Cheddar RSS

Instagram is beginning to test the use of artificial intelligence to determine if kids are lying about their ages on the app, parent company Meta Platforms said on Monday.

Meta has been using AI to determine people's ages for some time, the company said, but photo and video-sharing app will now “proactively” look for teen accounts it suspects belong to teenagers even if they entered an inaccurate birthdate when they signed up.

If it is determined that a user is misrepresenting their age, the account will automatically become a teen account, which has more restrictions than an adult account. Teen accounts are private by default. Private messages are restricted so teens can only receive them from people they follow or are already connected to. “Sensitive content,” such as videos of people fighting or those promoting cosmetic procedures, will be limited, Meta said. Teens will also get notifications if they are on Instagram for more than 60 minutes and a “sleep mode” will be enabled that turns off notifications and sends auto-replies to direct messages from 10 p.m. until 7 a.m.

Meta says it trains its AI to look for signals, such as the type of content the account interacts, profile information and when the account was created, to determine the owner's age.

The heightened measures arrive as social media companies face increased scrutiny over how their platform affects the mental health and well-being of younger users. A growing number of states are also trying to pass age verification laws, although they have faced court challenges.

Meta and other social media companies support putting the onus on app stores to verify ages amid criticism that they don’t do enough to make their products safe for children — or verify that no kids under 13 use them.

Instagram will also send notifications to parents “with information about how they can have conversations with their teens on the importance of providing the correct age online,” the company said.

WASHINGTON (AP) — Google is confronting an existential threat as the U.S. government tries to break up the company as punishment for turning its revolutionary search engine into an illegal monopoly.

The drama began to unfold Monday in a Washington courtroom as three weeks of hearings kicked off to determine how the company should be penalized for operating a monopoly in search. In its opening arguments, federal antitrust enforcers also urged the court to impose forward-looking remedies to prevent Google from using artificial intelligence to further its dominance.

“This is a moment in time, we’re at an inflection point, will we abandon the search market and surrender them to control of the monopolists or will we let competition prevail and give choice to future generations,” said Justice Department attorney David Dahlquist.

The proceedings, known in legal parlance as a “remedy hearing,” are set to feature a parade of witnesses that includes Google CEO Sundar Pichai.

The U.S. Department of Justice is asking a federal judge to order a radical shake-up that would ban Google from striking the multibillion dollar deals with Apple and other tech companies that shield its search engine from competition, share its repository of valuable user data with rivals and force a sale of its popular Chrome browser.

Google’s attorney, John Schmidtlein, said in his opening statement that the court should take a much lighter touch. He said the government’s heavy-handed proposed remedies wouldn’t boost competition but instead unfairly reward lesser rivals with inferior technology.

“Google won its place in the market fair and square,” Schmidtlein said.

The moment of reckoning comes four-and-a-half-years after the Justice Department filed a landmark lawsuit alleging Google’s search engine had been abusing its power as the internet's main gateway to stifle competition and innovation for more than a decade.

After the case finally went to trial in 2023, a federal judge last year ruled Google had been making anti-competitive deals to lock in its search engine as the go-to place for digital information on the iPhone, personal computers and other widely used devices, including those running on its own Android software.

That landmark ruling by U.S. District Judge Amit Mehta sets up a high-stakes drama that will determine the penalties for Google’s misconduct in a search market that it has defined since Larry Page and Sergey Brin founded the company in a Silicon Valley garage in 1998.

Since that austere start, Google has expanded far beyond search to become a powerhouse in email, digital mapping, online video, web browsing, smartphone software and data centers.

Seizing upon its victory in the search case, the Justice Department is now setting out to prove that radical steps must be taken to rein in Google and its corporate parent, Alphabet Inc.

“Google’s illegal conduct has created an economic goliath, one that wreaks havoc over the marketplace to ensure that — no matter what occurs — Google always wins,” the Justice Department argued in documents outlining its proposed penalties. “The American people thus are forced to accept the unbridled demands and shifting, ideological preferences of an economic leviathan in return for a search engine the public may enjoy.”

