Hacker News new | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submit
I find it wild that apparently there is no law onto which government workers can cling to refuse these requests. Is it all just based on conventions, goodwill and culture?
There are laws, but you will get fired if you try to follow them, and lawsuits to remedy that take time.

https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/national-security/usaid-sec...

Is it true to say that in practise there are no laws here? If anyone in DOGE breaks the law, can't the President just issue a blanket pardon?

If the President himself breaks the law, he argues that it was in the course of his official duties [1].

[1] https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/23pdf/23-939_e2pg.pdf

There is a principal in democracy that there Should Not Be strong institutions that prevent a majority of the population from harming itself with its choices. We balance that against a Supreme Court in the US, but that court is almost uniquely powerful & active in forming policy relative to its place in the rest of the world, and right now, most of it has been appointed by fascists; Ultimately the population will have its say in the long term.

Do you want an extra-democratic body who is capable of telling the population "No"?

I think such a body (which exists in some system) would obviously be nice right now, but I am a lot less convinced that it would be a net positive in general.

If we want to find our way out of this, I suspect a lot of people are going to need to feel directly harmed by this administration, and are going to need to basically erect a strong protest culture out of whole cloth. Something like 5% of the population in the streets can topple an authoritarian regime in the right circumstances, but not the 0.5% we might expect for a "large" protest.

loading story #43114872
loading story #43115326
loading story #43120514
loading story #43116244
loading story #43114370
> Is it true to say that in practise there are no laws here? If anyone in DOGE breaks the law, can't the President just issue a blanket pardon?

For federal laws, yes.

If you can find a state-level law that's been violated then he has no jurisdiction to pardeon.

Trump himself was charged at the state level twice (and already convicted once):

* https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prosecution_of_Donald_Trump_in...

* https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Georgia_election_racketeering_...

See also the civil case against him for rape:

* https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/E._Jean_Carroll_v._Donald_J._T...

loading story #43114006
Trump has explicitly said he is above the law: "He who saves the country cannot break the law" is what he posted.

He pardoned people who stormed the capital, threatened gov officials, and killed police officers. Pardoning DOGE employees is child's play -- but it would never get that far because the DOJ and FBI have been purged of those not fully subservient to Trump.

> He pardoned people who stormed the capital

you mean "He pardoned people who were guided in by the security staff working the capital building"?

I hope that's sarcasm, but if not please watch this[0] and explain how this looks like a guided tour

[0] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7Z3YBtzwmHk

Yes, that is always true. It usually doesn't happen. Mainly because DoJ usually doesn't look. Congress can perform oversight and impeach if need be.
I'm assuming this is what they're betting on.
In that case, can't the next president just illegally imprison Elon or trump or whoever for their entire administration, ignore supreme court rulings or lawsuits or whatever, and then issue themselves a pardon at the end?
loading story #43116267
loading story #43117231
Don't know, but I read somewhere that the president can't pardon breaks of federal law.
loading story #43113359
loading story #43113403
And when you have an executive on one hand stating that only the president and the AG can interpret laws for the executive [0] and that you can't break laws if you're "saving the country" [1], that approach also just doesn't seem too promising.

[0] https://www.whitehouse.gov/presidential-actions/2025/02/ensu... Sec. 7

[1] https://truthsocial.com/@realDonaldTrump/posts/1140091792251...

Or, as JD Vance wrote, "Judges aren't allowed to control the executive's legitimate power." (https://x.com/JDVance/status/1888607143030391287). You really have to read it twice to understand just how far out that phrase is. So now it's the executive itself deciding what's "legitimate" (=conforming to the law), not the courts, whose role it is to interpret and enforce laws?
Or Trump fucking referring to himself as king yesterday .. signs are clear.
This will end badly and it will not be fun at all in the end, but it is fascinating to watch how this new wave of fascism unfolds.
Yeah, if we (even in other countries) weren't all personally affected by it, I couldn't stop laughing. The way things are, I'd rather go with Max Liebermann, who reportedly commented on the previous wave of fascism with the words "I couldn't eat as much as I would like to throw up" ("Ich kann gar nicht soviel fressen, wie ich kotzen möchte" - https://www.aphorismen.de/zitat/93763).
Honest question: who else, internal to the executive branch, and besides the president, should be able to interpret the laws for the executive branch?

