15 ms·
DOGE is obviously a completely illegal operation, and I really do hope it will be get reined in before they can cause an issue so big that _even trump's cronies
by code_runner 2y ago
DOGE is obviously a completely illegal operation, and I really do hope it will be get reined in before they can cause an issue so big that _even trump's croniest cronies_ have to admit what is going on.
For someone who claims to love freedom of speech, Elon is pretty quick to determine who can say what, and how much access to _his_ data people have.
- nimish 2y agoIs it? It's explicitly just a rename of the USDS. Them not using govslack is stupid though
- the_optimist 2y ago[flagged]
- jfkrrorj 2y ago[flagged]
- bpodgursky 2y agoI mean, there are many political leaders who would put Musk in prison in a heartbeat for the DOGE stuff. It's not paranoia. This is separate from "do you think this is illegal", but it's absolutely reasonable, from their perspective, to think that "everyone is after them".
- jfkrrorj 2y agoI know! Maybe this paranoa would be justified, if they would already killed millions and destroyed countries!
- dylan604 2y agoI'm surprised he has not tit-for-tatted with pre-emptive pardons for all of his minions.
- SketchySeaBeast 2y agoIs it actually illegal if it's the pet project of the president, who has been given absolute power by the rest of the government?
- stanleykm 2y agoThe president isn’t a king.
- SketchySeaBeast 2y agoYou and I would like to think that, but he's been given carte blanche by the people who should be his checks and balances and the supreme court has made anything he does in the course of his duties legal.
- dylan604 2y agoIn what ways is a president restricted from acting like a king when the other two bodies of government meant to act as a check and balance have capitulated any of those checks and essentially give carte blanche to the president?
- outside1234 2y agoIt is a good question. Hopefully we get an answer before we are all bankrupt. No idea why the markets aren't in freefall at this point.
- jedilord 2y agoHow is it an illegal operation?
- mplewis 2y agoDOGE does not have the authority to shut down independent agencies of the US Government such as USAID.
- zosima 2y agoDOGE gets its authority through the president. The president definitely has the authority to audit and/or stop illegal, fraudulent or just wasteful transactions. The exact shape or form of USAID is also up to the president. It was created through an executive order, and can of course also be transformed through one.
- msarvar 2y agoI have seen this regurgitated several times on this site now. This is blatantly false, congress passed a law in 1998 to establish USAID. The EO was made with authority that had been granted by another law. That law does not allow the President to abolish it: > Unless abolished pursuant to the reorganization plan submitted under section 6601 of this title, and except as provided in section 6562 of this title, there is within the Executive branch of Government the United States Agency for International Development as an entity described in section 104 of title 5. - 22 U.S.C. §6563 All it takes is a simple google search.
- pfannkuchen 2y agoThe actual law is a high dimensional interaction of all active legislation. Predicting what the legal system will do is hard and often cannot be achieved with high reliability with a google search. This is why lawyers exist. Presumably doge and trump have access to good lawyers. I’m not asserting that they are right, just that a shallow legal analysis is error prone and looking at a single law likely does not yield useful prediction making capability.
- jklinger410 2y ago> DOGE is obviously a completely illegal operation This narrative infuriates me. Either you are right, and entire wings of our government are abetting a coup, or you are wrong, and our government has huge back doors that no one is watching. Both realities reveal something urgently broken with the United States. In a way that should scare the entire western world to its core.
- darth_avocado 2y agoDOGE is not illegal. However the legality of some of the things they do is under question. The current government, including DOGE is being operated like “Just do as many things as possible, so that the lawsuits can’t keep up”. While lawyers are busy trying to stop big things, many small but important items will slip through the cracks and will take decades to undo. Edit: BTW this strategy has always been available, it’s just that career politicians aren’t incentivized to do this for “good” because they want long political careers.
- jklinger410 2y ago> While lawyers are busy trying to stop big things, many small but important items will slip through the cracks and will take decades to undo. So the government is designed in such a way that someone can do illegal things without those currently running the systems simply saying "no?" They have the power to do the things, and then we have to wait for it to be litigated. Watching the cases against Trump drop like flies after he got elected, knowing the Supreme Court is packed full of members of one party. This doesn't seem like a reliable solution.
- dylan604 2y ago> hope it will be get reined in before oops. they already have access to data, and there's no unseeing what they've seen.
- ty6853 2y agoI was assured right here on HN that the data was public to begin with, and downvoted for suggesting it was possible unseen corruption. Hopefully if that is true they find it just matches what has released publicly. https://news.ycombinator.com/threads?id=ty6853&next=42914628#42905219 https://news.ycombinator.com/threads?id=ty6853&next=42914628...
- littlestymaar 2y agoThis whole operation is as related to finding corruption exhibits as the Moscow trials were to finding traitors in the Red Army. It is a (ridiculous) pretext for purging the system from people that the new power deems “uncooperative”.
