Submit written comments via the PA eComment System: HERE.

• Go to the above link and look for Proposed State Plan for 40 CFR Part 60, Subpart OOOOc - Emissions Guidelines for Greenhouse Gas Emissions from Existing Crude Oil and Natural Gas Facilities under “Open Comment Periods”

• Furthest to the right, you’ll see a a link that says submit comments

• Click “submit comments” and agree to the terms & conditions

• Submit your comments! Messaging guidance below:

  • Introduce yourself and why this matters to you.

  • Describe the harm caused by methane pollution in your area.

  • Express support for strong, commonsense rules.

  • Ask the Shapiro administration to ensure rules are resilient against federal rollbacks.

EXAMPLE LANGUAGE

Dear Secretary Shirley,

As a constituent concerned with climate change, air pollution, and protecting our state's economy, I support Pennsylvania's Department of Environmental Protection’s proposal to adopt resilient methane protections based on the 2024 U.S. EPA methane rule that will align both environmental and economic goals and promote innovation while safeguarding public health.

Methane, a potent greenhouse gas that is 80 times more powerful than carbon dioxide in the short term, is responsible for about 30% of the warming we're experiencing today. A durable methane proposal will protect communities and our climate, create jobs, and help ensure that Pennsylvania's energy sector remains competitive as consumers demand cleaner sources of energy.

Research shows that reducing oil and gas methane emissions is the fastest, most cost effective way to slow the current rate of warming while protecting the health of frontline communities. Now is the time to implement long-lasting standards that cut methane from existing oil and gas sources.

In 2023 alone, Pennsylvania released more than 1 million metric tons of methane through venting, flaring and leaks – that’s the same amount of climate emissions as 23 coal plants or 21 million vehicles. And since methane is the main ingredient of natural gas, that waste is valued at $178 million and nearly enough gas to meet the heating and cooking needs of every household in Pittsburgh and Philadelphia.

With so much uncertainty in Washington, Gov. Shapiro can lead by adopting these commonsense protections that will reduce emissions, create jobs, improve the health of all Pennsylvanians. Once finalized, his administration must take steps to ensure they are durable regardless of what happens in Washington. That’s exactly what these methane standards do and we need to adopt it.

But over the years, we grew to love our county, affectionately named “MoCo” by the locals. The diversity of our neighborhood was a huge plus, and unlike when we lived in Tennessee, we did not worry about backlash when it came to speaking freely about our political views. The educated residents stood in stark contrast to the anti-intellectualism that was steadily growing in our red home state. We didn’t get strange looks when we went out as an interracial couple. We felt safe, happy, and secure, and for the first time, we got to experience life in a “progressive bubble.” So we stayed, put down roots, and decided to have a baby. Even that experience was completely different from back home. At 29-years-old, I was an “old mom” among most of my Memphis friends, who got married and had babies younger. But in MoCo, I was the youngest in my first-time mom group, a community of women who were all embarking on motherhood in their 30s and even 40s after spending time on their degrees and careers. It was nice to not feel like the odd woman out for once.

Now, our son is 5-years-old, and he has been in the public pre-k program since he was 3-years-old. He starts kindergarten in the fall, and we are very proud to be a part of this school system. While not perfect, the education services and disability accommodations are leaps and bounds above most school systems in the U.S. When trans kids were more under attack, the Facebook mom groups were filled with supporters of trans youth and their families. When under his second presidency, Trump began human trafficking immigrants and non-white people through Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE), my neighborhood association shared plans of helping immigrant parents with school drop offs and pickups. The irony of being so close to the president in this Maryland suburb is that I feel the safest here compared to anywhere else in the country. The fierce fight for federal workers; the fact that Maryland is “Black AF” with a Black governor, mayor of a major city, senator, attorney general, and others in leadership; and the state legislature’s recent passing of a $25 million public health abortion grant program are clear markers of the culture of our beloved new home.

Enter Mahmoud v. Taylor.

During the 2022-23 school year, Montgomery County changed the curriculum to include more inclusive literature at all grade levels. According to the Mahmoud opinion, “Those texts included five ‘LGBTQ+-inclusive’ storybooks approved for students in kindergarten through fifth grade, which have story lines focused on sexuality and gender.” When parents complained, the school board allowed parents to opt their children out of class on the day those books would be taught. This was done as a reasonable accommodation for religious beliefs. But after the school board became overwhelmed with opt out requests, they rescinded this policy. So some parents sued, and this case made its way to the Supreme Court.

