Senate Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE) Caucus Chairwoman Joni Ernst, R-Iowa, said she talks to Trump-aligned billionaire Elon Musk every couple of days as he spearheads the administration’s effort to slash wasteful spending. 

‘We communicate back and forth every few days or so,’ she told Fox News Digital in an interview. ‘I’ll send additional ideas that we come up with.’

According to Ernst, during a meeting at President Donald Trump’s Mar-a-Lago estate in Florida in November, she gave Musk ‘an eight-page memorandum blueprint with a number of cost-saving ideas.’

‘He literally is taking that and running with it,’ the Iowa Republican remarked. 

She said she simply sends new ideas directly to Musk, and ‘pretty soon you’ll see a tweet out on X.’

When asked whether she thought she would ever be working to audit the government with the billionaire CEO of Tesla and SpaceX, as well as the owner of X, Ernst laughed, ‘Never in a million years.’

Since Trump took office last month, DOGE has taken swift action to audit agencies and departments within the executive branch, rooting out contracts, programs and spending that Trump and Musk consider unnecessary or wasteful. 

The effort has been met by Democrats with protests, as lawmakers have shown up outside the United States Agency for International Development (USAID), the Department of Treasury and the Department of Education to demonstrate. Some Democrats have even attempted to enter the buildings, but were prevented. 

On the other hand, Republicans have cheered the initiative. For example, Ernst told Fox News Digital that DOGE’s actions so far have been ‘tremendous.’ 

As for criticisms of how DOGE’s staffers are conducting their audit and what information they are gaining access to, the Iowa Republican maintained that it is completely legal in her opinion. ‘This is the executive branch and they are scrutinizing the executive branch. So, of course, it’s legal,’ she said. 

‘There is nothing in the Constitution that says the president cannot scrutinize the expenditures, especially when those dollars are going to programs that members here in Congress did not anticipate,’ she noted, referencing jaw-dropping programs being uncovered by DOGE, showing significant money going towards Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion (DEI), among other initiatives. 

Fox News Digital reached out to Musk’s DOGE for comment.

Former aides to President Barack Obama admitted on an episode of ‘Pod Save America’ they should have done ‘some of the stuff’ President Donald Trump is doing with the Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE). 

When discussing DOGE’s initiatives to cut federal spending, the ‘Obama bros’ admitted to ‘lamenting’ their situation. Jon Lovett, a former Obama speechwriter, implied he ‘didn’t know’ the executive branch could radically cut federal spending as the Trump administration has done. 

‘Honestly, some of this is pretty annoying because it’s some of the stuff we should’ve done. We didn’t know you could do some of this,’ Lovett said. 

Jon Favreau, also a former Obama speechwriter, shared Lovett’s frustration, admitting the Obama administration tried to cut through bureaucracy and create government efficiency, but ‘it’s hard to do.’

‘We all know that government is slow. We all know government can be inefficient. We all know that the bureaucracy can be bloated. We all worked in f—ing the White House. We tried to reorganize the government. We tried to find efficiency. It’s hard to do,’ Favreau said. 

The liberal podcasters also complained about the federal government’s technology during the Obama era. 

‘The technology in the federal government, at least when we were there, sucked. There was no service in the basement of the West Wing. You couldn’t use your phone because there was no service.’ Favreau added. 

‘Pod Save America’ did not immediately respond to Fox News Digital’s request for comment on which DOGE initiatives the Obama administration should have done. 

The podcast episode was released ahead of Trump signing an executive order on Tuesday directing agencies to coordinate with DOGE to reduce the size of the federal government. The executive order is the latest in a slew of government slashes these past few weeks, which have targeted everything from DEI funding to migrant hotel bills. 

The ‘Obama Bros’ have been on a media circuit in recent weeks, directing Democrats on how to politically engage during Trump’s second term. Former Obama spokesman and ‘Pod Save America’ co-host, Tommy Vietor, joined ‘Jesse Watters Primetime’ last month to discuss the future of the Democratic Party. 

Americans are giving a big thumbs up to some of the early actions taken by President Donald Trump during the opening weeks of his second administration.

However, a new national poll also indicates that the public also gives a thumbs down to other moves made by Trump during his avalanche of action since returning to the White House on Jan. 20.

Trump has signed 63 executive orders since his inauguration, according to a count from Fox News, which far surpasses the rate of any presidential predecessors during their first weeks in office.

According to a Marquette Law School Poll national survey released on Wednesday, the most popular action sampled is Trump’s executive order mandating the federal government recognize only two sexes – male and female.

Sixty-three percent of adults nationwide supported the move, with just 37% opposed, the survey indicates.