Although the proposed penalties were originally made under President Joe Biden's term, they are still being embraced by the Justice Department under President Donald Trump, whose first administration filed the case against Google. Since the change in administrations, the Justice Department has also attempted to cast Google's immense power as a threat to freedom, too.

In his opening statement, Dahlquist noted that top officials from the Justice Department were in the room to watch proceedings. He said their presence indicated that the case had the full support of federal antitrust regulators, both past and present.

“The fact that this case was filed in 2020, tried in 2023, under two different administrations, and joined by 49 states demonstrates the non-partisan nature of this case and our proposed remedies,” Dahlquist said.

Dahlquist also said that Mehta would be hearing a lot about AI — “perhaps more than you want, your honor,” — and said top executives from AI companies, like ChatGPT, would be called to testify. He said the court's remedies should include provisions to make sure that Google's AI product, Gemini, isn't used to strengthen its existing search monopoly.

“We believe that Google can and will attempt to circumvent the court's remedies if it is not included,” Dahlquist said. “Gen AI is Google's next evolution to keep their vicious cycle spinning.”

Schmidtlein, Google's attorney, said rival AI companies had seen enormous growth in recent years and were doing “just fine."

Google is also sounding alarms about the proposed requirements to share online search data with rivals and the proposed sale of Chrome posing privacy and security risks. “The breadth and depth of the proposed remedies risks doing significant damage to a complex ecosystem. Some of the proposed remedies would imperil browser developers and jeopardize the digital security of millions of consumers," Google lawyers said in a filing leading up to hearings.

The showdown over Google's fate marks the climax of the biggest antitrust case in the U.S. since the Justice Department sued Microsoft in the late 1990s for leveraging its Windows software for personal computers to crush potential rivals.

The Microsoft battle culminated in a federal judge declaring the company an illegal monopoly and ordering a partial breakup — a remedy that was eventually overturned by an appeals court.

Google intends to file an appeal of Mehta's ruling from last year that branded its search engine as an illegal monopoly but can't do so until the remedy hearings are completed. After closing arguments are presented in late May, Mehta intends to make his decision on the remedies before Labor Day.

The search case marked the first in a succession of antitrust cases that have been brought against a litany of tech giants that include Facebook and Instagram parent Meta Platforms, which is currently fighting allegations of running an illegal monopoly in social media in another Washington D.C. trial. Other antitrust cases have been brought against both Apple and Amazon, too.

The Justice Department also targeted Google's digital advertising network in a separate antitrust case that resulted last week in another federal judge's decision that found the company was abusing its power in that market, too. That ruling means Google will be heading into another remedy hearing that could once again raise the specter of a breakup later this year or early next year.

___

Liedtke reported from San Francisco.

WASHINGTON (AP) — President Donald Trump repeated his attacks Monday against the chair of the Federal Reserve, demanding that the central bank lower its key interest rate to boost the economy.

Trump called Powell “a major loser” and said that energy and grocery prices are “substantially lower” and “there is virtually No Inflation.” Yet Trump said the economy could slow without rate cuts.

Gas prices have fallen for the past two months, in part because oil costs have dropped on fears of slower growth, but food prices jumped in January and March and overall inflation remains above the Fed’s 2% target.

Trump's comments drove the stock market and the dollar lower as investors in the U.S. and overseas grow increasingly wary about the economic standing of the U.S. On Friday, a top White House adviser said the administration is studying whether it can fire Powell, a move that would undermine the Fed's independence and likely send shock waves through global financial markets.

The stock market, which fell immediately at the opening bell Monday, tumbled further after Trump’s post, with Dow dropping by more than 1,000 points and the broad S&P 500 stock index falling nearly 3% in mid-day trading. The dollar fell to a three-year low.