It was no surprise that the Court ruled in favor of the parents with the decision falling along the ideological lines of the Justices — the six conservative ones claiming to be defending the First Amendment and the three liberal Justices recognizing this as discrimination falsely dressed as a fundamental right. In Justice Sonia Sotomayor’s dissent, she correctly noted that mere exposure to a concept is not an infringement on religious liberty:

She also made a clear distinction between “compulsion for students to declare a belief” versus being exposed to a concept that contradicts one’s belief. An example of compulsion in the public school setting is compelling students who are Jehovah’s Witnesses to salute the U.S. flag, an act which goes against their beliefs. But a teacher simply discussing saluting the flag and demonstrating the act would not violate the students’ rights to free expression. The conservative majority clearly took a hard right turn into an interpretation of the First Amendment that does not align with precedent or what the framers of the Constitution intended.

If we are to agree with the conservative majority, where do these educational opt outs end? Can children be pulled from class when talking about great women leaders like Amelia Earhart or Mae Jemison if their family follows a religion with a dogma that states women cannot lead? Can they be pulled from classrooms where Black inventors, educators, and leaders are discussed because their religion includes white supremacy beliefs? Can they be pulled from lessons about disabled people if their religion teaches that disability is a penance for a sin? Maybe this all sounds farfetched, but let’s not forget that this erasure is already happening in the form of the dismantling of diversity, equity, inclusion, and accessibility (DEI/DEIA).

Now, my progressive little community, a community that has been targeted harshly by this fascist regime with the cuts to our federal workforce and attacks on our immigrant citizens (see Kilmar Abrego Garcia), is dealing with being at the center of an embarrassing and hateful SCOTUS opinion. Immediately, my Facebook groups began blowing up with rants about the decision and how to continue to support an inclusive environment for our children that includes LGBTQIA+ people. The school board also issued a statement to us parents via email:

The Mahmoud decision is not logical, ethical, or Constitutional. It is just another piece of the Project 2025 playbook. And while I feel that my county is the best place for my family in this moment, this decision is a harsh reminder that even “progressive bubbles” will not be safe if we do not stop this takeover of our country and fight for the freedom that we all deserve.

Read more

GOP Weaponization of TFMR

One of the most offensive messages that Republicans rely heavily upon in their dismantling of reproductive rights is the myth of the “late-term abortion.” They constructed a narrative about women who simply decide late in pregnancy that motherhood is not for them and murder viable babies. It’s a ridiculous lie, and it completely disregards the pain of choosing termination for medical reasons, or TFMR. TFMR is a decision that pregnant patients make when their pregnancy is not compatible with life, either theirs or their baby’s. It can be necessary at any stage of pregnancy, including the second and third trimester. This is where Republicans focused their hateful rhetoric.

In the September 2024 hearing, I met a woman who had to make the difficult decision to TFMR. Her name was Gracie Ladd. When I saw her in the room, she was soft spoken but strong, bravely telling the story about the loss of her second son, Connor, as she sat visibly pregnant with her third child. She was from Michigan, and she discovered in her second trimester with Connor that he had a lethal disorder, meaning he would not live after birth. She and her husband made the difficult decision to terminate the pregnancy, the most humane decision for both Connor and Gracie as her health was now at risk the longer that she carried the pregnancy.

But she was just past the 20-week mark, and that is where Wisconsin restricted abortion access. She and her husband were forced to drive 100 miles away to a doctor who they had never met just to get the treatment that Gracie needed. This is not the picture that the GOP paints with their talk of late-term and, the even more nonsensical, “post-birth” abortions. They don’t show people like Gracie, the mother of three very wanted babies who had to go through one of the hardest things a mother could ever go through. They don’t show reality; they distort it for their own personal self-interests.

I couldn’t help but get angrier the longer that I sat in the hearing because I remember what it was like when I was 30 weeks pregnant with my own very wanted baby, waiting to see if he had a lethal disorder. I remember sitting in the office of the fetal medicine specialist, thinking about the fully-finished nursery and the car seat, unused and ready to be installed. I remember being told that I was lucky in a way if I had to TFMR because I lived near one of the few specialists in the country who was equipped to handle a third-trimester termination. I remember the relief and tears when I found out that my son was not incompatible with life, and I delivered a healthy baby seven weeks later. My heart aches for women like Gracie who didn’t get lucky like I did, who had to say goodbye, and who have to endure Republicans misusing their pain for a disgusting narrative.

