This EO, combined with his proclamation that "He who saves the country does not violate any law" paint a very concerning picture. This has, historically speaking, been the language of tyrants. No President is above the law, nor does the President "interpret" the law; that is the domain of the Judiciary.
you are mixing up different meanings for the word "interpret". "Authoritative Interpreting law" (or in general interpreting law) doesn't mean "trying to understand what it means" but means "deciding what it means in practice"
especially if you add a "authoritative" in the front it in legal language means they gave themself the right (i.e. authority) to decide (i.e. interpret) how law should be interpreted, i.e. what the meaning behind the written word is in practice
this is 100% without doubt or question not compatible with any democracy (including the US constitution) and is pretty much one of the default approaches Dictators use to get unchecked authority
It means that in practice (assuming people comply with the EO) means they can do whatever they want as they can just willfully absurdly, but with authority , misinterpret laws. Including to e.g. persecute judges which "step out of line", or members of the senate which don't vote for whatever he wants etc.
Upon impeaching the President, the VP would become President, and he would order the military to remove the ex-President. At that point the military would have to decide if it's more loyal to Congress or the ex-President.
Because they could just as easily impeach him if he doesn't, then it falls to the Speaker of the House. But if I were them I would just impeach them both at the same time for the same reasons.
And who impeaches a President which just gave himself the right to authoritatively misinterpret the law in whatever way they want and in turn can trivially turn you live into a living hell if they insist too
especially if you yourself could get a part of the pie and don't think it will negatively affect you
I mean don't get me wrong if they would do so literally tomorrow it would work.
But as the majority of senate likely feel they have little to loose it won't be tomorrow.
And when they realize that maybe they won't get part of the pie (they are mostly now useless for him) it will be to late and the fear of repercussions will have set in.
The question of whether you'd be happy to have the other guy do it always applies. If you wouldn't, people moaning when it happens is always a good thing.
The Supreme Court literally said that Trump has absolute immunity for criminal use of presidential power. Combined with the statistical impossibility of a 2/3 senate majority for impeachment, this is a license to grab as much power as that same court will allow.
What's kind of fascinating is the way they've introduced things like the Major Questions Doctrine (MQD), which asserted the importance (really, necessity, in their view) of Congress's explicit delegation powers, as a way to curtail agency actions. But then faced with something like this EO, they seem quite obviously faced with something that runs up against the fact the Congress gave explicit statutes for how and what they should do. As far as I'm aware, the statues creating these agencies don't explicitly give the president this power...which raises a clear MQD consistency issue for the supreme court.
It’s not fascinating in any way, it’s completely habitual for fascists to use every means at their disposal to prevent their opponents from doing anything only to ignore all roadblocks when in power.
The GOP has been ramping up their support of unitary executive theory since the 80s yet no democratic president has been able to take a piss without cries of tyranny.
There are three branches. Just three. If you are a federal employee, you either work for congress, the courts, or the president. A2S1 invests the president with all executive power. All of it. It doesn’t carve out exceptions for the SEC or the Federal Reserve or USAID.
If you’ve put yourself in a place where this arrangement is literally fascism, prepare to be disappointed by the courts.
However you read the constitution it's not the way courts interpret constitution now. Unitary executive branch doesn't exist for last ~135 years, and was under scrutiny before that (and with way smaller federal government).
With current supreme court nothing is sacred for sure, but overturning this and granting universal executive power into hands of president would be a disaster leading towards either authocracy or revolution. And yeah - that's all very similar to how fascism started, whether you would like to see it or not.
Pretty hard to square this perspective with the recent Raimondo decision, no?
Is the EPA, at the direction of the sitting president, making rules about coal power plants not an example of the use of "all executive power. All of it."? Or does A2S1 carve out exceptions for the EPA, even if it doesn't for those other agencies?
Whatever you think about Chevron deference or the specific EPA case I'm alluding to, the point is: The balance of power between the executive and legislative branches is nowhere near as clear cut as your comment suggests. Congress frequently legislates the structure and responsibilities of executive agencies. Presidential administrators cannot legally change those responsibilities unilaterally.
Making rules sounds awfully like legislation, which is a job for the legislature rather than the executive. Arguably, the executive can only regulate the executive, and Congress has to pass laws which apply to the populace at large.
That’s certainly not the way things have been run for a long time, but it doesn’t seem irrational to argue that’s the proper constitutional structure.
The legislature is well within its rights to delegate rulemaking authority. (I recognize that non-delegation is a live debate, but I think it's a silly one.) But the executive has to make those rules within the bounds of the delegated authority.
