Exposed: Secret Pact Between 14 Blue States, Left-Wing Groups, and NYC Law Firms
The so-called “Common Interest Agreement” will take center stage in next year’s midterm campaign ads. … The Democrats are on the wrong end of an 80-20 issue.
Well, well, well. It’s hardly a surprise to discover that the wave of lawsuits against Elon Musk’s Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE) is no coincidence. The Oversight Project at the Heritage Foundation has obtained a copy of a secret agreement outlining a coordinated legal offensive—an alliance between 14 blue states, left-wing activist groups, and prominent NYC law firms—all targeting DOGE and Musk himself.
What is surprising, however, is that they actually formalized their nefarious intentions.
Signed less than a month after DOGE began operations, this agreement is yet another example of the Democrats’ “whatever it takes” brand of political warfare.
The document begins:
This Common Interest Agreement (“Agreement) is made and entered into by and between the States of New Mexico, Arizona, Michigan, Califomia [sic], Connecticut, Hawaii, Maryland, Massachusetts, Minnesota, Nevada, Oregon, Rhode Island, Vermont, and Washington and State Democracy Defenders Fund (the “Parties”). The Parties have agreed that they have a common interest in developing legal strategies to challenge the creation and actions of the Department of Government Efficiency (“DOGE) and the actions of Elon Musk as a special government employee and a common interest in existing or future investigative, regulatory, administrative, and judicial actions or inactions, including but not limited to any administrative or judicial proceedings related to or arising from those legal strategies (“Matters of Common Interest”).
Secret Blue State and Left-Wing Resistance Agreement Obtained – @DOGE and @elonmusk
We have obtained a secret agreement between 14 blue states, left wing groups, and NYC law firms to conduct coordinated lawfare against DOGE and Elon Musk.This agreement, signed less than… pic.twitter.com/Xyu63lerl8
— Oversight Project (@OversightPR) March 6, 2025
The Democrats are on the wrong end of an 80-20 issue, fighting tooth and nail to block a federal government audit that has already uncovered more than $105 billion in fraud, waste, and abuse. A recent Harvard/Harris poll shows that 76% of voters support DOGE’s efforts, yet Democrats—whose job is to represent the interests of their constituents—have gone to extraordinary lengths to obstruct it, even putting their opposition in writing. Needless to say, the so-called “Common Interest Agreement” will take center stage in next year’s midterm campaign ads.
Harvard/Harris poll showing interesting results with widespread support for the new administration's policies even from democrats. Overwhelming support for cutting spending and fiscal rectitude. Full results in linkhttps://t.co/Tfe7e8uFgM pic.twitter.com/JyJaTRxfrB
— zeibars (@zeibars) February 24, 2025
Coming on the heels of the Democrats’ disgraceful behavior during President Donald Trump’s address to Congress this week, the disclosure of this document couldn’t come at a worse time.
Their actions on Tuesday night betrayed the sanctity of the offices they are privileged to hold. Instead of conducting themselves as dignified members of an esteemed body of legislators, they behaved like classless, anti-American fools.
From their initial heckling and shouting—which led to Rep. Al Green’s (D-TX) removal from the chamber—to their refusal to acknowledge even the most poignant and bipartisan moments of the speech, the party’s transformation was on full display.
They appear to have learned nothing from former Vice President Kamala Harris’s stinging defeat in November. Her loss—along with former President Joe Biden’s forced withdrawal from the race—has left the party leaderless and many believe, adrift.
Their downfall was massive, yet their arrogance remained intact.
Democrats, who once championed the fight for working-class Americans, no longer stand for anything. Nor do they have a coherent message beyond “Trump is evil.” Their collective Trump Derangement Syndrome has left little room for actual governance or advancing the will of the people they were elected to represent.
Rather than engaging in some reflection on their failures, they are doubling down on the same malicious, unethical, and even seemingly corrupt, strategies that put them in the wilderness they now find themselves in.
Frankly, I hope they continue on this path because, if the midterms were held today, Democrats would lose seats.
On a related note, I’ve noticed that Trump-supporting political action committees have already begun running ads—at least on Fox—highlighting his accomplishments so far and contrasting them with the Democrats’ efforts to obstruct his progress. I’ve never seen what are essentially campaign ads run this early in an election cycle. The Trump administration understands that holding their House and Senate majorities is critical to advancing his agenda and is leaving nothing to chance.