More Births, Less Care

Sitting in today’s hearing, I’m watching Mini Timmaraju, President and CEO of Reproductive Freedom for All, talk about how Republicans are forcing births but not ensuring care. They are gutting health care while simultaneously putting women in danger. This is why the abortion bans are rooted in nothing but cruelty. To force women to carry unwanted pregnancies, deny them proper care, and gut programs that provide services like food assistance, education, and childcare, makes it clear that there is nothing pro-life about what the GOP is doing. It’s just anti-choice.

During the hearing, Senator Elizabeth Warren (D-MA) said that the cuts to health care “will serve as a backdoor ban on abortions in the states where abortion is legal.” The so-called “Big Beautiful Bill” has a lot of ugly effects on the funding for clinics and services as well as restrictions on Affordable Care Act (ACA) insurance plans. So it’s not just an attack on Medicaid but also on private health insurance that people pay for out of their own pockets. It’s not about fiscal responsibility or the “fraud, waste, and abuse” that they pretend to be searching for. It's just about government control of private health decisions.

Earlier in the day, I spoke to Congressman John Garamendi (D-CA), and he used one word to describe what Republicans are doing: stupid. As I watched this 80-year-old white congressman talk passionately about the need to ensure that women control their own bodies, children are fed, families are housed, and everyone has health care, I had to agree with him that it must be stupidity. We often talk about age, race, and gender playing a factor into the ignorance folks have with these issues, but Rep. Garamendi proves that is not an excuse. This isn’t a matter of not understanding but rather refusing to understand. Again, stupidity.

A Dangerous Territory

During the hearing, several people acknowledged the horrible loss of Minnesota State Representative, Melissa Hortman. She was assassinated on June 14, 2025 in a hate-filled and targeted attack by an anti-choice, MAGA evangelical who had her name on a list. The list included abortion advocates and providers across the country. It included people sitting in that room with me today. I looked around, and almost every person in the room was a woman. I felt emotional as one of Melissa’s friends — an abortion provider — spoke about the impact of her loss. The dangers that women face right now, in the fight for our autonomy, are monumental.

We face the danger of what happened to Adriana Smith, a Black woman whose name was spoken more than once today as we remember that she was used as an incubator for a fetus after being denied the health care that she needed to live.

We face the danger of increases in cervical cancer, breast cancer, and STIs if Planned Parenthood and other clinic funding is gutted in an effort to punish them for daring to provide abortion care.

We face the danger of women being forced to carry pregnancies, risking their health, and losing their autonomy.

We face the danger of being on a list drafted by an extremist who sees women as so disposable that they deserve to be murdered for fighting for equality.

Yet, here we are.

Staying Hopeful

I spoke to a lot of people today, but the person who I was most excited to see was Gracie. She has since given birth to her third child, a beautiful girl whose pictures she happily showed me. She came to the Capitol to once again share her story and Connor’s story. I asked her what keeps her going, and she said, “Hearing the stories from all the other women here.” That resonates with me because the most frightening part of what this administration is doing is trying to make us feel alone in our fight. They are doing their best to make us feel weak, scared, and isolated. But the truth is that we are the opposite of all of that. Today, I saw nothing but strong, courageous women, all together and supporting each other.

This is the path forward, and we are still here.

Subscribe now

Sponsored by CBPAC

Video by Nataley Bland

Hosts Jasmine Burton and Elizabeth Booker Houston

Video by Nataley Bland

Featuring Elizabeth Booker Houston and Jasmine Burton

Video by Nataley Bland

One of the most frightening attacks led by Donald Trump and his white supremacist gang is the one targeting the judiciary and the legal profession as a whole. He has gone after firms who he views as his enemies because of who they have hired and represented. It’s unconstitutional and frankly insane. Law firms, like Paul Weiss, have pathetically given into Trump and promised $40 million in free legal services in exchange for Trump revoking the Executive Order against them. Other firms, like Perkins Coie, are fighting back against the illegal orders and getting restraining orders with the support of more then 500 law firms and 300 retired judges. Rachel Cohen knew that her firm, Skadden, Arps, Slate, Meagher & Flom LLP, would not be brave and would bend the knee instead, so she resigned.

