16 Dem Senators Voted To Give Musk Team Access To Treasury Payment System

[Rendville]

‪Mark Joseph Stern‬ ‪@mjsdc.bsky.social‬
·
Take Note!
16 Democratic senators recently voted to confirm the Trump-appointed Treasury Secretary who just gave Musk’s team access to a Treasury payment system that disburses trillions and holds mass quantities of personal information.
Food for thought. www.nytimes.com/interactive/...

https://cdn.bsky.app/img/feed_thumbnail/plain/did:plc:6h7b2i6ttw3l4t7pvbvxdith/bafkreicdgy65ed7c3625hmdff4qclp4itbdc4nh3rjois5fg33qkqrnjf4@jpeg

[SheltieLover]

1. Why the fuck would they do that?

Is this real?

[Bluetus]

13. I don't EVER want to hear anybody say a peep when we talk about primarying

some of these assholes.

[SheltieLover]

22. I hope ALL get voted out!

You'll not hear any complaints from me.

I've always supported Dems, but imo, no real Dem would do such a thing.

Funny how that works, isn't it? Pukes NEVER vote with Dems or get elected as Rs & switch parties. A sane person might think something underhanded is going on.

[Bluetus]

39. WE have to organize for that.

Right now, there are no consequences for these people from blue states voting with Trump. And they won't pay any attention until they see a credible organization raising funds and searching for progressives to replace them.

This isn't just a 2025 issue. THESE PEOPLE are the reason we can't get much done when we are theoretically in power. And when we can't show the American public any real progress when we ARE theoretically in charge, there is no reason for them to vote for Dems.

This is a 50-year problem with this party.

[Mountain Mule]

139. I'll do my best to make sure there is a consequence

Senator Hickenlooper has betrayed Colorado and needs to be primaryed.

[Wiz Imp]

114. Be careful what you wish for. You may end up with a Senate with 75 or 80 Republicans.

[LW1977]

121. Like Bluetis said

NOT A PEEP!

[Yavin4]

14. There are Dems in leadership who work solely on behalf of the donors.

They do not care about what rank and file Democrats want nor what is good for the country.

[Baitball Blogger]

17. I wonder if Chuck Schumer is one of them.

[Yavin4]

21. Schumer only cares about campaign donations

Everything else is just white noise to him.

[Lulu KC]

93. He did NOT vote yes on the Secy of the Treasury

As you can see when you click on the link.

[Yavin4]

94. He needed to prevent members of his caucus that he's the leader of to not vote for this Secy of Treasury.

Now, Republicans can say, "well Democrats voted for him".

[Lulu KC]

95. And so, apparently can "Democrats" n/t

[JohnSJ]

45. No he wasn't according to the link.

[Lulu KC]

92. No he is not on the list of people who voted to confirm the Secy of the Treasury

That is what this list is. Not what the OP says it is, but since you asked.

[beyondtimes]

98. Chuck Schumer

Did not vote for this

[malaise]

23. Neoliberals playing all sides

We have them here too

[SheltieLover]

27. Sickening!

A bigger slap in the face than slobby's antics. We know he loves pootin & wants to destroy our country. But this from elected Dems?

[GPV]

46. As always.

[SheltieLover]

26. They need to go!

[Voltaire2]

31. Because the senate democratic caucus leaders insist that normal processes apply.

There is a massive failure going on in the leaders of our party. They are not rising too the occasion. Instead they are continuing the 'we are the adults, watch us be all bipartisan and stuff' nonsense that has been their strategy since the Clinton era.

IT GOT US RIGHT HERE.

[SheltieLover]

70. Wtaf? Sounds like the band playing while Titanic sank..

Pronlem is our justice system & legislative system was formulated with the presumption of integrity. That is not the case with repukes & hasn't been in many decades. So treating them with repect while they dismantle our country FOR POOTIN is not working.

[pnwmom]

36. They didn't. They voted to confirm a Treasury Secretary, not Musk. nt

[choie]

76. Thank you.

I’m pretty sure they didn’t know about the musk thing. I’m disappointed as hell about the dems response, but I can’t believe they would have done that knowingly.

[Wicked Blue]

78. They voted to confirm a Trump cabinet nominee.

They should not support any of his nominees.

[pnwmom]

83. I think it's better that they distinguish between qualified nominees like Bessent and nutcases like RFk.

In any case, the title of the article is a lie. The Senators didn't vote for Musk to do that.