By my reading, this is a clarification that if an agency makes a significant policy change or regulation, they ought to run it by the president first.

It doesn't preclude other branches of government from checking this power.

Agencies all have their own lawyers, and it’s frequently useful to have them hash out agreements for the same reason that it’s useful for scientists to get peer review. Beyond the basic efficiency argument, it’s good to have multiple people validate your reasoning.
Easy for me to say, but I would like to think I would say, "Fire me, assholes." And have a good story for the grand children.
loading story #43115583
Which laws? The article describes security clearance.
Security clearances are based on laws, such as the ones compiled in Title 50 U.S. Code §3341.
So if DOGE have security clearances (unclear if the have) then their audit is legal?
> So if DOGE have security clearances (unclear if the have) then their audit is legal?

They're also responsible liable for keeping the data safe, which has already been broken at least once:

* https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=43052432

Possibly violating:

> Whoever knowingly and willfully communicates, furnishes, transmits, or otherwise makes available to an unauthorized person, or publishes, or uses in any manner prejudicial to the safety or interest of the United States or for the benefit of any foreign government to the detriment of the United States any classified information— […]

* https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/798

loading story #43113959
Clearance does not allow indiscriminate access, it just means you are theoretically trustable. You still need a reason to access the data, usually negotiated with the data owners, who is legally responsible for protecting the data. DOGE has bypassed all of that to just hoover up whatever they can.
loading story #43115874
IANAL, but there are other laws governing what DOGE is doing that they are violating, such as transparency laws.
Statutes can't really constrain the president's authority to do this sort of thing (firing appointees, firing employees for cause, laying people off, auditing the executive agencies). Constitutionally the president is just plenipotent within the executive branch.
The enforcement of these laws should be a function of the executive. There are ways for the supreme court or congress to intervene when the executive isn't doing their job. Sadly that requires them to believe a series of checks and balances is necessary.

Given that it is down to the voters, and they thought a racist, rapist, conman should be president giving them the power of the executive - which has been growing increasingly powerful for my adult lifetime.

loading story #43113954
loading story #43117368
> Given that it is down to the voters, and they thought a racist, rapist, conman should be president

And multiply-bankrupt, and (on the second term) multiply-convicted felon.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Personal_and_business_legal_af...

Vox populi, vox Dei, but unfortunately the Deus in question is Κοάλεμος

Musk Crassus and Donald Caesar comprise a de facto duumvirate.
> Given that it is down to the voters, and they thought a racist, rapist, conman should be president giving them the power of the executive - which has been growing increasingly powerful for my adult lifetime.

It's this kind of contempt that got him elected. You have no empathy or interest in the will of the people. Maybe if you talked with some of them, you'd understand their grievances. But something tells me you'd sooner ironically prejudicially dismiss them all as racist bigots.

loading story #43112802
loading story #43113932
loading story #43120382
loading story #43117328
loading story #43112358
loading story #43115386
loading story #43112305
There is no constitutional way the president to not have access to any data in the executive branch. And since doge is reporting to him - it just send the data to the president and he will forward it to whomever he pleases.

Even the concept of independent executive agencies is probably more vulnerable constitutionally than more people think.

All the court cases being brought is going to end up in the SCOTUS over https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unitary_executive_theory . There is a pretty good chance that this will be confirmed.
Yeah, that's my point. Not even the president should have unrestricted access to that data. He's not a king or the head of a corporation. And government workers aren't his subjects or employees. In most places, at least honest government workers can stand their ground because they're backed by a law governing this access.
loading story #43118133
loading story #43112851
[dupe]
loading story #43112955
Yes, so long as there's checks and balances and accountability. The president is not king, just chief executive.
> The president is not king, just chief executive.

Well someone should tell him: https://x.com/WhiteHouse/status/1892295984928993698/photo/1 !

