5 ms·

The US did give their input. The US voted for Trump who explicitly campaigned on this. The people of the US got what they asked for.

mikestew 1y ago
The US voted for Trump who explicitly campaigned on this. Campaigned on raising taxes? Not only would a citation be needed, I would defy you to find a single Trump voter who thinks taxes needed to be raised. This whole “it’s what people voted for” meme isn’t always an appropriate answer, and is many times just lazy commenting IMO.
- NeutralCrane 1y ago
  He campaigned on tariffs, which are taxes.
- bryanlarsen 1y ago
  In the first question of the debate, Harris pointed out that Trump's promises would increase taxes on the average American by $4000.
- no_wizard 1y ago
  Not taxes, tariffs - which is of course a tax - which the general public did not, by all available evidence, understand was a tax. Trump campaigned on raising tariffs quite heavily, and Trump voters by a wide margin really thought they were a good idea, largely because they didn't seem to actually understand how they work. I am left wondering if Trump fully understands how tariffs work. He spoke at length on multiple occasions about how other countries were going to pay for the tariffs, which runs entirely counter to what a tariff is. The only conclusion I can reasonably make from this is that Trump didn't understand tariffs either
  - autoexec 1y ago
    > Not taxes, tariffs - which is of course a tax - which the general public did not, by all available evidence, understand was a tax. Experts were pretty clear in telling the public that it was a tax. The only people who can say they didn't understand that would have to be people who not only didn't know what tariffs were in the first place, but who also didn't bother to listen to the many many people trying their best to explain it to them. I'm 100% convinced that trump doesn't understand them and refused to listen to the many many people who have tried to explain it to him, which is why he had to suddenly start walking them back. Only his ego is getting in the way now.
    - no_wizard 1y ago
      >The only people who can say they didn't understand that would have to be people who not only didn't know what tariffs were in the first place, but who also didn't bother to listen to the many many people trying their best to explain it to them anti intellectual sentiment runs deep in many parts of US society. Having experts out explaining things - particularly via news media outlets - has unfortunately become an ineffective tactic as a result. There are many people, across different areas of US society, that reject any expert explanations in favor of their own beliefs, or things they read that re-enforce their beliefs. We live in an age where 'vibes' and anecdotal experiences override facts based on well gathered evidence and history. I believe quite strongly the average Republican voter is heavily weighted toward dismissing public experts out of hand. All this is to say, I'm surprised that didn't have much impact. It should have completely destroyed his campaign to be honest, as many of his actions should have, but this was an indisputably bad idea from any reasonable economic standpoint. >Only his ego is getting in the way now I largely agree with this. I will only add that I can't tell where Trump ends and his donor class setting the agenda begins.
    - vel0city 1y ago
      "Who pays the tariffs" can potentially be a complicated question. There is a certain amount of elasticity of demand, the breadth of choice of supply, and more that can influence if a supplier chooses to eat the cost or if the price goes up. It's totally possible to draw up a scenario where it's the exporter that does bear the majority or all the cost of a tariff. Highly unlikely in the real world, but technically possible. But in the end blind American exceptionalisim and surrounding himself with yes men seems to have made him at least publicly proclaim the exporters would bear the cost. Or Trump is just a liar. Occam's Razor suggests an answer. Chances are this is just another instance of Trump lying and people eating it up.
      - no_wizard 1y ago
        In what scenario does the other country - the one being tariffed, to be absolutely clear - does that country pay the tariff? That was the exact scenario he iterated over and over on the campaign trail. What technically possible scenario exists for this to happen?
  - inerte 1y ago
    Or that he does understand, but avoids calling it a tax because Americans in general hate that? It's wordsmithing politics 101. Guy is a billionaire twice president of the US. He's many things (imho really bad things), but not ignorant.
    - no_wizard 1y ago
      >Guy is a billionaire twice president of the US. He's many things (imho really bad things), but not ignorant. I'm no Trump fan. Never voted for him. Really really disagree with his politics, but here's some things I think are observably true. - He understands media - He understands very well how to manipulate public sentiment and opinion - He understands the power of celebrity - He understands the importance of tailoring to audiences - He's willing to say and do things others aren't. There's no line in the sand for him You can be otherwise ignorant of a great many things (including tariffs, which he has a demonstrated lack of understanding going back decades) and still get elected based on these traits