[SheltieLover]

89. TY!

[ancianita]

96. I think it's better that they refuse to vote for any Trump nominee. At all. Do not help the Republican majority. Period.

They didn't vote for Musk, but still they made the bad and unnecessary choice to vote for a Trump nominee who they knew was chosen by Trump with the only qualification that they knew mattered to Trump -- to do Trump's bidding. The worst consequence of their bad choice was that Trump had Bessent give Musk the keys to the Treasury payment system. They can't act like they didn't know Bessent would do anything Trump told him to.

Yes, it does matter that they voted for a Trump nominee. By know they should know the deal -- that in the Heritage/Silicon oligarch takeover era, they should not cast one vote for anything Trump wants, particularly nominees who become henchmen.

As senators their choice to vote for any Trump nominee is bad governing judgment at best. Just because presidents before Trump let the U.S. Treasury be 'independent,' doesn't mean senators in the most deliberative body should have presumed Trump would do the same. Any aware senator would have known that Trump would have his eye on the U.S. Treasury as a source of trillions for the oligarchs he serves.

[pnwmom]

144. That's not the issue. The issue is that the title of the OP was false.

How you feel about the Senators' decision is a separate issue.

[ancianita]

147. The OP is about the consequence of 16 senators' votes, and so indirectly true.

Stand with "letter of the law" on a sentence if you want, but most people get the "spirit of the law" re the OP title without it being technically, correctly stated.

Their vote is in a political, deliberative context.
If every vote were taken in isolation, outside that context, then no Democratic senators' votes can be held to account.
At the least, they should be able to take phone calls and explain to constituents what they were thinking.

[pnwmom]

153. No, it's false, plain and simple. "Indirectly true" sounds like a Trumpism. We're better than that. nt

[valleyrogue]

138. "Qualified" ideologues are worst than crackpots.

They have the same exact goals.

[pnwmom]

145. That's your opinion. It doesn't change the fact that the title of the OP was false. nt

[questionseverything]

142. How can you say he's qualified when he immediately opened the system to a non elected

Non qualified individual that certainly seems to be on drugs?

[pnwmom]

146. His qualifications were based on his HISTORY, not his decisions going forward. nt

[SCantiGOP]

90. OP should be removed

Title is not just misleading, it is completely innacurate.

[Susan Calvin]

112. Agree. Misleading titles are not helpful, even if clarified in the body of the post. nt

[Cirsium]

137. No it isn't

16 Democratic senators did vote to confirm the Trump-appointed Treasury Secretary.

That Treasury Secretary did give Musk’s team access to a Treasury payment system.

Sources: NYT, WaPo, Politico, Senator Wyden, PBS, LA Times, etc.

This headline is consistent with those facts.

"16 Dem Senators Voted To Give Musk Team Access To Treasury Payment System."

I guess you could argue that the Senators didn't realize what they were doing, and the Treasury Secretary didn't realize what he was doing.

Here's a better headline for you:

"Trump hack Bessent gives unelected drug-addled fascist full access to the Treasury’s payment system"

[pnwmom]

154. It is false because they did not vote to give Bessent that authorization. No Treasury Secretary has ever

done anything like that before, and it didn't come out in his confirmation hearings.

[Cirsium]

155. Of course they did!

It is cowardly at this point to say "we had no idea what they would do."

What you are saying is that they have plausible deniability, in order to fool us, their supporters, which is really disgusting.

[orangecrush]

120. They shouldn't have voted to confirm any of these crooks.

[Oneironaut]

67. Because they're rich and stand to gain from it.

[pnwmom]

130. That's false. They recognize the difference between a nominee with deep experience, even if he's conservative,

and a nutcase like RFK or Tulsi.

[Lulu KC]

87. It is not real n/t

[mzmolly]

134. No. The headline is bait.

[lapucelle]

163. It's not real. There was no vote to give the Musk team access to the Treasury payment system. N/T

[Think. Again.]

2. What benefit do they see in legitimizing a fascist regime?

[pnwmom]

84. What benefit do you see in an OP title that is false? Are you assuming DUers can't read and think? nt

[Think. Again.]

97. May I ask what you're referring to? (I didn't write the OP)

[Susan Calvin]

113. Read the body of the post. It does not reflect the title. nt

[Think. Again.]

128. I don't think we have time to pretend that Dem Senators are oblivious to what is happening.

As my post above says, I question what possible benefit these Senators might be hoping for to vote yes to a (or to any) nominee that they can reasonably expect to carry out the deliberate destruction of the department they are being nominated to.

