Folks, hold onto your hats because today, February 20, 2025, is a red-letter day for freedom-loving Americans everywhere! President Donald J. Trump has just dropped a bombshell of an Executive Order titled Ensuring Lawful Governance and Implementing the President’s “Department of Government Efficiency” Regulatory Initiative—and it’s nothing short of a masterstroke. Published on the White House website last night (February 19, 2025, at 22:26 EST), this move is a full-throttle charge toward dismantling the bloated, overreaching administrative state that’s been choking the life out of our economy and personal liberties for far too long. Here at Watts Up With That, we’re all about cutting through the noise and getting to the meat of what matters—and this EO is a sizzling steak of good news for anyone who values limited government, constitutional principles, and a legal landscape primed for real reform.
The core mission here is crystal clear: refocus the federal government’s enforcement powers on regulations that are actually authorized by law—meaning those pesky, made-up rules conjured by unelected bureaucrats are about to get the axe. The order directs agency heads, working hand-in-hand with their Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE) Team Leads and the Office of Management and Budget (OMB), to scour every regulation under their purview. If it doesn’t pass the smell test of constitutional legitimacy or align with the Trump Administration’s pro-freedom, pro-growth agenda, it’s toast. This isn’t just a tweak—it’s a top-to-bottom housecleaning of the regulatory swamp, and it’s long overdue.
By the authority vested in me as President by the Constitution and the laws of the United States of America, it is hereby ordered:
Section 1. Purpose. It is the policy of my Administration to focus the executive branch’s limited enforcement resources on regulations squarely authorized by constitutional Federal statutes, and to commence the deconstruction of the overbearing and burdensome administrative state. Ending Federal overreach and restoring the constitutional separation of powers is a priority of my Administration.
https://www.whitehouse.gov/presidential-actions/2025/02/ensuring-lawful-governance-and-implementing-the-presidents-department-of-government-efficiency-regulatory-initiative/
What’s got me especially pumped is the sheer audacity of the intent: “commence the deconstruction of the overbearing and burdensome administrative state.” That’s not just a policy goal; it’s a battle cry! For years, we’ve watched federal agencies balloon into mini-fiefdoms, issuing edicts that strangle small businesses, jack up costs for families, and push dubious climate agendas with zero accountability. Now, with DOGE unleashed (and yes, I’m loving the acronym nod to a certain meme coin—it’s peak Trump energy), we’re seeing a real push to restore the constitutional separation of powers. Congress makes the laws, not some desk jockey in a cubicle with a rubber stamp. Hallelujah!
Sec. 2. Rescinding Unlawful Regulations and Regulations That Undermine the National Interest. (a) Agency heads shall, in coordination with their DOGE Team Leads and the Director of the Office of Management and Budget, initiate a process to review all regulations subject to their sole or joint jurisdiction for consistency with law and Administration policy. Within 60 days of the date of this order, agency heads shall, in consultation with the Attorney General as appropriate, identify the following classes of regulations:
(i) unconstitutional regulations and regulations that raise serious constitutional difficulties, such as exceeding the scope of the power vested in the Federal Government by the Constitution;
(ii) regulations that are based on unlawful delegations of legislative power;
(iii) regulations that are based on anything other than the best reading of the underlying statutory authority or prohibition;
(iv) regulations that implicate matters of social, political, or economic significance that are not authorized by clear statutory authority;
(v) regulations that impose significant costs upon private parties that are not outweighed by public benefits;
(vi) regulations that harm the national interest by significantly and unjustifiably impeding technological innovation, infrastructure development, disaster response, inflation reduction, research and development, economic development, energy production, land use, and foreign policy objectives; and
(vii) regulations that impose undue burdens on small business and impede private enterprise and entrepreneurship.
(b) In conducting the review required by subsection (a) of this section, agencies shall prioritize review of those rules that satisfy the definition of “significant regulatory action” in Executive Order 12866 of September 30, 1993 (Regulatory Planning and Review), as amended.
(c) Within 60 days of the date of this order, agency heads shall provide to the Administrator of the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs (OIRA) within the Office of Management and Budget a list of all regulations identified by class as listed in subsection (a) of this section.
(d) The Administrator of OIRA shall consult with agency heads to develop a Unified Regulatory Agenda that seeks to rescind or modify these regulations, as appropriate.
And here’s where it gets even juicier: the legal muscle behind this move. The EO lands hot on the heels of seismic shifts in administrative law, thanks to the Supreme Court’s 2024 Loper Bright Enterprises v. Raimondo decision. For decades, the Chevron doctrine—born in 1984—gave agencies a free pass to interpret ambiguous laws however they pleased, with courts bowing to their “expertise.” Loper Bright flipped that script, axing Chevron deference and putting judges back in the driver’s seat to interpret statutes without kowtowing to agency spin. As the Americans for Prosperity Foundation noted, this EO is Trump’s opening salvo to leverage that ruling, directing agencies to rethink rules that might not hold up under stricter judicial scrutiny. It’s a one-two punch: the Court cleared the path, and now Trump’s swinging the deregulatory sledgehammer.
Loper Bright famously overturned the Chevron Doctrine, which had previously directed courts to defer to agency interpretations of ambiguous laws, even if that interpretation was not the best reading of the law. The administrative state was built on the back of these questionable legal interpretations, and Loper Bright opens the door for the public, agencies, and courts to restore the scope of agency authority to its proper statutory limits.
https://americansforprosperityfoundation.org/loper-bright/trump-administration-begins-deregulatory-review-with-eo-on-lawful-governance/
The details are just as thrilling. Agency heads are tasked with reviewing all regulations—joint or solo—for “consistency with law and Administration policy.” That means no more sneaky “guidance documents” or backroom rule-making that dodges public scrutiny. The Loper Bright effect amplifies this: without Chevron to shield them, agencies can’t bank on courts rubber-stamping their overreach. Every rule now faces a tougher test—does it square with the plain text of the law Congress wrote? If not, it’s fair game for the chopping block. The EO even defines “enforcement action” broadly, covering any move that affects your rights or property, so agencies can’t wiggle out by slapping a different label on their power grabs. This is precision-engineered to stop the nonsense cold, with a legal backbone that’s freshly forged in the post-Chevron era.
Now, let’s talk impact. For those of us who’ve been banging the drum on climate realism—like the good folks reading Watts Up With That—this could be a game-changer. How many times have we seen the EPA or other agencies twist science into knots to justify job-killing regs based on shaky climate models? With this EO, those rules are under the microscope. If they’re not grounded in solid statutory authority or they clash with Trump’s America-First priorities, they’re history. Imagine a world where energy policy gets unshackled from green dogma and we can drill, mine, and build again without jumping through endless hoops. The Loper Bright shift only turbocharges this—courts won’t just nod along to agency excuses anymore. That’s the vision here, and it’s electrifying.