He literally declared himself king multiple times yesterday. He literally campaigned a promise that we wouldn't need future elections. He literally states he is the one true interpreter of the law with respect to the federal bureaucracy.
loading story #43118112
This is a straw man argument.

I don't like Musk. That's true. The reasoning is irrelevant.

Let's take someone I do like. Linus Torvalds. If Trump (or Harris or ...) appointed Linus, unilaterally, to do what Musk is doing, I'd still have a problem with it.

Now the two responses you might have are:

- I don't believe you.

- Linus wouldn't be bad either.

Both of which completely miss the point. Nobody should have singular, unilateral, unsupervised access to governmental systems like this.

Imagine if Obama had given Bill Gates a similar role.
The people on Fox would have literal heart attacks on air. I'm remember them going crazy because Obama wore a tan suit (it's got a wiki page!).

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Barack_Obama_tan_suit_controve...

Truly an incident where I couldn't tell how much of that was legitimate insanity, and how much of it was carefully curated fake-controversy-as-distraction. A common question I ask myself about conservatives every single day. Multiple times a day, lately.

It's objectively true no sane person would have cared about that issue.

loading story #43114899
loading story #43113731
Yes imagine. So it’s pretty clear the other team is overreacting just like the current team would overreact.
loading story #43113628
Yeah 99% is sour grapes from the other team. I like what doge has turned up so far and will give them the benefit of the doubt. My wife is a long time liberal Democrat and even she admits the main problem is Musk is just doing out in the open what is usually done behind closed doors and people don’t like it.
loading story #43114160
loading story #43114906
loading story #43114579
loading story #43114131
A team of kids without the capacity for discernment and bad morals to get through government agencies data is unprecedented. This is not sour grapes, this is a radical shift to how things have been done. These kids talk about bling bling, pull pump and dumps in the crypto world and are now at Elon Musks command. This is pushing any conversation away completely because you cannot have a normal conversation with trolls. What’s next, uncontrolled violence?
That's where I think things are headed.

For example, when the NLRB was crippled by trump firing a member and losing quoroum, they forgot an important part of union history.

Prior to a proper process of grievances, the old answer was to basically wage war, guns and all, against the bosses and their families. The companies also hired Pinkerton's and every so often had the national guard also fight for the companies.

Union history is a bloody and murderous affair.

The NLRB was the compromise to "go to the bosses house and shoot it up to leave a message". With the NLRB effective destruction, the next logical devolution for worker rights is violence, and a lot of it.

As for me, I'm looking at what it would take to get out of the USA. Already interviewing with a few places in EU. The USA is basically an invaded country at this point. And I really dont want to be around when the violence picks up.

IMO firing the people inside the agency wasn't enough. He needs to install anti-union replacements to destroy it from the inside.
How I'm reading and interpreting this, is that you dont want workers collectively communicating and joining forces at a negotiating table.

By denouncing this right of peaceably assembling and negotiating at a table of law, means that you're wanting the old solution of mass widespread violence against workers and management. Because this is exactly what happened before. But dont believe me - go read how unions were formed.

Most civilized countries have good worker protections. The USA is speedrunning the elimination of worker protections. And it doesn't take too much history knowledge to figure out how that works out.

I think the zoomer term is "fuck around and find out". We're in the 'fuck around' stage. I dont want to be here during the 'find out' stage.

Why anti union? Union protect workers, is there a war being waged on workers now?
loading story #43119762
> What’s next, uncontrolled violence?

https://www.nationalww2museum.org/war/articles/how-did-adolf...

Hitler was elected, loved to hear himself talk, many people did not take him seriously, blamed Germany's weaknesses on minorities, anti democratic.

Even teamed up with Stalin's Russia to invade Poland.

If the pattern continues then the push back will be used to grant himself emergency powers.

Black flag attack next, like Hitler did, the right wing is obsessed with those. Or will crack down hard on a protest and when they try to fight back he'll declare a state of emergency.

Doubt anything short of a military coup that dismantles maga can stop this. Hopefully neither party survives and the US will have an actual democracy.

