46 ms·

"Ensuring Accountability for All Agencies" – Executive Order

• nprateem 2y ago
  [flagged]
• nine_zeros 2y ago
  I am duly elected and I set the laws, and interpret the rules as I please - as a duly elected representative with spineless Congress. Signed Your neighborhood dictator
• Terr_ 2y ago
  [flagged]
  • readthenotes1 2y ago
    "The President and the Attorney General, subject to the President’s supervision and control, shall provide authoritative interpretations of law for the executive branch. " Of course down below it says something like "subject to applicable law". Nevertheless I think the scary sentence will be stricken by the supreme Court
    • thrance 2y ago
      Watch them do nothing about it.
  • h335ian 2y ago
    [flagged]
    • AnimalMuppet 2y ago
      What it says is bad enough. Those agencies are independent for a reason. They're not supposed to be the president's political agents. Loss of that independence is a serious, damaging thing. Next question: Why does Trump want control of those agencies? General principles? People around him told him to? Ego (proving that he's the Big Man In Charge)? Or does he actually intend to use that power? If so, for what? This is a big deal. This is reducing the US federal government's ability to competently govern, and that's going to hurt, in concrete ways, before too long. If this stands, we're going to regret it. If. I still have hope for the court system to overturn this.
• deadbabe 2y ago
  Executive Orders aren’t law.
  • Terr_ 2y ago
    This Executive Order says they are law, checkmate, sane people.
    • Ancapistani 2y ago
      Where exactly does it say that?
      • thiht 2y ago
        It doesn’t need to be said everywhere when the president takes full power for himself and all institutions let him do so without saying anything.
        • AnimalMuppet 2y ago
          Perhaps not. But that wasn't Terr_'s claim. Where does it say that?
          • Balgair 2y ago
            The way I read it, Terr was being sarcastic
      • DangitBobby 2y ago
        Section 7
    • deadbabe 2y ago
      Judge can say no it isn’t and you’ll have to fight it out in court.
      • Tadpole9181 2y ago
• redcobra762 2y ago
  [flagged]
  • crooked-v 2y ago
    > and if it goes beyond the scope of executive powers, it will be curtailed or shut down. The position of the executive order is that only the President can interpret laws, including executive orders about interpreting laws. That is to say, if the courts try to stop it, Trump may try to say "the courts don't have that power" and order the DoJ and/or military to block anything they do.
    • jl6 2y ago
      That is not what the EO says. You’ve been misled by a Reddit post.
      • crooked-v 2y ago
        It seems extremely straightforward to me. > The President and the Attorney General, subject to the President’s supervision and control, shall provide authoritative interpretations of law for the executive branch. "The executive branch" includes the DoJ and the United States Marshals Service, who do all the actual boots-on-the-ground work for the judiciary. This is an obvious lead in to "the President's interpretation is that the courts can go screw themselves", at which point the deciding factor becomes entirely whether law enforcement listens to the courts or listens to the bosses who pay them.
        • redcobra762 2y ago
          This EO has absolutely nothing whatsoever to do with the courts or their interpretation of the law. This is entirely focused on aligning the executive branch, that’s it. This is the kind of confusion that comes with trusting a Reddit post instead of getting your news from a reputable source. Here, read this before going any further: https://www.politico.com/news/2025/02/18/trump-order-power-independent-agencies-00204798 https://www.politico.com/news/2025/02/18/trump-order-power-i... It’s bad because it’s an attempt at removing independence from certain independent organizations such as the SEC and the Federal Reserve, but it is not about claiming all legal authority rests with the executive. It will fail as an EO because the executive can’t violate the law, which has set out the independent nature of these organizations.
• bobongo 2y ago
  “ Sec. 7. Rules of Conduct Guiding Federal Employees’ Interpretation of the Law. The President and the Attorney General, subject to the President’s supervision and control, shall provide authoritative interpretations of law for the executive branch. The President and the Attorney General’s opinions on questions of law are controlling on all employees in the conduct of their official duties. No employee of the executive branch acting in their official capacity may advance an interpretation of the law as the position of the United States that contravenes the President or the Attorney General’s opinion on a matter of law, including but not limited to the issuance of regulations, guidance, and positions advanced in litigation, unless authorized to do so by the President or in writing by the Attorney General.” This does not bode well for that country’s democracy.
  • nathanaldensr 2y ago
    This has nothing to do with "democracy" in any way. This is the equivalent of a CEO publishing a memo telling employees how to interpret things that happen outside of the company (e.g., new laws, social trends, etc.) It's the CEO's job to align their workforce to have the same interpretation of information. Federal judges can still rule on issues brought before them but the judges have to provide Constitutional- or precedent-related rulings. Why are Americans acting so surprised that the President has this authority? That is his job, as it was for all presidents before him. This executive order is saying that the "employees under the CEO" do not have the authority to usurp the "CEO's" interpretations of law. Checks and balances still apply, of course; Congress can intervene if the President is acting in ways that Congress doesn't like. That's what impeachment is for--and impeachment is a process regardless of whether the President is issuing "illegal" executive orders or doing something else like what Nixon did. The process works; blame Congress for not holding the President accountable in the ways outlined by the Constitution.
    • zzleeper 2y ago
      Because people in independent agencies are by act protected from exactly these things. Think for a bit, why were they not just called "agencies"? And for all the stupidity of congress, if the fail to protect against a self-coup, that doesn't make it any less likely.
• IFeelPaine 2y ago
  [flagged]
  • zeven7 2y ago
    Thank you for your comment. Overall, this lifted me up and helped me learn some more about what was in the Declaration. (I went and read it for the first time after seeing your comment.) > deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed Unfortunately, unlike 1776, today's king was given power by the governed, and the majority (of those who care enough to vote) still support him. So I don't know where those of us who are horrified go from here.
    • Ancapistani 2y ago
      With absolutely no malice intended: you step back a bit, lick your wounds, and try to figure out why your message and candidate failed - just like the GOP did for the past four years. Four years feels like a long time when it has just started; it isn’t so long at all in hindsight. Moreover, you have two years before the next opportunity you have to disempower Trump (midterm elections). The campaigns for those start in a year or so, so if you’re going to cripple Trump by taking back Congress now is the time to be introspective. The electorate is not irreconcilable, but change doesn’t happen when you double down on the same course.
      • zeven7 2y ago
        Thank you for a non-malicious response, but (also respectfully) I am not a Democrat, and your response seemed to me more geared toward answering "How can I deal with policy changes that I disagree with?" I am more concerned about the potential for the complete capitulation of American democracy to totalitarianism than any particular platform issues. What's happening right now is only a small part standard disagreements between parties (the GOP banning trans athletes, rebalancing the budget, approaching foreign relations differently) and much more about half the country being entranced by a cult of personality while the leaders in a position to stop a president from becoming a king instead are bowing down to him. > try to figure out why your message and candidate failed I don't like Harris' message. I probably disagree with her on a majority of political debate topics. I am a centrist and would agree with her on some things, but I would have considered myself a right leaning centrist more than a left leaning centrist. Her message failed for me too. I am just dismayed that the country elected _this_ man. A convicted felon who has provably lied more than any other person on record in the history of humanity, who already tried to overthrow an election, is only self interested, a bully, a sexual assaulter, a conman, a swindler: _this_ man? And now he's doing what you knew he would do, and there doesn't seem to be any way to stop it. I don't want to know how to get Kamala 2.0 to win an election. I want to know how to get back to Bush v. Gore.
• jaybrendansmith 2y ago
  As Americans that believe in the Republic, what exactly are we supposed to do about this? Should we continue to implore congress to take action against this lawless behavior?
  • readthenotes1 2y ago
    Trump is bringing up the point that this Republic's constitution only provides for three branches of a government, not 4. This reminds me of a supreme Court ruling a few years ago where the rights of native Indians had been trampled on in Oklahoma for 100 years. The court said something like "well, now that you bring it up--stop it!"