And here’s another layer of brilliance in this EO: it’s not just about slashing unlawful rules—it’s about making sure every regulation that sticks around actually pencils out. The order mandates that agency heads, in coordination with DOGE Team Leads and the OMB, conduct a rigorous cost-benefit analysis for regulations under review. No more vague hand-waving or feel-good justifications—every rule has to prove its worth, dollar for dollar, against the burden it imposes on businesses, families, and the economy. This is a direct shot at the kind of pie-in-the-sky climate regs we’ve railed against here at Watts Up With That, where costs soar into the billions while benefits remain speculative at best. With Loper Bright already tightening the legal screws, this cost-benefit hammer ensures that only rules with real, measurable merit survive the cut. It’s practical, it’s pro-growth, and it’s a win for taxpayers who’ve footed the bill for bureaucratic excess for too long.
Of course, the usual suspects will cry foul. The beltway crowd and eco-alarmists will wail about “deregulatory chaos” or some such gibberish. But let’s be real: the chaos has been the last few decades of unchecked bureaucratic sprawl. This EO isn’t about anarchy—it’s about accountability, supercharged by a legal framework that’s finally tilting back toward the Constitution. With Loper Bright in play, agencies can’t hide behind “reasonable interpretations” of vague laws—they’ve got to prove their rules hold water. And with Trump’s first-term track record—slashing regs at a historic pace—he’s got the chops to make this stick.
So, what’s next? The wheels are already turning. Agency heads are on the clock to get cracking, and the DOGE teams are ready to sniff out the waste and fraud, with Loper Bright as their legal tailwind. We’ll be keeping a hawk’s eye on how this plays out—because if Trump’s first term taught us anything, it’s that he delivers on deregulation like nobody else. Remember his 2-for-1 rule that ended up axing five regs for every new one? This is that on steroids, with a Supreme Court ruling that’s got his back.
To every patriot out there: raise a glass tonight. This Executive Order is a bold step toward reclaiming our government from the clutches of the deep state, putting power back where it belongs—with the people—and it’s got the legal heft of Loper Bright to make it stick. It’s a win for liberty, a win for prosperity, and—dare I say it—a win for common-sense science over ideological nonsense. Stay tuned to Watts Up With That as we track this revolution in real time. The DOGE is off the leash, and it’s about to shake things up big-time!
Check out the full text of the EO here: White House Presidential Actions
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
Before Greene gets a chance to start whining about unconstitutional power grabs.
Congress never instructed the regulatory agencies about what regulations to pass. They were just given blanket authority to regulate.
As such, they also already have the power to eliminate regulations as well as create new ones.
Trump as president is the head of the executive branch, as set forth by the constitution. Therefore he has the authority to tell these executive branch organizations how to do their jobs.
A step further, he has the responsibility to do so, the responsibility to empty the dark corners of corruption. He has the responsibility to see that the People are free, and the shackles, hobbles, and other restraints are rightly placed on the government since that always was the purpose of the Constitution.
The agencies have had many actions tested in courts. And for climate related regulations, many were passed by Congress in the August 2022 IRA law.
According to data from the U.S. Courts, a typical year sees several tens of thousands of lawsuits filed against the federal government, with recent statistics showing a trend of decreasing filings, with the majority of these cases being civil in nature and often involving contract disputes, recovery of overpayments, or enforcement of judgments.
Finally, Trump is getting these unelected agencies in order.
Completely non-responsive to my point.
Is that totally irrelevant non-sequitur the best you’ve got on the subject. Normally, you at least address the issue under discussion ( albeit incorrectly)
Among those “tens of thousands” of lawsuits are many of the invidious “sue and settle” frauds in which the agency and its plaintiffs agree beforehand what they want the agency to do, and then get a friendly judge to “order” them to do it. I see nothing in this EO that would override a “court order”.
Not cogent to the post.
The US should have a Trump recession soon.
Trump is already planning on increasing inflation by increasing what people in the US pay through tariffs. That should cause the Fed to increase interest rates to stop inflation which usually starts a recession.
Trump says they are finding so much money with their government audit that he may give every American citizen a $5,000.00 paycheck.
Now Trump said: Every American citizen.
Some of his aids and the news media are saying: Every American taxpayer.
There is a difference: Not All Americans pay taxes, because some don’t make enough money to pay taxes on.
Let’s hope Trump’s “every American citizen” is the recipient of a check. Otherwise, those Americans who don’t get check will be very resentful, and Trump’s good idea will not be such a good idea as far as endearing him to the people.
And that $5,000.00 figure is based on Elon finding $50 billion. I’m pretty sure Elon is going to find a lot more than $50 billion is waste, fraud and abuse, so the checks may be bigger.
Giving every American citizen $5,000.00+ will certainly stimulate the American economy. In a good way. Win/win.
How on earth, is borrowing $$$ and then sending a $5,000 check to every household, a good idea? $36 Trillion in debt, >$1 Trillion deficit there is no money to “refund”.
Wrong math. They are saying 5k per household not tax payer or per citizen, number given is 78 million households in the US. It is also based of the assumption they will recover 2 trillion not the current 55 billion total. Then it will be 20% of the recovered 2 trillion which works out to a little over 5k per household.
That’s 79 million taxpayers.
You are correct that they think the total savings will amount to about two TRILLION dollars, and they take 20 percent and divide by 79 million taxpayers to equal about $5000.00 each.
There is supposed to be a website setup to explain all this, supposedly: Doge Dividend.com, but I can’t find it doing a search.
You do not know that. You are parroting media hyperbole.
Re “he has the authority to tell these executive branch organizations … to eliminate regulations as well as create new ones“:
This also pertains to regulations governing Science (federally funded R&D in various sciences, engineering, medicine), such as the the new 15% cap on overhead / indirect costs of research contracts and grants, to replace the > 50+ % practices that have led to bloated administrations and their associated corrosive practices.
The Editor-in-Chief of AAAScience writes in today’s (weekly) issue: “Perhaps, universities will have to walk away from federally funded programs altogether to lower the administrative burden.”
Good idea: To Defund the Feds, just de-Fed the Funds.
*A direct hitH. Holden Thorp Authors Info & Affiliations
Science
21 Feb 2025
Vol 387, Issue 6736
p. 807
https://www.science.org/doi/10.1126/science.adw6467
They were just given blanket authority to regulate.
Sort of. The 1946 Administrative Procedure Act “delegated” legislative power to Executive Branch agencies and their so-called “experts.” But the Constitution says that only Congress has legislative power in the first sentence of Article I.