The gender order, signed by Trump hours after his inauguration, states that it will ‘defend women’s rights and protect freedom of conscience by using clear and accurate language and policies that recognize women are biologically female, and men are biologically male.’

The order required that the federal government, going forward, use the term ‘sex’ rather than ‘gender’ and mandated that ‘government-issued identification documents, including passports, visas, and Global Entry cards, accurately reflect the holder’s sex.’

It reversed a 2022 move by former President Joe Biden’s administration to allow U.S. citizens to be able to select the gender-neutral ‘X’ on their passports.

During his successful 2024 campaign to win back the White House, Trump repeatedly pledged to roll back protections for transgender and nonbinary people. His campaign spotlighted an ad which ran in key battleground states that claimed former Vice President Kamala Harris ‘is for they/them. President Trump is for you.’

The poll indicates a large partisan divide, with 94% of Republicans and two-thirds of independents but just 27% of Democrats supporting the executive order.

Another popular move, according to the poll: 6 in 10 said they favor expanding oil and gas production.

Some of Trump’s numerous actions on immigration and border security also grabbed a thumbs up.

Sixty percent said they support deporting immigrants who entered the U.S. illegally, and 59% favored declaring a national emergency at the nation’s southern border with Mexico due to migrant crossings.

However, the survey also found that 57% opposed deporting immigrants who have resided in the United States illegally for a number of years, but who have jobs and no criminal record.

Also getting a big thumbs down – Trump’s Day One pardon or commuting the sentences of nearly all the Trump supporters who attacked the U.S. Capitol on Jan. 6, 2021 to upend congressional certification of Biden’s 2020 Electoral College victory over Trump. Sixty-five percent opposed the move by the president.

An equal number of respondents also do not support Trump’s repeated declarations that the U.S. will take back the Panama Canal.

Additionally, Trump’s renaming of the Gulf of Mexico as the Gulf of America is opposed by 71% of adults nationwide, according to the poll.

Fifty-seven percent of Republicans support the renaming, but backing drops to just 16% among independents and 4% among Democrats.

The Marquette Law School Poll, which was conducted Jan. 27-Feb. 5, indicates Trump starts his second term with a 48% approval rating and a 52% disapproval rating.

‘In the new poll, as in the past, approval is closely related to partisanship, with 89% of Republicans approving of Trump, a view shared by 37% of independents and 9% of Democrats,’ the poll’s release noted, as it spotlighted the massive partisan divide.

Fox News’ Mary Schlageter contributed to this report

Federal judges have blocked President Donald Trump’s executive orders related to stemming the flow of illegal immigration, as well as slimming the federal bureaucracy and slashing government waste. 

‘Billions of Dollars of FRAUD, WASTE, AND ABUSE, has already been found in the investigation of our incompetently run Government,’ Trump wrote on TRUTH Social on Tuesday. ‘Now certain activists and highly political judges want us to slow down, or stop. Losing this momentum will be very detrimental to finding the TRUTH, which is turning out to be a disaster for those involved in running our Government. Much left to find. No Excuses!!!’ 

Judges in U.S. district courts – the lowest level in the three-tier federal court system – have mostly pushed back on Elon Musk and the Department of Government Efficiency. Here are the six times judges have blocked Trump’s executive orders so far:

Federal Funding Pause

The Trump administration quickly pushed to withhold Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) money sent to New York City to house migrants, saying it had ‘significant concerns’ about the spending under a program appropriated by Congress. The Justice Department had previously asked the appeals court to let it implement sweeping pauses on federal grants and loans, calling the lower court order to keep promised money flowing ‘intolerable judicial overreach.’

McConnell, who was appointed by former President Barack Obama, is presiding over a lawsuit from nearly two dozen Democratic states filed after the administration issued a memo purporting to halt all federals grants and loans, worth trillions of dollars. 

‘The broad categorical and sweeping freeze of federal funds is, as the Court found, likely unconstitutional,’ McConnell wrote, ‘and has caused and continues to cause irreparable harm to a vast portion of this country.’

The administration has since rescinded that memo, but McConnell found Monday that not all federal grants and loans had been restored. He was the first judge to find that the administration had disobeyed a court order.

The Democratic attorneys general allege money for things like early childhood education, pollution reduction and HIV prevention research remained tied up even after McConnell ordered the administration on Jan. 31 to ‘immediately take every step necessary’ to unfreeze federal grants and loans. The judge also said his order blocked the administration from cutting billions of dollars in grant funding from the National Institutes of Health (NIH). 

The Boston-based First Circuit Court of Appeal on Tuesday rejected the Trump administration’s effort to reinstate a sweeping pause on federal funding. 

The federal appeals court said it expected U.S. District Judge John McConnell in Rhode Island to clarify his initial order.