[Susan Calvin]

140. Oh, I completely agree.

I am grateful to be informed of who they are. I just don't think that a misleading title helps at all.

[Susan Calvin]

115. Not that I think any Democrat should vote for any Trump nominee. I don't.

I think the Democrats are currently having trouble grasping just how far these people will go. It's hard to disabuse yourself of the notion that we live in a sane world now.

[Think. Again.]

151. I'd say primarying any Dem that DOES vote "yes" to anything from the right is probably a 'must do' right now.

We need to have strong, solidly Left people in whatever seats we do have.

[33taw]

3. This headline is misleading. There has not been a vote approving Musk for anything.

[Mountainguy]

5. And written by an account that's been here less than a week

Pretty clear trolling

[Bluetus]

18. What did you think these appointees were going to do.

Defending DINOs who vote to confirm these fascists is what I would call trolling.

[Mountainguy]

44. You mean the ones that were going to be appointed anyway?

[Bluetus]

54. ESPECIALLY the ones that were going to be appointed anyway

It is about sending a clear message.

I will never buy this "go along to get along" bullshit when we are talking about enabling fascists.

When any Dems sign on for this, that gives the fascists the ability to say, "Hey, Dems voted for it too."

[choie]

77. That's hardly the point.

The Dems should vote No regardless.

[mainer]

8. Agreed, this is misleading

They did not vote to allow Musk to do anything.

[Wiz Imp]

116. It's not misleading. It's flat out Bullshit.

[claudette]

11. No. But

ALL Dumpy’s nominees should be voted NO by Dems. In my view

[Mountainguy]

19. And then what? The outcome is the same.

[claudette]

20. It would show

that democrats are not fools

[FoxNewsSucks]

68. Maybe, but why the FUCK would any Democrat give support to

Felon47, Eloon, or ANY of their proposed laws, orders or nominees?

I don't support that, do you? And I expect for Democrats we vote for to also NOT support it, whether their lack of support stops it or not.

Oppose, not support. Every time.

[Mountainguy]

72. I don't recall Trump or Musk

being up for a vote in the Senate.

[33taw]

28. Many will, but Trump can always nominate someone worse.

[Voltaire2]

38. These senators voted for this appointment.

That appointee then proceeded to hand over access to treasury systems to Elon Musk.
I realize that one step of indirection is a lot to process.

There is no good reason to vote for any of this regimes appointees. The bipartisan crap has to stop.

[JohnSJ]

41. It depends. If the person who they confirmed as treasury secretary gave every indication that he would be a proxy for

trump and musk, then it wouldn't be too misleading.

The fact is though, Scott Bessent is a very screwed up guy in the same frame as a Peter Navaro. He is an advocate of tariffs, and that alone should disqualify him.

[Think. Again.]

99. The OP title clearly says "musk team".

[Mountainguy]

4. lol, ok

Working awful hard to blame Democrats for what Republicans are doing.

[claudette]

10. Why are they

voting for those nominees?

[Mountainguy]

16. Why shouldn't they?

And what would be accomplished if they didn't? Without 4 Rs switching as well the outcome is the same.

[claudette]

25. My

gawd. Dems should show NO support for Dump.

[Mountainguy]

48. So...tilt at windmills?

yeah, that'll show em.

[claudette]

50. What does that mean?

How does voting yes to incompetent nominees fix the problem?

[Mountainguy]

52. How does voting no, with no chance to stop them

fix the problem?

[claudette]

56. It doesn't fix the problem

But it shows Dumpy that Democrats believe his nominees are not qualified to be in the Cabinet

[Mountainguy]

60. But, most of them ARE

Scott Bassent is as qualified as anyone else to run treasury.

Do you really think that anyone could have prevented the President of the US from giving someone access to those systems?

[claudette]

63. The point is

He didn’t need Dem votes to win. Not voting for Dumpy’s nominees shows him that Dems are not on his side.

[Mountainguy]

64. But that's not how confirmation votes go

There has never been a mass opposition to every nominee in history. That includes republicans voting for Obama and Biden noms, even ones that were very unpopular on that side. Have a look at Hillary Clintons nomination for a good example. Do you think anyone on the Republican side actually wanted her to be SoS? No, but she was clearly qualified and they voted for her 92-0.

Only a couple of Bidens nominations were close and those votes happened in one of the most contentious political moments in history, which most Republicans claiming that he hadn't even won.

