President Donald Trump is challenging a recent federal court ruling that stifles his administration’s efforts to streamline government efficiency. The ruling in question, issued by U.S. District Judge Paul A. Engelmayer, a Barack Obama appointee, blocks members of the Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE) and even the Treasury Secretary himself from accessing critical Treasury Department payment and data systems. This decision raises serious questions about judicial overreach and the authority of the executive branch.
The Trump administration's lawyers, who were not allowed to make their case in court previously, argued late Sunday that the court's injunction infringes upon the president's constitutional powers over the executive branch. The notion that a judge can impede the president's ability to manage his staff and initiatives is not just outrageous; it's a blatant display of judicial overreach.
As Trump rightly pointed out, “No judge should, frankly, be allowed to make that kind of a decision.” His call to action here reflects a fundamental principle: the separation of powers is meant to prevent exactly this kind of interference from the judiciary.
“Nineteen states attorneys general filed a lawsuit, and early Saturday a judge agreed with them to restrict Elon Musk and his government efficiency team, DOGE, from accessing Treasury Department payment and data systems. They said there was a risk of ‘irreparable harm.’ What do you make of that? And does that slow you down and what you want to do?” Bret Baier asked Trump in his pre-Super Bowl interview.
“No, I disagree with it 100%. I think it’s crazy. And we have to solve the efficiency problem. We have to solve the fraud, waste, abuse, all the things that have gone into the government. You take a look at the USAID, the kind of fraud in there,” Trump responded.
Trump spoke with Baier in an exclusive interview with Fox News ahead of the Super Bowl, which Trump will attend. The pair discussed the president’s long love of sports and football, as well as politics and DOGE.
“We’re talking about hundreds of millions of dollars of money that’s going to places where it shouldn’t be going,” Trump said when asked about what DOGE has found while auditing federal agencies in search of government overspending, fraud and corruption.
“Where if I read a list, you’d say, this is ridiculous, and you’ve read the same list and there are many that you haven’t even seen, it’s crazy. It’s a big scam. Now there’s some good money and we can do that through, any one of a number. I think I’d rather give it to Marco Rubio over at the State Department. Let him take care of the few good ones. So, I don’t know if it’s kickbacks or what’s going on, but the people. Look, I ran on this, and the people want me to find it. And I’ve had a great help with Elon Musk, who’s been terrific,” he continued.
It's impossible to overstate the absurd nature of Engelmayer's ruling. The lawsuit was started by 19 leftist state attorneys general, led by the anti-Trump New York Attorney General Letitia James. The lawsuit contends that allowing DOGE members access to sensitive financial data is unconstitutional. The rationale? They claim it violates the separation of powers outlined in the Constitution. This makes no sense of course, but remember, all they needed was to find an anti-Trump judge willing to sign off on it.
Recommended: Here's Trump's Epic Response to the Crowd Booing Taylor Swift at the Super Bowl
There’s no doubt our judicial system desperately needs reform. If a bunch of radical attorneys general can judge shop and prevent the executive branch from doing its job, that’s a problem.
Vice President JD Vance has stepped firmly into this debate, declaring that “judges aren’t allowed to control the executive’s legitimate power.” He also used the analogy of a judge attempting to dictate military operations to a general.
If a judge tried to tell a general how to conduct a military operation, that would be illegal.
— JD Vance (@JDVance) February 9, 2025
If a judge tried to command the attorney general in how to use her discretion as a prosecutor, that's also illegal.
Judges aren't allowed to control the executive's legitimate power.
That is precisely what’s happening in this instance. The courts have no business stepping into the territory of executive decision-making. Honestly, I’d have zero problem with Trump ignoring this rogue judge’s injunction.
Join the conversation as a VIP Member