Neither President Trump, Nor His Appointed Officers - Including Those At DOGE - Have Any Constitutional Duty To Obey The Orders Of Federal Judges Regarding Executive Branch Agencies

This is a war between the Shadow Government and the Constitutional Government - and the Constitutional Government must overthrow and eradicate the unconstitutional Shadow Government...

I still maintain that the Executive is not constrained by the Judicial Branch, except by force of reasoning, as Andrew Jackson stated in his veto of the renewal of the Charter for the Second Bank of the United States (which was largely drafted by Justice Roger Taney - see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roger_B._Taney), to wit:

"If the opinion of the Supreme Court covered the whole ground of this act, it ought not to control the coordinate authorities of this Government. The Congress, the Executive, and the Court must each for itself be guided by its own opinion of the Constitution. Each public officer who takes an oath to support the Constitution swears that he will support it as he understands it, and not as it is understood by others. It is as much the duty of the House of Representatives, of the Senate, and of the President to decide upon the constitutionality of any bill or resolution which may be presented to them for passage or approval as it is of the supreme judges when it may be brought before them for judicial decision. The opinion of the judges has no more authority over Congress than the opinion of Congress has over the judges, and on that point the President is independent of both. The authority of the Supreme Court must not, therefore, be permitted to control the Congress or the Executive when acting in their legislative capacities, but to have only such influence as the force of their reasoning may deserve." https://streamfortyseven.substack.com/p/does-congress-have-the-power-under

And that act of defiance should be quite effective in bringing this Constitutional crisis to a head, because what we have is an effective "fourth branch" of government asserting power over the elected and Constitutional three branches of government:

"The post-New Deal administrative state is unconstitutional, and its validation by the legal system amounts to nothing less than a bloodless constitutional revolution. The original New Dealers were aware, at least to some degree, that their vision of the national government's proper role and structure could not be squared with the written Constitution: The Administrative Process, James Landis's classic exposition of the New Deal model of administration, fairly drips with contempt for the idea of a limited national government subject to a formal, tripartite separation of powers. Faced with a choice between the administrative state and the Constitution, the architects of our modern government chose the administrative state, and their choice has stuck. ... The United States Congress today effectively exercises general legislative powers, in contravention of the constitutional principle of limited powers. Moreover, Congress frequently delegates that general legislative authority to administrative agencies, in contravention of Article I. Furthermore, those agencies are not always subject to the direct control of the President, in contravention of Article II. In addition, those agencies sometimes exercise the judicial power, in contravention of Article III. Finally, those agencies typically concentrate legislative, executive, and judicial functions in the same institution, in simultaneous contravention of Articles I, II, and III. In short, the modern administrative state openly flouts almost every important structural precept of the American constitutional order." The Rise and Rise of the Administrative State, Gary S. Lawson, Boston University School of Law, at https://scholarship.law.bu.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1941&context=faculty_scholarship.

The unconstitutional Administrative State, put very largely in place by Franklin Roosevelt and largely staffed by Democrats, which has cemented Democrats in power and continied their policies, regardless of elections and the will of the electorate, must be ended and utterly abolished, and Constitutional rule re-established:

A contemporaneous writing, from 1938, was prescient of the current situation:

“The test came in the first one hundred days. No matter how carefully a revolution may have been planned there is bound to be a crucial time. That comes when the actual seizure of power is taking place. In this case certain steps were necessary. They were difficult and daring steps. But more than that, they had to be taken in a certain sequence, with forethought and precision of timing. One out of place might have been fatal. What happened was that one followed another in exactly the right order, not one out of time or out of place.

Having passed this crisis, the New Deal went on from one problem to another, taking them in the proper order, according to revolutionary technic; and if the handling of one was inconsistent with the handling of another, even to the point of nullity, that was blunder in reverse. The effect was to keep people excited about one thing at a time, and divided, while steadily through all the uproar of outrage and confusion a certain end, held constantly in view, was pursued by main intention. The end held constantly in view was power.

In a revolutionary situation mistakes and failures are not what they seem. They are scaffolding. Error is not repealed. It is compounded by a longer law, by more decrees and regulations, by further extensions of the administrative hand. As deLawd said in The Green Pastures, that when you have passed a miracle you have to pass another one to take care of it, so it was with the New Deal. Every miracle it passed, whether it went right or wrong, had one result. Executive power over the social and economic life of the nation was increased. Draw a curve to represent the rise of executive power and look there for the mistakes. You will not find them. The curve is consistent. At the end of the first year, in his annual message to the Congress, January 4, 1934, President Roosevelt said: "It is to the eternal credit of the American people that this tremendous readjustment of our national life is being accomplished peacefully."

Peacefully if possible—of course.

But the revolutionary historian will go much further. Writing at some distance in time he will be much less impressed by the fact that it was peacefully accomplished than by the marvelous technic of bringing it to pass not only within the form but within the word, so that people were all the while fixed in the delusion that they were talking about the same things because they were using the same words. Opposite and violently hostile ideas were represented by the same word signifiers. This was the American people's first experience with dialectic according to Marx and Lenin.

Until it was too late, few understood one like Julius C. Smith, of the American Bar Association, saying: "Is there any labor leader, any businessman, any lawyer or any other citizen of America so blind that he cannot see that this country is drifting at an accelerated pace into administrative absolutism similar to that which prevailed in the governments of antiquity, the governments of the Middle Ages, and in the great totalitarian governments of today? Make no mistake about it. Even as Mussolini and Hitler rose to absolute power under the forms of law . . . so may administrative absolutism be fastened upon this country within [and yet fundamentally opposed to] the Constitution and within the forms of law." https://cdn.mises.org/Peoples%20Pottage_2.pdf

Make no mistake about it, this is the war of the Shadow Government, the Unelected Permanent Government, of the US, against the American people, most of whom perhaps - but not for too much longer - still believe that the elected government holds the power. This is a war between the Shadow Government and the Constitutional Government - and the Constitutional Government must overthrow and eradicate the unconstitutional Shadow Government.