[smt88]

> Most of the federal budget the president cannot just cut.

He legally can't cut any of it. Not even $1. Congress controls spending.

Illegally (which is how he has always operated and is operating now), he can seemingly do whatever he wants.

[WillPostForFood]

The courts say it is legal, so as of today, it is legal. Unless a higher court reverses the decision, you can complain about it, but you should complain on truthful grounds.

Trump administration can continue mass firings of federal workers, judge rules

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2025/feb/20/ruling-firin...

[smt88]

1. Firing != reducing spending

2. Many of the employment and B2B contracts they're cancelling are breaching the contracts, so much of the firing is likely illegal

3. This judge didn't rule on the legality, meaning his ruling has no bearing on whether it's legal:

"However, Cooper on Thursday said, he likely lacks the power to hear the case, and the unions instead must file complaints with a federal labor board that hears disputes between unions and federal agencies."

[WillPostForFood]

1. Firing != reducing spending

?

[smt88]

Budgets are set by Congress. The money is allocated and is supposed to be spent regardless of payroll.

It's very likely most of these reduced payroll costs will just be spent on outside contractors who cost much more per hour of work.

[eadler]

The article states that the lawsuit was rejected merely on procedural grounds (specifically the doctrine of administrative exhaustion) . It does not come close to stating that the action was legal.

The actual court decison (which I have also read) is consistent with the article.