    • unethical_ban 2y ago
      Trump is bringing up the point that all employees of the executive branch owe fealty to him, and must act directly in accordance with is directives above Congress.
      • Terr_ 2y ago
        And also above rulings from the Judicial Branch.
    • HaZeust 2y ago
      Yeah, way to go Trump! Nothing better than securing the Lockean virtue of the unspoken 4th branch of government by... checks notes Castrating the other 2 in an effort to consolidate the third! Yeah!!
  • unethical_ban 2y ago
    In my personal life, I have resolved not to be silent if confronted with a pro-Trump opinion being voiced. To state unequivocally and without needing to elaborate that what is occurring is something un-American and goes beyond partisan differences, that Trump and his lieutenants are destroying our Federal government for a generation or more while permanently damaging our place among democracies in the world. That the people who voted for him are making America a worse and weaker country for their children. I'm going to write essays to those I care about and also coordinate action plans with like minded individuals to be ready for scenarios of neo-nazi rallies or certain extreme behaviors, should they occur in my city. I'm debating protesting solo with signs along our roads; someone did that recently in my city and said they had to flee because Trump supporters surrounded him and threatened him. But it needs done.
• zzleeper 2y ago
  This will probably get flagged, but if you read this, spent a few minutes trying to understand the gravity of this specific EO. Every federal employee even in independent agents must and will jump when Trump says so. Even if he asks them to do something illegal (close the congress! Jail a democrat!), they must follow his orders. Because HIS interpretation of the law cannot be superseded.
  • Ancapistani 2y ago
    If he wanted to fire anyone who disagreed with him, this EO wouldn’t have been necessary. With very few exceptions, executive branch employees serve at the pleasure of the President. This is how it is, how it has been, and is entirely consistent with the Constitution. So, if not that, then why issue this EO? First of all, it’s a statement: “Resistance to this agenda from within the executive branch will not be effective” Secondly, it helps ensure that when the President issues a statement, it’s not immediately met with bureaucrats making statements to the contrary.
    • Terr_ 2y ago
      > If he wanted to fire anyone who disagreed with him, this EO wouldn’t have been necessary. Nonsense! This is the exact opposite! This is EO shows Trump trying even harder to fire all the people who refuse to go along with his crimes. He is asserting that when the Judicial branch concludes his firings are illegal, he's going to ignore it, and then fire anyone else who refuses to help him illegally fire people. It's the democracy-destroying version of a Monty Python sketch: The people who followed the law have been sacked. The people who didn't sack the people who followed the law have also been sacked.
      • Ancapistani 2y ago
        > He is asserting that when the Judicial concludes his firings are illegal, he's going to ignore it, and fire anyone else who refuses to help him illegally fire people. Where?
        • 2y ago
• timacles 2y ago
  Historic times we are living in. When the history books are written, this executive order, along with the past few weeks of actions, will be seen as the seeds of the 2nd American revolution. The USA had a solid 250 year run but technology, money, and greed have unfortunately undone the very core of what America stood for. We cannot know at this point where this is going, but it seems like fascism is the inevitable course. My fear is that if you combine that path with the power of the US military, the world is in for a very scary time.
  • deleted 2y ago
    [deleted]
• Freedom2 2y ago
  Wonder how long it'll take for the media outlets to start blaming Biden again, "well he should have put protections in!"
  • thrance 2y ago
    When inflation starts to be a problem again (it's already rising) they'll still blame him. Fascism requires scapegoats. Ironically, that is their downfall too, because they are utterly incapable of introspection and self-improvement.
• grandempire 2y ago
  The only rebuttal I see in the media is that congress set these up to be “independent”. But our government doesn’t have independent branches. In fact that sounds a lot like “unelected and unaccountable”. So which branches are these agencies under? Is it in the judicial, legislative, or executive - and if it’s in the executive why can’t the chief executive manage business? On the other hand, one of the issues brought up in the Obama years was whether a president can choose not to enforce a law like immigration. If congres’s laws can be ignored than what power do they have? Genuine question. Does anyone have a constitutional framing for the duties of the executive branch in prioritizing enforcement or implementation of law?
  • error_logic 2y ago
    Not unaccountable, just requiring the cooperation of multiple branches to remove. Cooperation which has been deemed too transparent, too vulnerable to actually caring about what is being destroyed.
    • grandempire 2y ago
      What other constitutional procedures require cooperation between branches to make a decision?
      • sdenton4 2y ago
        The president signs laws, for example...... This isn't hard.
        • grandempire 2y ago
          Im not being facetious. That’s a good example. So in that case the president has a final yes/no, but no authority to rewrite. So maybe congress has a kind of veto power here?
          • cowfriend 2y ago
            yes.
• hayst4ck 2y ago
  We have a government that has been completely capture by the elite. Democrats are the oligarchs good cops offering performative resistance while ultimately consenting to anything that boosts their brokerage accounts and re-election budgets, while republicans are the oligarchs bad cops, directly weakening regulation of those with power, protections for those without, and systematically destroying any force that can stand up to the insanely wealthy. Republicans are setting the wealthy up for the mass privatization of public property and services as well as the purchase of all the assets firesold to sustain life during a disaster, like your parent's house when social security/medicare doesn't cover the cost of living, or like farmland that isn't profitable to farm because it's too expensive to import fertilizer. The elite capture is multiplicitively damaging because the elite own nearly all major media outlets. WaPo, NYT, Facebook, Twitter, etc. Neutrality is implicit support for power over justice. Justice requires challenging those with power, because those with power are the default victors in conflict. Evil wins when good men do nothing. The Hacker News algorithm is easily gamed. Downvoting and flagging will sink any post, but resigned consent to a fait accompli is the win condition for this coup. The less they are publicly challenged, the easier it is to seize power without resistance. The easier it is to keep exercises of power unchecked. State AGs and members of the house of representatives are making public official statements with the power of their office that we are experiencing a coup. This is historic. I really wish dang would privilege more of these discussions about the end of constitutional rule from the automatic downward moderation of controversy and flagging. The number of largely independent media platforms which allow for open and public discussion without major algorithmic influence is few. Failing to challenge power, submitting to it, or protecting yourself from attention is the easy thing to do, and right now we all have the privilege of doing so, but this slow moving disaster will seep into every area of our lives as the scaffolding of trust is eroded and the lack of consequences for those who exercise arbitrary power will make it a winning strategy to take advantage of people. I understand hacker news is a place for curiosity, but curiosity is not allowed when obedience is demanded, and that is what authoritarians do, demand obedience. Maintaining one day's curiosity at the cost of tomorrow's defeats the goal of being a place for curiosity. The right to question authority... the right to be curious must be defended.
  • unethical_ban 2y ago
• h335ian 2y ago
  So disappointed by the irrational and hyperbolic comments from my fellow nerds. Why are folks reading into this so much!? Clearly folks aren’t actually reading the content and just reacting based on a headline. Read, contemplate, compose. This really shouldn’t be an inflammatory exec order - from what I can tell this is precisely within the purview of a POTUS and precisely in line with historical exec orders. Why the cray cray reactions? Just cause Trump I guess. For shame. Be nerds. Look stuff up. Stop with the hyperbolic “fascist” “coup” business. If you disagree with strategy, fine!! But at least recognize that these ideas aren’t new - nor fascistic - they’re inherently American and we’re in the midst of an adjustment cycle where these old ideals will be expressed in new modalities that we don’t all agree with. Doesn’t make it “fascist”. Ugh. So juvenile.
  • thiht 2y ago
    This is not hyperbolic. In one month Trump has taken full unchecked power on almost anything. In 4 years, you won’t vote, that’s a given.
    • scarab92 2y ago
      [flagged]
      • thiht 2y ago
        I hope so!