All legislative Powers herein granted shall be vested in a Congress of the United States, which shall consist of a Senate and House of Representatives.
Over the years, courts have upheld the authority of those agencies to make rules as long as they abide by the process outlined in the 1946 act. But there is no question that it violates the Constitution and its principles of enumerated powers and separation of powers between the three branches. The current Supreme Court, with (finally) a majority of “originalist” judges, would probably rule against the authority of those agencies to make rules not specified by Congress. Previous Courts have been unwilling to reverse this unconstitutiomsl delegation of legislative power because it makes it harder for regulations over numerous aspects of American commerce to get passed. As the Founders intended.
The institutional inertia of federal agencies gone berserk with power they were never supposed to have is overwhelming. It’s become accepted wisdom that this is the way it’s supposed to work, even though it’s not, as the wailing and gnashing of teeth in the media, and the crazy lawsuits, attest. But we finally have a President with the will and fortitude to do the right thing in the face of massive opposition.
Thanks, Charles, great to start the morning with some good news.
w.
How long will it take R. G. to come along and pen a long-winded diatribe on how Trump is a Tyrant with a capital “T” and how this is blatantly unconstitutional.
Indeed, he never has been able to explain how rescinding the tyrannies of the past and ordering accountability is itself tyrannical. It is the undoing, not the doing of dictatorship. Congress and the courts have the power to define the limits they have carefully avoided, ceding them to the Executive in the desire to themselves not be held to account. Time for the buck to stop somewhere.
This is Trump getting the USA back to the Constitution.
Back to what Congress actually approved.
Getting rid of as many unconstitutional FAKE leftist rules as possible.
The end of the over-bearing rules of un-elected bureaucrats.
This is what Americans voted for. !
About 4 hours.
I comment with facts and conclusions based on what Trump does. You respond with childish character attacks and refute nothing.
If your first sentence were true most here would read your comments nod in agreement and move on. But sadly I think this first sentence is based on self hallucinations.
Lol
RG complaining about childish character attacks.
You have no self awareness.
When it comes to Trump, you can’t seem to tell the difference between your opinion and facts.
I’m opposed to calling people out before they post something. It’s taunting.
I regularly disagree with your comments. Yet I oppose baiting you or anyone else.
No. You comment on speculations and media scare headlines.
Plus, you are at the top of the list for childish character attacks and generally refute nothing.
Look in the mirror.
One needs to recognize that Trump has been hard at work during the past 4 years, not sitting around waiting for the election. The usual politician starts working after getting elected.
I beg to differ. Campaigning is a lot of work. And how much work did Biden do in between his “well earned” vacation days?
https://nypost.com/2025/02/15/us-news/biden-took-off-577-days-in-4-years-tops-modern-era-presidents/
Trump clearly did his homework the last 4 years, and so far I have to give him an A+ for his performance.
The usual politician starts working on his re-election campaign after getting elected.
The act of turning on the lights and demanding accountability in every aspect of governance will turn tyranny on its head. Instead of citizens being under the microscope to justify every aspect of existence, that focus should be on the government. Every dollar spent and every action taken by the behemoth is to be scrutinized and justified. Do to the lords and commissars what the IRS and other alphabet agencies have been doing to us, as it should be. The parasites will scream. Europe will twist in panic. That will be very satisfying. The real trick will be making it stick with the authority of Congress and the courts, not the vagaries of Executive decree.
The number 1 priority of any government is supposed to be protecting the citizens from the government.
Been a long time coming, but maybe, just maybe there now is reason to hope it comes true.
I would state it that the only reason for the government to exist at all is to secure the lives, liberty, and property of the people who grant it authority. Since it is the nature of government to grow and serve itself, it must be kept as small and as near as possible, and subject to the purge of corruption at all times.
It is a move to eliminate Woodrow Wilson type “progessiveism”, de facto rule by unelected “experts”. While these “experts” know they will have cover from leftist Democrats, making those politicians openly state what their real goals are will be more of a deterrent.
The ability to vote out those advancing some leftist cause will be advanced. Openly voting for what are rent seeking measures by wind and solar investors, i.e. gimmes to Democrat donors, will be open, rather than nebulous goals on “climate change”.
Winning
Winning bigly
Who, who, who let the DOGE’s out, or in the words of Bob Dylan–When DOGE’s run free what will be will be.
Perhaps we could stick to climate issues here.
“If they’re not grounded in solid statutory authority or they clash with Trump’s America-First priorities, they’re history.”
As with “climate realism”, I prefer facts over opinions or beliefs. Who is going to be the judge of facts when considering compliance with Trump’s America-First priorities?
A specific name, or names, would be appreciated in any answer to that question.
Trump.
I think the real goal is to get Congress to put real meat into their laws. That’s who should be getting advice from “experts”. Whoever is President then signs that legislation into law.
Ahhh . . . I see, Trump as judge, jury and executioner.
Why not, the world has previously seen such strutting peacocks come and go, but not here is the USA. Pity that it’s come to that for so many sheeple.
Trump is the head of the Executive Branch, so you got that part right.
Silly. “Who is going to be the judge of facts when considering compliance with Trump’s America-First priorities?” The elected executive that made those priorities is constituionaly responsible for having them carried out, and he appoints advisors and a cabinet to assist him. Please, you are not a dunce.
You seem to have an idea of how it works.
One cannot take Trump’s hyperbole and histrionics literally.
However, the tactics are never clear at first and it is best to consider not what he expects to gain, but what he can gain.
Take the Mexico and Canada tariff threats as examples.
People are starting to think and debate the issues rather than parroting media headlines. If nothing else, this will have long term benefits.
People are finding they can express contrary viewpoints and not get silenced or punished. If nothing else, this will have long term benefits.
Well, there’s the rub: who can now say when Trump is making a serious statement versus when he is just spouting “hyperbole and histrionics”?
There is the Aesop parable of “The Boy Who Cried Wolf” that would be of great benefit to Trump if he cared to consult such.
No wonder that concern/panic has set in for so many leaders in foreign countries, not to mention for many US citizens.
— Own and make the Gaza strip the “Riviera of the Middle East”, literal or hyperbole?
— Make Canada the 51st state of the USA, literal or hyperbole?
— Change the name of the Gulf of Mexico to the Gulf of America, literal or hyperbole?
— Take control over the Panama Canal, literal or hyperbole?
— Force a
settlement“peace treaty” between Russia and Ukraine without participation by Ukraine, literal or hyperbole?— Order the US Mint to stop making pennies, literal or hyperbole?
— “Elon is doing a great job”, literal or hyperbole?
Etc, etc, etc, etc, . . .
