By Executive Order, Trump took over the SEC, FCC, FTC, FEC, CFTC, CFPB, FERC, and FDIC. Is this legal? Wise?
Ensuring Accountability for All Agencies
Please consider the White House executive order Ensuring Accountability for All Agencies
In order to improve the administration of the executive branch and to increase regulatory officials’ accountability to the American people, it shall be the policy of the executive branch to ensure Presidential supervision and control of the entire executive branch. Moreover, all executive departments and agencies, including so-called independent agencies, shall submit for review all proposed and final significant regulatory actions to the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs (OIRA) within the Executive Office of the President before publication in the Federal Register.
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.
There are not two but three views on this matter. First, let’s discuss for and against Trump theories.
‘Unprecedented’ Power Grab
CNN writes What to know about Trump’s executive order and ‘unprecedented’ power grab within the government.
“For at least a century, we’ve all thought that certain types of federal agency actions should be removed from politics to the extent we can,” said Christopher Walker, a University of Michigan Law School professor and an expert in administrative law.
The question of whether Trump’s move is unconstitutional or unlawful has long been an open one, Walker said.
“Personally, I don’t think so,” he said. “But is it a big change? Absolutely.”
Public Citizen, a progressive advocacy group, has called the move “illegal” and a “giant gift to the corporate class.”
“This is a profoundly dangerous idea for the nation’s health, safety, environment and economy – and for our democracy. Congress made independent agencies independent of the White House for good reason,” Robert Weissman, co-president of Public Citizen, said in a statement.
Beyond the technical requirements involving regulation review, Trump’s order also mandates far more day-to-day involvement by the White House in the business of independent agencies. The order requires liaisons from the White House to those agencies and insists that its leaders “regularly consult with and coordinate policies.”
“That’s pretty unprecedented,” said Daniel Walters, a Texas A&M University law professor and expert on administrative law. “This seems to suggest a real interest in reining in independent agencies.”
Several independent agencies contacted by CNN on Wednesday, including the SEC and the FEC, declined to comment.
The Supreme Court is already considering the case of Hampton Dellinger, the special counsel, who Trump fired this month. Dellinger, named to the job by President Joe Biden, handles allegations of whistleblower retaliation within the federal government. Dellinger’s agency could potentially slow Trump’s effort to dramatically cut the size of the federal workforce.
Trump has fired other independent agency heads in similar positions, as well. A federal judge on Tuesday temporarily blocked the White House from dismissing the chair of the federal Merit Systems Protection Board.
Another federal court is reviewing Trump’s dismissal of a member at the National Labor Relations Board.
Eyes on the Fed
Trump’s order notably excluded much – but not all – of the Federal Reserve from its requirements. During his first term, Trump frequently sparred with the agency’s leadership over interest rates.
The Fed, experts say, illustrates why Congress has long wanted to create independent agencies. If a president had complete control over the Fed’s monetary policy, he could demand lower interest rates to give the economy a jolt during an election year, even if that decision has adverse consequences, like higher inflation, months after the election.
By skirting around the Fed, the White House is attempting to avoid a legal confrontation that might go too far for a conservative Supreme Court.
But, legally, experts say, there’s little to distinguish the Federal Reserve from the other independent agencies Trump has targeted with the order.
Walker stressed that there is significant benefit to having the Office of Management and Budget review government regulations, particularly in checking the process agencies used to draft them. It’s another set of eyes to review what are often complicated policies with huge implications for the nation.
“I’m a fan of this move, from a bureaucracy perspective,” Walker said. “What worries me is presidential politics. I don’t want the process to be politicized.”
Case Law is Muddled
Please consider the 1935 Supreme Court ruling Humphrey’s Executor v. US
Facts of the case
President Hoover appointed, and the Senate confirmed, Humphrey as a commissioner of the Federal Trade Commission (FTC). In 1933, President Roosevelt asked for Humphrey’s resignation since the latter was a conservative and had jurisdiction over many of Roosevelt’s New Deal policies. When Humphrey refused to resign, Roosevelt fired him because of his policy positions. However, the FTC Act only allowed a president to remove a commissioner for “inefficiency, neglect of duty, or malfeasance in office.” Since Humphrey died shortly after being dismissed, his executor sued to recover Humphrey’s lost salary.Question
Did section 1 of the Federal Trade Commission Act unconstitutionally interfere with the executive power of the President?Conclusion
The unanimous Court found that the FTC Act was constitutional and that Humphrey’s dismissal on policy grounds was unjustified. The Court reasoned that the Constitution had never given “illimitable power of removal” to the president.