    • blased 2y ago
      So when 4 years pass and we’re still voting, are you going to admit you are hyperbolic and divorced from reality?
      • intended 2y ago
        Would you be around if he does what he says ? At what point are your personal thresholds crossed? I dont understand personally, how any conservative could tolerate this man. Nor any techie lose their minds when someone without a security clearance gets access to sensitive national networks. I’ve seen more complex plans used by spies to break into state secrets. Yet, people are surprisingly chill. So perhaps I am wrong. And perhaps there are other signs I should be looking for. At what point should I or anyone say “major redlines have been crossed.”
• greyface- 2y ago
  This is obviously alarming, and if used to disregard the Judiciary's interpretation of law, unconstitutional. But I'm puzzled by the exemption of the Federal Reserve and FOMC. He's previously beefed with them, and would presumably find the additional leverage useful. Why explicitly exclude them?
  • hayst4ck 2y ago
    Inflation is an extreme handout to the wealthy. Money is by definition zero sum, otherwise the word "inflation" would have no meaning. There are good questions around what an over leveraged loan is, but fundamentally, the supply of money is to some degree fixed at any given moment. The wealthy and powerful keep their money in tax benefited, inflation tracking assets. Many of those assets are stocks, and a major business cost is labor. Wages are generally not inflation tracking. That amplifies the benefit of inflation to the wealthy. So the buying power lost by suppressed wages and devalued savings, as well as the devaluing of all money currently in flight such as paychecks, is exactly gained by those with wealth/ownership. Inflation also makes loan's cheaper to pay off, further benefiting those with enough assets to get a loan. When the market stagnates or companies freeze hiring or do mass layoffs, it puts employees in an even worse negotiating position resulting in even more suppressed wages past the first order effect of inflation. So what's even better for the rich than tax breaks is inflation. The fed is the beating heart of the economy, it pumps money through its sluices. The fed is in many ways the Balrog deep in Moria. Oligarchs do answer to other oligarchs, even if they don't answer to law, and there's a good chance that many of them see the impending potential disaster of either stagflation -- people won't have enough money to buy goods and the economy stalls and maybe doesn't restart, or hyperinflation -- the definitive end of American hegemony as countries move to a different reserve currency and America is no longer able to fund its military. The economy is also directly tied, if not most directly tied, to the legitimacy of the ruling regime, so a policy of choosing loyalists over qualifications or letting it be corrupted by someone selling out tomorrow for today is likely to lead to actual civil unrest instead of performative civil unrest. My guess is that the finance business oligarchs see it as a red line because the moment the fed is corrupted, it's no longer their fed, but Trump's fed, and that will be equivalent to the moment Putin gathered all of Russia's oligarchs, with one of them in a diminutive cage in a court room, and then said "half" and held out his ring with the implication of the power relationship being clear (part of the greater story of the Magnitsky act). It's also worth noting that normally you would get capital flight once the wealthy get scared, but the US has told every foreign country that American citizens in that country are under American jurisdiction and therefore all wealth must be reported to the US government, so while in the past an oligarch might have been happy to cause civil unrest with their unchecked greed, America's deep financial reach means that many will pay a hefty price, if they are even allowed exfiltrate the majority of their fortunes at all, binding them to the outcome of fed decisions as well. But I'm very far from an expert, so probably wrong about some of that.
• casenmgreen 2y ago
  [flagged]
  • baybal2 2y ago
    [dead]
  • scarab92 2y ago
    [flagged]
    • blueflow 2y ago
      [flagged]
    • casenmgreen 2y ago
      I think everything has to be voluntary and well-informed, except in self-defence. I may be wrong, but I think in the US enough voters have been deceived by Donald that they were not well-informed, and so elections are no longer valid. By this, he is in power, and Congress and Senate have been subverted. I also see Donald looking to have complete and untrammeled control, and this is one more act in that direction.
      • scarab92 2y ago
        [flagged]
        • latexr 2y ago
          [flagged]
          • starspangled 2y ago
            > An entire political party has spent an entire mandate actively and vocally claiming the election was stolen Are you talking about the 2016 election or the 2020 election?
• brian_herman 2y ago
  [flagged]
  • aetch 2y ago
    What corruption? Firing the inspector generals and making up claims don’t count as receipts.
    • jiggawatts 2y ago
      It's the equivalent of the cops pulling you over and using a slightly dim tail light to search your entire car, make you get out, spread your legs, and get a pat-down. Every large government department in every country in the world has some waste. All of them. All of the time. This is why it's so disingenuous for Trump/Musk supporters to point at tiny bits of waste or whatever and scream "See! See! We found it! They deserve what they got!" It's not coincidentally one of the justifications used by Russia to invade Ukraine. They claimed they were after Nazis. So what if Ukraine has Nazis!? So does every other damned European country! American has Nazis! Russia has Nazis! It's the drill sergeant making you do 100 push ups because there was a barely visible scratch on your boots. His boots have scratches too. That's not the point. It's an excuse to make you jump. My advice is: Any time anyone uses such a claim, or anything like it, always ask yourself: Okay, but what is the base rate for this thing they've suddenly decided is objectionable? Is it higher or lower elsewhere?
      • DiogenesKynikos 2y ago
        Elon Musk's people have been remarkably bad at finding real examples of waste. Their hit rate is extremely low - almost everything they publicize turns out to be wrong. You'd think they'd be able to scour the Federal budget and find a few real examples of waste to crow about, but instead they give us things like: $50 million in condoms sent to Gaza so that Hamas can make bombs??? And of course, that instantly turned out to be fake news.
        • defrost 2y ago
• Jean-Papoulos 2y ago
  Direct link to the order : https://www.whitehouse.gov/presidential-actions/2025/02/ensuring-accountability-for-all-agencies/ https://www.whitehouse.gov/presidential-actions/2025/02/ensu... In short, Trump is claiming full and direct authority and control over any and all federal agencies, with the express directive of "The President and the Attorney General, subject to the President’s supervision and control, shall provide authoritative interpretations of law for the executive branch. " Basically : L'État, c'est moi.
  • casenmgreen 2y ago
    Nuclear-armed dictatorship, and the strongest military power on the planet, run by Donald Trump. All bets now off.
    • michaeljhg 2y ago
      Well he is talking about disarming US nukes
      • fransje26 2y ago
        Well he already started firing the employees in charge of the nuclear arsenal.. https://archive.is/qOYI2 https://archive.is/qOYI2
        • nielsbot 2y ago
          And attempting to re-hire them immediately afterwards.
          • grg0 2y ago
            Just like Melon Husk.
      • NickC25 2y ago
        Horrifying, and it plays right into Putin's desires. God help us all.
• casenmgreen 2y ago
  [flagged]
  • blueflow 2y ago
    I'm not a state-run troll farm, the last 10 years have trained me and probably anyone else to vote away anything related to US politics.
    • casenmgreen 2y ago
      I may be wrong, but it might be time now not to do so.
      • blueflow 2y ago
        [flagged]
        • abc123abc123 2y ago
          Whoa... hold on there cowboy! You are waaaay too mature to be allowed participation in contemporary political debates. ;)
  • userbinator 2y ago
    [flagged]
    • oluminate 2y ago
      Considering that Silicon Valley exists within the US, it's significant that the US has turned into a dictatorship — the implications are beyond political on this one.
      • DiogenesKynikos 2y ago
        Considering that Silicon Valley is Donald Trump's #1 backer...
• BoredPositron 2y ago
  [flagged]
  • LunaSea 2y ago
    Don't you mean that free speech is going on?
• dhdjruf 2y ago
  [flagged]
• apexalpha 2y ago
  >A White House Liaison is to be installed in every independent regulatory agency to enforce direct presidential control Wow. Literally installing political officers in agencies.
  • andyjohnson0 2y ago
    Political commissars
  • nailer 2y ago
    My understanding is that politicians are elected whereas bureaucrats are not.
