This is how it is, how it has been, and is entirely consistent with the Constitution.
So, if not that, then why issue this EO?
First of all, it’s a statement: “Resistance to this agenda from within the executive branch will not be effective”
Secondly, it helps ensure that when the President issues a statement, it’s not immediately met with bureaucrats making statements to the contrary.
Nonsense! This is the exact opposite! This is EO shows Trump trying even harder to fire all the people who refuse to go along with his crimes.
He is asserting that when the Judicial branch concludes his firings are illegal, he's going to ignore it, and then fire anyone else who refuses to help him illegally fire people.
It's the democracy-destroying version of a Monty Python sketch: The people who followed the law have been sacked. The people who didn't sack the people who followed the law have also been sacked.
Where?
… and preceded by “The President and the Attorney General, subject to the President’s supervision and control, shall provide authoritative interpretations of law for the executive branch”
Nothing in that says anything about countermanding a judicial ruling. If anything, it says that the President should set the strategy during litigation rather than one federal case making one argument while another makes a contradictory argument in reference to the same law.
What about things like drug approvals? I don't want Trump to ban certain drugs just because they didn't donate to his campaign. I don't want Trump to approve Elon Musk's brain chips just because Musk told him to.
Supreme Court Judges are appointed by elected officials, but then don’t report to anyone. Maybe a fed chairmen is like that? But there is no constitutional office like that. Surely congress can’t make up offices which are then untouchable?
I don’t want trump playing transactional games with the FDA either, but I don’t see how that can be balanced with the powers. He is the chief executive.
I mentioned in another comment that one angle that would make more sense than arguing that agencies are “independent” is to argue that trump is not enforcing the law already written by congress, so taking away the power of the legislature. That seems like a more fruitful take.
This is established in the Federal Reserve Act of 1913.
Delivering reports to is different than them being able to hire and fire. Presidents appoint fed chairmen.
Congress put in a process for a fed chairman to be appointed in a way that jointly incorporates president, house and senate. Similarly firing them also needs joint cooperation, then the people have some say by electing/unelecting a congress or president that fucks it up. Same for FDA, USPS, etc etc. I definitely want a formalized process to hire and fire these guys and not just up to whims of individual executives.
But sure, Trump could absolutely instruct the FDA to rescind certain drug approvals. There are of course processes that legally need to be followed in order to do that, but he could do it.
You left out who the federal reserve is controlled by. It's not completely independent right? In its current form, it is owned and controlled by regional federal reserves which are controlled by the banks.
You are advocating for the corporate bank control of the money supply (and interest rates). One definition of fascism is the merger of corporate and government power. One sign of oligarchy is when corporations control the regulation of their industry.
"Independent government agencies" is just a code word for industry controlled government agencies (which are a form of fascism or oligarchy).
Literally DOGE
Literally DOGE