Article I, Section I states ‘All legislative Powers herein granted shall be vested in a Congress of the United States, which shall consist of a Senate and House of Representatives’; it says nothing about delegating those powers to independent agencies or to executive agencies. None of Congress’s enumerated powers state or imply that it may delegate its power to anyone else.
It would be pretty surprising if a law passed by Congress delegating to Charles Windsor its power to write the laws about taxes, borrowing money on the credit of the United States, regulating international and interstate commerce and so forth were constitutional.
> None of Congress’s enumerated powers state or imply that it may delegate its power to anyone else.
That may be what you believe, and there's been a lot of debate over that, but courts have time and time again ruled that the legislature can delegate power. Maybe current SCOTUS will reverse a lot of that, but that remains to be seen.
It's a bit more murky and nuanced than that, though.
What is executive power? Well, it's what the constitution says it is. But a lot of things in the executive branch aren't spelled out in the constitution. A more strict interpretation of it (one that SCOTUS seems to be moving toward, at least when it's convenient to achieve conservative policy goals) is that Congress should not be delegating so much rulemaking power to the executive branch.
So let's say you're the SEC. You're an executive branch agency, but you essentially write laws. You get to write those laws because Congress delegated that power in some reasonably specific ways unique to your agency. So who do you really report to? Nominally, day to day, seems like the president. But you only exist because of an act of Congress. Congress can dissolve you tomorrow if it wants to. Congress can also give you more power and more latitude (within some limits, of course). So while you report to the president, you're accountable to Congress. That might mean that the president isn't allowed to fire your people without cause, if Congress specified so.
That's not an interference of executive power if the power you wield actually flows from the legislative branch.
yes but if the executive just pretends there is no issue does it matter
part of the supreme court hasn't exactly been known to defend the constitution in word and spirit but find excuses to reinterpret it
and worse by giving themself the right to authoritative misinterpreted law they can prevent any such cases ever appearing in front of the supreme court and/or very effectively blackmail people into not making or dismissing cases
and Trump abusing power to blackmail people to get changes in of court related proceeding (to ironically black mail someone else to force them to fall in line or a court case against them gets reopend/not dismissed) did already happen, openly in public just a few days ago
I think masklinn is arguing that, if Republican senators truly believed the president should be an elected king with nigh-limitless power, then during Democrat administrations they would have been eager to approve anything the president put forward, as he was the president-king at that time.
Whereas what we saw instead was them blocking everything they could, government shutdowns etc.
Unless "Unitary Executive" means something a good deal more nuanced than the president being king, that is.
I don't think that follows at all. Republicans, just like every party really, do the best given the system they are in. They don't act as if they are in the hypothetical system they would like to have, it would be totally counterproductive to their goals.
Think of it this way. I may be against paying taxes. That doesn't mean I just stop paying them. The best I can do is try to get the government to lower the taxes.
It was a while ago. But late last century the "line item veto" which allowed presidents to get rid of things in bills they didn't like was rejected by the courts. Oddly Reagan (R) asked for this power initially, but Clinton (D) ended up getting it.
"Congress granted this power to the president by the Line Item Veto Act of 1996 to control "pork barrel spending", but in 1998 the U.S. Supreme Court ruled the act to be unconstitutional in 6–3 decision in Clinton v. City of New York.
The court found that exercise of the line-item veto is tantamount to a unilateral amendment or repeal by the executive of only parts of statutes authorizing federal spending, and therefore violated the Presentment Clause of the United States Constitution. Thus a federal line-item veto, at least in this particular formulation, would only be possible through a constitutional amendment. Prior to that ruling, President Clinton applied the line-item veto to the federal budget 82 times."
Just because it took me a while to find the reference: The full quote on Truth Social and Twitter is "CONGESTION PRICING IS DEAD. Manhattan, and all of New York, is SAVED. LONG LIVE THE KING!"
They created the circumstances where this could happen. It's a long term project. Supreme court picks, disenfranchisement, propaganda, refusing to hold Trump accountable for his crimes.
Disbanding of both the legislature and judiciary would be on any dictator's playbook from the last N centuries. I can't imagine either of those bodies would be ok with getting shuttered but it seems they are both pushing for it. Why?
I don’t think that’s an accurate description of the decision. I think that it stated that when the President exercises core constitutional power (e.g. the pardon power, or the veto power) then the exercise itself cannot be illegal. I’m not sure if the decision of the Court left open the possibility that the conduct around the exercise of such power can be illegal. If so, then this could be a distinction without much difference: for example, issuing a pardon may not itself ever be criminal, but taking a bribe to issue a pardon is separate from issuing the pardon itself. To some extent, I think that some of this does flow from the structure of the Constitution itself, but I’m not convinced that phrasing it in terms of immunity is particularly helpful.
