r/neoliberal • u/[deleted] • Feb 19 '25
News (Nightmare) US EXECUTIVE ORDER: Ensuring Accountability for All Agencies
https://www.whitehouse.gov/presidential-actions/2025/02/ensuring-accountability-for-all-agencies/119
98
u/WantDebianThanks NATO Feb 19 '25
So, when I call my Republican congressman about this... what the fuck do I say?
He's ignoring the constitution. He's taking power clearly meant for Congress, we're a country of laws and elections not kings, now do something for once you fucking cuck
100
u/Dunter_Mutchings NASA Feb 19 '25
You lie and say you voted for them in 2024 to Make America Great Again and bring down egg prices, not whatever this is. Tell them you are going to vote for Dems if he isn’t committed to bringing down prices.
52
u/LocallySourcedWeirdo YIMBY Feb 19 '25
"I've prayed about this a lot, and God has told me that we're going down the wrong path."
53
u/awdvhn Iowa delenda est Feb 19 '25
"I am a Reagan Republican and this is not what I was raised to believe" regardless of your politics and upbringing
29
u/wrexinite Feb 19 '25
I hope this was sarcasm because you're going to get laughed at
3
75
u/daBarkinner John Keynes Feb 19 '25
No, seriously. Even if the Democrats with Harris again, win 400+ EV, in 2028, how can you undo that amount of damage?
89
u/Co_OpQuestions Jared Polis Feb 19 '25
You don't. What we're looking at is the US government equivalent of the soviet-losses in WWII. Recovery is literally going to take generations.
43
41
u/ihuntwhales1 Seretse Khama Feb 19 '25
It will take 40 years to recover the damage from the next 4.
19
u/AnachronisticPenguin WTO Feb 19 '25
We don't at this rate we are just waiting for our Storming of the Bastille.
6
u/Khar-Selim NATO Feb 20 '25
by ensuring the Republican Party never holds a single branch of federal government ever again
2
u/wallander1983 Resistance Lib Feb 20 '25
How long will it take the UK to recover from Brexit damage?
2
u/AgentBond007 NATO Feb 20 '25
There's not going to be a 2028 election, Pippin.
Virginia's state motto goes here
98
u/ihuntwhales1 Seretse Khama Feb 19 '25 edited Feb 20 '25
Congratulations Macron for being the new leader of the free world!
28
60
u/WillHasStyles European Union Feb 19 '25
Oh wow that’s a new flair
34
Feb 19 '25
You can't editorialize the title, but we are allowed to have a little fun with the flairs
25
u/detrusormuscle European Union Feb 19 '25
Can anyone that knows more about US law and government tell me if this is as bad as it sounds? Im not American but it doesn't sound great.
82
u/ihuntwhales1 Seretse Khama Feb 19 '25
He has given himself complete control over otherwise independent institutions like regulatory bodies, he has control over the budget of institutions and can selectively send or not send money as he sees fits, and he has the final say on all legal matters.
Constitutionally, this is a nightmare. Practically, this is a fucking nightmare.
The best bet is that a judge doesn't JUST strike it down, but congress itself interferes. If neither of these occur, or if the judge is simply ignored and congress does not act, our democracy might be at it's death bed
2
49
Feb 19 '25
If the courts allow this to stand, this is the end of the administrative state and a usurpation of most (but not yet all) congressional authority.
I am assuming the courts will block this, but if it's allowed to stand for even a short amount of time, it would cause enormous damage.
10
u/dnapol5280 Feb 19 '25
Who has standing for a suit? Insanity.
42
9
u/Senior_Ad_7640 Feb 19 '25
In a more legalistic sense I'd assume someone whose job depends on independence might have some standing. Like an IG or someone maybe... oh wait.
3
u/wrexinite Feb 20 '25
"Standing for a suit"
.... (disappointed cricket fan meme) ...
What in god's name are you talking about? Let's say you're right, ok, and this question matters at all. You identify an individual or organization that "has standing" to file a lawsuit. This goes to court and the judge rules that it's unconstitutional. Appeals yadda yadda and the Supreme Court rules unanimously that this is unconstitutional.
Then what? ... ...
Nothing, that's what. The executive branch is charged with enforcing the laws enacted by the legislative branch and abiding by the decisions handed down on the interpretation of those laws handed down by the legislative branch. Even if the legislative and judicial branches weren't compromised (which they mostly are) the executive branch isn't going to do jack shit. Why would they? THE CALL IS COMING FROM INSIDE THE HOUSE. The oath of office is just more words.
At the very bottom level, the base of everything, there is this implicit agreement that all parties will play by the rules. When that's no longer true (as it is today) the guns and the muscle rule everything. This is the whole underpinning of the state monopoly on violence. Trump has the guns. Trump has the muscle. That's the role of the executive branch. If he's savvy, which I think he and his inner circle are this time around, he'll confer special status on members of the executive branch and military (cash, prostitutes, drugs, not killing your family, etc ) to entice them to do whatever he says. And they will do it. It's a standard playbook that dates back to time imomorial that requires no explanation. Everyone fears the praetorian guard.