Seila Law LLC v. Consumer Financial Protection Bureau
Next, consider Seila Law LLC v. Consumer Financial Protection Bureau
Seila Law argued that the CFPB’s structure violates the Constitution’s separation of powers because it is an independent agency headed by a single Director who exercises substantial executive power but can be removed by the President only for cause.
The Chief Justice, joined by Justices Samuel Alito and Brett Kavanaugh, concluded that the Director’s removal protection is severable from the other provisions of the Dodd-Frank Act that establish the CFPB and define its authority.
Justice Clarence Thomas authored an opinion in which Justice Neil Gorsuch joined, concurring with the Chief Justice’s conclusion that the CFPB’s structure violates the separation of powers but dissenting as to the severability of the clause. Justice Thomas argued that he would repudiate entirely the first exception in which Congress may restrict the President’s power to remove lesser executive officers and that the doctrine of severability is entirely unfounded because it “involves nebulous inquir[ies] into hypothetical congressional intent.”
Justice Elena Kagan authored an opinion in which Justices Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Stephen Breyer, and Sonia Sotomayor joined, concurring with the Chief Justice’s conclusion as to severability but dissenting as to the conclusion that the configuration violates the separation of powers. Justice Kagan argued that for-cause removal restrictions serve to create in administrative agencies “a measure of independence from political pressure” and that “the text of the Constitution, the history of the country, the precedents of this Court, and the need for sound and adaptable governance—all stand against the majority’s opinion.
The president’s power to “remove – and thus supervise – those who wield executive power” flows directly from the Constitution, Chief Justice John Roberts wrote for the majority.
“The CFPB director has no boss, peers, or voters to report to,” Roberts wrote. “Yet the director wields vast rulemaking, enforcement, and adjudicatory authority over a significant portion of the US economy.”
Trump’s Executive-Power Restoration
The Wall Street Journal says Trump’s bold order putting ‘independent agencies’ under White House control echoes the Founders.
Please consider the WSJ take Trump’s Executive-Power Restoration
The federal government includes dozens of agencies that are nominally independent of the President even though they enforce laws and exercise other executive power. This wasn’t part of the original constitutional design.
Such agencies took root during the Progressive Era of the early 20th century. Woodrow Wilson in particular disliked the Constitution and wanted government by bureaucratic experts shielded from political control. Thus evolved today’s government alphabet soup of the SEC, FCC, FTC, FEC, CFTC, CFPB, FERC, FDIC, the Federal Reserve, and more.
Progressives are calling this a power grab, but if so it is restoring the vision of the Founders who gave the President control over the executive branch.
Mr. Trump’s order also has the virtue of making clear that increasingly these “independent” agencies aren’t really independent. After Barack Obama endorsed regulating broadband providers as common carriers, his FCC Chair Tom Wheeler promulgated a net-neutrality rule that did so. Does anyone believe Mr. Wheeler was acting independently? Or that the FTC sued Meta at the end of Mr. Trump’s first term without the President’s blessing?
Joe Biden issued executive orders “encouraging” various independent agencies to “consider” issuing regulations—for instance, an FTC ban on non-compete agreements. They followed his orders. He also added agency heads to White House policy councils to coordinate with cabinet departments. Mr. Trump’s order is in that sense truth in advertising.
Missing the Boat Entirely
The sole point of these agencies is for them to be independent. One would need to look at each agency individually.
The WSJ correctly points to Obama’s net neutrality nonsense and also to Biden’s FTC silliness.
Certainly, no one in their right mind should want the president to decide interest rates by decree.
Trump left the Fed independent for rate setting, but nothing else.
Extreme Ping-Pong
If Trump gets his way, the result will be extreme ping-pong depending on which party is in power.
Just wait until Democrats get their chance at this grab bag, and they will.
My Idea
Get rid of the SEC, FCC, FTC, FEC, CFTC, CFPB, FERC, and FDIC. Merge needed operations into existing organizations.
