"It is no exaggeration to say that this is the most dramatic event in the constitutional law of fiscal policy in the United States ever." (Subscribe to Notes on the Crises or Tip Nathan)
"In gaining the ability to stop payments by the Department of the Treasury, Musk would also make democracy meaningless. We vote for representatives in Congress, who pass laws that determine how our tax money is spent. If Musk has the power to halt this process at the level of payment, he can make laws meaningless. Which means, in turn, that Congress is meaningless, and our votes are meaningless, as is our citizenship."
https://snyder.substack.com/p/of-course-its-a-coup
"Moreover, refusing to spend money appropriated by Congress under the euphemism of a pause is a violation of the rule of law and suggests that the executive branch can overrule the other two co-equal branches of government. This is contrary to the constitutional framework and not the way our democracy works. The money appropriated by Congress must be spent in accordance with what Congress has said. It cannot be changed or paused because a newly elected administration desires it. Our elected representatives know this. The lawyers of this country know this. It must stop."
https://www.americanbar.org/news/abanews/aba-news-archives/2025/02/aba-supports-the-rule-of-law/
" The impact touched all corners of the country, with state Medicaid funding portals briefly shuttered and programs like Meals on Wheels and Head Start scrambling to figure out if they were about to lose their funding" CNN
This was unconstitutional and quickly blocked by a judge. OMB then issued a memo rescinding the freeze memo, while the administration told agencies to ignore the rescinding memo and continue the freeze.
"They have a very clear and specific agenda, which involves unilaterally cutting spending, particularly spending they perceive to be going to their ideological foes" Notes on the Crises
we remain in the midst of a supercharged constitutional crisis
On February 11, 2025, the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA), an agency housed in the Department of Homeland Security, removed $80.5 million from New York City’s main bank account, which is an account with Citibank. Well, that’s not exactly accurate. They “debited,” the financial way of referring to “subtracting,” New York City’s “central treasury account” for $80.5 million. According to public statements by Brad Lander, New York City’s comptroller, this could only be covered by a line of credit facility to the tune of $79.5 million. In short they, in essence, sent New York City’s main bank account to negative $79.5 million to rescind routine funding appropriated by Congress to house refugees. Citibank kindly agreed to forgive the overdraft fee.
This is not simply about FEMA’s actions toward New York City’s bank accounts or even about large-scale payments system level impoundment. This story is about the truly electrifying and terrifying question: Can the Trump administration arbitrarily take money from anyone for any reason using control of the payments system?
the Trump administration’s actions have violated a multitude of laws and generated a gigantic constitutional crisis over the seizure of Congress’ power of the purse by the presidency. Yet, this crisis remains unresolved, because court injunctions move far slower than a fast moving and imperial presidency. Courts can’t “unspill” spilled milk. Injunctive relief is OK at stopping things, it’s far, far worse at stopping things before they happen. Using the Treasury’s intragovernmental payments system to do impoundment creates an extremely dangerous crisis and opens up the possibility of using the payments system to subordinate the Judiciary.
We are entering waters beyond the scale of constitutional crises and nearly every expert in this shallow pool feels ill-equipped to speak about it publicly for a variety of reasons. I’m having trouble imagining circumstances more dangerous.
A more technical version at Notes on the Crises | Nathan Tankus (subscribe to support Nathan)
For Musk to gain what he seemingly most wanted—a “delete” button he could wield against any agency by cutting off its funding at the source—he would need direct access to the US Treasury. DOGE dispatched operatives to the Treasury’s Bureau of Fiscal Service, which controls more than $5 trillion in disbursements, including Social Security and Medicare payments, tax refunds, and the salaries of federal workers. The operatives wanted access to two key systems: the Payment Automation Manager and the Secure Payment System. David Lebryk, the highest-ranking career official at the Treasury, retired rather than comply. The financial journalist and payments expert Nathan Tankus would later say that the news of Lebryk’s retirement gave him a “panic attack,” because everyone above Lebryk was a political appointee.
[ .. Sorry, this timeline has big holes .. ]
Members of Elon Musk’s Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE) team have had access to the US Treasury Department’s payment systems for over a week. On Thursday, the threat intelligence team at one of the department's agencies recommended that DOGE members be monitored as an “insider threat.”
The Bureau of the Fiscal Service is a sleepy part of the Treasury Department. It’s also where, sources say, a 25-year-old engineer tied to Elon Musk has admin privileges over the code that controls Social Security payments, tax returns, and more.
"If you would have asked me a week ago, I'd have told you that this kind of thing would never in a million years happen. But now, who the fuck knows."
It's now not just the “legal plumbing,” it's the payments plumbing too. This is now also the closest thing we’ve ever had to a payment system constitutional crisis.