    - vel0city 1y ago
      He wasn't avoiding "calling it a tax", he said calling it that was fake news and that everyone else but US would be paying for it. Suggesting he was just tippy-toeing around the language is completely whitewashing his obvious widespread lies.
- mindslight 1y ago
  > would defy you to find a single Trump voter who thinks taxes needed to be raised You're going to lose this one hard, because you chose the wrong tense. One exceptional thing about this cult is their ability to rationalize anything once Dear Leader has proclaimed it. This has been a general basic mechanism of mass media centralized democracy (eg the number of "liberals" eagerly supporting censorship ~10 years ago), but the Trump cult cranks it to 11 (eg "from my cold, dead hands" -> "blue lives matter")
- vel0city 1y ago
  He absolutely did campaign on tariffs. He talked about them at tons of campaign rallies. It was called out constantly that they were taxes. This whole denying obvious and recent history is just lazy commenting IMO. Quit lying.
- ikiris 1y ago
  The guy had dozens of speeches about loving tarrifs. You would have had to intentionally ignore reality to not see them.
micromacrofoot 1y ago
If we're considering all residents of the US, "didn't vote" won the election
- hn_throwaway_99 1y ago
  Tough shit. People who didn't vote explicitly transferred their rights to those who did vote.
  - micromacrofoot 1y ago
    then it's not a right
- zitsarethecure 1y ago
  Not voting is a vote for whomever wins.
  - TheDong 1y ago
    If you live in a non-swing state, like California, not moving to a swing state is effectively a vote for whoever wins. Voting in california and not voting in california are statistically identical, so if you don't move to a swing state, you're just voting for whoever wins, right?
    - dgfitz 1y ago
      Thank you for phrasing this as such. Every time this topic comes up I want to try and make this point, I wish it were more prominent. "You voted for DJT, you're an evil person!" "Well actually, let me explain to you how the electoral college works..."
      - ty6853 1y ago
        The electoral college doesn't even have to vote for what their state wanted. They can go rogue, and possibly end up with criminal charges in a few states, but the vote still stands. It has certainly happened before.
elgenie 1y ago
Sort of. Campaigning on vague slogans about something doesn't mean you have democratic legitimacy to avoid the whole process by which that something is supposed to get turned into law. Congress has previously delegated tariff authority for emergencies to allow the president to do stuff like impose (temporary) sanctions in fast moving foreign policy negotiations. The mechanism by which all the current tariff stuff is getting done is by Trump having declared that trade deficits (in goods only), by virtue of existing, constitute such an emergency, despite having been observed for 80 years and being both an inevitable consequence of the US being an advanced country. Like, the whole thing rests on a total perversion of the law's intent, economics, and the English language itself.
- hn_throwaway_99 1y ago
  > Like, the whole thing rests on a total perversion of the law's intent, economics, and the English language itself. I agree with this statement and have commented as much elsewhere, but Congress could rein in Trump's tariff-setting ability any time they wanted to, and they have very explicitly chosen not to. I agree with the parent comment - people in the US very clearly voted for this, buyer's remorse be damned.
  - sorcerer-mar 1y ago
    Part of that is Congresspeople receiving retaliation and death threats from MAGA, which is not really how democracies are supposed to work, and generally not a valid mandate the voting public is able to produce. https://www.politico.com/news/2025/04/17/lisa-murkowski-trump-retaliation-00295852 https://www.politico.com/news/2025/04/17/lisa-murkowski-trum...
beachy 1y ago
Simplistically, yes. Except that the whole US system is binary, and your vote is too - you get to vote either 1 or 0, with no more nuance than that. So technically yes, people voted for this, but also many were forced to because it came in a bundle which was the only way they could vote for their non-negotiables such as gun rights and abortion restrictions.
- LadyCailin 1y ago
  Completely agree, but I haven’t really heard much about anyone running on a platform of fixing the voting system. It’s fairly straightforward to at least improve, tons of countries have many different parties with all sorts of nuance. Having said that, Republicans as a whole got a large number of votes, and they’re all well known to be Trump bootlickers that twice failed to convict him after impeachment, so it really shouldn’t come as a shock that he’s doing bad stuff. There’s some point where Americans just have to take responsibility for their actions or inactions, and I think we’re well past that point.
  - beachy 1y ago