    • Vegenoid 2y ago
      I don't see the point you are making? It isn't politicians that are getting elected to be White House Liaisons, they will almost certainly be appointed.
      • nailer 2y ago
        The will of the people is better reflected by people appointed by their elected representatives than by bureaucrats. I am very confident that you probably do understand that.
        • Vegenoid 2y ago
          The heads of departments are people appointed by elected representatives.
      • kelnos 2y ago
        And these sorts of people should need to be confirmed by the Senate, but of course Trump is not going to do that.
  • jmull 2y ago
    It works for red China, why not the USA too? BTW, it's not Trump we're going to have to worry about. It's the next guy, who will have Trump imprisoned or executed for treason. This one won't be a blunderer, though, and will seize these levers of control much more firmly and competently.
• dev-jayson 2y ago
  Wait DOGE (Department of Government Efficiency) is real?? I live an ocean apart from the U.S and all this time I thought it was a meme.
  • Zealotux 2y ago
    https://www.whitehouse.gov/presidential-actions/2025/01/establishing-and-implementing-the-presidents-department-of-government-efficiency/ https://www.whitehouse.gov/presidential-actions/2025/01/esta...
  • bigbacaloa 2y ago
    [dead]
  • Nemo_bis 2y ago
    Depends who you ask. https://www.reuters.com/world/us/trump-scores-win-suit-challenging-elon-musks-cost-cutting-powers-2025-02-18/ https://www.reuters.com/world/us/trump-scores-win-suit-chall...
• deleted 2y ago
  [deleted]
• sharpshadow 2y ago
  In Germany the legal executive branch is “Weisungsgebunden” which mean it follows the lead of the politicians instead of acting on own behalf. Because of this international warrants which come from Germany do not get followed since they can’t be trusted. It would be better to have independent judges but hey it doesn’t lead to a dictatorship and the end of the world directly as propagated everywhere.
  • 2-3-7-43-1807 2y ago
    maybe not dictatorship but blatant abuse of power by the government.
  • trizuz 2y ago
    Judges in Germany are independent and most of the time appointed for life. German state attorneys are not independent. Their warrants are not recognized internationally, not even in the EU in fact.
  • red_trumpet 2y ago
    > independent judges Judges are independent in Germany. Prosecutors are not. > Because of this international warrants which come from Germany do not get followed since they can’t be trusted. I think you mean the European Arrest Warrant[1], and you are right that it is not accepted when issued by German prosecuters, because they are not indepepndent[2] [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/European_Arrest_Warrant https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/European_Arrest_Warrant [2] https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Europ%C3%A4ischer_Haftbefehl#Deutschland https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Europ%C3%A4ischer_Haftbefehl#D... [2]
    • spacechild1 2y ago
      > Judges are independent in Germany. Prosecutors are not. Exactly! It's the same in Austria btw. See https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richter_(Deutschland)#Dienstaufsicht https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richter_(Deutschland)#Dienstau... and https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Staatsanwaltschaft_(Deutschland) https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Staatsanwaltschaft_(Deutschlan...
  • 2y ago
• oldpersonintx 2y ago
  [dead]
• fsniper 2y ago
  From a person who watched a single man taking over a whole country over, US is going down the same path.
• greatgib 2y ago
  If people think that we are safe because it is a democracy, and Trump was somehow elected, let's not forget that Russia is also a democracy and Poutine was also elected and re-elected. Now we can be scared because it shows that "votation" doesn't prevent dictators to grab the power to abuse if it for their own good.
  • lostmsu 2y ago
    Well no, the Putin's party wasn't. The fraud was widespread and decently documented, but not prosecuted, which is not the case here.
    • malka1986 2y ago
      [dead]
• dkobia 2y ago
  This new administration lays bare what we've known all along - the legislative gridlock and dysfunction in the house of representatives and senate has made them completely incapable of governing -- the least productive in a generation. This is opened up an opportunity for a well funded strongman, and the checks and balances that were intended to protect our democracy are now mere suggestions.
  • yapyap 2y ago
    [flagged]
    • black6 2y ago
      Always have been.
  • zusammen 2y ago
    This is the sad reality of oligarchy. Red/blue culture wars appeal to some people because they would prefer an authoritarianism that at least pretends to have their back 50 percent of the time over rich people (their employers) who have their back 0 percent of the time. No one wants (and I don’t think anyone should want) bipartisanship, not really. Bipartisanship means the rich get everything they want—efficiently. It means the meetings of the club we aren’t in happen on time and no one ends up with a black eye. That’s also an unacceptable outcome. Of course, it can be argued that the outcome we are getting is basically the same thing, but with cheap depressing entertainment and widespread governmental dysfunction. Of course, anyone who thinks voting for any of these right-wing figures will end oligarchy is delusional. Their charisma comes from the fact that, because they hate basically everyone, they also incidentally hate many of the other oligarchs. But nothing good happens when people vote for hate, and none of these pricks will ever end oligarchy since they are all part of it. The Nazis truly did present themselves as somewhat socialist (it was in the name) in the early 1920s to gain their first followers, but as soon as they were in power, they realized they had more to gain by siding with the industrialists and against labor, which is of course what they did.
    • 2y ago
• ptah 2y ago
  this is impacting scientific research to the point that people are scrubbing the word "gender" from their papers to avoid their research programs getting flagged by the doge gestapo
  • deleted 2y ago
    [deleted]
  • scarab92 2y ago
    [flagged]
    • tmendez 2y ago
      This is untrue
      • 1dom 2y ago
        This is just as unhelpful than the comment you responded to. Without any context, or links or sources for either side, it's just adding uncertainty and doubt. I'm an outside observer, and I want to to believe your side, but I can't any more than I can believe the comment you responded to. Regardless, nobody wants the discussion to descend into unsubstantiated "you're lying" ... "no _you're_ lying".
        • JKCalhoun 2y ago
          You're correct — but they were in fact responding to someone that also offered no sources. You can engage in the Gish gallop if you like, but to the original comment: extraordinary claims require....
          • 1dom 2y ago
            Fair points, thank you. Fortunately the original comment is flagged, and also someone responded with some sources: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=43104223 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=43104223 The system works, go us!
• outsidein 2y ago
  This creates strong associations to „Machtergreifung“ and „Gleichschaltung“ https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gleichschaltung https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gleichschaltung The Nazi term Gleichschaltung (German pronunciation: [ˈɡlaɪçʃaltʊŋ] ⓘ), meaning "synchronization" or "bringing into line", was the process of Nazification by which Adolf Hitler—leader of the Nazi Party in Germany—established a system of totalitarian control and coordination over all aspects of German society "from the economy and trade associations to the media, culture and education".[1] There is no direct counterpart in Englisch Wikipedia for: https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Machtergreifung https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Machtergreifung Machtergreifung Mit Machtergreifung (auch Machtübernahme oder Machtübergabe) wird die Ernennung des Nationalsozialisten Adolf Hitler zum Reichskanzler durch den Reichspräsidenten Paul von Hindenburg am 30. Januar 1933 bezeichnet. Hitler übernahm an diesem Tag die Führung einer Koalitionsregierung von NSDAP und nationalkonservativen Verbündeten (DNVP, Stahlhelm), in der neben ihm zunächst nur zwei Nationalsozialisten Regierungsämter bekleideten (Kabinett Hitler); dies waren Wilhelm Frick als Reichsinnenminister und Hermann Göring als Reichsminister ohne Geschäftsbereich. Zusätzlich zur eigentlichen Ernennung umfasst der Begriff die anschließende Umwandlung der bis dahin schon seit 1930 durch Präsidialkabinette geschwächten parlamentarischen Demokratie der Weimarer Republik und deren Verfassung in eine nach dem nationalsozialistischen Führerprinzip agierende zentralistische Diktatur. Nachdem am 1. Februar das Parlament in Berlin, der Reichstag, aufgelöst worden war, schränkten die Machthaber in den folgenden – von nationalsozialistischem Terror gekennzeichneten – Monaten die politischen und demokratischen Rechte durch Notverordnungen des Präsidenten ein. Als entscheidende Schritte auf dem Weg zur Diktatur gelten die Verordnung des Reichspräsidenten zum Schutz von Volk und Staat (Reichstagsbrandverordnung) vom 28. Februar 1933 und das Ermächtigungsgesetz vom 24. März 1933. Der Reichstag verlor damit praktisch jegliche Entscheidungskompetenz. Neben vielen anderen wurden nun auch Parlamentarier ohne Gerichtsverfahren in Konzentrationslagern eingesperrt und gefoltert.