Then there’s a rebuttable presumption of immunity for more conduct. I don’t see that this flows from the Constitution, but perhaps it flows from judicial decisions over the past two centuries? ‘When the President does something official, he probably is immune, but maybe he’s not, and he could still be prosecuted from crimes he commits around the immune act’ doesn’t seem terribly meaningful.
It sounds a bit to me like saying that a citizen is immune from prosecution for his vote, but not for selling it or whatever. But I’m not a lawyer, and I could be wrong.
It 100% was written with the explicit purpose of giving Trump the power to do whatever he wants. Including ignoring the Supreme Court hilariously enough.
Anyway, the whole discussion is moot because Trump is turning America into a authoritarian state, so rules and laws and elections soon don’t matter anymore.
Well, yes, that's how the system works: a determined President can, in fact, grab as much power as the Supreme Court will allow. That's literally what the Supreme Court is there for.
The president can arguably pack the court and with his majorities nobody will stop him
If you believe the Supreme Court is an effective guardrail against tyranny then you're deeply mistaken. The only true safeguard against tyranny is the American people refusing to comply and responding with force of arms if pushed.
Assuming the US military remains loyal to the president... if you really think that the Proud Boys and their ilk, plus a bunch of random disorganized people with guns, have even the remotest chance of winning a war with the US military, well... I have a bridge I'd like to sell you.
And if the US military doesn't remain loyal to the president, then on top of a fascist dictator seizing power, then we'll have a military coup.
> And if the US military doesn't remain loyal to the president, then on top of a fascist dictator seizing power, then we'll have a military coup.
“Instead”, not “on top”. (I mean, unless the military installs a different fascist dictator, which is certainly not unheard of in military coups that are notionally countercoups.)
> if you really think that the Proud Boys and their ilk, plus a bunch of random disorganized people with guns, have even the remotest chance of winning a war with the US military, well... I have a bridge I'd like to sell you.
In Afghanistan, Iraq, and Vietnam, the enemy was—and, critically, the US forces were not—fighting for their homeland, and the US engaged in political decisions to limit operations because of that (and, in the case of Afghanistan, got distracted and fucked off to start an war of aggression in Iraq in the middle of it).
And still won in Iraq, first against Saddam’s regime, then the post-regime pre-ISIS insurgency, and then the later fight against ISIS, so I’m not sure why Iraq is included, absolute immorality of the decision to go to war there and its cost to the war in Afghanistan aside, since those are irrelevant to the discussion here.
I'm not a lawyer, but I don't see how legal immunity equates to legal authority.
If you are a government employee and Trump orders you to do something that exceeds his authority, can't you still say no? It seems like the Supreme Court only said that Trump can't get in trouble for asking. I don't think the court said that you have to answer yes.
I'm not trying to say that we're in a great position here or that immunity doesn't have some very destructive effects. But I am saying that we shouldn't act as if he has powers that the Supreme Court hasn't given him.
A competent Joe Biden would've taken that ruling, said "thank you very much" and "cleaned house" with Seal Team Six of select judges and politicians and then pardoned everyone involved.
The fact that SCOTUS wasn't even slightly concerned about that happening belies the problem: the Democrats are ineffectual by design. They knew Biden would throw his hands up citing "norms" and "institutions" as an excuse to do absolutely nothing.
SCOTUS completely invented a concept of presidential immunity out of thin air to derail the criminal prosecutions. They also deliberaly took their time. Remember when Jack Smith tried to appeal directly to SCOTUS because everyone knew it was going to end up there? Instead, SCOTUS put everything on hold for another 6 months as a delaying tactic.
Even then, the opinion is rushed and haphazard and not at all well thought out. Some in the conservative supermajority allegedly wanted to punt the issue to the next term.
The presidential immunity decision is so brazenly political. The Roberts court will go down in history for the kinds of awful decisions in the 1840s and 1850s that led up to the Civil War.
The Democrats are people who believe in the rule of law, and they act like it. When pitted against people who have no qualms to win at all costs, even it means breaking the law and destroying the constitution, Democrats lose; if you value those things you can't preserve them by destroying them yourself. We are where we are because Republicans convinced themselves they deserved the power they have taken. The people who voted for them were convinced as well. That's the only failure we should be talking about right now. The Democrats, flawed as they are, did the right thing.
That said, they will not be the people to lead us out of this. They know how to fundraise, campaign, and maintain the status quo. They're not built for this, so it's time to just look for someone new rather than try to reform people who are clearly not made for this moment.
In many situations, those who have morals and scruples will be ineffectual when faced with an adversary who has none. Biden didn't "clean house" because he believes in the rule of law, and believes that if he'd done that, he should go to jail, even if he wouldn't.