- ty6853 2y agoIt is hard for me to imagine any entrenched civil service being cooperative with plans to shit can their jobs. So I'm not sure that means much. Almost by human nature, most people are uncooperative ( and deemed such ) with plans to end their dental plan and rent money.
- littlestymaar 2y agoIn democratic countries, civil servants aren't supposed to be changed after each elections, while they have their individual opinions they know their duty and follow the orders that come from the political power (and should they not obey to the order from above, there are disciplinary sanctions that can be leveraged against them). And it's not some theoretical idea, in all Western democracies, every civil servant that has been in place for long enough has seen governments from multiple political sides. That's how it works. Using illegal means to purge the institutions from undesired people is not something that happens in a democracy, this is unprecedented in the West since Gleichschaltung.
- slashdev 2y ago[flagged]
- affinepplan 2y agoplease don't spread misinformation. it clearly has power, and has been demonstrably exercising that power. > to shine a light into dark places of government spending yes, I'm aware that this is the Official Position of the State. but quite obviously that is not what it is actually doing
- slashdev 2y agoWhat power exactly does it have? Be specific.
- affinepplan 2y agoFull access to US Treasury payment infrastructure and private data on millions of US citizens, for two.
- slashdev 2y agoThat's not power. That's information access, and yes, they are getting that, and that's not unexpected either. How else would they do their job?
- affinepplan 2y agoKnowledge is power
- slashdev 2y agoYou’re moving the goal posts of this conversation by redefining the word power. My point stands.
- 2y ago
- aeternum 2y agoWhat do you think about the legality of each federal department having millions in kickbacks to Politico in the form of hidden premium subscriptions? What about USAID being used to pay celebrities but only those that support one of the political parties?
- zzzeek 2y agohave them audited by the Office of the Inspector General. Which is not very easy right now as Trump illegally fired many of them across 17 different offices. The illegality and unconsitutionalism of the actions being taken to dismantle agencies and placement private citizens without background checks or proper auditing / security procedures inside of highly critical and often classified systems are the issue, not whether or not USAID should be audited or abolished. There are proper channels for that. they are being bypassed (even though fully available to the President with all three branches of government in Republican control).
- jondwillis 2y agoSince we are doing whataboutism, let's also bring up the ~$1 trillion PPP program, ripe with fraud, enabled and designed by Donald Trump, which helped kick off the current wave of inflation. >The cost per job saved for one year was $169,000 to $258,000, which was much higher than the average amount—$58,200—paid in wages and benefits to small-business employees in 2020. [1] [1] https://www.stlouisfed.org/publications/regional-economist/2022/jul/was-paycheck-protection-program-effective https://www.stlouisfed.org/publications/regional-economist/2...
- aeternum 2y agoAgreed, ripe with fraud and overall an unfair use of taxpayer money. Poorly thought out even for an emergency measure and we should not do it again.
- floatrock 2y agoAre we complaining about the millions the feds pay SpaceX for their starlink terminals? Are we concerned about the government subscriptions to Bloomberg feeds? I'll get rage-y about this one when someone explains what a Politico premium subscription provides and why it was a corrupt purchase. Maybe it's a valid information data service that provides key information to whatever agency purchased it, purchased using an appropriate bidding contract. Or maybe it wasn't. But the point is show me why that was an inappropriate purchase while Starlink and Bloomberg feeds aren't. Unfortunately doing that takes investigation and due-process, and it doesn't score the same propaganda points as just yelling "See?! My political opponent had the government as a customer!!"
- unsupp0rted 2y ago> DOGE is obviously a completely illegal operation What laws does it break? I like to watch those "Auditors" on Youtube who film in public places. Every cop assures them that filming a police officer / police station / inside a public library is illegal. About 25% of the time they detain them, and about 10% of the time they arrest them. When they ask what law they've broken, they never get a straight answer.
- ty6853 2y agoI think the one they're going for is that being a senior officer with material authority requires confirmation per the appointments clause, constitutional law instead of a federal statute. Whether musk is operating as such seems dubious but possible.
- wavefunction 2y agoUS' Privacy Act of 1974
- deleted 2y ago[deleted]
- hiatus 2y agoSome of the exceptions include: - For routine uses within a U.S. government agency - For law enforcement purposes
- alfiedotwtf 2y agoPresidential Pardons
- olalonde 2y agoStupid question but don't the Republicans control all branches of government? Couldn't they just declare whatever DOGE is doing legal (if it's indeed illegal)?
- kemayo 2y agoThey could†, but they haven't. †: They actually couldn't, without stripping the filibuster from the Senate.
- amarcheschi 2y agoWith the cross symbol I thought you were proposing to... Deal with doge in an unconventional, yet fast, disruptive and mangionesque way
- kemayo 2y agoIt's a dagger symbol! Which... I guess doesn't entirely avert that implication. (But really, it's the traditional second tier footnote symbol after an asterisk, which I couldn't use here because it triggers italics.)
- amarcheschi 2y agoIt looks like the dead cross symbol on Wikipedia
- olalonde 2y agoNot familiar with "filibuster". Does it mean that Democrats could effectively prevent a potential "DOGE is legal" bill from passing by endlessly debating it?
