I'll add to the other good reply - in our constitutional system, branches are not allowed to delegate significant amounts of their power to other entities.
So congress, for example, cannot delegate making laws to some other entity.
The courts, for example, cannot give their judicial power to others.
Similarly, the president can't delegate significant executive authority to others.
Where are the limits of this?
It's usually about delegating significant amounts of power or functions that the constitution explicit calls out as being owned.
But the limits are not tested often, so not tons of cases.
In the case of agencies, the executive branch also has no power in the first place to either set up, or disband, agencies.
This is a power that congress owns.
They can't, per above, delegate it, even if they wanted to.
I asked ChatGPT and it said many other agencies were established by EOs (e.g. FEMA, NSA, NASA, EPA). Quote from ChatGPT: "Many agencies later received congressional authorization, but their initial formation or restructuring was often directed by executive orders."
So it seems like the last paragraph is incorrect.
It's not wrong, it just depends on what you consider an "agency".
If you mean "any organized entity that contains federal employees", by that definition, sure lots of "agencies" exist that are created by the different branches.
If you mean "something that can create binding regulations that interpret or implement law" - no, those have to be authorized by congress in some fashion. Even if they are run by the executive later, which is also somewhat muddy.
etc
Traditionally, they agencies are the things that have officers who are nominated by the president and approved by the senate, and have useful power as a result :)
I'll also point out - even the ones that are entirely created by other branches (executive, judicial) have to be funded by congress one way or the other.
This includes all the ones you listed.
They cannot legally spend money otherwise - ""no money shall be drawn from the Treasury, but in Consequence of Appropriations made by law".
Sometimes they are created with a small, more general emergency appropriation or something, but again, if they want to spend money, that also requires them to be authorized and appropriated by congress.
Some of the more interesting questions that we have thankfully never had to answer for real (outside of blustering) is around various branches using their power to deliberately interfere with the basic functioning of other branches (except as authorized by the constitution, which, for example, says congress can set the jurisdiction of courts except for the supreme court. Where we've come close to it has mostly been around appropriations designed to force another branch to do or not do a certain thing. We may come a lot closer the next few years depending on what happens.
The constitutional limit is easy (none of them is more powerful than the other, and may not interfere with the basic sovereignty of each other), but the lines are not.
Sure, thanks for the explanation! I didn't mean to imply that this was intentionally misleading, just wanted to point out that a lot (most?) of people, including mainstream media, are using the term "government agency" with a meaning closer to your first definition. And with that in mind it's valid to say that the exec branch actually does have the power to create / disband agencies.
And even if we stick to the latter definition of the "agency" - it feels like there's a certain asymmetry here. Perhaps EOs can't be used to create a new agency, because that requires new funding to be approved by another branch. But what about disbanding an existing agency? That doesn't require approving new funding, right? So what stopping an EO to disband an agency?
So the thing about appropriations is - they actually have to spend them unless it says something else.
It's not like a budget. It's an order to spend money a certain way. That's why generally congress is said to have the power of the purse - they give the directions on how money is spent.
So appropriations come with directions, time frames, etc.
The executive branch must spend them as directed, and they must be applied to the specific purpose as directed.
This is also why you will sometimes find federal agencies or the military spending infinite money towards the end of the fiscal year, because they are just making sure they spent all the money they were supposed to. Again, sometimes the appropriation says "spend up to", etc. But whatever it says, they have to do it.
So if they say "you have to spend 1 billion on USAID", they must in fact, spend 1 billion on USAID.
Let's take the agencies that are specifically authorized or created by congress out of the picture - they literally can't disband these (and i don't believe they've tried yet). These are usually the things created or later authorized by bills that say something like "their shall be an office of the xyz" or something similar.
(I just picked a random one, the establishment language is fairly standard, the rest i have no opinion on :P)
Given it is created and provided for by law, it must be disbanded in the same manner - legislation that removes it.
So if we are sticking to the other ones - it basically comes down to whether an appropriations bill allows it in some fashion.
Does it say "1 billion must be spent on USAID" or does it say "1 billion must be spent on giving aid to ukraine" or does it say ....
