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

 

[superchuck500]

I would have assumed that since the IG was created by Congress, it would be considered an extension of Congress' implied oversight powers over the executive branch and thus not subject to being unilaterally revoked by the President.

The only way to do that would have been to make them employees of the legislature rather than the executive (which they did not do) or to expressly provide in the statute that the president cannot unilaterally fire an IG (they did not do that either).

It is true that the office of the IG was created by Congress - but Congress actually created all of the offices in the executive branch except the president.

 

[Sendai]

So, Sendai, do you think it’s a good idea for Trump to get rid of the watchdogs? Just because someone can do it, and just because the SCOTUS (especially this one) has said he can ignore requirements by Congress (checks and balances be damned) does it bother you to have someone so self-serving and amoral run things unchecked?

It’s not a good idea if he doesn’t replace the IGs. But I expect he will, eventually. Oddly he had appointed one of the IGs that he fired.

Apparently the Supreme Court thinks Separation of Powers outweighs Checks And Balances in regard to the presidents removal powers. As far as the Supreme Court’s is concerned Congress is exceeding its power when requiring “show cause”.

Congress has unchecked powers. The Supreme Court has unchecked powers.

SCOTUS simply confirmed previous SCOTUS rulings.

 

[Sendai]

The only way to do that would have been to make them employees of the legislature rather than the executive (which they did not do) or to expressly provide in the statute that the president cannot unilaterally fire an IG (they did not do that either).

It is true that the office of the IG was created by Congress - but Congress actually created all of the offices in the executive branch except the president.

According to the scotus rulings Congress can only create “show cause” legislation for “quasi legislative”or “quasi judicial” appointees. Thats why I expect the National Labor Relations board members he fired will get their jobs back. Even if Congress had expressly provided protection in the statute it would be unconstitutional.

 

[DaveXA]

It’s not a good idea if he doesn’t replace the IGs. But I expect he will, eventually. Oddly he had appointed one of the IGs that he fired.

Apparently the Supreme Court thinks Separation of Powers outweighs Checks And Balances in regard to the presidents removal powers. As far as the Supreme Court’s is concerned Congress is exceeding its power when requiring “show cause”.

Congress has unchecked powers. The Supreme Court has unchecked powers.

SCOTUS simply confirmed previous SCOTUS rulings.

Congress' power is not unchecked. They can be voted out every 2 to 6 years, not to mention that pesky thing called the Constitution.

The Congress has been ceding power to the President for years and years now. The President's power isn't unlimited, but it's greater than ever considering the recent SCOTUS rulings.

SCOTUS is probably the closest to unchecked power because there's no real oversight when it comes to the individual Justices. They're not elected and essentially lifetime appointments.

 

[DaveXA]

According to the scotus rulings Congress can only create “show cause” legislation for “quasi legislative”or “quasi judicial” appointees. Thats why I expect the National Labor Relations board members he fired will get their jobs back. Even if Congress had expressly provided protection in the statute it would be unconstitutional.

Why would it be unconstitutional?

 

[RobF]

Why would it be unconstitutional?

There's an actual legal analysis of the legality of removing IGs, and the potential legal constraints on replacing them, here, that I found to be a good read: https://www.lawfaremedia.org/article/trump-fired-17-inspectors-general-was-it-legal

 

[Sendai]

Why would it be unconstitutional?

Because the Supreme Court says so. Myers v The United States, Humphrey’s Executors v The United States, Seila Law v CFPB.

 

[MT15]

Because the Supreme Court says so. Myers v The United States, Humphrey’s Executors v The United States, Seila Law v CFPB.

Do you expect Trump to appoint any IGs that will ever investigate any wrongdoing in the executive that he doesn’t want investigated? I would seriously consider that everyone he appoints will be a complete loyalist and toady. He will expect nothing less.

