Hacker News new | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submit
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

loading story #43114060
loading story #43113703
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

loading story #43120452
loading story #43113248
loading story #43116174
loading story #43113309
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?
loading story #43115050
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.
loading story #43113319
loading story #43112794
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.

loading story #43118989
loading story #43115069
Which laws? The article describes security clearance.
Security clearances are based on laws, such as the ones compiled in Title 50 U.S. Code ยง3341.
So if DOGE have security clearances (unclear if the have) then their audit is legal?
loading story #43113722
loading story #43115771
loading story #43113232
loading story #43120472