4 ms·

Why do you think it's illegal? USAID was established by an executive order by JFK, not by Congress; Congress only mandated that some agency for aid should exist

Why do you think it's illegal? USAID was established by an executive order by JFK, not by Congress; Congress only mandated that some agency for aid should exist, not that it specifically be USAID. Closing it and not replacing it with anything would be illegal, but closing it doesn't seem obviously illegal. Edit: not only that, but they didn't close USAID entirely: they just closed the USAID headquarters, and installed Marco Rubio as the new head of USAID. While this may or may not be desirable, I don't see how this is actually illegal. The specific organization of USAID was established by executive order; this is one of the many consequences of the Republicans winning control of the executive branch of government.

insane_dreamer 2y ago
They’re not replacing it with anything. They’re defunding it.
- dgfitz 2y ago
  Any plays on who is gonna win the Super Bowl? If I were you I’d find a betting market and put ALL my money on your claim. Edit: Daww, no sense of humor?
  - insane_dreamer 2y ago
    No need to guess when they’ve already publicly stated it.
- llamaimperative 2y ago
  That's even more clearly illegal. The Executive doesn't determine where money goes. Article I, Section 8, Clause 1: > The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States
brookst 2y ago
Interesting take. I think it applies to every agency? Shutter NASA, and any congressional act merely specifies an agency for aeronautics and space, not necessarily this exact one? As long as it’s eventually reconstituted, no foul. I’m suspicious, but I suppose I shouldn’t be surprised we’ve hit the “one simple trick” era of governing.
- reissbaker 2y ago
  No, NASA was specifically created by the "National Aeronautics and Space Act" [1], not by an executive order. USAID was created by executive order by JFK. [2] 1: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Aeronautics_and_Space_Act https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Aeronautics_and_Space... 2: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Agency_for_International_Development https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Agency_for_Inter...
  - afavour 2y ago
    And USAID was then formalized as an independent agency by Congress in 1998: https://uscode.house.gov/view.xhtml?hl=false&edition=prelim&path=%2Fprelim%40title22%2Fchapter74&req=granuleid%3AUSC-prelim-title22-chapter74-front&num=0&saved=L3ByZWxpbUB0aXRsZTIyL2NoYXB0ZXI3NA%3D%3D%7CZ3JhbnVsZWlkOlVTQy1wcmVsaW0tdGl0bGUyMi1jaGFwdGVyNzQ%3D%7C%7C%7C0%7Cfalse%7Cprelim https://uscode.house.gov/view.xhtml?hl=false&edition=prelim&...
    - reissbaker 2y ago
      The bill you link to specifically allows the President to abolish USAID: as it states, Unless abolished pursuant to the reorganization plan submitted under section 6601 of this title, and except as provided in section 6562 of this title, there is within the Executive branch of Government the United States Agency for International Development as an entity described in section 104 of title 5. [1] And here's the text of section 6601, which explains how to abolish USAID: (a) Submission of plan and report Not later than 60 days after October 21, 1998, the President shall transmit to the appropriate congressional committees a reorganization plan and report regarding- (1) the abolition of the United States Arms Control and Disarmament Agency, the United States Information Agency, and the United States International Development Cooperation Agency in accordance with this chapter; (2) with respect to the Agency for International Development, the consolidation and streamlining of the Agency and the transfer of certain functions of the Agency to the Department in accordance with section 6581 of this title; (3) the termination of functions of each covered agency as may be necessary to effectuate the reorganization under this chapter, and the termination of the affairs of each agency abolished under this chapter; (4) the transfer to the Department of the functions and personnel of each covered