Not everyone has an ethical code that only exists because they're afraid they'll go to jail if they break it. Some people just don't think it's ok to do the wrong thing.
Put another way: if you become the monster you're trying to fight, that's often not materially different from the monster winning in the first place.
Having said that, I do think that Democrats should fight a little dirtier sometimes. I think that would be possible to do without becoming that monster.
Not even that. Trump controls federal law enforcement. If Congress or a federal court says "arrest cabinet member XYZ for contempt", Trump can just say "no".
Congress does have some law enforcement personnel, but I doubt they'd be interested in getting in a standoff with the Secret Service.
“Criminal use of presidential power” is a bit of an oxymoron, which is why people are getting wrapped up in knots here.
The Supreme Court said, if the Constitution authorizes the President to do it, then he can’t be criminally prosecuted. That doesn’t mean blanket immunity!
Donald Trump is trying to be dictator. He has been doing all but wearing a sign around his neck saying so for a long time. Please don't act surprised. It is not the time for quotes or being shocked at his actions.
He's saluted Kim Jong-Un's generals.
He's bent the knee to Vladimir Putain
He's whined that it's not fair that he doesn't have the powers that Xi Jinping does.
Growing up in the 90s and early 2000s, it was widely known that Donald Trump was a fraud and a complete clown. It will be studied for decades how many people just willingly gave up their ability to call a spade a spade and ignore reality when it comes to Donald Trump. How did people become so fucking stupid?
It's pretty simple, working class mostly conservative white Americans have been feeling extremely disenfranchised and the right phrase is nearly "discriminated against" by the left and what were mainstream republicans. This bloc of people were used by entities foreign and domestic to wield power. Large disgruntled groups of people are really good for this. Donald Trump is the perfect symbol for this group and there are even some strange almost religious feelings towards him in a few.
>Donald Trump is the perfect symbol for this group
How a real estate & brand "billionaire" from NYC who wears orange makeup and lifts and speaks in the most basic of generalities became the rallying symbol for disenfranchised rural white working class conservatives speaks to the absolute degeneracy of our society. Awful.
Or, from another perspective: the "disenfranchised rural white[0] working class" was so abandoned by the Democratic Party, which previously represented that class, that a reality TV start from NYC with all of his flaws came to champion their needs instead[1].
[0]: Trump got a higher share of nonwhite votes of every stripe in 2024 than he did in 2016, so it's clearly more about class than race.
He's a cartoon character, what someone with no idea thinks their life would be like if they were a billionaire. He feels relatable, doesn't talk like other "elites" and speaks plainly. When an ordinary politician talks you have to wade through layers of BS, misdirection, and "political correctness" where when Trump talks it's an unhinged stream of consciousness but it feels very honest. At least he's full of a very different brand of crap, and people are really growing to hate how most politicians speak.
>absolute degeneracy of our society
And there it is. The people who ended up voting for Trump have been feeling increasing alienation and hatred from the rest of the country, and they finally found their political power. No amount of insulting them is going to stop it.
>And there it is. The people who ended up voting for Trump have been feeling increasing alienation and hatred from the rest of the country, and they finally found their political power. No amount of insulting them is going to stop it.
The people who voted for him deserve to feel alienated and hatred, because it's not like he didn't have a track record. He's already been president. He has been a grandstanding loudmouth for the better part of the last 50 years if not longer.
It's one thing to vote for an outsider. It's another thing to say "Gosh, times are tough, and Biden's not making them better. Let me vote again for Donald Trump, a guy who sucks at business and politics, who made things awful in his first term."
Donald Trump's handlers at the Heritage Foundation put out a memorandum of what they'd do if he was re-elected. Most of these things were dangerously stupid, and a majority of them would make the country's average citizen worse off economically. Surprisingly, people believed Donald Trump's words when he claimed he'd never heard of Project 2025. Unsurprisingly, his entire campaign staff was filled with people who quite literally were the ones that wrote the memorandum and plan....and then got themselves installed as agency heads or cabinet members.
Donald Trump has always stood for Donald Trump making money by any means possible, and screwing over everyone else in the process. It's quite transparent. Yet somehow even after he was already president, people somehow overlook all his traits and say "that guy stands for the average man, he's for Main Street not Wall Street, he's going to lower my bills". Folks, he's a NYC real estate dude that wears makeup. He shits in a gold toilet and has never worked a day in his life. He lied and lied and lied about COVID. He's not for Main Street or the average American citizen, not at all. Why do people not see that?
Whelp, the people who voted for Trump are the majority, the "how could they be so stupid" attitude really isn't how you change hearts and minds.
