This weekly roundup thread is intended for all culture war posts. 'Culture war' is vaguely defined, but it basically means controversial issues that fall along set tribal lines. Arguments over culture war issues generate a lot of heat and little light, and few deeply entrenched people ever change their minds. This thread is for voicing opinions and analyzing the state of the discussion while trying to optimize for light over heat.
Optimistically, we think that engaging with people you disagree with is worth your time, and so is being nice! Pessimistically, there are many dynamics that can lead discussions on Culture War topics to become unproductive. There's a human tendency to divide along tribal lines, praising your ingroup and vilifying your outgroup - and if you think you find it easy to criticize your ingroup, then it may be that your outgroup is not who you think it is. Extremists with opposing positions can feed off each other, highlighting each other's worst points to justify their own angry rhetoric, which becomes in turn a new example of bad behavior for the other side to highlight.
We would like to avoid these negative dynamics. Accordingly, we ask that you do not use this thread for waging the Culture War. Examples of waging the Culture War:
-
Shaming.
-
Attempting to 'build consensus' or enforce ideological conformity.
-
Making sweeping generalizations to vilify a group you dislike.
-
Recruiting for a cause.
-
Posting links that could be summarized as 'Boo outgroup!' Basically, if your content is 'Can you believe what Those People did this week?' then you should either refrain from posting, or do some very patient work to contextualize and/or steel-man the relevant viewpoint.
In general, you should argue to understand, not to win. This thread is not territory to be claimed by one group or another; indeed, the aim is to have many different viewpoints represented here. Thus, we also ask that you follow some guidelines:
-
Speak plainly. Avoid sarcasm and mockery. When disagreeing with someone, state your objections explicitly.
-
Be as precise and charitable as you can. Don't paraphrase unflatteringly.
-
Don't imply that someone said something they did not say, even if you think it follows from what they said.
-
Write like everyone is reading and you want them to be included in the discussion.
On an ad hoc basis, the mods will try to compile a list of the best posts/comments from the previous week, posted in Quality Contribution threads and archived at /r/TheThread. You may nominate a comment for this list by clicking on 'report' at the bottom of the post and typing 'Actually a quality contribution' as the report reason.
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
Notes -
You are wrong on #1 and #2: Congressional action is required in order to create new executive branch offices. Presidents cannot do that through executive order per the constitution Article II, Section 2, Clause 2. DOGE was not created by congress and Musk has not been approved by congress. #3 depends, as most funding is earmarked to what organization it goes to.
Specifics matter. If Trump wants to have a new office in the executive branch, he will have to ask congress to create it for him. If he wants Musk to lead it, he will have to get him confirmed, the latter will never happen.
He won't do either one, so it looks like we are headed toward a constitutional crisis.
You mean offices like US AID? That was created by EO. Department level offices cannot be created by EO.
Also BS on the president being restricted on sharing info. Classification and de classification is a power of the president.
You are wrong on both counts and really need to read up a bit on this. It was created by EO, but established as an "independent establishment outside of the State Department by Section 1413 of the Foreign Affairs Reform and Restructuring Act of 1998, Division G of P.L. 105-277. So again, this action is another example of executive branch overstep. If they want to get rid of it, fine, but to it legally through congress. Which they have a majority in both chambers mind you.
Since September of 2020, there have been rules to prevent security clearances being given to anyone who has been a lobbyist or have a financial conflict of interest. This has not been done. Musk owns companies that compete with other companies who have government contracts, whereas now he will have unfettered access to their employees information (SSN, address, tax info, etc) along with complete information on government contracts with those competitors.
Hey buddy — you might want to check the date on the law you cited and the date USAID was created.
Also, and? Again the president can choose classification. It doesn’t matter that Biden made rules relating to lobbying.
Maybe it is you who needs to read up.
You didn't read the link. Again--congress made it a separate entity from the State Department years after it was established.
Since congress separated it, the president cannot get rid of it. Congress would have to do that.
You seem to not know how our goverment works. That is fine, but this discussion is pointless until you read up. I recommend starting here
You were and contribute to respond to something I didn’t say. I never made a claim about what Trump could do with respect to closing USAID by EO (that whole can of worms is complex and depends on what is meant by close—suffice to say I think Trump could effectively neuter USAID even if he can’t formally close it).
Instead I pointed out you were wrong to say that an EO cannot create a government office specifically pointing to USAID as an example (this was after I pointed out that you were mistaken to believe DOGE was not part of the government). You then retorted with a law 30 years after JFK created USAID.
So you chided me for things I didn’t say and asked me to read closely while literally ignoring what I said. Maybe slow down and don’t assume what other people mean to say and respond to what they actually said. Also have some humility as you’ve been factually wrong a few times and overstate your legal case.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
Congressional action isn't needed to create roles in the Executive Office of the President that are not "Officers of the United States". Musk could do most of what DOGE is doing legally as a Special Assistant to the President, but he isn't one, he is just a private citizen who Trump has told his top political appointees to share information with.
More options
Context Copy link
Well, you still haven't actually read the EO.
DOGE is established as a renaming of the US digital service to US DOGE service, with a temporary suborganization called US DOGE Service Temporary Organization with teams of Special Government Employees.
And USDS's new mandate is a Software Modernization Initiative, not technically a budget directive, so the mission of USDS has not changed.
Finally, the president does have authority to share classified info with anyone at any time. The President and only the President is the ultimate classificarion authority (because classification is justified under constitutional provisions for foreign policy, I guess).
Whether this EO gives Elon the right to dismantle USAID is probably subject to controversy, but on the points you are pushing the Trump Admin has already thought of and dismissed your objections.
What the Trump administration is trying to do with this executive order is unlikely to hold up in court. Wether anything is actually paused at that point is another story.
Lets say your interpretation of the EO is correct. It is still illegal for him to be making financial decisions, firing people and unilaterally canceling spending explicitly earmarked by congress.
Firing is likely not illegal and Humphery’s executor ought to be overturned.
Again specifics matter on the financial spending. We cannot blanket say what is or is not illegal.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link