The political climate is improving!
Well said!
Climate issues are mostly political. The left politicizes everything.
Yet you make a good poiny. Maybe limit political posts to one per day?
Sometimes there are none. On other days there are more than one.
So – no more discussion of the EPA, the IPCC and its publications, predictions, forecasts and warnings? Aren’t those the source of almost all the AGW rants? No more discussion of nuclear restrictions?
I think this would quickly become a dead site with nothing to discuss.
The climate issue does not exist in a vacuum. It is part of the larger abuse of authority and the misuse of science. As far as the elite authoritarians are concerned, climate is but a tool for creating fear. A challenge to the climate orthodoxy requires recognizing and challenging the entire structure in which it exists.
Stated simply and correctly based on current scientific knowledge . . . I like that!
Humor – a difficult concept.
— Lt. Saavik
Ric, I hope you know I have great respect for you.
But this IS a “climate issue” because CliSy (Did I spell that right?) has become political science and used to put in place horrible policies.
“Climate issues” are one of the areas most affected by bureaucratic over-reach.
This is all about “climate issues”. !
The article’s title made it pretty clear what the subject was. If it’s not to your liking, you are free to skip over it.
WUWT is not merely a climate website.
US politics is deeply emmeshed in climate issues, so this is relevant.
We need some Trump in Europe and Germany 👍
And the UK.
Although I suspect Trump has some special plans for Starmer, being that he and his Cronies, Lammy, Mandelson etc. thought they were/are so much smarter than him.
And you just know he’s not objecting to Lammy and the Dark Lord so he can reserve some special treats when the moment comes.
And being that the deep state knows everything about everyone, everywhere, what precious little nuggets might be revealed about Labour Party MP’s when the time is right?
Especially the UK!
You can have him in just about 4 years.
Until then, we are keeping him busy.
While applauding the removal of unjust dictates from government agencies, is it just me who is a little concerned that US Presidents, Republicans or Democrats can act in this way?
Had Congress not abdicated so much over the past several decades, we might not be at the point where such is necessary.
Congress through legislation authorized money.
The President has the job of executing those funds. He decides how and when to spend it and assigns personnel to effect the program.
So, I see this action as Constitutional.
Except that the President has not been granted the power to shut down/dissolve agencies or organizations that were established by acts of Congress and for which Congress continues to appropriate funding.
You want to argue, for example, that it is lawful for a US President to unilaterally terminate the Social Security Administration?
Or how about a President unilaterally terminating the IRS?
lol…the IRS will be there
While there has been lots of talk about getting rid of agencies, other than firing individuals still on probation, what has actually been done?
PS: He’s also ordered the federal agencies to get rid of their DEI offices.
Once again, completely within his constitutional powers.
It’s been reported that President Trump shut down and dismantled the U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID)
(ref: https://apnews.com/article/trump-usaid-foreign-aid-shutdown-impact-fd4f9bb016f1acf7fb1c2fae7a5c32f5 )
USAID is not an agency created by congress. It was created by executive order and can be killed by executive order.
Your statement is simply incorrect.
See the attached screen grab.
Facts matter.
AI is unreliable. Let’s look at original sources.
Can you please point me to where congress establishes that agency in the cited act?
https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/COMPS-1071/pdf/COMPS-1071.pdf
I didn’t find anything about the establishment of the agency there. I saw funding, that was to be directed by the Secretary of State.
I DID manage to find where the agency was actually established, in Kennedy’s EO 10973:
https://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/documents/executive-order-10973-administration-foreign-assistance-and-related-functions
It appears that congress authorized funding for “Foreign Assistance” to be administered by the Secretary of State, then Kennedy subsequently ordered the creation of the US Agency for International Development (USAID).
Trump didn’t defund it, he eliminated the agency that was created by executive order. Per the original act passed by Congress, that reverts its responsibilities to the State Department.
Well, as Harry Potter said to Griphook in the Deathly Hallows, Part 2 movie: “It’s complicated”.
It is true that Kennedy nominally “created” the Agency for International Development (AID) by Executive Order, following Congressional passage of the The Foreign Assistance Act (Pub. L. 87–195, 75 Stat. 424-2, enacted September 4, 1961, 22 U.S.C. § 2151 et seq.).
However, Kennedy’s EO did nothing more than consolidate many different foreign aid agencies operating under the Department of State, and effectively made AID (in name) an entity separate from the State Department while still mandating coordination between the two organizations. In essence, Kennedy’s EO did not really create AID (or its funding) as much as it did name it in the course of consolidating organizations that were already authorized by Congress.
As explained at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Foreign_Assistance_Act:
“The Foreign Assistance Act (Pub. L. 87–195, 75 Stat. 424-2, enacted September 4, 1961, 22 U.S.C. § 2151 et seq.) is a United States law governing foreign aid policy. It outlined the political and ideological principles of U.S. foreign aid, significantly overhauled and reorganized the structure of U.S. foreign assistance programs, legally distinguished military from nonmilitary aid, and, through executive order by President John F. Kennedy Jr., resulted in a new agency, the United States Agency for International Development (USAID) to administer nonmilitary economic assistance programs. Following its enactment by Congress on September 4, 1961, President John F. Kennedy signed the Act into law on November 3, 1961, issuing Executive Order 10973 detailing the reorganization.”
(my bold emphasis added)
As to your request to “point me to where congress establishes that agency in the cited act”, I am glad to comply. Please see https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/COMPS-1071/pdf/COMPS-1071.pdf
Again, this document reflects the original establishment of the agencies that shortly thereafter comprised AID. A search on this reference document—that has the lead-in title paragraph “Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, That this Act may be cited as ‘‘The Foreign Assistance Act of 1961.’’— as amended, reveals 75 “hits” for the search term “Agency for International Development”.
As examples, from page 6:
‘‘SEC. 510. (a) Amounts certified pursuant to section 1311 of the Supplemental Appropriations Act, 1955, as having been obligated against appropriations heretofore made under the authority of the Foreign Assistance Act of 1961 for the same general purpose as any of the headings under the ‘’Agency for International Development’’ are . . .”
and from page 7:
‘‘SEC. 515. For the purposes of providing the Executive Branch with the necessary administrative flexibility, none of the funds made available under this Act for ‘’Development Assistance Fund’’, ‘’Population, Development Assistance’’, ‘’Development Fund for Africa’’, ‘’International organizations and programs’’, ‘’Trade and Development Agency’’, ‘International narcotics control’, ’Assistance for Eastern Europe and the Baltic States’, ’Assistance for the New Independent States of the Former Soviet Union’, ‘’Economic Support Fund’’, ‘‘Peacekeeping operations’’, ‘‘Operating expenses of the Agency for International Development’’, ‘‘Operating expenses of the Agency for International Development Office of Inspector General’’, ‘‘Antiterrorism assistance’’, ‘‘Foreign Military Financing Program’’, ‘‘International military education and training’’, . . .”