DOGE Treasury Department access

U.S. District Judge Jeannette A. Vargas, who was appointed by former President Joe Biden, on Monday ordered lawyers to meet and confer over any changes needed to an order issued early Saturday by another Manhattan judge, Obama-appointee Judge Paul A. Engelmayer, that banned Elon Musk’s DOGE team from accessing Treasury Department records. Vargas instructed both sides to file written arguments if an agreement was not reached. 

The order was amended on Tuesday to allow Senate-confirmed political appointees access to the information, while special government employees, including Musk, are still prohibited from accessing the Treasury Department’s payment system.

On Friday, 19 Democrat attorneys general, including New York Attorney General Letitia James, sued Trump on the grounds that Musk’s DOGE team was composed of ‘political appointees’ who should not have access to Treasury records handled by ‘civil servants’ specially trained to protect sensitive information like Social Security and bank account numbers. 

Justice Department attorneys from Washington and New York told Vargas in a filing on Sunday that the ban was unconstitutional and a ‘remarkable intrusion on the Executive Branch’ that must be immediately reversed. They said there was no basis for distinguishing between ‘civil servants’ and ‘political appointees.’

They said they were complying with the Saturday order by Engelmayer, but they asserted that the order was ‘overbroad’ so that some might think even Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent was banned by it. 

‘Basic democratic accountability requires that every executive agency’s work be supervised by politically accountable leadership, who ultimately answer to the President,’ DOJ attorneys wrote, adding that the ban on accessing the records by Musk’s team ‘directly severs the clear line of supervision’ required by the Constitution.

Over the weekend, Musk and Vice President JD Vance reacted to the escalating conflict between the Trump administration and the lower courts. 

 ‘If a judge tried to tell a general how to conduct a military operation, that would be illegal. If a judge tried to command the attorney general in how to use her discretion as a prosecutor, that’s also illegal,’ Vance wrote broadly. ‘Judges aren’t allowed to control the executive’s legitimate power.’ 

Musk said Engelmayer is ‘a corrupt judge protecting corruption,’ who ‘needs to be impeached NOW!’

‘Fork in the Road Directive’

Boston-based U.S. District Judge George O’Toole Jr., who was nominated by former President Bill Clinton, kept on hold Trump’s deferred resignation program after a courtroom hearing on Monday. 

O’Toole on Thursday had already pushed back the initial Feb. 6 deadline when federal workers had to decide whether they would accept eight months of paid leave in exchange for their resignation. 

A ‘Fork In the Road’ email was sent earlier last week telling two million federal workers they could stop working and continue to get paid until Sept. 30. The White House said 65,000 workers had already accepted the buyout offer by Friday. 

The country’s largest federal labor unions, concerned about losing membership, sued the Office of Personnel Management, asking the court to delay the deadline and arguing the deferred resignation program spearheaded by Musk is illegal.

Eric Hamilton, a Justice Department lawyer, called the plan a ‘humane off ramp’ for federal employees who may have structured their lives around working remotely and have been ordered to return to government buildings.

Birthright Citizenship

The Trump administration on Tuesday said it is appealing a Maryland federal judge’s ruling blocking the president’s executive order seeking to end birthright citizenship for people whose parents are not legally in the country.

In a filing, the administration’s attorneys said they were appealing to the 4th Circuit Court of Appeals. It’s the second such appeal the administration has sought since Trump’s executive order was blocked in court.

The government’s appeal stems from Biden-appointed U.S. District Judge Deborah Boardman’s grant of a preliminary injunction last week in a case brought by immigrant rights groups and expectant mothers in Maryland. Boardman said at the time her court would not become the first in the country to endorse the president’s order, calling citizenship a ‘precious right’ granted by the Constitution’s 14th Amendment.

The president’s birthright citizenship order has generated at least nine lawsuits nationwide, including suits brought by 22 states.

On Monday, New Hampshire-based U.S. District Judge Joseph N. Laplante, who was appointed by former President George W. Bush, said in relation to a similar lawsuit that he wasn’t convinced by the administration’s arguments and issued a preliminary injunction. It applies to the plaintiffs, immigrant rights groups with members who are pregnant, and others within the court’s jurisdiction.

Last week, Seattle-based U.S. District Judge John C. Coughenour, who was nominated by former President Ronald Reagan, ordered a block of Trump’s order, which the administration also appealed.

U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID)

The Trump administration is expected to argue before a federal judge Wednesday that the U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID) is rife with ‘insubordination’ and must be shut down for the administration to decide what pieces of it to salvage.

The argument, made in an affidavit by political appointee and deputy USAID administrator Pete Marocco, comes as the administration confronts a lawsuit by the American Foreign Service Association and the American Federation of Government Employees – two groups representing federal workers.

