Law be damned, Trump asserts unilateral control over executive branch, federal service (7 Viewers)

[superchuck500]

Following the Project 2025 playbook, in the last week, Trump and his newly installed loyalists have moved to (1) dismiss federal officials deemed unreliable to do his bidding (including 17 inspectors general) - many of which have protections from arbitrary dismissal, (2) freeze all science and public health activity until he can wrest full control, (3) freeze all federal assistance and grant activity deemed inconsistent with Trump's agenda, and (4) moved to terminate all federal employee telework and DEI programs.

The problem is much of this is controlled by federal law and not subject to sudden and complete change by the president through executive order. Most notably is the Impoundment Control Act of 1974 that simply codifies what is the constitutional allocation of resources where Congress appropriates money to the executive branch for a specific purpose, the executive branch must carry out that statutory purpose. This is indeed a constitutional crisis and even if Congress abdicates to Trump by acquiescing, the courts must still apply the law - or rule it unconstitutional.

And meanwhile the architect of much of this unlawful action is Russell Vought, Trump’s OMB nominee who the Senate appears ready to confirm.

120. The Impoundment Crisis of 2025

The Trump administration's Monday spending freeze is likely to provoke a crisis over the constitutionality of "impoundment"—one that the justices could well have to resolve *very* soon.

www.stevevladeck.com

 

[DaveXA]

what will it matter?

In the end, I have no idea. It will all hang on the rulings.

 

[J-DONK]

This post is so wierd coming from someone who spends 16 hours a day on social media.

 

[MT15]

I would submit it’s not weird at all coming from a narcissistic sociopath. He feels he is special - so special that he cannot be judged the same as ordinary people.

 

[superchuck500]

I'm currently on the road but thought I'd drop this here. This went out to all federal civilian employees including me. Crazy.

----

During the first week of his administration, President Trump issued a number of directives concerning the federal workforce. Among those directives, the President required that employees return to in-person work, restored accountability for employees who have policy-making authority, restored accountability for senior career executives, and reformed the federal hiring process to focus on merit. As a result of the above orders, the reform of the federal workforce will be significant.

The reformed federal workforce will be built around four pillars:
1) Return to Office: The substantial majority of federal employees who have been working remotely since Covid will be required to return to their physical offices five days a week. Going forward, we also expect our physical offices to undergo meaningful consolidation and divestitures, potentially resulting in physical office relocations for a number of federal workers.
2) Performance culture: The federal workforce should be comprised of the best America has to offer. We will insist on excellence at every level — our performance standards will be updated to reward and promote those that exceed expectations and address in a fair and open way those who do not meet the high standards which the taxpayers of this country have a right to demand.
3) More streamlined and flexible workforce: While a few agencies and even branches of the military are likely to see increases in the size of their workforce, the majority of federal agencies are likely to be downsized through restructurings, realignments, and reductions in force. These actions are likely to include the use of furloughs and the reclassification to at-will status for a substantial number of federal employees.
4) Enhanced standards of conduct: The federal workforce should be comprised of employees who are reliable, loyal, trustworthy, and who strive for excellence in their daily work. Employees will be subject to enhanced standards of suitability and conduct as we move forward. Employees who engage in unlawful behavior or other misconduct will be prioritized for appropriate investigation and discipline, including termination.

Each of the pillars outlined above will be pursued in accordance with applicable law, consistent with your agency's policies, and to the extent permitted under relevant collective-bargaining agreements.

If you choose to remain in your current position, we thank you for your renewed focus on serving the American people to the best of your abilities and look forward to working together as part of an improved federal workforce. At this time, we cannot give you full assurance regarding the certainty of your position or agency but should your position be eliminated you will be treated with dignity and will be afforded the protections in place for such positions.

If you choose not to continue in your current role in the federal workforce, we thank you for your service to your country and you will be provided with a dignified, fair departure from the federal government utilizing a deferred resignation program. This program begins effective January 28 and is available to all federal employees until February 6. If you resign under this program, you will retain all pay and benefits regardless of your daily workload and will be exempted from all applicable in-person work requirements until September 30, 2025 (or earlier if you choose to accelerate your resignation for any reason). The details of this separation plan can be found below.

Whichever path you choose, we thank you for your service to The United States of America.
*********************************************************************

Upon review of the below deferred resignation letter, if you wish to resign:
1) Select “Reply” to this email. You must reply from your government account. A reply from an account other than your government account will not be accepted.
2) Type the word “Resign” into the body of this reply email. Hit “Send”.