For example, the SEC has made a horrible mess of things over the years, especially its nonsensical creation of a Nationally Recognized Statistical Rating Organization (NRSRO).
I discussed the NRSRO in 2007 in Time To Break Up The Credit Rating Cartel
Before the SEC created the NRSRO, bond rating agencies got paid on how well they judged corporate bond risk. After the NRSRO, bond rating agencies got paid on how much debt they rated, with predictable results.
Moodys, Fitch, and the S&P rated junk credit obligations AAA right up to the point of default.
The SEC, Fed, and FDIC all contributed to the Great Recession and learned nothing from it.
It would be easy to get rid of much of the FDIC by mandating banks hold customer deposits in cash instead of speculating on interest rates.
We have no safekeeping bank!
Failure to safeguard customer deposits led to an FDIC takeover of Silicon Valley Bank.
For discussion, please see A Banking Game Bait and Switch on Interest Rates, Fed Stands Idly By
Look at the mess the Fed created in housing with QE to Infinity.
We have had three economic bubbles in succession, each with a bigger amplitude.
Why exactly do we need a Fed?
Letting the market set interest rates could not have done worse in 2000, 2007, or 2020.
The Fed Is Incompetent by Design and Can’t Be Fixed
But one thing worse than a Fed setting rates would be for presidents to set rates for political goals such as getting reelected.
For discussion of the Fed, please consider Fedthink! The Fed Is Incompetent by Design and Can’t Be Fixed
The FTC? Please be serious. Biden used that for nothing but union pandering. Trump will do the same.
Lead Question
Given the recent 5-4 ruling, even if it was on narrow grounds, I am reluctant to put odds of how the courts will rule.
Unlike Birthright Citizenship, I suspect there will be differences between District Court cases. If so, this will get to the Supreme Court.
Personally, I hope the court does strike this down because a continuous game of “Extreme Ping-Pong” seems very unwise, constitutional or not.
If the Fed does strike this down, I suspect it will precisely be due to it recognizing the “Extreme Ping-Pong” impact, no matter how they officially phrase it.
Instead of putting these agencies under control of political parties, I suggest we figure out what if any functions are truly needed, merge those functions into existing agencies, and kill the rest of them.
Less is more. Extreme partisan control is problematic.
Related Posts
February 22, 2025: The European Commission President Needs a DOGE Job on Green Energy
EC President Ursula von der Leyen seeks to undo her own Green agenda without letting the Greens know.
February 22, 2025: How Much Has DOGE Really Saved? Here’s the Scorecard to Date
For all the hoopla, countable savings are slim pickings, so far.
February 22, 2025: Trump Signs Order Cutting Off All Federal Benefits for Illegal Immigrants
Trump’s executive order is definitely legal. But what does it mean in practice?
So what is to be done about tax-financed activists groups filing lawsuits before sympathetic unelected federal judges appointed by presidents perhaps decades ago in order to stifle policies they don’t like?
“Independent”…
Independent from what? An agency might be independent from government yet dependent on certain special interests, right?
Is Trump’s power grab bigger than FDR’s? FDR threatened to pack the Court is he didn’t get his way.
Interesting that democrat talk about expanding the SCOTUS has died down since the election.
“The Left Moans Trump’s Executive Order Is an ‘Unprecedented’ Power Grab”
Considering the totalitarian tendencies of the left, you have to wonder if the Left is moaning in agony or pleasure.
They are collectively rubbing each other’s chesticles right now.
Ensuring accountability for all federal agencies.
Why do I get the feeling the deep state had dug itself SO DEEPLY into all of these agencies by the time Brandon was falsely elected that he did the same thing but without an executive order or accountability?
“For at least a century, we’ve all thought that certain types of federal agency actions should be removed from politics to the extent we can”
Was this before or after Brandon’s four incredibly terrible years of government waste & “accountability”?
My God, people, he IS the President & has every right to exert his control over all of these “independent” agencies. He appoints each one of these agencies’ director who then report back to the president. This is exactly what fighting 30+ years of deep state rot looks like.
And finally, does ANYONE honestly think these agencies are “independent”? Like seriously.