That is what in practice, enables or prevents an EO from disbanding an agency that is not specifically provided for by congress.
At least, as far as money/etc goes. There may be other reasons they can or can't disband an agency.
For example, Congress has a congressional research service that provides it with information. It is basic to the functioning of congress (or just slightly above basic). Whether established by law or not, it's unlikely to be constitutional for the executive to disband an agency that another branch depends on, since they are supposed to be coequal branches.
This has rarely, if ever, been tested in practice though.
Even when different branches have hated each other with a passion in the past, the degree to which they would test the limits of constitutional power while pissing on each other was fairly restrained.
There are a few exceptions, but they are definitely the exception and not the rule.
Also keep in mind - while the president has some special powers, the general purpose of the executive branch is simple - to faithfully execute the laws. The only discretion in even doing that comes from the laws themselves and the constitution's description of the executive's discretion.
EO's (no matter who makes them) were not intended to be a path for the executive to do whatever it wants, and use power not granted to the executive
I say this not offering a view on the legality or not or wisdom or not, just trying to make sure i answer your question completely.
USAID was "created" by EO originally, but was recreated in 1998 by congressional act (The Foreign Affairs Reform and Restructuring Act of 1998, 22 U.S.C. 6501 et seq.):
"(a) In general
Unless abolished pursuant to the reorganization plan submitted under section 6601 of this title, and except as provided in section 6562 of this title, there is within the Executive branch of Government the United States Agency for International Development as an entity described in section 104 of title 5. "
(there is being the key words here. Not there can be)
The last relevant appropriations bill (section 7063 of the FY24 State and Foreign Operations Appropriations Act) says:
" Sec. 7063. (a) Prior Consultation and Notification.--Funds
appropriated by this Act, prior Acts making appropriations for the
Department of State, foreign operations, and related programs, or any
other Act may not be used to implement a reorganization, redesign, or
other plan described in subsection (b) by the Department of State, the
United States Agency for International Development, or any other Federal
department, agency, or organization
[[Page 138 STAT. 844]]
funded by this Act without prior consultation by the head of such
department, agency, or organization with the appropriate congressional
committees: Provided, <<NOTE: Requirement.>> That such funds shall be
subject to the regular notification procedures of the Committees on
Appropriations: Provided further, That any such notification submitted
to such Committees shall include a detailed justification for any
proposed action: Provided further, That congressional notifications
submitted in prior fiscal years pursuant to similar provisions of law in
prior Acts making appropriations for the Department of State, foreign
operations, and related programs may be deemed to meet the notification
requirements of this section.
(b) Description of Activities.--Pursuant to subsection (a), a
reorganization, redesign, or other plan shall include any action to--
(1) expand, eliminate, consolidate, or downsize covered
departments, agencies, or organizations, including bureaus and
offices within or between such departments, agencies, or
organizations, including the transfer to other agencies of the
authorities and responsibilities of such bureaus and offices;
(2) expand, eliminate, consolidate, or downsize the United
States official presence overseas, including at bilateral,
regional, and multilateral diplomatic facilities and other
platforms; or
(3) expand or reduce the size of the permanent Civil
Service, Foreign Service, eligible family member, and locally
employed staff workforce of the Department of State and USAID
from the staffing levels previously justified to the Committees
on Appropriations for fiscal year 2024.
"
So the executive branch cannot eliminate, reorg, or downsize USAID without, at a minimum, consulting with congress.
> So congress, for example, cannot delegate making laws to some other entity
But this is standard practice, no? The US system is rather unusual compared to Parliamentary systems in that Congress delegates precisely this power to the executive all the time.
It's muddy but the Executive isn't making laws it makes regulations constrained by and implementing the laws passed by Congress. It's all nominally rooted in some law the Congress passed and instead of just making those interpretations known when they sue you because you're using a financial instrument to defraud people there's a whole process of making it known how the Executive believe the old laws relate to new situations. Congress has neither the bandwidth nor the knowledge to keep abreast of every novel maneuver around the law so they say this type of thing is illegal and this agency is in charge of saying what type new things are.