The absurdity is that you expect democrats to oppose every cabinet selection en masse or deem them unpure.

[sprinkleeninow]

101. Never been a mass opposition? Well there should be now.

Sends a message.
This is an ABNORMAL time in our lives.
Totally, without reservation.

[FoxNewsSucks]

105. Are you seriously comparing Hillary Clinton to the likes of woman-abuser and drunk Hegseth,

Russian asset Tulsi Gabbard or billionaire-tool Kash Patel????

Obama and Biden were actual presidents, not criminal traitorous grifters. Their nominees were qualified people, all of them dedicated to public good. Felon47 and his nominees are the exact opposite and should never be supported. Ever, in any way.

[RandomNumbers]

122. How many Dems voted for Hegseth?

I mean the actual confirmation vote, not the motion to proceed or cloture.

I wouldn't light any matches around that strawman if I were you.

[FoxNewsSucks]

143. Not exactly the point.

Obama and Biden were legitimately elected. Implying that tRump deserves the same treatment is bullshit. Clinton, or any other of their appointees, also are not comparable to tRump's.

We know their goals, they should be vehemently opposed. No legitimacy given. Not even the veneer of "bipartisan support"

[Mountainguy]

149. Trump was legitimately elected too

Or are we doing election denial here now too?

[FoxNewsSucks]

157. If it makes you feel better to believe that republicons are honest

and play fair, there's nothing more to be said.

They've been perfecting "winning" elections for decades, and not by running on what the public wants or what would be good for the country.

Have a nice night.

[Mountainguy]

162. Hard to say it's not what the public wants

when they got more votes than we did, which saying exactly what they would do.

[uponit7771]

161. So stick to norms while people are hurting... I don't feel that safe

[uponit7771]

160. Solidarity at least, flight them as much a possible at every turn

[rzemanfl]

108. There's one thing here I always read. I suggest others in this thread do the same. n/t

[pnwmom]

49. That nominee didn't say he'd let Musk do that. This would have happened under anyone Trump appointed.

DOGE happened outside of the appointment process.

[claudette]

51. So

why vote yes for ANY of Dumpy’s nominees? How is that “fighting” back? It’s caving in

[pnwmom]

59. The nominee had deep financial experience and isn't a nutcase like some of the others.

It minimizes the awfulness of RFK, Hegseth, Gabbard, etc if all of the Democrats oppose even qualified people like Bessette.It looks like they don't have serious reasons for refusing to confirm.

https://subscriber.politicopro.com/article/2025/01/why-some-democrats-backed-trumps-treasury-pick-00200873

[claudette]

61. Doesn't matter

to me. It would send a message to Dumpy that Duma are not on his side. They don’t need Dem votes anyway. They have the majority

[pnwmom]

73. We don't need to send that message to Dumpy. It's the voters we need to keep in mind. nt

[moonbeam23]

110. Thanks for being reasonable

At one point this guy seemed to be a democrat and even worked and got investment from Soros. He doesn't seem maga...more like the typical asshole rich wall streeter who has his and is now a repug.

Go easy on the pitchforks people!

[Historic NY]

6. Elon Musk's Team Now Has Access to Treasury's Payments System

Elon Musk’s Team Now Has Access to Treasury’s Payments System

Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent gave Mr. Musk’s representatives at the so-called Department of Government Efficiency a powerful tool to monitor and potentially limit government spending.

https://www.nytimes.com/2025/02/01/us/politics/elon-musk-doge-federal-payments-system.html]

[milestogo]

34. That doesn't mean there was a vote on whether to give it to them.

[Historic NY]

168. They voted for the Sec of the Treasury nominee

who allowed. Musk do it

[sprinkleeninow]

109. NYT wants you to pay to access this article. nt

[claudette]

9. Dear Lord

Help us. What is wrong with them?

[milestogo]

12. What the actual fuck?

Cory Booker?

Mark Kelly?

[Bluetus]

24. Very much on brand for Booker

He is our version of Susan Collins.

[SheltieLover]

29. Every single one needs to go.

[pnwmom]

40. The OP title is a lie. That's what should go.

Not one of those Senators voted to give Musk access.

[SheltieLover]

43. Ty!

I was about ready to blow my top!

