The Death of the Federal Firewall

The dismantling of privacy safeguards is an unprecedented consolidation of domestic surveillance power. In the quiet, behind-the-scenes machinery of American governance in Washington, D.C., there are few things as vital or central — or as invisible — to the average citizen as the firewall. For decades, strict legal and technical barriers have dictated how federal agencies handle our most private information.

The Internal Revenue Service (IRS) keeps your tax filings sealed from political appointees. The Social Security Administration (SSA) guards your life history, employment records, and benefit eligibility.

These data silos were designed with a clear, bipartisan intent: to prevent any presidential administration from weaponizing the massive apparatus of Americans’ data against the public or political opponents.

Today, those firewalls are being quietly dismantled.

Recent reporting from The Wall Street Journal revealed that the current head of the IRS and the Social Security Administration in the Trump administration built a track record in the private sector of breaching internal firewalls to spy on his own corporate colleagues.

When the leader of Trump’s IRS and SSA who has a habit of workplace spying comes to an administration dismantling personal privacy protections, every American should be alarmed. In truth, that history alone should raise immediate alarms about fitness for public office. But when placed within the broader context of current Trump White House policy, it signals something far more structural and dangerous.

Over the past 18 months, we’ve witnessed a systematic purging of senior career personnel across key civil agencies. These are the very administrators whose professional duty was to uphold regulatory standards and resist unlawful data sharing.

In their place, new initiatives under the Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE) and Trump White House directives have aggressively pushed to interconnect agency databases, effectively eroding the barriers between federal privacy records.

Having served as deputy commissioner of Social Security in a previous administration, I know firsthand why these separations exist. The personal data held by the SSA and IRS covers virtually every living American. Combined, these records construct a near-complete blueprint of a citizen’s financial health, personal relationships, employment status, and physical location.

When you eliminate the technical and administrative firewalls separating these agency repositories, you create an unmonitored central registry. And when you place that centralized capability in the hands of political operatives with a documented willingness to cross privacy boundaries, you eliminate independent oversight entirely.

This isn’t merely an abstract debate over administrative procedure or bureaucratic efficiency. It is a fundamental shift in the relationship between the citizen and the state.

When personal data can be shared, aggregated, and scrutinized across agency lines without warrants, statutory authorization, or career civil service oversight, the potential for selective enforcement and political retaliation becomes an everyday reality.

A government that can effortlessly link your tax returns, benefit claims, and personal records can target anyone, anytime, for any reason.

The dismantling of federal privacy firewalls represents an unprecedented consolidation of domestic surveillance power. If the public and Congress fail to demand the immediate restoration of these statutory safeguards, the damage to civil liberties will outlast any single administration.

Jeff Nesbit was the deputy commissioner for communications at the Social Security Administration in the Biden-Harris administration.

---

-Jeff Nesbit, The Contrarian is community-supported. Help fund bold journalism and critical lawsuits to stop Trump’s corruption by becoming a paid subscriber. Join the fight now.

Photo by Towfiqu barbhuiya on Unsplash

 

The Wisconsin Department of Revenue revoked the alcohol license of a local brewery that is infamous for criticizing President Trump earlier this week

Kirk Bangstad, the owner of the Minocqua Brewing Company and a liberal activist, wrote a lengthy Substack post on Sunday, July 26, opposing the department's attempt to "shut down the state's most progressive brewery for violations that can only be described as laughable."

According to Fox News, Bangstad's brewery is known for its anti-Trump social media posts. One of the company's posts, made in January 2026, reportedly made the free beer offer, which read: "Free beer, all day long, the day he dies. Show us this post when it happens in a few months and we'll make good on that promise."

In his Substack post, Bangstad has called the post "a joke." The revocation of Minocqua's beer license will come into effect next week, on August 4.

According to Fox News, three months later, after the shooting attempt at the WHCD, the company posted: "Well, we almost got #freebeerday. Either a brother or sister in the Resistance needs to work on their marksmanship or he faked another assassination to get a positive news cycle. We'll never know. Regardless, we stand at the ready to pour free beer the day it happens."