THE LAST DAY TO ACCEPT THE DEFERRED RESIGNATION PROGRAM IS FEBRUARY 6, 2025.

Deferred resignation is available to all full-time federal employees except for military personnel of the armed forces, employees of the U.S. Postal Service, those in positions related to immigration enforcement and national security, and those in any other positions specifically excluded by your employing agency.
DEFERRED RESIGNATION LETTER
January 28, 2025
Please accept this letter as my formal resignation from employment with my employing agency, effective September 30, 2025. I understand that I have the right to accelerate, but not extend, my resignation date if I wish to take advantage of the deferred resignation program. I also understand that if I am (or become) eligible for early or normal retirement before my resignation date, that I retain the right to elect early or normal retirement (once eligible) at any point prior to my resignation date.
Given my impending resignation, I understand I will be exempt from any “Return to Office” requirements pursuant to recent directives and that I will maintain my current compensation and retain all existing benefits (including but not limited to retirement accruals) until my final resignation date.
I am certain of my decision to resign and my choice to resign is fully voluntary. I understand my employing agency will likely make adjustments in response to my resignation including moving, eliminating, consolidating, reassigning my position and tasks, reducing my official duties, and/or placing me on paid administrative leave until my resignation date.
I am committed to ensuring a smooth transition during my remaining time at my employing agency. Accordingly, I will assist my employing agency with completing reasonable and customary tasks and processes to facilitate my departure.
I understand that my acceptance of this offer will be sent to the Office of Personnel Management (“OPM”) which will then share it with my agency employer. I hereby consent to OPM receiving, reviewing, and forwarding my acceptance.
*********************************************************************
Upon submission of your resignation, you will receive a confirmation email acknowledging receipt of your email. Any replies to this email shall be for the exclusive use of accepting the deferred resignation letter. Any other replies to this email will not be reviewed, forwarded, or retained other than as required by applicable federal records laws.
Once your resignation is validly sent and received, the human resources department of your employing agency will contact you to complete additional documentation, if any.
OPM is authorized to send this email under Executive Order 9830 and 5 U.S.C. §§ 301, 1103, 1104, 2951, 3301, 6504, 8347, and 8461. OPM intends to use your response to assist in federal workforce reorganization efforts in conjunction with employing agencies. See 88 Fed. Reg. 56058; 80 Fed. Reg. 72455 (listing routine uses). Response to this email is voluntary. Although you must respond to take advantage of the deferred resignation offer, there is no penalty for nonresponse.

Beware the "Deferred Resignation" Offer: A Legally Dubious Proposal for Federal Employees

The deferred resignation proposal sent to federal workers is fraught with practical and legal issues that present uncertainty for employees.

www.justsecurity.org

 

[coldseat]

This post is so wierd coming from someone who spends 16 hours a day on social media.

I have news for Elon, workers at Tesla. Space X and every other company he owns do the same thing in different forums.

 

[superchuck500]

The Trump White House Wants A Court Challenge Over Frozen Funds

An internal OMB document shows that it is official administration policy to block funding to provoke a constitutional challenge.

www.huffpost.com

 

[wardorican]

This post is so wierd coming from someone who spends 16 hours a day on social media.

So what they're saying is that most reddit activity on fednews happens during daylight hours? Consider me shocked.

 

[Sendai]

What the other 4 from this article said, Yoo is the only one with that take and beyond the others everything else I've seen on this clearly states the 30 day window with expressed cause
=========================================================

Tristan Snell, a lawyer who helped lead the prosecution of Trump regarding Trump University, wrote on X, formerly Twitter, Saturday morning: "Trump fires 17 inspectors general - all the internal govt enforcement officials for every major government agency and department This was ILLEGAL - firing an IG requires 30 day notice to Congress. CONGRESS MUST ACT TO REINSTATE THEM, NOW."

Barbara McQuade, MSNBC legal analyst and former U.S. attorney for the Eastern District of Michigan under the Barack Obama administration, wrote in a Saturday morning X post: "Trump has fired 12 inspectors general without providing the 30-day notice to Congress required by law. He really is pushing the legal limits of his power and daring Congress to stop him."

Democratic Senator Elizabeth Warren, a former Harvard Law professor, wrote in an X post: "It's a purge of independent watchdogs in the middle of the night. Inspectors general are charged with rooting out government waste, fraud, abuse, and preventing misconduct. President Trump is dismantling checks on his power and paving the way for widespread corruption."