[pnwmom]

53. I figured you were responding to the misleading title. Thanks for responding! nt

[Autumn]

15. Edited I did find him. It seems I had him blocked

[MagickMuffin]

30. I found him on there

Not sure of his political views but wanted to confirm he is on ‪Mark Joseph Stern‬ ‪@mjsdc.bsky.social

I copied/pasted the link in the op

Mark Joseph Stern
ETA: Senior writer at Slate covering courts and the law. There’s usually a parrot on my shoulder.

[33taw]

32. I found him: mjsdc.bsky.social‬

[GreenWave]

35. same here.

Hmm. We’re having trouble finding that site.

We can’t connect to the server at cdn.bsky.

[GreenWave]

42. above source found him.

[Ms. Toad]

37. Please change your misleading headline.

The 16 senators voted to confirm Trump's nominee for Treasury Secretary.

They did not vote to give Musk access to the Treasury payment system.

[sprinkleeninow]

119. My take:

The 16 senators voted to confirm Trump's nominee for Treasury Secretary.

Which in turn, indirectly, gave Bessent power to allow Musk access to the Treasury payment system.

Just sayin'...

[Ms. Toad]

141. They were not voting on whether a musk should have access to the Treasury

They were voting on giving someone, other than musk, a specific job.

[mzmolly]

135. I reported this

OP. It's absurd.

[Autumn]

47. No. They voted to confirm Scott Bessent. He is the one who gave Musk access.

[milestogo]

74. Thank you.

[Big Blue Marble]

118. Every Democratic vote for a Trump appointee is a vote for facism.

There is no way to spin it.

[Autumn]

126. I agree 100% with that. Their bipartisanship will kill us all

[maccafan]

55. Why????

This makes me sick to my stomach!!

[JohnSJ]

57. This Treasury Secretary, Scott Bessent position on tariffs should disqualify him. He seems like something like Peter

Navaro.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scott_Bessent

[BamaRefugee]

58. But DON'T YOU DARE post anything here negative about them.

[Meowmee]

62. Apparently though they did not vote for eloon to have access...they voted to confirm

The treasurer who gave the keys to eloon. Not the same thing. This post is misleading imo. All d now should however be speaking out against him being given access and doing something about it.

[kacekwl]

65. Not to be

disrespectful but that is one of the most idiotic (nicest word I could think of) statements I've heard.

[Meowmee]

66. Back at ya 😀

[elocs]

69. Timothy Kaine--D Virginia, Hillary's running mate in '16 zzzzzzz. Wasn't he just being hailed for doing something?

What is the reason and explanation by them for doing this?

[Ritabert]

71. Are they ceazy?

[totodeinhere]

75. 16 Dem senators did not vote for that.

They voted to confirm Trump's Treasury Secretary, and it would be legitimate to criticize the 16 senators for their vote. But they did not vote to give Musk access to the payment system. That happened after the new secretary was sworn in.

[Charging Triceratops]

79. Fetterman. Of course.

Pennsylvania remembers.

[SARose]

80. They knew exactly who they voted for

From Wikipedia

Snip

Tenure
Bessent was sworn in as the 79th Secretary of the Treasury by Supreme Court Justice Brett Kavanaugh on January 28, 2025.[48] On Friday, January 31, 2025, Bessent gave Elon Musk and his Department of Government Efficiency team access to the U.S. Treasury Department's payment system, which sends out $6 trillion annually in payments from federal agencies and contains personal tax information for millions of Americans.[49]

Views
In article in fall 2022 commemorating former Japanese Prime Minister Shinzo Abe, Bessent wrote "President Trump’s most enduring achievement may have been to wake the United States and the world to the growing dangers of an ever-more-antagonistic China. In response, Abe’s greatest foreign policy achievement was taking this awakening and developing a multilateral solution for containment."[59]

Bessent has praised Trump's proposal to implement broad tariffs.[60] In a Fox News op-ed in November 2024, Bessent wrote that the "U.S. opened its markets to the world, but China's resulting economic growth has only cemented the hold of a despotic regime" and argued tariffs "are a means to finally stand up for Americans".[61] Regarding Trump's pledge to impose blanket 20% tariffs on all imports, Bessent argued that these "were maximalist positions that would probably be watered down in talks with trading partners".[22]

Shadow Fed chair proposal
In a 2024 interview in Barron's weekly newspaper, Bessent proposed an alternative to any plan by President Trump to replace the Federal Reserve chairman Jerome Powell, which "was to nominate and seek Senate confirmation of Powell’s replacement well over a year before Powell’s term ends in May 2026". This has been called the "shadow Fed chair" because the confirmed candidate could present forecasts on future Fed decisions (forward guidance) after May 2026, while the present Fed chair is making decisions on present federal reserve policies. In essence, the plan would weaken the ability for the Fed chair to present forward guidance for the majority of 2026.[62]

Snip

More

[canetoad]

81. This is a sly, incorrect post

Designed to make it appear that Democratic senators actually consented to Elon Musk having access to the payment system.