(my bold emphasis added in the above two quoted excerpts)
AI can be reliable to the extent that a user really understands what it says and what it does not say . . . as always, caveat emptor.
Let’s see
—
significantly overhauled and reorganized the structure of U.S. foreign assistance programs, legally distinguished military from nonmilitary aid, and, through executive order by President John F. Kennedy Jr., resulted in a new agency,
—
Ok, so the programs existed, but the agency was created by EO. “resulted in” does not mean “established”. The text of the act does not in any place establish any specific agency. At most (Sec 101(b)) implies that an agency should be created. This is not establishment of an agency.
as amended, reveals 75 “hits” for the search term “Agency for International Development”.
LOL I was waiting for the “it’s mentioned 75 times” argument. So the agency created by Kennedy is mentioned, so what? It’s in the notes related to subsequent bills, enacted after Kennedy created the agency.
Let’s look at your examples:
As examples, from page 6:
<you quote from that page>
Did you miss this from just before the part you quote?
—
The Foreign Operations, Export Financing, and Related Programs Appropriations Act, 1994 (Public Law 103–87; 107 Stat. 946), provided the following:
—
So your quote referencing USAID is from 1994, not from the original act. The same applies to your other quote from page 7.
References to the agency come from after it was created and are not a part of the original act. They are not evidence that the act created the agency. Per your Wikipedia source, the act resulted in the agency being created but did not establish it – that was done by EO.
The agency was created by EO, it can be dissolved by EO. Trump did not undo the funding. In the absence of the agency, said funding then falls under the Department of State (hm, that’s pretty much what Sparta was saying)
No. He moved it to the State Department.
The AP news article that I linked above makes no mention of Trump moving USAID “to the State Department”.
Got any credible reference that that has actually happened?
He did not need to, as it already was under his authority. You are not a dunce. Do you think Congress voted on and approved the incredible waste and abuse of those actions abroad?
Of course not. No more than I think that Congress “voted on and approved” the “incredible waste and abuse” that exists in:
— Congress itself
— the Department of Defense
— the Social Security administration
— the Department of Health and Human Services
— (need I go on?)
“,,,The AP news article…”
Nuff said.
TYS, you are hyperventilating, as discussed in more legal detail in a reply far below. To quote a famous saying from the no longer little girl whose father presides at the annual Harvard Ignobel Awards presentations (a separate only semi joke subject, as here), PLEASE STOP.
Or, medically, since my recently deceased significant other struggled for many years with a vicious form of PTSD (you may have the clinically similar TSD), a half milligram of clonazapam and a half hour can resolve the acute symptoms. Been there, done that.
47 never proposed unilaterally dissolving a lawfully under 16A Congressionally mandated agency. He has never proposed to ‘unilaterally terminate’ IRS. What he has proposed is that most of their 16A A1§8.1 revenue raising charter be given back over to a ‘Bureau of External Revenue’ (tariffs), as it always and only was before the income tax constitutional amendment was passed in 1913 in prep for WW1.
Please know that I’m giving your psychological observations and medication advice all of the consideration that they deserve.
BTW, I never once stated that 47/Trump “proposed unilaterally dissolving a lawfully under 16A Congressionally mandated agency.” or that he “ever proposed to ‘unilaterally terminate’ IRS.”
Logical fallacy of the strawman argument . . . look it up.
Now, you were saying something about “PLEASE STOP”?
?
” President has not been granted the power to shut down/dissolve agencies or organizations that were established by acts of Congress and for which Congress continues to appropriate funding.
You want to argue, for example, that it is lawful for a US President to unilaterally terminate the Social Security Administration?
how about a President unilaterally terminating the IRS?”
Pretty much…
So long as they report to him, he’s the boss of them. The courts are in agreement.
I guess you did not follow the Chevron decision.
In one respect you’re right: you are guessing.
The real question is: did you care to read—more importantly, to understand—the Supreme Court’s “decision” in the Chevron case (Chevron U.S.A., Inc. v. NRDC, 467 U.S. 837 (1984))?
Here’s a summary and link for you to do such:
“PRIMARY HOLDING
A government agency must conform to any clear legislative statements when interpreting and applying a law, but courts will give the agency deference in ambiguous situations as long as its interpretation is reasonable.”
— https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/467/837/
So, this case and the SCOTUS ruling on it have absolutely nothing relevant to the assertion that a President has the power to shut down/dissolve agencies or organizations that were established by acts of Congress and for which Congress continues to appropriate funding.
was not referring to closing congressional appointed agencies, but was referring to the limiting the decisions of bureaucrats that congress has ceeded their authority to.
It is true what they say about you…
As has been quipped before, as long as “they” (conveniently left undefined by you) spell my name correctly.
And as Pontius Pilate asked, “What is truth?”
— The Bible, John 18:38.
Your speculations go far beyond what is happening.
That’s (political) climate for you!
Yes, it’s constitutional, but would you agree if a Democrat gained office and nationalised everything?
I certainly wouldn’t.
Just like giving “pardons” going back 10 years for things a person hasn’t even been charged with let alone been convicted of, Executive Orders needs to be looked into. Clarified and maybe even being limited by time if nothing else.
But in the meantime, we have someone using EOs to undo the damage past EOs and Executive Branch bureaucracies have caused.
We need to return to the intent of The Constitution and The Bill of Rights and what the purpose of Government as expressed in The Declaration of Independence should be.
I’m willing to put up with a few shortcuts to get us back there as long as that’s the direction we’re moving in.
I’ll bet that Obama never dreamed that his MO would be used against his deep state in such a ruthless way.
Agreed, as long as the shortcuts don’t go too far along that road.
Those “pre-emptive” pardons are un-Constitutional.
Only Congress has the authority to grant immunity.
Supreme Court has ruled on this in the past.
Pardons only granted for crimes committed (included indictments).
It seems to me Trump is only righting the ship by bailing out the sludge in the bilges.
These regulations, department overreach and practices have been inserted by stealth, over decades. No POTUS could walk up in 4 years and reinstate them with a stroke of a pen, there would be outrage, especially when people realise what they regain freedoms imposed on them by increment.
Employers, farmers, business owners etc. wake up one day and most of the paperwork and regulations they had yesterday are gone? People will be wandering around for weeks, bewildered, wondering how best to take advantage of their new-found freedoms.