When the news outlet reached out to the Wisconsin Department of Revenue about the revocation, a spokesperson said: "We can confirm that the Department of Revenue has issued notice of a Brewer's permit revocation for two Minocqua Brewing Company locations and notice of an Alcohol Beverage Warehouse permit revocation for one location. The business has until August 4th to appeal and can operate during the appeal process."

The revocation of Minocqua Brewing Company comes a month after authorities seized canned beer from the brewery in June, claiming that it had been transported from Illinois without the required permits and taxes.

In his Substack post, Kirk Bangstad made it clear that he intended to challenge the Wisconsin Department of Revenue's decision to revoke his license. He wrote:

"As you can imagine, I’m not taking this lying down. We’re going to fight the state of Wisconsin tooth and nail, and once again, they’ll have to pry me out of my taprooms before I stop selling beer to thirsty progressives who come to visit us."

Bangstad also requested his readers to support the legal fees he would incur in the process: "As usual, fighting to keep my business alive means I have to pay lawyers, and that’s never cheap. Every time this [happens], I rack up $100K in legal bills before we even see a judge. If you can help chip into the Minocqua Company’s legal defense fund, I’d really appreciate it."

The brewery has also dropped merchandise opposing the revocation, with its links attached at the bottom of Bangstad's post.

 Kirk Bangstad asked his readers to donate to help him challenge the license revocation

First Amendment:

"We are in Senator Joseph McCarthy territory"

 

"I have not used TMZ's YouTube channel to vent personal feelings about issues, but I'm going to do that today," Harvey Levin said. "Watching Anthony Fauci before a congressional hearing taking the Fifth Amendment is just one of the most heartbreaking things I have seen in government in my lifetime. And this is something we need to reckon with."

"I'm going to say up front; I have problems with the way the CDC handled COVID," he continued. "I think that they did damage to children, to adults, and I don't think they did it maliciously. I think they did it because they were using their judgment and were overprotective, and I think at times overstated things, things they said they knew but really didn't. And I have personal problems with the way that COVID was handled."

"That said, Anthony Fauci, over a period of decades, has been an amazing public servant. In the 80s, I had many friends who died of AIDS, a horrible, painful death. And I had friends who lived because of Anthony Fauci, because he was willing to look at experimental drugs in a different way than they had looked at them before, and that really resulted in lives saved."

"And Fauci has done so many other things in his career to thwart epidemics, to save lives, not just in the United States, but all over the world. He has been a dedicated public servant who could have made a lot more money outside of government than inside, but he stayed."

"And now we are at a point where members of Congress, and yes, you, Rand Paul, are on a witch hunt. And the best I can say for Rand Paul is that he's being really honest. I mean, he has said now, over a period of years, he wants Anthony Fauci in a jail cell. He has said it out loud. He wants him in a jail cell. That's the point of this hearing. That's why they're doing this."

"They want to take something that Anthony Fauci says and then claim it amounts to perjury, and they want to prosecute him, they want to convict him, and they want to throw him in prison. That's the point of this hearing. There is no other point of this hearing."

"There could be. I mean, there are things they could certainly ask him, but he can't answer, because if he answers, it doesn't matter what he says. You know, if you can prosecute somebody for frickin' seashells on the beach shore, then you could certainly prosecute somebody for what they say in a congressional hearing."

"And that's the climate we're in. We are in a Senator Joseph McCarthy climate, where there is such fear that people have, and legitimate fear, that they'll end up in prison for what they say, no matter what it is, if they are on the wrong side of somebody in Congress or the administration, that they have been silenced. And that's where we are right now."

"We are in Senator Joseph McCarthy territory. And the idea that you have to watch this man take the Fifth Amendment, and again, I will say that I disagree personally with some of the CDC decisions. Absolutely, I did. That said, he's a public servant who worked for us and saved lives for decades. And we are turning him into what Rand Paul wants to be, a criminal. And Rand Paul has a political agenda, and it is prevailing here."

