14 ms·

This is a coup and we are calmly debating budgets. Debating the % of budget and how useful organization x is and if y will still get grant money, and, and, and.

This is a coup and we are calmly debating budgets. Debating the % of budget and how useful organization x is and if y will still get grant money, and, and, and... All of this is ignoring the big elephant in the room that there is one single person deciding everything that happens in government as if they were a king. The right thing to be debating is how we can stop this from continuing and how we can hold those responsible accountable.

realusername 2y ago
Yes let's call a spade a spade, it's a coup. Trump is passing as much stuff as quickly as he can to bypass the separation of powers while they catch up.
- scarab92 2y ago
  The left need to accept that they lost the election, that Trump won the presidency and the Republicans won control of congress. As much as you personally disagree with these decisions, they are in line with the broad policy positions Trump et al communicated prior to the election, and can be considered the will of the people. Challenging the mandate the public gave them, by hyperventilating over minor procedural hiccups that will inevitably be resolved by congress in favour of Trump, comes across to voters as undemocratic.
  - realusername 2y ago
    So first the US isn't a monarchy last time I checked, Trump doesn't have the mandate to do what he's doing now, no matter how much you agree with his decisions or not. And secondly no, Trump also publicly lied about his positions by saying he had nothing to do with Project 2025. But it doesn't matter if he did say the truth anyways, saying that you'll make a coup doesn't make the coup okay.
  - meheleventyone 2y ago
    > The left need to accept that they lost the election, that Trump won the presidency and the Republicans won control of congress. Shouldn't they then use Congress as intended rather than what they're doing now which bypasses it? As a bystander in another country your line of argument is mind-boggling. You don't just throw out the constitution and way the government works because one guy won an election one time. But that seems to be what a lot of people are suggesting, that because Trump won the election whatever he does is democratic and therefore okay.
    - lawn 2y ago
      The same people typically argue that whatever Trump is right anyway. For example when he lost the last election people rallied behind is made-up election fraud claims.
    - chongli 2y ago
      Shouldn't they then use Congress as intended rather than what they're doing now which bypasses it? They can’t because of the filibuster [1]. They cannot bypass the filibuster without a 3/5 majority which they do not have. Thus any bill which the Democrats oppose will be blocked by filibuster in the Senate. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Filibuster_in_the_United_States_Senate https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Filibuster_in_the_United_State...
      - theossuary 2y ago
        They could easily remove the filibuster if they so choosed.
        chongli 2y ago
        Yes, they could remove the filibuster. But then if the Democrats retake the Senate in the midterm elections they will benefit from the removed filibuster and be able to undo everything the Republicans did in the first place. The filibuster remaining in place is a good thing because it encourages negotiations and compromise instead of a seesaw battle.
        theossuary 2y ago
        I agree the filibuster is a good thing. But you can't decide to keep it and then use it as a reason to bypass congress.
        verzali 2y ago
        > But then if the Democrats retake the Senate in the midterm elections they will benefit from the removed filibuster and be able to undo everything the Republicans did in the first place. That's called democracy.
  - __loam 2y ago
    By mandate do you mean the 3 vote majority in the house?
- DarkmSparks 2y ago
  not really a coup, its a default. US government is already using pension fund money to pay its bills since early January (aka special measures), the interest on their national debt is already more than they collect in taxes.
  - deleted 2y ago
    [deleted]
  - jimkleiber 2y ago
    That has very little if anything to do with the executive branch brazenly disregarding laws.
    - tremendoussss 2y ago
      [flagged]
      - jimkleiber 2y ago
        In the first two weeks of taking office? I think it's just my belief that government should be slow and methodical, that the government should be thorough, and coming in and slashing and burning, without seemingly even checking whether they're legally allowed to do it, just seems to be a vengeful fit. I want government to be stable, relatively predictable, and wanting to follow the laws more than any other entity in the country. If the government doesn't respect the law deeply, why would any other organization?
        tremendoussss 2y ago
        It has to be in the first two weeks, 90%+ of DC voted for Kamala. There's going to be resistance and lack of support. People are going to want to keep their jobs. Layoffs suck but there's not a great way to do them, and the government shouldn't be immune to them. This wasn't a surprise to people following him. People like his head of OMB from his first term was on Tucker talking all about this. They've talked about the legal aspect of things and have prepared. They've had 4 years to prepare for the resistance to change in DC and the law will be used to resist. > If the government doesn't respect the law deeply, why would any other organization? I think this is the biggest issue we have in society. Trump supporters have been screaming that this has already been an issue for decades. The majority of Trump supporters would 100% agree with you. While everyone is pointing their fingers at Trump and calling his supporters conspiracy theorists, we aren't looking at the crimes our corrupt government has committed. There is no trust that our DOJ is on the side of the people and not just another tool of the corrupt establishment. The list of accusations made by Trump supporters is large and damning and absolutely deserve to have their questions answered. The hate and neglect of Trump supporters includes a massive blind eye to evil in DC that's been going on for decades
- Gareth321 2y ago
  I don't think you can call a democratically elected president doing what he promised to do a coup.
  - realusername 2y ago
    So first he lied about Project 2025 and then, "whatever the president does is democratic" is just an obvious sophism, no democracy works like that. Democraties work with checks and balances, which are being broken right now. On a final note, historically a lot of coup came from elected presidents
    - Gareth321 2y ago
