Law be damned, Trump asserts unilateral control over executive branch, federal service (3 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

 

[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.

And in reading that it's entirely unclear what it actually is. Is it a "buyout" as advertised, meaning that you get paid through the end of the year but are effectively retired as of Feb. 6? That seems reasonable . . . except (1) that violates existing federal severance law that the president doesn't have authority to change and (2) would be an obligation that is not funded b/c the current civilian funding expires in March, ergo this offer is an Anti-Deficiency Act violation.

OR if it's not a buyout, what is it? So it means you get to avoid the "in-person" work requirement through 9/30 but that's all? It's hardly much of an offer.

Is this deliberately confusing? Tim Caine on the Hill yesterday said Trump doesn't have authority to make this offer - so what are employees such as yourself supposed to make of this?

 

[J-DONK]

And in reading that it's entirely unclear what it actually is. Is it a "buyout" as advertised, meaning that you get paid through the end of the year but are effectively retired as of Feb. 6? That seems reasonable . . . except (1) that violates existing federal severance law that the president doesn't have authority to change and (2) would be an obligation that is not funded b/c the current civilian funding expires in March, ergo this offer is an Anti-Deficiency Act violation.

OR if it's not a buyout, what is it? So it means you get to avoid the "in-person" work requirement through 9/30 but that's all? It's hardly much of an offer.

Is this deliberately confusing? Tim Caine on the Hill yesterday said Trump doesn't have authority to make this offer - so what are employees such as yourself supposed to make of this?

It's been pointed out this is all Elon. "A Fork in the Road" was the subject of his twitter severance package.

It does read as you quit on Sept 30th for the benefit of not having to RTO.

 

[UncleTrvlingJim]

It's been pointed out this is all Elon. "A Fork in the Road" was the subject of his twitter severance package.

It does read as you quit on Sept 30th for the benefit of not having to RTO.

This is my understanding. It is NOT a buyout - it's basically giving you the option of giving 6 months notice and then exempting you from RTO enforcement.

 

[brandon]

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.

No such thing as a constitutional crisis if Congress, the Supreme Court, and the presidency are all aligned.

 

[RobF]

And in reading that it's entirely unclear what it actually is. Is it a "buyout" as advertised, meaning that you get paid through the end of the year but are effectively retired as of Feb. 6? That seems reasonable . . . except (1) that violates existing federal severance law that the president doesn't have authority to change and (2) would be an obligation that is not funded b/c the current civilian funding expires in March, ergo this offer is an Anti-Deficiency Act violation.

OR if it's not a buyout, what is it? So it means you get to avoid the "in-person" work requirement through 9/30 but that's all? It's hardly much of an offer.

Is this deliberately confusing? Tim Caine on the Hill yesterday said Trump doesn't have authority to make this offer - so what are employees such as yourself supposed to make of this?

It's also up here:

Fork in the Road

Welcome to opm.gov

www.opm.gov

and there's a link to a FAQ which at first glance is not that enlightening: https://www.opm.gov/fork/faq

Unless you wanted to know that the government is offering the federal workforce deferred resignation in part so that they can "have a nice vacation":

Why am I being offered deferred resignation?​

The federal workforce is expected to undergo significant near-term changes. As a result of these changes (or for other reasons), you may wish to depart the federal government on terms that provide you with sufficient time and economic security to plan for your future—and have a nice vacation.​

It's spectacularly stupid anyway. One of the key problems with this kind of approach is that there is clearly a greater incentive to take up the offer for experienced employees with the highest ability who are most likely to be able to secure other comparable, or better, jobs, than there is for employees who are, let's say, less confident in their ability to secure another comparable position.

Of course, that might be part of the intention if the aim is to break down the existing structure and replace it with something else, something more profitable for particular individuals perhaps. But that would also be spectacularly stupid.

 

[superchuck500]

No such thing as a constitutional crisis if Congress, the Supreme Court, and the presidency are all aligned.

