Trump’s Sun-Tzu Play

Now that I looked up the meaning of DOGE it makes some sense.

iWe (View Post):

And the meantime, DOGE is free to go ahead and wreck the Deep State.

And with what authority will DOGE do this?

And you can tell that most Leftists have never been in a real fight: They announce, loudly, who they're afraid of and why; they telegraph every punch; and they all have "glass jaws."

Hope you are correct. Gaetz and RFKjr are otherwise inexplicably bad picks. RFKjr is very Pro Abortion and very Pro Single Payer Health Care. I don't see Gaetz as interested in just application of the law or the constitution.

MWD B612 "Dawg" (View Comment):

iWe (View Post):

And the meantime, DOGE is free to go ahead and wreck the Deep State.

And with what authority will DOGE do this?

DOGE identifies. Trump Executive Orders away. For things that require Congress or the Courts, Doge feeds/prompts those processes.

But Vivek (and others) have also identified ways to fire government employees. You can read it here.

Here is the text,

Introduction

There is an unconstitutional , fourth branch ofgovernment that is choking American democracy, and itis

called the administrative state. Hordes of unelected bureaucrats stifle innovation and ignore the voted

desires ofthe American people. Till now, no American President has succeeded in rolling back the powers

ofthese administrators who should report to the president but in fact report only to their union bosses.

unveiled my plan to shut down multiple federal administrative agencies by firing mostoftheir

employees andtransferring essential roles to other departments. This includes shuttering the Department

ofEducationand relocating its workforce training programs to the Department of Labor; shutting down

the FBI and relocating the 15,000 special agents who solve cases to the U.S. Marshals, Drug Enforcement

Agency, and Financial Crimes Enforcement Network inthe Department of Treasury and abolishing the

Nuclear Regulatory Commission, while distributing its responsibilities to other parts ofthe Departmentof

Energy and Environmental Protection Agency. Thisplan will reduce costs, stimulate the economy, and

improve democratic accountability inour federal government.

Conventional wisdom holds that the U.S. President cannot exercise such authority without new laws from

Congress . That view is wrong, and I will now establish the case against it.

Strategy

Rule - making authorityandadministrative procedures

The U.S. President enjoys broad statutory authority to prescribe rules for the civil service . The President

may prescribe such regulations for the admission of individuals into the civil service in the executive

branch as will best promote the efficiency of that service (5 U.S.C. 3301) . The President has similar

power to prescribe rules governing the competitive service (5 U.S.C. 3302), which includes most

federal bureaucrats .

PresidentTrump used this authority to issue an executive order directly amending previously enacted

agency regulations, and Presidents from Harry Truman to Barack Obama have similarly amended the civil

service rules by executive order as well. InFranklinv. Massachusetts and Collins v. Yellen the Supreme

Courtheld that the presidential exercise ofsuch authority is unrestricted by the Administrative Procedures

Act(APA) , which requires notice-and-comment periods and other procedural hurdles to implement

federal regulations. This finding makes sense because the APA was designed to protect the governed from

unconstitutional overreach ofthe federal government, not federal employees from their employer.

It'strue that federal employees inthe competitive service enjoy for-cause protections, which means that

they cannot be fired inthe absence ofspecific findings of severe misconduct. However, itis notable that

these protections do not protect federal employees from anexecutive order implementing a mass layoff

that would eliminate a significant number ofjobs at once, for two reasons.

Executive versus agency powerFirst, the statutory for-cause rule is weak by design, set forth as a technical restrictionon an individual

agency's decisiontoremove a federal employee: "Under regulationsprescribedby the OfficeofPersonnel

Management , an agency may take an actioncovered by this subchapter [includingremoval] against an

employeeonly for suchcause as willpromotethe efficiency ofthe service" (5 USC § 7513a) .Itis

importantto note that the U.S.President is not an agency, so an executiveorder eliminating a significant

number ofjobs does not constitute an agency removal.

Reduction inforcepermissions

Second, a "reduction inforce" a mass layoff offederal employees is treated differently by the statute

and not subject to for-cause limitations at all. Rather, reductions inforce are subject only to 60-day notice

requirements and order-of-retention rules (5 U.S. Code 3502). The statute gives the power to effectuate

such reductions to the Office ofPersonnel Management (OPM) , and the OPM rules give the power to

effectuate reductions inforce to individual administrative agency heads notthe President.

The President should appoint agency heads who are prepared to effectuate mass layoffs ifthat is the

President's directives , but even ifagency heads refuse to cooperate , the U.S. President can assume the

power to effectuate reductions inforce by overriding these OPM rules through the exercise ofthe

aforementioned 5 U.S.C. 3302 statutory power to "prescribe rules governing the competitive service.

"

That much allows the U.S. President to fire large numbers offederal employees, but what about

reorganizing executive departments? Many believe the President has no unilateral authority to abolish

agencies, but, incertain cases, that view is wrong.

Reorganizationpowers

A Reorganization Act was passed in 1977 giving the President the power to submit "Reorganization

Plans" to Congress inwhich entire agencies could have been abolished that would go into effect after a

period oftime unless rejected by Congress . The "Reorganization Planprocess which requiredthe

consent ofCongress expired on its own terms in 1980, but the followingprovisions ofthe 1977

Reorganization Act (5 U.S.C. 901) are still ineffect:

( a ) TheCongressdeclaresthatitisthepolicyofthe UnitedStates

(1) to promotethe better execution ofthe laws, the more effective management ofthe executive branch

and ofits agencies and functions, and the expeditious administrationofthe public business ;

(2) to reduce expenditures and promote economy to the fullest extent consistent with the efficient

operation ofthe Government

(3 )to increasetheefficiencyoftheoperationsofthe Government to thefullestextentpracticable ;

(4) to group, coordinate, and consolidate agencies and functions ofthe Government, as nearly as may be,

accordingto major purposes;(5) to reducethenumberofagenciesby consolidatingthose havingsimilar functions under a single head,

andto abolishsuch agenciesor functions thereofas may not be necessaryfor the efficientconductofthe

Government ; and

(6) to eliminate overlappingand duplication ofeffort.

(d) ThePresidentshall from time to time examinethe organization ofallagenciesand shalldetermine

whatchangesinsuchorganizationarenecessaryto carryout anypolicysetforthinsubsection (a) of

thissection.

Thesespecific provisions were never repealedand give the U.S. President independent power to make

changes inthe "organizationofallagencies.

It'strue that a subsequent 1984 Reorganization Act was passed to cure a procedural defect inthe original

congressional review process the one-house veto that the Supreme Court held unconstitutional inINSv.

Chadha The 1984 Act required Congress to affirmatively approve presidential reorganization plans by

majority vote inboth houses . But the 1984 Act has an expiration date that has long pastwhile the 1977

Act's unexpired provisions are still ineffect.

Conclusion

Article IIofthe U.S. Constitution states that the executive Power shall be vested ina President ofthe

United States ofAmerica. Conservatives have long been frustrated by an expansive and unaccountable

federal administrative state, butthe good news is that the democratically elected leader ofthe executive

branch is already empowered by Congress to dramatically reduce the size and scope ofsprawling federal

agencies. The missing element is a U.S. President who reads the law carefully and is prepared to act

accordingly