 

[superchuck500]

 

[DJ1BigTymer]

Do you expect Trump to appoint any IGs that will ever investigate any wrongdoing in the executive that he doesn’t want investigated? I would seriously consider that everyone he appoints will be a complete loyalist and toady. He will expect nothing less.

I don't. Fraud, Waste & Abuse is something trump has built his fortune on and having roadblocks(IGs) in his way are detrimental to his true agenda.

 

[MT15]

I don't. Fraud, Waste & Abuse is something trump has built his fortune on and having roadblocks(IGs) in his way are detrimental to his true agenda.

It’s not a reasonable stance to think otherwise, IMO. Therefore, one should oppose his getting rid of the watchdogs.

 

[Lapaz]

Trump will slowly turn a professional agency into a gastado-like organization.

 

[MT15]

Trump will slowly turn a professional agency into a gastado-like organization.

I don’t think it will be particularly slow at this point.

 

[J-DONK]

I really don't understand why anyone trust Republicans. They know this is unpopular. They denied, denied, denied this was the plan. They know they don't win the election if they say "P2025 is the plan. It's the blueprint for adminstration."

 

[superchuck500]

I really don't understand why anyone trust Republicans. They know this is unpopular. They denied, denied, denied this was the plan. They know they don't win the election if they say "P2025 is the plan. It's the blueprint for adminstration."

Yeah they’ve gone from more ordinary political spin to full, unadulterated lying. It’s because they are led by a malignant, pathological liar - he sets the table for it all, and the total lack of accountability for it just goes right along.

 

[Sendai]

Do you expect Trump to appoint any IGs that will ever investigate any wrongdoing in the executive that he doesn’t want investigated? I would seriously consider that everyone he appoints will be a complete loyalist and toady. He will expect nothing less.

It is a big concern.

 

[Sendai]

Apparently the filling open Inspector General offices isn’t all that big of a concern

https://www.citizensforethics.org/wp-content/uploads/2024/08/Ethics-Related-Vacancies-Letter.docx-1.pdf

Inspector General Vacancies | Oversight.gov

www.oversight.gov

A bit odd.

 

[RobF]

It is a big concern.

The link I dropped above (https://www.lawfaremedia.org/article/trump-fired-17-inspectors-general-was-it-legal) has some thoughts about constraints on who he can appoint:

The IG removal issue is not the biggest of deals, since President Trump had clear statutory authority to remove the IGs if he had provided the easy-to-satisfy substantive rationale and thirty days notice. The much more important issue concerns who replaces the removed IGs. On this issue the 2022 IG law has more bite. The law narrows the definition of the “first assistant” who, under the FVRA, presumptively takes over for the removed IG. It also authorizes the president to replace the first assistant only with another Senate-confirmed IG or a GS-15 or higher employee who was in office for more than 90 days during the year prior to the vacancy.​

​

The practical bottom line is that a career official high up in the office of each IG will by law become the acting IG, and Trump can replace that person only with someone already in the IG cadre.​

​

We do not yet know how Trump plans to replace the fired IGs within these constraints. He might nominate new IGs, but they must be confirmed by the Senate, and that likely will not happen this year. The important question is thus whether Trump can find a lawful and congenial replacement for the first assistant under the 2022 law.​

​

One possibility is an already-confirmed IG such as Joseph Cuffari, the embattled Department of Homeland Security IG who was appointed in Trump 1.0 and whom Trump did not fire on Friday. Or Trump can try to find a congenial IG among the non-political employees who were in place during the Biden administration, which might be hard.​

​

It then has some discussion about why the author thinks this is more likely to hold up in court than the constraints on firing IGs. But he does ultimately note:

By themselves, however, legal devices like limitations on who can be acting IG cannot save IG independence from an aggressively threatening president and Department head. Only Congress, by pushing back on the administration through politics, can do that.​

​

Whether the Republican-controlled Congress will push back in a meaningful way seems doubtful, especially in light of the tepid reaction to the firings by traditional IG defenders in Congress.​

​

Indeed.