Hacker News new | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submit login
A Coup Is in Progress in America (techdirt.com)
365 points by maximilianburke 13 days ago | hide | past | favorite | 170 comments





People seem to think that:

1. Auto-coups don't exist 2. Coups require tanks on the street 3. Once a coup is started it will succeed.

This is a an auto-coup, where the president is trying to seize power that is not granted by elections, and trying to make the legal system irrelevant. All in the name of urgency and saving the country (we call them "salva patrias" in Spain for a reason). No one can vote for this. Voting a president does not make the president all powerful.

Also, this coup does not need to succeed. We saw this recently in South Korea. This will only succeed if people don't oppose it. Don't believe them when they make you feel like you already lost.

Finally, the game has changed for the supporters of democracy. This is no longer about writing stern worded letters, if you catch my drift.

(references: I was born in a dictatorship and I lived through a failed military coup)


> This is no longer about writing stern worded letters, if you catch my drift.

I've been hoping the Pentagon would grow some balls, but that looks like it won't happen.

Guillotines it is, then


The choice isn't just between talking and violence. Here's a helpful thread that gives some examples of intermediate options at the end: https://bsky.app/profile/chadloder.bsky.social/post/3lh5gch3...

Link that should work without signin: https://skyview.social/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fbsky.app%2Fprofile...

If things escalate all the way to widespread violence, we've all collectively failed.


That requires a sign in…

Apologies, updated to include a link that should hopefully work without sign in.

still requires a sign-in, and the second link is throwing an error.

thanks!

To be fair, this is the modus operandi since early 2000 at least. Terrorism it was at that point. Broad surveillance and control policies were justified by a constant threat and there was always some threat and democracy had to take a backseat, even constitutional rights (I am not from the US, but developments were similar in my country).

Trump might behave more colorfully here, but I have to be honest that this isn't at all unfamiliar. I think a lot of Trumps current power stems from pretty weak defenders of democracy. Not referring to the previous government and instead of the common sentiment of 21st century politics. It doesn't lend itself to give a convincing picture.

Maybe that is a trap, but it just isn't that outrageous anymore in an overall outrageous context. Perhaps it is indeed worse, but I think a lot of damage was already done.


People aren’t opposing it. The legislation is letting Trump usurp their power. This is something that old school Republicans wouldn’t have let happen. But the Republican Party has been taking over by Trump.

Also, why would the majority oppose it? What he is doing is affecting illegal immigrants (who can’t vote), the poorest people who those just one level up think they are “only temporarily poor”, minorities, trans - you notice that he only removed the T from LGBT while he is taking down “wokeness”.

You also have to remember he has the evangelical Christian block in his pocket who literally believe he was sent by God to keep America from descending in hell fire. You can’t “reason” with devout religious people. Religion requires you to ignore logic and science (born and raised in the Bible Belt).

You notice he isn’t disrupting farmers in red states with immigration raids? Also because of gerrymandering and how the Senate is designed. The low population red states have much more power than their population calls for.


"you notice that he only removed the T from LGBT"

for now... it won't stop there


The Log Cabin Republicans serve as their shield that “they aren’t homophobic” just like they trot out Tim Scott as their token Black to show they aren’t racist. As a Black person, there is no way in the world I would be put on stage to shuck and jive for the modern Republican Party even if I did agree with some of their policies before 2016.

Besides plenty of Christians have had to come to terms with the fact that at least one person they care about is gay. Many fewer have someone they care about that is trans.


> You also have to remember he has the evangelical Christian block in his pocket who literally believe he was sent by God to keep America from descending in hell fire. You can’t “reason” with devout religious people.

No not true. only a few people believe that. Most do not. Stop grouping religious people into the few who interview on tv.

> Religion requires you to ignore logic and science (born and raised in the Bible Belt).

Also wildly not true and you’re extending an experience you had to a whole population, which is a biased opinion.

Many of us use science and logic daily, in conversations, and there are well received physicists who argue for an existence of a God using logic. The Bible says to use both wisdom and knowledge (logic and science).


Absolutely have to disagree on both counts. However, since you do at least sound reasonable, I'll prefer to just focus on the first claim, as we'd otherwise easily spend hours just debating basic philosophy in circles, and arguing about what even counts as valid logic.

We're already just engaging in anecdotes, but having lived all around the south from virginia to texas, I've found that almost "god-king" belief extremely common in southern baptists in particular and christians in general -- especially if you done it down ever so slightly to: "Trump has God's favor, he was probably sent by God to save our country, which is God's favorite on Earth". I have, however, little experience with the north or the west -- almost only the traditional US south.

So, my questions for you would have to be, do you live in the south or elsewhere? Also, what would your analysis be in general about such people? (Regardless of if they are many or few)


> No not true. only a few people believe that. Most do not. Stop grouping religious people into the few who interview on tv.

60-72% of White Christians voted for Trump.

> Many of us use science and logic daily, in conversations, and there are well received physicists who argue for an existence of a God using logic. The Bible says to use both wisdom and knowledge (logic and science).

Context: you’re replying to someone who spent his entire elementary school education in a private Christian school and even through the first year of high school was part of a “leadership group” going to Bible bowls.

