Sounds better than their previous business model of buggering little boys on camping trips.

More still: The role of the Treasury Department " and of the executive branch more broadly " is not to make determinations about which promises of federal funding made by Congress it will keep, and which it will not. As Justice Brett Kavanaugh of the Supreme Court previously wrote, "Even the president does not have unilateral authority to refuse to spend the funds." Chief Justice John Roberts agrees: He wrote that "no area seems more clearly the province of Congress than the power of the purse."

During our collective 18 years at the helm of the Treasury, we never were asked to stop congressionally appropriated funds from being paid out in full. Not since the Nixon administration has this type of executive action been contemplated. At that time, the Supreme Court ruled unanimously that the president did not have the power to withhold federal funds that Congress had authorized.

More: These political actors have not been subject to the same rigorous ethics rules as civil servants, and one has explicitly retained his role in a private company, creating at best the appearance of financial conflicts of interest. They lack training and experience to handle private, personal data " like Social Security numbers and bank account information. Their power subjects America's payments system and the highly sensitive data within it to the risk of exposure, potentially to our adversaries. And our critical infrastructure is at risk of failure if the code that underwrites it is not handled with due care. That is why a federal judge this past weekend blocked, at least temporarily, these individuals from the Treasury's payments system, noting the risk of "irreparable harm."

While significant data privacy, cybersecurity and national security threats are gravely concerning, the constitutional issues are perhaps even more alarming. We take the extraordinary step of writing this piece because we are alarmed about the risks of arbitrary and capricious political control of federal payments, which would be unlawful and corrosive to our democracy.

Detained for what? Political speech is, or was at least, protected by the first amendment.

President Musk will get this fixed so he can sell his swastikars.

What the Dems are going to do is fight it.

When? Or more pertinently, how? Trump needs to be countered but his personal party has a stranglehold on the government currently with rubber stamps in the House, Senate and SCOTUS.

I do agree with the rest of your comment though, Doc.

Everything he touches dies.

It was too late when they confirmed Clearance Thomas.

Any company headquartered in Arkansas isn't worried about the politics in NC.

They won't be satisfied until Trump is crowned King.

More:

The widespread political purges of the early 1950s echo clearly today. Seventy years ago, the reasonable pretext of hunting Soviet agents opened the way to a yearslong, paranoid campaign, motivated by outlandish conspiracy theories, that destroyed countless careers but did nothing to improve America's security.

Today, a stated desire to check the excesses of diversity, equity and inclusion programs has already been used to justify whirlwind firings and closures of entire federal offices. So it may be wise to consider the consequences of that previous era of purges, part of what came to be known as the "Red Scare."

At a time of intense geopolitical competition, the United States kneecapped itself, removing thousands of valuable employees and forcing those who remained into unhappy conformity. It is hard not to see the same mistake being repeated today.

It can be tempting to say that just as the Red Scare petered out, so too will the current hunt for "disloyal" elements. But for all the parallels, there's an important difference: Loyalty then meant loyalty to the United States; today Trump demands loyalty to himself and his agenda.

Once the public realizes the destructiveness of the purges conducted in Trump's name, will he halt them? That remains an unsettlingly open question.

More: A veteran House Democrat is introducing new legislation to respond to billionaire Trump ally Elon Musk's overhaul of the federal government: Rep. Mark Pocan (D-Wis.) on Wednesday rolled out the Eliminate Looting of Our Nation by Mitigating Unethical State Kleptocracy (ELON MUSK) Act, which would ban "special" government employees like Musk from having federal contracts.

"No government employee, Special' or not, should have any financial interest in who the government does business with," Pocan said. "Elon Musk is the poster child for this type of potential abuse. After more than $20 billion in federal contracts, there's no way Musk can be objective in what he's doing." Musk holds major federal contracts through his companies including SpaceX and Starlink.

Shut up, little man.

How many people did he just put out of work? I hope someone is keeping a running total of jobs he is destroying.

#69,

If I were a believer I'd be convinced Trump was the Antichrist.

Unless boaz shows up and says something even dumber, #4 will probably be the most ridiculous thing I'll read all day.

As terrible as this is - and it is unbelievably terrible - it's being done as a distraction from what Musk and his cronies are doing. Our country and it's wealth are being stolen from us.

If you voted for him you deserve what you get.

The worst idea in the history of ideas.

That's it then. The payment system is compromised and should never be trusted again.

Further proof that it's not drag queens or immigrants our country need to be worried about. Radicalized conservatives are an existential threat.

Blatant violation of the Eighth Amendment.

More: The ruling by the judge, Tanya M. Jones Bosier of the Superior Court of the District of Columbia, effectively means that Proud Boys chapters across the country can no longer legally use their own name or the group's traditional symbols without the permission of the church that was attacked, the Metropolitan African Methodist Episcopal Church.