agency consistent with the provisions of this chapter; and (5) the consolidation, reorganization, and streamlining of the Department in connection with the transfer of such functions and personnel in order to carry out such functions. The President can abolish USAID, or can streamline it, or terminate functions within it, according to your own provided links, and only has to submit a report about it. 1: https://uscode.house.gov/view.xhtml?hl=false&edition=prelim&path=%2Fprelim%40title22%2Fchapter74&req=granuleid%3AUSC-prelim-title22-section6563&num=0&saved=L3ByZWxpbUB0aXRsZTIyL2NoYXB0ZXI3NA%3D%3D%7CZ3JhbnVsZWlkOlVTQy1wcmVsaW0tdGl0bGUyMi1jaGFwdGVyNzQ%3D%7C%7C%7C0%7Cfalse%7Cprelim https://uscode.house.gov/view.xhtml?hl=false&edition=prelim&... 2: https://uscode.house.gov/view.xhtml?req=(title:22%20section:6601%20edition:prelim)%20OR%20(granuleid:USC-prelim-title22-section6601)&f=treesort&num=0&edition=prelim https://uscode.house.gov/view.xhtml?req=(title:22%20section:...
mjburgess 2y ago
That's not correct. Acts of congress specifically created the agency after JFK's XO. Regardless, the agency is a party to contracts which it is currently breaking. The actions of DOGE are causing the US to break contracts, which is illegal.
- alvah 2y ago
  A contract in itself is not law (though it can be legally enforceable), so how is breaking a contract illegal?
  - BikiniPrince 2y ago
    Furthermore, very likely any such contracts have language around the cancellation.
  - mjburgess 2y ago
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tortious_interference https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tortious_interference
    - alvah 2y ago
      Ctrl-F "illegal" - 0 results
magicalist 2y ago
> Congress only mandated that some agency for aid should exist, not that it specifically be USAID That was true in 1961, but not in the 63 years since then. The Foreign Assistance Act has been amended many times with specific requirements since written for the by then already existing United States Agency for International Development[1] [1] https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/COMPS-1071/pdf/COMPS-1071.pdf https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/COMPS-1071/pdf/COMPS-107...
- reissbaker 2y ago
  Nothing in that bill says that USAID needs a specific headquarters to be open, or that it can't be run by Marco Rubio. How is closing the HQ and assigning Marco Rubio to run USAID illegal?
  - magicalist 2y ago
    > How is closing the HQ and assigning Marco Rubio to run USAID illegal? This framing seems disingenuous given the already far reaching effects of the frozen funding, the layoffs, the shut down of communications, the shuttered offices, and, apparently, giving non government employees unfettered access to its computer systems. But yes, shutting down the USAID or trying to muddy the waters by saying it'll totally still exist, they'll just somehow run it out of the state department and not fund anything should indeed not be possible without an act of congress.
    - reissbaker 2y ago
      According to USC 6601 — which is the current law — the President literally has the power to abolish USAID entirely, and only has to submit a report about it to do it. [1] Saying that closing the HQ and assigning a Republican as the head of USAID is "illegal" or "should not be possible without an act of Congress" doesn't make sense. Congress already passed an act allowing the President to terminate USAID. Congress does not mandate that USAID exists forever, and does not prevent the President from terminating it or streamlining it. 1: https://uscode.house.gov/view.xhtml?req=(title:22%20section:6601%20edition:prelim)%20OR%20(granuleid:USC-prelim-title22-section6601)&f=treesort&num=0&edition=prelim https://uscode.house.gov/view.xhtml?req=(title:22%20section:...
idiotsecant 2y ago
This seems like a stretch. If I close Wal-Mart headquarters does Walmart still exist? For a little while, maybe. Warehouses will probably run on autopilot, people will still get paid for a bit, etc, but the company is walking dead. What they've done is effectively decapitate an agency without the consent of the legislature.