I can plough that field tomorrow? I can raise that building? I can sack those workers? I can build that car? And nobody is checking my DEI or NetZero performance?
What’s not to like?
That bilge sludge is toxic. It needs to be neutralised and permanently disposed of for public safety.
Agreed, however, it’s future misuse of that power that concerns me
I’m a lot more concerned by the “go with the flow” types that allow the deep state cancer to fester.
What’s wrong with aggressively exposing waste and ringing in the executive branch agencies? I think it is the duty of the POTUS to do EXACTLY that in a country that is trillions in debt!
They recognised that there was money to be made and prestige to be gained by going with the flow.
Absolutely nothing and we should continue to expose the outright lies, lies by omission, mis/dis/mal information put out by politicians and the misleadie.
What is really concerning is how many rules have come from unelected far-left bureaucrats.
Absolutely. I agree, and in both our countries.
If the governance practices of the USA cause you concern, for God’s sake don’t look at the shitshow that is Canada’s.
TBH, I’ve been concerned about the governance of my own country (UK) for many years now.
I’ve even gone from being a staunch monarchist to a Republican since Tampon-Chuck succeeded Queen Elizabeth II.
For most of the past century, congress has gradually been ceding power to the federal bureaucracy.
Almost all of those alphabet soup agencies are in the executive branch, which is under the president.
Had congress fulfilled its duties, it would be passing budgets that detail how money is to be spent. It would also be issuing these regulations on its own. Rather than doing the hard work of governing, they pass broad bills that set overall budgets and instruct the regulatory agencies to “do something”.
The president has this power because congress gave it to him.
If congress would grow a pair, they could take back their power any time the want.
Congress actually do something? That would take away from their time enriching themselves.
Specify your concern
I think we can all agree that Trump is restoring the power that departments like the EPA stole from elected members of the US Congress to push their own agenda.
Is it possible that a future president could sign an Executive Order extending his stay in office indefinitely?
I don’t know enough about the US Constitution to know if that’s even possible, but it does make me feel uneasy.
No Sir. Although beyond constitutional law exactly what the legal limits are to an executive order are not, like all law, entirely clear.
This should also put the quietus on the Sue and Settle practise at the EPA.
…it may also help where they define some mudholes as ‘navigable waters’ :<)
I was hoping for a fix to the Sue/Settle outcome between NMFS and FEMA. Result was court mandated B.S.
But, I am guessing, in this specific instance FEMA may just blow off the EO and say they have to comply with court requirements.
(NMFS sued FEMA saying they weren’t doing enough ESA protection when processing ANYTHING associated with floodplain. NMFS put together a proposed solution of heavier regulation. FEMA didn’t fight it; court accepted it; now FEMA is forcing additional regulation on specific regions. Regardless of the intent, the result is the loss of individual use of land (or being subject to extreme/excessive costs) that falls within the MAPPED FLOODPLAIN AREA. The mapped floodplain area is very wrong (with respect to flooding) … and using the mapped floodplain area as a proxy for environmentally sensitive areas is absolutely ridiculous.)
So, my point being, it may exacerbate the sue/settle efforts because the outcome of ‘court mandated’ stuff seems to fall outside of EO.
Still hoping for a fix though.
Praise Be! I spent 35 years in the public utility industry (electric, water, wastewater) and had to deal with those a**holes at the EPA constantly. They seemed to take great pleasure in making life miserable for us. I cursed them frequently and wished that somehow the agency could be eliminated, knowing full well that it would never happen. This latest EO doesn’t do that but at least it brings them to heel and for that I am extremely grateful. Thank you, PDJT!
I worked in a water plant (averaged 75 MGD) in central Ohio. At the time I started we were required by the EPA to test for an herbicide that was only used on pineapples in Hawaii. Reagan put an end to that.
This has the potential to go lightyears beyond that.
Ya know, those pineapples are often carried on the wind to faraway lands. Shirley you’ve heard of the Pineapple Express?
And African Swallows.
But are there such things as Hawaiian Swallows?
Let us just leave Obama out of this.
Are you shure they didn’t float in on an atmospheric river? 😎
Wow, this is really serious stuff, in a good way! Imagine trying to actually justify, say, the health “benefits” of regulations targeting PM 2.5 emissions.
Good DOGE! Sic ’em!
😉
(Dims say “No ! No! Bad Doge !)
Great post, Charles. 47 is moving so fast on so many fronts it is hard to keep up. This newest EO is a biggy. It isn’t just Loper Bright. It is also WV v EPA clearly articulating the major questions doctrine—only Congress gets to decide major questions.
We have been on a fast moving train heading down the wrong track for decades. If The Don does not crash the train while changing direction then it’ll stick, for a while. Otherwise, they will just put it all back in 4-years. Leftists never go away. They’re on a march. They just lurk in the shadows waiting for their turn again.
We need a someone like Trump as governors in many states- like Wokeachusetts. But here, it’ll never happen.
James O’Keefe:
Collins and Murkowski voted no. Need to primary both.
Collins isn’t likely, but Murkowski? Come on Alaska. Do better.
Absolutely.
NEWS TIP
Not sure if WUWT is affected .
https://regulations.gov/docket/FTC-2025-0023
https://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2025/02/big-tech-censorship-ftc-chairman-announces-investigation-asks/
Your link didn’t show the specific article.
“docket” has to be “document”, I posted the correct link
https://www.regulations.gov/document/FTC-2025-0023-0001
Separate thoughts. The EO gives the various regulation agencies exactly 60 days to report in with their lists.
47–always a step ahead. Nice catch, CR.
The responses from the agencies may also be looked at, and viewed to determine, ‘who is trying to help and who is trying to continue business as usual’. The effort (one way or the other) will be apparent.
Those trying to help continue with responsibilities (& job).
Those doing otherwise show themselves as those that need scrutiny similar to USAID.
Trump has learned that just because he signs an EO doesn’t mean it will be followed. He now knows to follow up and ensure his orders are being followed. The swamp bit him and now he’s biting back.
Is there any report from EPA on the CO2 endangerment finding yet? The report was due yesterday.
https://www.climatedepot.com/2025/02/20/epa-deadline-on-co2-endangerment-finding-is-here/
Just did a fairly extensive on-line search. Nothing is available publicly as of now. Hopefully Zeldin was mad aware of the Francis Menton post concerning this here a while ago. Would save a lot of time and effort.
Hi, I’m Bob and I approve this message.
HI Bob, I am also Bob.. and I also approve this message.
Hi, I’m Beta, and I approve of your approval of this message.
Let me guess. No arms or legs, in the pool?
Sitting at the bottom of the pool (Duane)
Story Tip
Burning again
https://www.dailywire.com/news/california-lithium-battery-facility-catches-fire-again-residents-told-to-close-windows
Saw that. Means it didn’t completely burn up the first two times. But eventually will.
