Vance, Elon criticize judge for blocking DOGE from Treasury Department

Vice President JD Vance and Elon Musk criticized a federal judge’s decision to block DOGE officials from accessing the Treasury Department’s payment system, calling it an overreach of judicial power. The ruling temporarily halts political appointees’ access to financial data, intensifying tensions between the White House and the judiciary.

Key Details:

U.S. District Judge Paul Engelmayer issued an order barring DOGE officials without security clearances from accessing Treasury payment systems through at least next Friday.
Vance called the ruling “illegal,” arguing that judges cannot interfere with executive power, while Musk called for Engelmayer’s impeachment.
The lawsuit, filed by 19 Democratic state attorneys general, is one of many legal challenges to the Trump administration’s government overhaul efforts.

Diving Deeper:

Vice President JD Vance and billionaire Elon Musk are pushing back against a federal judge’s decision to block the Department of Governmental Efficiency (DOGE) from accessing the Treasury Department’s payment system, calling the ruling a violation of executive authority.

The temporary injunction, issued by U.S. District Judge Paul Engelmayer, an Obama appointee, restricts DOGE officials—including political appointees and special government employees—from accessing the Treasury’s payment infrastructure unless they have proper background checks and security clearances. The judge cited concerns that the administration had overstepped legal boundaries in granting access to sensitive financial data.

Vance, in a social media post Sunday, accused the judge of unlawfully interfering in executive matters. “Judges aren’t allowed to control the executive’s legitimate power,” he said. Musk followed with more pointed remarks, calling for Engelmayer’s impeachment and arguing that the ruling was politically motivated.

The lawsuit, brought by 19 Democratic state attorneys general, is part of a broader legal effort to block President Trump’s aggressive attempts to cut federal spending and restructure government operations. So far, multiple courts have placed temporary holds on various White House initiatives, including a buyout program for federal employees and a workforce reduction at USAID.

Critics of Vance and Musk’s response argue that the administration should follow legal protocols rather than attacking the judiciary. Former Transportation Secretary Pete Buttigieg dismissed their criticisms, saying, “In America, decisions about what is legal and illegal are made by courts of law. Not by the Vice President.” Former Rep. Liz Cheney also weighed in, stating that the administration’s recourse is through the appeals process, not by undermining the courts.

Musk has defended DOGE’s role at the Treasury Department, stating that the changes his team proposed were necessary to improve financial oversight and ensure accurate reporting of government spending. He claimed that Treasury and DOGE “jointly agreed” on new reporting requirements and emphasized that longtime career government employees were implementing them.

The legal battle is still in its early stages, with a hearing scheduled for Friday to determine whether the judge’s temporary order should be extended. Meanwhile, Trump signaled that DOGE would soon shift focus to the Education Department and military spending, setting the stage for further clashes with the judiciary.

Up Next

Canada-US border mayors react to new border security initiative

Don't Miss

Trump imposes 25 percent tariff on all foreign steel, aluminum imports

Todayville

Todayville is a digital media and technology company. We profile unique stories and events in our community. Register and promote your community event for free.

Follow Author

Bipartisan US Coalition Finally Tells Europe, and the FBI, to Shove It

Business / 4 hours ago

New climate plan simply hides the costs to Canadians

Business / 10 hours ago

Government debt burden increasing across Canada

Business

New climate plan simply hides the costs to Canadians

Published on February 20, 2025

Todayville

From the Fraser Institute

By Kenneth P. Green

Mark Carney, who wants to be your next prime minister, recently released his plan for Canada’s climate policies through 2035. It’s a sprawling plan (climate plans always are), encompassing industrial and manufacturing emissions, vehicle emissions, building emissions, appliance emissions, cross-border emissions, more “green” energy, more “heat pumps” replacing HVAC, more electric vehicle (EV) subsidies, more subsidies to consumers, more subsidies to companies, and more charging stations for the EV revolution that does not seem to be happening. And while the plan seeks to eliminate the “consumer carbon tax” on “fuels, such as gasoline, natural gas, diesel, home heating oil, etc.” it’s basically Trudeau’s climate plans on steroids.

Consider this. Instead of paying the “consumer carbon tax” directly, under the Carney plan Canadians will pay more—but less visibly. The plan would “tighten” (i.e. raise) the carbon tax on “large industrial emitters” (you know, the people who make the stuff you buy) who will undoubtedly pass some or all of that cost to consumers. Second, the plan wants to force those same large emitters to somehow fund subsidy programs for consumer purchases to offset the losses to Canadians currently profiting from consumer carbon tax rebates. No doubt the costs of those subsidy programs will also be folded into the costs of the products that flow from Canada’s “large industrial emitters,” but the cause of rising prices will be less visible to the general public. And the plan wants more consumer home energy audits and retrofit programs, some of the most notoriously wasteful climate policies ever developed.