      I don't think he lied about Project 2025. It is a collection of more than 700 policy proposals. Some completely normal, milquetoast Republican policies. Some more extreme. No matter what Trump implemented, it would have covered some of those policies, leading to accusations that he's "doing Project 2025". I don't think he would ever have read 900 pages, so I don't think he read it, and I don't think he lied. I didn't claim everything he does is democratic. I claimed that what he is doing is as promised to voters. Don't take my word for it. He is now at the highest approval rating he has ever had in office (https://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/polls/favorability/donald-trump/ https://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/polls/favorability/dona...). People obviously feel he is delivering what he promised. I don't think any checks and balances are being broken. Trump and the Republicans won the popular vote (which is kind of insane in an of itself), the Electoral College, the House, and the Senate. They have an unprecedented mandate to carry out unprecedented change by voters who were obviously VERY unhappy with the Democrat Party. > On a final note, historically a lot of coup came from elected presidents I can't fathom what you're trying to argue with this. That we should stop elections because the people might elect an authoritarian?
      - realusername 2y ago
        That doesn't look a very convincing argument. So Trump is coincidentally close to the Project 2025 members and both executing their playbook on day one but somehow that's not a connection? > I don't think any checks and balances are being broken. Trump and the Republicans won the popular vote (which is kind of insane in an of itself), the Electoral College, the House, and the Senate. Well but right now why isn't he using any of those then? Musk operates outside any legal framework. Maybe Trump isn't as confident as you seem on the loyalty of his fellow non-MAGA Republicans. > I can't fathom what you're trying to argue with this. That we should stop elections because the people might elect an authoritarian? I'm just disproving the nonsensical argument "he's been elected, therefore it'll remain a democracy". Well no, that isn't a sufficient guarantee.
brylie 2y ago
As an expat in the EU, I have a surreal sense of being a bystander at an ongoing emergency scene. I don’t want to be yet another gawker as this situation is unfolding but am struggling to come up with actions that are within my power to take as a form of protest, resistance, or solidarity. What are some practical actions that we can take to resist these sweeping changes?
- 3D30497420 2y ago
  Hope the US gets bad enough that people in the EU notice and decide they don't want to go down the same route? Honestly though, I'm in the same situation and I don't know. I did just start paid subscriptions to several media outlets that have been doing good reporting on the situation (Guardian, Verge). I unsubscribed to the Washington Post after they pulled their Harris endorsement (which was appalling), but their coverage since feels relatively thorough and they are well placed to report on all this so far, so I resubscribed. I already support PBS. I'll probably donate to Pro Publica next. I expect media outlets will be under rapidly increasing pressure, so supporting them financially feels important and positive. I've also have a standing donation to the NAACP legal defense fund from his first administration that I've just kept running. So... money I guess?
  - brylie 2y ago
    That makes sense. Time and money are our most effective (and scarce) resources.
    - intended 2y ago
      Time, money and labour. The parties turn on people who show up to do the work. There is a remarkable amount people can achieve if they show up as people who are willing to learn, do the work, and have their own eyes and ears open.
  - microtonal 2y ago
    Hope the US gets bad enough that people in the EU notice and decide they don't want to go down the same route? Yeah, same. Since the Brexit a lot of populist parties in the EU don't want to leave the EU anymore (only reform it). Let's hope that this is another warning that the destructive populist path doesn't lead anywhere good. (And I hope that the UK will join the EU again, they are close friends.) I did just start paid subscriptions to several media outlets that have been doing good reporting on the situation (Guardian, Verge). Yeah, independent, non-clickbait news is very important in these times. We recently renewed our newspaper subscription for three years. When you are in the EU (or really anywhere non-US anyway), it's probably a good moment to start moving your data out of the US and away from US companies. So far Trump has done exactly what he promised, so a large trade war or, even worse, a war over Greenland is possible. Since pretty much anything is fair game now, blackmailing the EU using its dependency on US tech companies is not far-fetched anymore. Get your data out and reduce your dependency on US tech.
xp84 2y ago
As far as I can tell, Trump is doing things he openly announced he would do for at least a year. So all of this is either a result of robust public support for his policies, or, (my preferred explanation) an even more robust public repudiation of the only alternative that was put forward by the other party, a candidate famous for dropping out before Iowa in 2020 but somehow was coronated the nominee without any voter input. The thing about democracy is, every person is going to sometimes wildly disagree with what the elected officials do. Declaring it a 'coup' is as silly as when Trump lost in 2020 and declared it a 'rigged election.' Now, you can make limited inroads to block executive actions with the courts, but even when SCOTUS was friendly to the anti-Trump cause, when that's done to advance an unpopular (majority-disapproved-of) agenda, it is usually a hollow and temporary victory. To get the policies you want, you need to win over voters. That's the part the DNC seems to be completely unaware of. You don't win by insulting, by dunking on the other guys on ~Twitter~ bluesky, or by protesting. You win in a democracy only by convincing the very reasonable middle that you share their values. The DNC has taken a position of "Everyone not already in our tent is evil, fascist, dastardly white supremacists," but to their chagrin, their current tent is under 50% of the voting public and it isn't growing.
- ithkuil 2y ago
  Trump said so many things, so many outlandish things that I think a sizeable percentage of the people who voted for him didn't quite believe he would do. I don't have hard data on that but I did speak with several repubblican voters who dismissed the worries saying that he was just joking to provoke the libs.
  - troyvit 2y ago
    He did. I only hope next time that the people who voted for him because of the truthiness of what he said (vs the actual truth) will think twice the next time they vote.
- scarab92 2y ago
  Purity spiral. The left won't be competitive in elections until they learn what it is, why it results in alienation of people who would otherwise support them, and find a way to escape it.
newsclues 2y ago
Funny how democracy works, I recall an election recently not a coup. Government is not a monolith, this isn’t the action of one single person, but the result of tens of millions people voting for change (that you disagree with).
- jimkleiber 2y ago