Stop being naive. This is an unelected billionaire successfully couping the government and replacing competent people with incompetent lackeys. Musk is fucking you over and you're cheering him on because you've suckled at the teat of propaganda for far too long. Get your head out of your ass and actually think
Denial on what is actually happening is rampant at the moment. When in weeks, months, and years the consequences of these actions maybe, maybe, it will be acknowledged, though the pattern has been so far scapegoating the 'other'.
loading story #43124574
> The pushback seems to mostly be “I don’t like Musk in particular, and thus I don’t like that Musk in particular has this access”

You are either delusional or purposely misrepresenting facts

I concur, but White House staff that are not confirmed by Congress have limits placed on their power when dealing with some agencies (as legislated by Congress) and there are of course many other laws and regulations pertaining to information security (FISMA), security clearances, data privacy, employee protections, and so on that I would expect such a White House functionary to respect.
loading story #43113194
[flagged]
In most rule of law democracies the law is above the president. The civil servants are beholden to the law as passed by the representatives of the people, the chief executive can only give orders as allowed by the law. Granted there will be times of murkiness that require interpretation. But "fuck it I'm the president and everything I say is legal" is not a valid interpretation in any democracy I know of.
Generally when you reach that point it ceases to be a democracy.
loading story #43112749
loading story #43112659
loading story #43112866
In the USA, both are true. Civil servants can (and should) refuse to follow an order they think is unconstitutional, illegal, or simply unwise. But this won't stop them from being fired for insubordination. I don't think the courts will attempt to force the president to retain subordinates that are actively opposing him on the job.
If they can still be fired, then what does it even mean to say that they can refuse to follow an unconstitutional order? Refusal to follow any order is not illegal. If the consequences for refusing to follow an illegal order are the same as the consequences for refusing to follow a legal order, then there is no sense in saying civil servants can refuse illegal orders.
The consequences for following an illegal order include being sued, being held in contempt of court, or being criminally prosecuted by a subsequent administration. They don't have the same immunity that presidents do because they don't have a direct vesting of authority under Article II.
loading story #43114905
loading story #43112609
loading story #43112803
Yes, like the 7 DoJ prosecutors who chose to resign last week rather than sign a dismissal of the charges against Eric Adams, because it was an obvious quid pro quo, and the case against Adams is very strong. There's absolutely no legitimate justification for not prosecuting Adams.

The dismissal was eventually signed and filed by Emil Bove, a very recent Trump appointee, whose former job was as one of Trump's criminal defense lawyers.

The stink of corruption is heavy around Trump and Musk.

loading story #43112516
[flagged]
loading story #43112550
loading story #43112410
The reason they're now pretending that Musk is an "advisor" is that there are laws against what he proudly says he's doing, and Trump has said Musk is doing.

He can't lead a government department without being confirmed by congress. If he's just an advisor, he and his Musk Youth army can't actually give orders to government employees the way they've been doing, much less fire them.

If someone keeps lying every other breath for years and years, at some point you should stop taking their word at face value.

We've had a lot of these in 3 weeks, but this is an emperor has no clothes on moment. DOGE is running around saying they have access because of Musk. Even Trump has a hard time saying anything else. Now they are saying Musk isn't really in charge and has no power. They also won't say who runs DOGE. Everyone knows it's bullshit, but people accept it. That's the real lesson from 1984, and here we are.

I'm really at a loss how anyone still believes or supports these people.

loading story #43112449
loading story #43112588
Anyone is quite welcome to escalate to whatever level they think appropriate in opposition to whatever they feel motivated by.

Just be aware of the consequences of failing, or succeeding.

loading story #43112424
no it's based on elections
Why would you want a law that says government workers have zero accountability over how they spend the money they extract by threat of violence from the citizenry?

We should all have "root access" to everything but the most national-security sensitive topics.

One side is understandably on edge but nothing DOGE has been doing is unexpected, except in the sense that it's actually happening or seems to be happening. It went through the whole political process's standard change control mechanism, in other words the current Administration literally campaigned on it and received a mandate via both the EC and popular vote.