Looks like Trump is trying to mount a second coup attempt. But this time, instead of sending a MAGA mob to vandalize Congress, he sent an unelected billionaire to vandalize the federal government. Who would have guessed that Americans are keen on destroying their own government? Champagne must be flowing freely in Beijing and Moscow.
Well, we Americans aren’t destroying it……..
This is exactly what they are doing. They first fired the Inspector Generals, then the ethics watchdog, and now the military has fired the JAG attorneys. They neutered the government’s ability to challenge the actions of Agency heads and DOGE. Just wait until they want to defy a court order, and the U.S. Marshalls are ordered to stand down.
Hire Danny Kaye back as The Inspector General.
Covid will kill everyone before that, so it’s all good.
The next epidemic is going to be bird flu, and it will probably be much worse than Covid. To get a handle on bird flu, RFK Jr. will tell us to do push ups. That’s as competent as it will get.
The gov’t needs to be vandalized. It is a corrupt mess. Hundreds of billions sent to foreign entities, while most people struggle here. The corruption they are exposing should be an incentive for voters to back a smaller gov’t.
We’re so sorry, Uncle Albert. But we haven’t had a bloody good laugh all day!
Sounds like someone needs more fiber in their diet.
Trump might loosen his grip on gov bureaucrats and pentagon DEI generals to probe results and learn. If things go well he might shift to attacking billionaires, who avoid paying taxes, to reduce inequality. He will cut taxes to increase incentives to invest in the US to maintain economic growth and pay their fair share of taxes. Attacking privileged billionaires will be a shock therapy to tame chain saw Ilan and silicon valley elite.
Remember Chainsaw Al? He was cooking the books himself on Sunbeam gas grills.
The Federal Reserve could be reconstituted to implement the authority given to the legislative branch to coin money and regulate the value of it.
That’s not an Executive Branch function per constitution.
Whither Germany? I am expecting Mish to come up with a doozy of a post with all kinds or permutations. I can’t wait!
It was all downhill after The Kaiser dumped Bismarck.
geez people here is whats important The U.S’s chipmaking sector is ringing the alarm about Washington’s chip war with ChinaThe U.S’s chipmaking sector is ringing the alarm about Washington’s chip war with China | Fortune Asia (archive.ph)
Why does the US have it in for gig workers?
There are 64 million freelancers and there’s no way the IRS or Department of Labor can track them – but they try https://www.theguardian.com/business/2025/feb/08/gig-workers-independent-contract-freelance
They’re poor, so god obviously hates them.
I put the following question to ChatGPT: “What are the arguments for and against Trump being a fascist”. This was after a trigger from a TV debate, not a reflection on my own thoughts. It gave a few things “for” that you might expect. The number 1 item “against” the idea that Trump is a fascist was the following: “Lack of Centralized Authoritarian Control”.
I’m increasingly looking to ChatGPT and explicitly asking it to give both sides of the arguement.
IMHO you can take control of whatever govt body you want including the Fed. But the one that needs to remain independent is the FCC. If you let go of that then it is goodbye democracy. Regardless of political colour I’d suggest that should be cherished – and of course independence surely fits with JD Vance’s speech about free speech.
Freedom of speech is only for those that can afford it.
Ha – you are a true inspiration El Presidente!
You’re asking the wrong AI, there are now many to choose from and some are much better trained than ChatGPT
CDU/CSU: 30%. AfD: 21%. SPD:15%. Germany have turned right. A week ago an Afghan attack children in Bavaria. Germany host more than 2.5 millions new illegal immigrants, over a million from Ukraine.
CIA has always been an independent agency. See how well that’s worked.
There are legitimate arguments to be made about the constitutionality of particular agencies or congressional statutes. However, it’s important to keep in mind that the constitution specifies a role for Congress to create statutes defining how the executive should organize and manage bureaucracy, and spend money. By design, the constitution creates bureaucratic friction that limits presidential authority. In fact, bureaucratic friction and inefficiency was one of the fundamental cornerstones of the constitution from day 1.
We should care just as much about protecting congressional authority over the executive as we care about free speech and the presumption of innocence.
Our system has worked better than any other because, by design, power is balanced. One of the founders’ biggest worries was that the President and the Executive Branch would hold too much power. What has gotten us to the point we are at is that Congress, particularly the Senate, has relinquished its independence for oversight, advice & consent over the Executive Branch. This watering down of its constitutional role has allowed a particular political party to corrupt another co-equal branch of government, the Supreme Court.