Sidney Powell, Trump's former lawyer, wrote early Saturday on X: "Existing IGs are virtually worthless. They may bring a few minor things to light but accomplish next to nothing. The whole system needs to be revamped. They are toothless and protect the institution instead of the citizens."

Seila Law​

In Seila Law LLC v. Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB), the Supreme Court concluded that Congress could not provide for-cause removal protections for the head of the CFPB, an independent financial regulatory agency led by a single Director.27 The Court described the President's removal power as “unrestricted,” 28 rejecting the view that Humphrey's Executor and Morrison “establish a general rule that Congress may impose 'modest' restrictions on the President's removal power.” 29 Instead, “the President's removal power is the rule, not the exception.” 30 The Court said that after Free Enterprise Fund, only “two exceptions” to the rule requiring removability remained.31 First, under Humphrey's Executor, Congress may sometimes "create expert agencies led by a group of principal officers removable by the President only for good cause" if the agency does not exercise executive power.32 In interpreting this 1935 case, the Seila Law Court essentially limited the decision to its facts, saying that this exception permitted for-cause removal protections for "a multimember body of experts, balanced along partisan lines, that performed legislative and judicial functions and was said not to exercise any executive power."33 The Court said that the second exception to the President's removal power allowed at least some removal protections for inferior officers, as in Morrison, if those officers have “limited duties and no policymaking or administrative authority.” 34

The Court concluded in Seila Law that the CFPB Director did not fall within either of these two exceptions.35 The single Director was not a multimember expert body, and, in the view of the Court, could not be considered “a mere legislative or judicial aid.” 36 Rather than performing merely reporting and advisory functions, the CFPB Director exercised executive power, possessing the authority “to promulgate binding rules fleshing out 19 federal statutes, . . . . [to] issue final decisions awarding legal and equitable relief in administrative adjudications,” and to seek “daunting monetary penalties” in enforcement actions in federal court.37 Neither could the CFPB Director be considered an inferior officer with limited duties.38 And the Court ruled that it would not recognize a new exception to the President's removal authority for “an independent agency led by a single Director and vested with significant executive power.” 39 The Court described the CFPB's structure as “unprecedented” 40 and “incompatible with our constitutional structure,” 41 saying that the agency's structure violated the Constitution “by vesting significant governmental power in the hands of a single individual accountable to no one.” 42 Consequently, the Court concluded that the provision insulating the Director from removal was unconstitutional, severing the for-cause removal provision from the governing statute.43

Professor Yoo is more likely to be on point.

Essentially the presidents removal powers are unrestricted. Congress has “show cause” authority with appointees “that performed legislative and judicial function”.

Removing Officers: Current Doctrine

www.law.cornell.edu

 

[wardorican]

Seila Law​

In Seila Law LLC v. Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB), the Supreme Court concluded that Congress could not provide for-cause removal protections for the head of the CFPB, an independent financial regulatory agency led by a single Director.27 The Court described the President's removal power as “unrestricted,” 28 rejecting the view that Humphrey's Executor and Morrison “establish a general rule that Congress may impose 'modest' restrictions on the President's removal power.” 29 Instead, “the President's removal power is the rule, not the exception.” 30 The Court said that after Free Enterprise Fund, only “two exceptions” to the rule requiring removability remained.31 First, under Humphrey's Executor, Congress may sometimes "create expert agencies led by a group of principal officers removable by the President only for good cause" if the agency does not exercise executive power.32 In interpreting this 1935 case, the Seila Law Court essentially limited the decision to its facts, saying that this exception permitted for-cause removal protections for "a multimember body of experts, balanced along partisan lines, that performed legislative and judicial functions and was said not to exercise any executive power."33 The Court said that the second exception to the President's removal power allowed at least some removal protections for inferior officers, as in Morrison, if those officers have “limited duties and no policymaking or administrative authority.” 34

The Court concluded in Seila Law that the CFPB Director did not fall within either of these two exceptions.35 The single Director was not a multimember expert body, and, in the view of the Court, could not be considered “a mere legislative or judicial aid.” 36 Rather than performing merely reporting and advisory functions, the CFPB Director exercised executive power, possessing the authority “to promulgate binding rules fleshing out 19 federal statutes, . . . . [to] issue final decisions awarding legal and equitable relief in administrative adjudications,” and to seek “daunting monetary penalties” in enforcement actions in federal court.37 Neither could the CFPB Director be considered an inferior officer with limited duties.38 And the Court ruled that it would not recognize a new exception to the President's removal authority for “an independent agency led by a single Director and vested with significant executive power.” 39 The Court described the CFPB's structure as “unprecedented” 40 and “incompatible with our constitutional structure,” 41 saying that the agency's structure violated the Constitution “by vesting significant governmental power in the hands of a single individual accountable to no one.” 42 Consequently, the Court concluded that the provision insulating the Director from removal was unconstitutional, severing the for-cause removal provision from the governing statute.43

Professor Yoo is more likely to be on point.

