New executive order seizes complete control of all regulatory agencies, interpretation of law

Politics & Elections
1

I know there are already a lot of Trump threads, but this feels like the big one to me. The moment we essentially officially become a dictatorship.

Thes executive order states:

The title does not say “attempts to seize” because who the fuck is going to stop this? We haven’t fought yet and we’re not going to start now.

All independent agencies are now under the direct control of the president. All regulations must meet with presidential approval before being implemented (power grab against legislature) and only the president and attorney general can interpret the law as far as what federal employees follow in their duties (power grab against judiciary).

This is the biggest power grab in American history, do you think it might make the news for more than a day? Will anyone in the entire media be critical of this move or give it anywhere near the attention it deserves? Or do we just slide right into dictatorship with hardly a reaction?

It’s been less than a month since inauguration. I’m as pessimistic about America as they come and I didn’t anticipate it would go this fast.

2

The silence from the “It ain’t as bad as you think it is, so don’t panic” crowd will be deafening.

3

It’s also an ongoing discussion starting … about … here:

I don’t know whether the @moderators think there should be a merger, a split, or a general laissez-faire approach to this :wink:

4

They may decide that this discussion should belong in that thread, but it seemed significant enough to me to merit its own discussion, one of the most impactful political moves of all of American history.

5

It’s just bonkers that Trump is doing so many abhorrent things that we have a hard time figuring out whether open a thread about specific actions or add them to a compendium. It’s no surprise, but it’s still bonkers.

6

There’s no way Trump is going to do the work of actually reviewing thousands of federal regulations. That’s just not possible, which is why the organizations have done the bulk of this work up until now. So now, he’s just added another layer of “unaccountable bureaucrats” to review the reviewers, and tell him that everything is okay.

The thing about interpreting the law is worrying, but this? It’s just for show, so far as I can tell. They’re not going to do the real work. They’ll either rubberstamp everything, or deny everything.

The only time they’ll take any kind of detailed look at an actual regulation is when someone with enough pull complains directly to Trump about a specific regulation.

7

I don’t think they’re going to put in any real work either, but I suspect this will essentially neuter any sort of regulation that puts any limitations on a business. Or you can have regulations for sale – if Walmart pays me, I’ll enforce regulations that are onerous to Amazon for example. There’s an incredible amount of evil they can do with it. They can weaponize regulations by only enforcing them against their enemies. They could remove thousands of bedrock safety regulations overnight if they want.

8

No, partially because the corporate news orgs have already capitulated, and the public’s attention span is about two Planck lengths.

Remember when the repubs clamored about “executive overreach”? How about “How will he (Obama) stand up to Putin?”

I’ve always laughed at the cartoon guys with signs that say “The End is Near” but they’re right about this. I doubt the country will last until this summer. Watch for a financial collapse.

9

I, on the other hand, have been surprised it has taken this long.

All of the people who poo-pooh’d the Project 2025 ambitions and plans of the Heritage Foundation fuckwits who have been deeply embedded in the Trump campaign, the influences of the techbro oligarchs behind J.D. Vance and Elon Musk, and how much of a voice utterly batshit Christian Nationalist apocalypters have because “As long as the Constitution remains intact, we’ll be fine.”

Stranger

10

Maybe I’m missing something here, but this doesn’t seem as apocalyptic as all that.

Control over regulation-making power isn’t a power grab against the legislature. My understanding is that in the US system, regulatory agencies do not have law-making power, because they are part of the executive, which by definition cannot make laws. Regulations are passed by regulatory agencies based on what they understand the law passed by Congress authorises or prohibits, and what powers the law passed by Congress gives to the regulatory agencies. If Congress decides that the agencies are not properly interpreting the law, or concludes that they don’t like the powers they’ve given to the regulatory agencies, Congress can amend the law as they see fit. So, not a power-grab from Congress.

Nor is it a power-grab from the courts. It’s not trying to exclude the courts. Rather, it’s saying that the DoJ has a centralised power to interpret federal laws for all federal regulatory agencies. If a regulatory agency wants to pass a regulation, the DoJ has the final interpretation, within the executive branch, on whether the federal law authorises the proposed regulation. The federal agency must accept, within the executive branch, the interpretation of the federal law given by the DoJ.

But that doesn’t exclude the courts’ jurisdiction. Anyone who disagrees with a federal regulation and thinks it is not authorised by the law passed by Congress can challenge it in the courts, and the courts have the final say on the interpretation of the federal law. The courts are not bound by the DoJ’s interpretation of the federal law. In fact, that’s exactly what the Supreme Court said in their recent decision overturning Chevron deference: the federal courts have final power to interpret federal laws, not the agencies or the DoJ, so the courts determine if a regulation is within the powers Congress has granted to a regulatory agency.

