73 ms·
No, they are not. This is a bizarre and highly illegal coup by Musk simply because he can, and who's going to enforce the law? Trump's corrupt DOJ?
by KerrAvon 2y ago
No, they are not. This is a bizarre and highly illegal coup by Musk simply because he can, and who's going to enforce the law? Trump's corrupt DOJ?
- electriclove 2y agoCan you explain what is illegal? Aren’t the people that Wired doxxed actually being paid by the government?
- jeffgreco 2y agoNo, they are not actually part of the government, authorized by any act of Congress, nor paid by it.
- derangedHorse 2y agoYes they are. If they are part of DOGE then they are part of the executive office of the President, which would be considered a part of government https://www.whitehouse.gov/presidential-actions/2025/01/establishing-and-implementing-the-presidents-department-of-government-efficiency/ https://www.whitehouse.gov/presidential-actions/2025/01/esta...
- ChicagoDave 2y agoThere is no such thing as DOGE. Any new “construct” and its directives need to be created and funded by Congress. Musk isn’t even legally an employee of the federal government. The President can hire him and Congress could direct him to do what he’s doing, but that step has been skipped. That’s why this is massively illegal
- gowld 2y agohttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_DOGE_Service https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_DOGE_Service https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Department_of_Government_Efficiency https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Department_of_Government_Effic... It's not a legal Department. Trump's team is claiming that anything computerized falls under USDS purview, hence the parasitic hijacking of the US Digital Service.
- adunsulag 2y agoThey renamed the US Digital Services agency to be DOGE. I don't know if they can rename a branch of government but that's how they are doing it. Musk has then gotten Trump to appoint members of his initial DOGE as representatives in each of the departments (Treasury, Commerce, etc) so they can have acting authority. Trump's delegated Musk as a Special Government Operative and signed executive orders granting him and all his recommended employees security clearances w/o the requisite background checks that normally would be required. So they are acting within the government, they are employees, and they've been granted special waivers by Trump to do all this craziness. I think its going to come down more to the courts looking at whether these 'newly appointed employees' are breaking all kinds of laws passed by congress.
- ChicagoDave 2y agoAgain. All of these things must go through Congress. The President signs laws. He doesn't alter or create them.
- liontwist 2y agoWhat does the executive branch do?
- Maxious 2y agoThe power President Trump is lawfully exercising in the executive order to control the Executive Office of the President of the United States stems from the Reorganization Act of 1939 (via https://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Executive_Order_8248 https://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Executive_Order_8248) which FDR had to get Congress to pass after his previous efforts to reorganize the executive branch during the Great Depression were deemed unconsititutional. Critics at the time warned this Act would give the president too much power.
- jquery 2y agoThe Reorganization Act of 1939 lapsed after 2 years. Trump would need a new Congressional Reorganization Act to do what he's doing with DOGE.
- deleted 2y ago[deleted]
- ChicagoDave 2y agoGotta say I'm surprised. I thought for sure I'd get ratio'd by Muskovites, but it seems people have woken up and realize our democracy is literally at stake. The only way we prevent the worst case scenario is to stand up to authoritarian power. Keep shining the light on these bad actors. Let's send them home. Trump is not king. Musk has no authority. DOGE is a hacker crew without a legal mandate.
- __loam 2y agoThey're accessing extremely sensitive government systems that do things like disburse trillions of dollars in federal funding and trying to shut down agencies like USAID. I highly doubt they have the right clearances for that. Additionally, congress controls the purse, not the executive branch. Even if DOGE was an above board agency approved by congress, withholding money that congress approved is incredibly illegal and may lead to a real constitutional crisis.
- derangedHorse 2y ago[flagged]
- deleted 2y ago[deleted]
- danesparza 2y agoIf a presidential aide ordered USAID staffers to not go to work and physically locked them out, it would violate multiple federal laws and protections. Here’s why: 1. USAID Employees Have Legal Employment Protections USAID employees—both civil servants and Foreign Service officers—are protected by federal employment laws. A presidential aide cannot simply tell them to stop working without a legal order, such as an official reorganization approved by Congress or a government shutdown following a funding lapse. Under Title 5 of the U.S. Code, federal employees cannot be arbitrarily removed or prevented from performing their duties. The Anti-Deficiency Act (31 U.S.C. § 1341) prohibits government officials from unilaterally stopping agency operations without congressional authorization. 2. Locking USAID Buildings Would Violate Security & Property Laws Physically locking the doors to prevent USAID employees from entering their offices would likely violate: 18 U.S.C. § 371 (Conspiracy to defraud the U.S. Government) if it were done to obstruct lawful government operations. 18 U.S.C. § 1361 (Willful injury of government property) if it involved unlawful restriction of access to a federal facility. Federal Continuity Directives require that government agencies maintain essential functions even in emergencies. 3. Presidential Authority Has Limits The President does not have unilateral authority to suspend an entire federal agency’s operations without following proper legal processes. Only Congress can permanently dissolve an agency like USAID by repealing its statutory mandate. Even if a president wanted to reorganize or defund USAID, they would need to work through legal channels—such as submitting a restructuring plan to Congress. What Could Happen If Someone Tried This? If an aide illegally ordered staffers to stop working and locked the doors, several things could happen: Congressional & Legal Challenges – USAID officials or Congress could sue, arguing the action was unlawful. Federal Court Intervention – A court could issue an injunction blocking the order. Potential Criminal Charges – Any official involved in obstructing a federal agency’s work could face legal consequences. Historical Precedents Trump’s 2018-2019 Government Shutdown: While federal agencies, including USAID, were partially shut down due to funding lapses, career employees were still required to follow proper procedures. Nixon’s Attempt to Defund Agencies: President Nixon tried to defund programs by impounding funds, but Congress passed the Congressional Budget and Impoundment Control Act of 1974, limiting executive control over funding. Bottom Line Simply ordering USAID employees to stop working and locking the doors would be blatantly illegal and would likely lead to immediate legal challenges, congressional intervention, and possible criminal liability for those involved.