The hostile takeover of the rule of law even bled into the case of New York City Mayor Eric Adams who was indicted on corruption charges including bribery and campaign finance offenses. Adams, to save his neck, forged a partnership with Trump and promised to aid in the administration’s anti-immigration crackdowns in exchange for dropped charges by the DOJ. Considering the relation between NYC and immigrants, Trump gave Adams what he wanted. DOJ attorneys in the Public Integrity Section such as Ryan Crosswell could not stand by and participate in this crooked behavior. So what resulted is the biggest mass resignation in the history of the agency and a deep loss of institutional knowledge and legal skill.

One of the most prevalent stories in the news cycle is that of the abuse that federal employees have been subjected to thanks to Trump, un-elected scammer billionaire, Elon Musk, and the so-called Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE). DOJ attorneys are no exception. This administration has even gone so far as to try to restore the gun rights of famous friends like Mel Gibson, despite the actor not being a proper candidate for this sort of restoration due to his history of domestic violence. But because Attorney Elizabeth “Liz” Oyer did her job by not recommending this ridiculous request, she was cruelly ousted from the agency. Her job as an attorney should not depend on allegiance to Republicans but instead to the Constitution. She was even threatened with a letter urging her not to speak at the hearing today.

It’s no surprise that with a 34-time felon and former reality show star as president that unqualified criminals are being appointed to top government positions. Ed Martin, the interim US Attorney for DC, is no different. He is a Trump fanboy who defended January 6th criminals tooth and nail, even comparing them to Japanese-Americans put in internment camps during World War II. He has even been accused of ethical violations in relation to defending the insurrectionists. These are not being investigated by the DC Bar, an institution that US Attorney General and MAGA Loyalist, Pam Bondi, and her brother, Bradley Bondi, are trying to take over. Former DOJ attorney, Stacey Young, has been sounding the alarm about the dangers of putting a Nazi sympathizer like Martin in charge of DC.

This hearing has been a frightening reminder of the way that this administration has sunk its dirty claws into the legal profession. From public to private sector, no one has been safe from the wrath of a man who has made it clear that he cares nothing for the law. This is the branch of government that can actually check his authority and hold him accountable. It scares him. I am grateful to those who spoke up today, and as a proud lawyer and a law professor, I say we continue to give Trump nightmares.

You can watch the “shadow” hearing on YouTube here.

Sponsored by CBCPAC

• Republicans have drafted and passed in the House a continuing resolution (CR) that will end on September 30th, the same day as the end of the fiscal year for 2025.

• The bill includes cuts to the National Institutes of Health (NIH), farmer assistance, and the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) among others.

• A $1 billion cut in the bill specifically targets and hurts DC, which has no official representation in Congress.

• This CR only furthers Elon Musk’s and Trump’s slashes to the federal government and programs that benefit working class Americans.

Aside from the fact that using a stopgap measure to appropriate full-year funding is lazy, crazy, and usually something that the hypocritical GOP opposes, it also opens the door to a sneaky reconciliation process for fiscal year 2026 (I’ll have a follow-up article explaining what all of that means).

For right now, what we need is for Democratic senators to vote “no” on cloture for this bill. What is cloture? You likely know what a simple majority is. If there are 100 senators, a majority would be 51. You’ve also likely heard of a filibuster where senators keep debating a bill to prolong a vote on the legislation. Cloture is how a filibuster is ended. It means that rather than a simple majority, three-fifths of senators, or 60 total, need to vote yes to invoke cloture aka stopping a filibuster and allowing a bill to be voted on. Once you get past cloture, you only need a simple majority to pass the legislation, which Republicans have on their own without Democrat input.

For Senate Dems, this is the leverage that they hold. They can filibuster this awful funding legislation put forth by Republicans by saying that they won’t give them the votes they need to reach 60 senators to invoke cloture. The problem? Schumer is folding like a folding chair (we need to bring these back from the Montgomery Riverboat Brawl). Rather than standing strong against the GOP as the Senate Minority Leader and refusing to give them any votes, he has said that he will vote “yes” to invoke cloture. That essentially means voting for the CR because all that will be needed to pass it is 51 votes. The Dems will be unable to stop the legislation from passing at that point. So even if Schumer votes “no” on the legislation itself, his gesture is symbolic and useless. Like him.