  People voting for an elected official is different than that elected official breaking the law. People can't vote to break the law. They can vote to rewrite the law, sometimes, depending on how the law is written. Often in the US we vote for elected officials who write law and then the elected president who enforces the law. So whether tens of millions of people voted for Trump doesn't mean Trump can just disregard law because people liked him and maybe even liked that he said he would disregard the law. As far as I know, that's not how the rule of law works in representative democracies.
  - groestl 2y ago
    > People voting for an elected official is different than that elected official breaking the law Not if the elected official pledged to break the law before being elected. > People can't vote to break the law. That's exactly what they did. > As far as I know, that's not how the rule of law works in representative democracies. I fear that's also not what the US has become now.
- junon 2y ago
  Nobody voted for Elon.
  - Gareth321 2y ago
    People don't vote for the millions of public employees. They vote for the president. Everything Trump has said so far indicates Musk is doing all of this at the discretion of Trump.
  - newsclues 2y ago
    who voted for Fauci?
concordDance 2y ago
I had an idea in my head about what the word "coup" means and why it is bad and I'm struggling to figure out how it applies to this situation (possibly because being no-American I don't get their news). My understanding is the USA executive is an obscenely powerful position by the standard of the rest of the Western world and they can also delegate that power to accomplish specific objectives. Is this a coup of Musk against Trump or the executive doing things its not allowed to do or a coup of the executive against the legislature? (Maybe tabooing (in the rationalist sense) the word "coup" might help...) Aside: the article paints a very concerning picture about the consequences of contemptuous ignorant imposition of abrupt blanket rules on valuable complex systems. I thank the OP for posting it.
- scarab92 2y ago
  It’s not a coup in any literal sense of the word, not even in the autocratic sense. The reason it’s being used is a combination of the US having never experienced a real coup, and thus it’s citizens not really knowing what the word means, plus one side of politics being sore losers after having lost an election and using whatever insult they can think of in order to deflect rather than self reflect on why they lost.
  - amitrip 2y ago
    [dead]
  - Ozark 2y ago
    it's an auto coup where the legally elected leader takes more control than they were given https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Self-coup https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Self-coup
    - Propelloni 2y ago
      We have better words for that than "coup", esp. because is is not clear at all if Trump will uphold the constitution, law and traditions of the USA by just abdicating at the end of his 2nd and final term. How about "Gleichschaltung", or "synchronization" for the English speaking folks, instead?
nlitened 2y ago
> deciding everything that happens in government as if they were a king Isn’t it what the head of executive branch supposed to mean? Trump does exactly how he promised he would do if you elected him, and you guys elected him overwhelmingly to do exactly that.
- sjsdaiuasgdia 2y ago
  >Isn’t it what the head of executive branch supposed to mean? In a nation governed by a constitution and laws, absofuckinglutely not. The chief executive is supposed to operate within the bounds of the constitution and the laws created under it.
  - rad_gruchalski 2y ago
    But you knew he doesn’t care. Your highest court ruled that laws don’t apply to the man. He can be a dictator if he wants and „whatcha gonna do ’bout it”?
    - sjsdaiuasgdia 2y ago
      Protest, support others who protest, annoy the shit out of my representatives, and loudly declare "THIS SHIT IS ILLEGAL AND UNCONSTITUTIONAL!" whenever the opportunity presents itself. It may become necessary for Trump and Musk to show their potential for brutality before people's minds change, unfortunately. But it has worked, in the past. The Kent State shooting is a good example; the obviously excessive brutality of the state caused a massive increase in willingness to speak out, protest, strike, etc. That massive public response became too large to ignore. I also recognize that by speaking up I may make myself a target for that brutality. At this point, I've decided "so be it, if that happens, it happens." Evil wins when good people stand by and do nothing.
      - desumeku 2y ago
        You guys did this the last 4 years he was in office and nothing happened. I'm going to sign myself in for another 4 years of screaming while nothing happens. By the way, posting about how much you hate the government on bluesky is not revolutionary activity, and talking about expecting "brutality" in retaliation shows just how out of touch you are with reality.
Propelloni 2y ago
This is not a coup, because Trump is still in his lawful 2nd and final term. Until then let's call it Gleichschaltung [1], because that's what it is: bringing all aspects of society under totalitarian control. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gleichschaltung https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gleichschaltung
- agnishom 2y ago
  Him assuming the office of the president is legal. But him trying to replace the law which has gone through due process using executive orders is unlawful. It is not a coup because he became president by force. It is a coup because he is consolidating power. (The president is not supposed to be all powerful.)
  - Propelloni 2y ago
    The Wikipedia-article explains why "consolidating power" as part of the government is Gleichschaltung and not a coup. A coup is the sudden, violent, and unlawful seizure of power from a government [1] which is not the case here. [1] https://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/english/coup https://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/english/coup
    - brendoelfrendo 2y ago
      No one is going to start calling this Gleichshaltung, so stop trying to make it happen. Words can be flexible. The current situation approximates a coup, and so people will call it a coup. Honestly, splitting hairs over definitions while our government is being stripped for parts? This is part of the problem!
      - agnishom 2y ago
        Relax. To be fair to them, Gleichshaltung has a nice ring to it
        brendoelfrendo 2y ago
tomrod 2y ago
[flagged]
mc32 2y ago
Large organizations suffer from rot. They need periodic retrenchment -in the private sector there are economic pressures to re-organize; in the government the tendency is for greater taxation. Throwing out the baby along with the bath water is not the answer but neither is the status quo.
- tootie 2y ago
  [flagged]
  - sam345 2y ago
    Agencies are not a separate branch they are part of the executive branch. There is no separation of power issue.
    - empyrrhicist 2y ago
      You don't get to just pretend these things aren't created and funded by congress, and that their operation hasn't been solidified and formed over decades and decades through interaction with the judicial branch as well. The executive branch has an obligation to execute the laws - they don't get to arbitrarily pick and choose how to do that without constraint. Period. If these were somehow created by executive action, it would be a completely different conversation. Pretending otherwise is disingenuous in the extreme.
