Espionage rises as Trump and Musk fire thousands of federal workers

 

Concerns about espionage rise as Trump and Musk fire thousands of federal workers

Published Mon, Mar 24 202510:06 AM EDT

Share

A commuter near the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) headquarters in Washington, DC, US, on Wednesday, March 12, 2025. 

Al Drago | Bloomberg | Getty Images

As President Donald Trump and billionaire Elon Musk work to overhaul the federal government, they’re forcing out thousands of workers with insider knowledge and connections who now need a job.

For Russia, China and other adversaries, the upheaval in Washington as Musk’s Department of Government Efficiency guts government agencies presents an unprecedented opportunity to recruit informants, national security and intelligence experts say.

Every former federal worker with knowledge of or access to sensitive information or systems could be a target. When thousands of them leave their jobs at the same time, that creates a lot of targets, as well as a counterespionage challenge for the United States.

“This information is highly valuable, and it shouldn’t be surprising that Russia and China and other organizations — criminal syndicates for instance — would be aggressively recruiting government employees,” said Theresa Payton, a former White House chief information officer under President George W. Bush, who now runs her own cybersecurity firm.

 

Stand Up for the First Amendment

Judges must hold the line against Mad King Donald

Jennifer Rubin Mar 13

READ IN APP

No protection against authoritarian government is more important than the First Amendment. In the United States you can speak and associate with whomever you want, no matter how unpopular you, your associates, or your message might be. So when Donald Trump wields the heavy hand of government to seek retribution against his perceived enemies or those whom he simply dislikes, we should all be concerned.

Let’s consider the following hypothetical scenario:

A green card holder from Ukraine legally present in the United States engages in campus protests against Donald Trump’s sellout of Ukraine to the Russian dictator. Never arrested or charged with a crime, he is snatched up by ICE (Immigration and Customs Enforcement), spirited away to detention in another state, Louisiana (without notice to his pregnant wife or counsel), and threatened with deportation.

Here’s another version:

A green card holder from Canada legally present in the U.S. protests Trump’s mindbogglingly dumb tariff war. Never arrested or charged, he too is snatched up, sent to another state and threatened with deportation.

Outrageous, un-American, right? These cases are legally indistinguishable from the case of Mahmoud Khalil, who led anti-Israel protests at Columbia University, some of which went so far as to lionize Hamas. He was never arrested or charged. And yet because he advocated a position noxious to many Americans, his detention has been lauded by a purported civil rights group, the American Anti-Defamation League, and members of Congress have either cheered the action or were slow to object.

The ADL should know better. Surely, someone over there is familiar with Martin Niemöller’s famous poem:

First, they came for the socialists, and I did not speak out—because I was not a socialist.

Then they came for the trade unionists, and I did not speak out—because I was not a trade unionist.

Then they came for the Jews, and I did not speak out—because I was not a Jew.

Then they came for me—and there was no one left to speak for me.

We still have a constitution, and due process still applies to those present in the country, including green card holders. Hence, an actual civil rights organization, the ACLU, put out a blistering statement in response to Khalil’s detention. “This arrest is unprecedented, illegal, and un-American. The federal government is claiming the authority to deport people with deep ties to the U.S. and revoke their green cards for advocating positions that the government opposes,” the ACLU said in a written statement. “To be clear: The First Amendment protects everyone in the U.S. The government’s actions are obviously intended to intimidate and chill speech on one side of a public debate.”

A protest against the detention of Mahmoud Khalil in Thomas Paine Park, NYC

The ACLU then signed onto a lawsuit brought by private attorneys. U.S. District Court Judge Jesse M. Furman in the Southern District of New York promptly issued an order to prevent the deportation from proceeding, and on Wednesday, at a hearing to order Khalil’s return to New York, the judge asked for a briefing to determine whether he must be returned to New York.