So tell me one line in Genesis or Exodus that makes sense scientifically? Do you think humans ever lived to be 900 years old? The Jews ever being in Egypt has never been backed up by any historical record. Do you believe any of the miracles have a scientific basis? Do you believe in creation or evolution? Noah’s ark?

Now let’s go to the New Testament. Do you believe that Jesus was born to a virgin? He arose from the dead?

You can not believe anything that the Bible said happened and be science based.

I’m not pasting the following link to “prove” anything. It is a better summation of my opinion that is better written than I would do

https://www.ineos.com/inch-magazine/articles/issue-7/debate/


There does not exist a proper argument for the existence of God that does not require use of "God is above logic".

I'll believe that many Christians do not see Trump as savior, though. Following true Christian values in these times is a great idea.


“True Christian values” don’t jibe with voting for the modern national Republican Party.

Pence was probably the most “Christian” of the Republican candidates last year and he had the fewest votes.

None of the prior Republican candidates for President would have stood a chance in todays environment.


Pence is a "Dominionist" and wants to reinstate a theocracy. Last time we tried that was called the Dark Ages and we tortured people and burned them at the stake.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dominion_theology https://www.counterpunch.org/2019/01/30/a-theology-of-power-...


And at least that jibes with Christianity. I’m not saying I agree with it.

As a proclaimed Christian, I agree. Never have I ever voted for fewer Republicans than in the last election.

>I'll believe that many Christians do not see Trump as savior, though.

As a Christian that is certainly concerned about Christians supporting and voting for Trump, sadly I think many do (see him as a Savior and one who can do no wrong) but don't realize it. They excuse excuse excuse. What I see happening is history repeating itself. The Isrealites pleaded for a strong man king like the other countries even though God said they didn't need one as long as they lived by "following true Christian values". They still wanted one so God let them have one. Saul, being an insecure man, began oppressing them shortly after getting the throne.


You really don’t think they realize it? These are the same “Christians” in the 60s who supported Jim Crow.

Bob Jones University didn’t end the interracial dating ban until 2000.

https://archive.nytimes.com/www.nytimes.com/library/national...

The entire Christian Organization is corrupt. From the wide support of Trump by its leaders from the national and local level to systematic covering of child abuse in the Catholic Church.

If the abuses in the Catholic Church had happened anywhere else it would have come under RICO charges


I suppose many of them think God needs them to speed things up and usher in the antichrist. They certainly are letting their hearts turn cold. I wonder if they realize that they are the ones disobeying Jesus' commands to love others, our neighbors and our enemenies. To take care of the poor and those in need. To give the coat off our backs if asked. To offer the other cheek if struck. "Depart from me, I never knew you."...

[flagged]


People also seem to think that an autocratic takeover can't happen if the autocrat was elected. In fact, most autocratic takeovers begin with a democratic election.

[flagged]


The fog of propaganda is pretty deep to write those word to defend a man who did exactly that: tried to extend his power through illegal means. He failed last time, he is far more likely to succeed now. And yes his means are again illegal, we don’t elect kings, there are still rules to follow.

[flagged]


[flagged]


[flagged]


I think the point is not much that he's doing what he promised, but that he's doing it in two weeks and apparently without proper legal and democratic oversight. This is just week two, there's 206 more to go.

[flagged]


What is undemocratic is suggesting that somehow the civil participation process just goes on hold between every election.

People are seeing a trajectory even worse than anticipated and sounding the alarm. The Trump administration is blasting off executive orders that many feel are unconstitutional, and the populace wants to pump the brakes.


It is just factually untrue that Democrats are the party of billionaires. The richest people in the world were sitting behind Trump at his inauguration. You are high on some serious right wing propaganda.

[flagged]


"Auto" usually means "self," so this would be a coup coming from already elected officials.

>what is an "auto-coup"?

from wikipedia:

>a form of coup d'état in which a political leader, having come to power through legal means, stays in power through illegal means through the actions of themselves and/or their supporters.

So Trump trying to stay on in 2020 was an attempt at one. Trump delegating firing people to Musk isn't really. The current stuff doesn't seem illegal either - I think the US president is allowed to say find out who's unnecessary and fire them even if the people being fired shout 'coup', 'unfair' and the like. I'm not sure it's a good idea but that doesn't mean it's illegal.


Access to secure systems by people who have not been given access rights through proper channels is certainly problematic if not outright illegal.

Congress has Constitutional vetting power over Presidential appointments. It's part of the checks&balances. That has not happened. The purpose of a department has been altered by an appointee who has not been vetted. Again, incredibly problematic if not outright illegal.


preparational activities for criminal goals are often decidedly legal. same for coups. you hollow out the defense of your opponents by legal means before you go for the guts.

[flagged]


If they want to make budget cuts, they can get it approved by congress, which they control. So do that.

[flagged]


This is factually untrue. The constitution gives Congress the exclusive power of the purse. The president does not have the authority to withhold funds approved by Congress (search for Nixon and Impoundment if you want a history lesson on that).

There are sections of the budget that are discretionary spending that is controlled by the executive branch directly, but that is a small fraction of the federal budget.


Well, they won two branches democratically. The supreme court is a different matter.

They've been packing the court for decades now, a concerted push since the W Bush era. That's not even a discussion anymore.

remember not the debacle that was Kavanaugh boofing, and being gropey as hell in the past, and crying? or Amy Comey Barret's complete lack of qualification in any way?

