#DOGE has turned its attention to small, #independent entities
NPR has identified close to 40 entities — inside, adjacent to & OUTSIDE of the #government — where DOGE & the #Trump admin have turned their attention in recent weeks.
It's the latest example of how DOGE is attempting to expand its reach beyond high-profile Cabinet agencies, & in some cases far beyond the #ExecutiveBranch & the #FederalGovernment entirely.
#law #SeparationOfPowers #AmericanAutocracy
https://www.npr.org/2025/05/17/nx-s1-5401392/doge-federal-agency-nonprofits-cpb-usip-vera-institute
. But they do make clear that HOW the Trump admin was trying to USE the 
![We understood the Government to assert the right to remove the detainees as soon as midnight central time on April 19. The Government addressed the detainees' allegations on April 18 only at an evening hearing before the District Court for the District of Columbia, where the detainees had separately sought relief. The Government guaranteed that no putative class members would be removed that day. Tr. of Proceedings in J. G. G. v. Trump, No. 25-cv-766, ECF Doc. 93, p. 9. But it further represented that, in its view, removal of putative class members as soon as the next day "would be consistent with" its due process obligations, and it "reserve[d] the right" to take such action. Id., at 26; see id., at 16 (explanation by the court that "tomorrow .. starts at 12:01 a.m."). Evidence now in the record (although not all before us on April 18) suggests that the Government had in fact taken steps on the afternoon of April 18 toward removing detainees under the AEA-including transporting them from their detention facility to an airport and later returning them to the facility. See Supp. App. to Reply 1a-5a. Had the detainees been removed from the United States to the custody of a foreign sovereign on April 19, the Government may have argued, as it has previously argued, that no U. S. court had jurisdiction to order relief. See Application To Vacate Injunction in Noem v. Abrego Garcia, No. 24A949 (Apr. 7, 2025), pp. 11-20.](https://s3.masto.ai/media_attachments/files/114/519/441/979/502/714/original/9f88393c7df4c057.png "We understood the Government to assert the right to remove the detainees as soon as midnight central time on April 19. The Government addressed the detainees' allegations on April 18 only at an evening hearing before the District Court for the District of Columbia, where the detainees had separately sought relief. The Government guaranteed that no putative class members would be removed that day. Tr. of Proceedings in J. G. G. v. Trump, No. 25-cv-766, ECF Doc. 93, p. 9. But it further represented that, in its view, removal of putative class members as soon as the next day \"would be consistent with\" its due process obligations, and it \"reserve[d] the right\" to take such action. Id., at 26; see id., at 16 (explanation by the court that \"tomorrow .. starts at 12:01 a.m.\"). Evidence now in the record (although not all before us on April 18) suggests that the Government had in fact taken steps on the afternoon of April 18 toward removing detainees under the AEA-including transporting them from their detention facility to an airport and later returning them to the facility. See Supp. App. to Reply 1a-5a. Had the detainees been removed from the United States to the custody of a foreign sovereign on April 19, the Government may have argued, as it has previously argued, that no U. S. court had jurisdiction to order relief. See Application To Vacate Injunction in Noem v. Abrego Garcia, No. 24A949 (Apr. 7, 2025), pp. 11-20.")