The Federal Reserve was established as an independent agency and most economists think central banks that are free of political interference do a better job at keeping inflation in check. Otherwise, it would be harder for the Fed to take unpopular steps to keep prices down, such as raising interest rates.

The interest rate on 10-year Treasuries has been rising as Trump rolled out aggressive tariff policies against trading partners and continues to attack Powell and the Federal Reserve. The interest rate ticked higher again on Monday to 4.37%.

The dollar losing value is unusual when stock prices fall and Treasury yields rise because investors typically buy U.S. government bonds during market turmoil, driving down the yield. Instead, investors appear to be avoiding U.S. markets due to the perception of rising risk.

Trump also criticized Powell for being “too late” to move on interest rates. Powell and other Fed officials have long acknowledged that they waited too long to raise rates when inflation was first ignited in 2021.

But right now, Powell has underscored that the Fed faces a potentially “challenging scenario.” Trump's tariffs could worsen inflation, and the Fed would typically respond to rising prices by keeping its rate elevated, or even raising it. Yet the economy could also slow because of the duties, which the Fed would normally seek to counter with rate cuts.

"Our tool only does one of those two things at the same time,” Powell said last week.

As a result, Powell has underscored that the Fed will stay on the sidelines as it waits to see how the tariff policies play out.

Trump lashed out at Powell on Friday and said he could fire him if he wanted, though it would likely touch off a legal battle that could go to the Supreme Court. Powell has said the president lacks the authority to fire him and has made clear he won't step down until his term ends in May 2026.

Kevin Hassett, director of the White House's National Economic Council, when asked Friday whether firing Powell is an option, said that Trump “and his team will continue to study that matter.” Hassett also accused Powell of acting politically.

Trump made a similar claim in his Truth Social post, accusing the Fed chair of cutting rates last year “in order to help Sleepy Joe Biden, later Kamala, get elected.” The Fed reduced its key rate three times in late 2024 as inflation cooled and out of concern that hiring was also slowing, though it later rebounded.

On Sunday, Republican Sen. John Kennedy from Louisiana defended Powell on NBC's “Meet the Press" and added that, “I don’t think the president, any president, has the right to remove the Federal Reserve chairman."

“The Federal Reserve ought to be independent,” he said.

Also Sunday, Austan Goolsbee, president of the Federal Reserve's Chicago branch, said on CBS' “Face the Nation” that undermining the Federal Reserve's independence could lead to higher inflation, slower economic growth, and less hiring.

And William English, an economist at the Yale School of Management and a former senior Fed staffer, said Trump's attacks on the Fed aren't “going to make the American people better off over time.”

“They’ll end up in all likelihood with higher inflation, and that is not something that people want,” he said.

SAN FRANCISCO (AP) — As Big Tech kicks off its quarterly earnings season this week, the industry’s bellwether companies have been thrust into a cauldron of uncertainty and turmoil that they didn’t anticipate when Donald Trump re-entered the White House nearly 100 days ago.

Since President Trump's Jan. 20 inauguration, Big Tech stocks have been on a see-sawing ride that has eviscerated trillions of dollars in shareholder wealth amid an onslaught of tariffs and other potentially detrimental actions.

It's the polar opposite of what Apple CEO Tim Cook, Tesla CEO Elon Musk, Google CEO Sundar Pichai, Facebook founder Mark Zuckerberg and Amazon founder Jeff Bezos hoped for when they assembled behind Trump as he was sworn in.

That display of unity reflected a belief that Trump's second stint in the White House would be a refreshing change from the heavy-handed regulation of President Joe Biden’s administration while unleashing even more lucrative opportunities in artificial intelligence and deal-making.

But the Trump administration’s policies so far have vexed Big Tech’s “Magnificent Seven” companies — a group consisting of Apple, Microsoft, Nvidia, Amazon, Tesla, Google parent Alphabet and Facebook parent Meta Platforms. Since Trump’s inauguration, the Magnificent Seven’s combined market value has plunged by $3.8 trillion, or 22%, as of April 20.