Yikes! Thanks for that link.
Strange—well, maybe not strange at all upon a full read—that the above article completely ignores what the US Constitution actually says about one of the main purposes of the Federal Government: promoting the general welfare of “We, the people of the United States”.
The preamble of the Constitution specifically lists: ” . . . , promote the general Welfare, . . .” as one of six reasons cited for establishing the document.
In addition, under Article 1, Section 8, the first sentence reads: “The Congress shall have the Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States; . . .”
The term “general welfare” is large enough to drive a bus through, as the saying goes, but it is specifically called for in the US Constitution.
So, the author of the above article basically ignores this fact by advocating: “If it doesn’t pass the smell test of constitutional legitimacy or align with the Trump Administration’s pro-freedom, pro-growth agenda, it’s toast.”
Really??? . . . let’s examine the elephant-in-the-room example of the Social Security program in the US. Nowhere in the Constitution are there words that the Federal government is to establish a social security program, yet one was created by Congress in 1935, presumably under the authority that the Federal government would thereby be fulfilling its obligation of providing for “the general welfare” of its citizens. Will Trump and/or DOGE view SSA as not having “constitutional legitimacy” or judge it to be so wasteful/inefficient to the point that it should be shut down? BTW, the judicial branch chimed in on the Social Security Act of 1935, with the Supreme Court upholding it to be constitutional in a 1937 ruling.
As to Trump’s EO section quoted in italics in the above article:
“Sec. 2. Rescinding Unlawful Regulations and Regulations That Undermine the National Interest. . . . identify the following classes of regulations:
(i) unconstitutional regulations
. . .
(vii) regulations that . . .”,
almost every lower-case-Roman-numeral paragraph has examples that fall under the umbrella of “providing for the general welfare” of US citizens. Even more, who is to be the judge of what “undermines the National Interest” as stated in the Sec. 2 title? Then too, referring to subparagraph (iii), who is to be the judge of what constitutes “the best reading of the underlying statutory authority or prohibition”?
So many questions . . . so few answers.
While the above article’s author obviously expresses extreme delight in this particular EO issued by President Trump, I see in it nothing more than a poorly thought-out attempt at virtue signaling coupled with the Executive branch’s
leaderhead and his sycophants attempting to override the checks and balances of the Legislative and Judicial branches of our Federal government (delineated, of course, in the US Constitution).Beg to differ.
A1§8.1 has commonly been understood that the ‘power to (generate revenue and pay debts was specifically and only to provide for ‘Defense and general Welfare’. These were big issues at the time, because the Articles of Confederation couldn’t. And if you read the 1937 SCOTUS opinion green lighting social security, it was because it was a Tax providing for general welfare. And if you read Robert’s Obamacare opinion, it was greenlighted because a Tax for the general welfare. Never anything as broad as you posit.
And most regulatory agencies (think EPA, FDA, FAA, FERC) are ultimately grounded on the interstate commerce clause, A1§8.3. There is even a funky late 1930’s case holding that corn grown solely for in state consumption violated a then whatever corn reg because of the fact that it even existed might affect corn prices in other states.
This new EO very cleverly enumerates a short list of types of regulations previously already found constitutionally impermissable for reasons such as vagueness or major questions doctrine or disproportionate cost/benefit (the linear no threshold harm EPA issue).
Nothing in either the Preamble nor A1§8.1 enables legislating anything just for the ‘general welfare’, let alone delegating that imaginary congressional power to some unelected agency bureaucrats.
Rud, sorry, but your argument is specious. You imply that anything that provides for the general welfare of US citizens is legal only to the extent that it is associated with levying and collecting taxes.
Well, do you imagine that no taxes are collected to pay (partially) for Social Security?
As a matter of fact, please cite one—just one will do—Federal program or organization that is not dependent on monies obtained via taxation.
BTW, your statement “Never anything as broad as you posit” is as interesting as it is false because I never mentioned “tax” or “taxes” (pro or con) in my criticisms of Trump’s EO and its stated objectives.
Furthermore, the preamble to the Constitution make no mention of “taxes”, “generating revenue” or “paying debts”, yet there is that phrase “promote the general Welfare“.
BTW^2, you last sentence is simply not true.
Well, it is evident you are probably NOT a lawyer. Plus you assert things I never said. Three little details blow up your rejoinder ‘argument’.
Learn here. When you are wrong, admit it. I have, several times over many previous complicated ‘climate science’ posts. Which remains a hobby despite several published books; my profession was killer lawyer/businessman.
Unfortunately for you, my entire 2L con law course at Harvard Law says your last sentence (BTW^2) assertion is simply completely wrong. No matter your fervent convictions otherwise. So, I invoke a hard learned rule: when engaging in debate, just stop when the other side repeatedly shows abject ignorance rather than just a transitory mistake.
But keep trying, I’m willing to learn information . . . but not disinformation.
Harvard, huh . . . why am I not impressed?
“As a matter of fact, please cite one—just one will do—Federal program or organization that is not dependent on monies obtained via taxation.”
It doesn’t quite fit your specifics, as there are peripheral associated costs. But, at this point in time, the compensation for the President of the United States is not dependent on monies obtained via taxation.
(As is the management of the DOGE)
Ummmmm . . . the President of the United States is neither a Federal program nor a Federal organization.
.. as I said, “doesn’t quite fit your specifics”.
I said that so yous wudunt hav towast ur time wif furder inane crap.
And I said “Ummmmm . . .” so WTFCYPICTAWUWTR.
General welfare, not individual welfare.
So, by inference, the US Constitution doesn’t address individual rights?
They can be orthogonal or not. And it does address both.
Individual rights were addressed via the first 10 Amendments, the Bill of Rights.
We, yes, but look at the wording used in six of those ten Amendments, with none of the ten using the word “individual”:
— Amendment I: “of the people”
— Amendment II: “of the people”
— Amendment III: “in any house”
— Amendment IV: “of the people”, “in their persons”, “and the persons”
— Amendment IX: “by the people”
— Amendment X: “to the people”
Trump says he is not going to touch Social Security, Medicare or Medicaid for legitimate recipients. His intention is only to cut out the waste, fraud and abuse.
“The road to hell is paved with good intentions”
— old proverb
The road to success is also paved with good intentions.
Thank you . . . but I’ll rely on the older saying.
The preamble of the Constitution specifically lists: ” . . . , promote the general Welfare, . . .”as one of six reasons cited for establishing the document.
Is it one of the enumerated powers?
The preamble of the Constitution does not enumerate any powers, but the following Articles and their Sections absolutely do so.