"Watching Rand Paul order security to throw Anthony Fauci's lawyer out of that hearing was unbelievable to me."

"We are in a dark period of America," he concluded.

More public figures need to speak out like this immediately. Republicans are scapegoating Fauci because they can't handle the truth that Donald Trump was directly responsible for COVID-19 getting as bad as it did. He downplayed it from the very start, undermined experts, and spread dangerous misinformation. Meanwhile, Dr. Fauci did everything in his power to save as many lives as possible, urging Americans to wear masks, socially distance, and treat the coronavirus like the deadly threat it was. He's an American hero.

If anyone should be hauled in front of Congress to testify about their behavior during the pandemic, it's Trump!

-Harvey Levin, Occupy Democrats

Threatening Seashells?

WASHINGTON (AP) — Former FBI Director James Comey urged a judge on Monday to throw out federal charges against him, arguing that a photo of seashells arranged on a beach he posted on social media was not a call to violence against President Donald Trump but protected political speech.

Comey's lawyers argue the government cannot prove the Instagram photo of seashells in the numerical arrangement of "86 47" constituted a "true threat" against the Republican president, who fired Comey in 2017 and has publicly called for his prosecution. The slogan — which has long meant to "get rid of" or "eject" — has been featured on thousands of items sold online and regularly displayed at protests, defense lawyers wrote in court papers.

"But the government now singles out Mr. Comey to prosecute one of the President's most prominent critics for publishing another person's statement of political opposition," his attorney's wrote. "That attempt to suppress core political speech contravenes both the statutes at issue and the First Amendment."

The seashells case against Comey was the second in months targeting the ex-FBI director, a long-running Trump foe whom the president over the years has called a "corrupt piece of garbage" and other pejorative names.

An earlier case in Virginia accusing Comey of lying to Congress was dismissed last November after a judge concluded that the prosecutor who charged him and another Trump adversary, New York Attorney General Letitia James, was illegally appointed to the job.

More broadly, the case is part of a retribution campaign by the Trump administration Justice Department, which has initiated investigations across the country into individuals the president does not like. Comey has long drawn Trump's ire for his role overseeing the early months of an investigation into whether Trump's 2016 campaign had coordinated with Russia to sway the outcome of that year's election.

The two-count indictment charges Comey with "knowingly and willfully" making a threat to "take the life of, and to inflict bodily harm upon" Trump and with transmitting a threat in interstate commerce. It does not provide evidence that Comey knowingly threatened Trump, especially since Comey has said the opposite, but suggested a "reasonable recipient who is familiar with the circumstances would interpret" the message as a threat.

Comey was interviewed by the Secret Service last year over the post after Trump administration officials asserted that he was advocating the assassination of Trump, the 47th president. Comey deleted the post shortly after it was made, writing: "I didn't realize some folks associate those numbers with violence" and "I oppose violence of any kind, so I took the post down."

"Even if '86 47' could implausibly be read to suggest violence, a reasonable observer would still understand Mr. Comey's post as mere political hyperbole, not a true threat," Comey's lawyers wrote. "The Supreme Court has rejected threats prosecutions based on speech far more directly threatening than Mr. Comey's seashells post here."

The Justice Department has not elaborated on any evidence of intent the government has. But acting Attorney General Todd Blanche said earlier this year that prosecutors in every case prove intent with "witnesses, with documents, with the defendant himself to the extent it's appropriate."

"And that's how we'll prove intent in this case," Blanche said in April, shortly after he was elevated to lead the department after Pam Bondi's firing.

Trump, in a Fox News Channel interview last year, accused Comey of knowing "exactly what that meant."

"A child knows what that meant," Trump said. "If you're the FBI director and you don't know what that meant, that meant assassination. And it says it loud and clear."