And these people felt hated and alienated long before Trump, and nobody really did anything to bring them back into the fold over the last 4 or 8 years.
The Republic may well fall as a direct result of your kind of attitude. Being so absolutely certain of how right you are isn't going to help you.
>And these people felt hated and alienated long before Trump, and nobody really did anything to bring them back into the fold over the last 4 or 8 years.
I see your point, but let's not pretend here - that crowd was given ample opportunity to become economically stable since the times of Obama. Example: job retraining in Coal Country. Obama rolled out the red carpet for them, offering retraining, upskilling, everything under the sun. But no, those people just wanted to work in the mines, even though everyone and their cousin knew those mining jobs were not coming back. That group clung to their old ways, and when Trump said he'd bring the jobs back, they voted for him. The jobs never came back, and they voted for him again anyway.
>The Republic may well fall as a direct result of your kind of attitude. Being so absolutely certain of how right you are isn't going to help you.
It'll fall because a bunch of people who voted for "muh economy" didn't see the error of thinking a 6-time bankrupt conman would help them. My kind of attitude? Bugger off, my kind of attitude calls a spade a spade. "This fat makeup-wearing career criminal who inherited hundreds of millions yet bankrupted 2 casinos and declared personal bankruptcy 6 times is TOTALLY THE GUY WHO IS GOING TO REINVIGORATE THE US ECONOMY" I mean, where'd your common sense go? Oh yeah, people fell for this twice now. As if plenty of evidence from the first go-round wasn't enough.
Do I blame them? Yes, I absolutely do. Do I blame Democrats for managing to snatch defeat from what should have been an easy victory? Yeah, I absolutely do.
> No President is above the law, nor does the President "interpret" the law
On paper, but not in practice, sadly.
The meaning of the Constitution has been bent to serve Trump's will. He violated the law constantly during his first term, was not held accountable for the electoral violations or coup, and is now violating the law again. He's gotten away with it every single time.
I'm sorry to say this. You are describing an America that no longer exists. We live in a new country with new rules that we don't quite understand yet.
Just remember, none of this was a surprise. It was advertised ie Project 2025. It is the culmination of the 50+ year Republican Project.
And yet we had no opposition to it. The Biden administration and Kamala Harris were more interested in defending and providing material support for war crimes than stopping any of this.
The Democratic Party is more comfortable with Trump as a dictator than an actual progressive getting in power. If the Democrats opposed and sabotaged Republicans half as well as they did Bernie Sanders, we would be in a very different place.
It’s quite literally “we’ve tried nothing and we’re all out of ideas.” They throw their hands up and surrender. You want a playbook? Look at what the Republicans did at any point from 2010 to 2016 and just do any of that.
I think it was definitely bad that Joe held on so long before letting Kamala run but incumbents lost globally[0], not just here in the US. People aren't happy with the effects COVID had, which is valid, but misplaced the blame which is how we got here.
It is not just a case of people misplacing the blame. There was massive amount of lying and demonization of anyone not conservative right going on. There was a lot of fearmongering and hate ... all enabled by "moderates".
The movements like these did not just happened because people were unhappy. They are result of long political project that was enabled, excused and defended for years.
It's definitely bad that Democrats could not come up with a single candidate, and a strategy for that candidate, but held on to Biden and then presented Kamala as a saviour when she was a meh candidate at best
Who are the "Democrats" that you are talking about? No one held on to Joe Biden, he was president and decided he was going to run for re-election. No one seriously ran against him because people generally don't try to run against a sitting president in a primary and if they had they would have almost certainly lost in a landslide. Biden didn't need anyone's permission to run, and no one could have stopped him from running. Then he dropped out and endorsed Harris no credible person attempted to run against her. There is no secret party leadership who decides on the candidate that we can now blame, and besides some of the efforts to convince Biden to drop out everything was done very publicly.
No. Since 2016, leftist democrats have promised that if only the democratic party moves far left enough, they will unlock some kind of secret progressive majority. This has been repudiated at every turn, most resoundingly in the last presidential election. The demographics that the leftist democrats had appointed themselves the saviors of went over to Trump, along with the tech industry which had formerly been a huge source of monetary and intellectual capital for the democrats.
Unfortunately, the democratic party seems to be unable to make the necessary adjustment and return to the winning formula of the Obama years because the political hobbyists and professionals that make up the core of the party have purity-tested out anyone with more mainstream views. If they aren't careful, they will end up as a party representing only university HR administrators.
Perhaps the winning formula of the Obama years was the absence of rampant social media use and the spread of propaganda / misinformation at the time. Not saying those things did not exist - but they did not have the ability to spread like wildfire compared to today.
