Imagine that you are a career civil servant , having worked at the same agency for 30 years. Then one day a 25-year-old youngster arrives with instructions to make rapid, sweeping change. He fires you and everyone else who knows how the agency works. This is called reform. Who are these people? It turns out that they hold jobs in multiple federal agencies. Do they receive multiple salaries?

Ethics experts have questioned the practice but Trump has never listened to ethics experts.

Faiz Siddiqui and Jacob Bosage wrote in The Washington Post:

Gavin Kliger, a U.S. DOGE Service software engineer in his mid-20s, arrived at Internal Revenue Service headquarters in February, telling senior agency officials he was there to root out waste, fraud and abuse.

Then, according to three people with direct knowledge of the events, he placed five government-issued laptops on a conference table and requested a sixth computer that would give him access at the IRS.

At the time, court records show, Kliger held two job titles at the Office of Personnel Management, as well as positions at the U.S. Department of Agriculture and the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau. He was also working on dismantling the U.S. Agency for International Development.

Earlier this month, according to a person with knowledge of the matter, Kliger showed up at the Federal Trade Commission, too.

Kliger is not alone. His expanding portfolio — which now includes jobs in as many as seven federal offices — is typical of at least a handful of DOGE staffers. The unorthodox practice affords trusted acolytes of billionaire Elon Musk authority across broad swaths of government, as well as access to an array of confidential information, including tax documents, federal workforce records and consumer data.

Because their jobs are embedded within agencies, the DOGE staffers have far more influence than those who might have worked collaboratively across government before — and their positions raise the possibility that even if Musk leaves government service at the end of May, as he has suggested, his allies will still have power, potentially for years to come.

“Your people are fantastic,” Trump told Musk in a Cabinet meeting on Thursday. “In fact, hopefully they’ll stay around for the long haul. We’d like to keep as many as we can. They’re great — smart, sharp, right? Finding things that nobody would have thought of.”

Government policy and ethics experts say the arrangement is unusual — and unprecedented — for the sweeping amount of access it grants to relatively low-level bureaucrats. Government officials have argued that DOGE and Musk do not have formal authority over decisions but rather advise officials at Cabinet departments on actions to take. But that makes the appointments DOGE liaisons are taking at multiple agencies even more influential.

In addition to Kliger, who worked for Twitter before Musk bought the platform in 2022 and later joined an AI-focused data software firm, numerous DOGE associates have been given extraordinary power to shape government policy at multiple agencies. Among them:

• Software engineer Christopher Stanley, who worked on the White House WiFi system and was serving at the Office of Personnel Management, was appointed as a director on the board of the mortgage financing giant Fannie Mae. The appointment came with an annual salary ranging from at least $160,000, but Stanley quickly resigned. Stanley, who has worked for X and SpaceX, did not respond to a request for comment.
• Former Tesla engineer Thomas Shedd, 28, is running the digital arm of the General Services Administration, known as the Technology Transformation Services division but also has served in the office of the chief information officer at the Department of Labor, according to records reviewed by The Washington Post.
• Luke Farritor, a former SpaceX internin his 20s who won a prestigious prize for decoding a Roman scroll, is detailed to at least five agencies, according to a lawsuit challenging DOGE’s authority.
• And in perhaps the most high-profile case of cross-posting, Edward Coristine, the 19-year-old software engineer who used the online moniker “Big Balls,” was appointed to the State Department and the Department of Homeland Security, in addition to his position at DOGE.

Even Amy Gleason, the official administrator of DOGE, is also an “expert/consultant” at the Department of Health and Human Services, a court filing shows. Gleason’s appointment to HHS was reported earlier by Politico.

White House spokesman Harrison Fields did not directly address multiple positions held by DOGE staffers, but he touted DOGE’s work in a statement to The Post.

“President Trump is committed to ending waste, fraud, and abuse, and his entire Cabinet, in coordination with DOGE, is working seamlessly to execute this mission efficiently and effectively,” he said.

In his business empire, Musk has frequently moved staffers and resources across companies, sometimes inviting scrutiny. But such arrangements are unusual in the federal government, where employees traditionally are assigned to one job and one agency at a time.

