[kemayo]

President doesn't have authority to shut them down by EO either. Congress does, yes.

(It's one of those "power of the purse" things. If Congress has created an organization and funded it, the executive is required to spend that money on it.)

[paulvnickerson]

> President doesn't have authority to shut them down by EO either

I'm not sure they are being shut down. USAID is being restructured for instance and folded into the State Department.

[kemayo]

I imagine the legality of that depends on the exact details of the law that created the organization. If it specifies that it be an independent organization, then that's probably not allowed either. If it's just "these things must be done" then State could probably handle it.

(Either way, the exact approach they've taken so far with the total freeze and shutdown, then later saying they'll totally start doing the job again somewhere else later on, seems sketchy.)

[mrtesthah]

The state dept issued an evacuation order for all USAID staff overseas. How will they accomplish their mission? This includes medical care and distribution of HIV medication to up to 20 million people.

[Ancapistani]

Why are American taxpayers paying for medical care and HIV medication for 20 million people?

Correct me if I'm wrong, but aren't those people foreign nationals as well?

[kemayo]

You can certainly disagree with whether we should be doing it, but the fact remains that Congress made a law saying that we are doing it. The vehicle for changing that is to change the law, not for the President to decide to break the law.

On a separate note, assuming that "it's good to help people if you can" doesn't move you, the cynical reason for USAID's existence is marketing and soft power projection. For a tiny fraction of the US budget, we get to look good for how nice we're being to people, and get other countries to want us to come in and get our hands all over their infrastructure until it'd be painful for them to oppose us and lose that aid.

(Also, HIV specifically? That's something where lowering the levels of it in foreign countries will directly help the US, because it makes it less likely that US citizens will get exposed to it when people travel.)

[nickthegreek]

Because we elected representative who then funded these soft power initiatives. That’s how democracy works.

[rexpop]

Unrelated: The hakenkreuz (swastika) was used by German nationalists and "Aryan" supremacists as early as the late 1800s, and was quite popular, even used by the Wandervogel. The swastika officially became the emblem for the Nazi Party on August, 7, 1920, so your quilt is almost certainly an Aryan quilt, and possibly an official Nazi one.

[Ancapistani]

Heh - I can’t find the original comment here, but I remember it.

My grandparents have passed away, so I’ll need to track down exactly who has that quilt now. I know it came over to the US with their parents (my great-grandparents) when they immigrated, and that it was pre-Nazi-party for sure.

It may very well be associated with the false mythology that was adopted by the Nazis. I don’t think so, but it’s been a long time since it was new. No one who was there when it was made is still alive, nor is anyone who knew them well. I’ve not seen anything about that side of my family that would lead me to believe that they were ever sympathetic to that cause, but it’s entirely possible that it was hidden, not shared with the next generation, or otherwise just lost to time.

… but now I’m curious, and will have to figure it out :)

[impulser_]

Yeah, that why I said both. It depends on what they are doing. USAID probably needs congress, but other things might just need an EO. The point is DOGE isn't doing this, the President is. Elon doesn't have authority that Democratics are saying he does. He simply informs the President, "Hey, USAID is spending taxpayers money to fund xyz in xyz you might want to shut it down". The President then goes "Yeah, I think we should shut it down let's freeze it and we'll abolish it". Then they go down the path of abolishing it and with the USAID they will probably get congress to do it. Until then they can freeze it because he appoint Marco Rubio has the acting admin.

[exceptione]

> He simply informs the President,

That man is way too friendly. Just before the election he gave $300.000.000,00 to Trump. And he is so special, eh! He can read air-gaped, highly sensitive data that no one should see from government systems, just using his mind/indoctrinated minions. I hate it when people speculate this might have to do, amongst things, with dark money to be made in intelligence/elite level international crime.

[impulser_]

Neither him nor Trump ever hid what Elon was going to do if Trump was elected. Unlike other donators of both parties, we always knew what Elon's goal was. He literally spent the last year on Twitter tweeting about it.

Many people, especially libertarians, voted for Trump for this exact reason.

Yeah, you might think he shouldn't have access to these system but it's the President, who the majority of the people voted for, that has the authority to grant him access, or ask for access from the appoint leaders of these departments.

Everyday when he posts list of things the US government is spending money on the more people are backing Elon in this endeavor.

Go here https://x.com/DOGE and read some of the things we are paying for and you tell me that we should be spending money on it.

Yeah, you might think he up to something bad but you would have always thought that because you don't like him.

Are you sure he's not just an American who cares about the US and doesn't want it too head into a death spiral from massive amount of debt with no one brave enough to stop it because it might cause them to lose an election?

[braebo]

The amount of tax money that goes to the rich in tax cuts, loopholes, and subsidies makes cutting humanitarian aid, school lunches, and your grandmas Medicaid for “efficiency” purely evil nonsense.

We already have departments for improving and reforming spending. Elon and MAGA are inundating you with bad faith justifications for what is ultimately a goal to fund their next round of tax breaks before they expire this year using the working and middle classes as livestock.

[exceptione]

I think you are really young, so I am going to give you advice instead: do not open X, it fuels you adrenaline, but it is a trap for the gullible.

If you have honest policies, there is no need to ddos the democratic system, and it certainly does not require a bunch of insanely spoiled Accelerationist billionaires and the killing of science.

[rastignack]

Then, the president is acting illegally, and not doge ?

[lupusreal]

That would make the executive orders illegal, or at best invalid. It wouldn't make DOGE illegal. DOGE is private citizens giving their opinions about how the government should work to a politician who happens to be listening to them (for now, but probably not long given that politician's track record for getting into feuds with former allies.)

Citizens voicing their opinions about the government is clear cut First Ammendment activity, of precisely the sort the first ammendment was intended to protect in the first place. People need to get a grip.

[jacobr1]

> DOGE is private citizens giving their opinions about how the government should work to a politician who happens to be listening to them

No, DOGE was formalized as a division of the US Digital Service. Employees of DOGE are federal government employees. Some of them, like Elon are "Special Government Employees" which is a short-term category and avoids certain disclosures.

Creating DOGE and enabling them to have access to certain IT systems is legal ... but what data, how much control they have, what they can demand of other departments is subject to all sorts of laws and controls which may or may not be being followed at the moment.

[lupusreal]

Okay, so these citizens are federal employees. Guess what, the First Ammendment still gives them the right to tell politicians what they should be doing.

[nickthegreek]

No one said they didn’t have a 1st amendment right.

[svachalek]

Citizens voicing their opinion don't usually have unlimited access to government databases.

[code_runner]

This is easily the most willfully uninformed take on this topic I have seen yet