Why is he doing this? Well, Schumer outlined his (flawed) reasoning in an op-ed for the New York Times. He believes that a government shutdown — which would occur without a spending bill in place by midnight tonight, March 14th — would be worse than passing this CR. It boils down to: (1) Musk and Trump firing furloughed federal employees not deemed “essential;” (2) Republicans being able to cherry pick which agencies to reopen and which to leave shutdown; and (3) Americans not receiving essential services. All three reasons are ridiculous.

First of all, federal employees are already being indiscriminately fired by Musk and Trump. Shutdown or no shutdown, the federal workforce has been terrorized and held hostage. Lawsuit after lawsuit has been brought forth against this administration, and the lawsuits would continue even during a shutdown because the courts do not close.

Second, Republicans are already cherry picking what agencies to close and which to leave open. Hello, Schumer? Where have you been? USAID — dismantled. The Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB) — dismantled. The Department of Justice (DOJ), the National Labor Relations Bureau (NLRB), the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) — the list goes on and on.

And speaking of CMS, let’s talk about the argument that Americans would lose necessary services and benefits. That’s already happening, too. Republicans are prepared to cut $880 billion from Medicaid, hurting millions of Americans who rely on it for health care. The cuts to the IRS would harm Americans immediately who are trying to get their tax refunds. DC residents would be harmed. So for Schumer, he is conflating a temporary loss while Dems negotiate for better with allowing a long-term harm to occur.

Essentially, he is full of it, and this is all about protecting his own pride rather than protecting Americans. Schumer and other hold outs are afraid of being blamed for a shutdown. They are too fearful to do what it takes to stand up against the party of domestic terrorists.

On another note, House Democrats and their Minority Leader, Hakeem Jeffries, are standing strong against this GOP bill. When asked if Schumer should step down and give the Senate Dems new leadership, Jeffries replied, “Next question.” It seems House Democrats, as well as the Democratic Senators who have a spine, are very upset with Schumer. Members of the Congressional Black Caucus in particular all oppose this CR. Hey, Chucky, haven’t you learned this lesson already? When Black folks are leading the charge on something, pay attention.

I really need a folding chair, y’all.

The Failure of the Deal

The scam “Fork in the Road” buyout offer that mirrors the one un-elected African billionaire, Musk, sent to Twitter employees has unfortunately gotten some takers. Approximately 40,000 federal employees have accepted the “buyout” that has no guarantee that any benefit it offers will actually be paid to those who resign. But this total is still a far cry from the 10% total workforce resignations that Trump expected. A federal judge has also extended the deadline to accept the resignation amid the lawsuits brought by unions.

Many organizations and leaders have cautioned employees from accepting this offer that has zero financial backing as it seems to be a scare tactic from the administration. While there have been deep cuts to agencies like the Department of Justice (DOJ) and the US Agency for International Development (USAID), it is clear that Trump and his crooked cronies can’t clean out the federal government like they hoped. Federal employees do have certain job protections in place, and even USAID lay offs have been blocked by a federal judge (who was appointed by Trump in his first term ironically enough). Essentially, this administration is hoping that fear will make employees flee.

A Real Estate Buffoon

The Government Accountability Office (GAO), which is a legislative branch agency that acts as the “watchdog” for executive agencies such as the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) and Department of Education (ED), reported in 2022 that significant cut backs would be made on federal building leases to save money. It is no doubt that the increase in telework and remote work capabilities for federal employees made this possible. The government continued to cut millions of square feet of shared office space, and what has occurred is billions of dollars saved. That means billions of taxpayer dollars do not go to wasteful, unnecessary spending.

But with Trump ordering federal employees — including those hired as remote workers — to return to federal offices full time, these savings will disappear. In fact, the federal government would have to spend more money to acquire additional space. Even more confusing, Trump and Musk (who again, is not an elected official) ordered the General Services Administration (GSA) to terminate even more office leases just last week. If they can’t get rid of federal employees like they planned but they also want to force them back into federal office spaces, then how will that work?

Return to Waste

The first hurdle deals with remote workers. Both the Department of Defense (DoD) and Veterans Affairs (VA) said that they have many remote work contracts. Like other agencies, those contracts provide that the government must pay the moving expenses for remote workers who are now being required to come into an office if they live more than 50 miles outside of the duty station. This is potentially millions of dollars that the Trump administration will pay just to move these employees.

