5 ms·

The article outlines some reporting changes (from OMB to White House chief of staff??) to get around that apparently

slowmovintarget 2y ago
The article is fairly sloppy and uses lots of scare-quotes, but basically it's saying that communications for the DOGE team will report in to the Chief of Staff making them subject to the Presidential Records Act instead of the general reporting conditions for the OMB. The article also states that 'DOGE is gutting...' when that's not true. They're advising the President, and the President is cleaning house. They investigate, recommend, the President decides, and those decisions get acted on. This is how a task force like this is supposed to work.
- BryantD 2y ago
  "The President decides..." within the limits of his constitutional powers. Which do not include, for example, impoundment or unilaterally shutting down agencies authorized by Congressional acts.
  - lenerdenator 2y ago
    Depends on if anyone will do anything to stop him.
  - rayiner 2y ago
    People are throwing around the word "impoundment" lately. But it has a very specific meaning, and no impoundment has happened.
    - code_runner 2y ago
      only because the courts stopped it
    - BryantD 2y ago
      Judge John McConnell disagrees with you. His decision placing a hold on the spending freeze cites the Impoundment Control Act as part of his finding that the lawsuit is likely to succeed on the merits.
      - jeltz 2y ago
        Yeah, it is always fun when people here know more than supreme court judges about US law.
        BryantD 2y ago
        To be fair, he's a district chief judge and I've certainly disagreed with some of them in the past. But at least it demonstrates that the question of impoundment is on the table.
      - rayiner 2y ago
        That decision applies to a very specific item: congressional appropriated federal support to states. Which is probably the strongest case for an impoundment argument.
        BryantD 2y ago
        Yep. And certainly at the beginning of all this there was reason to think that this was happening. For example, Solar for All grants were paused with no explanation of why or the expected path for releasing them. So, yes, impoundment is a relevant term to use.
    - Volundr 2y ago
      Virtually all of the spending through USAID was Congressionally authorized. Can you explain how blocking or delaying that spending fails to meet the definition of Impoundment? To say nothing the freezes that have been put on hold by the courts.
      - rayiner 2y ago
        Impoundment is determined on the scope of a “program” for which appropriations have been made: https://uscode.house.gov/view.xhtml?path=/prelim@title2/chapter17B&edition=prelim https://uscode.house.gov/view.xhtml?path=/prelim@title2/chap.... If you think there’s a violation of the impoundment act, you need to identify what the “program” is and why you think the administration won’t spend the whole program amount within the relevant time period.
- deleted 2y ago
  [deleted]
- karaterobot 2y ago
  > They're advising the President, and the President is cleaning house. That may be a distinction without a difference. The reason to have advisors around is so you can rely on them to make a proposal you can sign off on, because they understand your overall vision. If they're not proposing cuts he agrees with, he'll replace DOGE leadership until he finds people who do.
- sitkack 2y ago
  [flagged]
- paradox460 2y ago
  Exactly. I made this comparison elsewhere, but it still fits. They are akin to the US Chemical safety board. They have investigative powers, but that's it. They can't actually change anything, just issue recommendations. Now, USCSB makes some incredible YouTube videos, I somehow doubt Doge will do the same
hiatus 2y ago
That remains to be seen. From the same article: > "Just changing the name alone under the Executive Order doesn't affect DOGE's recordkeeping status,” Jason R. Baron, professor at the University of Maryland and former director of litigation at the National Archives and Records Administration told 404 Media in a phone call. “The administration apparently has made a determination that DOGE will be a presidential component subject to the Presidential Records Act. However, that will surely be challenged in the courts in connection with FOIA lawsuits. Under FOIA, it will be for the courts to decide whether under existing DOGE is acting more like a federal oversight agency or as a presidential component that solely advises the President.”
- sitkack 2y ago
  DOGE is not acting as an oversight agency, they are locking people out of systems and modifying code, so they can't be an oversight agency. Congress needs to do their job here.

The article is fairly sloppy and uses lots of scare-quotes, but basically it's saying that communications for the DOGE team will report in to the Chief of Staff making them subject to the Presidential Records Act instead of the general reporting conditions for the OMB. The article also states that 'DOGE is gutting...' when that's not true. They're advising the President, and the President is cleaning house. They investigate, recommend, the President decides, and those decisions get acted on. This is how a task force like this is supposed to work.

BryantD 2y ago
"The President decides..." within the limits of his constitutional powers. Which do not include, for example, impoundment or unilaterally shutting down agencies authorized by Congressional acts.
- lenerdenator 2y ago
  Depends on if anyone will do anything to stop him.
- rayiner 2y ago
  People are throwing around the word "impoundment" lately. But it has a very specific meaning, and no impoundment has happened.
  - code_runner 2y ago
    only because the courts stopped it
  - BryantD 2y ago
    Judge John McConnell disagrees with you. His decision placing a hold on the spending freeze cites the Impoundment Control Act as part of his finding that the lawsuit is likely to succeed on the merits.
    - jeltz 2y ago
      Yeah, it is always fun when people here know more than supreme court judges about US law.
      - BryantD 2y ago
        To be fair, he's a district chief judge and I've certainly disagreed with some of them in the past. But at least it demonstrates that the question of impoundment is on the table.
    - rayiner 2y ago
      That decision applies to a very specific item: congressional appropriated federal support to states. Which is probably the strongest case for an impoundment argument.
      - BryantD 2y ago
        Yep. And certainly at the beginning of all this there was reason to think that this was happening. For example, Solar for All grants were paused with no explanation of why or the expected path for releasing them. So, yes, impoundment is a relevant term to use.
  - Volundr 2y ago
    Virtually all of the spending through USAID was Congressionally authorized. Can you explain how blocking or delaying that spending fails to meet the definition of Impoundment? To say nothing the freezes that have been put on hold by the courts.
    - rayiner 2y ago
      Impoundment is determined on the scope of a “program” for which appropriations have been made: https://uscode.house.gov/view.xhtml?path=/prelim@title2/chapter17B&edition=prelim https://uscode.house.gov/view.xhtml?path=/prelim@title2/chap.... If you think there’s a violation of the impoundment act, you need to identify what the “program” is and why you think the administration won’t spend the whole program amount within the relevant time period.
deleted 2y ago
[deleted]
karaterobot 2y ago
> They're advising the President, and the President is cleaning house. That may be a distinction without a difference. The reason to have advisors around is so you can rely on them to make a proposal you can sign off on, because they understand your overall vision. If they're not proposing cuts he agrees with, he'll replace DOGE leadership until he finds people who do.
sitkack 2y ago
[flagged]
paradox460 2y ago
Exactly. I made this comparison elsewhere, but it still fits. They are akin to the US Chemical safety board. They have investigative powers, but that's it. They can't actually change anything, just issue recommendations. Now, USCSB makes some incredible YouTube videos, I somehow doubt Doge will do the same

hiatus 2y ago

That remains to be seen. From the same article: > "Just changing the name alone under the Executive Order doesn't affect DOGE's recordkeeping status,” Jason R. Baron, professor at the University of Maryland and former director of litigation at the National Archives and Records Administration told 404 Media in a phone call. “The administration apparently has made a determination that DOGE will be a presidential component subject to the Presidential Records Act. However, that will surely be challenged in the courts in connection with FOIA lawsuits. Under FOIA, it will be for the courts to decide whether under existing DOGE is acting more like a federal oversight agency or as a presidential component that solely advises the President.”

sitkack 2y ago
DOGE is not acting as an oversight agency, they are locking people out of systems and modifying code, so they can't be an oversight agency. Congress needs to do their job here.