Hacker News Reader

Comment by hgsfCa | Hacker News Reader

Regarding USAID: That is under Rubio now, who was confirmed unanimously. So I suspect it will be resurrected in some form and continue at least regime change operations.

MAGA outlet Tucker Carlson had Mike Benz on this week. Mike Benz had been vocally opposed to all CIA or foreign interference programs during the election campaigns. This week he recanted, talked without his usual eloquence and said that USAID is not all that bad! So MAGA is being reprogrammed.

If nothing really changes, the Democrats (who were avid neocons in the past four years) won't mind. Which could explain the meek protests of Schumer etc.

The treasury story is way more difficult, we have to wait for more information.

View on HN

> Regarding USAID: That is under Rubio now

Almost certainly not. The President can’t reorganise e.g. the CIA and Federal Reserve under HHS, for example.

Where I agree with you is in USAID not being politically worth the fight. And after the last 8 years (and Biden’s twilight) it’s hard for Democrats to argue for the rule of law per se.

Almost certainly not. The President can’t reorganise e.g. the CIA and Federal Reserve under HHS, for example.

Any sentence that begins with "The President can't" can safely be disregarded. The executive branch has all the lawyers, all the guns, virtually all the media, and (now) all the money.

Everything we were taught was an ironclad law of American constitutional governance has turned out to be a "guideline," a "custom," a "tradition," a "gentlemens' agreement," or "nothing that my pet judges can't fix."

> Any sentence that begins with "The President can't" can safely be disregarded. The executive branch has all the lawyers, all the guns, virtually all the media, and (now) all the money.

Not to mention the blanket ruling from the supreme court that says "if the president does it, it's legal."

Poor Nixon, just 60 years too early

> The executive branch has all the lawyers,

Judges do exist, and they matter more than any lawyer.

> virtually all the media

How does the executive branch control the media?

If you weren't paying attention when people like Patrick Soon-Shiong and Jeff Bezos were elbowing each other out of the way to pay tribute to Trump (1) -- or when CBS 'settled' a lawsuit that was widely seen as a certain win for them (2) in exchange for a $15M donation to the Trump Presidential Library, matching an earlier contribution in the form of an unnecessary 'settlement' from ABC, you probably aren't going to pay any attention to this comment, either. But for the record:

1: https://www.npr.org/2025/01/04/nx-s1-5248299/cartoonist-quit...

2: https://www.npr.org/2025/02/06/nx-s1-5288181/why-cbs-stands-...

Also, bear in mind the history of America's most popular cable news network. Fox News is the propaganda arm of the Republican Party, and that was always the idea. After Watergate took down Nixon, the GOP swore the same oath that the Holocaust victims did: Never again. Never again would something like Watergate be allowed to play out in an unbiased, uncontrolled media environment. Ailes and Murdoch answered the call (https://theweek.com/articles/880107/why-fox-news-created) and the rest is history.

From Wikipedia:

>Statute law also places USAID under "the direct authority and policy guidance of the Secretary of State".[4]

> Statute law also places USAID under "the direct authority and policy guidance of the Secretary of State".[4]

Source?

Reply on news.ycombinator.com