• akomtu 2y ago
  No employee of the executive branch acting in their official capacity may advance an interpretation of the law as the position of the United States that contravenes the President or the Attorney General’s opinion on a matter of law In other words, "I will interpret the law for you, from now on. Don't attempt to read the law yourself."
  • TrackerFF 2y ago
    There are no laws in Oceania, only crimes.
• tiberius_p 2y ago
  More firings of those who refuse to break the law...
• calibas 2y ago
  If you're wondering why the President can essentially write his own laws when that's not how our system is supposed to work, it's because the President gets extra powers whenever we're in a state of national emergency. We've been in a state of national emergency since 1979.
  • teeray 2y ago
    States of emergency should at least go to congress for renewal every 3 months as a measure to be voted on individually (cannot be tied, for example, to budgets). If that's not enough to kill it eventually, it should automatically become a ballot measure on the next Presidential Ballot after some number of renewals.
    • whamlastxmas 2y ago
      There’s a lot of common sense “should” statements that are true and will never happen
    • abrichr 2y ago
      Emergencies must be renewed annually by the President. From https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Executive_Order_12170 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Executive_Order_12170: > The order was first declared on 14 November 1979 (EO 12170). At least 11 executive orders were based on this emergency state. The emergency, which was renewed in 2023 for the 44th time, is the "oldest existing state of emergency."
      • teeray 2y ago
        > Emergencies must be renewed annually by the President. This is like agencies investigating themselves and inevitably finding themselves clear of any wrongdoing.
      • kelnos 2y ago
        That's equivalent to emergencies being permanent and not subject to oversight. There is very little difference between the president saying "there's an emergency until I say there isn't", and repeating every year, "there's an emergency for the next year". Though that Wikipedia article does say that Congress is supposed to review emergency orders, but in practice they just let the president do whatever.
• jfghi 2y ago
  Who wrote this?
  • lubujackson 2y ago
    The President of the United States, of course. Or one of his subordinates, who, according to this missive, has the full authority same as the U.S. president, of course. "An assault on the king's men is the same as an assault on the king" and all that...
• fjjjrjj 2y ago
  [flagged]
  • tredre3 2y ago
    > He is making himself complicit in the deaths of hundreds of thousands in Ukraine There's no need for hyperbole. Trump is bad but there's been less than 100,000 Ukrainian deaths (troops and civilians combined) since the beginning of the war in 2022, let alone under his reign.
    • inetknght 2y ago
      While that might be true (there's a whole ball of wax about whether or not that's true), it's probably not true for combined deaths. No doubt well more than hundred thousand, and I wouldn't be surprised if more than two hundred thousand. The deaths are tragic. And no matter how many there are, Trump's actions will certainly make the number go up before it stops. It's not hyperbole.
    • layer8 2y ago
      It might be 100,000 by now: “A confidential Ukrainian estimate from earlier this year [2024] put the number of dead Ukrainian troops at 80,000 and the wounded at 400,000, according to people familiar with the matter.” [https://archive.ph/5wRcT https://archive.ph/5wRcT] And today Trump blamed the Ukrainians for the war going on for that long, saying they could have stopped it three years ago.
    • watwut 2y ago
      He is literally giving Ukraine to Putin. Which Russia will use for further expansion.
  • phkahler 2y ago
    [flagged]
    • crooked-v 2y ago
      > people will stop dying I think that's an overoptimistic judgement of the fate of Ukrainians left stuck under Russian control. Russia doesn't even care about its own people dying.
• Zamaamiro 2y ago
  This EO, combined with his proclamation that "He who saves the country does not violate any law" paint a very concerning picture. This has, historically speaking, been the language of tyrants. No President is above the law, nor does the President "interpret" the law; that is the domain of the Judiciary. “Wherever law ends, tyranny begins”
  • jokoon 2y ago
    [flagged]
    • Zamaamiro 2y ago
      I don't like using the Hitler comparison because it makes people have a kneejerk reaction and tune you out, but it is plainly undeniable that Trump makes many statements that could be attributed, word for word, to any number of authoritarians and tyrants throughout history.
      • andrewinardeer 2y ago
        Modern-day America exhibits striking parallels to Nazi Germany prior to Trump’s election, revealing serious concerns about the current state of national identity and political culture. One of the most significant similarities is the prominent use of the eagle as a national symbol, which deeply reinforces American patriotism. This motif is prominently showcased in iconic films and features in imposing architecture, such as the U.S. Capitol and various government buildings. Though rooted in ancient Rome, its invocation in modern America serves to solidify a sense of unity and national pride. Moreover, the practice of reciting the Pledge of Allegiance in schools is a powerful tool for instilling civic identity among students. This act fosters a strong collective loyalty to the nation, echoing how Nazi Germany indoctrinated its youth. Mass gatherings—be it political conventions, presidential inaugurations, or significant events like the Fourth of July—serve to invigorate the populace and create a palpable emotional connection to the state. Nazi Germany revered the military as the backbone of society, exemplified by uniforms and grand military parades showcasing their might. The United States mirrors this sentiment through events such as Veterans Day, honoring those who have served by prioritizing them in boarding processes and glorifying military prowess during flyovers at major sporting events. Uniforms and visual identity are crucial in both contexts. Nazi Germany was obsessed with uniforms—whether the imposing SS black or the earthy brown of the brownshirts—which represented discipline and loyalty to the regime. Similarly, in the U.S., uniforms convey a range of services, from military camouflage to police blue and even political campaign attire. While Nazi uniforms symbolized rigid hierarchy, American uniforms reflect a diverse array of service and community; both utilize attire to assert belonging and authority. Leadership cults flourish on both sides of the political spectrum. Nazi ideology unflinchingly fixated on racial and cultural “purity,” scapegoating and vilifying groups such as Jews and Romani people. In modern America, incendiary debates over immigration, “American values,” and “law and order” revolve around preserving a cohesive national identity, often at the expense of marginalized communities. The glorification of physical fitness plays a vital role in both societies. The Nazis showcased Aryan athleticism at the 1936 Berlin Olympics, weaponizing athletic success to promote their ideology. Likewise, America celebrates its sporting champions across football, basketball, and baseball, intertwining national pride with athletic excellence. Color schemes serve as powerful symbols in both contexts. The swastika flag’s black, white, and red colors were deliberately designed to evoke the ideas of blood, soil, and purity—central tenets of Nazi ideology. In contrast, the U.S. flag’s red, white, and blue represent foundational ideals like valor, purity, and justice. Both nations skillfully leverage bold, simple color schemes to provoke visceral emotions and establish a coherent identity, despite starkly different histories and narratives. The narrative of an "enemy from within" was fundamental to the Nazis and continues to resonate today. While the U.S. is not engaged in genocide on its own soil, political rhetoric often frames “elites,” “socialists,” or “extremists” as existential threats to the nation. The Nazis exploited this fear to justify horrific purges; in America, similar dynamics fuel extremism and exacerbate partisan divides, tapping into deep anxieties of betrayal. Additionally, monumental engineering feats—like the Autobahn and V-2 rockets—were proudly showcased by the Nazis to assert their technological superiority and national prowess. The United States boasts monumental achievements like the moon landing, groundbreaking innovations from Silicon Valley, and advanced military technology. Both societies firmly link innovation to national greatness; however, while Nazi pursuits were driven by warfare, America aims to enhance its global image and achieve broader ambitions through its technological advancements. The groundwork for a potential dictatorial state has been meticulously laid over the years. Trump is not merely facilitating change; he is actively pushing for a fundamental shift that could redefine the very fabric of democracy.
