A federal court order blocking Trump administration officials from accessing Treasury Department systems has sparked a legal showdown between the White House and the judiciary. The ruling, issued by Judge Paul A. Engelmayer, bars all political appointees — including Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent and Elon Musk’s Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE) — from viewing key financial databases.
The Trump administration filed an emergency motion late Sunday seeking to vacate or modify the restraining order, calling it a “remarkable intrusion” on executive authority. The motion argues that the order improperly strips the president of his constitutional power to supervise the executive branch.
The restraining order was issued following a lawsuit by 19 Democratic-led states that challenged DOGE’s access to Treasury’s payment systems, which handle tax returns, Social Security benefits, and federal payroll processing. Judge Engelmayer’s order requires DOGE to immediately destroy any records obtained from Treasury since Trump took office.
Trump’s legal team contends that the decision improperly differentiates between career civil servants and political appointees, an arrangement they argue is unconstitutional. “Basic democratic accountability requires that every executive agency’s work be supervised by politically accountable leadership,” the administration’s motion states.
The legal battle has drawn strong reactions. Vice President JD Vance called the ruling “an outrageous attempt to block the president’s authority over his own administration.” Treasury officials have also warned that limiting access to payment systems could disrupt government operations.
The court has scheduled a hearing on February 14 to determine whether to extend or amend the order. If the request to vacate is denied, the administration is expected to escalate the case to an appellate court.
Meanwhile, the legal battle over DOGE’s authority and the Treasury Department’s financial oversight remains a flashpoint for the Trump administration’s efforts to consolidate executive power. Legal experts say this case could set a major precedent regarding presidential control over federal agencies.