The thing that we miss is that bureaucratic inefficiency of the US executive is, in many ways, a feature – not a bug. The constitution specifies that congress has to have a role in defining what money is spent, where, and how the executive structures the bureaucracies. Sure, we can always be looking for better ways to structure and manage the Federal bureaucracy, but congress needs to have a fundamental role in deciding and agreeing to whatever changes are made, ensuring that the changes continue to respect congressional authority.
I could not agree more with what you said above.
There were 10 presidents before Washington, then …
“Why exactly do we need a Fed?”
We need a central bank (the Fed being the 3rd Bank of the United States) to destroy the value of the dollar. Slowly, over time. At the rate of about 2% of its purchasing power a year. Through the insidious process of inflation which, as Keynes noted Lenin to have observed, “not one man in a million is able to diagnose.”
https://www.economicsnetwork.ac.uk/archive/keynes_persuasion/Inflation.htm
The ultimate reason to have a Fed is to have it manage the finances during wartime. Without the Fed the financing of WW II would not have been possible. To anyone proposing its elimination I suggest they read up on how existential wars are won.
Do you really think such funding is relevant in the nuclear age? Capital ships and mobilizing millions of people to fight overseas isn’t happening in the next major conflagration. Drone swarms, electronic sabotage, and other “modern” means will rule the day. You are suggesting to read up on how wars were won.
Destroying the store of value that used to be the U.S. dollar and enriching the member institutions doesn’t have any benefit for the masses in times of war or in times of peace.
Al, where do you think where all the money will come from to make all those wonderful drones and other things? How do you think all those resources will be mustered without money? In war the side that can mobilize the most resources wins almost without exceptions.
And from where I’m standing today, that’s China with, for example, its 350x ship building capacity. And they have 4x the number of bodies.
And people here complain about Trump’s power grab. They have little respect for Xi’s abject control over everything in China.
Outside of Skunk Works, drones are inexpensive (flat-screen monitors aren’t the only electronic to decrease in price) and a swarm can be very dangerous. A handful of speedboats can heavily damage a warship.
Making war isn’t the expense it was in the 20th century. I still stand by my contention that in the electronic age (I’ll go a step beyond nuclear) the cost of inflicting significant damage isn’t an obstacle and pumping $ into war doesn’t equate to victory like it used to and asymmetric warfare can be fought effectively. Regardless, keeping something as deleterious to the general population as the fed is simply to facilitate large-scale war is not a wise idea.
Ukraine, Israel and Lebanon all say you have no idea how wars are fought right now.
As soon as one of them engages in something akin to WWII I’ll agree with you. In the meantime, it appears you missed the main point on justification for the fed being to finance all-out conventional warfare on foreign continents.
Congress has the power of money creation / borrowing etc. It’s right there in the Constitution.
The Fed consists of unelected bankers who first and foremost look after the banks not the people of the United States. They conned the president and people into believing they had some secret power to avoid recessions, depressions and bank panics. All of which is nonsense.
Well unfortunately for us, the next “big one” isn’t going to have anything left to finance reconstruction deficits.
I for one don’t think the Fed needs to be eliminated. I just think it needs to be run like a normal bank, where they have the ability to say NO to loaning ourselves money. If the Fed were truly independent, this is exactly what they would be doing.
It’s time that decisive, painful, or if necessary “schadenfreude” action is taken. We don’t have time to kick the can down the road 20 more years.
To get to the Golden Age as PapaD puts it, if it’s even possible which it’s probably not, doesn’t go through being an ostrich anymore. I’ll be the first to admit that Trump & Musk are very polarizing figures, but that’s exactly what we need right now. America needs to be jawboned into recognizing our credit card limit has been reached.
While it’s going to be painful, this struggle has been decades in the making and will only get worse. Again, the mess Trump has been left to clean up is just staggering.
IMHO, there are no sacred cows and everything has to be on the table. But the good / bad news is that the same insanity / clown show is sure to reappear in the countdown to 3/14 as well as negotiating Trump’s “One Big Beautiful Bill”.