The financial damage was even more severe a few days after Trump’s April 2 unveiling of sweeping reciprocal tariffs that would have exacted a heavy toll on Big Tech's supply chains in China and other key markets around the globe. A temporary freeze on the majority of the most punitive tariffs and an exemption from most of the fees on electronics coming in from China has provided some relief, but Trump has made it clear the reprieve may be short-lived.

That has left the specter of Trump's ongoing trade war hanging over Big Tech, whose influence extends around the world.

“The mass confusion created by this constant news flow out of the White House is dizzying for the industry and investors and creating massive uncertainty and chaos for companies trying to plan their supply chain, inventory, and demand,” Wedbush Securities analyst Dan Ives said.

Besides the upheaval triggered by Trump's tariffs, his administration is also in the midst of trying to prove regulators' allegations that Meta has been running an illegal monopoly in social networking, and working to persuade a federal judge to break up Google after its search engine last year was found to be illegally abusing its power. Trump also has given no indication of abandoning antitrust lawsuits filed by the Biden administration that could hobble Apple and Amazon.

And Nvidia absorbed a significant setback last week when the Trump administration banned it from selling one of its popular AI chips to China, prompting the company to record a $5.5 billion charge to account for the stockpile of processors that it intended to export to that country.

Tech CEOs will get a chance to discuss the fallout from the trade war and other challenges still ahead during analyst conference calls that will be held as part of their companies’ financial reports for the January-March quarter.

The ritual will kick off Tuesday when Tesla is scheduled to release its full financial report after already revealing that its first-quarter car sales dropped by 13% from the same time last year.

The decline occurred against a backdrop of vandalism, widespread protests and calls for a consumer boycott amid a backlash to Musk’s high-profile role in the White House overseeing a cost-cutting purge of U.S. government agencies.

After Musk discusses his strategy for reversing a decrease in Tesla's market value since he joined Trump in the White House, Google parent Alphabet Inc. is scheduled to announce its results on Thursday. Then four of the Magnificent Seven will get their turn next week: ; Meta and Microsoft on April 30; and Amazon and Apple on May 1.

Nvidia, which operates on a fiscal year ending in January, is scheduled to wrap things up on May 28 with the release of its quarterly results.

—-

This story corrects the date that Amazon will release its quarterly earnings to May 1.

NEW YORK (AP) — Among the threats tariffs pose to the U.S. economy, none may be as strange as the sell-off in the dollar.

Currencies rise and fall all the time because of inflation fears, central bank moves and other factors. But economists worry that the recent drop in the dollar is so dramatic that it reflects something more ominous as President Donald Trump tries to reshape global trade: a loss of confidence in the U.S.

The dollar's dominance in cross-border trade and as a safe haven has been nurtured by administrations of both parties for decades because it helps keep U.S. borrowing costs down and allows Washington to project power abroad — enormous advantages that could possibly disappear if faith in the U.S. was damaged.

“Global trust and reliance on the dollar was built up over a half century or more," says University of California, Berkeley, economist Barry Eichengreen. "But it can be lost in the blink of an eye.”

Since mid-January, the dollar has fallen 9% against a basket of currencies, a rare and steep decline, to its lowest level in three years.

Many investors spooked by Trump don't think the dollar will be pushed quickly from its position as the world's reserve currency, instead expecting more of a slow decline. But even that is scary enough, given the benefits that would be lost.

With much of world's goods exchanged in dollars, demand for the currency has stayed strong even as the U.S. has doubled federal debt in a dozen years and does other things that would normally send investors fleeing. That has allowed the U.S. government, consumers and businesses to borrow at unnaturally low rates, which has helped speed economic growth and lift standards of living.

Dollar dominance also allows the U.S. to push around other countries like Venezuela, Iran and Russia by locking them out of a currency they need to buy and sell with others.

Now that “exorbitant privilege," as economists call it, is suddenly at risk.