Trump’s blatant attempt to stoke the culture wars and to intimidate protestors in violation of the right to free speech cannot be allowed to stand. The First Amendment is essential to protect the freedom to criticize our government or its policies, especially when criticisms are unpopular. Popular speech needs little help, but when many consider the speaker or the message odious, the First Amendment becomes a bulwark against autocratic rule. If we countenance one protester’s deportation, any protester, whether a citizen or not, is at risk.

The First Amendment is also at issue in Trump’s efforts to exact revenge against law firms he dislikes. After targeting Covington & Burlington for its representation of Jack Smith, he went after Perkins & Coie for representing Hillary Clinton. But the latter was not in the mood to lay low or accept an attack on it or its clients.

Instead, Perkins & Coie hired a high-powered establishment law firm, Williams & Connolly, to sue the Justice Department, FCC, OMB, Office of Personnel Management, the Office of the Director of National Intelligence, and members of the Trump regime including Attorney General Pam Bondi, OMB director Russell Vought and DNI Tulis Gabbard. The suit challenged the executive order terminating contracts with the government, revoking all the firm attorneys’ security clearances, and barring its lawyers from federal buildings.

The suit alleges:

Because the Order in effect adjudicates and punishes alleged misconduct by Perkins Coie, it is an unconstitutional violation of the separation of powers. Because it does so without notice and an opportunity to be heard, and because it punishes the entire firm for the purported misconduct of a handful of lawyers who are not employees of the firm, it is an unconstitutional violation of procedural due process and of the substantive due process right to practice one’s professional livelihood. Because the Order singles out Perkins Coie, it denies the firm the equal protection of the laws guaranteed by the due process clause of the Fifth Amendment. Because the Order punishes the firm for the clients with which it has been associated and the legal positions it has taken on matters of election law, the Order constitutes retaliatory viewpoint discrimination and, therefore, violates the First Amendment rights of free expression and association, and right to petition the government for redress. Because the Order compels disclosure of confidential information revealing the firm’s relationships with its clients, it violates the First Amendment. Because the Order retaliates against Perkins Coie for its diversity-related speech, it violates the First Amendment. Because the Order is vague in proscribing what is prohibited “diversity, equity and inclusion,” it violates the Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment. Because the Order works to brand Perkins Coie as persona non grata and bar it from federal buildings, deny it the ability to communicate with federal employees, and terminate the government contracts of its clients, the Order violates the right to counsel afforded by the Fifth and Sixth Amendments.

U.S. District Judge Beryl Howell on Wednesday granted Perkins’s request for a temporary restraining order enjoining key sections of the executive order. She noted, “This kind of a clear retaliation chills First Amendment.” Admonishing the government for “viewpoint discrimination” and lack of due process, she added, “I am sure that many in the legal profession are watching in horror at what Perkins Coie is going through here.”

In short, Judge Howell had no problem recognizing that such a blatant attack on the First, Fifth, and Sixth Amendments violates the fundamental rights that all Americans are entitled to enjoy. Frankly, an army of law firms should have risen up to defend Perkins. (Kudos to the fourteen Williams and Connolly lawyers who all signed their names to the civil complaint, demonstrating they will not be intimidated.)

Trump believes he is unconstrained by the Constitution or other laws. It is up to Americans, lawyers and judges to prove him wrong. Nothing less than the preservation of the American experiment in democracy is at issue.

Trump admin wants to change the GDP formula - GDP for Dummies

 

Trump admin wants to change the GDP formula

Chen Mengtong/Getty Images

Econ 101 professors might soon be handing students Sharpies to cross out the textbook truism that gross domestic product includes government spending, household consumption, net exports, and investment. Commerce Secretary Howard Lutnick said this week that the statistical agencies he oversees might stop including government dollars spent in the measure of the economy’s size. Lutnick said the change would make reporting “transparent,” echoing Elon Musk’s earlier point that the government can juice on-paper economic performance through spending that doesn’t improve people’s lives. But economists say “useful spending” is subjective, and: Government spending, which makes up 17% of the US GDP, has implications for economic growth. The change could be largely cosmetic, as granular GDP statistics released by the government already allow economy watchers to subtract Uncle Sam’s bills. Some economists warn that the move threatens the independence of federal statistical agencies and could undermine trust in government data, especially if it’s perceived as an attempt to mask the impacts of Musk’s federal cost-cutting effort. Either way, the GDP isn’t looking so hot…with the Federal Reserve Bank of Atlanta projecting this week that the economy will shrink by 2.8% in Q1. Harvard economist and former Obama advisor Jason Furman noted that GDP drop would be even bigger without government spending.