A great example of that are with various toxins and pollutants, there's no system in which we can go through the whole process of making a new law every time we discover that some miracle chemical is giving people giga-cancer. Instead Congress tasks an agency full of experts to decide what safe levels of the giga-cancer causing chemical is and makes sure we only ingest slightly below the LD50 of that so we can statistically live.
Yeah, but it's a distinction without a difference because some of the "fill in the blanks" stuff Congress does is so vague that executive agencies in practice write plenty of new laws from scratch. It's not just adding specific items to lists.
And then there's also plenty of cases where the constitution is just ignored without consequence. The CDC unilaterally announced payments to landlords were suspended during COVID, something it had no power to do. It didn't cause much of a fuss.
Regulations are nowhere near that freeform, and they have extensive public review and commentary. The EPA was in court for years debating whether CO2 could be included under the Clean Air Act because they had to stay in the narrow lanes Congress created.
The CDC case seems to make the opposite point: they took a broad interpretation of the public health act, and it was rejected in the courts as exceeding what Congress had intended:
Right, of course, it was clearly illegal but during the key period the CDC got what it wanted anyway. There were apparently no repercussions for this behavior, is making a decision this latest struck down by the courts are valid justification under federal employment law of the terminating employees?
Clearly illegal? The CDC temporary eviction moratorium went to our conservative Supreme Court and they ruled 5-4 in the CDC's favor. Maybe based on the fact we were dealing with a worldwide pandemic.
No, they ruled against it. There were two moratoriums. The first was authorized by Congress. When that expired the CDC tried to unilaterally extend it and that was struck down:
Realtor associations and rental property managers in Alabama and Georgia again sued to enjoin the CDC’s new (“second”) moratorium. The District Court entered judgment for the landlords, and the Supreme Court affirmed.
The Supreme Court found that Congress could speak clearly when authorizing an agency to exercise the powers of vast economic and political significance that the CDC exercised in its order, but Congress had not done so. In addition, the CDC order “intruded” in an area that is the particular domain of state law: the landlord-tenant relationship. Absent clear Congressional authority, which was lacking, the CDC order was too broad and was properly struck down.
Sure, they ruled against the second moratorium, not the first. But it was a close ruling, because it's not as clear as you're making it sound. The CDC has very broad powers during a public health emergency.
Not saying I agree with what Trump's CDC tried to do, but it's not clear to me that the law bars them from taking extreme measures during a pandemic. It just has to be continually justified by facts on the ground.
Yeah and ultimately in a very real politik way whatever the Supreme Court says is Constitutional is Constitutional because they are vested with the final say on what the Constitution means at any particular moment.
The CDC has pretty vast powers in a public health emergency and IMO the ability to forcibly quarantine people is a power far beyond the ability to pause evictions and is maybe even a necessary part of the former. (Can't really quarantine someone if their landlord can just throw them out right?)
There is no such thing as DOGE. Any new “construct” and its directives need to be created and funded by Congress. Musk isn’t even legally an employee of the federal government.
The President can hire him and Congress could direct him to do what he’s doing, but that step has been skipped.
They renamed the US Digital Services agency to be DOGE. I don't know if they can rename a branch of government but that's how they are doing it. Musk has then gotten Trump to appoint members of his initial DOGE as representatives in each of the departments (Treasury, Commerce, etc) so they can have acting authority.
Trump's delegated Musk as a Special Government Operative and signed executive orders granting him and all his recommended employees security clearances w/o the requisite background checks that normally would be required.
So they are acting within the government, they are employees, and they've been granted special waivers by Trump to do all this craziness.
I think its going to come down more to the courts looking at whether these 'newly appointed employees' are breaking all kinds of laws passed by congress.
The power President Trump is lawfully exercising in the executive order to control the Executive Office of the President of the United States stems from the Reorganization Act of 1939 (via https://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Executive_Order_8248) which FDR had to get Congress to pass after his previous efforts to reorganize the executive branch during the Great Depression were deemed unconsititutional.
Critics at the time warned this Act would give the president too much power.