"The safe haven properties of the dollar are being eroded," said Deutsche Bank in a note to clients earlier this month warning of a “confidence crisis." Added a more circumspect report by Capital Economics, “It is no longer hyperbole to say that the dollar’s reserve status and broader dominant role is at least somewhat in question."

Traditionally, the dollar would strengthen as tariffs sink demand for foreign products.

But the dollar not only failed to strengthen this time, it fell, puzzling economists and hurting consumers. The dollar lost more than 5% against the euro and pound, and 6% against the yen since early April.

As any American traveler abroad knows, you can buy more with a stronger dollar and less with a weaker one. Now the price of French wine and South Korean electronics and a host of other imports could cost more not only due to tariffs but a weaker currency, too.

And any loss of safe-haven status could hit U.S. consumers in another way: Higher rates for mortgages and car financing deals as lenders demand more interest for the added risk.

More worrisome is possible higher interest rates on the ballooning U.S. federal debt, which is already at a risky 120% of U.S. annual economic output.

“Most countries with that debt to GDP would cause a major crisis and the only reason we get away with it is that the world needs dollars to trade with,” says Benn Steil, an economist at the Council on Foreign Relations. ”At some point people are going to look seriously at alternatives to the dollar. ”

They already have, with a little help from a U.S. economic rival.

China has been striking yuan-only trading deals with Brazil for agricultural products, Russia for oil and South Korea for other goods for years. It has also been making loans in yuan to central banks desperate for cash in Argentina, Pakistan and other countries, replacing the dollar as the emergency funder of last resort.

Another possible U.S. alternative in future years if their market grows: cryptocurrencies.

Said BlackRock Chairman Larry Fink in his annual shareholder letter about dollar dominance, ”If deficits keep ballooning, America risks losing that position to digital assets like Bitcoin.”

Not everyone is convinced that a big reason the dollar is falling is because of lost faith in the U.S.

Steve Ricchiuto, an economist at Mizuho Financial, says dollar weakness reflects anticipation of higher inflation due to tariffs. But even if investors aren’t as comfortable holding dollars, he says, they really don't have much of a choice. No other currency or other asset, like yuan or bitcoin or gold, is vast enough to handle all the demand.

“The U.S. will lose the reserve currency when there is someone out there to take it away," Ricchiuto says. "Right now there isn’t an alternative.”

Maybe so, but Trump is testing the limits.

It's not just the tariffs, but the erratic way he’s rolled them out. The unpredictability makes the U.S. seem less stable, less reliable, and a less safe place for their money.

There are also questions about his logic justifying the policy. Trump says the U.S. needs tariffs to drive down its trade deficits with other countries. But most economists believe those deficits, which measure trade in goods, not services, are a bad measure of whether a country is “ripping off” America, as Trump puts it.

Trump has also repeatedly threatened to chip away at the independence of the Federal Reserve, raising fears that he will force interest rates lower to boost the economy even if doing so risks stoking runaway inflation. That is a sure fire way to get people to flee the dollar. After Fed Chair Jerome Powell said Wednesday that he would wait to make any rate moves, Trump blasted him, saying “Powell’s termination cannot come fast enough!”

Economists critical of Trump’s April 2 tariff announcement recall another event, the Suez Crisis of 1956, that broke the back of the British pound. The military attack on Egypt was poorly planned and badly executed and exposed British political incompetence that sank trust in the country. The pound fell sharply, and its centuries-long position as the dominant trading and reserve currency crumbled.

Berkeley’s Eichengreen says Liberation Day, as Trump called April 2, could be remembered as a similar turning point if the president isn't careful.

“This is the first step down a slippery slope where international confidence in the U.S. dollar is lost.”

For more than a century, the majority of colleges and universities have not paid most taxes. The Revenue Act of 1909 excused nonprofits operating “exclusively for religious, charitable, or educational purposes” in order to continue acting in the public interest.

