Posted originally on the CTH on February 15, 2025 | Sundance 

I’ve been a little quiet on the Lawfare challenges to the DOGE mission in part because we’ve been sending CTH research files up through the silo to the legal eagles who need it.  Additionally, few -if any- of the outside legal filings against the administration are going to survive judicial review.

Quite simply, most of what the public is witnessing, almost entirely driven by funded media outlets, is simple Lawfare.  Remember, “Lawfare” in its purest form is not a legitimate legal challenge; it is a construct to create optics, frame narratives and fundraise for desperate leftists.

The underpinning of Lawfare is not designed to withstand legal scrutiny; it is a ruse, simply narrative and public opinion shaping. That’s it.

Interestingly a familiar name surfaced last night when District Judge John Bates essentially destroyed three of the legal challenges against Musk and DOGE when he determined that DOGE was acting as an “agency of government” appointed by President Trump.  Executive agencies have the ability to detail their employees to other agencies to conduct review and audits at the request of the executive, Trump.

“For the reasons explained above, on the record as it currently stands and with limited briefing on the issue, the case law defining agencies indicates that plaintiffs have not shown a substantial likelihood that [DOGE] is not an agency. If that is so, [DOGE] may detail its employees to other agencies consistent with the Economy Act,” Judge Bates wrote.

This ruling opens up the Labor Department, Health and Human Services and the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau to review by the DOGE employees.

This gets interesting because Judge John Bates was a previous presiding judge of the FISA court and has spoken at length about supporting the FISA-702 process.  Judge Bates has defended the FBI/DOJ/Contractor use of the NSA database.

Elon Musk has repeatedly targeted Bates over the last week on X – including calling for the judge’s impeachment – after Bates issued a decision in another case ordering multiple agencies to restore public health data after the Trump administration removed it.

Judge Bates may be doing a little, well, personal risk assessment, in the margins of his review.

P