President Trump's Executive Actions (orders, proclamations, etc.)
- Thread starter Aloha Hoosier
- Start date
Hard to want to debate or discuss when you write things like this crazy. You sound as loony as Bowl and the rest of the insane posters. There’s no concentration of power. Everything transpiring has occurred within the scope of trump’s authority in the executive branch.
USAID and CFPB are Congressionally codified and funded agencies that have been deleted. So I don't agree with your description.
Remember Biden tried to mandate vaccines cancel student loans and told landlords you can’t evict all in contravention of recognized law.
Too far for me is if they defy court orders/review etc
Authoritarianism is government’s assertion control over what we citizens do. This has nothing to do with that.
In fact, if anything, cutting the cost of government and the bureaucracy is moving away from authoritarianism.
As I wrote we have three branches 50 states federalism etc. there’s no concentration of power. He’s axing the shit out of agencies which is within his purview
USAID was an independent agency created by Congress.
Section 1413 of the Foreign Affairs Reform and Restructuring Act of 1998, Division G of P.L. 105-277, established USAID as an “independent establishment” outside of the State Department (22 U.S.C. 6563).
The courts are going to sort this out and answer these kinds of questions. Everybody needs to have some patience.
Exactly.
I don’t understand all the hitting on DOGE and Musk. The Trump administration has cracked open the hard shell of our administrative and deep state. The stench and puss festering inside that shell needs to be scraped out and incinerated. Instead of supporting this needed activity, people are knee jerking their way through phony secrecy issues, phony transparency issues and phony constitutional issues to bash the effort. The most interesting part is the crickets about the substance of DOGE while people yell, scream, and pout over the process of DOGE. We must flush the administrative toilet.
What kind of government will ruin taxpayer lives over a few thousand bucks of unpaid taxes yet spend millions on trans comic books in the third world? We had in place a mechanism to link payments to line item appropriations and trillions went out the door ignoring that requirement. Those who did that need to be charged and prosecuted for official malfeasance. A fib to the FBI will land people with no criminal history in jail, while that same government pulls this shit with spending. I’m sick of it.
You are exactly right about it being hard to debate now. I’ve had it with those who speak of “cult,” “constitutional crisis,” “authoritarian,” or focus on people instead of policy and action.
Any congressional mandates about executive branch orgs has huge separation of powers issues.
What? This is how the country has worked since the beginning. For example, Congress gave the young US Navy a mandate, authorization and funding to build our original six frigates (USS Constitution was one). They didn't just give the Navy a bunch of money and say, "do whatever you want with it, but some ships would be nice." Congress passes bills with mandates all the time. Foreign Aid is one of them. Aid for Ukraine, Israel, Egypt, Jordon, African nations, and on and on.
Given your stance on what Trump is doing, why couldn't Biden absolve student debt?
I suspect the actual source of the complaints isn't the means by which this is happening...but that it's happening at all.
I keep saying that previous governments -- be it Congress, Administrations, or both -- could've gone through an exercise like this in a more orderly way. And I keep noting that they have not.
I'm being a little coy in saying that, though. We all know why they didn't. And it's the same reason they're all throwing a fit right now. They say "Hey...the richest man in the world has all your data!" -- as if they expect us to believe they care about that. As Musk has noted, he used to own friggin' Paypal.
Nobody said this would be easy. The blob was designed to defend itself.
Because he was trying to spend money that he wasn't authorized by Congress to spend.
Until both sides start talking about healthcare costs, entitlements, and military, this is all inconsequential money. Especially if we are really going to look into reducing the national debt.
I have a feeling all these cuts will do is justify the proposed Tax Cuts.
You have a problem with the National Security Act of 1947?
Milestones in the History of U.S. Foreign Relations - Office of the Historian
history.state.gov 3.0 shell
Substance? We can't even get a crudely drawn outline from this administration. No feasible goal, no actionable plan, zero transparency. And every bit of evidence of "deep state" corruption they've offered to date has turned out to be utter bullshit. "Drain the Swamp!" was a cool opposition campaign slogan but a successful reorg, especially of this magnitude, needs meatier bones. And it needs transparency -- can't emphasize that enough.
We've got mid-terms in 1 year and 9 months. We're gonna lose any good that was to come from this admin if they continue down this path and it's a given they will. We'll realize boogey man deep state wasn't wagging the dog but the committee hearings will be entertaining, at least.
Keep in mind that they're operating towards a report and a menu of findings and suggestions that will be presented to Congress.