Democrats know this too, which is why they’ve been sending operatives—masquerading as GOP members—to Republican town halls in an attempt to create the illusion that even their constituents oppose DOGE’s efforts.
After a decade of hoaxes aimed at destroying Trump, the public seems to have caught on.
At least, I hope so.
Elizabeth writes commentary for The Washington Examiner. She is an academy fellow at The Heritage Foundation and a member of the Editorial Board at The Sixteenth Council, a London think tank. Please follow Elizabeth on X or LinkedIn.
DONATE
Donations tax deductible
to the full extent allowed by law.
Comments
Banning together to oppose the lawful government…there’s a word for this…hmmm…
I bet it reads more like the Communist Manifesto than the Declaration of Independence.
Unfortunately there is a very large segment of the population that depends on government handouts and will continue to vote for Dems as long as the money keeps coming.
That’s why the money needs to be cut off.
I remember when we used to hang traitors
Capital punishment for some Federal crimes is available as of Jan 21, 2025
Tell us about this memory(ies) When was it?
Billy Bailey was the last person to be hanged in the United States. He was found guilty of two murders. He was executed in Delaware in 1996, For his last meal the condemned requested a well-done steak, a baked potato with sour cream and butter, buttered rolls, peas, and vanilla ice cream.
I’d hang him just for having his steak well done. That was criminal.
Elizabeth is apparently not a lawyer, so she may not appreciate the rationale for, and consequences of, this type of agreement, which traditionally was termed a joint defense agreement. It is designed to extend the attorney-client privilege to secure communications among the parties or their lawyers from discovery by adverse parties (here, the federal government under the Trump administration). I doubt that much discovery has occurred in the early stages of these numerous lawsuits, so there has been little opportunity to test the efficacy of the Dems’ strategy.
If it’s Tuesday it must be sedition while on Friday it’s treason. As Milhouse will point out, the very act of a pact being created isn’t unconstitutional unless it violates Federal law. Knowing the Dems they will test the penumbra of the law to see how far that they can/have gone. It all boils down to what Roberts and Coney Island (grin-n’-) Barrett. think.
The downside is that if just one member screws up, you’ve opened the gate to RICO Country.
Actually the very act of a pact being created may be unconstitutional, if it’s one that expands the contracting states’ powers at the expense of Congress’s power.
The constitution specifically forbids interstate agreements without Congress’s permission, but the courts have ruled that that only applies to agreements that encroach on Congress’s power, and not to ones that only affect the states themselves and are none of Congress’s business. So whether this agreement is unconstitutional depends on how you look at it. It seems to be that it’s probably OK, but I wouldn’t bet money on it.
I think there is at least a colorable argument that this interstate compact, in addition to being politically unseemly, is illegal. At the very least, such an argument would seem to have more as much, or more, merit as the litigation instigated by this pact.
As I said, I think it’s probably legal, but I wouldn’t bet money on it. The argument that it’s unconstitutional is colorable like a Van Gogh. And of course the litigation instigated is almost without merit at all.
Interesting.
It all boils down to intent. If the intent is to thwart the Executive and Legislative branches of government from their duties than ALL of the signers are culpable. No hanging separately with this one… all together. As in “how many armies does the Pope have”….how many armies do these states have and are the leaders willing to go to the gallows for this?
Trans groups are on a mission to disrupt Tesla. It’s the only transmission on the lot.
Doesn’t this kind of collusion open them to RICO charges?
If Texas has no interest in the election laws of other states, and has no place to enforce immigration laws, then other states have no place beyond their Congressional representation to influence the federal budget. This document is an attempt to seize power they have no Constitutional right to via the courts.
That does not follow at all. Texas has no standing to sue over how Pennsylvania chooses its electors. It’s none of Texas’s business. But if a state is legally entitled to receive money and the president unlawfully decides not to pay it, then of course that state has standing to sue.
For instance, when Congress told South Dakota that if it didn’t raise its drinking age to 21, it would lose 5% of its highway funding, SD absolutely had standing to sue for the money — and had the cut been much bigger it would have won. Likewise when Congress told the states that if they didn’t establish 0bamacare exchanges they would lose their Medicaid funding, several states sued and won. And of course if the president were to unilaterally cut a state’s or a city’s funding because it’s a sanctuary state or city, even by a dollar, they would have standing to sue and would win, because even a small cut must be explicitly made by Congress, not by the president.
No, not a lawyer.
I would hazard a guess that most of us here are not.