Columbia Concedes

 

Columbia Concedes

Columbia University has agreed to a series of demands from the Trump administration in an effort to restore $400M in funding that was revoked earlier this month. The administration had canceled federal grants and contracts over concerns that Columbia failed to adequately protect against antisemitism on campus.    The university's policy changes include banning identity-concealing masks during protests, hiring 36 campus security officers who can arrest or remove people, appointing a new senior vice provost to oversee the Middle East, South Asian, and African Studies department, and implementing a formal definition of antisemitism. It is unclear whether the changes are sufficient enough to reinstate federal funding.   The move has raised concerns about government interference in academic affairs and sets a precedent for other colleges and universities facing similar scrutiny, including Harvard, Stanford, and the University of Michigan. Last week, the Trump administration paused $175M in funding to the University of Pennsylvania for allowing a transgender woman to compete in women's sports.

B.C. government opioid case can move ahead, appeal court rules - Victoria Times Colonist

B.C. government opioid case can move ahead, appeal court rules - Victoria Times Colonist

Appeal dismissed as province seeks damages for health-care costs related to opioid drugs and products.

Jeremy Hainsworth
about 22 hours agoabout 19 hours ago

The government alleges that, from 1996 — when the Purdue‑related defendants first introduced and began to improperly market OxyContin in Canada — to the present, the class members paid health-care, pharmaceutical, treatment and other costs related to opioids.Jeremy Hainsworth

Listen to this article

00:03:47

B.C.’s Court of Appeal has upheld a lower court decision that the provincial government can sue opioid-distributing companies in the province’s Supreme Court as a “putative” class-action suit — one filed on behalf of multiple people with a similar claim that hasn’t yet been certified by a court. 

The government brought the lawsuit under the Opioid Damages and Health Care Costs Recovery Act, and the Class Proceedings Act. 

“The plaintiff brings its claims to recover certain opioid‑related health-care costs and damages from defendants who were involved in the manufacturing, marketing, distribution or sale of opioid drugs and products from 1996 to the present,” Justice Michael Brundrett said in a 2023 decision. 

“Generally, the plaintiff’s claim against the manufacturer defendants is that they marketed and promoted opioids in Canada as less addictive than they knew them to be, and for conditions they knew the drugs were not effective in treating,” Brundrett said. 

“These misleading marketing and promotion efforts allegedly resulted in an increase in the prescription and use of all opioids. 

Two defendants — pharmaceutical companies the Jean Coutu Group and Pro Doc Limitee — appealed Brundrett’s ruling that the Supreme Court of B.C. had jurisdiction to hear the case. 

Writing for the unanimous three-judge appeal panel, Justice Lauri Ann Fenlon said in a March 19 decision that Brundrett did not err in his ruling. 

“The judge did not err in finding that the pleadings linked Jean Coutu to B.C. The judge did not err in finding that there was a good arguable case that it was foreseeable the opioids would be distributed in B.C. and that there was evidence to establish an arguable case linking the appellants to misrepresentations that were received and relied on in B.C.,” a summary of Fenlon’s ruling said. 

“The judge did not err in finding an arguable case that the appellants engaged in a common design to expand the opioid market and encourage consumption.” 

The government began the putative class proceeding in August 2018. 

Pro Doc and the Jean Coutu Group Inc. had brought an application to the court asserting B.C. was not the appropriate jurisdiction for the case to be heard. 