• casenmgreen 2y ago
  "Ensuring Accountability for All Agencies" - ah, one of those Government things where the title is exactly what it is not. "Department of Justice", there's another.
  • titzer 2y ago
    The phrase you are looking for is "Orwellian doublespeak".
• dang 2y ago
  There's a bit of background at https://thehill.com/homenews/administration/5152723-donald-trump-executive-order-expanded-authority-white-house/ https://thehill.com/homenews/administration/5152723-donald-t.... If there are better third-party reports, let me know and I'll add to this list. The above is just the first one bestowed by Google.
  • neom 2y ago
    [flagged]
    • nailer 2y ago
      It’s not your imagination, political articles that are normally flagged are being unflagged manually by dang. He discussed this recently.
      • neom 2y ago
        Thanks! I wasn't trying to be cute, was genuinely curious.
    • throwaway5752 2y ago
      "run of the mill" Experts across the political spectrum say what is happening at the moment is unprecedented in US history.
    • dang 2y ago
      Here's a recent answer about this: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=43092856 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=43092856. and here's one of many answers I've been posting in recent weeks to users who have the opposite perception, that the political stories are being unfairly suppressed: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=42978389 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=42978389 Between those two coconut halves I hope there's a fairly complete coconut, but if you (or anyone) still have a question, let me know!
    • ActorNightly 2y ago
      American Politics = world politics unfortunately.
• skc 2y ago
  I think it's highly likely that the Democratic party will never govern the United States again. Every single move the current government is making increasingly seems to be a clever way to stack the chips in their favor in perpetuity. We seem to be living though the backstory of how some far-off sci-fi civilization came to be, replete with greedy tech corps in the ears and pockets of narcissistic leaders. The irony is that it's impossible to say if this will ultimately play out as a dystopian horror or a utopian fantasy.
  • Rzor 2y ago
    >I think it's highly likely that the Democratic party will never govern the United States again. I think they will when climate change comes knocking (I'm assuming the US will double down on carbon for some incredible short-term profit). Or at least some version of the democrats i.e. whatever is on the other side.
    • sirbutters 2y ago
      Propaganda via Xitter successfully got the orange turd elected and the propaganda machine will only get worse (TikTok, deep fakes etc). Democrats will never hold the presidency again. At best they will occasionally get the House, and I'm not sure until when that still will be a possibility.
  • throw16180339 2y ago
    It's an open question whether elections will be held, but demographics also make it much harder for Democrats to be elected after 2030 (https://www.pbs.org/newshour/politics/democrats-future-crisis-the-biggest-states-that-back-them-are-shrinking https://www.pbs.org/newshour/politics/democrats-future-crisi...).
• johnsimer 2y ago
  [flagged]
  • piperswe 2y ago
    Well, if the predictive text algorithm says it's fine then it must be fine!
• netbioserror 2y ago
  [flagged]
• hartator 2y ago
  Didn’t we decide to not talk here about US politics?
• calebm 2y ago
  [flagged]
  • johnsimer 2y ago
    I don't know why people are (reflexively?) downvoting our LLM summaries of the EO These LLMs score pretty highly on reading comprehension
    • crooked-v 2y ago
      If people want a zero-effort LLM summary, they can get one themselves.
      • johnsimer 2y ago
        the fact that the majority opinion on this thread seemingly does not even agree with Claude (which scores ~88% on MMLU (a measure of reading comprehension)) is a topic worth discussing
        • crooked-v 2y ago
          No, it really isn't, because the disagreement in interpretation stems from the obvious fact that Claude isn't aware of all the other blatantly illegal acts that the Trump administration is currently performing.
• insane_dreamer 2y ago
  SCOTUS bears a tremendous amount of responsibility for Trump's power grab. Its immunity-granting ruling means that it's extremely difficult to stop a President who decides to simply ignore the law. Even if you think Trump is a "good guy" who is "doing the right thing", he's setting precedents whereby a President who is a "bad guy" could turn dictator, and then what? Literally the only option is impeachment, but the Senate has never convicted because there are enough senators who are afraid of a highly vindictive politician (and now his billionaire BBF) who __will__ go after them and whip up his base against them. If only they were more concerned about the country than their own re-election, but too few are willing to make that sacrifice. (this couldn't be farther than the truth from all I've seen Trump do, but just entertaining the thought here)
  • kelnos 2y ago
    I'm not sure that SCOTUS's immunity ruling is all that important here. It mainly served to delay Trump's federal criminal trials until it was too late to get anywhere. In the absence of that ruling, a president could still -- in collusion with their VP -- obtain immunity by: 1. While in office, relying on the DoJ's policy of never indicting a sitting president. (Not to mention the fact that they control the DoJ.) 2. On the last day of their presidency, they resign. The VP is sworn in as president, and pardons the now-former president for whatever they've done. (The former president can of course, before resigning, pardon the VP for anything they might have been involved in as well.) Easy peasy.
    • EasyMark 2y ago
      It’s important because it gives him 100% immunity from all actions that even slightly be adjacent to “executive branch” . Almost unlimited spectrum of activities are allowed including killing Americans for no good reason. Short of him walking out the door of the WH and gunning down a tour bus of tourists with his own machine gun, the SCOTUS gave him cover to say “whoops, I thought that was ok”
    • insane_dreamer 2y ago
      Sure, Trump could "find a way" regardless. But the SCOTUS ruling gives him more of a cover, and more importantly, removed a potential threat.
• insane_dreamer 2y ago
  I wonder when he's going to go after the Fed.
  • Supermancho 2y ago
    Even POTUS is not immune to the wrath of trillions of dollars. I think he has been warned off that awhile back (last time he was President).
  • IAmGraydon 2y ago
    After his policies crash the market and he blames it on them, of course.
• insane_dreamer 2y ago
  It may be a good time to study how Stalin came to power in the USSR. It wasn't through the political establishment, but by taking absolute control of the bureaucracy.
  • AlexandrB 2y ago
    The USSR was already a one party dictatorship at that point, so I don't know if that's a relevant example.
    • insane_dreamer 2y ago
      Yes, it was a single party government, but not consolidated under a dictator until Stalin. Even Lenin, until he basically retired (was very sick and died soon thereafter), didn't have the iron grip on the government that Stalin did.
• calvinmorrison 2y ago
  all during covid and the biden admin we couldnt talk about any politics here. what a bunch of poppycock.
• trhway 2y ago
  5a - consistency with the President not the law. Classic principle of Russia and the likes.
