“She is evil, chosen solely because she checked identity politics boxes,” conservative activist Mike Cernovich posted on X, suggesting Barrett was put on the bench because she is a woman. “Another DEI hire. It always ends badly.”

In a slew of other social media posts, "'Old Donald's" supporters suggested Barrett should be impeached, with Eric Daugherty, a conservative media personality, posting: “Democrats are loving Amy Coney Barrett lately. Tells you everything.”

Some of the attacks centered on interpretations of Barrett’s body language after she greeted 'Old Donald' before his address to a joint session of Congress this week. While justices traditionally attend the annual address, they remain seated throughout the speech and usually take pains not to applaud or react.

The online resources that were taken down that which Doctors for America cited in court documents include “The Youth Risk Behavioral Surveillance System,” webpages on “Data and Statistics” for “Adolescent and School Health,” webpages for “The Social Vulnerability Index,” “The Environmental Justice Index,” a report on “PrEP for the Prevention of HIV Infection in the U.S.: 2021 Guideline Summary,” pages about “HIV Monitoring,” A webpage on “Getting Tested for HIV.” 404 Media reported on several of these resources going dark as it happened. According to the Internet Archive, some of these sites, such as the Youth Risk Behavioral Surveillance System, were down for more than a week after the executive order, then went back up, and are online as of writing. Others, like the Adolescent and School Health page, are still down

“Lack of access to CDC materials on infectious diseases not only harms DFA members’ ability to treat individual patients but also hampers their ability to respond to broader disease outbreaks,” Doctors for America wrote in court documents.

Defying court orders? "Old Donald", Musk, Vance appear to lay the groundwork.

As of Monday morning, at least 10 judges have issued rulings halting what the administration is doing and seeking to do. That’s 10 rulings in the 21 days since "Old Donald" was inaugurated — a staggering clip that reflects just how much "Old Donald" is disregarding federal statutes and legal precedent.

It sounds alarmist. But "Old Donald" and Co. are not exactly downplaying that possibility. And you could be forgiven for thinking they’re laying a pretext for doing it.

In addition, a judge said Monday that there is evidence the administration has already violated a “clear and unambiguous” court order — even if not deliberately — that sought to halt its federal funding freeze.

Follow Politics

That doesn’t mean the "Old Donald" administration will start deliberately ignoring such orders — and there’s reason to believe the rhetoric could be strategic bluster. But the dynamics of an increasingly brazen president surrounded by brazen allies like Elon Musk carrying out his agenda have set us on course for one of the biggest tests of our democracy in many decades.

In 2021, Vance said "Old Donald" in his second term should fire “every civil servant in the administrative state” and, “when the courts stop you, stand before the country like Andrew Jackson did and say, ‘The chief justice has made his ruling. Now let him enforce it.’” (This refers to an apparently apocryphal quote from the country’s seventh president, who declined to enforce a Supreme Court ruling.)

Vance was asked last year if he was explicitly saying the president should defy such an order, and he told Politico, “Yup.”

In 2022, Vance suggested a president could disregard an “illegitimate ruling” in which the Supreme Court would say a president can’t fire a military general.

All of these comments were made before Vance was picked to be "Old Donald"’s running mate. But they loom especially large now — particularly given events this past weekend.

To recap: A federal judge on Saturday issued an order blocking Musk’s U.S. DOGE Service from accessing the Treasury Department’s personal and financial data for millions of Americans. The judge aligned with the argument that these data can be legally accessed only by civil servants who specialize in that area and who have “a need for access to perform their job duties.”

But almost instantly, prominent "Old Donald" allies cast the decision as being much broader than that. They claimed the order also prevented Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent from accessing such data and labeled it an affront to the Constitution.