 'There's an obsession there,' Comey says of Trump after 2nd indictment

The Worst Nuclear Deal in History

 

The billions of dollars the Saudi monarchy has gifted President Donald Trump’s family have paid off. Trump has caved to Saudi demands to provide the Kingdom precisely the nuclear technology he says is a grave threat in Iranian hands.

In a new agreement signed on Wednesday, Trump agreed to let the Saudis enrich uranium and reprocess plutonium, the two ingredients used in nuclear bombs. The Saudis promise this will be used only for peaceful purposes, but Saudi Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman said as far back as 2018 that “without a doubt if Iran developed a nuclear bomb, we would follow suit as soon as possible.”

Trump’s generosity to Saudi Arabia — which has numerous lucrative deals in place with members of Trump’s family, particularly the $2 billion the Saudis invested in Jared Kushner’s private equity fund — could unleash a flood of new nuclear programs. If the Saudis get this technology, others will demand it, too.

How we got here:

Ever since the dawn of the Nuclear Age, U.S. policy has denied the ability to enrich uranium and reprocess plutonium to other nations because it is a shortcut to nuclear weapons. The huge and expensive facilities can be developed openly and legally until a government takes the quick jump from making nuclear reactor fuel rods to making the cores of bombs. With this deal, Trump has effectively just greenlit a Saudi nuclear bomb program. That is why, in 1946, the Congress passed the Atomic Energy Act, prohibiting the sale or transfer of nuclear weapons technology to any nation, including our allies.

Trump has effectively just greenlit a Saudi nuclear bomb program.

So, how did we get to the point where the United States in now willing to sell this technology to one of the most brutal dictatorships in the world? In 2013, the Saudis unveiled a plan to build as many as 16 civilian nuclear reactors. Nuclear reactor companies salivated at the prospect of contracts worth hundreds of billions of dollars.

But Saudi nuclear power reactors make little economic sense. Nuclear is the most expensive way to produce electricity, especially since Saudi Arabia sits on an ocean of oil and is ideally suited for much cheaper solar and wind energy production. 

“When it comes to power generation, it’s 10 times more expensive than solar power because they are blessed with an unbelievable amount of sunshine,” Princeton scholar Bernard Haykel told “PBS News Hour.” “So, frankly, if you’re looking to generate power to liberate more oil from electricity generation, it makes much more sense to use a combination of solar, wind and gas, natural gas.” Still, if they just wanted to waste their money on reactors, it wouldn’t be a problem. But they want more. Much more.

Centrifuges for fuel = centrifuges for bombs:

Saudi Arabia wants the entire nuclear fuel cycle. They want to make the fuel for the reactors, then reprocess the spent fuel rods when they are used up. The same centrifuges that spin uranium gas to enrich it to the low levels required for nuclear fuel can spin it to the high levels for the cores of nuclear bombs. The same reprocessing plants that can break down used fuel rods for waste disposal can separate out the reactor-produced plutonium in those rods for use in nuclear bombs.

With these plants, Saudi Arabia would have both pathways to the bomb. The Hiroshima atomic bomb was made of uranium; the Nagasaki bomb, plutonium. That is why there are strict controls on these fuel-cycle technologies. It is these controls that Prince Salman wants the U.S. to waive, including strict inspections. Trump has agreed, dependent on whether a U.S.-Saudi study determines an enrichment facility would be warranted.

Saudi Arabia wants the entire nuclear fuel cycle.

Most countries with nuclear reactors do not have such plants. They buy their fuel from the half-dozen or so countries and consortiums that make it. Given the enormous construction and operating costs, it doesn’t make economic sense for a country to produce its own fuel unless it has 20 or more reactors. Saudi Arabia doesn’t yet have one. But it wants an enrichment facility.

This is exactly the issue with Iran. The decades-long dispute has not been over the construction of an Iranian nuclear power reactor at Bushehr, but about Iran’s enrichment of uranium. Saudi Arabia wants to match that capability. To become a nuclear-threshold state. To have the capability to make the material for bombs should it decide to do so. Just like Iran.