The second hurdle is where to even put these workers when they do come into the office. On the return-to-work memos sent out to federal employees, there is a line stating they will return to work “as real estate efforts develop.” If this administration knows that the decrease in federal office buildings has created a space issue, and they also ordered more decreases while at the same time planning for real estate developments, then who stands to benefit from this? Certainly not the American taxpayers or the federal employees. The logical conclusion is that this is a way to funnel tax dollars to someone in Musk and Trump’s circles who would benefit from more federal real estate.

Regardless, nothing about this plan is a good budgetary move. It is costly, it is unnecessary, and it is wasteful government spending.

Call Congress

If we want to stop bloated government spending, the first move is to stop Musk and Trump from unnecessary federal real estate investments. Urge your friends and family to call their representatives, especially if their reps are Republicans. We should only call our own congress members as outlined in this article by Indivisible.

Call (202) 224-3121, say the name of the senator or representative you want to leave a message for, and use the following script if it helps:

Hello, my name is _____, my address is _____, and my zip code is _____. I am calling because Donald Trump and Elon Musk’s order to return federal employees to the offices would cause unnecessary expenses to lease federal office space and pay the relocation fees of remote workers. I do not want my taxpayer dollars being wasted on this when work-from-home policies have saved us citizens billions of dollars. It is your job to make sure that federal appropriations are not frivolous, and this is frivolous spending. I am urging you to block Trump from doing this and stop wasting our hard earned money as taxpayers. If you do not take a stand against this, you will never get my vote or support in any future election.

You can search for your congress members here.

Hopefully, Congress has the good sense to listen. After all, who doesn’t love a frugal government solution?

To: privacy@treasury.gov

Subject Line: Civil Liberties Complaint

Hello,

I am making a civil liberties complaint under the Privacy Act of 1974, 5 U.S.C. § 552a. It has been brought to my attention that Elon Musk and his associates, under the guise of a directive of the Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE) (an IT office in the White House), have acquired access to Treasury Department Records in Systems of Records as defined in the Act. As an individual covered by the Act, I believe that there may be records about me in these Treasury Department systems, and I am concerned for the following reasons:

1. Elon Musk is not an elected official.

2. Even if Musk were an elected official, the System of Records Notices (SORNs) governing the Treasury Department Privacy Act systems do not allow for disclosure to Musk and his associates per the Routine Uses.

3. Disclosure of personally identifiable information (PII) and sensitive personally identifiable information (SPII) to Musk and his associates would be an unauthorized disclosure and therefore breach of information.

The Treasury Department must (1) quickly investigate what Privacy Act records that Musk and his associates have unlawfully accessed, (2) reveal to the public what unauthorized disclosures were made, (3) stop further access, (4) force any files acquired by Musk and his associates to be returned and/or permanently destroyed, and (5) seek criminal penalties against Musk and his associates for violations of the Act.

Sincerely,

[INSERT NAME AND CONTACT INFORMATION]

Privacy Act of 1974

The spirit of this law is rooted in presidential drama and corruption. It was passed as a direct result of the Watergate Scandal which uncovered the federal government’s scheme of illegally investigating and maintaining records about individuals. So in an effort to provide transparency to the public and an assurance that the government would not misuse records about us all, the Privacy Act of 1974 was born.

Multiple unions have now filed a lawsuit against the Department of the Treasury and the Bureau of the Fiscal Service under the Privacy Act as well as other privacy laws. They are seeking a civil remedy in the form of a restraining order to prevent DOGE from accessing records. But the Act also allows for criminal penalties to be assessed. The two that could apply to Musk and his associates include:

1. “Any person who knowingly and willfully requests or obtains any record concerning an individual from an agency under false pretenses shall be guilty of a misdemeanor and fined not more than $5,000.” 5 U.S.C. § 552a(i)(3).”

2. “Any officer or employee of any agency who willfully maintains a system of records without meeting the notice requirements of subsection (e)(4) of this section shall be guilty of a misdemeanor and fined not more than $5,000.” 5 U.S.C. § 552a(i)(2).”

The first applies to Musk accessing Privacy Act records from the Treasury Department under false pretenses of carrying out official government duties.

The second could apply if Musk creates a system of records in the DOGE office without complying with the law. For example, if he began using his IT office role to create records about individuals in the government or who receive government assistance, that would be a violation. It is very likely we will need to demand an investigation into DOGE and what they have on US citizens, too.

Email the Treasury Department today with the template up above. We deserve to have our privacy protected, and some loser who isn’t even from this country shouldn’t be allowed to stomp all over our rights.