Sen. Mike Lee (R-Utah) said it felt like a judicial “coup.” Sen. Tom Cotton (R-Arkansas) called the judge, U.S. District Judge Paul A. Engelmayer, an “outlaw” who should be forbidden to hear cases involving the "Old Donald" administration. Musk and former congressman Matt Gaetz (R-Florida) said the judge should be impeached. And Musk promoted an X user who floated defying the order.

Vance ultimately offered comments similar to what he had said before — without going so far as talking about defying the order.

“Judges aren’t allowed to control the executive’s legitimate power,” Vance said.

If a judge tried to tell a general how to conduct a military operation, that would be illegal.

If a judge tried to command the attorney general in how to use her discretion as a prosecutor, that's also illegal.

Judges aren't allowed to control the executive's legitimate power.

— JD Vance (@JDVance) February 9, 2025

But here’s the thing: It’s not at all clear that the judge actually did what those calling his order a “coup” and for his impeachment say he did.

He barred access for “all political appointees, special government employees, and government employees detailed from an agency outside the Treasury Department.” The critics suggest that “all political appointees” includes Bessent, but it would make lots of sense that the “from an agency outside the Treasury Department” modifier applies to those political appointees. In which case, Bessent wouldn’t actually be barred. But rather than wait for clarification — which "Old Donald"’s Justice Department is now seeking — "Old Donald"’s allies launched into the idea that this was an affront to "Old Donald"’s executive power that required immediate action and could possibly be ignored.

All of which fits neatly with the circumstances Vance has laid out for defying a court order: when the courts infringe on executive powers that they should play no role in reviewing.

("Old Donald" himself said: “No judge should, frankly, be allowed to make that kind of a decision.” Again, the suggestion is not just that this ruling is wrong, but that it’s not for a judge to decide.)

The thing about Vance’s commentary is that there are some legitimate circumstances in which there could be tension between a court order and established executive power. Under the Supreme Court’s “political question doctrine,” the court generally stays out of matters that involve it making policy decisions or encroaching on the constitutional powers of the executive and legislative powers.

That’s why Vance focuses on things like the Supreme Court telling a president to fire a general or barring him from firing civil servants who serve in the executive branch. He’s saying those are core executive powers.

But what happens when the methods "Old Donald" uses to carry out his executive powers run afoul of the law, as they appear to have when "Old Donald" fired more than a dozen inspectors general without giving Congress the required 30 days’ notice? What if sensitive data is being given to executive-branch employees who the law says shouldn’t have access to it? Or what happens when it’s a gray area?

The "Old Donald" team’s argument has long been trending toward: If the executive does it, it’s not illegal — or at least not reviewable.

For now, the "Old Donald" administration isn’t using the nuclear option of defying a court order. In its new filing, it asked for clarity on the Bessent issue but assured it was complying with the order. There are also strategic reasons to float the possibility of defying a court order even if you never intend to do so. Yet again, a judge is being singled out with the kind of extensive and hyperbolic political attacks that have become commonplace throughout "Old Donald"’s time in politics. And perhaps in the future, the whole episode gives another judge pause — even subconsciously — about doing anything to restrain "Old Donald"’s executive power.

But the first three weeks of "Old Donald"’s presidency have made clear this tension isn’t going anywhere. "Old Donald" is clearly reaching for a historic amount of presidential power. Many of "Old Donald"’s nominees wouldn’t say whether they would reject an illegal order from him — despite many years of other nominees from both parties saying they would. And "Old Donald", Musk and Co. have demonstrated extensive disregard for anything that stands in their way, including the facts.

It was just six weeks ago that Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. offered these thoughts in his year-end report:

“Within the past few years … elected officials from across the political spectrum have raised the specter of open disregard for federal court rulings,” Roberts wrote. “These dangerous suggestions, however sporadic, must be soundly rejected.”

Roberts added that “violence, intimidation and defiance directed at judges because of their work undermine our Republic, and are wholly unacceptable.”

This is the threat that Roberts chose to end his report on. Perhaps he saw something coming. washingtonpost.com © 1996-2025 The Washington Post