Staffers in DOGE’s predecessor agency — the U.S. Digital Service — worked collaboratively across government to improve technology, according to a former employee of the office, who spoke on the condition of anonymity for fear of retribution. Though they might sometimes receive an additional government-issued laptop from an agency they were assigned to work with, they did not typically work with more than one organization at a time, the person said.

Earlier this month, after Politico reported that Trump had told his inner circle Musk would soon depart government service, Trump told reporters that Musk would leave after “a few months.” Before that, Musk said most of DOGE’s work to find $1 trillion in annual spending cuts would be complete by about the end of May, when his status as a special government employee requires him to leave his White House post.

Max Stier, president and CEO of the nonprofit Partnership for Public Service, which advocates for better government, said that cross-postings might fly at a tech company but that they pose a “huge problem when it’s a governmental entity keeping people safe and providing critical support to millions of Americans.”

“You’ve got people who have been deputized who have no business doing what they’re doing,” Stier said.

State Democracy Defenders Fund, a group that aims to safeguard elections and perceived threats to democracy, has filed a lawsuit on behalf of more than two dozen USAID workers challenging DOGE’s constitutional authority, claiming Musk exercised authority that would typically be unavailable to a person who lacked a presidential nomination and Senate confirmation.

The lawsuit argues that multiple simultaneous postings provide Musk and his allies with extraordinary authority over government functions, as well as backdoor access to agencies that DOGE aims to target for spending reductions.

The suit cites the case of Farritor, a software engineer who, according to court records, was detailed to five agencies at the same time.

“You have to ask yourself: When you have people who are appointed to as many as five agencies at times — a single person — and you have others who are obviously not qualified, are those legally valid appointments or are they sham appointments done with intent to evade the law?” Norm Eisen, executive chair of State Democracy Defenders Fund, said in an interview.

He added: “I have been working for or around the federal government for almost 35 years and I never heard of a detailee with that many different jobs.”

One of the most important jobs in the federal government is that of the DC federal prosecutor. He or she handles important cases related to national security, among other things. Trump has chosen Ed Martin, a MAGA lawyer who has defended the J6 insurrectionists and insisted that the 2020 election was rigged. Now, The Washington Post reports that Ed Martin has been a loyal defender of Russia and Putin and has repeatedly spouted Putin’s propaganda on Russian state media.

Spencer S. Hsu and Aaron Schaffer of the Washington Post report:

Hours before President Donald Trump announced U.S. missile strikes on Syria in response to a chemical attack that killed 90 civilians in April 2017, Ed Martin said on the Russian state television network RT America that Syrian President Bashar al-Assad might not be to blame. Instead, Martin told viewers, the situation was “engineered” in Washington “by the people that want war in Syria.”

In early 2022, Martin told an interviewer on the same arm of RT’s global network that “there’s no evidence” of a Russian military buildup on Ukraine’s borders, criticizing U.S. officials as warmongering and ignoring Russia’s security concerns. Russia invaded nine days later, igniting a war that continues today.

Martin is now interim U.S. attorney for D.C. and Trump’s pick to serve full time in the role. But as a conservative activist and former Missouri Republican official, he appeared more than 150 times on RT and Sputnik — networks funded and directed by the Russian government — as a guest commentator from August 2016 to April 2024, according to a search of their websites and the Internet Archive’s database of television broadcasts.

Martin did not disclose the appearances last month on a Senate Judiciary Committee questionnaire, which asks nominees to list all media interviews. Analysis of television archives suggests he went on RT and Sputnik more often than on any major cable network during that span.

Martin’s frequent appearances, reviewed by The Washington Post, drew rebukes from some national security analysts, who accused him of amplifying anti-American propaganda on Russian outlets that the State Department last year said had moved beyond disinformation to engage in covert influence activities aimed at undermining democracies worldwide for President Vladimir Putin’s regime.

Martin’s brief tenure as top federal prosecutor in Washington has stoked controversy. Democrats accuse Martin — a Trump “Stop the Steal” organizer who has called the 2020 election and the 2016 Russian election interference investigation “hoaxes” — of violating the law and legal ethics in threatening to investigate or prosecute lawmakers, protesters, journalists and others whom he perceives as undermining Trump’s agenda.

Former U.S. national security officials and analysts said Martin’s RT and Sputnik appearances, and his failure to disclose them, raise questions about his judgment and candor.