• api 2y ago
  My high level take on this saga is: welcome to the Chinese century. It's very common for companies that are failing to adopt uncreative reactive strategies that hasten their collapse. Look at the history of Kodak for some good examples. MAGA is that for the United States -- respond to the challenges of the new century by going back to the 1950s. MAGA (and Project 2025) is going to turbocharge American decline. The pathetic thing is that while the US (like everyone else) has significant problems, it was not "failing," but we decided to do this anyway largely because of culture war panic bullshit. Before this, America was in a place where it could credibly have continued to hold onto its global power. Its higher birth rate combined with a high immigration rate from all over the world meant its demographics were much better than China's. It was the world's #1 destination for high skill immigrants. The dollar is the global reserve, and that's hard to unseat due to network effects. Its military is still the most powerful. It still has an edge in many areas of high technology. Its universities are still arguably the best. It's still arguably the center of global pop culture. Now it looks like we will systematically forfeit all that. We'll close our borders to general migration and will no longer be an attractive destination for skilled immigration. By removing reproductive rights I predict we'll actually decrease the birth rate by driving people to sterilize themselves (already happening) and driving a further wedge between genders (see the Korean 4B movement). The dollar will start losing ground. Our military may stay dominant for a while but will gradually slip with everything else. We'll gradually lose our technological edge to brain drain and lack of high skill immigration. We're going to run some kind of culture war purge on the universities or maybe even defund the best higher education system in the world. We'll lose our cultural edge because right wing culture warriors will drive away all the artists. Imagine Germany without Naziism where they drove away or killed all their intellectuals. Imagine if Weimar Germany with its incredible intellectual and cultural scene had recovered economically and remained functional. They had the greatest minds in physics, philosophy, psychology, mathematics, and many areas of engineering. It's likely that without Hitler Germany would have developed the microprocessor, ArpaNet and Silicon Valley would have been German, the Germans would have landed on the Moon, etc. Muscular reactionary politics is a cult of what looks strong, not what is strong.
  • intreble 2y ago
    Here is the crux. If during this time they also dismantle the checks and balances that allow a stable democracy to exist then they transition into chaos. Chaos creates a very convenient excuse to establish martial law. This is accelerated if the people rise up to protest the dismantling of democracy. Martial law leads to suspension of elections, ipso facto, the loss of democracy.
• arunabha 2y ago
  In general, people are going to interpret this EO with their own lens. Unsurprisingly, reasonable people may disagree on the merits of the EO as a whole. However this part of the EO is pretty concerning > 'The President and the Attorney General, subject to the President’s supervision and control, shall provide authoritative interpretations of law for the executive branch' and later > 'No employee of the executive branch acting in their official capacity may advance an interpretation of the law as the position of the United States that contravenes the President or the Attorney General’s opinion on a matter of law' This can potentially enable an end run around congress and the courts in that the President can easily choose to interpret laws in a manner inconsistent with the intent of congress and courts. Now, we can argue the point and say that presidents have already done so in the past and that congress/courts should have been more specific. However it quickly gets into the issue of the impossibility of congress or the courts anticipating and specifying every detail to avoid a 'hostile' interpretation. This part of the EO says the president's opinion is the law as far as the executive branch is concerned. Given that the executive branch implements the law, this would imply that the president's interpretation is all that matters. The other two branches have no real role left to play. Given the supreme court's ruling on presidential immunity, this is a dangerous level of power concentration. Even if you support the current president's goals and objectives, setting up the president as the sole power center is an inherently unstable system. Nothing prevents the next president from having a radically different opinion. There is a very good reason why the founding fathers built in an elaborate system of checks and balances.
  • chinathrow 2y ago
    A self-coup. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Self-coup https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Self-coup
  • DannyBee 2y ago
    Lawyer here. So i think this is all insane, and a power grab, to start out. But not because of these parts of this EO I think people are trying to assume this says "the president gets to ignore the courts and congress", but it, uh, doesn't actually say that anywhere. I would very conservatively guesstimate at least 50% of people assume trump will go that route, and so they assume this is the method by which he will do it. But unless i missed something, he's actually said the opposite consistently - he wants absolute power over the executive agencies, but will follow court orders. If he was going to start not following court orders, i don't think he would have any trouble saying it. I don't think he would issue an EO, either, since those can be challenged. I think he would just continue to fire anyone who doesn't do what he says, or he otherwise disagrees with, and let each individual decision spawn a new court case, rather than give a really large EO that can be challenged and give him a much broader setback. As for this order itself, I really hate taking a side I hate here, but there is almost nothing interesting in the parts you quote: To start - AG opinions (and OLC opinions) were already binding on the executive branch. So they already provided authoritative interpretations of law. Heck, the entire FBI is guided only by AG opinions and guidelines on how to conduct investigations, and has been since it's creation. There are no separate rules - it's just the AG guidelines and opinions. (There is also a secret set of AG guidelines for classified investigations, and they release a heavily redacted version of it) I don't point this out to say it's awesome, i point it out to show that this state has existed roughly forever. It's just not commonly known i guess. The part about the president was also already true in exactly the way it is described here. This is what caused things like the saturday night massacre - in the end, the president does get to say what they want to happen, and what they think is legal and people can either resign, or do it. That was always the choice. This is all secondary to whether courts can say the president/AG's authoritative interpretation is wrong - they can and do already. Nothing in this EO says otherwise. >No employee of the executive branch acting in their official capacity may advance >an interpretation of the law as the position of the United States that >contravenes the President or the Attorney General’s opinion on a matter of law' This is also well within their power to request and enforce. It was also already true in practice in the vast majority of cases, and most importantly, before the highest courts of the land. At the highest court level (SCOTUS), the US is represented by the solicitor general's office, which is part of the DOJ and controlled by the AG. They also look at appeals court decisions and get involved where needed to direct positions. In lower level civil matters, the US is generally represented by the civil division of the DOJ, and therefore controlled by the AG. The only thing this order theoretically changes is to say that the agency counsel who would represent the US at lower levels for various agencies can't take positions that contravene the AG or president. That is, the counsel for the EPA can't decide they think the president is an idiot and that they are going to take a position that is the opposite of what the president wants. There is actually little to nothing controversial about that - they shouldn't be doing so in the first place, regardless of who is president or AG[1]. The president always had the power (though rarely exercised) to tell the EPA in the case above to change their position, and fire every single person who refused. It has even happened that they have forced agencies to change positions at the district court level, fired people who refused to follow their interpretations, etc. All upheld since the days of the founding fathers. There is and never was a 4th branch consisting of independent agencies. The issuance of regulations and their interpretation to flesh out the law is something congress is delegating to the executive branch when they set up executive agencies. The executive only has the power delegated to it here, and congress isn't even allowed to delegate significant power here. To see why it's not controversial at all, if they moved all the agency counsel to the DOJ, you would have the same effect as this order. This would not be illegal for most agencies, though some have interesting appropriation and other restrictions that require consulting with congress prior to reorging them and whatever. Put simply: Congress has the power to restrict or direct agencies through legislation (and the EO even mentions this), and the Judiciary has the power to say everyone else's legal interpretations are wrong. In between, the executive has always had the remaining power to direct the agencies and how they operate, and have done so, just not as clearly as you see here. What this order explicitly forbids actually has also been a practical problem before, and the AG's and solicitors end up having to explain to a judge why they changed their position from the lower level one, and get made to look stupid. Not that i believe they are doing it to fix that, but it has abeen a real problem. So like I said, while I think there is a huge power grab going on, this part of the EO isn't it. [1] The office of the inspector general is basically the one agency that exists in part to audit and investigate the other parts of the executive branch, and so would normally take contrary positions. But those positions are not taken in court, they just issue reports and inform congress. The agencydoesn't, and has never had, any rulemaking power (except to the degree necessary to carry out it's own function), any disciplining power, and any authority. That is why it is legal for it to be independent and why it was illegal for the president to fire the head of the agency.
• hsuduebc2 2y ago
  Not incidentally, both the FTC and SEC have ongoing investigations or enforcement actions against companies owned by Elon Musk. What a coincidence
• jeffwask 2y ago
  I think a lot more American need to read the Constitution.
  • notTooFarGone 2y ago
    The reading levels for the average american are not fit for that really.
  • gilbetron 2y ago
    A lot more Americans need to read beyond the Constitution and read case law.
• procaryote 2y ago
  In many other countries people would take to the streets and protest until they get a new government if something like this happened. Perhaps you should try it?