The folly of thinking our allies can have nukes, but our foes cannot:

The Saudis want the U.S. to give it a looser deal than the one struck with its neighbor, the United Arab Emirates. In that case, the U.S., under Presidents George W. Bush and Barack Obama, established the “gold standard” for nuclear cooperation. The UAE promised that it would never enrich uranium or reprocess plutonium. The UAE now has an operating power reactor at the Barakah nuclear complex.

In capitulating to Saudi demands, Trump commits a profound strategic error: believing this technology can be trusted in the hands of friends while denied to foes. Even if the worst happens, he thinks it OK for his friends to have nuclear bombs. As a presidential candidate in 2016, Trump told CNN that Japan and South Korea should have their own nuclear weapons. Most pointedly, when asked if Saudi Arabia should get nuclear weapons, he responded: “Saudi Arabia, absolutely.”

But when regimes change, the technology remains. Iran’s path to nuclear capability began in the 1970s under Shah Mohammad Reza Pahlavi, when the Nixon administration approved his plans for dozens of nuclear power reactors and agreed that Iran could enrich uranium and even process plutonium.

The shah did not survive to implement his plans, and at first the Islamic Republic that replaced him rejected this “Western technology” but changed its mind during the Iran-Iraq war in the 1980s, restarting the nuclear program, including secret efforts on bomb technology. 

Even if the Saudi monarchy does not build a bomb, will it still rule the nation in 20 years, when the nuclear plants are fully operational? Will militant jihadists rule, inheriting the bomb program Trump gifted his friend?

Nor is the risk just regime change. Israel, Pakistan, India and North Korea all secretly and illegally began their bomb programs using nuclear technology acquired for civilian use, in violation of numerous bilateral and global agreements prohibiting these nations from doing just that.

When regimes change, the technology remains.

Is this a done deal? Not necessarily. In 2023, when President Joe Biden tried for a “grand bargain” with Saudi Arabia that would have traded nuclear technology and advanced weaponry for recognition of Israel, liberals and conservatives united to eventually kill the deal.

Twenty senators wrote in opposition to the proposed Biden plan, and a politically diverse group of nuclear proliferation experts and former officials signed a letter organized by the right-leaning Foundation for Defense of Democracy (FDD), a strong proponent for war with Iran. “Riyadh does not need uranium enrichment to produce peaceful nuclear energy,” the letter argued, “Enrichment could bring Saudi Arabia to the brink of acquiring nuclear arms, and U.S. policy should prohibit it.”

And there’s opposition from the same circles to Trump’s even more generous deal. “A bad U.S. nuclear deal with Saudi Arabia is coming for congressional review,” wrote Andrea Stricker, deputy director and research fellow of the FDD’s Nonproliferation Program, on Wednesday. “Congress should block it. If it does not, one hopes the policy will be reversed by a subsequent administration before too much damage is done.”

Stricker is right. The outcry over the deal forced Trump to pledge on Thursday that the contracts would be conditioned on Saudi recognition of Israel — similar to Biden’s deal but now highly improbable given Israel’s destruction of Gaza and continued violence in the West Bank.

Does Trump even mean it? Or is it just something he said to get through the day and quell opposition until he can push the deal through. His Truth Social post contained another lie: that there would be no enrichment. Of course there will be enrichment. That is the whole point of the deal.

Trump’s tangle of lies, his deep ignorance of the deal he approved then walked back, his inability to even make a binding agreement (see the memo of understanding with Iran, the Gaza Peace Plan, the tariffs, etc.) may sink the pact. But don’t count on it. Saudi influence in Washington is powerful, particularly with Trump and his business partners who could profit handsomely from the deal. It will take an all-out effort to block what will be the worst nuclear deal in history.

Rooted in Truth. Independent by Design: Your support helps ensure that rigorous reporting, thoughtful analysis, and investigative journalism remain accessible to everyone. Support independent journalism.

