5 ms·

President doesn't have authority to shut them down by EO either. Congress does, yes. (It's one of those "power of the purse" things. If Congress has created an

by kemayo 2y ago

President doesn't have authority to shut them down by EO either. Congress does, yes. (It's one of those "power of the purse" things. If Congress has created an organization and funded it, the executive is required to spend that money on it.)

rastignack 2y ago
Then, the president is acting illegally, and not doge ?
lupusreal 2y ago
That would make the executive orders illegal, or at best invalid. It wouldn't make DOGE illegal. DOGE is private citizens giving their opinions about how the government should work to a politician who happens to be listening to them (for now, but probably not long given that politician's track record for getting into feuds with former allies.) Citizens voicing their opinions about the government is clear cut First Ammendment activity, of precisely the sort the first ammendment was intended to protect in the first place. People need to get a grip.
- jacobr1 2y ago
  > DOGE is private citizens giving their opinions about how the government should work to a politician who happens to be listening to them No, DOGE was formalized as a division of the US Digital Service. Employees of DOGE are federal government employees. Some of them, like Elon are "Special Government Employees" which is a short-term category and avoids certain disclosures. Creating DOGE and enabling them to have access to certain IT systems is legal ... but what data, how much control they have, what they can demand of other departments is subject to all sorts of laws and controls which may or may not be being followed at the moment.
  - lupusreal 2y ago
    Okay, so these citizens are federal employees. Guess what, the First Ammendment still gives them the right to tell politicians what they should be doing.
    - nickthegreek 2y ago
      No one said they didn’t have a 1st amendment right.
- svachalek 2y ago
  Citizens voicing their opinion don't usually have unlimited access to government databases.
- code_runner 2y ago
  This is easily the most willfully uninformed take on this topic I have seen yet
paulvnickerson 2y ago
> President doesn't have authority to shut them down by EO either I'm not sure they are being shut down. USAID is being restructured for instance and folded into the State Department.
- kemayo 2y ago
  I imagine the legality of that depends on the exact details of the law that created the organization. If it specifies that it be an independent organization, then that's probably not allowed either. If it's just "these things must be done" then State could probably handle it. (Either way, the exact approach they've taken so far with the total freeze and shutdown, then later saying they'll totally start doing the job again somewhere else later on, seems sketchy.)
- mrtesthah 2y ago
  The state dept issued an evacuation order for all USAID staff overseas. How will they accomplish their mission? This includes medical care and distribution of HIV medication to up to 20 million people.
  - Ancapistani 2y ago
    Why are American taxpayers paying for medical care and HIV medication for 20 million people? Correct me if I'm wrong, but aren't those people foreign nationals as well?
    - nickthegreek 2y ago
      Because we elected representative who then funded these soft power initiatives. That’s how democracy works.
    - kemayo 2y ago
      You can certainly disagree with whether we should be doing it, but the fact remains that Congress made a law saying that we are doing it. The vehicle for changing that is to change the law, not for the President to decide to break the law. On a separate note, assuming that "it's good to help people if you can" doesn't move you, the cynical reason for USAID's existence is marketing and soft power projection. For a tiny fraction of the US budget, we get to look good for how nice we're being to people, and get other countries to want us to come in and get our hands all over their infrastructure until it'd be painful for them to oppose us and lose that aid. (Also, HIV specifically? That's something where lowering the levels of it in foreign countries will directly help the US, because it makes it less likely that US citizens will get exposed to it when people travel.)
impulser_ 2y ago
Yeah, that why I said both. It depends on what they are doing. USAID probably needs congress, but other things might just need an EO. The point is DOGE isn't doing this, the President is. Elon doesn't have authority that Democratics are saying he does. He simply informs the President, "Hey, USAID is spending taxpayers money to fund xyz in xyz you might want to shut it down". The President then goes "Yeah, I think we should shut it down let's freeze it and we'll abolish it". Then they go down the path of abolishing it and with the USAID they will probably get congress to do it. Until then they can freeze it because he appoint Marco Rubio has the acting admin.
- exceptione 2y ago
  > He simply informs the President, That man is way too friendly. Just before the election he gave $300.000.000,00 to Trump. And he is so special, eh! He can read air-gaped, highly sensitive data that no one should see from government systems, just using his mind/indoctrinated minions. I hate it when people speculate this might have to do, amongst things, with dark money to be made in intelligence/elite level international crime.
  - impulser_ 2y ago
    Neither him nor Trump ever hid what Elon was going to do if Trump was elected. Unlike other donators of both parties, we always knew what Elon's goal was. He literally spent the last year on Twitter tweeting about it. Many people, especially libertarians, voted for Trump for this exact reason. Yeah, you might think he shouldn't have access to these system but it's the President, who the majority of the people voted for, that has the authority to grant him access, or ask for access from the appoint leaders of these departments. Everyday when he posts list of things the US government is spending money on the more people are backing Elon in this endeavor. Go here https://x.com/DOGE https://x.com/DOGE and read some of the things we are paying for and you tell me that we should be spending money on it. Yeah, you might think he up to something bad but you would have always thought that because you don't like him. Are you sure he's not just an American who cares about the US and doesn't want it too head into a death spiral from massive amount of debt with no one brave enough to stop it because it might cause them to lose an election?