The government rebutted that there is a “real and substantial connection” between B.C. and the claims against the defendants because they carried on business in the province and there are issues of restitution arising as a result. 

“The plaintiff submits that liability for compensation for health-care costs incurred by B.C. at issue in this proceeding constitutes both a tort and gives rise to restitutionary obligations,” Brundrett said. 

The judge said the government alleges that, from 1996 — when the Purdue‑related defendants first introduced and began to improperly market OxyContin in Canada — to the present, the class members paid health-care, pharmaceutical, treatment and other costs related to opioids. 

“The plaintiff seeks to recover these costs,” Brundrett said. 

The class action alleges public nuisance, unjust enrichment, negligent failure to warn, negligent design, negligent misrepresentation, fraudulent misrepresentation/deceit, breach of the Competition Act and breach of the Food and Drugs Act. 

Pro Doc and the Jean Coutu Group Inc. submitted they have no significant presence in B.C. and no noteworthy involvement in the opioid market here. 

None of the allegations have been proven in court. 

Aside from Pro Doc and the Jean Coutu Group Inc., a number of pharmaceutical companies are named as defendants in the case, from Apotex Inc. to Bristol-Myers Squibb, Johnson & Johnson and Purdue Pharma Inc. 

How King Charles is sending Canada subtle signals of support amid Trump’s threats

How King Charles is sending Canada subtle signals of support amid Trump’s threats

It started as a joke. In December 2024, Donald Trump glibly told Justin Trudeau that Canada should become the 51st state. Three months later, the “joke” seems to have become an American foreign policy goal for the second Trump administration.

---

Read more: How Donald Trump's attacks on Canada are stoking a new Canadian nationalism

---

Canadian Parliament has been unanimous in its response: “Canada is not for sale.” But Canada’s head of state, King Charles, has remained largely silent on the matter — until recently.

Over the last several weeks, observers have started to pick up on subtle signs of support for Canadians from the King. But many people have no doubt been wondering why there’s not been a direct statement of support from King Charles.

The answer to that question isn’t as simple as many people might think.

King of Canada

Since 1689, Britain has been a constitutional monarchy. The sovereign is the head of state, but the prime minister leads the government. As such, the King can’t interfere with politics. He is supposed to remain neutral and be the embodiment of the nation.

This crucial separation between palace and Parliament was solidified in Canada and throughout the Commonwealth in 1931 with the Statute of Westminster. In 1954, the Royal Styles and Titles Act separated the British Crown from the other Commonwealth realms. Queen Elizabeth became the first sovereign to ever be called Queen of Canada.

As a constitutional monarch, King Charles is bound by parliamentary limitations on his authority. He cannot act without taking advice from the prime ministers in his various realms.

This means King Charles can’t make a political statement about the ongoing tensions between Canada and the U.S. without the green light from Ottawa. When asked about the situation in January, a palace official said simply that this is “not something we would comment on.”

As former Alberta premier Jason Kenney later explained on social media:

“For Canadians disappointed that King Charles has not commented on President Trump’s threats to annex Canada: in his capacity as King of Canada, he can only act on the advice of his Canadian first minister, i.e. Justin Trudeau.”

Or, at this moment, Mark Carney.

Signs of support

The King met with Trudeau at Sandringham, the royal family’s private estate in Norfolk, England, on March 3. This meeting seems to have prompted a series of symbolic gestures demonstrating the monarchy’s solidarity with Canadians.

The next day, the King conducted an inspection of the British aircraft carrier HMS Prince of Wales in his capacity as head of the Armed Forces. Canadian medals and honours adorned his naval dress uniform during the inspection.

A week later, the King planted a red maple tree at Buckingham Palace to honour Queen Elizabeth’s commitment to the preservation of forests and the bonds among Commonwealth nations.

On March 12, the King met with representatives from the Canadian Senate.

He presented a ceremonial sword to Gregory Peters, the Usher of the Black Rod (one of the Senate’s chief protocol officers). Raymonde Gagné, the speaker of the Senate, was also present for that meeting.