The U.S. attorney’s office in Washington is the largest in the country and has wide jurisdiction to prosecute important national security offenses, former officials said. Its leader should be alert to the threats and risks posed by Russia and other influence operations from overseas, such as the ones the office has prosecuted in recent years involving Russia and other foreign actors, they argued.

Open the link to finish the article.

Based on his views, we can be sure that Mr. Martin will not “be alert to the threats and risks posed by Russia.” Based on his past history, we can expect that he will do what’s best for Russia.

Every once in a while, a judicial decision is so beautifully written and so well crafted that it should be read in full, not summarized.

Such a decision was rendered yesterday by Judge J. Harvie Wilkinson of the Fourth District Court of Appeals in the case of Kilmer Abrega Garcia. Judge Wilkinson was appointed to the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals by President Reagan in 1984. He is an old-school Republican who believes in the U.S. Constitution and the rule of law. Remember them? People like Liz Cheney and Adam Kinzinger, who are reviled by MAGA. To MAGA, whatever Trump wants overrides both the Constitution and the rule of law.

Abrego Garcia is one of the 238 men picked up by ICE and whisked away to a terrorism prison in El Salvador. None of those men had a hearing or due process. A district court judge (appointed by President George W. Bush) ordered the government to turn the flights around and bring the men in three planes back to U.S. soil. The administration ignored his ruling. Another federal district judge ordered the Justice Department to bring him back. However, the Trump Justice Department insists that the U.S. has no jurisdiction in El Salvador.

His case and plight have sparked nationwide demonstrations against the government for failing to provide him due process and refusing to bring him back despite the orders of two federal district judges and the U.S. Supreme Court, which ruled 9-0 that the government must “facilitate” his return while showing due deference to the President’s control of foreign affairs.

Here is the full decision. It is not long (seven pages) and it is great reading.

If you want to read its crucial reasoning (without the legal precedents referenced), here is the core of the decision:

“Upon review of the government’s motion, the court denies the motion for an emergency stay pending appeal and for a writ of mandamus. The relief the government is requesting is both extraordinary and premature.

While we fully respect the executive’s robust assertion of its Article II powers, we shall not micromanage the efforts of a fine district judge attempting to implement the Supreme Court’s recent decision. It is difficult, in some cases, to get to the very heart of the matter—but in this case, it is not hard at all.

The government is asserting a right to stash away residents of this country in foreign prisons without the semblance of due process that is the foundation of our constitutional order. Further, it claims, in essence, that because it has rid itself of custody, that there is nothing that can be done. This should be shocking not only to judges but to the intuitive sense of liberty that Americans far removed from courthouses still hold dear.

The government asserts that Abrego Garcia is a terrorist and a member of MS-13. Perhaps. Perhaps not. Regardless, he is still entitled to due process. If the government is confident of its position, it should be assured that that position will prevail in proceedings to terminate the withholding of removal order. In other words, if it thinks it’s got such good factual proof of that, what is it so worried about? It can present it, and it should prevail in getting him removed from this country.

Moreover, the government has conceded that Abrego Garcia was wrongfully or mistakenly deported. Why then should it not make what was wrong right?

Let me just repeat that. Why then should it not make what was wrong right?

The Supreme Court’s decision remains, as always, our guidepost. That decision rightly requires the lower federal courts to give due regard for the deference owed to the executive branch.

The Supreme Court’s decision does not, however, allow the government to do essentially nothing. It requires the government ‘to facilitate Abrego Garcia’s release from custody in El Salvador and to ensure that his case is handled as it would have been had he not been improperly sent to El Salvador.’

Facilitate is an active verb. It requires that steps be taken—as the Supreme Court has made perfectly clear. The plain and active meaning of the word cannot be diluted by its constriction, as the government would have it, to a narrow term of art.

We are not bound in this context by a definition crafted by administrative agency and contained in mere policy directive.

Thus, the government’s argument that all it must do is remove any domestic barriers to his return—that is, the government said, ‘You know what? If he can make his way to our shores, then we have to take him in’—is not well taken in light of the Supreme Court’s command that the government facilitate Abrego Garcia’s release from custody in El Salvador.