Your headline has been extrapolated from the available information and appears designed to make Democratic Senators look bad. Is this true?

[Earthrise]

82. Damn it! Dem Senators voted to confirm the Treasury Secretary and that is NOT the same

as voting to allow Musk team to access the payment system,.

Accuracy matters!

[CousinIT]

85. THEY NEED TO STOP VOTING FOR HIS NOMINEES!!

[Lulu KC]

86. False post--

The nytimes address leads nowhere.
The bluesky post is a thumbnail from a different vote.
There was NOT a vote on Musk and the Treasury's system.

[patphil]

88. You're being deliberately deceptive.

They didn't vote to allow Musk access to anything.
Yes, they confirmed Scott Bessent as Secretary of the Treasury, but they had no idea what he would do.
Secretary Bessent, at the direction of Trump gave Musk access to that data.
Musk's actions were an attack on our government, aided and abetted by Trump, not the Senate.

Please don't make accusations that are obviously false. Truth matters here.

[durablend]

100. "No idea what he would do"

Oh please are they all fucking stupid or something?

[patphil]

156. Do you really think they knew that Musk would attack these agencies and steal their data?

And then lock them out of their own systems?
Yeah, Democrats in the Senate shouldn't have voted for any of the people Trump nominated, but that should have been done on general principles, not because of some know threat.
They were lousy candidates, but the level of pure maliciousness that would result from their confirmations was not evident.
I still feel your attacks were unwarranted.

[idahoblue]

91. Flood their inboxes

Bury these traitors in emails, letters and phone calls. If you live near DC, sit in their office until they give answers. Find out when they will be in their home offices, go there, demand answers.

[Think. Again.]

102. YES!!!

[Buddyzbuddy]

103. My 1st reaction is B.S..But if 16 Dems voted for confirmation

then they voted for all decisions that nominee implements. You break it, you own it. These aren't normal times. Large numbers of Democrats to confirm will NOT provide cover. We are tracking you and we are f.cking serious. The worst case scenario for you is, we give up and stop voting. We need you to fight or quit.
They have no shame and you have no b.lls. Terrible combination.

[Susan Calvin]

104. We are missing an alert category.

We need one for quote this post is just plain false close quote. I'm not happy with Democrats voting for any Trump nominee, and I don't think they should. Unless by some chance an actually sane and not project 2025 one is nominated, which I don't think is going to happen. But that's not the same thing as voting to give Musk access to the treasury computers. Maybe it is in hindsight, but I'm afraid Democrats still have a problem grasping just how far these people will actually go.

I'm somewhat embarrassed to say that I actually went so far as to copy the graphic of the list, until I saw Tim Kaine and went now wait a minute.

[redstatebluegirl]

107. I agree, we don't need this kind of stuff right now! They want us fighting each other with bad information like this.

Last edited Mon Feb 3, 2025, 07:58 PM - Edit history (1)

[Wiz Imp]

127. The Labor Secretary nominee actually appears to be a good candidate.

Some Republicans will definitely oppose her. Democrats should not. We will never get a better nominee for this position.

https://www.govexec.com/management/2024/11/trump-picks-lori-chavez-deremer-pro-union-republican-lead-labor-department/401279/

Trump picks Lori Chavez-DeRemer, a pro-union Republican, to lead the Labor Department
Chavez-DeRemer, who recently represented Oregon in Congress, has often been one of the lone Republican supporters of various pro-union bills and has advocated for improvements to the child care system.

In Congress, she was one of three House Republicans to support the PRO Act, one of the most substantial union bills in recent years that would strengthen workers’ rights to organize and limit retaliation from employers. She was also one of the few House Republicans to support the Public Service Freedom to Negotiate Act, which would expand collective bargaining rights for state and local government workers — positions predominately held by women.

Chavez-DeRemer has advocated for improvements to the child care system. Last year, she was one of only five Republicans who responded to The 19th’s questions about the kind of child care policy they’d support, saying she was in favor of expanding a tax credit for employers who offer child care.

https://abcnews.go.com/Politics/trumps-labor-secretary-nominee-lori-chavez-deremer/story?id=116156534

The National Education Association (NEA), the nation's largest professional employee organization, applauded the nomination.