Washington-based U.S. District Judge Carl Nichols, a Trump appointee, on Friday ordered a temporary block on plans by the Trump administration to put 2,200 USAID employees on leave. He also agreed to block an order that would have given just 30 days for the thousands of overseas USAID workers the administration wanted to place on abrupt administrative leave to move their families back to the U.S. at the government’s expense. 

Both actions by the administration would have exposed the workers and their families to unnecessary risk and expense, according to the judge.

The judge reinstated USAID staffers already placed on leave but declined to suspend the administration’s freeze on foreign assistance.

Nichols is due to hear arguments Wednesday on a request from the employee groups to keep blocking the move to put thousands of staffers on leave as well as broaden his order. They contend the government has already violated the judge’s order. 

In the court case, a government motion shows the administration pressing arguments by Vance and others questioning if courts have the authority to check Trump’s power.

‘The President’s powers in the realm of foreign affairs are generally vast and unreviewable,’ government lawyers argued.

Fox News’ Landon Mion and the Associated Press contributed to this report.

Sparks are expected to fly at Congress’ first Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE) subcommittee meeting Wednesday, according to one Democratic lawmaker in the House of Representatives.

Democrats have blasted billionaire Elon Musk, who President Donald Trump tapped to lead DOGE, over the past week for trying to eliminate waste, fraud and abuse in federal spending and trim the more than 2-million-person federal workforce.

Rep. Jasmine Crockett, D-Texas, told Axios that she plans to use the hearing to ‘clarify for the American people’ why DOGE’s actions are ‘illegal’ and why ‘Elon Musk has no official role to do this.’ 

‘I think it’s going to be a sh–show. I don’t really anticipate anything productive coming out of this,’ Crockett said. ‘I don’t anticipate that it’s going to be nice. I anticipate full-on combat, because DOGE is clearly the devil right now.’

DOGE subcommittee chair Marjorie Taylor Greene, R-Ga., told the outlet she has ‘high hopes’ that Republicans and Democrats will engage productively during the hearing, which she said will focus on ‘Medicaid improper payments.’

‘We’re going to be talking about solutions, there are going to be big savings,’ she said, adding that she feels the issue is bipartisan.

On Tuesday, Musk appeared with Trump in the Oval Office as the president prepared to sign an executive order concerning the billionaire’s work leading DOGE.

Musk, in some of his first public comments on leading DOGE, told reporters that there are some good people in the federal bureaucracy, but that they need to be accountable, and the budget deficit needs to be addressed.

He also pushed back against critics who have accused him of mounting a hostile takeover of the government, saying he wants to add ‘common-sense controls’ to federal spending and that cutting government waste is not ‘draconian.’

‘The people voted for major government reform, and that’s what the people are going to get,’ Musk said. ‘That’s what democracy is all about.’

The Associated Press contributed to this report.

Rep. John Larson, D-Conn., said in a statement on Tuesday that a complex partial seizure was ruled as the cause of the episode where he paused during a House floor speech on Monday.

While delivering his speech, the long-serving lawmaker abruptly stopped speaking for several seconds, before uttering a few words and then proceeding to stand silently for around 14 seconds. 

When he resumed speaking, his remarks were halting and punctuated with awkward pauses.

After the incident occurred on Monday, Larson’s office indicated in a statement that ‘he had what was likely an adverse reaction to a new medication and is having tests administered by the House Attending Physician out of an abundance of caution.’ The statement indicated that the lawmaker ‘later participated in multiple meetings in his office and was alert and engaged.’

Then Larson’s statement on Tuesday indicated that a complex partial seizure was ruled as the cause of the incident.

‘Yesterday, at around noon, I experienced a medical incident on the House floor, when my speech momentarily paused. Following the incident, I saw the House Attending Physician, Dr. Monahan, who referred me for further evaluation. After a round of tests, it was determined that the cause of the brief pause in my speech was a complex partial seizure,’ the congressman explained.

The 76-year-old lawmaker has been a House member for more than a quarter-century — he took office in 1999.

‘Fifteen years ago, I had a heart valve replacement due to a variation in the shape of my aortic valve that I was born with. Sometimes, people with this condition can later develop symptoms such as the momentary change in speech or movement that was apparent yesterday,’ Larson continued. 

‘The doctors have prescribed medication that, according to them, will greatly reduce the chance of this happening again. I will be able to resume an active schedule, including my duties as a Member of Congress, beginning tomorrow, when I plan to be present and voting on the House floor,’ he noted. 