I’m so ashamed of Arizona. We have to ditch our crazy white chicks in power and get adults back in charge.
Applies to basically every blue state.
I think that’s exactly his point All those states are hard core blue, except Arizona, which is more purple when it’s not red. I was surprised to see AZ on there too.
Leo, I’m already here doing my part. Are you?
What “color” it is doesn’t matter. It has a Dem governor. That’s all that’s needed.
Her BFF the Dem AG sure doesn’t hurt.
That will require red voters moving to blue states to tip the balance.
You volunteering?
Not just that, but they have to move to the blue counties and big blue cities. Moving out where I am doesn’t do a whole lot to fix things.
It does when it comes to things like this, which depend on the governor. A gubernatorial vote where you live has the same weight as one in downtown Flagstaff.
Hah! My MA has your AZ beat! Our governor is a crazy white lesbian.
It’s wild calling home a swing state, isn’t it? Never thought my precious Georgia would be one. We sold our soul for Y’allywood and Big Business. Uniparty, ultimately.
Will someone pass the popcorn?
I’m ready to watch the main feature.
“No State shall, without the Consent of Congress…enter into any Agreement or Compact with another State…”
I understand this prohibition has been eroded by the courts (and possibly by Congress), but it is what it is, a strict prohibition on any sort of formal coordination by the States without Congressional assent. The language is plain, the intent clear, there are no exceptions. Return to principles and the Constitution.
SCOTUS long ago ruled that it’s obvious that this doesn’t apply to agreements that don’t affect Congress and are thus none of its business. If Arizona wants to rent an office in Manhattan, and signs a lease with the NY government, that’s an interstate compact but there’s no reason they should need Congress’s permission.
This *DOES* involve federal matters, particularly spending — which is a CONGRESSIONAL MATTER!!!
They need permission from Congress.
That it “involves federal matters” is not the criterion. The criterion is whether it enlarges the compacting states’ power at Congress’s expense. In this case that would be a close argument. I think the states would win, but I’m not at all certain.
Is there anything in the section that says the agreement must affect Congress? Yes, it’s in Article 1, but the inference is a reach. Nothing in the language itself implies that any of the prohibited agreements must affect Congress.
The section regulates three classes of State action:
1. Prohibits acts by the States that are also prohibited to Congress (e.g., enacting bills of attainder or ex post facto laws; granting titles of nobility)
2. Prohibits acts by the States that are within the exclusive legislative jurisdiction of Congress (e.g., the granting of letters of marque and reprisal; coining money), preventing infringement by the States upon Congress’ prerogatives
3. Requires the consent of Congress for some State acts that are neither prohibited to Congress nor fall within its exclusive legislative jurisdiction
(I include this final category because the “agreements and compacts” clause seems to be unique and does not fall into either of the first two categories, as do all or nearly all of the other prohibitions in Section 10.)
A list of the regulated acts in the paragraph under discussion:
Laying duty on tonnage
Keeping troops or ships in time of peace (meaning the States may keep troops or ships in time of war)
Entering into agreements or compacts with other States or foreign powers
Engaging in war (immediate self-defense permitted and, apparently, allowing pre-emptive strikes if in “imminent danger” from an adversary)
Can a State lay a duty on tonnage without Congress’ consent, so long as the act doesn’t affect Congress?
Can a State keep troops or ships in time of peace without Congress’ consent, so long as their keeping doesn’t affect Congress?
Can a State engage in war without Congress’ consent, so long as the war doesn’t affect Congress?
Of course, the answer to these questions is, “No.” These things are prohibited to the States, whether or not they have an effect on Congress.
Then why the special pleading that the prohibition on interstate agreements only applies to those that affect Congress?
You might argue that all of the other acts would necessarily have an effect on Congress. Granting this is true, it is unclear from the language that this is why the acts are provisionally prohibited. But if this is true, admitting that the other acts all would affect Congress, and therefore the prohibitions are applicable in all instances, why isn’t that same characterization applied to agreements between the States? The argument, “Because agreements between the States don’t always affect Congress” is a post hoc argument, not clearly inferred from the text. Could the same post hoc argument be made for one of the other prohibitions? Why not? If a State lays a piddling, token duty on tonnage, can it get away with it by arguing “It had no measurable effect on Congress”? Almost certainly not. (If it could, why couldn’t it make the same argument in defense of the other prohibited acts? Over time, successful arguments could render the clause useless.)
