[jballer]

To recap: OP resigned because he feared what might happen in a meeting with USDS. It might have required him to kill someone, or explain his work to a contractor. Somehow these are presented as equally-odious propositions.

He openly refuses to acknowledge the legitimacy of USDS, referring to it as "a so-called 'department'", and neglects even a cursory investigation into whether it may in fact be a legitimate executive agency established by Obama, staffed by government employees with requisite clearances and authority.

It's wild to me that so many smart people think the White House should be boxed out of the day-to-day operations of GSA and OMB, whether by law or tradition, despite being undeniably responsible for their actions.

[roguecoder]

Being required to meet with private citizens, who won't even admit their own names, and being expected to subject oneself to them in violation of actual laws, is not a "what might happen". It is already potentially a crime. It is certainly a coup against the lawful governance of our nation.

Not wanting to collaborate with a coup is an entirely reasonable line to draw.

[insane_dreamer]

DOGE took over USDS and changed its name, so it didn't have to create a new agency.

Given the way they're operating, I would also question their legitimacy if I was working for the government and they came to my office.

But I wouldn't resign. Better to let them fire you and then you have standing for a lawsuit (whether you win or not, that's another story; probably not, but at least you can sue).

[jballer]

Right. I think the real risk here is that even a “positive” outcome at 18F would have still been negative in every other context that matters to him. Why stick around and risk a neutral-to-positive experience that could result in labels like “scab,” “collaborator,” and “traitor” by no other fault of your own?

[insane_dreamer]

I meant I wouldn’t resign under the assumption that I’d be fired right away instead. But yes if not fired then certainly leave

[rat87]

Yes people don't want Trump corrupting the government.

Corruption is bad. Power is easy to abuse.

Checks are hard when a president doesn't care about the law or the constituon kr the damage he does to the country.

There's a reason several departments are supposed to be at arms length from the president.

Many of these reforms happened after Nixon. Now assuming the country survives it's clear we need something more. Possibly some administrative agencies need to be placed under the judicial branch to avoid executive corruption. Also impeachment needs to be much easier, arguably we need something like a vote of no confidence where a malcious president can be replaced by the VP. Although even that might not work like a lot of problems relating to the trump disaster era its hard to overcome reflexive partisanship

[jballer]

I went to a USDS recruiting event in the Bay Area a decade ago. The whole pitch was that they were Obama’s elite squad of private-sector tech workers, on brief tours of duty, taking orders directly from the White House about what to work on.

[omnivore]

In reality, they were embedded with federal agencies and worked on engagements for them. You gotta read what people actually do in practice, versus just the pitch.

[chatmasta]

You’ve literally described DOGE. It uses this exact structure.

[rat87]

They were not Obamas army or his personal servants. Sure some might have been excited to work with President Obama but unlike Trump its not like they were being abused to "go after" perceived political enemies and its not like they would have objected to say Trump telling them to make tech to improve rural access to government resources. They were working to try to improve the government for the good of nation

Unlike with "DODGe"which is an attempt to destroy many governmental institutions either to find places to hire loyalists or to remove opposition to corrupt and criminal actions taken by the executive branch or just because someone on one team once said something positive about gay people.