You may not have noticed it, but intel and counterintelligence agencies used Twitter heavily in the Obama era. Arguably, Obama's presidency was the one that put the nail in the coffin of trusting intelligence agency reports over twitter, but I think you could make a case it started with Reagan and cable news.
Basically, our elected representatives picked social media news sources as preferred trusted sources, and the groups interested in getting information and misinformation to them followed suit.
Eh agree in part, disagree in part. In 2016 a bunch of people who would otherwise not be interested in politics were interested in two politicians - Donald Trump and Bernie Sanders. The Democratic party leadership made a concerted effort to drown Sanders' economic populism before it could succeed. That sent a message that it had no place in the party, killing their ability to grow the base, and giving MAGA (via the Bannon faction) control of economic populist messaging. Economic populists left the Democratic party, leaving them to rely on elites and cultural leftists to carry the party messaging, which resulted in what you described. And most of what you described only exists in a Fox News fever dream, but the Democrats opened the door right up for it to happen.
> The Democratic Party is more comfortable with Trump as a dictator than an actual progressive getting in power. If the Democrats opposed and sabotaged Republicans half as well as they did Bernie Sanders, we would be in a very different place.
It's been like this for decades, and is why I haven't voted for a democatic party candidate for president in that time. Living in California, it doesn't even matter, all of the electoral votes go to the dems anyway.
This is all a consequence of the US still governing with an organization that was designed in 1776. After WWII european contries reorged their governments as well as their physical infrastructure. The wswitched to propotional representation with parlamentary style governments. It's not perfect, but it's a heck of a lot closer than what we have in the US.
With presidenatial electrions decided by 7 states, and by a small minority of the voters in those states, something like 1% of the US population is deciding the outcome.
Neither dems nor reps want to change this. There is no real hope for actual democracy in the US...
People from Project 2025 are writing official government memorandums.
But that's the problem here: no amount of evidence short of an admission from Trump is going to "prove" it to you, and Trump will deny this, all while Project 2025 is enacted by the people who wrote it with the unspoken blessing of the GOP.
You can confirm on the GOP website that the GOP platform is called agenda 47. You can also read agenda 47. This was published prior to the election.
Agenda 47 and project 2025 have very different approaches to matters like abortion. So far the evidence has been that the GOP supports the GOP‘s own platform in this regard, for example there’s no federal ban on abortion pills, which is part of project 2025 but not part of the GOP’s platform agenda 47.
If you are alleging a conspiracy that agenda 47 was the smoke screen in favour of the heritage foundation’s project 2025 then you will need to provide some kind of evidence for this conspiracy.
If you are implying that the thing that is 98% of the other thing aren't practically identical, you will need to provide some kind of evidence for this conspiracy.
I'm sure Trump wasn't lying when he said he hadn't read Project 2025 and didn't know what's in it. He doesn't care, none of that matters to him.
But he damn well knew what it was, where it came from, and who was involved, given he brought several Project 2025 / Heritage Foundation people into the administration.
Most things don't fully disprove most things, especially in politics. Trump will never announce Project 2025 by name, that doesn't mean he's not implementing it. Putting that as the bar is bad faith.
Again, why the high bar? Why does different branding of two nearly on identical things matter? If it's 90% the same you can conclude it was the plan all along.
Just a total coinkydink I guess that Russell Voight (P2025 co-author) was confirmed as the director of Director of the Office of Management and Budget, and Pam Bondi is the frontrunner nominee for US AG? Totally unrelated that 2/3rds of the 53 EOs from the first week were specifically outlined in P2025?
The Dems were more afraid of the Israel lobby than they were of an actual Nazi movement seizing power over the country. Money has totally erased any semblance of morality from governance in the United States.
> and I am not really worried that he might do a lot of damage
"His" "policy" of firing a large portion of the federal workforce is going to come crashing into the private sector very shortly when it comes time to renew contracts. That's not even mentioning what's about to happen to the job market when the unemployment rate skyrockets all at once and the private sector only has low income positions to offer - or none at all. Republicans are flirting with defaulting on US debt too, which will damage the value of USD - catastrophic when he's throwing tariffs around like confetti. That people keep posting things like "I'm not too worried" is mind-boggling. That's _only_ discussing the financial disaster to the economy and not the plethora of other problems Republicans are signing off on.
I see him more as a Caesar. In this analogy, Musk would sort of be Augustus. The senate still existed, and there were still consuls and all the trappings of a republic, but he was made princeps. It was a title with no significant official power, but he had the real power. At this point, it seems to me like Musk is more powerful than Trump. He owns Trump. Trump only wants power. He doesn’t care what it’s for. Musk is on a mission.