"During her time in Congress, Lori Chavez-DeRemer voted against gutting the Department of Education, against school vouchers, and against cuts to education funding. She cosponsored the Public Service Freedom to Negotiate Act, the PRO Act, and other pro-student, pro-public school, pro-worker legislation," NEA President Becky Pringle said in a statement.

The PRO Act would expand labor protections regarding workers' rights to form unions in the workplace. Chavez-DeRemer, who signed on to co-sponsor the bill this summer, is one of just three Republicans in the House to do so.

"This record stands in stark contrast to Donald Trump's anti-worker, anti-union record, and his extreme Project 2025 agenda that would gut workplace protections, make it harder for workers to unionize, and diminish the voice of working people," Pringle added.

[Celerity]

165. Labor Nominee Chavez-DeRemer: More Trump Loyalist Than Union Ally

https://www.democraticunderground.com/100219787092

A cursory look at her record reveals the standard contemporary GOP positions.

https://prospect.org/politics/2024-12-04-labor-nominee-chavez-deremer-trump-loyalist/



President-elect Donald Trump’s pick for labor secretary, Oregon Republican Rep. Lori Chavez-DeRemer, has been portrayed as the rare pro-union Republican, but a quick review of her history as an elected representative reveals a more mixed record. There are also indications that she will carry out the role, if confirmed, as a Trump loyalist, much as we’ve seen with the incoming administration’s other named nominees. Chavez-DeRemer is the daughter of a Teamster union member, and the former mayor of Happy Valley, Oregon. She’s also a businesswoman, and founded a network of medical clinics along with her husband that brings in between $1 million and $5 million a year, according to her federal financial disclosures.

Chavez-DeRemer lost her re-election race last month after serving one term in Congress. She has generally been described as a pro-worker Republican who diverges from the GOP’s usual exclusionary preference for employers and business interests in all labor matters. Most notably, reports have pointed out that Chavez-DeRemer is one of just three Republicans who co-sponsored the PRO Act, a proposed bill to expand and protect workers’ rights that has been roundly rejected by conservatives, big businesses, and virtually every other Republican member of Congress.



Her nomination has been endorsed by Teamsters President Sean O’Brien, and has received praise from other union leaders for some of her legislative votes supporting workers’ union rights and in favor of preserving the Department of Education and public schools. Chavez-DeRemer was the only Republican on the House Committee on Education and the Workforce who opposed a proposal to reduce the National Labor Relations Board’s authority over disputes between employers and unions; and she co-sponsored a bill to allow workers to receive tax deductions when paying membership dues to their unions, the Oregon Capital Chronicle reported in August. Yet when Republicans on the House labor subcommittee “scheduled six meetings that devolved into union-bashing, Chavez-DeRemer did not attend and publicly support labor,” the Chronicle noted. Indeed, throughout her term, the Republican rep walked “a fine line between appealing to labor unions and business interests,” according to the Chronicle.

Indeed, according to the AFL-CIO’s congressional ratings, Chavez-DeRemer voted for policies that favor workers just 10 percent of the time, only slightly higher than the 6 percent score for the average House Republican. She voted in favor of a bill that would undermine the unemployment insurance program, for example, including by penalizing recipients for inadvertent errors; and for legislation that would loosen regulation of health benefits and allow employers to offer plans that aren’t backed by adequate reserves, the AFL-CIO said. Chavez-DeRemer has also voted against one of the biggest labor priorities of the past decade—a “joint employer” rule to restrict companies’ ability to effectively outsource certain legal, pay, and benefits obligations to third parties, like contractors and franchisees.

snip

[Wiz Imp]

167. Anyone who thinks that you're gonna get a better nominee than that from Trump is crazy.

She's definitely more qualified than just about any other Trump nominee and not a MAGA nutcase . Elizabeth Warren has already voiced support for her. I certainly hope she is confirmed as should all Democrats because if she isn't, the next choice will be someone like Eugene Scalia. He is the kind of monster you cam expect as an alternative to Chavez-DeRemer.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eugene_Scalia

In 2019, The New York Times wrote that Scalia "is perhaps best known for his opposition to a regulation that would have mandated greater protections for workers at risk of repetitive stress injuries". The regulation was repealed by Congress in 2001.

During his career in private practice, Scalia has defended major corporations against financial and labor regulations.