      - mc32 2y ago
        Apparently Mayorkas didn't have to execute the laws if he didn't want to and moreover got to decide if he wanted to subvert them as well by granting asylum to whomever asked as well as providing transport, guidance, etc., etc. Democrats make people upset by not applying laws --all the thievery etc that AGs went light on, etc., and the Republicans make people upset by applying laws to a greater extent (being tougher on crime and deportations --though Obama wasn't a laggard in the latter either)
        2y ago
rayiner 2y ago
A “coup” implies an overthrow of the legal structure of power. Who is being overthrown?
- leereeves 2y ago
  [flagged]
  - tyingq 2y ago
    Routinely reaching past the defined limits of the executive branch could be described as a coup. Depending on the event/circumstances, it's congress being overthrown, or the constitution, etc. Assuming a definition of coup like "violent overthrow or alteration of an existing government by a small group" there's a reasonable case to be made.
    - leereeves 2y ago
      It seems unlikely that either the current Congress or the current Supreme Court (the arbiters of what is Constitutional) will object. > Assuming a definition of coup like "violent overthrow or alteration of an existing government by a small group" Violent? I haven't heard about violence. What are you referring to?
      - tyingq 2y ago
        Ah, so, yes...a "soft" coup. Which isn't uncommon. Though there's many things brewing that might fall back into the mainstream definition.
        leereeves 2y ago
        A "soft" coup, or... > overthrow or alteration of an existing government by a small group is what's supposed to happen after an election.
    - nonethewiser 2y ago
macinjosh 2y ago
No, we the people voted for this. This is what democracy looks like.
- esalman 2y ago
  Democracy is a broken, hackable system and it shows why. Theoretically in democracy you're supposed to be elected by the majority and then ensure the rights of the minority. When you're elected by the majority and then make the life of minorities as hard as possible, that's fascism- which is what real world practice of democracy has become.
  - achandlerwhite 2y ago
    Also he got less than 50% of the vote.
Spooky23 2y ago
JFK wrote a book called “Profiles in Courage” - no courageous people are around. The “coup” happened a long time ago. The US has demonstrated that there’s no rule of law at the federal level for some time now. Once the Chief Justice leaned back and tolerated the open sale of the court, that was basically it. We don’t have the same system of governance anymore… we’re like Italy 1936 or Argentina in 1948 now. We’ll invade Greenland instead of Ethiopia, and skip the funny hats. The question is do we continue on this trajectory or is there a real coup with tanks on DC streets at some point.
- rocky_raccoon 2y ago
  > skip the funny hats. I don't know about that part... those red ball caps are pretty goofy looking.
  - Integrape 2y ago
    The mark of the beast
- davidw 2y ago
  This piece sums it up pretty well: https://www.nytimes.com/2025/02/05/opinion/trump-musk-federal-government.html?unlocked_article_code=1.uk4.tJWn.A8s1V_15NXBV https://www.nytimes.com/2025/02/05/opinion/trump-musk-federa... The world as we knew it is gone and we're not going back.
- rayiner 2y ago
  I’m pretty sure the coup happened in the 1930s when the government created the modern system of unaccountable executive agencies and a Supreme Court, under duress, approved it.
  - MichaelZuo 2y ago
    Yeah it’s hard to reconcile a permanent layer of unelected officials, that can’t be sacked by either the President or Congress, with many parts of the constitution. And I’ve never seen a clear explanation of how that change was constitutionally justifiable.
insane_dreamer 2y ago
The other big elephant in the room is that the self-appointed wanna-be ruler, Musk, owns companies which have received very large amounts of both government (taxpayer) grants and contracts. Back in 2015, the LA Times reported Musk's companies had received nearly $5 billion in grants. That's taxpayer money. Plus there's the SpaceX contracts--not saying those are unwarranted, certainly SpaceX deserves the contracts more than Boeing--but my point is that it's a huge conflict of interest. A person receiving very large amounts of money from the government is now deciding which parts of the government should be cut in order to "save taxpayers money". If this sounds like something that would only happen in a place like Russia, or the DRC, it's because it's something that would only happen in those places. In other democratic countries you go to jail for this sort of thing (i.e., Nicholas Sarkozy in France--not saying the situation is exactly the same, but there's an actual judicial system in place that doesn't exonerate someone just because they're president, like our SCOTUS did).
- scarab92 2y ago
  [flagged]
  - ceejayoz 2y ago
    > Trump has stated... ... virtually every position, on both sides of every issue. Come the fuck on.
    - scarab92 2y ago
      On the issue of whether Musk is allowed to review functions that he has a conflict with, he has only stated that Musk is not allowed to do so.
      - ceejayoz 2y ago
        https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/False_or_misleading_statements_by_Donald_Trump https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/False_or_misleading_statements... This is a man who sharpies extra lines onto weather maps so he doesn't have to say "whoops, made a mistake in my tweet". https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hurricane_Dorian%E2%80%93Alabama_controversy https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hurricane_Dorian%E2%80%93Alaba...
benzible 2y ago
https://www.thedailybeast.com/yes-its-a-coup-and-yes-its-targeting-you/ https://www.thedailybeast.com/yes-its-a-coup-and-yes-its-tar... (https://archive.is/jSt78 https://archive.is/jSt78) > Most of us will change the channel or scroll to the next social media clip. Most in the media will “both sides” the end of our democracy into a melisma of euphemisms and equivocations. Most of our political leaders will focus on the pitch for their next fund-raiser email. And if this oblivious, indolent cowardice continues as I fear it will, we will look back on these days of chaos, destruction, hatred and lunacy as only prelude. Unchecked, we are on the path not just to autocracy, but to the worst form of malevolent dictatorship. > My reaction is not hysteria. It’s not exaggeration. It’s not premature. Where we are is a place we have never been in this country and the threat we face is by no means one that we can survive—because something precious and fragile is at dire risk of being lost.
xhkkffbf 2y ago
A coup? This was a general election and the person who won the election is allowed to choose his staff to run the executive branch. Pretty much everyone in the executive branch except the president and maybe the vice president is unelected. Was it a coup when the current people at the NSF got their jobs?

