Judge’s ‘hopelessly ambiguous’ order barring DOGE from Treasury sparks concern Bessent may also be locked out

A federal judge’s decision to block DOGE, led by Elon Musk, from accessing Treasury Department data has sparked intense debate and criticism, with many accusing the ruling of being overly broad and potentially unconstitutional. U.S. District Judge Paul Engelmayer, appointed by former President Barack Obama, issued a temporary restraining order on Saturday, siding with 19 Democratic state attorneys general who argued that granting DOGE "full access" to the Treasury’s payment systems would violate the law. The lawsuit, spearheaded by New York Attorney General Letitia James, a longtime critic of former President Donald Trump, claims that DOGE’s access could be misused to target Democratic states or their citizens. However, legal experts and conservatives have slammed the ruling, arguing that it not only oversteps judicial authority but also creates confusion and ambiguity about who within the Treasury Department can access critical data.

The judge’s order, which remains in place until at least February 14, when a hearing is scheduled to revisit the matter, explicitly bars "political appointees, special government employees, and any government employee detailed from an agency outside the Treasury Department" from accessing Treasury payment systems or data containing personally identifiable information. This language has raised concerns among legal experts, who argue that it could potentially block even the Secretary of the Treasury, Scott Bessent, from accessing his own department’s databases. Margot Cleveland, a senior legal correspondent for The Federalist, told Fox News Digital that the order is so vaguely worded that it could prevent Bessent from performing his duties, adding that the ruling is "hopelessly ambiguous and confusing." Conservatives and legal experts on social media have echoed these concerns, with many accusing Judge Engelmayer of judicial overreach.

The legal challenge to DOGE’s access to Treasury data was initiated by Democratic attorneys general, who claim that granting DOGE read-only access to the systems could be used to freeze or redirect funds to Democratic states. However, Cleveland and other legal experts argue that the plaintiffs lack standing to bring the lawsuit in the first place. "The Plaintiffs utterly lack standing to challenge DOGE and the Treasury Department’s decision to grant read-only access to select members of that executive agency’s team," Cleveland said. She pointed out that with read-only access, DOGE cannot alter or redirect payments, nor does it pose a heightened risk of hacking. Without standing, the lawsuit lacks a valid basis, making the temporary restraining order unjustified.

Despite the legal challenges, DOGE, under Elon Musk’s leadership, has been conducting a sweeping investigation into federal government spending, aiming to root out waste and fraud. Musk has already claimed that DOGE has uncovered significant irregularities, including over $100 billion annually in entitlement payments to individuals without Social Security numbers or temporary ID numbers. He estimated that as much as $50 billion of this could be fraudulent, calling the situation "utterly insane" and demanding immediate action. Musk’s claims have been met with skepticism by some, but they have also galvanized supporters who see DOGE as a much-needed check on government overspending.

The ruling has also drawn sharp criticism from high-profile figures, including Vice President JD Vance, who accused Judge Engelmayer of attempting to overstep the executive branch’s authority. Vance compared the situation to a judge trying to dictate military operations or prosecutorial discretion, both of which are unconstitutional. "Judges aren’t allowed to control the executive’s legitimate power," Vance wrote on social media. Musk, too, weighed in, calling for Judge Engelmayer’s impeachment and accusing him of protecting corruption. The backlash highlights the broader tension between the judiciary and the executive branch, with many conservatives arguing that judges are increasingly overstepping their constitutional role.

The broader implications of this case extend far beyond the immediate legal battle. It reflects a growing debate over transparency in government spending and the role of the judiciary in overseeing executive actions. Supporters of DOGE argue that greater scrutiny of federal expenditures is necessary to hold the government accountable and prevent waste. Critics, on the other hand, warn that such efforts could be used as political tools to target specific states or individuals, undermining the rule of law. As the case moves forward, the outcome could set a significant precedent for how the federal government balances transparency with accountability and how the judiciary interacts with the executive branch. For now, the situation remains highly contentious, with no clear resolution in sight.