‘I am grateful to Dr. Monahan and the staff, and I extend my deepest appreciation to my family, friends, colleagues, constituents, and everyone who reached out with their well wishes and offers of support. I am looking forward to getting back to work for the people of Connecticut’s First District.’ 

Dozens of activist and legal groups, elected officials, local jurisdictions and individuals have launched at least 49 lawsuits against the Trump administration since Jan. 20 in response to his more than 60 executive orders, as well as executive proclamations and memos, Fox News Digital found. 

Trump long has been a legal target, which hit a fever pitch during the 2024 election cycle when Trump faced four criminal indictments, including a criminal trial in Manhattan in the spring of 2024 when he was found guilty on 34 counts of falsifying business records. 

Trump has maintained his innocence in the four cases, pointing to them as evidence of lawfare at the hands of Democrats working against his political efforts. 

Upon Trump’s election win in November 2024, state attorneys general, such as New York Attorney General Letitia James, publicly said they would ready legal battles against the Trump administration for actions they view as illegal or negatively impact residents. 

‘We faced this challenge before, and we used the rule of law to fight back,’ James, who repeatedly has leveled suits against Trump, said following his win. ‘And we are prepared to fight back once again because, as the attorney general of this great state, it is my job to protect and defend the rights of New Yorkers and the rule of law. And I will not shrink from that responsibility.’

Just roughly three weeks back in the Oval Office, Trump’s administration has been hit with at least 49 lawsuits working to resist his policies. 

Fox News Digital compiled a list of the groups, state attorneys general, cities or states, and individuals who have launched lawsuits against the Trump administration’s executive actions. The list includes the various groups and individuals challenging the Trump administration in court, as well as the executive order or proclamation that sparked the suit. 