I would agree that the Fed does help with wartime expenses. We got the Fed in a late night vote in December 1913 when most of CONgress went home for the holidays and several years later the Fed was able to finance our participation in WWI, the outcome of which enabled the “winners” to enact an unjust peace on Germany and create the conditions for someone like Hitler to rise to power a generation later.
That said, I don’t think subsidizing war was the ultimate reason why the architects of the Fed assumed fake names and met secretly at Jekyl Island years before the Fed was legislated into existence to effect their coup on the American people. Being able to finance and extend wars without directly taxing people is certainly a terrible thing. I think we’d agree on that.
Not sure why your post is getting downvoted. You’re right about the Fed extending wars and making them financially possible long after a direct taxation approach would have resulted in the citizenry resisting.
The US didn’t meaningfully participate in WWI. By the time they entered it was all but decided and Germany would have collapsed in a couple more months anyway.
On the other hand the US made serious bank by supplying both sides.
You don’t need the Fed to finance wars. Congress can just borrow whatever amount it wants via war bonds. It easy to get people to buy them (finance the war) by calling you unpatriotic if you don’t buy them.
“Woodrow Wilson in particular disliked the Constitution and wanted government by bureaucratic experts shielded from political control.”
What makes someone an expert? Who puts that so called expert in control of an agency? Are bureaucratic agency heads non political, or do they belong to a political party? What about the people working under them? DC is considered to be a Democrat town.
Biden nominated bureaucrats and party members to control the US in all US gov branches. These civil servants are deceitful and corrupt. They falsify reports to avoid sacking, but moved swiftly on DEI reforms. They are blood sucker leeches. The best solution is to reduce them and the central control. To enable the marketplace to perform and prosper ==> and that’s exactly what Trump is doing
Until Jan20, an “expert” was a man who dresses like a lady.
I’m an expert, and I say so.
“What makes someone an expert?”
Their own arrogance.
Now you’re just copying Musk’s comment- way to jump on the bandwagon 🙃
We need to redefine the relationship between government and its citizens and we now have the tools to accomplish this that we didn’t have before. It all comes down to information transmission. Till now the information flow had to go through several layers before trickling down to the individual. Of course these layers ended by becoming more interested in being gatekeepers rather than transmitters of information.
That has all changed. We now have the means for transparency even radically transparency where anyone can download and scrutinize in detail data and especially money flow. This changes the balance of power between government and citizens but only if the means of information transmission remain to all hence the ultimate importance of free speech. If effectively the public continues to have access to the information of government decisions and transactions then they way government operates will have to change in consequence. It will be very much harder to hide the pork in large incomprehensible bills because now and with the help of AI, the hidden favors and their costs will be apparent to all who look. Lobbyists are in a panic over this.
It is too early to judge if it will work but I notice the extreme worry and pushback from some quarters that see the danger to them personally and to their organizations used to hiding in the darkness. European governments feel especially exposed because they control neither the source of this new power nor its diffusion. The future looks brighter but there are a lot of opposition to overcome.
I want to believe your positive mindedness will prevail, but I have my doubts.
Transparency is key, like you adeptly point out. And nowhere is it lacking more than in healthcare, the very industry that’s well on its way to bankrupting America.
I sure hope Luigi is put to death, but his murderous act may give us a chance at finding some radical transparency & fairness in healthcare. I hope the DoJ’s investigation into UHC finds the iceberg & not the tip.
After a Trump/Putin thaw American businesses will send their managers to open branches and to invest in Russia.
Send them to Europe. They’ll fit right in.
Probably not unless they reimburse Western companies for the operations they lost in Russia after Russia invaded Ukraine. Why would you invest if it can be nationalized again? You are care full. You invest gingerly like US resource companies did after Pierre Trudeau “encouraged” them to sell their operations to Canadian companies. Once burned, twice shy. Ukraine on the other hand doesn’t have that handicap.
They’ll be reimbursed when Russia is reimbursed for all the funds seized by the West. It will all be a wash or close to a wash.
You are right that investment might be slow. But history says it will happen just as it happens in every 3rd world country that has a revolution.
The reason is there is money to be made and Russia is still a treasure trove of natural resources waiting to be exploited. If the West isn’t willing, the Chinese most definitely will be.