Writing in The New Yorker, Eyal Press said: "as a corporate lawyer, Scalia has repeatedly hindered the efforts of workers to secure benefits or defend their rights." After leaving the Bush administration, he helped Wall Street firms oppose financial oversight and criticized banking regulations put in place under Obama.

Scalia argued for the plaintiffs in Wal-Mart v. Maryland in July 2006, which invalidated a state law under which large companies with at least 10,000 employees would have been required to spend at least 8% of their payroll on employee healthcare

During his tenure in the Department of Labor, he weakened some labor and employment protections, drawing criticism from organized labor leaders.

Janet Herold, an Obama-era career appointee to the Labor Department, spearheaded a number of employment discrimination lawsuits against major technology companies, including the Oracle Corporation. In 2019, Herold filed a complaint in which she alleged that Scalia had abused his authority by intervening to settle a 2017 Labor Department lawsuit in which Oracle was being investigated for allegedly underpaying women and people of color. Scalia encouraged a settlement figure between $17 million and $38 million, which Herold considered too low. Oracle went on to win the case, with the Department of Labor deciding not to appeal the decision. The Department of Labor dismissed Herold's complaint against Scalia, saying that Herold's "retaliation allegations rest on erroneous speculation regarding matters she is not in a position to know" and that Scalia had not participated in settlement discussions with Oracle. Herold was fired by Scalia in January 2021 after refusing to accept a transfer to a non-legal position.

[LW1977]

106. Did Smith or Klobuchar vote for this?

Primary both of them if they did!

[Fla Dem]

111. Post Headline is not true.

16 Dem Senators did not vote to give Musk or his "team Access to the Treasury Payment System. However, once he was approved by the senate, I'm sure either Trump or Musk told him what was going to happen and he had no choice.

[PortTack]

117. Beat me to it...let's keep the facts straight here!

[Nasruddin]

123. I agree but

For judgment this bad, I want to know who they are & want to make sure ... well it's usually not permissible to say here.
That my displeasure is properly communicated in the accepted ways done in a democracy, shall we say.

[AntiFascist]

124. Shocked to see some of the names on this list! n/t

[PoindexterOglethorpe]

125. So what the fuck were any of them thinking?

I'm in NM, and my two Democratic Senators are real Democrats, unlike the 16.

[Pris]

129. Fetterman is an apologist for trump

[Mountain Mule]

131. Well, that rips it

I see that former Colorado Governor and current Colorado Senator John Hickenlooper is on that list. I have always supported him but no more. I'll be calling up his staff and sending him an email to express how very angry and disappointed his Colorado constituents are.

[Raven123]

132. Congratulations Rendville

You successfully created a plentiful response to a post that cites no such vote. I appreciate those who did the fact checking, as the link in the OP showed me a list of names with no context, which made no sense to me. I assumed it was a technical issue on my end.

I have mistakenly believed similar types of posts in the past. I try to avoid repeating those mistakes.

[mzmolly]

133. Misleading and divisive.

[valleyrogue]

136. And WHO are the Republicans who voted for this POS?

THAT is the emphasis that needs to be made. Sixteen Democrats and how many Republicans?

[tritsofme]

148. This headline is a lie. Stop lying about Democrats. Fucking pathetic.

[IrishBubbaLiberal]

152. Photo, Protesters at Schumer Bldg

A friend in the neighborhood just sent me a picture from in front of Schumer’s building.
(I’d join them if I didn’t have a soup to attend to right now!!)

— David Lublin (@davidlublin.bsky.social) 2025-02-02T23:42:11.275Z

[crim son]

158. Angus King is not a Democrat.

I'd look that list over carefully to ensure accuracy. Any Dem who did this must be removed.

[uponit7771]

159. omg

[Morbius]

164. I don't recall.

Did the original poster write anything to the effect of Musk's intentions prior to the Senate confirmation of the new Treasury Secretary? Assuming not (I think I would remember, though I am not perfect), I'd like to know why the original poster wants to hold these Democratic Senators to account for not anticipating these actions.

Ya got that? If you didn't know what Musk was intending, how can you expect them to know? We're all dealing with extremely devious people.

[Celerity]

166. your OP title is misleading, it should read:

16 Dem Caucus Senators Voted FOR the Trump Treasury Sec. Nominee, Who Gave Musk Team Access To Treasury Payment System

(that fits in the DU title space, btw)

[FoxNewsSucks]

169. And remember. . . .