Law be damned, Trump asserts unilateral control over executive branch, federal service (10 Viewers)

Users who are viewing this thread

superchuck500

U.S. Blues
Joined
Mar 26, 2019
Messages
5,903
Reaction score
14,997
Location
Charleston, SC
Offline
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.





 
Last edited:
I keep saying it.... this is crazy.

An election shouldn't cause the entire federal work force to be in upheaval. Especially without any action from congress.

I guess congress will do nothing until they see what the pain is.

This feels like Trumps MO. Push as hard as he can on something or be disruptive. See what the reaction / outcry is. Stay with it or crawfish back...

The reality of the federal civil service is that they are executive branch - which means that they are subject to the president's unilateral control subject to controlling law. But even where there is applicable law, it doesn't always require a certain result. For example, there is federal law called the Telework Enhancement Act - it clearly expresses a congressional endorsement of more liberal telework for the federal civilian workforce for reasons that include the reduction of need for federal office space, the reduction of pollutants produced in commuting, and greater employee flexibility.

Trump has basically eliminated all telework except in certain approved circumstances - appearing quite contrary to the Telework Enhancement Act. The problem is that while the act expresses policy interests, it doesn't actually compel any specific posture with respect to how an administration treats telework . . . so without a mandate in the law, Trump is not bound to do anything based on it.

In other areas, though, there are mandates in the federal statutes.
 
First, they tell the workers they can no longer work from home and offer them a buyout if they refuse to come back to their offices. Then, for those workers that didn't take the bribe, they closed the workers' offices. :9:

edit: @cuddlemonkey beat me to it!

It’s Vought’s plan - intentionally traumatizing the federal workforce.

It’s just so short-sided and stupid.

For example - there’s already a massive maintenance backlog at federal parks, museums, recreational areas, refuges, etc.

Let’s say you intentionally reduce that workforce by 10 or 15 percent - what’s going to happen? The federal government waived sovereign immunity for premises liability - and you have now increased the liability exposure substantially. Oh and you’ve also pushed out the veteran career defense lawyers.

It’s not going to be a net savings - it’s going to cost. And meanwhile all these federal lands have gone to shirt like a third world country.

That’s just one limited example. Think about the science freeze - did China stop? Did the EU stop? It’s an own-goal of idiotic proportions.
 
Last edited:
It’s Vought’s plan - intentionally traumatizing the federal workforce.

It’s just so short-sided and stupid.
As I said in the other thread, trump is just the Heritage Foundation's useful idiot. Hell, he's any aspiring right-wing authoritarian's useful idiot!
 
Well sheet...my team's office is being leased from another federal agency. This is gonna be fun.

That might be okay - if the building you’re in is federally owned (even if your program “leases” it from another agency). The way I read the article is to GSA to cancel leases, as in commercial space leased from the third party owner.
 
Do commercial leases have penalties for “cancelling” before the contract is up?
 
Do commercial leases have penalties for “cancelling” before the contract is up?

You think the King of paid bills is going to give a damn?
He doing exactly as he did as developer/real estate. To the tee. Break contracts, wait for suit (if ever comes ) defend vigorously, threaten plaintiff and win 1 out of 5. Settle others for less than original. Or wait for plaintiff to go bankrupt.

And some federal leases I've seen in past are long term (over 3 years , one was 10 years ).

Not to mention the absolute mess of economic shocks. Some of these federal building have multiple small businesses that are solely there to provide goods and services to the federal work force.

What a mess.
 

Create an account or login to comment

You must be a member in order to leave a comment

Create account

Create an account on our community. It's easy!

Log in

Already have an account? Log in here.

General News Feed

Fact Checkers News Feed

Back
Top Bottom