Or how Chief Justice Roberts got appointed basically on the idea that he's going to approve and reinforce Hobby Lobby and Citizen's United?


Oh, the words are absolutely being used accurately. As a reminder, the president is an impeached felon and rapist who literally tried to steal the last election. His billionaire vizier gleefully used two Nazi salutes at the inauguration and backs far-right parties around the world. On day one, the administration announced that 30,000 migrants would be housed indefinitely at Gitmo, of all places. And now, our federal government is being infiltrated and ransacked by a rogue team with zero oversight or transparency.

Historians will be baffled by how some people missed even these signs. I guess critical thinking is in terribly scarce supply these days.


To add onto your point, America already had 4 years of Trump, and Trump was very clear on what he and the people aligned to him were going to do throughout his campaign. What is happening now is what America voted for and what they wanted.

Not sure if a flawed democracy can really call the result of its flawed system "democratic" though.

[flagged]


Doesn't require violence. See South Korea.

And not all coups are violent. Eg. EU is putting up with Orban in Hungary at the moment. Poland was a narrow miss.


But it was going to be violent. The to-be-deposed SK president had plans to use the SK Army to seize power, and even had Special Forces sent to the SK Parliament -- they just didn't really know what was going on, and weren't keen on shooting at their own Congress

I think that's a stretch?

Public protest is non-violent, but a solid step up from writing letters.


And public protests can just be ignored. Tell me, if you had absolute control of the government and military and people didn’t like what you did and asked you to stop nicely with signs and kumbaya circles, would you stop?

I’m tired of people so resistant to fighting back they’d rather just get walked on.


I'm tired of people so convinced they're right that they're ready to shoot all the people who disagree with them.

There's a good reason we set things up so that no one individual has absolute control. We've tried that. It's not great.


The people who disagree with me have the full government and might of the US military and infinite money and resources. These aren’t equivalent things.

Advocating legal pushback and resistance.

These do not imply violence.


Don’t put words in my mouth. I am not advocating in violence. I never have.

Perhaps "if you catch my drift" was meant to imply something other than words you couldn't publicly say?

[flagged]


You are the only person advocating for violence here. Bringing my wife and kids here is very brave of you.

I'm under the impression that trump is doing exactly what at least 51% of the population want him to do. He campaigned on dismantling the wheels of established power in DC.

EDIT: To expand on that Idea there is the exact apposing view that Biden was doing the same thing by the people that voted Trump in. But as we all know the media prefers one candidate over the other. Trump is the grenade that is supposed to destroy the power structures (the so called Deep State or permanent bureaucracy) in DC.


i agree in principle but it's not reality

my moms lifelong friend recently told us her grandkids are all trumpers

they're all on SSI. one had four abortions. and they LOVE trump.

every group in america was promised whatever they want, despite the endless hypocrisies/lies with that, and none of them seem to care whatsoever??

for this reason i see no way out of this hell. it's simply beyond reason at this point.

(this take is from pennsylvania)


If there is one thing about Trump everyone can agree on, it's that he is a devastatingly effective communicator.

And when I say that I don't mean good or correct or proper, I mean effective. He has an innate ability (and if you watch old clips always has) to pull the conversation where he wants it.


Correction: 31% of the eligible voting population and ~50% of the popular vote. A lot of people did not vote.

Thank you, that is an important point. Voting numbers can only estimate the totals.

I should have use the term *Electorate*.

  The collective people of a country, state, or electoral district who are entitled to vote.

And they too are getting exactly what they asked for by not voting.

I think the issue is that this is not "dismantling the wheels of established power", so much as it is centralizing and increasing the power of the executive branch.

It's not getting rid of all these bureaucrats in DC and giving power back to the people. It's getting rid any sort of independence and removing the barriers to centralizing power under Trump so that he can grab even more power and control.

And just to be pedantic, Trump received 49% of the vote and Kamala receive 48%. And that's of people who voted. He received 77 million out 244 million of the voting-eligible population, or around 31%.

There may be a plurality of people who want the Executive branch under Trump to consolidate power, but it's not the majority.

https://election.lab.ufl.edu/2024-general-election-turnout/


I can see that, on the one hand he is removing what he thinks is bureaucratic fat while at the same time giving himself (or the position) powers to do so.

I personally believe the government of the USA is probably 10x the size it needs to be so i like seeing the cuts but I am well aware of the dangers you speak of.

Either way, we live in interesting times.


The cuts in the federal government aren’t going to come from getting rid of the civilian workforce. It’s going to have to come from decreasing the military and cutting social security and Medicare. Do you think he would be willing to do either?

The militray? Never!

The other 2, depends.


I wish I could find a link, but I remember a study that argued that large bureaucracies can actually impede authoritarian governments concentrating power.

The idea being that when there are so many levers to pull and a disjointed system managing them, it makes it effectively impossible for a small group to effectively wield power. It’s like a buffer against concentrating power into a single individual.

Not that I’m arguing for endless bloat to the US government, that comes with its own problems. I agree we need to rein it in.

But I think there is a freedom-centric argument for a slightly larger government bureaucracy than is strictly necessary.

