The history of lawfare against Trump is a stark reminder of how far the radical left is willing to go to stop Trump. We saw what happened over the past few years, with bogus cases at both the federal and state levels designed to put Trump in prison and prevent his return to the White House. Trump ultimately prevailed, but the lawfare against him hasn’t stopped.
On Saturday, U.S. District Judge Paul A. Engelmayer—coincidentally nominated by Barack Obama—issued a preliminary injunction preventing Elon Musk’s Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE) from accessing sensitive records from the Treasury Department. This ruling resulted from a fierce legal challenge led by 19 Democratic attorneys general, who filed a lawsuit in federal court in New York City. Once again, we see anti-Trump zealots at the forefront, with New York Attorney General Letitia James leading the charge.
Let’s not kid ourselves: the Treasury payment system is vital. It manages tax refunds, Social Security benefits, and veterans' payments, overseeing trillions of dollars every year. The prospect of misuse or mishandling of such sensitive information is alarming. Ironically, this very concern is what James used to convince the leftist judge that DOGE is unfit for its intended role. She asserted that DOGE’s access posed profound risks—not just to privacy, but to the very foundation of federal funding for essential services including health clinics and preschools.
In Engelmayer's ruling, he wrote, “The States contend that this policy, inter alia, violates the Administrative Procedure Act ('APA'), 5 U.S.C. §§ 551 et seq., in multiple respects; exceeds the statutory authority of the Department of the Treasury; violates the separation of powers doctrine; and violates the Take Care Clause of the United States Constitution.”
What? Seriously?
Related: WATCH: Sen. Kennedy Takes On USAID’s Wasteful Spending, And It's Awesome
The Obama judge ordered anyone previously granted access since Jan. 20 to destroy all copies of Treasury materials downloaded. But let’s pause for a moment—how do state attorneys general even possess the authority to challenge the internal workings of the Treasury Department? Is it really possible that the department cannot conduct an audit without being accused of sparking a constitutional crisis?
Consider this absurdity: courts once ruled that the Trump campaign lacked standing to contest the 2020 election or investigate claims of fraud, yet a group of anti-Trump attorneys general somehow finds standing to challenge the very operations of the Treasury Department. It’s legal acrobatics at its finest. The lawsuit against DOGE alleges that identifying waste creates a constitutional crisis by violating federal administrative law and the separation of powers. Does that hold any weight? Absolutely not. In today’s America, the validity of a legal argument isn’t what matters; it’s all about the desired outcome and rallying allies to your cause.
And when the target is Trump, anything goes. Prosecuting him on multiple felony charges stemming from a single alleged misdemeanor campaign finance violation? Not a problem. Overlooking the statute of limitations? Just fine—as long as you have an activist judge, a biased jury, and an attorney general ready to play ball. They'll even render a man liable for sexual assault based on accusations that could easily be lifted from a TV drama.
The Democrats’ weaponization of the justice system hasn’t stopped with their assaults on Trump; they now deploy it to undermine his agenda. This is lawfare in its clearest form—a calculated political strategy aimed at disarming a political opponent. The fight against Trump isn’t merely about policies; it’s about winning at all costs—a disturbing template for how far the radical left is willing to stretch the bounds of legality and morality to achieve its agenda.