I don’t see how anyone could NOT be concerned that they’d do damage. They’ve already done irreparable damage. All the norms we used to have in place are gone. It’s anything goes.
I don't like using the Hitler comparison because it makes people have a kneejerk reaction and tune you out, but it is plainly undeniable that Trump makes many statements that could be attributed, word for word, to any number of authoritarians and tyrants throughout history.
There is so much evidence that he is actually, intentionally, emulating Hitler though. He quotes Hitler "poisoning the blood of the country", kept Hitler's speeches by his bedside, was reported by his cabinet to have admired Hitler.
Modern-day America exhibits striking parallels to Nazi Germany prior to Trump’s election, revealing serious concerns about the current state of national identity and political culture.
One of the most significant similarities is the prominent use of the eagle as a national symbol, which deeply reinforces American patriotism. This motif is prominently showcased in iconic films and features in imposing architecture, such as the U.S. Capitol and various government buildings. Though rooted in ancient Rome, its invocation in modern America serves to solidify a sense of unity and national pride.
Moreover, the practice of reciting the Pledge of Allegiance in schools is a powerful tool for instilling civic identity among students. This act fosters a strong collective loyalty to the nation, echoing how Nazi Germany indoctrinated its youth. Mass gatherings—be it political conventions, presidential inaugurations, or significant events like the Fourth of July—serve to invigorate the populace and create a palpable emotional connection to the state.
Nazi Germany revered the military as the backbone of society, exemplified by uniforms and grand military parades showcasing their might. The United States mirrors this sentiment through events such as Veterans Day, honoring those who have served by prioritizing them in boarding processes and glorifying military prowess during flyovers at major sporting events.
Uniforms and visual identity are crucial in both contexts. Nazi Germany was obsessed with uniforms—whether the imposing SS black or the earthy brown of the brownshirts—which represented discipline and loyalty to the regime. Similarly, in the U.S., uniforms convey a range of services, from military camouflage to police blue and even political campaign attire. While Nazi uniforms symbolized rigid hierarchy, American uniforms reflect a diverse array of service and community; both utilize attire to assert belonging and authority.
Leadership cults flourish on both sides of the political spectrum. Nazi ideology unflinchingly fixated on racial and cultural “purity,” scapegoating and vilifying groups such as Jews and Romani people. In modern America, incendiary debates over immigration, “American values,” and “law and order” revolve around preserving a cohesive national identity, often at the expense of marginalized communities.
The glorification of physical fitness plays a vital role in both societies. The Nazis showcased Aryan athleticism at the 1936 Berlin Olympics, weaponizing athletic success to promote their ideology. Likewise, America celebrates its sporting champions across football, basketball, and baseball, intertwining national pride with athletic excellence.
Color schemes serve as powerful symbols in both contexts. The swastika flag’s black, white, and red colors were deliberately designed to evoke the ideas of blood, soil, and purity—central tenets of Nazi ideology. In contrast, the U.S. flag’s red, white, and blue represent foundational ideals like valor, purity, and justice. Both nations skillfully leverage bold, simple color schemes to provoke visceral emotions and establish a coherent identity, despite starkly different histories and narratives.
The narrative of an "enemy from within" was fundamental to the Nazis and continues to resonate today. While the U.S. is not engaged in genocide on its own soil, political rhetoric often frames “elites,” “socialists,” or “extremists” as existential threats to the nation. The Nazis exploited this fear to justify horrific purges; in America, similar dynamics fuel extremism and exacerbate partisan divides, tapping into deep anxieties of betrayal.
Additionally, monumental engineering feats—like the Autobahn and V-2 rockets—were proudly showcased by the Nazis to assert their technological superiority and national prowess. The United States boasts monumental achievements like the moon landing, groundbreaking innovations from Silicon Valley, and advanced military technology. Both societies firmly link innovation to national greatness; however, while Nazi pursuits were driven by warfare, America aims to enhance its global image and achieve broader ambitions through its technological advancements.
The groundwork for a potential dictatorial state has been meticulously laid over the years. Trump is not merely facilitating change; he is actively pushing for a fundamental shift that could redefine the very fabric of democracy.
He seems more like Pinochet than anything (maybe without the murdering). Neoliberal deregulation, privatizing state owned assets, etc. while consolidating power to himself. Which ended up in extreme economic inequality and fear of opposing the ruler.
This EO says nothing about the Judicial branch and presents a perfectly reasonable policy statement about how legal decisions and interpretation should be made within the executive branch. What specific language in this EO do you have a problem with?
I’m no fan of Trump, but this pattern of people hallucinating that Trump said something he didn’t and then freaking out about their nonexistent hallucination, is getting very tiresome.