By definition, no. But we don't that's the case until it's the case.

 

[DaveXA]

And in reading that it's entirely unclear what it actually is. Is it a "buyout" as advertised, meaning that you get paid through the end of the year but are effectively retired as of Feb. 6? That seems reasonable . . . except (1) that violates existing federal severance law that the president doesn't have authority to change and (2) would be an obligation that is not funded b/c the current civilian funding expires in March, ergo this offer is an Anti-Deficiency Act violation.

OR if it's not a buyout, what is it? So it means you get to avoid the "in-person" work requirement through 9/30 but that's all? It's hardly much of an offer.

Is this deliberately confusing? Tim Caine on the Hill yesterday said Trump doesn't have authority to make this offer - so what are employees such as yourself supposed to make of this?

It's definitely confusing. It's a legitimate email from OPM HR, as a poster noted earlier, normally used for emergency announcements.

What happened late last week we got an email that went out to everyone as a test and every federal employee was required to respond "yes" that they received it. That obviously was in anticipation of the rollout of the email I posted.

I can see all kinds of litigation as a result of employees typing "Resign" and seeing what comes next, if anything. The letter makes it sound like just doing that has the actual desired effect intended when it conflicts with actual federal regulation.

I've definitely got my popcorn ready.

 

[superchuck500]

It's spectacularly stupid anyway. One of the key problems with this kind of approach is that there is clearly a greater incentive to take up the offer for experienced employees with the highest ability who are most likely to be able to secure other comparable, or better, jobs, than there is for employees who are, let's say, less confident in their ability to secure another comparable position.

Of course, that might be part of the intention if the aim is to break down the existing structure and replace it with something else, something more profitable for particular individuals perhaps. But that would also be spectacularly stupid.

I'm not sure - I worked in DC for 10 years and remain working for a DC-based organization and I know a lot of federal employees. The problem for the more senior/experienced ranks is that they have made a long-term choice to take less pay than the private sector in exchange for stability and favorable retirement package, much of which is not triggered until they hit certain milestones (e.g. 20 years of service).

So let's say you're 15 years in, or 17, and you've made this tradeoff in your career. If you take this offer now, you lose those benefits that kick in at 20 years - and the payoff for it, what is basically 8 months of pay, isn't worth it.

 

[RobF]

I'm not sure - I worked in DC for 10 years and remain working for a DC-based organization and I know a lot of federal employees. The problem for the more senior/experienced ranks is that they have made a long-term choice to take less pay than the private sector in exchange for stability and favorable retirement package, much of which is not triggered until they hit certain milestones (e.g. 20 years of service).

So let's say you're 15 years in, or 17, and you've made this tradeoff in your career. If you take this offer now, you lose those benefits that kick in at 20 years - and the payoff for it, what is basically 8 months of pay, isn't worth it.

Absolutely, but this is in a scenario where your workplace is potentially about to be ripped apart by some idiot billionaires. Riding it out for another three years may not be a viable option.

I mean, if I was in that situation, I definitely wouldn't be taking that offer until I had a much better idea of the legal standing and the likely outcomes and whether riding it out for three years is an option, but generally speaking, if it looks like the ship is sinking, the people who think they can swim, or already have a lifeboat to jump into, are definitely going to be jumping sooner than the people who don't.

 

[brandon]

By definition, no. But we don't that's the case until it's the case.

 

[Optimus Prime]

WASHINGTON, Jan 29 (Reuters) - Security agents escorted the inspector general of the U.S. Department of Agriculture out of her office on Monday after she refused to comply with her firing by the Trump administration, sources familiar with the matter told Reuters.

Phyllis Fong, a 22-year veteran of the department, had earlier told colleagues that she intended to stay after the White House terminated her Friday, saying that she didn’t believe the administration had followed proper protocols, the sources said.