realusername 2y ago

Yes let's call a spade a spade, it's a coup. Trump is passing as much stuff as quickly as he can to bypass the separation of powers while they catch up.

scarab92 2y ago
The left need to accept that they lost the election, that Trump won the presidency and the Republicans won control of congress. As much as you personally disagree with these decisions, they are in line with the broad policy positions Trump et al communicated prior to the election, and can be considered the will of the people. Challenging the mandate the public gave them, by hyperventilating over minor procedural hiccups that will inevitably be resolved by congress in favour of Trump, comes across to voters as undemocratic.
- realusername 2y ago
  So first the US isn't a monarchy last time I checked, Trump doesn't have the mandate to do what he's doing now, no matter how much you agree with his decisions or not. And secondly no, Trump also publicly lied about his positions by saying he had nothing to do with Project 2025. But it doesn't matter if he did say the truth anyways, saying that you'll make a coup doesn't make the coup okay.
- meheleventyone 2y ago
  > The left need to accept that they lost the election, that Trump won the presidency and the Republicans won control of congress. Shouldn't they then use Congress as intended rather than what they're doing now which bypasses it? As a bystander in another country your line of argument is mind-boggling. You don't just throw out the constitution and way the government works because one guy won an election one time. But that seems to be what a lot of people are suggesting, that because Trump won the election whatever he does is democratic and therefore okay.
  - lawn 2y ago
    The same people typically argue that whatever Trump is right anyway. For example when he lost the last election people rallied behind is made-up election fraud claims.
  - chongli 2y ago
    Shouldn't they then use Congress as intended rather than what they're doing now which bypasses it? They can’t because of the filibuster [1]. They cannot bypass the filibuster without a 3/5 majority which they do not have. Thus any bill which the Democrats oppose will be blocked by filibuster in the Senate. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Filibuster_in_the_United_States_Senate https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Filibuster_in_the_United_State...
    - theossuary 2y ago
      They could easily remove the filibuster if they so choosed.
      - chongli 2y ago
        Yes, they could remove the filibuster. But then if the Democrats retake the Senate in the midterm elections they will benefit from the removed filibuster and be able to undo everything the Republicans did in the first place. The filibuster remaining in place is a good thing because it encourages negotiations and compromise instead of a seesaw battle.
        theossuary 2y ago
        I agree the filibuster is a good thing. But you can't decide to keep it and then use it as a reason to bypass congress.
        verzali 2y ago
        > But then if the Democrats retake the Senate in the midterm elections they will benefit from the removed filibuster and be able to undo everything the Republicans did in the first place. That's called democracy.
- __loam 2y ago
  By mandate do you mean the 3 vote majority in the house?
DarkmSparks 2y ago
not really a coup, its a default. US government is already using pension fund money to pay its bills since early January (aka special measures), the interest on their national debt is already more than they collect in taxes.
- deleted 2y ago
  [deleted]
- jimkleiber 2y ago
  That has very little if anything to do with the executive branch brazenly disregarding laws.
  - tremendoussss 2y ago
    [flagged]
    - jimkleiber 2y ago
      In the first two weeks of taking office? I think it's just my belief that government should be slow and methodical, that the government should be thorough, and coming in and slashing and burning, without seemingly even checking whether they're legally allowed to do it, just seems to be a vengeful fit. I want government to be stable, relatively predictable, and wanting to follow the laws more than any other entity in the country. If the government doesn't respect the law deeply, why would any other organization?
      - tremendoussss 2y ago
        It has to be in the first two weeks, 90%+ of DC voted for Kamala. There's going to be resistance and lack of support. People are going to want to keep their jobs. Layoffs suck but there's not a great way to do them, and the government shouldn't be immune to them. This wasn't a surprise to people following him. People like his head of OMB from his first term was on Tucker talking all about this. They've talked about the legal aspect of things and have prepared. They've had 4 years to prepare for the resistance to change in DC and the law will be used to resist. > If the government doesn't respect the law deeply, why would any other organization? I think this is the biggest issue we have in society. Trump supporters have been screaming that this has already been an issue for decades. The majority of Trump supporters would 100% agree with you. While everyone is pointing their fingers at Trump and calling his supporters conspiracy theorists, we aren't looking at the crimes our corrupt government has committed. There is no trust that our DOJ is on the side of the people and not just another tool of the corrupt establishment. The list of accusations made by Trump supporters is large and damning and absolutely deserve to have their questions answered. The hate and neglect of Trump supporters includes a massive blind eye to evil in DC that's been going on for decades
Gareth321 2y ago
I don't think you can call a democratically elected president doing what he promised to do a coup.
- realusername 2y ago
  So first he lied about Project 2025 and then, "whatever the president does is democratic" is just an obvious sophism, no democracy works like that. Democraties work with checks and balances, which are being broken right now. On a final note, historically a lot of coup came from elected presidents
  - Gareth321 2y ago
    I don't think he lied about Project 2025. It is a collection of more than 700 policy proposals. Some completely normal, milquetoast Republican policies. Some more extreme. No matter what Trump implemented, it would have covered some of those policies, leading to accusations that he's "doing Project 2025". I don't think he would ever have read 900 pages, so I don't think he read it, and I don't think he lied. I didn't claim everything he does is democratic. I claimed that what he is doing is as promised to voters. Don't take my word for it. He is now at the highest approval rating he has ever had in office (https://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/polls/favorability/donald-trump/ https://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/polls/favorability/dona...). People obviously feel he is delivering what he promised. I don't think any checks and balances are being broken. Trump and the Republicans won the popular vote (which is kind of insane in an of itself), the Electoral College, the House, and the Senate. They have an unprecedented mandate to carry out unprecedented change by voters who were obviously VERY unhappy with the Democrat Party. > On a final note, historically a lot of coup came from elected presidents I can't fathom what you're trying to argue with this. That we should stop elections because the people might elect an authoritarian?
    - realusername 2y ago
      That doesn't look a very convincing argument. So Trump is coincidentally close to the Project 2025 members and both executing their playbook on day one but somehow that's not a connection? > I don't think any checks and balances are being broken. Trump and the Republicans won the popular vote (which is kind of insane in an of itself), the Electoral College, the House, and the Senate. Well but right now why isn't he using any of those then? Musk operates outside any legal framework. Maybe Trump isn't as confident as you seem on the loyalty of his fellow non-MAGA Republicans. > I can't fathom what you're trying to argue with this. That we should stop elections because the people might elect an authoritarian? I'm just disproving the nonsensical argument "he's been elected, therefore it'll remain a democracy". Well no, that isn't a sufficient guarantee.