The argument that some of the prohibitions in the clause are absolute (one has explicit exceptions, demonstrating that it would otherwise be absolute – the lack of such an exception in the others infers they are absolute) but one is not, and that this singular element has unstated exceptions, is inconsistent with the language and intent of the clause, its grammatical construction, and not clearly inferred by the language of the specific prohibition nor by the language of the other prohibitions (including those in other paragraphs of the section). It is a post hoc interpretation unsupported by the text.
It is made up BS.
Why is the consent of Congress required? Because any of these acts might affect Congress. But this is for Congress to determine for itself, not the States. Congress can review an agreement between States and consent because it does not, in fact, affect Congress. Congress may find that such an agreement does, in fact, affect Congress. It can then consider the degree to which it is affected, and determine (for itself) whether or not to consent. So we can agree that the clause only applies to agreements between the States that affect Congress, but that’s an issue for Congress to decide when reviewing a specific agreement.
Do you think Congress would consent to the instant agreement? Could it not find something in it that may adversely affect Congress or is prejudicial to its authority or prerogatives? Or does Congress accept the say-so of the States, “Everything’s fine here. We’re all fine.” The purpose of requiring congressional consent was to assure congressional review. Only by review can the Congress determine, for itself, whether or not the agreement affects it, and therefore whether or not it should have its consent.
Read Virginia v Tennessee.
If it’s small enough the state could argue that de minimis non curat lex.
Bar and ethics complaints should be filed against all lawyers involved due to the improper nature of their actions.
That party needs to drop the name ‘Democratic’. The rump leftovers would give organized crime a run for their money.
It’s a brand name. It has no connection with the party’s actual positions.
Like Microsoft Works.
Will of the voter be dammed.
They represent the will of their states’ voters, as expressed at the last gubernatorial election.
Latest polling reveals over 2/3s of voters approve of DOGE efforts. This would include many who voted for Democrat governors.
Representative democracy means we have regular elections, and public opinion in between elections is irrelevant. We don’t have and don’t want poll-driven government. The people of those states, when they had a chance to elect a governor, chose a Democrat; that means they chose these policies whether they like them or not. Next time let them choose more wisely.
Hahaha,,,, choose more wisely… pull the other one!
What surprises me more is that New York Isn’t on that list. I thought we were trying to take California’s crown as worst state in the Union.
Not yet, anyway.
Their email-reader is on maternity leave.
Opposing the investigation/identification of questionable Gov’t spending much less actual fraud, waste and abuse seems politically foolish. The d/prog have enabled their whacko extremists for too long and allowed too much internal party political power and control to pass to them. These wokiesta leftist groups have become accustomed to receiving an unquestioned flow of grift, graft and payola.
The swamp is deep.
but the dwellers are shallow.
That sounds like a pass sign/countersign.
Mi tio es infermo
pero la carretera es verde.
So they just told the whole world straight up that they want the theft to continue. It seems every day the leftists show us who and what they are. How smart is that? Better, how smart are they?
.
Audit the governors and attorneys general of every state involved AND the QANGOs involved.
Not at all surprised to see my state on the list. NM is poised to enact an assault weapons bad along with a high capacity magazine ban this legislative session. NM is dead last in every category used to measure the health of our state and they’re wasting a 60 day session on this garbage. Are they going after crime, our inability to attract health care providers or businesses? Nope… the governor has ordered an AWB and they’re going to deliver.
https://youtu.be/OKEJ8u7529I?si=pvfbUJWdupr56xZW
They will try, but I doubt it will pass. They’ve tried several times before and failed, so why would this time be different?
Years ago I took a course and instructor noted that Colorado is a weird state. I responded…”just don’t shoot a tree”.
Yep. My sister lives in Las Cruces – a city as corrupt as the day is long.
The Dhimmi-crat Party is a racketeering crime organization, masquerading as a political party. That was abundantly clear, even before DOGE’s revelations of utterly lawless, corrupt, obscene and outrageous examples of wanton grift, fraud, nepotism and profligacy. DOGE’s audits and investigations shone light on these innumerable schemes — no wonder the vile Dhimmi-crat apparatchiks are rabidly opposed to its investigations.
“Through this inscription I wish to enter my dying protest against what is called the Democratic party. I have watched it closely since the days of Jackson and know that all the misfortunes of our nation has come to it through this so called party therefore beware of this party of treason.”
— Inscription on the gravestone of Nathaniel Grigsby, ACW veteran