In an email to colleagues on Saturday, reviewed by Reuters, she said the independent Council of the Inspectors General on Integrity and Efficiency “has taken the position that these termination notices do not comply with the requirements set out in law and therefore are not effective at this time.”.............

USDA inspector general escorted out of her office after defying White House

Phyllis Fong, a 22-year veteran of the Agriculture Department, had told colleagues that she intended to stay after the White House fired her Friday.

www.usatoday.com

 

[DaveXA]

WASHINGTON, Jan 29 (Reuters) - Security agents escorted the inspector general of the U.S. Department of Agriculture out of her office on Monday after she refused to comply with her firing by the Trump administration, sources familiar with the matter told Reuters.

Phyllis Fong, a 22-year veteran of the department, had earlier told colleagues that she intended to stay after the White House terminated her Friday, saying that she didn’t believe the administration had followed proper protocols, the sources said.

In an email to colleagues on Saturday, reviewed by Reuters, she said the independent Council of the Inspectors General on Integrity and Efficiency “has taken the position that these termination notices do not comply with the requirements set out in law and therefore are not effective at this time.”.............

USDA inspector general escorted out of her office after defying White House

Phyllis Fong, a 22-year veteran of the Agriculture Department, had told colleagues that she intended to stay after the White House fired her Friday.

www.usatoday.com

Be interested in seeing if there's litigation surrounding this firing.

 

[DJ1BigTymer]

Be interested in seeing if there's litigation surrounding this firing.

That's their only resort, congress has opted not to enforce the laws that are emplace to prevent IG's unlawful termination.

 

[Sendai]

“What People Are Saying
John Choon Yoo, a law professor at University of California at Berkeley, told Newsweek in an email on Saturday: "President Trump is well within his power to remove members of the executive branch at will. In Seila Law v. CFPB(2020), the Supreme Court held that Congress could not protect officers of the United States from removal by the President...In Seila Law, the Court said that the only officers that Congress might be able to protect are those that are members of multi-body commissions, like the FCC or the SEC."

He added: "The Inspectors General do not have that status; they are simple members of the executive branch agencies. Even if Congress attempts to place conditions on their removal, those conditions are unconstitutional. Any Inspector General that attempts to challenge their removal in court—they would still have to leave office and just sue for back pay—will be wasting their money in lawyers fees."

Legal analysts respond to Donald Trump firing inspectors general

"President Trump is well within his power to remove members of the executive branch at will," law professor John Choon Yoo told Newsweek.

www.newsweek.com

This may be why nobody is doing anything.

 

[Optimus Prime]

“What People Are Saying
John Choon Yoo, a law professor at University of California at Berkeley, told Newsweek in an email on Saturday: "President Trump is well within his power to remove members of the executive branch at will. In Seila Law v. CFPB(2020), the Supreme Court held that Congress could not protect officers of the United States from removal by the President...In Seila Law, the Court said that the only officers that Congress might be able to protect are those that are members of multi-body commissions, like the FCC or the SEC."

He added: "The Inspectors General do not have that status; they are simple members of the executive branch agencies. Even if Congress attempts to place conditions on their removal, those conditions are unconstitutional. Any Inspector General that attempts to challenge their removal in court—they would still have to leave office and just sue for back pay—will be wasting their money in lawyers fees."

Legal analysts respond to Donald Trump firing inspectors general

"President Trump is well within his power to remove members of the executive branch at will," law professor John Choon Yoo told Newsweek.

www.newsweek.com

This may be why nobody is doing anything.

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."

 

[RobF]

Article on federal workers reaction to the deferred resignation offer email. I think in summary they're deeply unimpressed and highly suspicious. As they should be.

Federal workers decry Trump attempt to force mass resignations as ‘cruel joke’

Advocates say email sent to 3 million employees offering resignations is dangerous and ‘of questionable legality’

www.theguardian.com

 

[superchuck500]

 

[fooferdoggie]

Be interested in seeing if there's litigation surrounding this firing.

what will it matter?