President Donald Trump is looking to challenge that designation, complaining that colleges and universities are “indoctrinating” their students with “radical left” ideas, rather than educating them. And he has decided to start with the 388-year-old Harvard University, one of the world's most prestigious institutions of learning and the first college founded in the American colonies.

On Tuesday, he targeted Harvard University in a post on his social media site, questioning whether it should remain tax-exempt “if it keeps pushing political, ideological, and terrorist inspired/supporting “Sickness?” Remember, Tax Exempt Status is totally contingent on acting in the PUBLIC INTEREST!”

Tax-exempt status, which is decided by the Internal Revenue Service, means that these institutions do not pay certain kinds of taxes and that their donors receive a tax deduction when they make gifts. The rules they have to follow to maintain that status are set out in the tax code. We spoke with attorneys who specialize in nonprofit law and freedom of speech to try to answer questions about this challenge.

In general, no. Colleges and universities have broad leeway to design the education they provide.

Genevieve Lakier, a First Amendment scholar at the University of Chicago Law School, said the U.S. Supreme Court has laid out four essential freedoms for colleges and universities — what to teach, how to teach it, who their students are and who their professors are.

“That’s the irreducible core of academic freedom and it is constitutionally protected in this country,” she said, adding the government cannot threaten funding cuts or revoking a school's tax status as punishment for its views or what the school teaches.

The First Amendment also protects the rights of other nonprofits to pursue their charitable missions under freedom of assembly, Lakier said, even if those missions are odious or the government does not like them.

No, he is not supposed to, according to two nonprofit tax attorneys who wrote about a previous call from Trump to revoke the nonprofit status of colleges and universities.

In 1998, Congress passed a law that forbade federal officials from telling the IRS to investigate any taxpayer in an effort to increase trust in tax enforcement.

The attorneys, Ellen Aprill and Samuel Brunson, also pointed to legislation that forbade the IRS “from targeting individuals and organizations for ideological reasons,” after a controversy over how it treated Tea Party groups in 2013.

The IRS recognizes multiple reasons for a nonprofit to to be exempt from paying many kinds of taxes, including pursuing charitable, religious or educational missions among many other examples. The statute specifically names sports competitions, preventing cruelty to children or animals and defending human or civil rights as exempt purposes.

Nonprofits can lose their tax-exempt status for things like improperly paying its directors, endorsing a political candidate or operating a business unrelated to its charitable mission.

In short, tax attorneys say nonprofits must operate “exclusively for charitable purposes,” which is a different standard than what the president referred to as, “acting in the public interest.”

Phil Hackney, a law professor at the University of Pittsburgh, said, “Long history and precedent suggest that Harvard and institutions of higher education are operating for educational purposes, which are considered charitable," under the tax code.

He said it would be exceedingly difficult to make a case that a college or university was not operating for charitable purposes under current law. However, Edward McCaffery, who teaches tax policy at the University of Southern California Gould School of Law, warned there is precedent for the IRS revoking the tax-exempt status of colleges that the government could lean on.

“I think to dismiss it out of hand as over-the-top bluster and that the administration has no power to unilaterally pursue it, I think that’s naive," McCaffery said. "This could happen.”

Yes. In 1983, the Supreme Court upheld a lower court decision that the IRS could deny tax-exempt status to Bob Jones University, a private Christian university that banned interracial dating and marriage on campus, and Goldsboro Christian Schools, which employed racially discriminatory admissions policies.

The court found the IRS had some discretion to determine whether an organization seeking tax-exempt status met standards of “charity,” meaning that it “must serve a public purpose and not be contrary to established public policy.”

Nonetheless, McCaffery said, “The ability of the IRS just to come in and deny tax exemption, it better be a very clear, long-standing, deeply held public policy, and not political preferences for certain kinds of positions, attitudes and voting patterns.”

Usually, the IRS would open an audit, where it gathers evidence that a nonprofit is not operating exclusively for charitable purposes.