  • spacechild1 2y ago
    Yes! Where are the mass protests? Take some inspiration from Serbia: https://www.theguardian.com/world/2025/feb/01/student-led-protests-in-serbia-mark-railway-station-deaths-blamed-on-graft https://www.theguardian.com/world/2025/feb/01/student-led-pr.... I have been asking myself: what needs to happen until US citizens wake up and finally take it to the streets? In countries like Iran or Syria people have been protesting despite the danger of being tortured and/or killed. People in the US do not need to fear any of that, so what's holding them back?
    • butler14 2y ago
      10 years of indoctrination via social media and Fox News is holding them back, unfortunately
      • spacechild1 2y ago
        To be clear, I'm mostly talking about the people who did not vote for Trump.
• westurner 2y ago
  Why do you think they are called "Independent Agencies"? Can we work on our definition of "Independent Agency"? The founders of this country intentionally did not create a "King" role.
• neilv 2y ago
  Who is actually behind all these executive orders? Do they all originate by the President saying "I want X" in reaction to something, and lawyers figuring out how to do X? Do some of them originate with a wishlist of some extremist think tank or powerful people, and they finally found a President who'll rubberstamp them? Other?
  • wilg 2y ago
    They put out a whole playbook called Project 2025, developed by a bunch of insane people at the Heritage Foundation. Trump lied and said he didn't know anything about it. Now they're doing it.
    • vessenes 2y ago
      Actually, he said during the Kamala debate that it had "some good ideas and some bad ideas" to my recollection.
      • deleted 2y ago
        [deleted]
      • wilg 2y ago
        [citation needed] > “I have nothing to do with Project 2025,” Trump said in the ABC News Presidential Debate. “I haven’t read it. I don’t want to read it purposely. I’m not going to read it.” https://www.pbs.org/newshour/politics/watch-i-have-nothing-to-do-with-project-2025-trump-says https://www.pbs.org/newshour/politics/watch-i-have-nothing-t...
        • vessenes 2y ago
          To fill out the quote (from ABC's transcript) "Number one, I have nothing to do, as you know and as she knows better than anyone, I have nothing to do with Project 2025. That's out there. I haven't read it. I don't want to read it, purposely. I'm not going to read it. This was a group of people that got together, they came up with some ideas. I guess some good, some bad."
• yapyap 2y ago
  ‘Executive order’ is starting to sound like the compilation of Garrett calling out ‘emergency crisis’ in Community in the two worlds with the Model United Nations, S3E02 iirc.
• thrance 2y ago
  Is anyone still doubting that what's happening is the actual death of American Democracy? Anyone still willing to argue that this is about freedom and cutting waste?
  • hector126 2y ago
    I would argue that this is not the end of your country's democracy and that in 2028 a new president will be elected. You'd disagree, I trust?
    • n2e 2y ago
      What's your argument?
      • avidiax 2y ago
        I am pretty sure the US will have elections in 2028. But Trump was almost successful in overturning the 2020 election. Now, with additional concentration of power, that increases the possibility of a successful overturning (in favor of a new conservative candidate), or simply a biased election. Dictatorships often have elections and are supposedly democratic. The question is whether those elections reflect the genuine, informed self-interest of the people.
        • kelnos 2y ago
          The difference is that in most dictatorships that have "elections", the elections are run by the central government. In the US, the states run the elections. Sure, the US federal government has some levers and influence, but I think our elections are less susceptible to presidential tampering due to their decentralized nature.
          • avidiax 2y ago
            Being decentralized helps, but there's still only a few voting machine vendors, still nationalized media, and nobody is checking state ID of the protestors at state elections. And US elections have been very tight, and the electoral college means that only a few states being controlled is enough. We also lack an apparatus to overturn a fraudulent election. Even if a judge rules that an election was fraudulent, that's not the same as certifying another vote total nor can it physically remove someone from office.
• xivzgrev 2y ago
  An independent regulatory agency are established by law and function outside direct executive supervision. That’s the whole purpose: they’re supposed to be non partisan. But there’s a loop hole - this independence isn’t codified. Rather an executive order from 1993 (12866) required federal agencies to submit proposals to OMB but exempted regulatory agencies. Today Trump is closing that loop hole. So if that’s not congress’s intent (which I’m sure is not) then they will need to pass a law soon making these agencies independence from the president explicit
• biimugan 2y ago
  This whole situation really goes to show that both the judiciary and the legislature need to be greatly expanded -- probably by 10 fold or more. Even if you greatly reduce the size of the federal government. The executive employs approximately 3,000,000 employees. The federal judiciary only employs about 30,000 total, and the legislature about 20,000 total. The sheer velocity with which the executive can ram through questionable directives *and have them executed upon* (despite the law) means the other "co-equal" branches of government are always potentially on the back foot. It's just a personnel game. Trump has only highlighted how absurdly easy it is to abuse this imbalance. And after the Chevron and Trump decisions, it's only going to get worse and worse. I do think these Federalist Society types who pushed these unitary executive theory ideas have now created a monster. They've created a situation where the executive has immunity to simply apply the law however it wants, clogging up the judiciary with civil and federal suits, and where the Congress cannot pass laws fast enough or with great enough specificity to avoid defying Chevron or avoid executive misapplication. Meanwhile the executive has long since moved on from the original issue to the next 10 issues, and the next 10, and the next 10, while the courts and the Congress are still only getting started on the first few problems. And the executive will never really get "punished" for these actions because of its supposed immunity. And presidential elections don't really help with this problem. Because one president has 4 years to drastically reshape everything, and the next president will spend all of their 4 years reverting it, dropping all the previous suits, creating its own litany of new suits, and rinse and repeat. The hysteresis of this process is too long and leads to instability and chaos.
  • kelnos 2y ago
    What about Chevron is a problem in this particular case, though? My understanding is that ditching the doctrine of Chevron deference puts more power back in the hands of the judiciary.
• mychael 2y ago
  [flagged]
  • refulgentis 2y ago
    It's probably slightly more complicated than that
  • oaxacaoaxaca 2y ago
    Please point me to the EOs Biden signed that gave him absolute power.
  • WXLCKNO 2y ago
    Damn. I can't even begin to comprehend how separated from reality your worldview is.
• mnewme 2y ago
  This is a power grab that is unprecedented. No one left to investigate Trump himself or his followers, no control, no means of ensuring a fair election…
• deleted 2y ago
  [deleted]
• phtrivier 2y ago
  You guys are lucky to have biology on your side. Statistically, Trump will be in charge for about 10 years max, before the Grimm Reaper creates a power vacuum. (I can't wait for his creative interpretation of the 22st.) At this point, options will be open again. May some real lawyers have a jab at this. Good luck.
• latentcall 2y ago
  “At what point shall we expect the approach of danger? By what means shall we fortify against it?-- Shall we expect some transatlantic military giant, to step the Ocean, and crush us at a blow? Never!--All the armies of Europe, Asia and Africa combined, with all the treasure of the earth (our own excepted) in their military chest; with a Buonaparte for a commander, could not by force, take a drink from the Ohio, or make a track on the Blue Ridge, in a trial of a thousand years. At what point then is the approach of danger to be expected? I answer, if it ever reach us, it must spring up amongst us. It cannot come from abroad. If destruction be our lot, we must ourselves be its author and finisher. As a nation of freemen, we must live through all time, or die by suicide.” https://www.abrahamlincolnonline.org/lincoln/speeches/lyceum.htm https://www.abrahamlincolnonline.org/lincoln/speeches/lyceum...
  • longtimelistnr 2y ago
    I have never read this, but I really really enjoyed it. It is a great and succinct explanation of the circumstances leading up to a civil war. Very applicable to the situation in the U.S. today.
• danbmil99 2y ago
  50.001% of Americans voted for this. FAFO
• kaboomshebang 2y ago
  "Hungry for the Power"
• efnx 2y ago
  How is it that these executive orders are deemed "legal"? They're written in a way that make it seem like the President is Judge Dredd ;) But seriously - don't we have institutions that verify and reject obvious overreaches of power like this?