    Maybe so, but from the outside voting as an American looks stifling. I wouldn't want to vote for either of the two parties, although both hold some positions that I agree with more than the other. Either of the two parties promoting voting reform would be like turkeys voting for Christmas. I don't know if America will ever be able to transition to proportional representation because of entrenched interests. But here in New Zealand it was having a trump-like character, Robert Muldoon, in control of our economy last century that led to MMP. Having a single deranged (and occasionally drunk) person micromanaging the economy, arbitrarily imposing tariffs and trading rules and imposing price controls and freezing wage rises made people realize that we wanted our king to be symbolic and not interfering with our freedoms.
ncr100 1y ago
Mmmmmm this is incomplete .. and is similar to the overly-reductionistic morbid / cruel quip "Palestinians voted for Hamas so the 30,000+ new post-Israel-Gaza-invasion dead Palestinians got what they asked for." See how cruel it is to be overly reductionistic. It is bad to be cruel unnecessarily, IMO.
- LadyCailin 1y ago
  Who was most responsible for preventing Hamas, second to Hamas? Who was most responsible for stopping Trump second to Trump? I’m not saying that people are responsible for other people’s actions directly, but if through your inaction, bad things continually happen, surely you must have to accept some amount of responsibility, no?
  - ncr100 1y ago
    Lol, "responsibility" is ridiculous, in my opinion. That appears to claim the marginalized and impotent have attractive choices to reduce their suffering. "Stop hitting yourself", -The Bully Noone is providing adequate alternatives. "Vote for Make It All Better"... does NOT exist right now. Humanity needs to step in, and enforce human rights in this backwards part of the world.
- vel0city 1y ago
  The people who chose to do nothing absolutely bear some of the responsibilities of what happens from their non-choice.
  - ncr100 1y ago
    Lol, more cruelty. "Responsibility" to now Die, or be Killed by the blowback of their political decision, when already in a bad situation? Seems ridiculous to me. And therefore seems like humanity needs to step in and help neutralize the ridiculous grotesque murder festival going on there.
lenerdenator 1y ago
Revenue raising is supposed to be the purview of Congress, mainly because it's best for everyone involved if it's a known policy and not subject to personal whims. We're now seeing the effects of that; it's impossible to make good-faith business investments if you don't know if the investment will be heavily taxed a week after the first hires are made. As for whether or not the people of the US got what they asked for, in a sense, that doesn't matter. Trump might think otherwise, but he is not a king. There's a document that he has to follow. This is a constitutional democratic republic, not just a democracy. The less he follows the rules, the more severe the repercussions could be for both him personally and the country at large.
toss1 1y ago
NO. People also voted for every other authoritarian who converted their democracy into an autocracy. That does not mean they endorsed in advance every subsequent action by that dictator. The constitution specifically states: "The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises..." [0] (Article I, Section 8) Congress. NOT the executive branch or the President. Tariffs are taxes, full stop. Just because congress is abdicating it's duty and there are not even a handful of Republicans who will stand up to take back their proper power of taxation, does not make it either legal or moral to mis-allocate the power further away from the people. And yes, while people did vote for that POTUS, and he did mention tariffs in campaigning, he was both not explicit about seizing power from congress, and had such a reputation for lying that it was literally impossible to predict what he would actually do. No, you can not claim this misapplication of power is the will of the people. [0] https://constitution.congress.gov/browse/article-1/section-8/ https://constitution.congress.gov/browse/article-1/section-8...
- ty6853 1y ago
  If congress cannot delegate A1 S8 powers to the executive then the EPA, ATF, DEA, etc and most the regulatory apparatus all come crashing down. Which might be a good thing, but we've long since abandoned making congress actually use the legislative process each time these decisions are made.
  - toss1 1y ago
    Of course congress can delegate powers, and yes, it is certainly necessary for implementing regulations. Plus, abandoning the Chevron decision framework was IMO, a very bad move by SCOTUS, but respecting the SCOTUS decision in that case makes this even worse. In this case, Congress actually DID delegate those powers specifically for emergency use. Arrogating power that was NOT delegated by congress by declaring ordinary condition a bogus "emergency" in order to circumvent congressional control is undermining the democracy. If congress wants to implement broad tariffs, or enable the executive to engage in tariff and trade wars at will, it is welcome to do that. But, congress has NOT yet done so. Until it does, this is at best an abuse of executive power, and whether the intent of the usurpation is good or evil is irrelevant.

