4 ms·

Ugh, they killed FedNow too? That hadn’t hit my radar. Why a waste.

• Ericson2314 1y ago
  I don't think so?
  • ambicapter 1y ago
    Here's the EO, I don't see where it kills FedNow, it seems like it just mandates electronic payments and disallows paper checks: https://www.whitehouse.gov/presidential-actions/2025/03/modernizing-payments-to-and-from-americas-bank-account/ https://www.whitehouse.gov/presidential-actions/2025/03/mode...
    • lesuorac 1y ago
      Heh, while I like the idea of using immediate electronic dispursement over the mail. I do find the ending of the EO pretty amusing. You're telling the agencies exactly what to do, how is that not impairing their authority? > Sec. 7. General Provisions. (a) Nothing in this order shall be construed to impair or otherwise affect: > (i) the authority granted by law to an executive department or agency, or the head thereof; or
      • Arubis 1y ago
        You can be almost certain these EOs are composed in tandem with LLMs.
        • tcmart14 1y ago
          And its okay because the federal employees who need to know what these say will just ask their LLM what it says! /s
      • somenameforme 1y ago
        That's boilerplate that's been attached on most of all EO's for decades now. The point of EOs is that they aren't laws and cannot change laws, but they can provide [mandatory] guidance to entities, under the Executive, on how to implement laws. So imagine there's a law that says some agency can ban whatever widgets they want. An EO requiring that they not ban widgets made in Timbuktu would not contravene that law, but provide guidance on how the law will be implemented. By contrast if the law said that the agency must ban any harmful widgets, an EO would not be able to prevent them from banning harmful widgets, even if they happen to be made in Timbuktu. Thankfully modern EO's are (contrary to intuition) pretty much weak sauce because of this balancing act. See, for contrast the dictatorial mandate that is executive order 6102. [1] [1] - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Executive_Order_6102 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Executive_Order_6102
        • lesuorac 1y ago
          But how does mandatory guidance not impair the authority of an agency? The agency is no longer allowed to do something against the guidance! Or the Order must not be ordering some action?
          • somenameforme 1y ago
            It's the law that must not be ordering some action. Laws generally provide e.g. regulatory agencies with some degree of discretion on how to apply a given law, like ban a widget. But that discretion can be defined by executive order. By contrast, if a law says an agency must do something, then an EO cannot override that law and direct them not to do that thing.
          • laughing_man 1y ago
            Government agencies in the executive branch don't have independent authority. They work for the president, and an EO isn't much different than the email you get from your boss directing you to do work a certain way.
            • lesuorac 1y ago
• toomuchtodo 1y ago
  FedNow has not been diminished through policy, still full speed ahead.