brylie 2y ago

As an expat in the EU, I have a surreal sense of being a bystander at an ongoing emergency scene. I don’t want to be yet another gawker as this situation is unfolding but am struggling to come up with actions that are within my power to take as a form of protest, resistance, or solidarity. What are some practical actions that we can take to resist these sweeping changes?

3D30497420 2y ago
Hope the US gets bad enough that people in the EU notice and decide they don't want to go down the same route? Honestly though, I'm in the same situation and I don't know. I did just start paid subscriptions to several media outlets that have been doing good reporting on the situation (Guardian, Verge). I unsubscribed to the Washington Post after they pulled their Harris endorsement (which was appalling), but their coverage since feels relatively thorough and they are well placed to report on all this so far, so I resubscribed. I already support PBS. I'll probably donate to Pro Publica next. I expect media outlets will be under rapidly increasing pressure, so supporting them financially feels important and positive. I've also have a standing donation to the NAACP legal defense fund from his first administration that I've just kept running. So... money I guess?
- brylie 2y ago
  That makes sense. Time and money are our most effective (and scarce) resources.
  - intended 2y ago
    Time, money and labour. The parties turn on people who show up to do the work. There is a remarkable amount people can achieve if they show up as people who are willing to learn, do the work, and have their own eyes and ears open.
- microtonal 2y ago
  Hope the US gets bad enough that people in the EU notice and decide they don't want to go down the same route? Yeah, same. Since the Brexit a lot of populist parties in the EU don't want to leave the EU anymore (only reform it). Let's hope that this is another warning that the destructive populist path doesn't lead anywhere good. (And I hope that the UK will join the EU again, they are close friends.) I did just start paid subscriptions to several media outlets that have been doing good reporting on the situation (Guardian, Verge). Yeah, independent, non-clickbait news is very important in these times. We recently renewed our newspaper subscription for three years. When you are in the EU (or really anywhere non-US anyway), it's probably a good moment to start moving your data out of the US and away from US companies. So far Trump has done exactly what he promised, so a large trade war or, even worse, a war over Greenland is possible. Since pretty much anything is fair game now, blackmailing the EU using its dependency on US tech companies is not far-fetched anymore. Get your data out and reduce your dependency on US tech.

xp84 2y ago

As far as I can tell, Trump is doing things he openly announced he would do for at least a year. So all of this is either a result of robust public support for his policies, or, (my preferred explanation) an even more robust public repudiation of the only alternative that was put forward by the other party, a candidate famous for dropping out before Iowa in 2020 but somehow was coronated the nominee without any voter input. The thing about democracy is, every person is going to sometimes wildly disagree with what the elected officials do. Declaring it a 'coup' is as silly as when Trump lost in 2020 and declared it a 'rigged election.' Now, you can make limited inroads to block executive actions with the courts, but even when SCOTUS was friendly to the anti-Trump cause, when that's done to advance an unpopular (majority-disapproved-of) agenda, it is usually a hollow and temporary victory. To get the policies you want, you need to win over voters. That's the part the DNC seems to be completely unaware of. You don't win by insulting, by dunking on the other guys on ~Twitter~ bluesky, or by protesting. You win in a democracy only by convincing the very reasonable middle that you share their values. The DNC has taken a position of "Everyone not already in our tent is evil, fascist, dastardly white supremacists," but to their chagrin, their current tent is under 50% of the voting public and it isn't growing.

ithkuil 2y ago
Trump said so many things, so many outlandish things that I think a sizeable percentage of the people who voted for him didn't quite believe he would do. I don't have hard data on that but I did speak with several repubblican voters who dismissed the worries saying that he was just joking to provoke the libs.
- troyvit 2y ago
  He did. I only hope next time that the people who voted for him because of the truthiness of what he said (vs the actual truth) will think twice the next time they vote.
scarab92 2y ago
Purity spiral. The left won't be competitive in elections until they learn what it is, why it results in alienation of people who would otherwise support them, and find a way to escape it.

newsclues 2y ago

Funny how democracy works, I recall an election recently not a coup. Government is not a monolith, this isn’t the action of one single person, but the result of tens of millions people voting for change (that you disagree with).

jimkleiber 2y ago
People voting for an elected official is different than that elected official breaking the law. People can't vote to break the law. They can vote to rewrite the law, sometimes, depending on how the law is written. Often in the US we vote for elected officials who write law and then the elected president who enforces the law. So whether tens of millions of people voted for Trump doesn't mean Trump can just disregard law because people liked him and maybe even liked that he said he would disregard the law. As far as I know, that's not how the rule of law works in representative democracies.
- groestl 2y ago
  > People voting for an elected official is different than that elected official breaking the law Not if the elected official pledged to break the law before being elected. > People can't vote to break the law. That's exactly what they did. > As far as I know, that's not how the rule of law works in representative democracies. I fear that's also not what the US has become now.
junon 2y ago
Nobody voted for Elon.
- Gareth321 2y ago
  People don't vote for the millions of public employees. They vote for the president. Everything Trump has said so far indicates Musk is doing all of this at the discretion of Trump.
- newsclues 2y ago
  who voted for Fauci?

