A federal magistrate judge found that Elon Musk, former Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem and other senior officials participated in a campaign to spread false claims about former FEMA CFO Mary Comans. The judge said senior agency officials and DOGE employees approved the New York City payments Comans was accused of improperly making, and that she had been told to continue them. The ruling followed a prior finding that Comans was fired without due process and a name-clearing proceeding stemming from her lawsuit. Fitzpatrick said the accusations were untrue and many officials knew that when they made them. The excerpt gives no new compliance order, financial penalty or future deadline, and says DHS and attorneys for Musk and Noem were contacted for comment.
TLDR: A judge found that senior Trump administration officials, including Musk and Noem, spread false accusations about former FEMA official Mary Comans. The ruling followed her firing without due process and a proceeding focused on clearing her name; the excerpt lists no new penalty or deadline.
A federal judge has found that Elon Musk, former Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem and other senior Trump administration officials took part in a coordinated campaign to spread false claims about Mary Comans, a former FEMA financial officer. Magistrate Judge William Fitzpatrick said officials used the power and reach of government to attack her personal and professional integrity. The finding came in a name-clearing proceeding tied to Comans’ removal from her job.
The court’s stated rationale was to address the harm to Comans’ reputation after a prior ruling found she was fired without due process. The proceeding examined claims made about her by government officials and whether they were true. Fitzpatrick concluded that the accusations were false and that many officials knew they were false when they made them.
Comans, a career civil servant, had served as FEMA’s chief financial officer until her firing in February 2025. She was told her removal was an exercise of the president’s power to remove executive officials. DHS later issued a press release accusing her of circumventing agency leaders to make what it called egregious payments to New York City for luxury hotels for undocumented migrants.
The court record described a different chain of responsibility for those payments. Senior officials at DHS and FEMA decided to continue payments to state and local governments, including two payments to New York City. Employees with the Department of Government Efficiency, or DOGE, approved them, according to court records. Comans was told to continue making the payments.
That approval matters to the judge’s assessment of the accusations. The administration had also accused Comans of violating an executive order signed by President Trump on the first day of his second term. The order directed agencies to pause funding to nongovernmental organizations providing services to immigrants in the United States illegally. The judge’s account distinguished that directive from payments to state and local governments.
Fitzpatrick found that DHS and senior officials, including Noem, Musk and Corey Lewandowski, made statements about Comans that they knew were false. He wrote that the facts established a coordinated public relations campaign to damage her integrity. The judge called the conduct outrageous and said officials had targeted a career employee with an impeccable public-service record for no legitimate reason.
Musk, a special government employee who oversaw DOGE, shared Comans’ photograph on X and accused her of criminal action by allegedly funneling millions of dollars to New York City hotels. The court said Musk knew, or should have known, that DOGE employees had approved the payments. Fitzpatrick said the post and its false account were clearly intended to make Comans afraid. He concluded that posting her photograph served no legitimate government interest and amounted to state-sanctioned intimidation.
The judge also found that Noem and Lewandowski gave false information about Comans to Laura Loomer, expecting her to spread it to her social media followers. Fitzpatrick said officials intended to circulate false and derogatory information as widely as possible. His finding was not limited to the initial personnel decision; it addressed the public statements and the reputational damage alleged in Comans’ lawsuit.
The legal process began after a federal judge ruled in July that Comans had been fired without due process. Comans filed suit in July 2025, challenging her removal and arguing that DHS and FEMA damaged her reputation with false accusations about payments for hotels. The later name-clearing proceeding followed that ruling. Fitzpatrick said claims that she committed crimes, misspent federal funds or laundered forbidden funding were not true.
The practical impact described in the record falls directly on Comans and the officials whose conduct the judge examined. She lost her FEMA job in February 2025, faced public accusations, and pursued a lawsuit and a name-clearing proceeding. The excerpt identifies no filing fees, new forms, compliance orders, enforcement penalties or future deadlines. It also does not say whether the ruling requires additional action, so those details remain unspecified rather than part of an established plan.
The ruling sets out the court’s findings about the firing process, the payments and the public campaign, but the excerpt does not describe a new policy or provide a remedy beyond the proceeding. CBS News said it had reached out to DHS and attorneys for Musk and Noem for comment. No response or further court deadline is included in the account. Any next steps and oversight therefore depend on information not provided in the record; the judge’s findings remain the established account of this proceeding.
Lila Hayes serves as a Staff Writer for Just Right News, where she anchors the “Courts, Law, and Constitutional Order” beat. Her work is defined by a steadfast commitment to the foundational principles of the American republic and a rigorous defense of the legal frameworks that ensure national stability. As a primary voice for the outlet, she provides readers with a clear-eyed analysis of the judiciary, focusing on the importance of originalism and the preservation of the separation of powers.
Lila’s perspective was forged in the American heartland. Raised in St. Louis, Missouri, she grew up in a Hispanic household where the values of hard work, faith, and respect for the law were paramount. Her upbringing instilled in her a deep appreciation for the American Dream and the legal protections that make it possible. This Missouri background remains a cornerstone of her reporting, providing a grounded, common-sense counter-narrative to the often-insular legal circles of the coastal elite. She understands that the decisions made in high-court chambers have real-world consequences for families and small business owners across the country.
At Just Right News, Lila has become widely recognized for her signature feature series, “The Rulebook of Power.” In this ongoing project, she delves into the mechanics of the federal government, examining how administrative overreach and judicial activism can threaten the delicate balance of the Constitution. She approaches her beat with the tenacity of a veteran journalist and the precision of a legal scholar, consistently advocating for a judiciary that interprets the law as written rather than legislating from the bench. For Lila, the Constitution is not a “living” document subject to the whims of modern social trends; it is a fixed standard that ensures the government remains the servant of the people, not their master.
Now based in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, Lila finds herself at the very epicenter of American constitutional history. Living and working in the city where the Founders drafted the documents she defends daily provides a constant source of inspiration. The historic halls and landmarks of Philadelphia serve as a daily reminder of the high stakes involved in her reporting. Her presence in the city allows her to bridge the gap between the historical intent of the law and its contemporary application, ensuring that the legacy of the Founding Fathers remains central to the national conversation.
Throughout her career, Lila has remained dedicated to the idea that a free society requires an informed citizenry and a transparent legal system. Her reporting is more than just a collection of headlines; it is a defense of the constitutional order that has sustained the nation for over two centuries. By focusing on the “Rulebook of Power,” she ensures that her readers understand not just what is happening in the courtrooms, but why those decisions matter for the future of American liberty. Lila Hayes continues to be a vital voice for those who believe that the law should be a shield for the citizen and a constraint on the state.