Or thinking about it in reverse, the bureaucracy is currently preventing the executive branch from just doing whatever it wants. I know Congress and the Supreme Court should act as blocks, but to paraphrase Stalin how much infantry do they have?

A slow moving bureaucratic executive can act as a buffer against ineffective other branches.

Or for those that may support the current administration consolidating power, what if the tides turn? What if in 4 years whoever the liberal villain du jour is takes power? Are we making it so that AOC is the most powerful president in history?


You seem to assume that Trump will willingly give away his power in 4 years.

He most certainly remembers the January 6th failed coup and will likely spend the next 4 years making sure that he comes on top this time.

And yeah, if he fails, you better hope that the person which did succeed was liberal (and from I heard, AOC is not), because otherwise instead of putting back a system of checks and balances, they will just use the power that Trump concentrated to their own ends.


Some might react too strongly to the word "coup," but another term might be more accurate: "Orbanization."

Hungary’s Prime Minister Viktor Orbán didn’t take power through a military coup—he systematically dismantled democratic systems while maintaining the outward appearance of democracy. Over time, his government:

* Purged independent civil servants and replaced them with loyalists.

* Gained control of media platforms to shape public discourse.

* Undermined legal checks on executive power through judicial and procedural manipulation.

* Shifted state functions into private hands, where oversight is weaker.

We may be seeing similar patterns emerging in the U.S.—not with tanks, but through institutional capture and elite influence.

The good news? Unlike military coups, this type of democratic backsliding can still be resisted peacefully. But the window for effective resistance does close with each passing institutional change.


Similar activity was observed in Poland for a long time. The country was split half-half between the ruling party that strived to deconstruct the democractic institutions and a weak, fragmented left that was unable to win enough votes to re-gain power.Loyalists were put in power, including the president of the state.

Poland is still repairing the damages done to the court system, media landscape, and other state organisations and organs.

The learning, whether Weimar Republic, Hungary, Poland et cetera is: A change in power is not a problem unless the party in power is out to destroy all that enables other players to keep power in check and allow for a future peaceful political transition.

The U.S. has a different political culture and norms than E.U. states. Will will see how things will turn out.


I predict this will happen in the future through the most common method of evildoing - a software update.

History of a certain European country disagrees with such an optimistic view.

I hope you are right though.


We've had four years of Trump before and there wasn't anything along the lines of Hitler or Orban. This time maybe a bit Orban like.

There were some adults in the room during his first administration that prevented his worst inclinations. It wasn't from a lack of trying. Now the GOP controls all 3 branches of government and stacked SCOTUS who have already ruled in favor of autocracy by granting presidents blanket immunity while in office. Now Trump is solidifying power and installing loyalists in every key position of power possible. They are violating the Constitution and rule of law. This is a coup. There's no other way to put it. The Nazi's took control of Germany without firing a shot. They were elected.

Sometimes I don't know who has a worse idea of history, the right and its spartans or the left and literally everything.

They're oligarchs. There is no left and right. Just us and them.

nah. they're swinging pretty hard right. they're not pushing for higher taxes, or subsidized anything. they're not pro-worker or pro-union.

But always keep in mind, politics is just a means to an end for these people. Remember how all the Silicon Valley techbros currently supporting the coup used to claim to be liberal and progressive? The 'culture wars' were invented by them to keep us distracted and divided. They're playing both sides of the fence against us while we blame the other side of the fence.

Exactly, fascists are neither left or right : they only care about the Party (and in practice, certain people in it) being in power, not the disenfranchised workers, small bourgeois, or industrialists (much less free markets) they made promises to, and will accordingly pander to or drop them only as much as it serves them.

What is the valid democratic process to use if the public doesn't like the unelected officers of the institutions of the executive branch? Is the claim being made that these people have a constitutional right to run the FBI, USAID, etc forever, and the public is not allowed to elect someone to fire them? From what I can tell, it does look a lot like a coup, of an unelected bureaucracy trying to prevent the elected president from fulfilling his campaign promises that the public elected him for.

> What is the valid democratic process to use if the public doesn't like the unelected officers of the institutions of the executive branch?

Mostly they serve at the pleasure of the president, some have to be approved by Congress.

> Is the claim being made that these people have a constitutional right to run the FBI, USAID, etc forever, and the public is not allowed to elect someone to fire them?

No, the claim is that only Congress can allocates funds to create these agencies, and only Congress can de-allocate funds for them, so the executive branch (and whoever the executive branch empowers, whether or not they are a government employee) does not have a right to shut them down.

> From what I can tell, it does look a lot like a coup, of an unelected bureaucracy trying to prevent the elected president from fulfilling his campaign promises that the public elected him for.

The president is not a king. He is the head of the executive branch and has a large degree of control over how the bureaucracy is run, but not total control. Maybe you aren't American or maybe you don't remember elementary school civics, but the US operates on a system of checks-and-balances to prevent any one branch of governement from acquiring too much power. The coup-in-progress is the president apparently subverting those checks and balances.


> at the pleasure of the president

The point poster above is making is that the president should be able to fire them, and should be able to audit whether or not they have been doing their jobs correctly, which is essentially what is occurring.


The arbitrariness is the problem.

"""

the order for [FBI] employees to compile lists of all current and former personnel who worked on investigations related to January 6, 2021, and a Hamas-related case.