mikestew 1y ago

The US voted for Trump who explicitly campaigned on this. Campaigned on raising taxes? Not only would a citation be needed, I would defy you to find a single Trump voter who thinks taxes needed to be raised. This whole “it’s what people voted for” meme isn’t always an appropriate answer, and is many times just lazy commenting IMO.

NeutralCrane 1y ago
He campaigned on tariffs, which are taxes.
bryanlarsen 1y ago
In the first question of the debate, Harris pointed out that Trump's promises would increase taxes on the average American by $4000.
no_wizard 1y ago
Not taxes, tariffs - which is of course a tax - which the general public did not, by all available evidence, understand was a tax. Trump campaigned on raising tariffs quite heavily, and Trump voters by a wide margin really thought they were a good idea, largely because they didn't seem to actually understand how they work. I am left wondering if Trump fully understands how tariffs work. He spoke at length on multiple occasions about how other countries were going to pay for the tariffs, which runs entirely counter to what a tariff is. The only conclusion I can reasonably make from this is that Trump didn't understand tariffs either
- autoexec 1y ago
  > Not taxes, tariffs - which is of course a tax - which the general public did not, by all available evidence, understand was a tax. Experts were pretty clear in telling the public that it was a tax. The only people who can say they didn't understand that would have to be people who not only didn't know what tariffs were in the first place, but who also didn't bother to listen to the many many people trying their best to explain it to them. I'm 100% convinced that trump doesn't understand them and refused to listen to the many many people who have tried to explain it to him, which is why he had to suddenly start walking them back. Only his ego is getting in the way now.
  - no_wizard 1y ago
    >The only people who can say they didn't understand that would have to be people who not only didn't know what tariffs were in the first place, but who also didn't bother to listen to the many many people trying their best to explain it to them anti intellectual sentiment runs deep in many parts of US society. Having experts out explaining things - particularly via news media outlets - has unfortunately become an ineffective tactic as a result. There are many people, across different areas of US society, that reject any expert explanations in favor of their own beliefs, or things they read that re-enforce their beliefs. We live in an age where 'vibes' and anecdotal experiences override facts based on well gathered evidence and history. I believe quite strongly the average Republican voter is heavily weighted toward dismissing public experts out of hand. All this is to say, I'm surprised that didn't have much impact. It should have completely destroyed his campaign to be honest, as many of his actions should have, but this was an indisputably bad idea from any reasonable economic standpoint. >Only his ego is getting in the way now I largely agree with this. I will only add that I can't tell where Trump ends and his donor class setting the agenda begins.
  - vel0city 1y ago
    "Who pays the tariffs" can potentially be a complicated question. There is a certain amount of elasticity of demand, the breadth of choice of supply, and more that can influence if a supplier chooses to eat the cost or if the price goes up. It's totally possible to draw up a scenario where it's the exporter that does bear the majority or all the cost of a tariff. Highly unlikely in the real world, but technically possible. But in the end blind American exceptionalisim and surrounding himself with yes men seems to have made him at least publicly proclaim the exporters would bear the cost. Or Trump is just a liar. Occam's Razor suggests an answer. Chances are this is just another instance of Trump lying and people eating it up.
    - no_wizard 1y ago
      In what scenario does the other country - the one being tariffed, to be absolutely clear - does that country pay the tariff? That was the exact scenario he iterated over and over on the campaign trail. What technically possible scenario exists for this to happen?
- inerte 1y ago
  Or that he does understand, but avoids calling it a tax because Americans in general hate that? It's wordsmithing politics 101. Guy is a billionaire twice president of the US. He's many things (imho really bad things), but not ignorant.
  - no_wizard 1y ago
    >Guy is a billionaire twice president of the US. He's many things (imho really bad things), but not ignorant. I'm no Trump fan. Never voted for him. Really really disagree with his politics, but here's some things I think are observably true. - He understands media - He understands very well how to manipulate public sentiment and opinion - He understands the power of celebrity - He understands the importance of tailoring to audiences - He's willing to say and do things others aren't. There's no line in the sand for him You can be otherwise ignorant of a great many things (including tariffs, which he has a demonstrated lack of understanding going back decades) and still get elected based on these traits
  - vel0city 1y ago
    He wasn't avoiding "calling it a tax", he said calling it that was fake news and that everyone else but US would be paying for it. Suggesting he was just tippy-toeing around the language is completely whitewashing his obvious widespread lies.
mindslight 1y ago
> would defy you to find a single Trump voter who thinks taxes needed to be raised You're going to lose this one hard, because you chose the wrong tense. One exceptional thing about this cult is their ability to rationalize anything once Dear Leader has proclaimed it. This has been a general basic mechanism of mass media centralized democracy (eg the number of "liberals" eagerly supporting censorship ~10 years ago), but the Trump cult cranks it to 11 (eg "from my cold, dead hands" -> "blue lives matter")
vel0city 1y ago
He absolutely did campaign on tariffs. He talked about them at tons of campaign rallies. It was called out constantly that they were taxes. This whole denying obvious and recent history is just lazy commenting IMO. Quit lying.
ikiris 1y ago
The guy had dozens of speeches about loving tarrifs. You would have had to intentionally ignore reality to not see them.