They’ll send those American managers to work in the gulag. In Siberia. In the winter.
Average taxpayer has to hire an accountant just so as to be compliant with Federal and State Tax Laws when filling out forms.
But the Government agencies believe they do not have to account to the people who are their employer as to what they do with the time they are paid for.
Seems fairly ass backwards.
Obama raised the federal debt by $9T from $11T to $20T. Yellen suppressed the long duration and mortgage rates. Under Trump, between Q1 2017 and Q4 2020, gov debt was up by $7.9T from $19,8T to $27.7T. During covid, when the US was comatose, JP transferred money from the rich to the poor and the middle class. During the Biden administration the federal debt was raised by almost $8T to $35.5T. The people elected Trump to stop the debt bubble. Trump has the right to chose his people and to reduce the gov payroll. Ilan has to be more compassionate and stop behaving like a 4 years old
Elon seems to be behaving as you expect of someone who is on the autism spectrum
More the ketamine spectrum, but you’re close.
More like manic depression.
Should the Supreme Court be rulling on Constitutionality based solely upon their perception of implementation difficulty or consequences? I don’t think that’s their mandate or mission. Arguable these agencies have regulations merely contrived on whims that become law where you are guilty immediately because the unelected, unlegislated regulatory deep state said so.
Will there be a ping pong effect? Sure.
Is there one already with Executive Orders, which are very similar to what you’re discussing? Yes.
And in the comment section you have conservative posters saying “I don’t see an issue with it” and the liberal drivelers saying “this is wrong” (but had no problem with any of it 2 months ago).
I argue we already have the ping-pong effect so better to have SCOTUS interpret the Constitution as written. The best way to address the entire mess is to SHRINK the government because it’s harder to politically weaponize an army of Deep State bureaucrats if they don’t exist.
You’re right in pointing out that these agencies should be eliminated (as should most of the federal government).
For the first time, we have a president and agenda that are staunchly anti-deep state. These agencies, if you haven’t realized, serve the deep state.
“The sole point of these agencies is for them to be independent.”
No agency should exist without being accountable to the people – that’s a hallmark of dictatorship. As a libertarian, you should understand this (talk about missing the boat entirely!).
lol! We ARE the deep state! Do pay attention.
Here’s the thing, falling back on the “original text” of the Constitution and “what the founders intended” completely fails to heed the “a more perfect union” spirit of the founder’s mindset. The founders did not create the perfect government, the perfect constitution, or the perfect set of rights for the citizens of the country. The founders recognized this, and that is why the Constitution speaks to the reality that the progress of creating a “more perfect union” is never-ending. The current actions by President Trump and the vision of the Heritage Foundation’s Project 2025 use the progress that our country has made to make certain core functions of the Federal Government more fair, consistent, and insulated from ever-changing politics that were not enumerated in the Constituion against the founders’ acknowledgment that our union is not perfect and require ever-changing evolution against our Liberal Democracy.
We must understand that Democracy is not at stake. Russia, Hungary, and China have elections. Thus, they have a form of democracy. So, democracy is not at stake, but “Western” style liberal democracy is indeed under attack. Liberal democracy was born out of the lessons learned over the first half of the 20th century that was defined by two world wars and the Great Depression.
Lotta gobbledygook there, Karen. The Constitution includes the means to amend it, so we don’t have to do an end run around it to further the progress of creating a more perfect union. If you think Hungary’s elections have been more susceptible to untoward influence than America’s, you apparently missed the 2020 censoring of the nation’s oldest newspaper because of the lies of 51 intelligence community demons. That censorship extended to all social media platforms – just like they censored any/all unapproved opinions about Covid, vaccines, etc. To think the western democracies are pure as the driven snow is incredibly naive, especially after they cancel elections in Romania and America’s National Endowment for “democracy” seeks to nullify a recent election in Georgia. Never forget that ALL mainstream media outlets parrot US government narratives.
There are no “pure as driven snow” forms of government. However, Western-style Liberal Democracies have proven to be the cleanest dirty shirts. Regarding your comment about Romania, that situation is the perfect example of the weakness of liberal democracy in terms of the freedoms it affords being used against it by those whose interests are in undermining Liberal Democracies. Liberal Democracies need to defend themselves against their enemies, who are pretty capable of using “freedoms” against us.