SUPPORT TRUTHDIG

 

Crosby, Stills, Nash & Young

 

When Neil Young walked onto the stage of New York City's Fillmore East on July 26, 1969, he wasn't officially a member of Crosby, Stills & Nash. He had been recruited simply to help the trio reproduce their increasingly sophisticated studio recordings in concert. By the end of the evening, however, it was obvious that something much larger had happened. Young's razor-edged guitar playing, unmistakable voice, and songwriting brilliance transformed one of rock's most celebrated vocal groups into a creative force unlike anything popular music had seen before.

Within months, Crosby, Stills & Nash had become Crosby, Stills, Nash & Young—a quartet whose combination of breathtaking harmonies, political consciousness, and musical ambition would define the singer-songwriter era of the early 1970s.

The story actually began years earlier on the California music scene. David Crosby had been dismissed from The Byrds in 1967 after creative disagreements and increasingly erratic behavior. Stephen Stills emerged from the ashes of Buffalo Springfield following the breakup of one of America's most influential folk-rock bands, while Graham Nash shocked the British music world by leaving the Hollies at the height of their commercial success.

Each musician was searching for a new creative beginning. Legend has it that when the three gathered informally at Joni Mitchell's house—and later at Cass Elliot's home in Laurel Canyon—they spontaneously sang together. The blend was extraordinary. Their voices locked together with an almost supernatural precision, creating harmonies unlike anything heard since the golden age of The Everly Brothers.

Their self-titled debut album, released in May 1969, became an immediate critical and commercial triumph. Songs such as "Suite: Judy Blue Eyes," "Marrakesh Express," "Wooden Ships," and "Helplessly Hoping" showcased sophisticated songwriting wrapped around luminous three-part harmonies. Yet while the album sounded effortless in the studio, reproducing those layered guitar arrangements and intricate vocal textures onstage proved far more difficult. Stephen Stills was responsible for much of the album's instrumental work, often playing multiple guitars, keyboards, and bass. To perform the material live, the trio needed another exceptional musician. Neil Young was the obvious choice.

Young and Stills had forged a remarkable musical partnership in Buffalo Springfield, where their contrasting styles had pushed each other to new creative heights. Stills admired Young's fearless guitar playing, while Young respected Stills' versatility and arranging skills. Although their relationship was often competitive, it was also deeply productive. Manager Elliot Roberts encouraged the reunion, believing Young would strengthen the band's live performances without disrupting its chemistry. Young initially hesitated, wary of becoming trapped in another group after Buffalo Springfield's collapse, but eventually agreed to join the touring lineup. His first appearance came at Bill Graham's legendary Fillmore East in Manhattan on July 26, 1969.

For audiences expecting the polished folk-rock harmonies of Crosby, Stills & Nash, Young's arrival introduced an entirely new dimension. His guitar solos were raw, unpredictable, and emotionally explosive, providing a dramatic counterweight to the trio's pristine vocal arrangements. More importantly, his songwriting brought a darker, more introspective perspective that balanced the optimism often found in the trio's material. By the time Crosby, Stills, Nash & Young performed before hundreds of thousands at Woodstock just three weeks later, the transformation was complete.

"We're scared shitless," Stephen Stills famously joked to the Woodstock audience before adding, "This is only the second time we've ever played in front of people." The remark wasn't entirely exaggerated.

Despite the inexperience of the new lineup, Woodstock instantly established Crosby, Stills, Nash & Young as one of the defining voices of a generation. Their acoustic harmonies offered moments of remarkable intimacy amid one of history's largest rock festivals, while their electric set hinted at the enormous musical possibilities still to come.

Those possibilities would be fully realized during the recording of Déjà Vu. Sessions began in late 1969 and stretched well into 1970, becoming nearly as legendary as the finished album itself. Recorded primarily at Wally Heider Studios in San Francisco and Hollywood, the project was marked by perfectionism, personality clashes, and the immense pressure of following one of the year's most acclaimed debuts. All four musicians arrived with fully developed songwriting identities and strong opinions about arrangements, often resulting in painstaking recording sessions that consumed months.

