4 ms·

Isn’t their job to perform the orders of their bosses (the administration), within the law? Being disloyal sounds a lot like a rebrand of not doing the job they

Isn’t their job to perform the orders of their bosses (the administration), within the law? Being disloyal sounds a lot like a rebrand of not doing the job they’re being asked to do. I don’t know the specifics of this situation - I just mean that federal workers generally are the employees of the administration in a way.

admash 2y ago
Sure, except: A) some are being fired because they did what their bosses asked them to (legally) in the previously administration. B) some of them are being fired because refusing to do illegal things is considered "disloyal" by the current administration.
acdha 2y ago
Federal workers fall into two categories. Political appointees are the ones who are directly linked to the current administration and they can be hired or fired at will, but they’re generally senior level focused on strategy. An appointee would be figuring out how to implement the administration’s plan within the legal framework and perhaps negotiating with Congress for new laws or funding. The bulk of the civil service are career hires who are not beholden to the administration. They’re hired on merit, not political loyalty, and they have specific duties to perform. They swear an oath to protect the Constitution, not the President, and there are laws governing their behavior: for example, despite the massive propaganda about wasteful or fraudulent spending, it’s actually a go-to-jail serious crime to spend money for things other than what Congress directed that money to pay for. That’s why it was such a scandal when Trump directed federal spending to his businesses during his first term and that Musk has so many conflicts of interest now because those rules are normally followed carefully. Similarly, when you hear pushback to DOGE demands for access to sensitive materials or systems it’s because the people who operate SCIFs or run those systems have spent their careers being trained on only allowing authorized access and in all previous administrations that followed the statutes and regulations for requesting and approving access based on need, not someone threatening to call an unappointed “advisor” so he can rally a mob on X against you.

admash 2y ago

Sure, except: A) some are being fired because they did what their bosses asked them to (legally) in the previously administration. B) some of them are being fired because refusing to do illegal things is considered "disloyal" by the current administration.

acdha 2y ago

Federal workers fall into two categories. Political appointees are the ones who are directly linked to the current administration and they can be hired or fired at will, but they’re generally senior level focused on strategy. An appointee would be figuring out how to implement the administration’s plan within the legal framework and perhaps negotiating with Congress for new laws or funding. The bulk of the civil service are career hires who are not beholden to the administration. They’re hired on merit, not political loyalty, and they have specific duties to perform. They swear an oath to protect the Constitution, not the President, and there are laws governing their behavior: for example, despite the massive propaganda about wasteful or fraudulent spending, it’s actually a go-to-jail serious crime to spend money for things other than what Congress directed that money to pay for. That’s why it was such a scandal when Trump directed federal spending to his businesses during his first term and that Musk has so many conflicts of interest now because those rules are normally followed carefully. Similarly, when you hear pushback to DOGE demands for access to sensitive materials or systems it’s because the people who operate SCIFs or run those systems have spent their careers being trained on only allowing authorized access and in all previous administrations that followed the statutes and regulations for requesting and approving access based on need, not someone threatening to call an unappointed “advisor” so he can rally a mob on X against you.