. Every senator must become a megaphone for what’s at stake. Go on TV, hold town halls, and flood social media with the stories of families who will lose food, homes, and healthcare because of Trump’s chaos. Back Legal Challenges. Support every lawsuit challenging this freeze. File amicus briefs, amplify cases, and make it clear this isn’t just morally wrong—it’s illegal.

All good suggestions. And the point about backing legal challenges may be the best way to fight this power grab. US District Judge Loren L. AliKhan issued a short-term administrative stay to allow further briefing on an application for an injunction. See CNN, Judge temporarily blocks part of Trump administration’s plans to freeze federal aid.

The lawsuit before Judge AliKhan makes an important point: The memo was issued by the Acting Director of the OMB. Per the lawsuit, the OMB has no authority to direct agencies to freeze funds appropriated by Congress. Per the plaintiffs in the lawsuit:

The [OMB] Memo fails to explain the source of (the Office of Management and Budget’s) purported legal authority to gut every program in the federal government.

Good point. While the OMB is integral to the preparation and monitoring of congressional appropriations, OMB has no authority to override a congressional appropriation. See, generally, Congressional Research Service, Office of Management and Budget (OMB): An Overview.

Here are the takeaways:

First, the freeze threatens the separation of powers specified in the Constitution. We must not allow that point to be lost in the chaos and pain that the illegal order will cause.

Second, the upwelling of public outrage spreading across America is already having an impact! This is the path forward! We must do more of it consistently over the long term. We are off to a good start!

[Robert B. Hubbell Newsletter]

[tiggymalvern]

"You're giving me press releases, sham documents. I'm getting mad."

Quite the statement from a District Court Judge. These judges are not holding back when Trump's bullshit cases come up in front of them.

[cinamun]

I took 9 billion screenshots last night and almost cried in CAS. We might be back to twice weekly updates y'all. Tune in Thursday!

Things™ will occur!!

[fanofthelambalt]

ok im gonna go play minecraft now!

[the8thsphynx]

How could they kill us dead like this.

[gilgil-machine]

This man is just a perfect husband material😍🙈💕