As I specifically noted far above, under Article 1, Section 8, the first sentence reads: “The Congress shall have the Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States; . . .”
(my bold emphasis added here for your benefit)
So, the answer to your question is: YES, the Constitution does specifically enumerate the power of Congress (not the President/Executive branch) to provide for the general welfare of US citizens.
First if I’m reading the new EO right SSA has nothing to worry about for continuing on with it’s core duties granted to it by congress of paying SS benefits to retirees.There might be a case made to not pay out to foreign residents who have moved to the US under one visa or another (or none) then start receiving benefits.
Second of all SS benefits has been determined by both SCOTUS decision (Fleming vs. Nestor) and the SSA own words to not be guaranteed to anyone. Benefits can be reduced or denied at any time. So yes, Trump could legally wipe out all SS benefits. I doubt he would survive the impeachment coming right afterwards backed by both parties because to do otherwise would be political suicide but he could do it if he so desired. I’m sure then President Vance would immediately sign an EO to reinstate SS benefits.
“So yes, Trump could legally wipe out all SS benefits.”
Trump has said he is not touching Social Security benefits to legitimate recipients.
Oh, c’mon, DarrinB, put some thought into that comment.
Under the provisions of contract law, Trump could do so legally only if he simultaneously orders Treasury payments (likely many trillions of dollars total, which would require authorization from Congress) to “make whole” all the people and businesses currently living/existing that have made individual payments into the Social Security system in excess of the individual payments each has received up to the date of (hypothetical) SSA termination.
There are a real, legally binding contracts, as defined in the US rules of law, between any person and businesses with employees and the SSA/Executive Branch because that contract meets the following requirements:
— Offer: One party must make a clear offer to do or not do something
— Acceptance: The other party must accept the offer without changes
— Consideration: Something of value must be exchanged, like money or services
— Mutual intent: Both parties must intend to be bound by the agreement
— Legality of the agreement: The contract must be for a lawful purpose
— Capacity to contract: Both parties must be legally able to enter into the contract, which includes being of legal age and having the mental capacity to understand the agreement.
Even so, it is debatable if Trump could legally end all those SS contracts without the consent of the individuals involved . . . without mutual concurrence of both parties, Trump could be accused of breach of contract. Imagine that, the Executive Branch hit with 200+ million lawsuits!
The Trump cheerleader who wrote this article is looking at a loss of freedom, ad huge ad illegal amplification of executive powers …and calling it more freedom.
The author is deaf, dumb and blind to reality.
Trump has bypassed Congress and the courts, to operate as a dictator and the cheerleader Republicans celebrate because they like dictators who do what they want.
Congress so far is just needed to pass a budget and no matter what it says, Trump will decide how to spend the money. Congress can go home for a year. Maybe next year King Trump will make his own budget.
Court orders will be ignored.
The Constitution will be ignored because it is supposed to give great powers to Congress and courts that King Trump rejects!
It took Hitler one month to end the German democracy. It took one month for Trump to end the Constitutionally limited US Republic.
And the mindless Republicans celebrate actions they would have hated if done by Biden.
All government spending and taxes, which includes tariffs, are supposed to be under the Control of Congress. Trump cancelled that with DODGY, with no Congressional oversight and incredible lying about their accomplishments to gullible Republicans!
DODGY may have reduced future spending by a few billion dollars out of $7 trillion, but falsely claim $55 billion savings with zero details
They claim $4.7 trillion (70%) of $7 trillion spending can’t be traced — another lie
They claim 25 million SS recipients over age 100 — another lie — the correct percentage is 0.1% of 70 million
They claim an $8.2 million gift to Politico — another lie
Now deranged Trump claims Ukraine started the war with Russia and he wants to take over Gaza for a Trump resort.
We are being led by a crackpot dictator who lies, along with Musk, and bypassed the Constitution. yet most Republicans love their dictator. But only 44% in the nation approve of Trump, which is lower than Zelensky’s approval of about 50% — not the 4% born liar Trump claims for Zelensky..
The CBO had previously estimated $22 trillion of deficits in the next ten years. House Republicans want to increase that by $6 trillion or +27%. And assume low inflation, no recessions and economic growth 50% faster than the 2% average growth in the past 18 years!
That’s their government spending cuts?
To get real spending cuts, Trump will have to cancel Congress and send them home for four years?
Time for a Mercy Killing—The House GOP’s Budget Resolution Hides a $4.4 Trillion Deficit Fraud – LewRockwell
Richard, your Eyore like take on all things Trump surprises me. I don’t have the energy to Fisk all your points, but we’ve reached the point of debt and a bureaucracy hostile to the American people. where you don’t try to gingerly unravel the Gordian knot. You slice it into pieces. Is there collateral damage? Sure.
But like fixing a security breach, you cut off all network access and then slowly open what’s needed.
You’re points are mostly half truths, as reported by media, but not as stated by the principals.
I wrote the article. I am the cheerleader. I am thrilled that Trump and Musk are finally giving me hope that Western Civilization can be saved.
Amen ^
He clearly reads the less then 1/2 truths.
And is ignorant of the Tyranny that was here, and even now engulfs Europe.
The vast majority of Trumps actions will pass the constitution. Richard was completely wrong about Musk and even the deep state judges know it.
He is equally wrong here.
have you gotten the Trumps sads 🙁
You are totally impervious to anything you don’t want to believe.
I think you have reached the point you are just ranting. Nothing you post on here is going to help and make you feel better. You have 3 years and 11 months left to complain and you don’t want to go too hard at the start it’s a long race.
“Trump has bypassed Congress and the courts, to operate as a dictator”
Completely untrue. You have TDS real bad, Richard.
Did you notice Trump is starting to win many of these 75 lawsuits lodged against him? Eventually, he will win them all, because he has the Constitutional authority to do what he is doing.
Your claiming that Trump is ignoring Court orders shows you are deliberately lying about Trump. You know better. You couldn’t provide one instance of Trump ignoring a Court order.
Pitiful.
I haven’t seen any specifics on those claims by RG, with the possible exception of his complaint about the NY congestion pricing – which turned out to be a false claim given that it was initially authorized by Biden admin, so was not outside the power of the executive branch to revoke.
Stop whining.
Stop crying.
Each successive President has been issuing more and more EO’s over time. It was Obama who really kicked things off with his EO’s. In response to congress not doing what he wanted he famously said he had a pen and phone in reference to just doing an EO to fix the what he saw as a problem since congress wasn’t doing their job. Obama wielded that pen frequently not caring if it was constitutional, daring people to take him to court. So you might be calling Trump a dictator but if you do you had better call your hero Obama a dictator too.