micromacrofoot 1y ago

If we're considering all residents of the US, "didn't vote" won the election

hn_throwaway_99 1y ago
Tough shit. People who didn't vote explicitly transferred their rights to those who did vote.
- micromacrofoot 1y ago
  then it's not a right
zitsarethecure 1y ago
Not voting is a vote for whomever wins.
- TheDong 1y ago
  If you live in a non-swing state, like California, not moving to a swing state is effectively a vote for whoever wins. Voting in california and not voting in california are statistically identical, so if you don't move to a swing state, you're just voting for whoever wins, right?
  - dgfitz 1y ago
    Thank you for phrasing this as such. Every time this topic comes up I want to try and make this point, I wish it were more prominent. "You voted for DJT, you're an evil person!" "Well actually, let me explain to you how the electoral college works..."
    - ty6853 1y ago
      The electoral college doesn't even have to vote for what their state wanted. They can go rogue, and possibly end up with criminal charges in a few states, but the vote still stands. It has certainly happened before.

elgenie 1y ago

Sort of. Campaigning on vague slogans about something doesn't mean you have democratic legitimacy to avoid the whole process by which that something is supposed to get turned into law. Congress has previously delegated tariff authority for emergencies to allow the president to do stuff like impose (temporary) sanctions in fast moving foreign policy negotiations. The mechanism by which all the current tariff stuff is getting done is by Trump having declared that trade deficits (in goods only), by virtue of existing, constitute such an emergency, despite having been observed for 80 years and being both an inevitable consequence of the US being an advanced country. Like, the whole thing rests on a total perversion of the law's intent, economics, and the English language itself.

hn_throwaway_99 1y ago
> Like, the whole thing rests on a total perversion of the law's intent, economics, and the English language itself. I agree with this statement and have commented as much elsewhere, but Congress could rein in Trump's tariff-setting ability any time they wanted to, and they have very explicitly chosen not to. I agree with the parent comment - people in the US very clearly voted for this, buyer's remorse be damned.
- sorcerer-mar 1y ago
  Part of that is Congresspeople receiving retaliation and death threats from MAGA, which is not really how democracies are supposed to work, and generally not a valid mandate the voting public is able to produce. https://www.politico.com/news/2025/04/17/lisa-murkowski-trump-retaliation-00295852 https://www.politico.com/news/2025/04/17/lisa-murkowski-trum...

beachy 1y ago

Simplistically, yes. Except that the whole US system is binary, and your vote is too - you get to vote either 1 or 0, with no more nuance than that. So technically yes, people voted for this, but also many were forced to because it came in a bundle which was the only way they could vote for their non-negotiables such as gun rights and abortion restrictions.

