[JW_00000]

> The thing about democracy is, every person is going to sometimes wildly disagree with what the elected officials do. Declaring it a 'coup' is as silly as [...]

The reason people are calling this a coup is not (only) because they disagree with what Trump/Musk are doing, but because their actions are illegal. A president is still expected to follow the rule of law and respect separation of powers. If there are no more checks and balances, then it's a coup. If Congress decided to allocate budget to something, the president should not ignore this. The legislature is losing its power.

[zpeti]

Who says they are illegal? Can you cite some sources please? Like actual legal experts, not the guardian.

As far as I know, the chevron deference ruling makes it easily arguable that these agencies don't necessarily have any legal standing anyway.

The 8 month buyout was completely legal, Clinton did the same.

I actually find it highly unlikely any of this is illegal, it's just completely unbearable to anyone who is part of the bureaucracy. But prove me wrong. Show me the legal opinions.

[basementcat]

> The 8 month buyout was completely legal, Clinton did the same.

The 1995 buyout offer was passed by Congress and signed by Clinton.

https://clintonwhitehouse6.archives.gov/1995/04/1995-04-04-p...

https://uscode.house.gov/statutes/pl/103/226.pdf

[paulproteus]

https://www.justsecurity.org/107087/tracker-legal-challenges...

Seven restraining orders. Seems like lots is not legal.

[jcranmer]

Here is a good explainer from a legal expert as to why some of the stuff is flagrantly illegal: https://www.stevevladeck.com/p/121-spending-coercion-and-com...

[idiotsecant]

Boy howdy there's a lot to pull apart here but ;et's start with your core statement regarding chevron deference. The recent (and wildly stupid, I think but besides the point) Chevron deference ruling says, in summary, that federal agencies have very little latitude in deciding their internal policies where not explicitly defined by congress.

The current administration replaced the head of an agency and had that agency shut itself down. Shutting yourself down is clearly not a power given to any federal agency, so by the very policy you're citing either the judicial or executive branch must act to allow such a move.

Instead, our cheeto in chief decided that those other branches don't actually need to do any of that pesky work and it's a lot easier if everyone just does what he wants.

There's a word for that style of governance.

[margalabargala]

> so by the very policy you're citing either the judicial or executive branch must act to allow such a move.

I think you meant legislative, not executive?

[idiotsecant]

Yes, thank you. I mistyped. Will fix.

[tmountain]

Overturning the 14th amendment of the constitution by executive order is illegal.

Shutting down an agency like USAID require congressional approval, but was done by executive order.

Withholding congressionally approved funding for government agencies is illegal.

Sharing sensitive documents from the fiscal service with (Doge) team members who do not have the appropriate security clearances is illegal.

Giving Elon Musk an unofficial seat and allowing him unfettered access to the entire federal government without any congressional confirmation is illegal and basically amounts to setting up a shadow government.

The list goes on...

[greentxt]

Maybe someone could try to prosecute Trump?

[tmountain]

I guess this is sarcasm.

[macinjosh]

Congress mandates that weed is illegal, funds the DEA to go after it, yet no one complains when Obama, Trump, and Biden decided not to enforce that law. Executives clearly have discretion.

[XajniN]

Cognitive dissonance is running wild in this place. Even when numbers and evidence are eventually published, they will still say it’s bad.