“Facilitation” does not permit the admittedly erroneous deportation of an individual to the one country’s prison that the withholding order forbids, and further to do so in disregard of a court order that the government, not so subtly, spurns. Facilitation does not sanction the abrogation of habeas corpus through the transfer of custody to foreign detention centers in the manner attempted here. Allowing all this would facilitate foreign detention more than it would domestic return. It would reduce the rule of law to lawlessness and tarnish the very values for which Americans of diverse views and persuasions have always stood….”

The executive possesses enormous powers to prosecute and to deport. But with powers come restraints. If today the executive claims the right to deport without due process and in disregard of court orders, what assurance will there be tomorrow that it will not deport American citizens and then disclaim responsibility to bring them home? And what assurance shall there be that the executive will not train its broad discretionary powers upon its political enemies? That threat—even if not the actuality—would always be present.

And the executive’s obligation to ‘take care that the laws be faithfully executed’—that’s a quote from the Constitution, Article II—would lose its meaning.

Today, both the United States and the El Salvadoran government disclaim any authority and/or responsibility to return Abrego Garcia. We are told that neither government has the power to act. That result will be to leave matters generally—and Abrego Garcia specifically—in an interminable limbo without recourse to law of any sort.

The basic differences between the branches mandate a serious effort and mutual respect. The respect that courts must accord the executive must be reciprocated by the executive’s respect for the courts.

Too often today, this has not been the case—as calls for impeachment of judges for decisions the executive disfavors and exhortations to disregard court orders sadly illustrate.”

It is in this atmosphere that we are reminded of President Eisenhower’s sage example. Putting his “personal opinions” aside, President Eisenhower honored his “inescapable” duty to enforce the Supreme Court’s decision in Brown v. Board of Education II to desegregate schools “with all deliberate speed.”

This great man expressed his unflagging belief that “[t]he very basis of our individual rights and freedoms is the certainty that the President and the Executive Branch of Government will support and [e]nsure the carrying out of thedecisions of the Federal Courts.” Indeed, in our late Executive’s own words,“ [u]nless the President did so, anarchy would result.”

Now the branches come too close to grinding irrevocably against one another in a conflict that promises to diminish both. This is a losing proposition all around. The Judiciary will lose much from the constant intimations of its illegitimacy, to which by dent of custom and detachment we can only sparingly reply. The Executive will lose much from a public perception of its lawlessness and all of its attendant contagions. The Executive may succeed for a time in weakening the courts, but over time history will script the tragicgap between what was and all that might have been, and law in time will sign its epitaph.

It is, as we have noted, all too possible to see in this case an incipient crisis, but it may present an opportunity as well. We yet cling to the hope that it is not naïve to believe our good brethren in the Executive Branch perceive the rule of law as vital to the American ethos. This case presents their unique chance to vindicate that value and to summon the best that is within us while there is still time.

The most ominous words in this decision are the last five. “…While there is still time.”

This respected conservative jurist recognizes that the goal of the Trump administration is to diminish and undermine the federal courts and to make himself an emperor.

The Trump administration took a victory lap for deporting 238 men to a prison in El Salvador, calling them gang members or violent criminals. None of them had a trial, a hearing, or any due process. Bloomberg News now reports that few of those deported had criminal records.

Trump administration officials have described the men deported to El Salvador prisons last month as “the worst of the worst,” suggesting they were gang members involved in murder, rape and kidnapping. 

The reality is that of 238 migrants — mostly Venezuelan — that officials accused of belonging to the Tren de Aragua gang and expelled to the Central American country in mid-March, just a small fraction had ever been charged with serious crimes in the US. 

Hundreds of pages of US legal records and American government statements reviewed by Bloomberg News found five men charged with or convicted of felony assault or firearms violations. Three men were charged with misdemeanors including harassment and petty theft. Two others were charged with human smuggling.

For the rest of the men, there was no available information showing they committed any crime other than traffic or immigration violations in the US. 

The findings raise questions about how the Trump administration determined that the migrants sent to El Salvador were violent criminals. The US maintains that all of the Venezuelans on the flights had committed a crime because they were in the country illegally, a senior official with the Department of Homeland Security said in an interview.

There is more to the story. When I read it, it was not behind a paywall. No guarantees.