1. New Hampshire Indonesian Community Support; League of United Latin American Citizens; Make the Road New York (Executive Order: Protecting the Meaning and Value of American Citizenship)
2. O. Doe; Brazilian Worker Center, Inc.; La Colaborativa (Executive Order: Protecting the Meaning and Value of American Citizenship)
3. State of New Jersey; Commonwealth of Massachusetts; State of California; State of Colorado; State of Connecticut; State of Delaware; District of Columbia; State of Hawai’i; State of Maine; State of Maryland; Attorney General Dana Nessel for the People of Michigan; State of Minnesota; State of Nevada; State of New Mexico; State of New York; State of North Carolina; State of Rhode Island; State of Vermont; State of Wisconsin; City and County of San Francisco (Executive Order: Protecting the Meaning and Value of American Citizenship)
4. CASA, Inc; Asylum Seeker Advocacy Project (​​Executive Order: Protecting the Meaning and Value of American Citizenship)
5. State of Washington; State of Arizona; State of Illinois; State of Oregon (Executive Order: ​​Protecting the Meaning and Value of American Citizenship)
6. OCA – Asian Pacific American Advocates (Executive Order: ​​Protecting the Meaning and Value of American Citizenship)
7. County of Santa Clara (Executive Order: Protecting the Meaning and Value of American Citizenship)
8. Organized Communities Against Deportation; Brighton Park Neighborhood Council; Illinois Coalition for Immigrant and Refugee Rights; Raise the Floor Alliance (Executive Order: Protecting the American People Against Invasion)
9. City and County of San Francisco (Executive Order: Protecting the American People Against Invasion)
10. Make the Road New York (Executive Order: Protecting the American People Against Invasion)
11. Refugee and Immigrant Center for Education and Legal Services (Presidential Proclamation Guaranteeing the States Protection Against Invasion)
12. Las Americas Immigrant Advocacy Center (Executive Order: Securing Our Borders)
13. Amica Center for Immigrant Rights, American Gateways, Florence Immigrant Refugee Rights Project, Estrella Del Paso, Immigration Services and Legal Advocacy, National Immigrant Justice Center, NW Immigrant Rights Project, PA Immigration Resource Center, Rocky Mountain Immigrant Advocacy Center (Executive Order: Protecting the American People Against Invasion)
14. Luis Eduardo Perez Parra, Leonel Jose Rivas Gonzalez, Abraham Josue Barrios Morales, and M.R.R.Y (Presidential Memorandum: Expanding Migrant Operations Center at Naval Station Guantanamo Bay to Full Capacity)
15. HIAS, Church World Service, and Lutheran Community Services Northwest (​​Executive Order: Realigning the United States Refugee Admissions Program)
16. National Treasury Employees Union (Executive Order: Restoring Accountability to Policy-Influencing Positions Within the Federal Workforce)
17. Government Accountability Project and National Active and Retired Federal Employees Association (Executive Order: Restoring Accountability to Policy-Influencing Positions Within the Federal Workforce)
18. Public Employees for Environmental Responsibility (Executive Order: Restoring Accountability to Policy-Influencing Positions Within the Federal Workforce)
19. American Federation of Government Employees, AFL-CIO (‘AFGE’); American Federation Of State, County And Municipal Employees, AFL-CIO (‘AFSCME’) (Executive Order: Restoring Accountability to Policy-Influencing Positions Within the Federal Workforce)
20. Public Citizen, Inc.; State Democracy Defenders Fund; American Federation of Government Employees (Executive Order: Establishing and Implementing the President’s ‘Department of Government Efficiency)
21. National Security Counselors, Inc. (Executive Order: Establishing and Implementing the President’s ‘Department of Government Efficiency)
22. American Public Health Association; American Federation of Teachers; Minority Veterans of America; VoteVets Action Fund; The Center for Auto Safety, Inc.; Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington (Executive Order: Establishing and Implementing the President’s ‘Department of Government Efficiency’)
23. Center for Biological Diversity (Establishing and Implementing the President’s ‘Department of Government Efficiency’)
24. Jane Does 1-2 (Executive action on the solicitation of information from career employees)
25. Alliance for Retired Americans, American Federation of Government Employees, AFL-CIO, Service Employees International Union, AFL-CIO (Executive Action related to disclosure of personal and financial records to DOGE)
26. State of New York; State of Arizona, State of California, State of Colorado, State of Connecticut, State of Delaware, State of Hawaii, State of Illinois, State of Maine, State of Maryland, Commonwealth of Massachusetts, State of Minnesota, State of Nevada, State of New Jersey, State of North Carolina, State of Oregon, State of Rhode Island, State of Vermont, and State of Wisconsin (Executive Action related to disclosure of personal and financial records to DOGE)
27. American Federation of Labor and Congress of Industrial Organizations, American Federation of Government Employees, AFLCIO, American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees, AFL-CIO, Service Employees International Union, AFL-CIO, Communication Workers of America, AFL-CIO, Economic Policy Institute (Executive Action related to disclosure of personal and financial records to DOGE)
28. University of California Student Association (Executive Action related to disclosure of personal and financial records to DOGE)
29. National Treasury Employees Union (Executive Action related to disclosure of personal and financial records to DOGE)
30. American Federation of Teachers, International Association of Machinists and Aerospace Workers, National Active and Retired Federal Employees Association, National Federation of Federal Employees (Executive Action related to disclosure of personal and financial records to DOGE)
31. American Federation of Government Employees, AFL-CIO, American Federation of Government Employees, AFL-CIO, Local 3707, American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees, AFL-CIO, National Association of Government Employees, Inc. (Executive action related to Office of Personnel Management directive on deferred resignation offer to federal employees)
32. Gwynne Wilcox, former National Labor Relations Board member (Executive action related to removal of independent agency leaders)
33. State of New York; State of California; State of Illinois; State of Rhode Island; State of New Jersey; Commonwealth of Massachusetts; State of Arizona; State of Colorado; State of Connecticut; State of Delaware; The District of Columbia; State of Hawai’i; State of Main; State of Maryland; State of Michigan; State of Minnesota; State of Nevada; State of North Carolina; State of New Mexico; State of Oregon; State of Vermont; State of Washington; State of Wisconsin (Executive action related to the temporary pause of grants, loans and assistance programs)
34. National Council of Nonprofits, American Public Health Association, Main Street Alliance, SAGE (Executive action related to the temporary pause of grants, loans and assistance programs)
35. Commonwealth of Massachusetts, Attorney General Dana Nessel on behalf of the people of the State of Michigan, State of Illinois, State of Arizona, State of California, State of Connecticut, State of Colorado, State of Delaware, State of Hawai’i, State of Maine, State of Maryland, State of Minnesota, State of New Jersey, State of New York, State of Nevada, State of New Mexico, State of North Carolina, State of Oregon, State of Rhode Island, State of Vermont, State of Washington, and State of Wisconsin (Executive Action related to the reduction in indirect cost reimbursement rate for research institutions, such as National Institutes of Health)
36. American Foreign Service Association, American Federation of Government Employees (Executive order: Reevaluating and Realigning United States Foreign Aid)
37. National Treasury Employees Union (Executive action related to the dismantling of the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau)
38. Maria Moe, transgender federal inmate (Executive Order: Defending Women From Gender Ideology Extremism and Restoring Biological Truth to the Federal Government)
39. Jane Doe; Mary Doe; Sara Doe, transgender federal inmates (Executive Order: Defending Women From Gender Ideology Extremism and Restoring Biological Truth to the Federal Government)
40. Nicolas Talbott, Erica Vandal, Kate Cole, Gordon Herrero, Dany Danridge, Jamie Hash, Koda Nature, and Cael Neary, transgender U.S. military members or those seeking to enlist (Executive Order: Prioritizing Military Excellence and Readiness)
41. Commander Emily Shilling; Commander Blake Dremann; Lieutenant Commander Geirid Morgan; Sergeant First Class Cathrine Schmid; Sergeant First Class Jane Doe; Staff Sergeant Videl Leins; Matthew Medina; and Gender Justice League (Executive Order: Prioritizing Military Excellence and Readiness)
42. PFLAG, Inc and American Association of Physicians for Human Rights, Inc. (Executive Orders: Defending Women From Gender Ideology Extremism and Restoring Biological Truth to the Federal Government and Protecting Children From Chemical and Surgical Mutilation)
43. State of Washington, State of Minnesota, State of Oregon, Physician 1, Physician 2, and Physician 3 (Executive Orders: Defending Women From Gender Ideology Extremism and Restoring Biological Truth to the Federal Government and Protecting Children From Chemical and Surgical Mutilation)
44. Ashton Orr, Zaya Perysian, Sawyer Soe, Chastain Anderson, Drew Hall, Bella Boe, and Reid Solomon-Lan (Defending Women From Gender Ideology Extremism and Restoring Biological Truth to the Federal Government)
45. Philadelphia Yearly Meeting of the Religious Society of Friends, New England Yearly Meeting of the Religious Society of Friends, Baltimore Yearly Meeting of the Religious Society of Friends, Inc., Adelphi Friends Meeting of the Religious Society of Friends, Richmond Friends Meeting of the Religious Society of Friends (Executive action related to ​​immigration enforcement in places of worship)
46. John and Jane Doe 1-9, employees and agents of the FBI (Executive Order: Ending the Weaponization of the Federal Government)
47. Federal Bureau of Investigation Agents Association; seven John and Jane Doe plaintiffs (Exectuive Order: Ending the Weaponization of the Federal Government)
48. National Association of Diversity Officers in Higher Education; American Association of University Professors; Restaurant Opportunities Centers United; Mayor and City Council of Baltimore, Maryland (Executive Orders: Ending Radical and Wasteful Government DEI Programs and Preferencing and Ending Illegal Discrimination and Restoring Merit-Based Opportunity)
49. Doctors for America (Executive order: Defending Women From Gender Ideology Extremism and Restoring Biological Truth to the Federal Government)