“The IRS would have to send to Harvard a proposed revocation of its status,” Hackney said. “At that point, Harvard would have many different means to talk with the IRS about why they believed they were within the law,” including suing.

However, Hackney said the U.S. Department of Treasury could implement new regulations, for example, stating that operating a diversity, equity and inclusion program is not consistent with charitable purposes. Such a change would usually take years to make and would run counter to decades of precedent, Hackney said.

“I am skeptical this effort will be successful,” he said. “If it were, this would be the most dramatic change of charitable law in my lifetime and I would say in the history of our charitable law.”

___

This story has been updated to reflect that Harvard University is 388 years old. A previous version stated it is 488 years old.

___

Associated Press coverage of philanthropy and nonprofits receives support through the AP’s collaboration with The Conversation US, with funding from Lilly Endowment Inc. The AP is solely responsible for this content. For all of AP’s philanthropy coverage, visit https://apnews.com/hub/philanthropy.

WASHINGTON (AP) — President Donald Trump’s attempt to fire nearly everyone at the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau was paused on Friday by a federal judge, who said she was “deeply concerned” about the plan.

The decision leaves in limbo a bureau created after the Great Recession to safeguard against fraud, abuse and deceptive practices. Trump administration officials argue that it has overstepped its authority and should have a more limited mission.

On Thursday, the administration officials moved to fire roughly 1,500 people, leaving around 200 employees, through a reduction in force that would dramatically downsize the bureau.

U.S. District Judge Amy Berman Jackson said she was worried the layoffs would violate her earlier order stopping the Republican administration from shutting down the CFPB. She's been considering a lawsuit filed by an employee union that wants to preserve the bureau.

Jackson scheduled a hearing on April 28 to hear testimony from officials who worked on the reduction in force, or RIF.

“I’m willing to resolve it quickly, but I’m not going to let this RIF go forward until I have,” she said.

It's the latest example of how Trump's plans have faced legal hurdles as he works to reshape the federal government, saying it’s rife with fraud, waste and abuse. Other layoffs and policies have been subjected to stop-and-go litigation and court orders.

The CFPB has long frustrated businesses with its oversight and investigations, and Trump adviser Elon Musk made it a top target of his Department of Government Efficiency.

Mark Paoletta, the CFPB's chief legal officer, wrote in a court declaration that "the bureau's activities have pushed well beyond the limits of the law," including what he described as “intrusive and wasteful fishing expeditions.”

He said officials have spent weeks developing “a much more limited vision for enforcement and supervision activities” with a “smaller, more efficient operation.”

Some of the CFPB's responsibilities are required by law but would have only one person assigned to them under the Trump administration's plan.

The enforcement division is slated to be cut from 248 to 50 employees. The supervision division faces an even deeper reduction, from 487 to 50, plus a relocation from Washington to the Southeastern region.

Before Friday’s hearing, attorneys for the National Treasury Employees Union filed a sworn statement from a CFPB employee identified only by the pseudonym Alex Doe. The employee said Gavin Kliger, a member of DOGE, was managing the agency’s RIF team charged with sending layoff notices.

“He kept the team up for 36 hours straight to ensure that the notices would go out yesterday,” the employee said. “Gavin was screaming at people he did not believe were working fast enough to ensure they could go out on this compressed timeline, calling them incompetent.”

The bureau’s chief operating officer, Adam Martinez, told the judge that he believes Kliger is an Office of Personnel Management employee detailed to the CFPB and doesn’t work directly for DOGE.

Jackson said she will require Kliger to attend and possibly testify at the April 28 hearing. She said she wants to know why he was there “and what we was doing.”

“We’re not going to decide what happened until we know what happened,” Jackson said.

The pseudonymous employee said team members raised concerns that the bureau had to conduct a “particularized assessment” before it could implement an RIF. Paoletta told them to ignore those concerns and move forward with mass firings, adding that “leadership would assume the risk,” the employee stated.

White House officials did not immediately respond to questions about the judge’s decision or the employee’s court declaration.