And on March 17, the King met with Carney as part of the new prime minister’s whirlwind diplomatic tour of western Europe.

Some observers even pointed to the Princess of Wales’s red dress at the Commonwealth Day Service of Celebration on March 10 as yet another nod of recognition for Canada.

Soft power and the Royal Family

These sorts of gestures are examples of what is known as “soft power.” Unlike the hard power of military and economic force used by governments, soft power describes any number of ways that people or groups can influence others through culture, personal diplomacy and even fashion.

As one Buckingham Palace source remarked: “The King knows that seemingly small gestures can send a reassuring sign of recognition about what is going on around the world.”

One of the best known forms of the monarchy wielding soft power is through the use of state visits. At the British prime minister’s request, world leaders are invited to London by the sovereign. The red carpet is rolled out for them, they’re wined and dined in lavish dinners at Buckingham Palace and they often make a speech to Parliament.

These state visits are a way for the Royal Family to use its soft power to positively influence diplomatic relations.

In February, British Prime Minister Keir Starmer presented Trump with an invitation from the King for a second state visit to the U.K.. So far, no date for the trip has been announced, but the King’s meetings with Trudeau and Ukraine’s Volodymyr Zelenskyy reportedly irritated Trump.

It remains to be seen how King Charles navigates his constitutional role as both king of the United Kingdom and of Canada. Will Trump’s state visit only be about British interests? Or will Charles use it as a chance to address the concerns of his Canadian subjects?

Justin Vovk received funding from the Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council of Canada. Justin Vovk is an advisory board member for the Institute of the Study of the Crown in Canada.

An ICE Contractor Is Worth Billions. It’s Still Fighting to Pay Detainees as Little as $1 a Day to Work.

An ICE Contractor Is Worth Billions. It’s Still Fighting to Pay Detainees as Little as $1 a Day to Work.

by McKenzie Funk

ProPublica is a nonprofit newsroom that investigates abuses of power. Sign up for Dispatches, a newsletter that spotlights wrongdoing around the country, to receive our stories in your inbox every week.

The for-profit prison company GEO Group has surged in value under President Donald Trump. Investors are betting big on immigration detention. Its stock price doubled after Election Day.

But despite its soaring fortunes, the $4 billion company continues to resist having to pay detainees more than $1 a day for cleaning facilities where the government has forced them to live.

At the 1,575-bed detention center GEO runs for Immigration and Customs Enforcement in Tacoma, Washington, detainees once prepared meals, washed laundry and scrubbed toilets, doing jobs that would otherwise require 85 full-time employees, the company estimated. The state’s minimum wage at the time was $11 an hour. (It’s now $16.66.) In 2017, Washington sued GEO to enforce it, and in October 2021 a federal jury ruled unanimously in the state’s favor.

This year, GEO and Washington are back in court — for a third time — as the company tries to reverse the earlier decision that sided with the state. GEO has brought in contract cleaners at the Tacoma facility while the case plays out, keeping detainees there from paid work and from having a way to earn commissary money.

The legal battle has national repercussions as the number of ICE detainees around the country rises to its highest level in five years. The vast majority are held in private facilities run by GEO or corporate competitors like CoreCivic. If following state minimum wages becomes the norm, Trump’s immigration crackdown could cost the country even more than it otherwise would — unless private detention centers absorb the cost themselves or decide to cut back on cleaning, which Tacoma detainees have already accused GEO of doing.

GEO frames the lawsuit as a fight over the federal government’s authority to make the laws of the nation. Multiple courts have decided that the Fair Labor Standards Act, which sets the federal minimum wage, does not apply to detained migrants. At issue in the Tacoma case is the state minimum wage.

“Simply put, we believe the State of Washington has unconstitutionally violated the Supremacy Clause of the United States Constitution,” GEO wrote in a news release.

The company did not respond to a request for comment from ProPublica. ICE and CoreCivic declined to comment.

GEO’s latest legal salvo came last month.