Amid the flurry of lawsuits against Trump and his administration, Democratic elected officials and government employees have spoken out against the orders and the Trump agenda overall. 

Democrats and government employees also have staged protests as the Department of Government Efficiency investigates various federal agencies as part of its mission to cut government overspending and weed out corruption and mismanagement of taxpayer funds. 

‘That’s not acceptable,’ House Minority Leader Rep. Hakeem Jeffries, D-N.Y., declared in January. ‘We are going to fight it legislatively. We are going to fight it in the courts. We’re going to fight it in the streets.’ 

‘We will see you in the court, in Congress, in the streets,’ Rep. Ayanna Pressley, D-Mass., said at a rally outside the Treasury Department earlier in February. 

‘We are gonna be in your face, we are gonna be on your a–es, and we are going to make sure you understand what democracy looks like, and this ain’t it,’ Rep. Jasmine Crockett, D-Texas, said at the same rally. 

Trump joined Fox News’ Bret Baier for an exclusive interview ahead of the Super Bowl on Sunday, where he was asked about a lawsuit filed by attorneys general to restrict DOGE and its chair, Elon Musk, from accessing the Treasury Department’s systems and a judge temporarily blocking the DOGE team from the data. 

‘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?’ Baier asked Trump in the interview clip. ‘And does that slow you down and what you want to do?’ 

‘No, I disagree with it 100%,’ Trump said. ‘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.’  

‘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.

The Department of Homeland Security confirmed on Tuesday that some Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency (CISA) employees who worked on ‘mis-, dis-, and malinformation’ were put on administrative leave.

In a statement to Scripps News, DHS assistant secretary Tricia McLaughlin wrote CISA needs to ‘refocus on its mission,’ starting with election security.

‘The agency is undertaking an evaluation of how it has executed its election security mission with a particular focus on any work related to mis-, dis-, and malinformation,’ according to the statement.

As first reported by Fox News Digital, Homeland Security Secretary Alejandro Mayorkas testified in April 2022 that the Department of Homeland Security was creating a ‘Disinformation Governance Board’ to combat misinformation ahead of the 2022 midterm election.

During an appearance before the House Appropriations Subcommittee, Mayorkas said a ‘Disinformation Governance Board’ was created to address misinformation campaigns targeting minority communities.

