They need periodic retrenchment -in the private sector there are economic pressures to re-organize; in the government the tendency is for greater taxation.
Throwing out the baby along with the bath water is not the answer but neither is the status quo.
You don't get to just pretend these things aren't created and funded by congress, and that their operation hasn't been solidified and formed over decades and decades through interaction with the judicial branch as well.
The executive branch has an obligation to execute the laws - they don't get to arbitrarily pick and choose how to do that without constraint. Period.
If these were somehow created by executive action, it would be a completely different conversation. Pretending otherwise is disingenuous in the extreme.
Apparently Mayorkas didn't have to execute the laws if he didn't want to and moreover got to decide if he wanted to subvert them as well by granting asylum to whomever asked as well as providing transport, guidance, etc., etc.
Democrats make people upset by not applying laws --all the thievery etc that AGs went light on, etc., and the Republicans make people upset by applying laws to a greater extent (being tougher on crime and deportations --though Obama wasn't a laggard in the latter either)
They're not being dismantled. Funding is being paused while they are audited --and the audits are showing very concerning waste, potential fraud and are being reorganized under a different department.
This is a good thing. They should not get to waste our tax dollars without oversight and fraud detection.
O RLY? You might try reading literally anything the people involved are putting out there. They're open about trying to shut down USAID and the department of Education, and interfering so deeply in places like NIH is beyond the plausible legal limit (which is part of the point during an authoritarian takeover).
I know that HN is supposed to be a place of reasoned discourse, but your takes are so removed from reality I can't take you seriously. I hold your authoritarian apologism in utter contempt and disgust. Be better.
I think everyone should be concerned how the government is spending our money and every government administration should have its spending audited and any graft, fraud and waste eliminated with a waste-0 initiative. This should be transparent to the voters. We should know how they are spending our money and where. The purpose of the government agencies isn't to be a jobs program.
> This should be transparent to the voters. We should know how they are spending our money and where.
The fact that you think this is what's happening right now is fucking hilarious. It's also hilarious that you don't seem to know just how much public information IS available from these institutions.
Some random, ketamine addicted, un-elected oligarch with a cadre of teenage lackeys being let loose with unlimited authority over giant institutions in a process with zero accountability or transparency is your fucking idea of an audit? Like the rest of your arguments here, that's either phenomenally stupid or a mediocre astroturfing job.
So you think voters were aware of how USAID moneys were being spent?
Causing instability overseas, paying Reuters, Catholic charities, BBC, NYT, Politico, etc., for disinformation, people smuggling, etc. It's ridiculous. I'm glad it's happening. The corruption is being exposed. It could be Stalin's great-grandkid doing this and I would welcome the exposure of our waste.
Of course Soros junior so mad his manoeuvering isn't as effective no more.
> So you think voters were aware of how USAID moneys were being spent?
What the fuck? We're talking about the availability of information, not what random idiots have bothered to make themselves aware of.
> Causing instability overseas, paying Reuters, Catholic charities, BBC, NYT, Politico, etc., for disinformation, people smuggling, etc. It's ridiculous. I'm glad it's happening. The corruption is being exposed. It could be Stalin's great-grandkid doing this and I would welcome the exposure of our waste.
Nothing is being exposed. There are legal ways to pursue "audits" and "efficiency", but nobody can seriously believe that's what's happening now. USAID could be evil incarnate, and the current power grab would still be illegal and a threat to the very existence of our country (and we're not ONLY talking about USAID, they just started there).
Just admit it - you're an authoritarian at heart and you're happy daddy is going to decide everything now. Real life is too complex to bother trying to understand.
> Trump and Musk are actively destroying the separation of powers of the branches of government.
I'm afraid that's just factually wrong. What Trump and Musk are doing is called impoundment of appropriated funds[1] and it is Constitutional and consistent with the separation of powers, and was in fact considered one of the powers of the President until 1974.
In 1974, Congress passed the Impoundment Control Act, making it illegal (but not unconstitutional), and that will no doubt be fought in the Courts, but it seems likely the the current Supreme Court will overturn the act, making what Trump and Musk are doing legal.
Click through to the Train decision. It has been firmly held that per the Article 1 separation of powers, Congress determines how money is spent. Impoundment is used (and it certainly is used routinely) only when the executive determines that a disbursement will not serve it's intended purpose. Quote from Train, "the president cannot frustrate the will of Congress by killing a program through impoundment". I have no doubt Trump is attempting to trigger a new case in an effort to overturn Train and he may well succeed, but he'll likely end up overturning Article 1 in the process.
This goes right back to his first impeachment where we got a clear lesson on this. Congress authorized money for the defense of Ukraine. It went through multiple mandatory controls with DoD and other agencies to ensure the specific disbursement was likely to reach it's intended target. Those controls could have triggered impoundment if they found any flaws, but they did not. Then it was stopped by the president expressly to extort a political favor from Ukraine. In this case, the House voted to impeach and the Senate refused to convict likely due to political loyalty. Now that he knows Congress likely won't stop him, he can abuse his authority as he pleases.
> I have no doubt Trump is attempting to trigger a new case in an effort to overturn Train and he may well succeed, but he'll likely end up overturning Article 1 in the process.
The Train decision came nearly 200 years after Article 1 was written, and during that time impoundment was practiced by Presidents beginning with Thomas Jefferson. Overturning Train would in fact restore the original meaning of Article 1.
There is no way in hell the founders thought a president could unilaterally disassemble an entire agency that was explicitly empowered by Congress. Thomas Jefferson didn't want to buy ships. He didn't try to disband the Navy. And it's possible the SC would have stopped him if Congress had the will. There is not a long history of impoundment being a major tool of executive authority. When Nixon tried to shut down multiple programs within an agency, he was shot down in court and Congress passed a law delineating exactly what he could and could not do. There is no reason to think that law runs afoul of the Constitution. Article 1 does not grant any right to impoundment. The actions of past presidents aren't precedent or else (in the case of Jefferson) we'd still have slavery.
If you disagree, please type the words: "The President can unilaterally disband a federal agency empowered by Congress whenever he wants for whatever reason he wants and no one can stop him". Because that is what you are implying.
I think it's clear that the founders never considered the possibility of a president disbanding a modern federal agency because they didn't think such large agencies would exist. They tried to reserve most power for the states. And if they had known the modern federal government could become so big, they would support shutting it down. The president is meant to act as a check on Congressional spending too.
They also couldn't envision women voting. The president has veto power over the budget. That is their check on spending. They absolutely positively do not have any authority to cancel a Congressional appropriation and they never have.
You know what else the founders definitely did not envision? A standing federal army. Trump is honor bound to the soul of George Washington to disband the DoD and reclaim $800B. Surely that is 100% his prerogative and nobody has any right to stop him.
They need periodic retrenchment -in the private sector there are economic pressures to re-organize; in the government the tendency is for greater taxation.
Throwing out the baby along with the bath water is not the answer but neither is the status quo.