"""

Also, if I understand correctly, agents are civil servants (not political appointees) and they cannot be simply fired at will.


There's a process in law for this, and he can't simply remove programs wholesale that have congressionally allocated funds.

This is all in law, which is why people are calling this a coup.

The coup isn't so much about the firing it's about freezing programs, or cutting them entirely without going through the process of congressional approval.


No. What is happening is shutting down of departments without congressional approval, which is unconstitutional. This is being done by an uncleared individual with no government or domain expertise, which is merely a bad idea.

Specific actions "by an uncleared individual" may in fact be illegal, not merely a bad idea.

Not trying to be sarcastic but everything you're saying is all clearly stated in Article 1 of the Constitution, which branches do what. It feels as if part of what's going on is leveraging of either feigned or real ignorance about how things are supposed to operate.

People's brains have been so broken by corporate authoritarianism they've come to believe it is a template for how everything is supposed to work.

Don’t vote for democrats thinking they’re going to solve the real problems or meaningfully addresss this in any way. Vote for people who want to overhaul the system in ways that are friendly to democracy. The DNC is still a very poor choice for people who are pro democracy

Could someone please cite for me in plain english what has transpired in the last 48 hours?

Matt Kiser’s WTFJHT delivers useful daily summaries of all significant actions out of the White House. Here’s yesterday’s edition: https://whatthefuckjusthappenedtoday.com/2025/02/03/day-1476...

Also shutting down of federal agencies without Congress approval and getting access to their data:

"Musk on the call also appeared to claim credit for the shutdown of the U.S. Agency for International Development ... though the executive branch’s legal authority to do so without congressional action is highly in doubt, as the agency’s existence is established in law. Trump on Monday said he didn’t need an act of Congress to shut down USAID.

USAID’s homepage has been shut down for days, as is its X account. Dozens of career staff at the agency have been put on leave, and hundreds have been shut out of agency computer systems. Musk aides have gained access to classified USAID information over the objection of agency security personnel, who were subsequently placed on leave, The Associated Press reported."


https://www.politico.com/news/2025/02/03/rubio-acting-head-u...

> The Trump administration took a variety of steps Monday.. The most dramatic was naming Secretary of State Marco Rubio as acting administrator of USAID.. The State Department said in its statement announcing Rubio’s acting role that he has also informed Congress that “a review of USAID’s foreign assistance activities is underway with an eye towards potential reorganization.” .. Rubio explained he was entrusting the duties of deputy administrator to Peter Marocco, the head of the State Department’s office of foreign assistance.. Marocco is also leading the review into USAID activities.

State Department tweet: https://nitter.net/statedept/status/1886512412863684802 or https://xcancel.com/statedept/status/1886512412863684802


[flagged]


> Trump and his colleagues are trying to reduce spending by cutting payments to things deemed unnecessary. Some feel the process in which they do this is questionable and opaque.

That's not quite accurate. I would say: "some feel the process in which they do this is unconstitutional as the executive branch does not have the authority to dissolve programs." And furthermore: "some feel entrusting these vital government functions to an un-vetted non-employee with no oversight will lead to abuse and conflicts of interest."


[flagged]


Wikipedia says he’s a citizen.

Isn’t the President able to appoint people to do these things? It’s not clear to me this is not permitted.

Does the president have authority shut down USAID?

Can President Trump Dissolve USAID by Executive Order?

According to Just Security, Trump can drastically curtail USAID with executive actions alone; however, he “may not unilaterally override” a statute by executive order. USAID was established by statute as its own agency via Congress in 1998 after first being created by executive order in 1961 by President John F. Kennedy. Since an act of Congress established it as an independent agency, an act of Congress would be necessary to dissolve it. - Forbes


As with many such things, the letter of the law doesn't anticipate a determined effort to undermine it.

Could the USAID agency could continue to exist, on paper, with a single staff member?


Statements today to Congress and public, https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=42926580

tl;dr No. If this were permitted, then a president would just be a dictator.

And he didn't even appoint Musk. Musk isn't head of any government department. He's just a random guy who has a ton of money.


>unelected

Almost everyone in the government is unelected.



This is not a drill, folks. It is happening in front of our eyes.

Call your congressperson today.


point of order: I don't think you can vouch for a flagged submission, right? Only for flagged comments.

Yes as far as I understand it's a big issue. Since you can only vouch once it's dead and usually too late. Additionnaly you might loose the ability to vouch ...

Yes you can.

I'm fairly sure you can only vouch submissions once they've progressed frm [flagged] to [dead].

You can only vouch for [dead] things, regardless of [flagged].

as someone who disagrees with this, what can i realistically do short of sacrificing bullets and blood

You can't win a war without sacrificing blood against someone who is ready to sacrifice as much blood as they want (not their own, of course). Look at Russia. They simply don't care if millions will die.

Skip the bullets and hope they don’t go for blood.

the US Army could walk into DC and shut this down tomorrow.

there is a reason why one of Trump's first orders was to dismiss all top generals.


> the US Army could walk into DC and shut this down tomorrow.

Yes, a military coup could override a civilian autocoup, and while there are a few (globally) historical cases where that has happened and the military coup leaders quickly worked with civilian leadership outside of either coup to restore something like normal government processes, there are also plenty of cases where that was out of the frying pan, into the fire.