concordDance 2y ago

I had an idea in my head about what the word "coup" means and why it is bad and I'm struggling to figure out how it applies to this situation (possibly because being no-American I don't get their news). My understanding is the USA executive is an obscenely powerful position by the standard of the rest of the Western world and they can also delegate that power to accomplish specific objectives. Is this a coup of Musk against Trump or the executive doing things its not allowed to do or a coup of the executive against the legislature? (Maybe tabooing (in the rationalist sense) the word "coup" might help...) Aside: the article paints a very concerning picture about the consequences of contemptuous ignorant imposition of abrupt blanket rules on valuable complex systems. I thank the OP for posting it.

scarab92 2y ago
It’s not a coup in any literal sense of the word, not even in the autocratic sense. The reason it’s being used is a combination of the US having never experienced a real coup, and thus it’s citizens not really knowing what the word means, plus one side of politics being sore losers after having lost an election and using whatever insult they can think of in order to deflect rather than self reflect on why they lost.
- amitrip 2y ago
  [dead]
- Ozark 2y ago
  it's an auto coup where the legally elected leader takes more control than they were given https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Self-coup https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Self-coup
  - Propelloni 2y ago
    We have better words for that than "coup", esp. because is is not clear at all if Trump will uphold the constitution, law and traditions of the USA by just abdicating at the end of his 2nd and final term. How about "Gleichschaltung", or "synchronization" for the English speaking folks, instead?

nlitened 2y ago

> deciding everything that happens in government as if they were a king Isn’t it what the head of executive branch supposed to mean? Trump does exactly how he promised he would do if you elected him, and you guys elected him overwhelmingly to do exactly that.

sjsdaiuasgdia 2y ago
>Isn’t it what the head of executive branch supposed to mean? In a nation governed by a constitution and laws, absofuckinglutely not. The chief executive is supposed to operate within the bounds of the constitution and the laws created under it.
- rad_gruchalski 2y ago
  But you knew he doesn’t care. Your highest court ruled that laws don’t apply to the man. He can be a dictator if he wants and „whatcha gonna do ’bout it”?
  - sjsdaiuasgdia 2y ago
    Protest, support others who protest, annoy the shit out of my representatives, and loudly declare "THIS SHIT IS ILLEGAL AND UNCONSTITUTIONAL!" whenever the opportunity presents itself. It may become necessary for Trump and Musk to show their potential for brutality before people's minds change, unfortunately. But it has worked, in the past. The Kent State shooting is a good example; the obviously excessive brutality of the state caused a massive increase in willingness to speak out, protest, strike, etc. That massive public response became too large to ignore. I also recognize that by speaking up I may make myself a target for that brutality. At this point, I've decided "so be it, if that happens, it happens." Evil wins when good people stand by and do nothing.
    - desumeku 2y ago
      You guys did this the last 4 years he was in office and nothing happened. I'm going to sign myself in for another 4 years of screaming while nothing happens. By the way, posting about how much you hate the government on bluesky is not revolutionary activity, and talking about expecting "brutality" in retaliation shows just how out of touch you are with reality.

Propelloni 2y ago

This is not a coup, because Trump is still in his lawful 2nd and final term. Until then let's call it Gleichschaltung [1], because that's what it is: bringing all aspects of society under totalitarian control. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gleichschaltung https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gleichschaltung

agnishom 2y ago
Him assuming the office of the president is legal. But him trying to replace the law which has gone through due process using executive orders is unlawful. It is not a coup because he became president by force. It is a coup because he is consolidating power. (The president is not supposed to be all powerful.)
- Propelloni 2y ago
  The Wikipedia-article explains why "consolidating power" as part of the government is Gleichschaltung and not a coup. A coup is the sudden, violent, and unlawful seizure of power from a government [1] which is not the case here. [1] https://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/english/coup https://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/english/coup
  - brendoelfrendo 2y ago
    No one is going to start calling this Gleichshaltung, so stop trying to make it happen. Words can be flexible. The current situation approximates a coup, and so people will call it a coup. Honestly, splitting hairs over definitions while our government is being stripped for parts? This is part of the problem!
    - agnishom 2y ago
      Relax. To be fair to them, Gleichshaltung has a nice ring to it
      - brendoelfrendo 2y ago

tomrod 2y ago

[flagged]

mc32 2y ago

Large organizations suffer from rot. They need periodic retrenchment -in the private sector there are economic pressures to re-organize; in the government the tendency is for greater taxation. Throwing out the baby along with the bath water is not the answer but neither is the status quo.

tootie 2y ago
[flagged]
- sam345 2y ago
  Agencies are not a separate branch they are part of the executive branch. There is no separation of power issue.
  - empyrrhicist 2y ago
    You don't get to just pretend these things aren't created and funded by congress, and that their operation hasn't been solidified and formed over decades and decades through interaction with the judicial branch as well. The executive branch has an obligation to execute the laws - they don't get to arbitrarily pick and choose how to do that without constraint. Period. If these were somehow created by executive action, it would be a completely different conversation. Pretending otherwise is disingenuous in the extreme.
    - mc32 2y ago
      Apparently Mayorkas didn't have to execute the laws if he didn't want to and moreover got to decide if he wanted to subvert them as well by granting asylum to whomever asked as well as providing transport, guidance, etc., etc. Democrats make people upset by not applying laws --all the thievery etc that AGs went light on, etc., and the Republicans make people upset by applying laws to a greater extent (being tougher on crime and deportations --though Obama wasn't a laggard in the latter either)
      - 2y ago

rayiner 2y ago

A “coup” implies an overthrow of the legal structure of power. Who is being overthrown?