Neil Young's participation fundamentally altered the band's musical direction. His haunting composition "Helpless" became one of the album's emotional centerpieces, while "Country Girl" showcased his cinematic approach to songwriting. Stephen Stills contributed the exuberant "Carry On," David Crosby unveiled the ethereal title track "Déjà Vu," and Graham Nash added the gentle optimism of "Teach Your Children," which featured unforgettable pedal steel guitar by Jerry Garcia of the Grateful Dead. The result was less a unified band album than a remarkable conversation between four extraordinary songwriters.

The sessions were not without turmoil. Egos frequently collided. Drug use became increasingly prevalent. Young often disappeared for days without warning, while Crosby later admitted the recording process sometimes bordered on chaos. Yet the creative friction also fueled the music. Rather than smoothing away their differences, Crosby, Stills, Nash & Young allowed their contrasting personalities to shape the album's emotional landscape. Moments of soaring harmony were balanced by songs filled with loneliness, political anxiety, and personal reflection.

Released in March 1970, Déjà Vu immediately became a cultural milestone. It debuted at No. 1 on the Billboard album chart and ultimately sold more than eight million copies in the United States alone. Beyond its commercial success, the album captured the complex emotional mood of America at the dawn of a new decade. The optimism of the Summer of Love had begun giving way to political unrest, the Vietnam War continued to escalate, and the innocence of the 1960s was rapidly disappearing. Songs such as "Woodstock," Joni Mitchell's reflective anthem inspired by the famous festival, and "Almost Cut My Hair" reflected a generation wrestling with identity, protest, and disillusionment.

Perhaps the album's greatest strength lies in its remarkable diversity. It moves effortlessly between folk, country, rock, blues, and acoustic balladry while never losing its distinctive voice. The four principal songwriters challenged one another constantly, resulting in an album that feels simultaneously intimate and epic. Few records have so successfully balanced individual artistic expression with collective musical chemistry.

Neil Young's arrival also changed the trajectory of every musician involved. While he remained fiercely protective of his solo career—releasing After the Gold Rush only months after Déjà Vu—his periodic reunions with Crosby, Stills & Nash produced some of the most memorable music and performances of the next five decades. The tensions that frequently threatened to dissolve the quartet also became the source of its greatest creative achievements.

Looking back, Neil Young's debut performance with Crosby, Stills & Nash at the Fillmore East was more than the addition of another talented musician. It marked the birth of one of rock's most influential supergroups and set the stage for an album that remains among the defining artistic statements of the singer-songwriter era. Déjà Vu demonstrated that four strong creative voices could challenge, frustrate, and ultimately inspire one another to produce music greater than any of them might have achieved alone. More than half a century later, both the concert and the album continue to symbolize a brief but extraordinary moment when four remarkable artists found perfect harmony—both literally and creatively. 

-FB

"We are past the point where special treatment and multiple chances make sense"

 

Yesterday afternoon, federal District Judge Emmet Sullivan did something unexpected. Noting that courts, “In cases in which sensitive materials may be in issue,” have the “inherent authority to review such material ex parte, in camera as part of its judicial review function,” Judge Sullivan gave acting Attorney General Todd Blanche five days to provide him with unredacted copies of documents in the Epstein Files that the Justice Department continues to withhold. 

In camera review refers to a process where the Judge would review documents in chambers, without the public or the press present, and an ex parte proceeding in this context is one where the judge reviews sensitive information in the possession of one party without the other party present to determine what, if anything, should be turned over.

Judge Sullivan asked for the following items:

Eight emails along with supporting documentation to confirm DOJ’s representation that the names that are redacted in the published version of the documents are the names of victims.

A document with the names in the “to” and “from” lines redacted, and documentation to support DOJ’s claim that those names are of law enforcement personnel.

A document along with support for DOJ’s claim that the names that are redacted in the published version are the names of victims.

This is in the case filed by Katie Phang, which we discussed here.

The order can be found here.