I disagree with the Coup framing.

It’s not clear that reorganizing US foreign aid agencies is in violation of statute. As I understand it statute allocate $X to US foreign aid. And instructs the State dept to organize this aid.

The EO to pause all payments was challenged in court and halted

A lot of bad crap has happened, and I disagree with what DOGE is doing, but it’s not a coup.


USAID is not a US foreign aid agency. It is a US propaganda and soft power agency, opposite China's Belt & Road initiative. President Trump has named Marco Rubio as temporary head (so Secretary Rubio has two roles).

The President does have the authority to stop the agency's actions, and make it answer to the Secretary of State. Dissolving it altogether or making it part of the State Department likely requires Congressional approval.


Exactly. Too many here oppose eliminating the militant, left wing, anti-Americanism from the US government. Restoring it to a more rational and Constitutionally based framework is what's happening. It's not a coup. The government wastes and launders incredible sums of OUR money. Example, some $100B of the aid to the Ukraine is missing, if you believe Zelensky. In all likelihood, Zelendsky pocketed some of it and routed other to Biden and other affiliated NGO and back into the hands of the globalist faction. Resisting illegal immigration is likewise not a coup. It's the restoration of sovereignty and the rule of law. Nor is eliminating DEI/woke propaganda a coup. It is a restoration of common sense and science. Trump isn't the problem. The problem is all of the folks out here that are willing to surrender their lives to government and left wing utopian fantasies. They don't exist.

You need to read more instead of repeating Russian propaganda. The $100bn didn't "go missing". Zelensky is never seeing that money because it is not for him, it is for replenishing the US military stocks given to Ukraine with newer equipment.

https://www.ukraineoversight.gov/Funding/


Musk's take - in response to Chuck Schumer making similar criticisms:

>He’s mad that @DOGE is dismantling the radical-left shadow government in full view of the public.

>This is our ONE CHANCE to return POWER to the PEOPLE from an unelected BUREAUcracy back to DEMOcracy!! ...

https://x.com/elonmusk/status/1886840365329608708


DOGE progress bar, https://doge-tracker.com/

  515 Days until July 4th, 2026
  $1.82B Taxpayer Dollars Saved of $2T Goal
For maximum transparency, this could be converted to an OSS repo with source code and vetted citations.

You can't claim to have "saved" money by destroying programs funded by congress that you have no authority to destroy.

Especially when the long term costs of destroying those programs are going to be enormous.


If DOGE will document their claimed savings publicly, those claims can be tracked and challenged publicly. According to their claimed schedule, this will continue for the next 2 years. There can be case-by-case reviews by journalists, lawyers and courts.

You are the one who is claiming that they've saved $1.82 Billion dolars by posting some random website that thinks illegally destroying a federal agency is fiscally responsible.

Just embrace it. If they’re making claims, it would actually be prudent to document those claims and ask them about their methodology. Ask them if they consider any costs from second-order effects as subtracting from the total. If not, why not?

Calculate the totals yourself. Report the data to as many as possible. If you think it will look as bad as I do, there’s every reason to.


[flagged]


I'm not a fan of DEI so this isn't in defense of that policy. But are you really comparing it to the KKK?

Seriously?


[flagged]


I'm a Jew (atheist). I don't think it's correct to compare well meaning idiots with people who literally kill people.

The president has authority to run these programs, every president has.

DOGE is advising the president and the president is choosing what to do.

There are a lot of people on this site claiming this is not legal for some reason but not really citing any law.



There's nothing on this page explaining how Trump changing how USAID works is unconstitutional.

USAID is an entity created by Congress, a separate branch of government, via legislation, not via executive order. It lives in a separate universe, in legal terms, than entities created by executive order. This is called separation of powers. The executive branch cannot make substantive changes to an entity created by Congress due to separation of powers. It also cannot prevent moneys allocated by Congress to USAID from being spent, due to impoundment. These are tenets for you to learn, not argue about. The world was not invented with your birth, when you fell out of the coconut tree. You live in an inheritance, a world in which all of this- laws, independent branches, etc etc was already worked out, over many distinct countries and legal regimes over thousands of years.

We're the DEI initiatives programs directly funded by legislation?

Trump's executive order only stopped funding that wasn't required by legislation.

If those programs are going to have long-term benefit, then they really should be directed by Congress and not by an autocratic president.


"I saved you a tone of money by taking your credit cards and bank accounts without authorization. Now your expenses are way down!"

A court has already intervened to block the payment freeze, https://archive.is/Y5KWx

> A federal judge said on Monday that she intended to temporarily block the Trump administration from imposing a sweeping freeze on trillions of dollars in federal grants and loans, adding to the pushback against an effort by the White House’s Office and Management and Budget.


>Stalin tracker, 1933

>5 million soviet rubles saved due to closing “ineffective farms”

Who knew it could be that simple!


It’s getting really old these are getting flagged. @dang can you do anything?

Also, unfortunately, the HN crowd are not the type of people that will do anything in the physical world. We’re too busy sitting back thinking, “There is no way anyone is stupid enough to vote for Trump.” Then we all act shocked, and mainly disappointed people are actually stupid enough. We obviously solve nothing.