From what I understand, the plan is to introduce a Rescission bill in the Senate crafted from a markup of this (I'm sure the bill won't be identical). Those bills are allowed to start there -- and aren't subject to filibuster. The thinking is that passage is more assured in the Senate than the House -- and would create pressure on House members to get in line.
As for the mid-terms, I think it's worth remembering here that it's very likely the Democrats are going to take control of the House then regardless of what the outcome of this is. As such, they have to seize the window of opportunity they have.
I get that. And I'm all for going after the big things. But the counterargument is that something is better than nothing.
I'd also note that DOGE has the Pentagon on its future map. Entitlements, no. But they wouldn't have any authority over that if they wanted to.
Has anything been proposed other than extending the TCJA provisions that are scheduled to sunset this year? My recollection is that the individual income tax provisions sunset in 2025 while the corporate ones sunset in 2028.
Unless I've missed something, the only new cut that's on the table is (ironically) one many Democrats have been pining for: which is increasing the cap on SALT deductions. I don't think the bill is going to win any Democratic votes with or without that. But it's going to be required to get blue state Republican votes -- and they're going to need those votes.
The are currently operating clandestinely but the veil will be lifted when they offer their special report congress?
Got it. what could go wrong with that plan? lol
I wouldn't personally characterize how they're operating as being at all clandestine. In fact, it seems pretty transparent to me. But that's a matter of opinion.
But the point is...what they're doing will culminate in a comprehensive report that will be publicly available.
If the executive has the authority to ignore what Congress sets aside for them to spend, why would they logically not have the ability to choose to spend the allocated money on something other than what Congress set it aside for.
If all this goes through and I am next Democrat President, why can I not just take some money from DOD and pay off the student loans? "Well because Congress said I had to spend it on Defense." And? If I have the authority to ignore Congress to spend what they tell me, why can I not ignore them in what they tell me to spend it on?
I would move money to institute single payer Healthcare and get rid of student debt and I would do it by moving money from programs I disfavor to ones I favor. I have all purview over the executive. Congress merely gives me money and a suggestion of what I should do with it. That is the logical conclusion of all this and Democrats will use the exact same logic you are to do it: this is things we should have done a long time ago but Congress has been too feckless to get it done.
We need to stop acting like there isn't tomorrow.
They are actually posting some stuff on DOGE.GOV now. Looks like it entirely consists of links to X (Twitter). Some of the information does look useful.
really? because in the last several hours we learned that Musk is not even in DOGE despite acting as its spokesman and presumed leader. So Trump asks Musk to form DOGE, directs Musk investigate agencies on behalf of DOGE, but Musk is not in DOGE...
Transparent as mud.
They are actually posting some stuff on DOGE.GOV now. Looks like it entirely consists of links to X (Twitter). Some of the information does look useful.
And the site just went live on 2/12. Communication and transparency are clearly cornerstones of the operation.
Appropriation and impoundment are literally two (basically) opposite things.
What level of authority POTUS has to impound these funds is a question. At this point, my understanding is that it's not a cancelation, but a freeze. A pause. But what happens with funds allocated for jobs that are eliminated, for instance?
Impoundment would mean Congress says "Here, spend this money on X." and the POTUS says "No, I'm not spending it. The funds are going to sit there unspent."
What you're describing is Congress saying "Here, spend this money on X." and the POTUS says "I'm not going to do that, but I will spend it on Y."
FWIW, we've discussed Presidential impoundment elsewhere on the board. It was a power presidents implicitly had until 1974. But it was never a plenary power. Congress and Nixon butted heads over his use (they would say "abuse") of it, and thus they passed a statute strictly limiting the practice.
Trump isn't talking about taking money allocated for USAID (or any other purpose) and spending it on something else. At least, not that I'm aware of.
Oh well. You can't please all the people all of the time. It's good that you have places like this where you can vent, though.
And that is different then him cutting stuff that Congress did authorize?
Opposite side of the same coin so to speak.
Well, yes. Spending money that wasn't authorized to be spent is different than not spending money that was authorized to be spent.
Keep in mind that the "not spending" parts that we're seeing at this point in time are pauses, or freezes. Laws do often empower the executive branch to do that -- which is distinct from wholesale impoundment (which is permanent).
While POTUS used to have wide latitude for impoundment (and I think it would be great if they got it back....whatever the party of the Congress or president), Congress limited it by statute. That particular law has never survived judicial review. And I'm sure it will come up in the courts as they review all this.
But even the Biden Administration didn't argue that they could spend money that Congress never authorized. They argued Congress did authorize it in the HEROES Act. The argument just didn't prevail in court.
Some transparency seems like the minimum. Weird that people would want to know what's going on. Shame on them.