leereeves 2y ago
[flagged]
- tyingq 2y ago
  Routinely reaching past the defined limits of the executive branch could be described as a coup. Depending on the event/circumstances, it's congress being overthrown, or the constitution, etc. Assuming a definition of coup like "violent overthrow or alteration of an existing government by a small group" there's a reasonable case to be made.
  - leereeves 2y ago
    It seems unlikely that either the current Congress or the current Supreme Court (the arbiters of what is Constitutional) will object. > Assuming a definition of coup like "violent overthrow or alteration of an existing government by a small group" Violent? I haven't heard about violence. What are you referring to?
    - tyingq 2y ago
      Ah, so, yes...a "soft" coup. Which isn't uncommon. Though there's many things brewing that might fall back into the mainstream definition.
      - leereeves 2y ago
        A "soft" coup, or... > overthrow or alteration of an existing government by a small group is what's supposed to happen after an election.
  - nonethewiser 2y ago

macinjosh 2y ago

No, we the people voted for this. This is what democracy looks like.

esalman 2y ago
Democracy is a broken, hackable system and it shows why. Theoretically in democracy you're supposed to be elected by the majority and then ensure the rights of the minority. When you're elected by the majority and then make the life of minorities as hard as possible, that's fascism- which is what real world practice of democracy has become.
- achandlerwhite 2y ago
  Also he got less than 50% of the vote.

Spooky23 2y ago

JFK wrote a book called “Profiles in Courage” - no courageous people are around. The “coup” happened a long time ago. The US has demonstrated that there’s no rule of law at the federal level for some time now. Once the Chief Justice leaned back and tolerated the open sale of the court, that was basically it. We don’t have the same system of governance anymore… we’re like Italy 1936 or Argentina in 1948 now. We’ll invade Greenland instead of Ethiopia, and skip the funny hats. The question is do we continue on this trajectory or is there a real coup with tanks on DC streets at some point.

rocky_raccoon 2y ago
> skip the funny hats. I don't know about that part... those red ball caps are pretty goofy looking.
- Integrape 2y ago
  The mark of the beast
davidw 2y ago
This piece sums it up pretty well: https://www.nytimes.com/2025/02/05/opinion/trump-musk-federal-government.html?unlocked_article_code=1.uk4.tJWn.A8s1V_15NXBV https://www.nytimes.com/2025/02/05/opinion/trump-musk-federa... The world as we knew it is gone and we're not going back.
rayiner 2y ago
I’m pretty sure the coup happened in the 1930s when the government created the modern system of unaccountable executive agencies and a Supreme Court, under duress, approved it.
- MichaelZuo 2y ago
  Yeah it’s hard to reconcile a permanent layer of unelected officials, that can’t be sacked by either the President or Congress, with many parts of the constitution. And I’ve never seen a clear explanation of how that change was constitutionally justifiable.

insane_dreamer 2y ago

The other big elephant in the room is that the self-appointed wanna-be ruler, Musk, owns companies which have received very large amounts of both government (taxpayer) grants and contracts. Back in 2015, the LA Times reported Musk's companies had received nearly $5 billion in grants. That's taxpayer money. Plus there's the SpaceX contracts--not saying those are unwarranted, certainly SpaceX deserves the contracts more than Boeing--but my point is that it's a huge conflict of interest. A person receiving very large amounts of money from the government is now deciding which parts of the government should be cut in order to "save taxpayers money". If this sounds like something that would only happen in a place like Russia, or the DRC, it's because it's something that would only happen in those places. In other democratic countries you go to jail for this sort of thing (i.e., Nicholas Sarkozy in France--not saying the situation is exactly the same, but there's an actual judicial system in place that doesn't exonerate someone just because they're president, like our SCOTUS did).

scarab92 2y ago
[flagged]
- ceejayoz 2y ago
  > Trump has stated... ... virtually every position, on both sides of every issue. Come the fuck on.
  - scarab92 2y ago
    On the issue of whether Musk is allowed to review functions that he has a conflict with, he has only stated that Musk is not allowed to do so.
    - ceejayoz 2y ago
      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/False_or_misleading_statements_by_Donald_Trump https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/False_or_misleading_statements... This is a man who sharpies extra lines onto weather maps so he doesn't have to say "whoops, made a mistake in my tweet". https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hurricane_Dorian%E2%80%93Alabama_controversy https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hurricane_Dorian%E2%80%93Alaba...

benzible 2y ago

https://www.thedailybeast.com/yes-its-a-coup-and-yes-its-targeting-you/ https://www.thedailybeast.com/yes-its-a-coup-and-yes-its-tar... (https://archive.is/jSt78 https://archive.is/jSt78) > Most of us will change the channel or scroll to the next social media clip. Most in the media will “both sides” the end of our democracy into a melisma of euphemisms and equivocations. Most of our political leaders will focus on the pitch for their next fund-raiser email. And if this oblivious, indolent cowardice continues as I fear it will, we will look back on these days of chaos, destruction, hatred and lunacy as only prelude. Unchecked, we are on the path not just to autocracy, but to the worst form of malevolent dictatorship. > My reaction is not hysteria. It’s not exaggeration. It’s not premature. Where we are is a place we have never been in this country and the threat we face is by no means one that we can survive—because something precious and fragile is at dire risk of being lost.

xhkkffbf 2y ago

A coup? This was a general election and the person who won the election is allowed to choose his staff to run the executive branch. Pretty much everyone in the executive branch except the president and maybe the vice president is unelected. Was it a coup when the current people at the NSF got their jobs?