Democrats don’t get out and vote. Women don’t get out and vote. If they did, Harris would would have been elected. If anyone watched her convention, they would have seen she is a good human being and would have been good for this country. It’s a damn shame where the USA is now.

Republicans get out and vote. Bush Jr. was re-elected twice. During his first term he was already being called one of the worst presidents in history. He had the devil himself Chenney as his VP for crying out loud. Republicans get out and vote. Remember this the next election.


A lot of very smart, very technical people voted for the guy. And there’s nothing wrong with that. It’s a free country and people can vote their conscience and speak their piece.

The article above is needlessly, wildly inflammatory. Frankly, so is your comment. Not everyone agrees with you, and you’ve made no case beyond cliqueishness as to why they should.


> Not everyone agrees with you, and you’ve made no case beyond cliqueishness as to why they should.

Does this not also apply to your comment?

Not trying to be mean, just trying to offer a different perspective. It seems many others agree with the author and it’s similarly unreasonable to dismiss them along with the author as “needlessly, wildly inflammatory” for holding an opinion you don’t agree with.


Despite the historical significance of current events, it’s not necessarily worth submitting an opinion about them. I suspect this was flagged out of a sort of topic fatigue, possibly even some from those who agree with the author. There will be threads about any new happenings, and those will more reasonably stay up as “news”. Keep speaking truth in those.

> The president openly declares he won’t enforce laws he dislikes, while Congress watches in complicit silence.

I voted against Trump, but this failed me right there. Does the author of this BS genuinely not know any instances of this from the dems and therefore is ignorant, or he does but unable to recognize hypocrisy?


It's a hysteria party to sell ads. Here's how I see it: we have a $7 TRILLION budget for 2025 and Musk is trying to cut $2 TRILLION from it. Both the Democrats and Republicans probably want the budget cut, it's way out of control. They're just letting Musk take the heat because he doesn't have to get reelected. If it succeeds, the Dems will just let it lie, if it fails, they have campaign fodder for the next election.

Remember, last year we paid more in interest on debt than our entire military budget.


>Remember, last year we paid more in interest on debt than our entire military budget.

https://fiscaldata.treasury.gov/americas-finance-guide/feder...

National defense 15%, veterans benefits and services 6%, interest 13%.


https://www.crfb.org/blogs/do-we-spend-more-interest-defense

According to the Congressional Budget Office’s latest baseline, in Fiscal Year (FY) 2024, spending on interest is projected to total $870 billion, while spending on national defense will total $822 billion. This has never been the case before, going back to at least 1940.

Maybe the fed interest rate drop pulled it back.


So what does action look like? Half the country voted for this, we can't act surprised this is happening. We heard Trump's words loud and clear and half the country pretended to not listen or not care because "the liberals were ruining our country".

What can we do, truthfully? I've wrote to elected officials who I haven't heard a peep from. Why aren't the people in charge taking lead to stop this? Genuine question. What can we do? Because the last paragraph in this article makes it sound like violence is the next step which is not something I personally advocate for myself.


They didn't vote for this. I bet the majority of those voters cast their vote trying to get better egg prices. They aren't going to get that.

Regardless of what people voted for (I disagree with your assessment) after the fact the recent EOs do have popular support.

https://issuesinsights.com/2025/02/03/trumps-executive-order...


How much of the support is because they actually agree with the policies being passed versus "their leader showing strength"?

You shouldn't project your corrupted worldview on everyone around. Not everyone is like followers of Biden.

I assure you we absolutely did vote for this and it’s very fun to be winning so much. It’s awesome to see corruption being rooted out and to be learning how much tax payer money has been wasted.

Do you believe everything Trump is saying?

As an extreme and memorable example: "$x million was spent on condoms for Hamas"

In my experience of the world, therefore through my personal filter, most of the justifications and reasoning I hear out of Trump's mouth are massive simplifications at best and outright untruths at worst.

Regarding rooting out corruption: $TRUMP coin. So they're replacing perceived corruption with outright scams in order to profit from their position?


The deepest strength of democracy is being able to vote disliked politicians out. So long as you can replace Trump next election then the costs are bearable.

I'm in New Zealand and our MMP system has elected politicians with zero constituency (list vote).


>What can we do, truthfully?

Put up a better candidate through a transparent process next time and stop the hysterics that alienate the majority of the population. Denying the reality of the poor quality of the candidate and continuing to be loud about things that only are believed in extremist bubbles is how you get even more of what you do not want. Remember, impressing people who think just like you isn't outreach, it's insulating and isolating.

Oh, and banish "Latinx" from existence. It's crazy how much damage that one little letter did and how tone deaf those who use it continue to be.


Disclaimer: I didn't vote for Trump/Vance and I'm deeply uncomfortable with the stuff happening with DOGE in particular.

All the republicans have to do for the 2026 midterms and Vance for 2028 is play clips from the DNC Officer election process that took place over the weekend as campaign ads.

Many of my friends can only perceive the election outcome and the actions currently taking place from a place of identity based policies. Virtually everyone I know outside of that circle and many inside that circle who keep their mouths shut are tired of that being THE focus.


This is some of the out of touch stuff that comes from the DNC that is toxic to a large part of America.