The Judge previously entered an order that required the government to turn over specific categories of documents it was required to make public by the Epstein Files Transparency Act that became law on November 19, 2025, but has so far failed to disclose. Instead of complying with the court’s order, DOJ asked for two additional months, writing that the government “strongly disagrees” with the court’s order.

Of course, many litigants disagree with decisions judges make. The proper course of action is appealing them. Unless that judge or a higher court issues a stay, the government, like any other party, is obligated to comply.

Before Trump and during the Biden administration, courts were able to rely on representations made by the Justice Department. Every lawyer for the government understood they owed the courts a duty of candor; everything they said in court must be true to the best of their knowledge and swiftly corrected if they subsequently became aware of additional information. The government obeyed court orders, even the ones it disagreed with.

But that’s no longer the case. The presumption of regularity is essentially no more. The presumption is the “‘general working principle’ that means courts will ‘insist on a meaningful evidentiary showing’ before entertaining doubts about the integrity of official acts or documents.” It was commonly used to advance the idea that in the absence of evidence to the contrary, courts should presume government employees, including DOJ lawyers, acted properly in the execution of their duties. Now it’s on life support and Judge Sullivan’s order is another nail in its coffin.

This most recent order suggests that Judge Sullivan doesn’t believe the government when it says something is the case, even when that “something” is as simple as the identity of the person in a “to” line in an email. But the government has acted like it has something to hide, even after Congress passed the Transparency Act and Trump signed it into law. 

So, the Judge isn’t accepting what the government has represented to it as truthful, and is requiring documentation to support its claims. Under any other president, the Attorney General would have been disturbed by the suggestion prosecutors couldn’t be trusted. There would be disciplinary review. But here, the acting Attorney General is the defendant in the case. It’s paradigmatic of how far DOJ has fallen.

Phang v. Blanche is significant because it’s the only lawsuit seeking to enforce the Epstein Files Transparency Act that is moving forward. But it also is taking its place on the list of cases where the courts have found reason to distrust the Justice Department; everything from the deportation case where Judge Boasberg in the District of Columbia opened contempt proceedings against the government (whether they can proceed is currently pending en banc review before the Court of Appeals) to the slush fund case where a court concluded DOJ was party to a settlement designed to benefit Trump in his family in a lawsuit that was a “sham.”

When I was an Assistant United States Attorney, I argued cases in front of the Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals frequently. One of my favorite judges would always point to the lights the court used to keep track of the lawyers’ time: green meant you could keep talking, yellow meant you were almost out of time, and red meant stop. This Judge liked to emphasize that last part, telling lawyers that when the red light came on, they were out of time and needed to stop arguing. Knowing that some lawyers would try to keep going, he would emphasize, with a hint of a smile, that “The red light is not aspirational.”

His gentle humor took some of the tension out of the room. But the advice holds in a much more serious context, minus the levity: Complying with the law and with court orders isn’t aspirational either. It’s one of the bedrock principles that makes our democracy possible. It’s been that way for 250 years.

The Trump administration doesn’t seem to see it that way. For them, the law is at best a speed bump in the road when it gets in the way of what they want to do. Court orders are mere suggestions. There is a great deal of concern about the moment where a court directly orders the government to do something and it refuses to. 

But the reality is, we have been dancing on the precipice of that moment virtually since this administration got underway. There is no longer anything to be gained by bending over backward to give the administration multiple chances to comply. Courts may not have armies to enforce their orders, which is, perhaps, why they have tried to avoid a direct confrontation. But the government must comply with the law, just as all other litigants must follow a judge’s dictates. We are past the point where special treatment and multiple chances make sense.

Thanks for being here with me at Civil Discourse and for your support and subscriptions, which make the newsletter possible. At this time last year, many people were asking whether we were approaching or in a constitutional crisis. My answer then was yes. The fact that courts are still struggling, a year later, with what they can do to convince the Trump administration to comply with the law confirms it. Your commitment to understanding these issues and sharing what you know with people in your circle as the midterm elections approach is essential. A Republic, if we can keep it.

We’re in this together,

Joyce Vance