insane_dreamer 2y ago

They’re not replacing it with anything. They’re defunding it.

dgfitz 2y ago
Any plays on who is gonna win the Super Bowl? If I were you I’d find a betting market and put ALL my money on your claim. Edit: Daww, no sense of humor?
- insane_dreamer 2y ago
  No need to guess when they’ve already publicly stated it.
llamaimperative 2y ago
That's even more clearly illegal. The Executive doesn't determine where money goes. Article I, Section 8, Clause 1: > The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States

brookst 2y ago

Interesting take. I think it applies to every agency? Shutter NASA, and any congressional act merely specifies an agency for aeronautics and space, not necessarily this exact one? As long as it’s eventually reconstituted, no foul. I’m suspicious, but I suppose I shouldn’t be surprised we’ve hit the “one simple trick” era of governing.

reissbaker 2y ago
No, NASA was specifically created by the "National Aeronautics and Space Act" [1], not by an executive order. USAID was created by executive order by JFK. [2] 1: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Aeronautics_and_Space_Act https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Aeronautics_and_Space... 2: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Agency_for_International_Development https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Agency_for_Inter...
- afavour 2y ago
  And USAID was then formalized as an independent agency by Congress in 1998: https://uscode.house.gov/view.xhtml?hl=false&edition=prelim&path=%2Fprelim%40title22%2Fchapter74&req=granuleid%3AUSC-prelim-title22-chapter74-front&num=0&saved=L3ByZWxpbUB0aXRsZTIyL2NoYXB0ZXI3NA%3D%3D%7CZ3JhbnVsZWlkOlVTQy1wcmVsaW0tdGl0bGUyMi1jaGFwdGVyNzQ%3D%7C%7C%7C0%7Cfalse%7Cprelim https://uscode.house.gov/view.xhtml?hl=false&edition=prelim&...
  - reissbaker 2y ago
    The bill you link to specifically allows the President to abolish USAID: as it states, Unless abolished pursuant to the reorganization plan submitted under section 6601 of this title, and except as provided in section 6562 of this title, there is within the Executive branch of Government the United States Agency for International Development as an entity described in section 104 of title 5. [1] And here's the text of section 6601, which explains how to abolish USAID: (a) Submission of plan and report Not later than 60 days after October 21, 1998, the President shall transmit to the appropriate congressional committees a reorganization plan and report regarding- (1) the abolition of the United States Arms Control and Disarmament Agency, the United States Information Agency, and the United States International Development Cooperation Agency in accordance with this chapter; (2) with respect to the Agency for International Development, the consolidation and streamlining of the Agency and the transfer of certain functions of the Agency to the Department in accordance with section 6581 of this title; (3) the termination of functions of each covered agency as may be necessary to effectuate the reorganization under this chapter, and the termination of the affairs of each agency abolished under this chapter; (4) the transfer to the Department of the functions and personnel of each covered agency consistent with the provisions of this chapter; and (5) the consolidation, reorganization, and streamlining of the Department in connection with the transfer of such functions and personnel in order to carry out such functions. The President can abolish USAID, or can streamline it, or terminate functions within it, according to your own provided links, and only has to submit a report about it. 1: https://uscode.house.gov/view.xhtml?hl=false&edition=prelim&path=%2Fprelim%40title22%2Fchapter74&req=granuleid%3AUSC-prelim-title22-section6563&num=0&saved=L3ByZWxpbUB0aXRsZTIyL2NoYXB0ZXI3NA%3D%3D%7CZ3JhbnVsZWlkOlVTQy1wcmVsaW0tdGl0bGUyMi1jaGFwdGVyNzQ%3D%7C%7C%7C0%7Cfalse%7Cprelim https://uscode.house.gov/view.xhtml?hl=false&edition=prelim&... 2: https://uscode.house.gov/view.xhtml?req=(title:22%20section:6601%20edition:prelim)%20OR%20(granuleid:USC-prelim-title22-section6601)&f=treesort&num=0&edition=prelim https://uscode.house.gov/view.xhtml?req=(title:22%20section:...

mjburgess 2y ago

That's not correct. Acts of congress specifically created the agency after JFK's XO. Regardless, the agency is a party to contracts which it is currently breaking. The actions of DOGE are causing the US to break contracts, which is illegal.

alvah 2y ago
A contract in itself is not law (though it can be legally enforceable), so how is breaking a contract illegal?
- BikiniPrince 2y ago
  Furthermore, very likely any such contracts have language around the cancellation.
- mjburgess 2y ago
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tortious_interference https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tortious_interference
  - alvah 2y ago
    Ctrl-F "illegal" - 0 results

magicalist 2y ago

> Congress only mandated that some agency for aid should exist, not that it specifically be USAID That was true in 1961, but not in the 63 years since then. The Foreign Assistance Act has been amended many times with specific requirements since written for the by then already existing United States Agency for International Development[1] [1] https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/COMPS-1071/pdf/COMPS-1071.pdf https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/COMPS-1071/pdf/COMPS-107...

reissbaker 2y ago
Nothing in that bill says that USAID needs a specific headquarters to be open, or that it can't be run by Marco Rubio. How is closing the HQ and assigning Marco Rubio to run USAID illegal?
- magicalist 2y ago
  > How is closing the HQ and assigning Marco Rubio to run USAID illegal? This framing seems disingenuous given the already far reaching effects of the frozen funding, the layoffs, the shut down of communications, the shuttered offices, and, apparently, giving non government employees unfettered access to its computer systems. But yes, shutting down the USAID or trying to muddy the waters by saying it'll totally still exist, they'll just somehow run it out of the state department and not fund anything should indeed not be possible without an act of congress.
  - reissbaker 2y ago
    According to USC 6601 — which is the current law — the President literally has the power to abolish USAID entirely, and only has to submit a report about it to do it. [1] Saying that closing the HQ and assigning a Republican as the head of USAID is "illegal" or "should not be possible without an act of Congress" doesn't make sense. Congress already passed an act allowing the President to terminate USAID. Congress does not mandate that USAID exists forever, and does not prevent the President from terminating it or streamlining it. 1: https://uscode.house.gov/view.xhtml?req=(title:22%20section:6601%20edition:prelim)%20OR%20(granuleid:USC-prelim-title22-section6601)&f=treesort&num=0&edition=prelim https://uscode.house.gov/view.xhtml?req=(title:22%20section:...

idiotsecant 2y ago

This seems like a stretch. If I close Wal-Mart headquarters does Walmart still exist? For a little while, maybe. Warehouses will probably run on autopilot, people will still get paid for a bit, etc, but the company is walking dead. What they've done is effectively decapitate an agency without the consent of the legislature.