But the ironic icing on this plan’s climate cake is the desire to implement tariffs (excuse me, a “carbon border adjustment mechanism”) on U.S. products in association with “key stakeholders and international partners to ensure fairness for Canadian industries.” Yes, you read that right, the plan seeks to kick off a carbon-emission tariff war with the United States, not only for Canada’s trade, but to bring in European allies to pile on. And this, all while posturing in high dudgeon over Donald Trump’s plans to impose tariffs on Canadian products based on perceived injustices in the U.S./Canada trade relationship.

To recap, while grudgingly admitting that the “consumer carbon tax” is wildly unpopular, poorly designed and easily dispensable in Canada’s greenhouse gas reduction efforts, the Carney plan intends to double down on all of the economically damaging climate policies of the last 10 years.

But that doubling down will be more out of sight and out of mind to Canadians. Instead of directly seeing how they pay for Canada’s climate crusade, Canadians will see prices rise for goods and services as government stamps climate mandates on Canada’s largest manufacturers and producers, and those costs trickle down onto consumer pocketbooks.

In this regard, the plan is truly old school—historically, governments and bureaucrats preferred to hide their taxes inside of obscure regulations and programs invisible to the public. Canadians will also see prices rise as tariffs imposed on imported American goods (and potentially services) force American businesses to raise prices on goods that Canadians purchase.

The Carney climate plan is a return to the hidden European-style technocratic/bureaucratic/administrative mindset that has led Canada’s economy into record underperformance. Hopefully, whether Carney becomes our next prime minister or not, this plan becomes another dead letter pack of political promises.

Kenneth P. Green

Senior Fellow, Fraser Institute

Business

Government debt burden increasing across Canada

Published on February 20, 2025

Todayville

From the Fraser Institute

By Tegan Hill, Jake Fuss and Spencer Gudewill

As governments across Canada unveil their 2025 budgets, outlining their tax and spending plans for the upcoming fiscal year, they have an opportunity to reverse the trend of deficits and increasing debt that has reigned in recent years.

Indeed, budget deficits, which fuel debt accumulation, have become a serious fiscal challenge for the federal and many provincial governments, primarily due to high levels of government spending. Since 2007/08—the final fiscal year before the financial crisis—combined federal and provincial net debt (inflation-adjusted) has nearly doubled from $1.2 trillion to a projected $2.3 trillion in 2024/25. And you can’t blame COVID, as combined federal and provincial net debt (inflation-adjusted) increased by nearly $600 billion between 2007/08 and 2019/20.

Federal and provincial net debt (inflation-adjusted) per person has increased in every province since 2007/08. As shown in the below chart, Newfoundland and Labrador has the highest combined (federal and provincial) debt per person ($68,516) in 2024/25 followed by Quebec ($60,565) and Ontario ($60,456). In contrast, Alberta has the lowest combined debt per person ($41,236) in the country. Combined federal and provincial net debt represents the total provincial net debt, and the federal portion allocated to each of the provinces based on a five-year average (2020-2024) of their population as a share of Canada’s total population.

The combined federal and total provincial debt-to-GDP ratio, an important fiscal indicator that compares debt with the size of the overall economy, is projected to reach 75.2 per cent in 2024/25. By comparison, the ratio was 53.2 per cent in 2007/08. A rising debt-to-GDP ratio indicates government debt has grown at an unsustainable rate (in other words, debt levels are growing faster than the economy). Among the provinces, the combined federal-provincial debt-to-GDP ratio is highest in Nova Scotia (92.0 per cent) and lowest in Alberta (42.2 per cent). Again, the federal debt portion is allocated to provinces based on a five-year average (2020-2024) of their population as a share of Canada’s total population.

Interest payments are a major consequence of debt accumulation. Governments must make interest payments on their debt similar to households that must pay interest on mortgages, vehicles or credit card spending. When taxpayer money goes towards interest payments, there’s less money available for tax cuts or government programs such as health care and education.

Interest on government debt (federal and provincial) costs each Canadian at least $1,930 in 2024/25. The amount, however, varies by province. Combined interest costs per person are highest in Newfoundland and Labrador ($3,453) and lowest in Alberta ($1,930). Similar to net debt, combined federal and provincial interest costs are represented by the total of the provincial and federal portion with the federal portion allocated to each of provinces based on a five-year average (2020-2024) of their population as a share of Canada’s total population.

Debt accumulation comes with consequences for everyday Canadians as more and more taxpayer money flows towards interest payments rather than tax relief or programs and services. This budget season, federal and provincial governments should develop long-term plans to meaningfully address the growing debt problem in Canada.