Consider this hypothetical: a federal judge rules against the Trump administration's firing of the inspectors general and must offer the fired employees their positions back. The Attorney General says the judge overstepped his constitutional power and calls the ruling invalid. What should the person who would've rehired the employees do?
Continue that hypothetical further: the case makes its way to the Supreme Court, who agrees with the federal judge. The executive branch continues to ignore the order. The Attorney General is held in contempt of court and fined a large amount of money. Who's going to collect it? Any executive branch employee trying to carry out that fine would be violating this executive order, and be dismissed. So the fine would never happen.
Considering the president and vice president's recent disdain for judicial rulings against them, this may happen.
What’s the solution you have in mind? Anyone in the Executive branch can interpret the law for themselves and disobey an order if they believe they have a legal basis to do so?
It would be completely paralyzing were the executive largely staffed with those that wanted to paralyze it. Usually that's not the case.
I don't think that'd be case unless the orders were completely outrageous, in which case, yes, we absolutely want them disobeyed until adjudication could happen.
It might well be the case that, today, the executive branch (which includes essentially the entirety of what most people consider “the federal government”) is largely staffed by those who want to paralyze it.
You can certainly say that these people are right to try to resist the changes Trump is trying to make. But, like it or not, Trump is the democratically elected President, and it’s quite a challenge to come up with a conceptual model of American government that prevents him from exercising his constitutional authority over the Executive branch.
Perhaps. But I think we can agree that this is indeed not the usual case.
The majority of what he's doing is "merely" unheard of norm violations. But much of the authority he's exercising do not clearly appear to be legal, or constitutional. There are tendentious arguments for much of it being legal, of course, but they're not slam-dunks -- precisely because they would put the entire the executive branch effectively above any law or constraint.
In any other organization it would be clear that even when the head gives you an illegal or an ultra-vires orders, you're not supposed to actually follow them.
I'm not sure what hallucinations you're talking about, given that this whole catastrophe has been one big "I told you so" thus far. By a bit of inductive reasoning we can predict that it will continue. (And it's not like it requires any special predictive abilities given that they told us during the campaign what they were and are planning to do.)
"Hitler opened the meeting by boasting that millions of Germans had welcomed his chancellorship with “jubilation,” then outlined his plans for expunging key government officials and filling their positions with loyalists. At this point he turned to his main agenda item: the empowering law that, he argued, would give him the time (four years, according to the stipulations laid out in the draft of the law) and the authority necessary to make good on his campaign promises to revive the economy, reduce unemployment, increase military spending, withdraw from international treaty obligations, purge the country of foreigners he claimed were “poisoning” the blood of the nation, and exact revenge on political opponents. “Heads will roll in the sand,” Hitler had vowed at one rally."
What is it that you think this EO says? The first Trump administration went all the way to the Supreme Court to establish that he could coerce ALJs. There are already extensive internal checks on FTC, SEC, and FCC --- places where to exercise independent power those agencies still need the cooperation of DOJ.
There's a clear norms violation happening here, but I don't see the power grab everybody else is seeing. These are powers the Presidency already had.
No, the President already has that power. The norm of the previous institutions was, largely, to let the agencies do their thing. This administration is not going to do that.
This was a live question in Trump's last administration, but I don't think it is anymore after cases like Lucia?
You are dying on the hill of a pedantic point. A president also has the power to declare an emergency and deploy the military domestically. Doing so would still be a power grab. The term just doesn't have the precise narrow definition you seem to be arguing for. Its colloquial understanding encompasses the use of heretofore unused powers.
This is one of these situations where my immediate instinct is to clarify my own politics, but then I catch myself and conclude that my comments should stand on their own whether or not you feel like you have a partisan affinity to me. Mostly: this is why the threads on these stories are just wretched. You could say I'm wrong and nerd your way out to whether that's the case --- that's what this site is for --- but instead we're all just reflexively venting emotions.
You don't need to clarify anything. It's simple. Everyone here agrees with your logic, your comments do stand on their own. The point of debate is "but I don't see the power grab everybody else is seeing". Which is fine if you don't see it, that's just how you see it. Others see it differently.
You really can't see how they are both powers that presidents (arguably) technically have but which they do not execute? And that a president actually exercising such a power is thus a power grab?
Nothing in my comment is comparing them or suggesting they are comparable.
You misunderstand me. I'm not saying those internal checks are a good thing; I mean that the President already has extensive mechanisms to control what these agencies do.
> In order to execute a law, one must interpret it.
I mean, yes, but in a non-judicial sense. The judiciary has the constitutionally assigned duty to give binding interpretations in the course of adjudicating cases.
“Wherever law ends, tyranny begins”