A three-judge panel at the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals had recently affirmed lower courts’ rulings. GEO had to pay state minimum wage at the Tacoma facility. The company was also ordered to hand over $17 million in back wages, plus $6 million for “unjust enrichment.” The combined penalties amounted to less than 1 percent of GEO’s total revenues in 2024.

Rather than pay up, GEO petitioned on Feb. 6 for a rehearing by the full 9th Circuit. In the news release, it vowed to “vigorously pursue all available appeals.”

It isn’t that GEO lacks the ability to pay, the company has made clear in legal filings. Its gross profit from its Tacoma facility, today called the Northwest ICE Processing Center, was about $20 million a year when Washington filed its lawsuit. The company told a judge in 2021 it could “pay the Judgments twenty times over.”

The real issue is the precedent the Tacoma case could set. GEO, which manages 16 ICE detention facilities across the country, faces similar lawsuits in California and Colorado. The California case, also before the 9th Circuit, is on hold pending the outcome of Washington’s. Colorado’s is winding its way through a lower court.

GEO is expected to fight the case all the way to the Supreme Court, if needed.

If eventually forced to pay state minimum wages across the country, the company could decide to pay detainees more or else hire outside employees at all its locations – either of which would potentially eat into its profits, stock price and dividends.

The company also could try to renegotiate its long-term contracts with ICE for a higher rate of reimbursement, Lauren-Brooke Eisen, an expert in incarceration, noted in an article for the Brennan Center for Justice.

Or GEO could respond to higher labor costs another way. After the jury decision against it in 2021, the company paused Tacoma’s Voluntary Work Program, as it is known, rather than pay detainees there minimum wage. Some could no longer afford phone calls to family members. (For such detainees, the program had never been entirely voluntary. “I need the money desperately,” one testified. “I have no choice.”)

The facility also “got really gross” after the sudden stoppage, a Mexican detainee told the Associated Press at the time. “Nobody cleaned anything.”

GEO brought in contract cleaners eventually.

Mike Faulk, a spokesperson for the Washington state attorney general’s office, said testimony in the minimum-wage issue highlights the problem with housing detainees in private prisons: profit motive. Not only did GEO pay $1 a day for cleaning in Tacoma, it budgeted less than $1 per meal that each detainee ate, one kitchen worker testified. “So the grade of food is abysmal,” Faulk said of the detainee’s testimony. “He routinely picked out grasshoppers/insects from the food.”

For its part, GEO argues that Washington wants to unfairly — and hypocritically — hold the Tacoma facility to a standard that even state facilities don’t have to meet. The company has noted that a carveout in Washington law exempts state prisons from minimum-wage requirements, allowing the state to pay prisoners no more than $40 a week. The federal government, taking GEO’s side, has made the same point in “friend of the court” briefs under both the first Trump administration and the Biden administration. So did a dissenting judge in the recent 9th Circuit decision.

But to liken state prisons to a privately run immigration facility is an “apples and oranges” comparison, the 9th Circuit decided. Washington doesn’t let private companies run its state prisons. And the migrants in Tacoma are detained under civil charges, not as convicted criminals.

As judges have noted, GEO’s contract with ICE states that the prison company must follow “all applicable federal, state, and local laws and standards,” including “labor laws and codes.” It also holds that GEO must pay detainees at least $1 a day for the Voluntary Work Program. The federal government “made a deliberate choice to dictate to GEO the minimum rate,” the 9th Circuit wrote in its most recent decision, but “it also made a deliberate choice not to dictate to GEO a maximum rate.”

Conditions in Tacoma are worsening as the number of detainees rises, according to Maru Mora Villalpando, founder of the activist group La Resistencia. The group is in regular contact with people inside the detention center.

Meal service, Mora Villalpando said, is faltering: “Dinner used to be at 5. Then 6. Now it’s 9.”

Cleaning is faltering, too, she said. Without detainee labor, the outside cleaners have to do it all.

“But these people,” Mora Villalpando said, “can’t keep up.”