LadyCailin 1y ago
Completely agree, but I haven’t really heard much about anyone running on a platform of fixing the voting system. It’s fairly straightforward to at least improve, tons of countries have many different parties with all sorts of nuance. Having said that, Republicans as a whole got a large number of votes, and they’re all well known to be Trump bootlickers that twice failed to convict him after impeachment, so it really shouldn’t come as a shock that he’s doing bad stuff. There’s some point where Americans just have to take responsibility for their actions or inactions, and I think we’re well past that point.
- beachy 1y ago
  Maybe so, but from the outside voting as an American looks stifling. I wouldn't want to vote for either of the two parties, although both hold some positions that I agree with more than the other. Either of the two parties promoting voting reform would be like turkeys voting for Christmas. I don't know if America will ever be able to transition to proportional representation because of entrenched interests. But here in New Zealand it was having a trump-like character, Robert Muldoon, in control of our economy last century that led to MMP. Having a single deranged (and occasionally drunk) person micromanaging the economy, arbitrarily imposing tariffs and trading rules and imposing price controls and freezing wage rises made people realize that we wanted our king to be symbolic and not interfering with our freedoms.

ncr100 1y ago

Mmmmmm this is incomplete .. and is similar to the overly-reductionistic morbid / cruel quip "Palestinians voted for Hamas so the 30,000+ new post-Israel-Gaza-invasion dead Palestinians got what they asked for." See how cruel it is to be overly reductionistic. It is bad to be cruel unnecessarily, IMO.

LadyCailin 1y ago
Who was most responsible for preventing Hamas, second to Hamas? Who was most responsible for stopping Trump second to Trump? I’m not saying that people are responsible for other people’s actions directly, but if through your inaction, bad things continually happen, surely you must have to accept some amount of responsibility, no?
- ncr100 1y ago
  Lol, "responsibility" is ridiculous, in my opinion. That appears to claim the marginalized and impotent have attractive choices to reduce their suffering. "Stop hitting yourself", -The Bully Noone is providing adequate alternatives. "Vote for Make It All Better"... does NOT exist right now. Humanity needs to step in, and enforce human rights in this backwards part of the world.
vel0city 1y ago
The people who chose to do nothing absolutely bear some of the responsibilities of what happens from their non-choice.
- ncr100 1y ago
  Lol, more cruelty. "Responsibility" to now Die, or be Killed by the blowback of their political decision, when already in a bad situation? Seems ridiculous to me. And therefore seems like humanity needs to step in and help neutralize the ridiculous grotesque murder festival going on there.

lenerdenator 1y ago

Revenue raising is supposed to be the purview of Congress, mainly because it's best for everyone involved if it's a known policy and not subject to personal whims. We're now seeing the effects of that; it's impossible to make good-faith business investments if you don't know if the investment will be heavily taxed a week after the first hires are made. As for whether or not the people of the US got what they asked for, in a sense, that doesn't matter. Trump might think otherwise, but he is not a king. There's a document that he has to follow. This is a constitutional democratic republic, not just a democracy. The less he follows the rules, the more severe the repercussions could be for both him personally and the country at large.

toss1 1y ago

NO. People also voted for every other authoritarian who converted their democracy into an autocracy. That does not mean they endorsed in advance every subsequent action by that dictator. The constitution specifically states: "The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises..." [0] (Article I, Section 8) Congress. NOT the executive branch or the President. Tariffs are taxes, full stop. Just because congress is abdicating it's duty and there are not even a handful of Republicans who will stand up to take back their proper power of taxation, does not make it either legal or moral to mis-allocate the power further away from the people. And yes, while people did vote for that POTUS, and he did mention tariffs in campaigning, he was both not explicit about seizing power from congress, and had such a reputation for lying that it was literally impossible to predict what he would actually do. No, you can not claim this misapplication of power is the will of the people. [0] https://constitution.congress.gov/browse/article-1/section-8/ https://constitution.congress.gov/browse/article-1/section-8...

ty6853 1y ago
If congress cannot delegate A1 S8 powers to the executive then the EPA, ATF, DEA, etc and most the regulatory apparatus all come crashing down. Which might be a good thing, but we've long since abandoned making congress actually use the legislative process each time these decisions are made.
- toss1 1y ago
  Of course congress can delegate powers, and yes, it is certainly necessary for implementing regulations. Plus, abandoning the Chevron decision framework was IMO, a very bad move by SCOTUS, but respecting the SCOTUS decision in that case makes this even worse. In this case, Congress actually DID delegate those powers specifically for emergency use. Arrogating power that was NOT delegated by congress by declaring ordinary condition a bogus "emergency" in order to circumvent congressional control is undermining the democracy. If congress wants to implement broad tariffs, or enable the executive to engage in tariff and trade wars at will, it is welcome to do that. But, congress has NOT yet done so. Until it does, this is at best an abuse of executive power, and whether the intent of the usurpation is good or evil is irrelevant.