Gotta say I'm surprised. I thought for sure I'd get ratio'd by Muskovites, but it seems people have woken up and realize our democracy is literally at stake.
The only way we prevent the worst case scenario is to stand up to authoritarian power.
Keep shining the light on these bad actors. Let's send them home.
Trump is not king. Musk has no authority. DOGE is a hacker crew without a legal mandate.
They're accessing extremely sensitive government systems that do things like disburse trillions of dollars in federal funding and trying to shut down agencies like USAID. I highly doubt they have the right clearances for that. Additionally, congress controls the purse, not the executive branch. Even if DOGE was an above board agency approved by congress, withholding money that congress approved is incredibly illegal and may lead to a real constitutional crisis.
Giving their names is hardly doxxing them, especially since they are breaking the law. And if they are government employees, it would still be illegal to hack into sensitive databases, copy data to insecure devices, suspend payments to federal contractors, bar federal employees from their offices, and disband entire agencies.
If a presidential aide ordered USAID staffers to not go to work and physically locked them out, it would violate multiple federal laws and protections. Here’s why:
1. USAID Employees Have Legal Employment Protections
USAID employees—both civil servants and Foreign Service officers—are protected by federal employment laws. A presidential aide cannot simply tell them to stop working without a legal order, such as an official reorganization approved by Congress or a government shutdown following a funding lapse.
Under Title 5 of the U.S. Code, federal employees cannot be arbitrarily removed or prevented from performing their duties.
The Anti-Deficiency Act (31 U.S.C. § 1341) prohibits government officials from unilaterally stopping agency operations without congressional authorization.
2. Locking USAID Buildings Would Violate Security & Property Laws
Physically locking the doors to prevent USAID employees from entering their offices would likely violate:
18 U.S.C. § 371 (Conspiracy to defraud the U.S. Government) if it were done to obstruct lawful government operations.
18 U.S.C. § 1361 (Willful injury of government property) if it involved unlawful restriction of access to a federal facility.
Federal Continuity Directives require that government agencies maintain essential functions even in emergencies.
3. Presidential Authority Has Limits
The President does not have unilateral authority to suspend an entire federal agency’s operations without following proper legal processes.
Only Congress can permanently dissolve an agency like USAID by repealing its statutory mandate.
Even if a president wanted to reorganize or defund USAID, they would need to work through legal channels—such as submitting a restructuring plan to Congress.
What Could Happen If Someone Tried This?
If an aide illegally ordered staffers to stop working and locked the doors, several things could happen:
Congressional & Legal Challenges – USAID officials or Congress could sue, arguing the action was unlawful.
Federal Court Intervention – A court could issue an injunction blocking the order.
Potential Criminal Charges – Any official involved in obstructing a federal agency’s work could face legal consequences.
Historical Precedents
Trump’s 2018-2019 Government Shutdown: While federal agencies, including USAID, were partially shut down due to funding lapses, career employees were still required to follow proper procedures.
Nixon’s Attempt to Defund Agencies: President Nixon tried to defund programs by impounding funds, but Congress passed the Congressional Budget and Impoundment Control Act of 1974, limiting executive control over funding.
Bottom Line
Simply ordering USAID employees to stop working and locking the doors would be blatantly illegal and would likely lead to immediate legal challenges, congressional intervention, and possible criminal liability for those involved.
To pile on, the very data they have in their hands probably has very strict legal requirements for storing/moving and distributing. Failure to account for proper processes can be held against them.
It's only matter of time until one of these clowns starts "accidentally" touching data like the 2020 census individual response data.
To me, that's the red line: If they can touch that and suffer no consequence, then there is no law or process can exist to ensure accountability of the government.
I don’t have the legal background to assess the accuracy of this response. Assuming it came from ChatGPT, how did you go about validating its correctness (and its relevance to the unprecedented new state of affairs) before posting?
It is not really good faith to assume that somebody has posted a chatGPT response and doesn’t know what the thing spat out. Assuming they wrote it themselves, they assessed the accuracy of the response by looking up the numerous citations that they used.