- plagiarist 2y agoOh, that would be nice for a change. My understanding is they no longer debate it, they just send an email to the Senate saying "I filibuster" and the bill is tabled.
- dmitrygr 2y agoNo personal option stated or implied, but: exactly this was clearly promised before the election, and it is being delivered right now. The people voted for this: a majority of the American people. Democracy, no?
- Tool_of_Society 2y agoHe didn't even get a majority of the 60% of voter aged Americans who voted.
- amarcheschi 2y agoI do not get why electing a leader with anti democratic tendencies should be viewed as the pinnacle of democracy
- tdb7893 2y agoIn American democracy winning a single election doesn't change the constitution or even the laws at all. There are separate processes for those things that haven't happened. The monetary decisions the executive branch is making right now are explicitly reserved for Congress, which notably hasn't passed a law for it. Voting for someone doesn't imply they aren't bound by existing rules. Edit: There's also more to be said here about restrictions on American democracy (e.g. gerrymandering, first past the post, disenfranchisement, financial barriers to entry for candidates, lack of choice for political parties, etc) that make the US not some bastion for democratic governance. I'm not an expert but the current chaos is at least partially enabled by the flaws in American democracy (rigid 2 party control is a good example of a generally undemocratic force, many Americans would prefer more parties but aren't being represented, that is enabling executive overreach).
- Volundr 2y ago> The people voted for this: a majority of the American people. Democracy, no? Does this mean it was wrong of Republicans to have tried to stop anything Obama or Biden was trying to do? Or question it's legality? I keep hearing this "the people voted for it argument", but unless your prepared to condemn things like limiting the scope of the ACA and refusing to confirm justices, it's hard to take the argument seriously.
- tmaly 2y agoI just saw a thread by a lawyer on X that broke down the EO creating DOGE. It was very interesting how they got around things.
- code_runner 2y agoThey seem to be still be deciding what the EO actually is, and they also didn’t create a non-governmental entity like trump promised.
- hintymad 2y ago> DOGE is obviously a completely illegal operation Could you share you reasons. From what I gather, the EO[1] does a few things to avoid potential law suits: - It revised the purpose of an existing agency, USDS. The general purpose is not changed: "Modernizing Federal Technology and Software to Maximize Efficiency and Productivity". This avoids the issue of creating a new agency without the approval from Congress. - It cites cites the sectio 3161 of title 5 of United States Code, to create DOGE as a "Temporary Organization" for only 18 months. This avoids the law suits that the EO creates a new government entity with out the approval of Congress. - It orders each government agency to hire DOGE teams, each of which includes a lead, a lawyer, an HR, and an engineer. Agency heads should ensure that DOGE agenda is implemented. This is within the authority of an EO. - The EO voids previous EOs to avoid law suits on future conflicts. [1] https://www.whitehouse.gov/presidential-actions/2025/01/establishing-and-implementing-the-presidents-department-of-government-efficiency/ https://www.whitehouse.gov/presidential-actions/2025/01/esta...
- hintymad 2y agoAnd a curious question: I was seeking the truth on the qualifier "obvious" and the legality of the EO in general, and I presented my case with references to the actual EO. My reasoning could be very wrong but at least I tried to stick with the discussion of the actual legality of the EO. What's your reason to flag it and downvote it without counter arguments? Anything that does not agree with your rage is automatically morally bad bad bad?
- unsnap_biceps 2y agoI believe that the existence of DOGE and the EO is legal. I don't believe that what they are actually doing (according to reports) is legal. I believe they are doing illegal things based upon Musk's own tweets, however, I do actually hope he is just trolling and it's not actually happening as he says it is. That said, even if it's just trolling, trolling has no place in government. We all deserve better and we need to trust that what is said is the truth.
- 2y ago
- swat535 2y ago> DOGE is obviously a completely illegal operation, Which law(s) are they breaking? Please cite them specifically. I'm genuinely asking because you are making a very assertive statement.
- goldforever 2y ago[dead]
- Dig1t 2y agoIt’s obviously completely legal actually. The president has the power to do this. Reducing bureaucracy, rooting out corruption, and shrinking government waste also polls really well. Democrats should be much more careful about positioning themselves on this long term. If they are seen as the party of more bureaucracy and corruption (they already are) this will further tarnish their reputation and decrease their odds of winning elections in the future. The way it’s currently playing out the people complaining the loudest seem like the most guilty benefactors of corruption, they are damaging their reputations and don’t even realize it.
- insane_dreamer 2y agothe only entity that could _maybe_ rein it in would be Congress, specifically the Senate. Even SCOTUS, by the time it gets all the way there, the damage would be done and it would take years to rebuild. A complete clusterfk by design.
- phendrenad2 2y agoUnfortunately we're well past "legal" and "illegal" when it comes to the federal government. The last 4 presidents have pushed things through without the proper procedures. DOGE is just the one you're noticing.