The constitution doesn't mention anything about any federal agencies. The Department of State didn't even exist until a 1789 law signed by George Washington.
USAID was established by the Foreign Assistance Act of 1961. Its express purpose is to fund U.S. foreign economic and humanitarian assistance programs.
If the majority of USAID money is going towards things that do not align with the law that governs it, would you say that fits somewhere under the umbrella of "waste, fraud, and abuse"?
Congress controls the budget, it really is that simple.
If I believe USAID is full of waste, fraud, and abuse, I’m free to express that at the ballot box where I vote for a congressperson who wishes to vote on the next budget accordingly.
The executive has many dimensions of freedom with regard to federal agencies. “Existence of” and “funding of” are not among those dimensions of freedom.
> The executive has many dimensions of freedom with regard to federal agencies. “Existence of” and “funding of” are not among those dimensions of freedom.
I don't think the current administration actually abolished USAID or its funding; it just froze outgoing transfers from it. Some of the verbage used by Musk & others is exaggerated. They're playing to their voter base, unfortunately. It doesn't accurately describe what is technically or legally happening.
Elected officials lying about what they are doing seems bad, by your line of thought about fraud and accountability and all.
Unelected ones - worse still?
The unsurprisingly-ignored central sin of the Trump administration for those who voted for it for reasons of "free speech" or "reducing government corruption" or "accountability" is that Trump and his circle do not actually believe in any of those things and are not acting in ways consistent with any of those priciples. Those are just the things they say to get votes so they can grab all the power they can.
Anyone opposed to government waste or corruption should be beating down the door to get Republicans to impeach Trump because he's trying to create a whole hell of a lot of corruption-and-waste-enabling precedents.
Yeah, I hate that. Their talk is closer to WWE guys in the ring (at least on X) than the thoughtful orators whose pictures line the oval office. There's no thoughtful, careful, wise poise about it. There are many others like me who also dislike how things are said, but we look back at the actions taken (not words said) and are a lot more happy with them than we are with Biden's actions (or lack thereof).
> whole hell of a lot of corruption-and-waste-enabling precedents
Could you elaborate? I'm curious to know specifics you'd call out as examples.
here we just call for impeachment of judges who rule against us https://apnews.com/article/donald-trump-federal-judges-impea... - “at a certain point, you have to start looking at what do you do when you have a rogue judge.” - what else you got in mind, exactly, Donald?
and obviously there's the whole impoundment thing we've just been talking about - the executive blatantly ignoring a law that restricted that. should be trivial to imagine ways THAT could be misused.
Musk's entire role is pretty suspect - where was the Senate confirmation hearing or law authorizing the delegation of power to him? where is the authority over departments headed by actual cabinet members beyond "Trump said so"?
another big flashing warning sign is RFK and the CDC re-opening the vaccines/autism thing. wouldn't it be curious if suddenly a new study contradicts decades of research there? seems a bit wasteful to re-litigate unless you have reason to believe you'll get the result you want, not the one the numbers have been pointing to...
What are the good actions? Laying people off to save pennies off the budget? Promising tax cuts to enlarge the national deficit? Renaming shit?
(EDIT: another big corruption-enablement thing would be deciding the FCC is the "let's police speech i don't like" department.)
> and obviously there's the whole impoundment thing we've just been talking about - the executive blatantly ignoring a law that restricted that
The law didn't restrict it, the Constitution prohibits it without law allowing it. The Impoundment Control Act provided a limited allowance for impoundment, rather than actually curtailing it.
Timeless: https://www.bitsaboutmoney.com/archive/optimal-amount-of-fra...
How about let's solve problems practically instead of having trillion dollar decisions made in the name of virtue signaling about "moral purity."
> But doesn't the DC bureaucracy represent a common enemy to those on either side who value democracy?
Uh, no. USAID etc. have money because our elected representatives gave it money, as prescribed by the Constitution which governs our country.