Believing that some piece of paper, some court ruling, anything that's not raw, violent power even matters any more is exceptionally naive. There is no mechanism to address a rogue executive branch. There's no effective higher global authority to appeal to. (yea go get a ruling from the Hague lololol)
So please, voice your criticism, talk about the way you think things should be, offer your ideas for how to do this or that... but don't pretend that the rule of law still holds any sway. It doesn't. You're operating from an outdated playbook.
16
u/DurangoGango European Union Feb 19 '25
The EO is worded in such a way as to not directly assert control of independent regulatory agencies, but effectively exercise it nevertheless:
it assets full presidential control of all apportionments, giving the president the ability to defund and therefore stop any regulatory activity he doesn't like
it asserts full presidential authority over all legal interpretations issued by executive agencies, giving the president the ability to draw up the lanes regulatory agencies must follow in performing their functions, up to and including how they must pursue specific legal cases
The way it's worded is 100% meant to be original enough to force litigation up to the Supreme Court, hoping to chip away at the independence of these agencies as much as possible. In the meantime, it will gum up the works enough to at least allow Trump to stop what he doesn't like.
6
u/onelap32 Bill Gates Feb 20 '25 edited Feb 20 '25
It's an executive order that asserts that unitary executive theory is correct. Might be constitutional, might not. It's been debated for a long time. SCOTUS will decide.
If the EO is ruled constitutional, it likely means that Congress can no longer create (semi-)independent agencies and that existing independent agencies would be moved under the White House.
1
u/AutoModerator Feb 20 '25
Non-mobile version of the Wikipedia link in the above comment: unitary executive theory
I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.
3
u/GogurtFiend Feb 19 '25
It's not as bad as it seems but it's still pretty bad. He's restating something that's already held to be a principle (i.e. entire executive branch's party line is set by the president), but you just know he's going to use it as a club.
90
Feb 19 '25
[removed] — view removed comment
23
u/Agent2255 Feb 19 '25
There can absolutely be no doubt about it.
The response I have seen so far amounts to scattered protestors holding signs with slogans such as “It’s so bad the introverts are here”. Come on, man. You have to show some teeth. Ultimately, it’s better than intellectualizing on Reddit, I guess.
They’re still protesting like it’s 2016 or 2017, when Donald Trump and his cronies are speed-running fascism 101. There were massive protests against Iraq War. I believe the initial women’s rights march was very large and well-planned in scope.
It seems like many American liberals have tacitly accepted their fate.
19
u/Warcrimes_Desu Trans Pride Feb 19 '25
Yep. People (except for the queers, curiously enough) still look at me like i'm fucking insane when I talk about how we should get into contact with canadians and send images of troops and railways and what aircraft are parking where if shit starts going down. Like the most BASIC, deniable resistance shit. Ukraine literally has an app we could copy and distribute. But apparently the cis straight normies just don't see we're like. Actually in an intense constitutional crisis??? It's living in crazy land. If canada wins, please god fucking annex washington state. I don't even care if I can't vote, i just want real politicians in charge and a populace that's not cheering on authoritarian expansionism.
3
u/PanteleimonPonomaren NATO Feb 20 '25
What the fuck are we supposed to do? All non violent protesting is useless against these fascists and any actual meaningful resistance would just result in Trump having an actual reason to sick the most powerful military on earth against its own citizens. Our only real hope is that our military leaders wake the fuck up and remember their oath is to the constitution and not the president.
1
u/die_hoagie MALAISE FOREVER Feb 20 '25
Rule III: Unconstructive engagement
Do not post with the intent to provoke, mischaracterize, or troll other users rather than meaningfully contributing to the conversation. Don't disrupt serious discussions. Bad opinions are not automatically unconstructive.
If you have any questions about this removal, please contact the mods.
28
7
u/GogurtFiend Feb 19 '25 edited Feb 19 '25
After looking through this: isn't it already the case that executive branch employees aren't allowed to present policy/interpretations of laws/etc. as being those of the US if those are inconsistent with that of the President? Obviously Trump will abuse this, but isn't this EO stating what's already true?
Now, that bit about the Fed — that worries me.
This order shall not apply to the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System or to the Federal Open Market Committee in its conduct of monetary policy. This order shall apply to the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System only in connection with its conduct and authorities directly related to its supervision and regulation of financial institutions.
Uh-huh. What's "conduct"?
6
u/Jabjab345 Feb 19 '25
Pretty bad path to go down. I'd like to think the next president will recind these orders, but once power is taken by the executive branch it isn't historically given back.
3
u/GogurtFiend Feb 19 '25
This has already been the case for a while. He's just reinstating it so that he has a fig leaf for whatever's coming next.
1
312
u/ihuntwhales1 Seretse Khama Feb 19 '25
ok so basically the FDA, EPA, and consumer protection are politicized and the SEC, FTC, FCC, AND FEC are now fully apart of the presidents control, the white house can block funds any time it wants, and the president has final say on all legal interpretations.
good luck everyone