The whole thing needs to be burned to the ground. This is essentially what you are arguing by saying get rid of these agencies and put any needed functions into other places.
When you burn it to the ground you get bad results as well as good ones
But as we are seeing, the Federal Government is so far gone that if nothing revolutionary is done, it is all going to blow up one way or another
Better to stop the grift and theft now and then repair what needs repairing later
I’ve worked on the same IT project for almost 30 years (!). About every 8-9 years we rebuilt the entire system from scratch using newer database technology. If nothing else it gets rid of the “cruft” and bloat and obsolete features. Highly recommended and should probably be done with government agencies as well. As with software over time they build up bloat and unnecessary features (or, in this case, employees).
The outraged reaction to DOGE’s request that Fed employees simply cite five things they worked on the previous week says it all. This is in fact one common project management technique with remote employees. They should be doing five things a day, FFS.
As Tom says, burn it all down (figuratively, of course).
whats it like working at AOL?
They know no human will read it, and apparently feel they’re too good to be judged by AI.
IBM mainframe?
Do your teams use waterfall program management techniques or agile methodologies?
When I was doing programming we used extreme programming, and we talked to Kent Beck who invented it fortnightly.
In my experience it worked way better than waterfall methodologies.
The most concise explanation of the executive branch’s power
https://x.com/CollinRugg/status/1892652917674672205?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw%7Ctwcamp%5Etweetembed%7Ctwterm%5E1892652917674672205%7Ctwgr%5E9b2e85b3ca7cfc1673dcd11a1332544b7870cb3e%7Ctwcon%5Es1_c10&ref_url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.zerohedge.com%2Fpolitical%2Fwatch-trump-deputy-chief-staff-blasts-media-propagandists-their-faces
Love him.
There is spittle flying out of that link. Such rage!
Might as well add CIA. FBI, NSA, DHS and all other Federal Law Enforcement agencies to the elimination list. They are all unconstitutional anyway. The only federal law enforcement agency that might pass constitutional muster are the Federal Marshalls.
The Constitution sets out just three Federal crimes. Counterfeiting. Piracy. Treason. The US Marshall’s service was set up to deal with those three.
The rest of the 1000s of crimes set out in Title 18 have no constitutional basis for being federal crimes. They are statutory constructions of Congress, totally lacking any underlying constitutional basis.
I guess you do not consider Amendments to the Constitution “the Constitution.” Also, I guess you do not believe that laws passed by democratically elected bodies of Congress and signed by democratically elected Presidents are “constitutional.”
We will see how it turns out. The real argument is over the role of government overall. Trump isn’t fit to manage anything beyond his own stuff. I’m sure it will all turn out great like it did in 2020.
The real argument is whether there should exist powerful agencies that are not accountable to any elected official and – by extension – not accountable to the people. Ping ponging is an unavoidable effect of representative democracy, which is messy by definition. It’s better than allowing a vast unelected and uncontrolled bureaucracy to metastasize.
No. The question is the role of government. The agencies to which you refer were created by acts primarily of congress. If they aren’t being held accountable, it is.the fault of congress. That doesn’t give the right for the executive branch to seize control. Congress has abdicated its responsibility. The executive branch can always sue congress for violating its responsibility.
Sure but waiting a decade for a result isn’t useful for the public or the current sitting president (whomever that may be) / congress / senate etc.
The only way suing makes sense is if there is a forced trial and outcome immediately (say within 6 months). Anything that lasts even 2 years is already into another set of elected representatives.
The whole reason for executive orders is to bypass gridlock which unfortunately has become the norm on both sides.
The only question now is how golden the golden age will be! Buckle up, it’s gonna get goldy!
No its not legal, but to a dictator, he doesnt care. He apparently is gonna stay for a third term, whether he gets elected to it or not.
The serfs think they love it. The truth will shock them.
Trump cannot ‘takeover’ government agencies that Article 2 already gives him provenance within the Executive Branch. He is only removing their past unbridled and illegal law-making that went unchallenged by weaker Presidents and nullified in effect the Constitutional controls voters had in selecting the Office of President.
It is certainly about time that someone who adheres to the wishes of the people is acting in the wishes of the people.