Whether any of this is good policy is another matter.

(As an aside, I should mention that my views are coloured by the fact that this executive order is similar to how it works in the Canadian federal government. Regulations under statutes are enacted by the federal Cabinet. A regulatory agency or ministry must make the case to the Cabinet why the regulations are needed, and the Cabinet, composed of the PM and all the Cabinet ministers, has the final say. Cabinet can overrule a Minister’s request for regulations. Plus, the federal DoJ has the legal gate-keeper role: the ministry or regulatory agency must satisfy the DoJ that they do have the legal authority for the proposed regulation. Since the Attorney General is the legal adviser to Cabinet, if the DoJ doesn’t think a proposed regulation is authorised by the relevant statute, the AG will advise Cabinet accordingly, and Cabinet won’t pass it. Very simplified summary of a complicated multi-layered process, of course.)

11

This does feel like a pipeline for bribes to Trump and Bondi.

12

If you are missing part, I think this is what you are missing - it’s not saying

Rather, it’s saying that the DoJ has a centralised power to interpret federal laws for all federal regulatory agencies. If a regulatory agency wants to pass a regulation, the DoJ has the final interpretation, within the executive branch, on whether the federal law authorises the proposed regulation. The federal agency must accept, within the executive branch, the interpretation of the federal law given by the DoJ.

It says

The President and the Attorney General, subject to the President’s supervision and control, shall provide authoritative interpretations of law for the executive branch. The President and the Attorney General’s opinions on questions of law are controlling on all employees in the conduct of their official duties. No employee of the executive branch acting in their official capacity may advance an interpretation of the law as the position of the United States that contravenes the President or the Attorney General’s opinion on a matter of law, including but not limited to the issuance of regulations, guidance, and positions advanced in litigation, unless authorized to do so by the President or in writing by the Attorney General (emphasis added

which apparently means that prosecutors in the DOJ are not to interpret the law and they are to advance any position in litigation that the President and/or AG directs. Which might not be so alarming if it wasn’t for what has happened with the Eric Adams case - and the possibility that this means the President and /or AG can decide Danielle Sassoon committed a crime by refusing to request that dismissal and no prosecutor can disagree.

Which may be a matter of policy rather than a power grab, exactly - but it’s definitely alarming.

13

Thank you for explaining that point. That is much more concerning than centralized control over the regulatory process.

14

Also, it specifically includes agencies that were set up to be independent (from the administration) agencies by Congress. Now, the executive says, “we’re just going to ignore that your law says these are independent agencies”.

15

But can congress create executive branch agencies that are independent of the executive branch?

16

Another one has arisen that has some similarities to the Adams case. I’m not sure how the EO of this thread would/wouldn’t affect situations like this one, but I have the sneaking suspicion that it would, and not in a good way:

Evidence? Make something up!!

17

My guess is that they can, at least for now , since the first was established in 1880 something and there was a Supreme Court case in the 1930s or 40s Court that allowed Congress to put limitations on the President’s authority to remove officers of certain agencies ( they usually have boards or commissions rather than a single head)

Although they aren’t strictly speaking completely independent of the executive branch - the president still appoints the board or commission members. He just can’t remove them without cause. Which mean his influence on policies is limited.

18

Or, as the prosecutor forced to resign wrote:

Cheung said she “lacked the legal authority to issue such a letter” to the bank, telling Martin that the “quantum of evidence did not support that action.”

Stranger

19

This dispute over the scope of the President’s power to dismiss executive branch officers dates back to the impeachment of Andrew Jackson and has never been definitively settled:

*1867 - Tenure of Officers Act – passed by Congress to limit the President’s power to dismiss officers who have been confirmed by Congress in their position. When Jackson fired Stanton in defiance of the Act, it became one of the grounds for impeachment.

*1926 - Myers case - Supreme Court held that President had unlimited power to dismiss employees of the executive branch. Chief Justice Taft in dicta said the Tenure of Offices Act was unconstitutional.

*1935 - Humphrey’s Executor case - Supreme Court held that Congress could put conditions on President’s ability to fire officers, such as termination for cause. Distinguished Myers.

*2020 - Seila Law LLC - Supreme Court limited the effect of Humphrey’s Executor to narrow types of executive agencies.

My guess is that Humphrey’s Executor will fall to the Unitary Executive theory.

20

I believe you meant Andrew Johnson. /nitpick