by kemayo 2y ago

rastignack 2y ago

Then, the president is acting illegally, and not doge ?

lupusreal 2y ago

That would make the executive orders illegal, or at best invalid. It wouldn't make DOGE illegal. DOGE is private citizens giving their opinions about how the government should work to a politician who happens to be listening to them (for now, but probably not long given that politician's track record for getting into feuds with former allies.) Citizens voicing their opinions about the government is clear cut First Ammendment activity, of precisely the sort the first ammendment was intended to protect in the first place. People need to get a grip.

jacobr1 2y ago
> DOGE is private citizens giving their opinions about how the government should work to a politician who happens to be listening to them No, DOGE was formalized as a division of the US Digital Service. Employees of DOGE are federal government employees. Some of them, like Elon are "Special Government Employees" which is a short-term category and avoids certain disclosures. Creating DOGE and enabling them to have access to certain IT systems is legal ... but what data, how much control they have, what they can demand of other departments is subject to all sorts of laws and controls which may or may not be being followed at the moment.
- lupusreal 2y ago
  Okay, so these citizens are federal employees. Guess what, the First Ammendment still gives them the right to tell politicians what they should be doing.
  - nickthegreek 2y ago
    No one said they didn’t have a 1st amendment right.
svachalek 2y ago
Citizens voicing their opinion don't usually have unlimited access to government databases.
code_runner 2y ago
This is easily the most willfully uninformed take on this topic I have seen yet

paulvnickerson 2y ago

> President doesn't have authority to shut them down by EO either I'm not sure they are being shut down. USAID is being restructured for instance and folded into the State Department.

kemayo 2y ago
I imagine the legality of that depends on the exact details of the law that created the organization. If it specifies that it be an independent organization, then that's probably not allowed either. If it's just "these things must be done" then State could probably handle it. (Either way, the exact approach they've taken so far with the total freeze and shutdown, then later saying they'll totally start doing the job again somewhere else later on, seems sketchy.)
mrtesthah 2y ago
The state dept issued an evacuation order for all USAID staff overseas. How will they accomplish their mission? This includes medical care and distribution of HIV medication to up to 20 million people.
- Ancapistani 2y ago
  Why are American taxpayers paying for medical care and HIV medication for 20 million people? Correct me if I'm wrong, but aren't those people foreign nationals as well?
  - nickthegreek 2y ago
    Because we elected representative who then funded these soft power initiatives. That’s how democracy works.
  - kemayo 2y ago
    You can certainly disagree with whether we should be doing it, but the fact remains that Congress made a law saying that we are doing it. The vehicle for changing that is to change the law, not for the President to decide to break the law. On a separate note, assuming that "it's good to help people if you can" doesn't move you, the cynical reason for USAID's existence is marketing and soft power projection. For a tiny fraction of the US budget, we get to look good for how nice we're being to people, and get other countries to want us to come in and get our hands all over their infrastructure until it'd be painful for them to oppose us and lose that aid. (Also, HIV specifically? That's something where lowering the levels of it in foreign countries will directly help the US, because it makes it less likely that US citizens will get exposed to it when people travel.)

impulser_ 2y ago

Yeah, that why I said both. It depends on what they are doing. USAID probably needs congress, but other things might just need an EO. The point is DOGE isn't doing this, the President is. Elon doesn't have authority that Democratics are saying he does. He simply informs the President, "Hey, USAID is spending taxpayers money to fund xyz in xyz you might want to shut it down". The President then goes "Yeah, I think we should shut it down let's freeze it and we'll abolish it". Then they go down the path of abolishing it and with the USAID they will probably get congress to do it. Until then they can freeze it because he appoint Marco Rubio has the acting admin.

exceptione 2y ago
> He simply informs the President, That man is way too friendly. Just before the election he gave $300.000.000,00 to Trump. And he is so special, eh! He can read air-gaped, highly sensitive data that no one should see from government systems, just using his mind/indoctrinated minions. I hate it when people speculate this might have to do, amongst things, with dark money to be made in intelligence/elite level international crime.
- impulser_ 2y ago
  Neither him nor Trump ever hid what Elon was going to do if Trump was elected. Unlike other donators of both parties, we always knew what Elon's goal was. He literally spent the last year on Twitter tweeting about it. Many people, especially libertarians, voted for Trump for this exact reason. Yeah, you might think he shouldn't have access to these system but it's the President, who the majority of the people voted for, that has the authority to grant him access, or ask for access from the appoint leaders of these departments. Everyday when he posts list of things the US government is spending money on the more people are backing Elon in this endeavor. Go here https://x.com/DOGE https://x.com/DOGE and read some of the things we are paying for and you tell me that we should be spending money on it. Yeah, you might think he up to something bad but you would have always thought that because you don't like him. Are you sure he's not just an American who cares about the US and doesn't want it too head into a death spiral from massive amount of debt with no one brave enough to stop it because it might cause them to lose an election?