- DannyBee 2y agoI'll add to the other good reply - in our constitutional system, branches are not allowed to delegate significant amounts of their power to other entities. So congress, for example, cannot delegate making laws to some other entity. The courts, for example, cannot give their judicial power to others. Similarly, the president can't delegate significant executive authority to others. Where are the limits of this? It's usually about delegating significant amounts of power or functions that the constitution explicit calls out as being owned. But the limits are not tested often, so not tons of cases. In the case of agencies, the executive branch also has no power in the first place to either set up, or disband, agencies. This is a power that congress owns. They can't, per above, delegate it, even if they wanted to.
- mike_hearn 2y ago> So congress, for example, cannot delegate making laws to some other entity But this is standard practice, no? The US system is rather unusual compared to Parliamentary systems in that Congress delegates precisely this power to the executive all the time.
- rtkwe 2y agoIt's muddy but the Executive isn't making laws it makes regulations constrained by and implementing the laws passed by Congress. It's all nominally rooted in some law the Congress passed and instead of just making those interpretations known when they sue you because you're using a financial instrument to defraud people there's a whole process of making it known how the Executive believe the old laws relate to new situations. Congress has neither the bandwidth nor the knowledge to keep abreast of every novel maneuver around the law so they say this type of thing is illegal and this agency is in charge of saying what type new things are. A great example of that are with various toxins and pollutants, there's no system in which we can go through the whole process of making a new law every time we discover that some miracle chemical is giving people giga-cancer. Instead Congress tasks an agency full of experts to decide what safe levels of the giga-cancer causing chemical is and makes sure we only ingest slightly below the LD50 of that so we can statistically live.
- skywhopper 2y agoGiving their names is hardly doxxing them, especially since they are breaking the law. And if they are government employees, it would still be illegal to hack into sensitive databases, copy data to insecure devices, suspend payments to federal contractors, bar federal employees from their offices, and disband entire agencies.
- jeffgreco 2y agoNot sure why this is being downvoted as Musk & co's actions are clearly bizarre and illegal.
- Cornbilly 2y agoThe downvotes are because Musk has a large personality cult, especially on tech oriented sites like HN.
- aaomidi 2y agoAlso because they can easily afford to completely change the voting system on these sites lol
- nomel 2y agoDo you have a reference for "clearly", from case law or a lawyer/judges perspective? IANAL, and I don't see any commenting here.
- skywhopper 2y agoWhat do you think is going on exactly that there’s any remote chance that someone who isn’t a political appointee or employee of the government can be given the power to stop all payments to federal contractors or abolish Congressionally established agencies? The President doesn’t have those powers, much less Elon Musk.
- toast0 2y agoI don't get how this could be a coup, Trump was duly elected, and he's delegated this power to Musk. It could certainly be bizarre and highly illegal, but to me, the essential piece of a coup is unseating the rightful leadership, and there's no element of that at present. Judging from his last term, at some point Trump is likely to get tired of Musk, kick him out of the administration, declare he always thought Musk was a bad guy, and pretend like he never listened to him. If Musk tries to stay in after that, it could be a coup.
- XorNot 2y ago[flagged]
- immibis 2y agoI don't think you're allowed to say that on Hacker News.
- watwut 2y agoThis will be downvoted, but it is mostly true. Altrough that election was highly violent, there was large suppression going on.
- technothrasher 2y agoHitler wasn't elected, he was appointed chancellor by Hindenburg. He then used the Reichstag Fire Decree to arrest the opposition to his Enabling Act, guaranteeing it's passage and solidifying his hold on power.
- ceejayoz 2y agoThat’s some careful hair splitting. He was legally placed in the role by the democratically available processes in place after his party won significant seats in several elections.
- neogodless 2y agoSeizing legislative power, which up until about 7 days ago included all control over federal funding, for the executive branch is a coup.
- bende511 2y agoIn a just world, these kids will end up in jail for a long time, and Musk for the rest of his life. In a less just world, well, I don't want to get banned