Essentially the presidents removal powers are unrestricted. Congress has “show cause” authority with appointees “that performed legislative and judicial function”.

Removing Officers: Current Doctrine

www.law.cornell.edu

That's not how I read that. It's not unrestricted. You're ignoring this part.

33 The Court said that the second exception to the President's removal power allowed at least some removal protections for inferior officers, as in Morrison, if those officers have “limited duties and no policymaking or administrative authority.”

IG's investigate and report to agency heads about fraud, waste, abuse, etc. They don't issue policy, nor to they have admin authority. They advise. (someone who works in the USG can correct me).

 

[DJ1BigTymer]

That's not how I read that. It's not unrestricted. You're ignoring this part.



IG's investigate and report to agency heads about fraud, waste, abuse, etc. They don't issue policy, nor to they have admin authority. They advise. (someone who works in the USG can correct me).

It's his "go-to move"! He routinely ignores laws and rulings that doesn't fit the narrative that he has been fed. In this case, they are ignoring the Inspector General Act of 1978, law that governs the office of The Inspector General.

Specifically, the 2022 amendment that specifies POTUS MUST provide Congress 30 day notification and provide substantive rationale, including detailed and case specific reason for dismissal. 5 USC 403b.

 

[MT15]

But, but there’s one guy saying what I want to hear! He has to be right! The four other people have to be wrong!

Sendai - what does “for cause” mean? What Trump just did is the opposite of that.

 

[Sendai]

That's not how I read that. It's not unrestricted. You're ignoring this part.



IG's investigate and report to agency heads about fraud, waste, abuse, etc. They don't issue policy, nor to they have admin authority. They advise. (someone who works in the USG can correct me).

This is what I said

“Essentially the presidents removal powers are unrestricted. Congress has “show cause” authority with appointees “that performed legislative and judicial function”.”

Note the exception I cited that Congress can restrict with “show cause” authority where the appointees “that performed legislative and judicial function”.

Other than that, the power of removal is unrestricted.

And IG’s are not legislative or judicial.

Now the recent firing of National Labor Relations Board appointees are likely to be reversed because they are responsible for judicial actions.

 

[Sendai]

But, but there’s one guy saying what I want to hear! He has to be right! The four other people have to be wrong!

Sendai - what does “for cause” mean? What Trump just did is the opposite of that.

“Show Cause”. Reason for removal. The court has long said that Congress can’t require a “show cause” for presidential removal of executive appointments with the exception of appointees involved in legislative or judicial responsibilities. I’ve seen court references using the terms “quasi legislative “ and “quasi judicial”.

 

[Sendai]

It's his "go-to move"! He routinely ignores laws and rulings that doesn't fit the narrative that he has been fed. In this case, they are ignoring the Inspector General Act of 1978, law that governs the office of The Inspector General.

Specifically, the 2022 amendment that specifies POTUS MUST provide Congress 30 day notification and provide substantive rationale, including detailed and case specific reason for dismissal. 5 USC 403b.

and Seila Law v CFDB says the executive can ignore that 30 day notification for IGs. The Humphrey case carves out an exception for appointees with legislative or judicial responsibilities. IGs aren’t legislative or judicial.

I’ll go with the Professor Yoo as the expert. Plus, Congress actually does understand the Supreme Court clear history on this issue, especially with the very recent Seila Law v CFDB ruling. Congress has no recourse.

I am, however, interested in the National Labor Relations Board’s recent firings. I think reversal on those is a slam dunk.

 

[UncleTrvlingJim]

and Seila Law v CFDB says the executive can ignore that 30 day notification for IGs. The Humphrey case carves out an exception for appointees with legislative or judicial responsibilities. IGs aren’t legislative or judicial.

I’ll go with the Professor Yoo as the expert. Plus, Congress actually does understand the Supreme Court clear history on this issue, especially with the very recent Seila Law v CFDB ruling. Congress has no recourse.

I am, however, interested in the National Labor Relations Board’s recent firings. I think reversal on those is a slam dunk.

We'll get to see what the courts rule, but I'm not so sure your interpretation will stand.

The whole purpose of the IG is to investigate the executive branch. It kind of defeats the purpose if the head of the executive branch can just get rid of them on a whim.