Law be damned, Trump asserts unilateral control over executive branch, federal service (2 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.