While the agency conducts the assessment, personnel who worked on the alleged ‘mis-, dis-, and malinformation,’ as well as foreign influence operations and disinformation, will remain on administrative leave, according to the statement.

The board was allegedly led by Undersecretary for Policy Rob Silvers, co-chair with principal deputy general counsel Jennifer Gaskill. 

Nina Jankowicz, who previously served as a disinformation fellow at the Wilson Center, reportedly served as executive director, Politico reported.

Fox News Digital’s Bradford Betz contributed to this report.

The Trump administration’s decision to slash overhead costs linked to federally funded research has sparked an immense backlash. But some doctors are praising the move, suggesting it will help ‘optimize’ how taxpayer dollars are used when it comes to scientific research.

A new rule from the Trump administration that went into effect Monday, capped facilities and administrative costs, also known as ‘indirect costs,’ at 15% for federally funded research grants provided by the National Institutes of Health (NIH). When a grant is awarded to a scientist by the NIH, an additional percentage, on top of the allocated research funding, goes to the facility housing their work to cover these ‘indirect costs.’

According to an announcement about the new funding cap from the Trump administration, that percentage has historically been around 27% to 28% for each grant. But in some cases, negotiated rates can be as high as 70 to 90%, according to doctors who spoke with Fox News Digital.

‘If that money is cut to 15%, what that means is there’s actually going to be more grants given out to do science. You get more money back to the NIH to give out more science,’ said Dr. Vinay Prasad, a hematologist-oncologist and professor in the Department of Epidemiology and Biostatistics at the University of California, San Francisco.

‘It’s about time,’ said Dr. Erika Schwartz, the founder of Evolved Science, which is a concierge medical practice in New York City with more than 1,500 active patients. 

‘While infrastructure support is necessary, there’s room for more efficient cost management. A reformed funding model could redirect more resources to direct research activities while maintaining essential support services. This could potentially increase the number of funded research projects and accelerate medical breakthroughs, ultimately benefiting patients more directly.’

Prasad posited that universities and research institutions have negotiated ‘sweetheart deals’ that allow them to rake in funds that sometimes aren’t even necessary to the research at hand. To demonstrate his point, he explained the numbers for a research institution that has negotiated a 57% rate for indirect costs:

‘Let’s say I get $100,000 [for a research project] and I need a laboratory… I get $100,000, and then they still get the $57,000 to the university that goes to the administrators, and presumably the fact that I have a lab bench, and the lights, etc. But now let’s say I do the same $100,000 project, but my project is we’re going to analyze genomic sequences from an online repository. So, I just have a laptop… but they still get the $57,000 even though there’s literally no space being given to this person. There’s no bench, there’s no desk, there’s nothing.’

Prasad added that another ‘fundamental problem’ with these negotiated rates is that the money is not formally budgeted, so ‘the American people don’t know where that money is going.’

‘A famous researcher once said to me, an NIH dollar is more valuable than any other dollar because they can use it for whatever purpose they want. Although, nominally, they’re supposed to use it to keep the lights on and, you know, make the buildings run, but that’s not always the case,’ he said.

David Whelan, a former healthcare writer for Forbes who has spent time working in hospitals and now works in the healthcare consulting space, echoed this concern in a post on X that claimed universities have used indirect research grant payments ‘to pocket money.’ 

‘Indirects are just ways for wealthy academic hospitals to pocket money that their investigators won and then create slush for those who are incapable of getting funded on their own,’ Whelan wrote. ‘It’s a huge grift and great place for cuts.’

The Trump administration’s cap on indirect funding associated with NIH research grants was immediately challenged in court with lawsuits from 22 Democratic state attorneys general and a cohort of universities, which argued the move will ‘devastate critical public health research at universities and research institutions in the United States.’

‘Once again, President Trump and Elon Musk are acting in direct violation of the law. In this case, they are causing irreparable damage to ongoing research to develop cures and treatments for cancer, Alzheimer’s disease and related dementias, ALS, Diabetes, Mental Health disorders, opioid abuse, genetic diseases, rare diseases, and other diseases and conditions affecting American families,’ said Rep. Rosa DeLauro, D-Conn., ranking member on the House Appropriations Committee. ‘The Trump Administration is attempting to steal critical funds promised to scientific research institutions funded by the NIH, despite an explicit legal prohibition against this action.’  

In response to the lawsuit from Democratic state attorneys general, a federal judge imposed a temporary restraining order prohibiting NIH agencies from taking any steps to implement, apply or enforce the new rule. 

The judge’s order also required Trump administration agencies that are impacted by the new rule to file reports within 24 hours to confirm the steps they are taking to comply with the ruling. Meanwhile, an in-person hearing date on the matter has been scheduled for Feb. 21.