“Our rules specify that when we have a non-binary candidate or officer, the non-binary individual is counted as neither male nor female, and the remaining six offices must be gender balanced with the results of the previous four elections. Our elected officers are currently two male and two female. In order to be gender balanced… we must elect one male, one female, and one person of any gender."

I am the furthest thing from an “aggrieved Rural Christian Evangelical Conservative” - none of those adjectives apply to me.

They also said “So, I’m going to have a show of hands. How many of you believe that racism and misogyny played a role in Vice President Harris”. Did it play role? Yes. I’m a Black guy and I know a few Black men that didn’t vote for her just because of that.

But just like Christians and traditional Republicans held their nose and voted for Trump the first time.

Enough of America voted for Obama twice. Obama never made it about race. But then again, we had decent Republican candidates like Romney and McCain (who shut it down anytime it came up).

Harris lost because she was a continuation of Biden and was complicit in hiding the fact that Biden was losing his mental faculties


[flagged]


Don't listen and keep losing and pontificating as to why seems to be the chosen path for many people right now.

> the liberals were ruining our country

I think their grievances are more detailed than that.

They didn't pretend not to listen. They genuinely want what is currently happening and are very happy about it.


Edited to zero

[flagged]


Not when his supporters literally think he was sent by God.

[flagged]


Yeah this is my read too. This is what people asked for. Elon has shown an affinity for creative destruction of entrenched bureaucracies.

Curious what the red line is for congressional republicans.


> Trump was voted in to blow up the entrenched bureaucratic state

None of the exit polls makes this claim.


The fact that he campaigned on it, brought Musk along and put him on stage to make speeches about it, and even named the "department" before the election and then won seems pretty compelling to me. Open and shut case I'd say.

If any of those were reasons for them voting, it would have shown in the exit polls when they were asked.

It was not.


[flagged]


> P.S. Only cowards downvote.

I downvote obvious shills, deliberately pretending to not understand peoples' point, putting words in others' mouths, personal attacks and abuse, and blatant incivility (and maybe a few others that don't come to mind right now). I don't think that makes me a coward.


My cynical take is... Trump admin doesn't care and his base doesn't even know the extent of what is going on. Spend some time in the Fox News & co. echo chamber and it's really astounding how much they just DON'T report on at all.

> his base doesn't even know the extent of what is going on

Twitter has realtime status updates and feedback from said base—and others.


The MAGA people in my family don’t have Twitter. They’re over 60 and watch Fox News. Fox News is not reporting on a lot of this stuff.

If you realize the amount of one-sided misinformations the older administration was sharing. I find it very disingenious that they are taking a high-road during the current fiasco.

Trump likely has other plans than to give up power willingly (again).

Who in the Trump administration is professional?

[flagged]


Ironically, the Republican Party was founded as an anti-slavery party in 1854. Abraham Lincoln was the first republican president.

[flagged]


Just becauase you choose not to understand how government works does not mean it isn't transparent.

It's quite disheartening how the messaging is regurgitated like GP's comment. It's the fourth or fifth comment that I've read in the past day on HN repeating the same empty platitudes.

I said before and I'll keep repeating: if even what was supposedly the well-educated cohort of the American population, the ones accessing this forum, are falling for this then I've lost the vast majority of hope I had for the USA.

Even the ones with full access to education, and knowledge are choosing to be this stupid... I can't imagine how it is for the uneducated.

Carl Sagan was absolutely right, it came a time for his children and grandchildren to experience the darkness of anti-intellectualism.


Since Trumpers only seem to care about theirs and what they can get. In simple terms if Trump is successful it means we are not a nation of laws but a nation of dictates from on high. That is not a stable nation. No one will invest in that nation's stock markets. No one will buy their bonds. No one will use their currency as a reserve currency.

This is the frustrating part.

No one thinks about the new system, new precedents and new norms being created right now, and what the next leader can do with it.

Can no supporter of this approach imagine what happens the next time their political enemy is in power?


Perhaps they prefer to imagine that their political enemies are never able to achieve power again? Same imaginative effort, but much more satisfying.

[flagged]


The big assumption is thinking nothing else changes and that all consequences of the EOs are immediately reverted when disassembled.

You're in for a rude awakening.


While I'm not truly someone who agrees with Democracy, I do abide with the established rules.

That means, everything you do as a long term solution, needs to be approved by executive, legislative and judiciary systems. This is how every healthy Democratic Republic works.

If you have policies made by executive order, it means only executive power have approved them, which is partially an autocratic policy. This is not new, and constantly abused by Democrats and Republicans over the year.

Because USAID was created by Autocratic rule and did not passed by legislative and/or judiciary approval, I think it's fair to be dismissed by any other president, congress or judiciary any time.

If the people think the government should keep growing up and spending lot more tax payer money, sure, but make it approved by the people, not by the president (or prime minister at other countries).


[flagged]


That is not mathematically sound. Government employees only make up a tiny percentage of the US budget especially if you don’t include the military.

And how is killing the IRS going to help balance the budget?


I don’t think you can have any impact on US spending without entitlement reform - almost all medicaid/medicare - or decreasing the defense budget

All these other agencies are small potatoes.




Join us for AI Startup School this June 16-17 in San Francisco!

Guidelines | FAQ | Lists | API | Security | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact

Search: