DOGE has 'god mode' access to government data
theatlantic.com
theatlantic.com
All I learned is that nobody should have this level of access unless it is some sort of temporary break glass situation. It is extremely dangerous and even experienced engineers can cause irreparable data loss or some other bad outcome. In our case, some engineer accidentally sent around 10,000 invoices to customers that shouldn't have gotten them.
There are far better data access patterns. In the case of US gov data, I don't see why the DOGE team would need anything more than a read replica to query. It could even be obfuscated in some way to protect citizens' identities.
When they did decide to lock down the database, the DB admin only locked in down in the sql server client most people used. If you used some other client, you still had access. _sigh_
Of course, this involves being honest with yourself about risk and reward, and we all have implicit incentives to disregard the risk until we get burned and learn to factor that in.
And if I was advising the Ukranians I'd tell them to try to exploit it too, hey, if you're fighting 2 superpowers with another 1 quietly backing the fight against you, you need all the help you can get.
This isn't true. Mainframe COBOL systems commonly store data in VSAM files, or DB2, or IMS, or sometimes some more obscure non-IBM database (e.g. CA/Broadcom's Datacom/DB or IDMS, or Software AG's ADABAS). But whichever one they use, there are multiple ways of granting read-only access.
For example, if it is VSAM, you can configure RACF (or TopSecret or ACF2) to allow an account read (but not write) permission to those VSAM datasets. Or, you can stick DB2 in front of VSAM (on DB2 for z/OS, CREATE TABLE can refer to a pre-existing VSAM file, and make it look like a database table), and then you can have a readonly account in DB2 to give you access to that database schema. Or, there's a lot of other ways to "skin this cat", depending on exactly how the legacy app is designed, and exactly how it stores data. But, probably this is already implemented – most of these apps have read-only access for export into BI systems or whatever – and if it happens for whatever reason not to be, setting it up should only be a modest amount of work, not some multiyear megaproject.
Given that neither of us knows the actual systems in question, what is more likely, that it's a well-designed system or one that has organically accreted over time? It seems like you tend to believe the former, and I the latter. I suppose my view is based on the fact that, like in statmech, you enumerate all possible systems that can do a particular job, the vast majority of those solutions will not have any organizing principle and will not be amenable to surgical analysis or change.
Whereas, you don't seem to know anything about that topic, and are speculating based on parallels with completely different disciplines (such as statistical mechanics).
We both are speculating due to lack of details about the specific systems under discussion, but wouldn't you expect the person whose speculations are based on greater relevant knowledge to be more likely to be correct?
No, it's not my specialty and didn't work with this system for long, but my overall impression was that COBOL programmers get (understandably) low-level abstractions, and therefore had to build higher level abstractions themselves. This is not like modern software development where you have an embarrasment of riches from any level of abstraction you want, and a large system where every part of the stack is a custom solution is generally going to be more chaotic. To put some numbers on it, to add a column of data to the system I worked on required on average about 20k hours of coding work. No doubt some of this was sand-bagging, but I'd say 80% of it was legitimate.
But now you are shifting the goalposts: from getting readonly access to the data, to understanding what it actually means. Yes, I totally agree, a lot of legacy COBOL systems, it can be very hard to work out what the data actually means - even though you probably have a COBOL copybook telling you what the columns/fields are, they can be full of things like single letter codes where the documentation telling you what the codes mean is incorrect. And likewise, you are right that seemingly simple tasks like adding a field can be monumental work given the number of different transaction screens, reports, batch jobs, etc, that need to be updated, and the fact that many mainframe programmers don’t know what “DRY” stands for
But simply getting read-only access to data? Most mainframe COBOL systems would already support that. Could there be some really badly maintained ones in which it was never configured properly and they just give DOGE read-write access because DOGE refuses to wait for it to be done properly? I doubt that’s the norm but it might be a rare exception. Such a system would likely violate security standards for federal IT systems, but agencies can get exemptions.
20,000 hours is 10 years of full-time work for a single person. If you "didn't work with this system for long," it is quite simply statistically impossible that you could have witnessed enough projects to have anything resembling an accurate "average".
Or, while we're mythical man-monthing it, 6 months of work for 20 people? Or merely a single sprint for 240 people!
One person having "god-mode" access isn't usually that terrible.
> It is extremely dangerous and even experienced engineers can cause irreparable data loss or some other bad outcome
HERE BE DRAGONS
That seems innocuous, but remember then some of the output files might have the character "?" or even "*". So imagine trying to remove these files and going an asterisk too far. All gone!
> I don't see why the DOGE team would need anything more than a read replica to query.
They shouldn't need more than limited read access. The fact that they have more access, very likely demanded and not accidentally given, is due to their intent to do more than simply query data.
I'm not make a value judgement on this, it's just how it is. At a startup, the founder ultimately has root access to the database, no matter what the technical controls.
Now, maybe it's stupid, and maybe it should be some other way, but to my mind the other way is that Congress gets together and writes a law saying "the executive cannot get root access to X, Y, Z". In absence of that law, the executive can do whatever they want.
Not to be THAT GUY, but "an append-only database which cannot be modified by anyone" is something HN has spent the past 10 years saying is completely useless...
Bureaucracies are a common good, and it should be in everyone's interest to apply state-of-the-art system engineering to make them as valuable as currently possible.
Bureaucracy doesn't have to be to the detriment of society. As a matter of fact, it can potentially put breaks on the worst exploitative behavior.
But over time... It has the potential to grow too much with bad legislation, effectively making the positive potential into a very real negative that stifles unnecessarily.
* The beauracracy today is about the size it was in 1980 on a per capita basis. It’s not the largest per capita it’s ever been.
> The federal government’s workforce has remained largely unchanged in size for over 50 years, even as the U.S. population has grown by 68% and federal spending has quintupled, highlighting the critical role of technology and contractors in filling the gap.
> Compensation for federal employees cost $291 billion in 2019, or 6.6% of that year’s total spending
So firing everyone is a 6% improvement to the federal budget while a complete government collapse for a number of reasons including that the government won’t have anyone to collect revenue or prosecute crimes.
[1]
* The largest discretionary spending area is the military at 800 billion in 2023. Of that, personnel accounted for 173 billion, or 20%. Personnel is a tiny fraction of the government’s spend each year. Even [2] which is a right wing think tank supporting this effort, claims that the liabilities improvement is 600B over 10 years which makes it a <1% dent seeing as how we spend >6T each year and just hand-waves the pension improvement as “significant”. But cuts aren’t focusing on the biggest employer within the government like the military.
* The people Trump & Musk are firing now are people who haven’t been on the job long enough to have protections. This drastically reduces the numbers above as a best case since that assumes a uniform 10% reduction across all salary bands whereas the current 10% reduction is almost certainly across the lowest bands since the government pays based on seniority.
This is what Trump does - he often identifies a real problem and then does a sleight of hand trick to make you think the actions he’s taking, because they’re highly visible, are solving the problem when in fact he’s not actually making any meaningful dent. That’s why he made a big show about the deportation flights but not talking about how the places he’s sending them to aren’t the places the people are from - he’s bullied Costa Rica into accepting whoever he send [3].
[1] https://www.brookings.edu/articles/is-government-too-big-ref...
[2] https://epicforamerica.org/education-workforce-retirement/fi...
[3] https://www.nbcnews.com/news/asian-america/us-deportation-fl...
Bureaucracy is an organizational model that reflects human intentions and choices, just like every other organizational model in society.
Attributing specific moral inclinations to an organizational model is as absurd as attributing them to any other tool. Debating whether bureaucracies per se have good or bad intentions is as ridiculous as debating whether handwritten documents convey better or worse intentions than printed ones.
They're just firing people at random, they haven't discovered any innovative new way to make systems more efficient.
("at random" is a bit generous and ignores the retaliation against political adversaries)
This is, I think, just "stage 1"
¿Porque no los dos? Firing the folks that maintain nuclear weapons:
* https://apnews.com/article/nuclear-doge-firings-trump-federa...
Firing the folks dealing with bird flu:
* https://apnews.com/article/usda-firings-doge-bird-flu-trump-...
Also firing a whole bunch of folks at the FAA (including maintenance mechanics) even though it's already short staffed:
* https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/cly9y1e1kpjo
Random and spiteful (?).
USAID was investigating Starlink
Consumer Protection Bureau has numerous investigations open vs Musky companies
Treasury is involved in regulating Muskys X for Finance thing
Sooner than you think.
My tax refund is quite late.
I don’t care what happens to Ukraine, just don’t want us to send another dime. Hoping it can just end soon, which is more likely now than it was with previous administration.
Tariffs are a terrible idea though, but would take them if we got rid of the income tax.
As of now DOGE and Trump are doing exactly what I hoped, and I’ll check back in a year and see if I’m worried.
$4,700,000,000,000 income taxes
$...100,000,000,000 tariffs
Even firing all probationary employees explicitly _for cause_ when there's no evidence of performance problems with most of them is worse than random, it opens them up to legitimate legal backlash. Have you ever worked anywhere where the last two years of hires were all just completely worthless as employees? Of course not, that's basically impossible. Eliminating these people would have been harsh but understandable if it were said to be done for simple budget reasons, because yes they indeed are in a vulnerable less protected situation, but to call them all poor performers at the same time is worse than random, it's an obvious and transparent lie.
This isn't about efficiency, money, or employees. It's about power and the consolidation thereof. They will have ransacked the VA and the American people not only gave them the keys but they cheered them on.
I suspect the people in charge of the firings are under the same mistaken impression as you are, that all the probationary people are new hires who aren't yet essential. Witness the "oops, we fired the wrong people" rush to rehire.[2][3]
1 https://www.npr.org/2025/02/15/nx-s1-5298182/trumps-probatio...
2 https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/c4g3nrx1dq5o
3 https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/doge/usda-accidentally-fire...
But as others have noted, these are not the only ones being mass fired.
And that's not counting the firings at the DOJ and FBI which were explicitly retribution (though you could argue DOGE had nothing to do with those firings, which may be true, but I'm referring to Trump's mass firings in general).
[0] https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2025-02-18/fda-offic...
Generally speaking, I want my government to be stable, predictable, and consistent over fairly long time horizons.
Also, what's important to understand is that inefficiency in a corporation is a bug, but inefficiency in government is a feature.
Government needs to have checks and balances at every stage, which by definition is inefficient. Which in the case of government is a wonderful thing.
There is a word for a perfectly efficient government: dictatorship
Some examples of "stupid" ineffiency: delegating tech support outside government. Meaning no technician could fix a laptop on-site, their role was to notify a private company to come one day to take the device and come back later with a fix. The delays were bad, and compounded rapidly, the employees couldn't work, citizen wasted days off and had to reschedule a month later.. really bad. Plus technicians skills were unused/wasted, they hated their jobs, and communication with partners was mostly hostile/red-tape adding more friction. They didn't have enough money to change LCDs but didn't allow you to give some even though there were plenty of working ones for free. Same for printers.
This is the kind that needs to be pruned.
Also I believe there's another form of "perfect" government, that is not a mechanical human grinder like a dictatorship: harmonious. It might be a naive dream but .. maybe not.
Same with your body, by the way.
This is just one administration co-opted by one anti social elite to do the opposite. Don't extrapolate it out. Place blame where blame is deserved.
It's not just a co-opt; it's a complete replacement. DOGE is in no sense USDC; it's just wearing its skin.
When was he “slapped down by congress”? He signed the executive order establishing DOGE on inauguration day - obviously his transition team’s lawyers had drafted it for him in the weeks prior. And his lawyers came up with an inventive way of hijacking existing Congressional authorities for DOGE. But it wasn’t like he asked Congress first and only resorted to this scheme when they said ‘no’ - he planned to bypass them all along.
Okay, some Republicans introduced some enabling legislation for DOGE early this year. But I don’t think either they or Trump were ever expecting it to get passed, and they weren’t seriously trying. Introducing the legislation was just a political stunt to get attention and demonstrate loyalty. “Bypass Congress” was the plan all along
It was a fishing expedition for them to figure out who to threaten and/or actually primary in 2 years...
State-of-the-art is seldom all three of them.
or even one
The challenge is harnessing technology while strengthening these essential human capacities. Anything otherwise erodes public trust and sows division.
It depends on which bureaucrats we're talking about. Most agencies are the creation of congress, and the executive should have minimal power over them. The president's job is to implement the laws of the legislature.
The American system of government is based on checks and balances between the branches. Congress passes laws which delegate some power and the Executive Branch implements them. In many cases, the high level positions are presidential nominees who are mutually agreed upon with the Congress and serve a set number of years or until recalled by one or both parties. Each agency has specific rules governing what they’re allowed to do and how they do it, as well as oversight and transparency for their actions.
What we’re seeing now is the conflict caused by Republicans deciding that following the law is too hard and creating conflicts with people who are following the law. When Musk was pushing people to grant access to restricted data, for example, it was proclaimed as disobedience but was simply that the people charged with protecting that data do not have person discretion in that matter: the operator of a SCIF knows they face heavy consequences if they allow unauthorized access. In all previous administrations, this hasn’t been a problem because people just waited a few weeks to get clearances.
Similarly, when Trump illegally tries to fire inspector generals it isn’t that there’s no way for him to do that, he just didn’t feel like giving Congress 30 days notice.
In all cases, the law is what matters: if there is a real disagreement about how one of the independent agencies operates, Congress can change it at any time and given the Republican majority it would not be hard for any reasonable change to be quickly enacted, at which point an agency head would be removed or even prosecuted if they fail to comply.
And so much reeks of a Watergate like situation, except done publicly instead of in secret, with Congress and the Judiciary refusing or unable to hold any of these people to account. "We will now gather all information about our adversaries and fire anyone who doesn't give us the keys to the vaults, and if anybody doesn't like it, good luck, because the courts are going to be VERY busy, indefinitely, as we proceed to break every law the Legislature has issued, and is unlikely to have time to hear your case for a few decades."
But let's take at face value the idea that the Executive doesn't need to follow or even acknowledge the decisions of the Legislature, and that they can tell anyone to do anything whenever they feel like it. There's a pragmatic issue, not just a separation of powers issue: How can you possibly accumulate domain expertise, and what motivation would you have to accumulate that expertise anyway, when every agency is going to be dismantled every 2-4 years?
Besides, these bureaucrats are "elected" in a way similar to the Electoral College. We vote in the Legislature, and the Legislature votes on the appointments. If we don't want "lifers" then we should be voting on term-limits for these positions, not allowing the wholesale remodeling of our bureaucracy every election, where "just anybody" can come in and walk away with whatever they can loot each cycle.
The whole problem can be sidestepped by pulling back on the excessive levels of discretion and rule-making that have been delegated to executive agencies in the first place.
This is a joke --right?
When systems fail, people step in to fix them. Sometimes, the failure is a person, and their supervisor or colleague is the safeguard. Replacing that with AI/ML is political offloading -- shifting responsibility from elected officials to code that can’t dissent, negotiate, or care. You’re lucky if it can even explain itself.
I know I’m on HN, where this isn’t the prevailing mindset. But public systems aren’t startups. They don’t get to fail. The common good isn’t about efficiency; it’s about endurance. It’s about ensuring society functions for everyone -- not just those with money, power, or influence. Public systems safeguard the commons, whether it’s infrastructure, social services, or even the basic principles of justice. They exist to serve not just the people you identify with, but those you ignore, fear, or even condemn. Bureaucracies, with all their flaws, aren’t meant to be efficient, they’re built to endure.
It's just that the abusers are the only ones who make an effort to talk about it, because talking about it provides them cover.
Otherwise it's a regular part of the daily job.
never saw it like that. to me bureaucracy represents inefficiency. today we have automation that can be quite advanced. as long as you have a structured, rules based system there is no need for bureaucrats. i do understand that there will always be edge cases, or moral issues with automation, but there should be a constant drive in society to dismantle as much bureaucracy as morally possible, as that implies adopting automation and as such efficiency.
you're assuming the alternative to bureaucracy is reckless destruction, but what about the harm bureaucracy already causes? slow government processes, redundant approvals, and outdated rules waste time, money, and even lives. how many people suffer due to delays in healthcare, housing permits, or business licenses?
you're framing efficiency as 'reckless abandon' but efficiency doesn't mean chaos, it means designing systems that work smoothly without unnecessary friction. if private companies can process global transactions in seconds, why does it take months to approve basic permits?
if bureaucracy ensures stability, why does it fail so often? government shutdowns, dmv backlogs, and welfare mismanagement don’t scream 'zero downtime'. in reality, bureaucracy is often fragile, not resilient.
other industries use automation and streamlined processes to reduce friction without 'breaking things recklessly'. why should government be any different?
I 1,000% agree that in general, we should reduce bureaucracy and minimize the steps people need to take / the approvals required and make things as streamlined as possible. But if those things are small fires, having the current Republican majority with DOGE in support is asking arsonists to put them out. Often you need substantial upfront investment to fix e.g. the social security infrastructure - but when one party is opposed to all government spending, the infra will never be improved and the proposed fixes are to fire a bunch of employees that are maintaining the current system to save costs.
Bureaucrats consider, implement, and modify the structured, rules based systems our society comes up with.
in theory, laws and policies are crafted by elected officials or experts, and bureaucrats are just the executors. but in reality, bureaucracies interpret, refine, and sometimes even reshape these rules through policy implementation. this is where a lot of inefficiency, red tape, and unintended consequences creep in.
The people writing it are not necessarily subject experts in the area and even if they were or consulted such experts they can't foresee all eventualities. So those laws would need to be constantly updated all the time which is simply infeasibly (especially in the US where the legislative branch is stuck in a near permanent gridlock by design). IMHO that would make the system much, much more inefficient.
Sure, and if DOGE was doing that, it would be a worthy mission. But we have seen no evidence of that, while we have seen a lot of evidence of ideology and retribution based purging.
There is already a government agency who has been working to overhaul and modernize the government's systems -- very much needed -- for years, and they all just got sidelined and/or fired. The DOGE team that took over that agency (USDS) isn't even talking to them.
The people at the FDA responsible for oversight of Neuralink's medical device approval just got fired. Don't tell me you believe that was to make the FDA's system more efficient.
Bureaucracies are just organizations of humans, who have the same motivations, biases, and incentives ans everyone else, everywhere else in society.
They're not a "common good", they're just people, and because they have de jure authority over certain domains, they need be subject to oversight and accountability if we're to trust them.
Bureaucracies often have perverse incentives, ulterior motives, and are themselves co-opted by the very "anti-social elites" you're complaining about (and such language indicates a conflict-based rather than an error-correction-based approach to dealing with these issues, which is itself an error). Increasing the efficiency and efficacy of such organizations without proper oversight can easily lead to more abuse and corruption.
In this situation, I think that neither the established federal bureaucracy nor DOGE and the current administration have interests and intentions that are necessarily aligned with the broadest interests of the public at large. At this point the best we can do is hope that the adversarial relation between them leads to a favorable equilibrium rather than an unfavorable one.
No, the biases and incentives are different in government than in business. Yes, there are biases and incentives, but they are different.
The main attraction of government work is the ability to serve your country, and to be rewarded by taking actions which produce (what you believe is) long-term social good.
Your belief that an adversarial relation between forces of government leads to a favorable equilibrium is indeed the basis of the US constitution, and the very thing which DOGE/Trump are attacking with such force.
Not really, no. Certain cognitive biases and elements of self-interest are fundamental to all humans in all situations, and while different scenarios lead to those biases manifesting in different forms, they still share the same underlying substance.
> The main attraction of government work is the ability to serve your country, and to be rewarded by taking actions which produce (what you believe is) long-term social good.
No, the main attraction of government work is the ability to have a decently-paying career with a high degree of job security. Most people in such jobs simply dutifully do the tasks asked of them in exchange for a regular paycheck, and don't deeply consider the broader effects of their work on society (except to convince themselves of the importance of their work, as we all do).
A few outliers will prioritize theoretical ideals about doing "social good" over their own career goals, and a few outliers on the opposite end will prioritize having access to political power and opportunities for graft. (And some mistakenly think they are doing "social good" by forcefully advancing their own particular normative ideology.)
> Your belief that an adversarial relation between forces of government leads to a favorable equilibrium is indeed the basis of the US constitution, and the very thing which DOGE/Trump are attacking with such force.
No, I don't DOGE and Trump attacking the concept as much as participating in it here. None of the parties involved have good intentions, as far as I can evaluate, but, again, there's a chance that things will work out in the balance.
Is a system and everyone here knows what Moore's Law is.
I have no idea how to investigate this empirically, though.
Online it works like most things. Everybody pretends it's a partisan food fight, even if they have to lie.
You have everything to hide by default and the onus is on every actor to prove why they need information and how it's isolated from other information.
Privacy clearly is valuable for it's own sake.
Also, blackmail isn't the only way to have personal or intimate information used against you. As the absolutely massive advertising industry can tell you, knowing more details about people makes them easier to influence and manipulate.
That's quite different to Musk's minions taking a DB dump onto a USB stick.
2. I think the federal government executive branch should be able to control itself and inspect itself.
The goal is to destroy the state apparatus from the inside, to be replaced by private industry.
I’ve seen both high and low-performing teams in .com, .edu, and .gov and there’s nothing magic about any sector: you get what senior management sets the incentives to get. The NSA gets really good hackers because they don’t leave that to chance, just like how NASA or MIT hire really good scientists and engineers, and the places which just trust the big consulting companies usually get taken to the cleaners.
eyeroll
He’s been able to buy some good companies but nobody has a magic trick for being good at everything and the man is stretched really thin between all of his CEO positions and spending hours per day on politics.
Gwynne Shotwell.
https://www.reddit.com/r/EnoughMuskSpam/comments/z2ofwk/i_wa...
I wonder if he ever asked her to bear his child.
https://www.vanityfair.com/news/story/elon-musk-reportedly-a...
Elon qua SpaceX and possibly xAI and Neuralink is an A. Elon qua Boring Company, X and DOGE is very, very clearly a B player. (Idk what's going on with Tesla, he seems to be treating it more like a piggy bank to be raided to get to Mars (A) and indulge his impulses (B).)
You could remove the "to put up with shit like this" part and the answer would still be "nobody". You have to remove the "who have good prospects elsewhere" part for it to make sense.
https://govinfo.library.unt.edu/npr/library/nprrpt/annrpt/vp...
They somehow managed to do it without a bunch of firings, though it doesn't explain the mechanisms (I didn't have time to dig in further):
> A variety of mechanisms have been used to accomplish this, thereby keeping the use of involuntary terminations to a minimum. In fact, of the 239,286 person reduction, only 20,702 have been involuntarily separated.
from https://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/documents/statement-the-buyo...:
To reduce the work force by 102,000 positions by the end of fiscal 1994, we offered about 70,000 buyouts. Several non-DOD agencies have offered deferred buyouts that will take place between now and March 1997. Defense will be using buyouts as it continues to downsize through 1999. Counting those, we expect to buy out another 84,000 workers through 1997 as we reduce the work force by a total of 272,900 positions.
edit: I realize now that the first link i sent upthread was too early as it only goes to Jan 1996. I've seen elsewhere that the total reduction got to 400,000+.
Musk did a trial run with it on Twitter.
The C-suite never bring in hatchetmen? What world do you work in?
> Sure there are sometimes mass layoffs that are handled pretty badly in industry, but not these Gestapo-like purge tactics that are clearly designed that way to instill fear and loyalty.
Isn't the difference here that in the private sector you have to do all that loyalty shit from day one, not just whenever the board restructures and you want to keep your job?
You want obedient lackeys as #1 rule, it means reasonably little threat and no resistance to molding from above. Competences are sometimes even frowned upon. Look at how potus literally demands that others lick his boots to keep it polite.
This is how russians run their dictatorships for example, including those they exported elsewhere under their iron hand / military bases. Talking from first hand experience.
Of course that part of the system is very ineffective. Regardless of what you think about government and its bureaucracy, that fascist manchild aint gonna end up with success story here, he lacks (any genuine) emotional intelligence to understand underlying reasons. This isnt technical problem to solve where he sometimes excells.
It's not often you're asked to do something that could break the law, with the whistle-blowing chain being potentially broken at the top.
I don't believe that anyone who has worked in any official capacity would make such claims. The distortion of such well-defined practices is an attempt to gloss over the illegality of unprecedented events in progress right now.
Change the data, Firing everybody , leave no way to contact them, this is not auditing.
They are sincerely following Project 2025, decimating government, and very likely to fire A LOT more federal workers over the summer, then they will install Loyalists throughout.
Billionaire Musk .. aka "The Auditor" .. is "primarying" or threatening to fund opposition candidates for Senators who fight him on this.
It's an autogolpe.
https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/national-security/usaid-sec...
[0] https://www.whitehouse.gov/presidential-actions/2025/02/ensu... Sec. 7
[1] https://truthsocial.com/@realDonaldTrump/posts/1140091792251...
By my reading, this is a clarification that if an agency makes a significant policy change or regulation, they ought to run it by the president first.
It doesn't preclude other branches of government from checking this power.
They're also responsible liable for keeping the data safe, which has already been broken at least once:
* https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=43052432
Possibly violating:
> Whoever knowingly and willfully communicates, furnishes, transmits, or otherwise makes available to an unauthorized person, or publishes, or uses in any manner prejudicial to the safety or interest of the United States or for the benefit of any foreign government to the detriment of the United States any classified information— […]
> continually identifies, reviews, and discusses areas of weakness and vulnerability in Federal programs and operations with respect to fraud, waste, and abuse;
> develops plans for coordinated, Government wide activities that address these problems and promote economy and efficiency in Federal programs and operations, including interagency and inter-entity audit, investigation, inspection, and evaluation programs and projects to deal efficiently and effectively with those problems concerning fraud and waste that exceed the capability or jurisdiction of an individual agency or entity;
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Council_of_the_Inspectors_Gene...
That's as valid of a reason as you can get in the executive branch.
There is no "damned if you do, damned if you don't." The President and agency directory have authorized and ordered it. Career bureaucrats are not legally required to resist their bosses because they disagree with them.
[1] https://www.whitehouse.gov/presidential-actions/2025/01/memo...
If the President himself breaks the law, he argues that it was in the course of his official duties [1].
[1] https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/23pdf/23-939_e2pg.pdf
Of course, in practical terms "in the field" this is obviously not the case. But I wouldn't be surprised if it was Elon's ego that triggered this: that at the end of the day needing a pardon would be an insult and would bruise his ego so he wants to prevent any pathway for him to be charged with a crime. I'm not a lawyer, so I don't know if the Doge "interns" would need one regardless.
Musk is stealing the spotlight. At the appropriate time, Trump can fire him and blame him for overstepping his bounds—I have already seen this talking point privately from GOP operatives. They’ll both have gotten what they wanted, and we’ll all be stuck footing the bill.
Trump will get his unchallenged power like Xi or Mao did.
For federal laws, yes.
If you can find a state-level law that's been violated then he has no jurisdiction to pardeon.
Trump himself was charged at the state level twice (and already convicted once):
* https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prosecution_of_Donald_Trump_in...
* https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Georgia_election_racketeering_...
See also the civil case against him for rape:
* https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/E._Jean_Carroll_v._Donald_J._T...
Do you want an extra-democratic body who is capable of telling the population "No"?
I think such a body (which exists in some system) would obviously be nice right now, but I am a lot less convinced that it would be a net positive in general.
If we want to find our way out of this, I suspect a lot of people are going to need to feel directly harmed by this administration, and are going to need to basically erect a strong protest culture out of whole cloth. Something like 5% of the population in the streets can topple an authoritarian regime in the right circumstances, but not the 0.5% we might expect for a "large" protest.
“There was one difficulty however of a serious nature attending an immediate choice by the people. The right of suffrage was much more diffusive in the Northern than the Southern States; and the latter could have no influence in the election on the score of the Negroes. The substitution of electors obviated this difficulty and seemed on the whole to be liable to fewest objections.”
James Madison
I don't say such lightly. I genuinely believe that up until very recently, all portents of doom aside, none of the prior elected presidents truly threatened the Republic. Not Bush, not Obama, none of them.
Trump has been the exception. It the electoral college had been working as intended when it was envisioned by the Founders, it would have said "Yeah, I hear you want Trump, but, no." and voted in someone who might be better suited to implement his (rough) ideas.
I'm not completely onboard with the notion of abolishing said college just yet, as I believe that the electoral system prevents a candidate from say, simply winning all of the urban areas, or exploiting some similar demographic divide that would could exist in a pure popular vote system. We're a union of states, not a single monolithic country. And while I might place my bets on a popular vote providing me the results I'd like a majority of the time, I believe broad representation that at least aids towards unity is better than an outright majority. We strive to avoid "tyranny of the majority".
I don't have any easy or simple answers as to what might fix all of this. It may not even be something our "system" can fix, but rather just a lesson we as a country have to learn. Let's hope it's not as painful as prior instances.
What about simply winning all of the rural areas? Cause that's literally what happened.
There's value in having speedbumps that keep 51%* of the population from shooting 100% (or 99%) of the population in the collective foot... or in this case, head. The institutions aren't anti-democratic - they were put together by democratic processes, and each speedbump is usually there for a reason. Sometimes a long-forgotten or no longer good reason, and it needs to be dismantled, also by the same type of processes that put it there. Yes, I want people who won't be easily and summarily dismissed for following the law and regulations even when they're not popular. I want regulations and guardrails that can't just be swept aside by an administration that rotates out every four to eight years. (I'm generalizing a lot here, of course...)
*Really much less than 51%, given that a large percentage of the population doesn't vote, another percentage of the population's vote is suppressed, and another significant percentage of the population is not yet old enough to vote...
That metaphor breaks down here and is not really applicable. If two people are chained to each other at the ankles, they can both plausibly argue that the only way to save their own life is to take that of the other person. Whining "but I'm the good guy, I deserve to cut off his foot and let him be the one to bleed to death" is asinine.
The solution here is, of course, to not be chained to the other person irreversibly. But any time that is suggested, we hear a bunch of "We're stronger together, that's crazy talk!" And here we are. 330 million people all chained together, and now people are upset that the other team has the hatchets and is menacingly staring at their ankles.
>and another significant percentage of the population is not yet old enough to vote
Not sensible enough to vote. Don't leave that part out.
So when a political question arises like "should we have net neutrality?" the elected politicians decide and pass legislation.
That's in contrast to the US, where someone decide the executive was granted discretionary power over net neutrality in 1934, several generations before the net was invented. Then the executive decides there will, then won't, then will, then won't, then will, then won't be net neutrality.
It should be noted that the backdrop here is legislative dysfunction: the congress could have resolved network neutrality at any point but that bogged down for ages. Many of the questions around statutory power look like someone trying to do something under existing rules because they see a problem which isn’t going away but legislative attempts have failed.
Wrong. Democracy means only majority rule. What you say is true of republics, which the USA is. However no republic can be perfect in this regard, because it's all just human beings. In this case the president is plenipotent within the executive branch, the Congress is in the hands of the same party, and the SCOTUS is largely on the same page, therefore all the institutions in question are not going to stop him unless he does things that are outrageous to the public, keeping in mind that the HN commentariat is a tiny portion of "the public".
Democracy as a term has been defined to include represtative Republics for at least a century. Stop being a retrograde pedant.
But Democrats "play nice" and respect the law. Biden could have ordered Trump assassinated as soon as the Supreme Court invented the new interpretation that puts president on a piedestal, but he was never going to do it.
That's the problem with the argument that Republicans need to be careful about setting precedents that Democrats will then also abuse: no Republican believes that any Democratic president will actually do this. In fact, a lot of Republicans probably don't believe that there will ever be another Democratic president.
He pardoned people who stormed the capital, threatened gov officials, and killed police officers. Pardoning DOGE employees is child's play -- but it would never get that far because the DOJ and FBI have been purged of those not fully subservient to Trump.
you mean "He pardoned people who were guided in by the security staff working the capital building"?
Would be interesting to know if the poster would financially support a person in an UNSTABLE position, to, you know, Unite the States in opposition to what's an authoritarian and approaching a fascist dictatorship?
Given that it is down to the voters, and they thought a racist, rapist, conman should be president giving them the power of the executive - which has been growing increasingly powerful for my adult lifetime.
You're effectively says Congress should mandate every detail of every regulation. Even in areas where knowledge is changing (level of chemicals that are toxic, which medicines are useful and safe, etc).
The whole premise of our system is that the people within the system operate in good faith. And that's worked for most of 200+ years. I would posit that no amount of legislation will be able to stop bad-faith actors from screwing up the system, even more so when they convince ~50% of the voting popular that "burn it to the ground" is a reasonable take.
The scientific advisors who currently make rules at the EPA (to name one example) probably should have been giving advice to congress to make laws instead. Congress can pass an annual bill of "here's the new science." They already pass laws of unimaginable length and complexity, so I see no reason why Congress can't pass a huge omnibus "these chemicals are bad" bill every year, even if that bill is 5000-10000 pages.
By the way, speaking of the EPA, there's a lot of whiplash in that arm of government based on which party holds the presidency. If the EPA's rules were actual laws, they would need a much stronger mandate from the people to change. IMO this would be better for both environmental protection (since you don't have the party of "drill baby drill" arbitrarily changing things whenever they want) and for business because there is more certainty.
> The whole premise of our system is that the people within the system operate in good faith.
The whole premise of the American system of government is that power corrupts and a functioning government needs a series of working checks and balances. One arm of America's tripartite government has ceded most of its real power to another arm. This mostly works because the people who get into that other branch (presidents) want to play an iterated game, where burning things to the ground doesn't benefit them. We are seeing what happens when you have someone in power who is playing to win this round without regard for the iterated game.
All that would do is transfer power from bureaucrats within the executive to bureaucrats within the legislature. No Congressperson is fully knowledgeable on all the areas on which they pass laws. Maybe it is a better approach than what we have today, but I'm unconvinced. At least with the system we have today, the bureaucrats are generally experts within their areas. Congressional staffers have no such experience and generally rely on lobbyists.
Think about this in good faith and try to make it work in your head, and you will see that this proposal is actually not that different from how the executive branch rule-makers work today from a day-to-day perspective, while carrying very different legal implications.
That only applies to political appointees. The rank and file are permanent employees (or were until a few weeks ago).
Anyways, not saying your idea couldn't work, only that it's not easily implemented and needs a lot of consideration to do well. It's a wholesale change to how we've governed ourselves for ~150 years. But, the idea of a permanent set of legislative experts has some appeal.
This doesn't even require bad faith actors for it to become a clusterfuck. It's a scaling issue. Things that used to work at smaller scales accumulate cruft and other issues, until things ultimately fall apart. 200 years is of course a good run, but it wasn't going to last forever. Actually 200 years is such a long run, one doesn't have to bring "bad faith actors" into the equation at all to reach this conclusion, but I guess when things start to fall apart some people need someone to blame. Ask yourself this though... if the system was doing so great, how would it have allowed someone like Trump to ever win in the first place (let alone in the second place, as he did in 2024)? That's not a healthy system. Too many were disillusioned, and that's not their fault.
>~50% of the voting popular that "burn it to the ground" is a reasonable take.
They are disgusted with what they see, and have for a very long time felt powerless to change it. Not really just "felt", but were powerless to change it. Trump ran for office, they saw an opportunity. It's not exactly unreasonable, it's just inconvenient to a class of people who have grown comfortable because they're a little closer to the spigots of graft that pour forth. Being "reasonable" in the way you'd use that word hasn't really ever worked for those people, and they waited quite a long time for it to do the trick.
It very much is not.
It is, however, that the people will not simultaneously elect sufficent majorities in both houses of Congress and a President who all fail to do so, such that the systems by which the political branches check eachother continue to function in a way which constrains those actors in either that do act in bad faith.
> I would posit that no amount of legislation will be able to stop bad-faith actors from screwing up the system,
Electoral reforms to the legislative branch that could be done through statute could go a long way to reducing the probability of a sufficient concentration of bad faith actors to overwhelm the system, and electoral and structural reforms to the executive branch to make it less unitary, which would take a Constitutional amendment, could increase the necessary concentration to achieve a total breakdown.
The tradgedy of Trump's first term was that the House of Representatives undermined the legitimacy of that check by using it in partisan, ambiguous and non-compelling circumstances, and failing as a result to obtain a conviction. Using the heavy machinery of impeachment ineffectively made it harder to use should the executive take the tremendous steps you're suggesting.
Anyway, Trump just mocked the leader of a foreign ally for refusing to hold elections. Viewed together, his comments sound like an extended troll of the political opposition.
Say what?!
It's Congress keeping the President in check. BTW, the President is not directly elected by the people and doesn't actually [directly] represent them. The President is elected by the state governments (legislatures) and is supposed to be chosen because the States belief the President will faithfully uphold the Constitution and the laws passed by Congress. It may happen the the States use a popular election to choose their electors that elect the President, at least for now, but the President isn't supposed to represent "the mob" (majority or the populace). It's also why the electoral college is used for electing the President rather than straight popular vote.
And multiply-bankrupt, and (on the second term) multiply-convicted felon.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Personal_and_business_legal_af...
Vox populi, vox Dei, but unfortunately the Deus in question is Κοάλεμος
Political scientist Robert D Putnam suggests that this is in part due to the culture fragmenting and isolating.
Watch 10m video https://youtu.be/5cVSR8MSJvw?si=5NxRUnYENhfzTbXe easy interview with him from recently on that. Interesting.
It's this kind of contempt that got him elected. You have no empathy or interest in the will of the people. Maybe if you talked with some of them, you'd understand their grievances. But something tells me you'd sooner ironically prejudicially dismiss them all as racist bigots.
Norms, are basically the way laws work in the real world.
I despaired, because this is natural to lawyers, and alien entirely to the layperson.
No one is going to think Justice, and then accept “Oh, our norms are how laws work”.
Even the concept of independent executive agencies is probably more vulnerable constitutionally than more people think.
I guess it's a testament to American democratic cultural history that no coup has occurred in American history when the president has such an absolute authority over the executive branch, as informed to me by the other comments. Let's hope for the sake of the whole world it remains like this.
The other thing is that in the US, people's lives depend on their jobs, with half of polled people indicating they live paycheck to paycheck. This makes them easy to manipulate into complying, putting their morals aside because standing up for morals or indeed the law will mean they lose their job.
I mean the US president declared yesterday that only he gets to decide on law and called himself king on his social media. There's heaps of 'legal' texts that indicate it means he can be deposed and yote into jail, but if there's nobody enforcing them they're useless.
In Trump's first administration they realized the trick is to just move so fast that you flood the system and can do whatever you want before anyone sees through all the noise or has a chance to stop you. Steve Bannon was interviewed on camera saying as much.
Look at AirBnB, Uber, Lyft.
All illegal businesses that had enough capital to burn through lawsuits and keep operations going until they were too big to fail and whipped the snot out of city and state legal counsels.
It might rarely be admitted openly, but it sometimes is alluded to... e.g. Eric Schmidt's Stanford talk where he said:
"I want to say that if your product becomes popular, you can hire a bunch of lawyers to sort everything out. If no one uses your product, don’t worry -- no one will care that you stole someone else’s content."
We should all have "root access" to everything but the most national-security sensitive topics.
The president needs the Senate's "advice and consent" to hire principal officers, and does not need the Senate's "advice and consent" for certain other officers as specified by statute. The US Digital Service ("DOGE") is an agency where he did not need the Senate's advice and consent.
The president does NOT need the Senate's advice and consent to fire anyone in the executive branch. For principal officers this was established by the failed impeachment of Andrew Johnson for firing a confirmed cabinet secretary nominated by Lincoln. For other officers this was established by judicial precedent fairly recently when Biden terminated two Trump appointees to minor offices and they sued (and lost).
Similarly the president needs the Senate's advice and consent to enter into treaties. The Constitution is silent as to terminating Senate-confirmed executive officers, officers whose appointments did not require Senate confirmation, or treaties (abrogation). It's essentially settled law that the president does not require the Senate's advice and consent for any of those kinds of terminations.
Therefore, under the Constitution and the political and binding judicial precedents, there can be no law "onto which government workers can cling to refuse these requests."
Copying what I typed elsewhere, I guess it's a testament to American democratic cultural history that no coup has occurred in American history when the president has such an absolute authority over the executive branch. Let's hope for the sake of the whole world it remains like this.
> I guess it's a testament to American democratic cultural history that no coup has occurred in American history
The various assassinations of presidents were kinds of coups, don't you think? Soon we'll find out if the CIA did or did not kill JFK. Suppose the CIA killed JFK -for argument's sake-, surely that would have been a coup, no?
For instance, there is no law allowing the president to do a SELECT * in the income tax database. So an honest government worker can just say f-off when he is requested to do so.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_federal_governme...
DOGE has nothing to do with deficits, they're not even bothering to count it properly [1]. DOGE will remake the federal government for Musk's benefit. That's why he's using cannon-fodder DOGE bros instead of his best and brightest. That's why the collateral damage isn't of principal concern, and why they're moving quickly: they need to finish their work before checks and balances start swinging.
[1] https://www.nytimes.com/2025/02/18/upshot/doge-contracts-mus...
Musk will honestly probably be fine. These kids will get hammered, as they should, at the very least with a decade+ of litigation and possibly prosecution.
The only consequences that might last will hit Tesla in the form of tariffs and bans. But he seems to be fine raiding Tesla as a piggy bank to fund his ambitions on Mars and in politics.
I'm not sure I understand this myself. Can you elaborate?
https://www.fitchratings.com/research/sovereigns/united-stat...
Is it really possible to root out governmental fraud using this approach? Fraud and theft exist at every level of government, but if not through a drastic measure like this, what else can be done? Relying on the status quo, the courts, and current processes hasn’t yielded substantial results—if it had, corruption wouldn’t persist.
Still, I can appreciate the creativity here. Sometimes it takes an outsider to think differently.
That said, I’m not naive enough to assume this is done entirely in good faith. The prevailing opinion—both in this community and the media—seems largely negative; I’ve yet to see a single positive headline. Even so, I find it intriguing.
So here’s my question: if you were in charge of addressing this problem, how would you tackle it differently?
It's up to the owners and their management how they run it, right? So it's more about discrimination than government-style corruption.
While no doubt that brazen bribery occurs at all levels and in a large range of dollar amounts, I do not think this is such a serious problem that it requires the nuclear option he is employing. There is a bribery-adjacent phenomenon that is far worse. I don't know what to call it. Favor-trading? But there is no quid pro quo sufficient to prosecute in most cases, and any attempt to do so would look like (and probably actually become) a witch hunt.
If a civil servant is just being extra cozy to some private entity knowing (but without anything that would amount to evidence) that they'll be able to sail into some nice lobbyist gig in 3 years, where is the bribe? It was never promised. It's not guaranteed (circumstances could well change before that becomes possible). How much is that shit costing us? And while I'm sure that some would call that bribery too, it's juvenile to do so and counter-productive.
It's possible it will, but not without a lot of false positives and innocent bystanders.
At the scale of the federal government, there are plenty of things that appear to be fraud but actually have a reasonable justification.
In the Dunning-Kruger world we unfortunately seem to live in now, I don't think having every single yokel personally analyzing every line item on a budget as large as the federal government's, especially when those yokels don't really understand any of it, is the best way to go about this.
This admin isn't trustworthy either. They'll sit here an cry about 0.01% of the federal budget being "wasted" on a bunch of National Park probies, and meanwhile the self-appointed king is out golfing on the taxpayer dime.
I think the negatives could have been easily minimized to more-reasonable-level without affecting the positive ones, if it wasn't headed by hothead Elon.
So if I was in charge, I would start by making sure I did the math right and didn't blindly trust my database scraping scripts as they appear to be doing (and that's the most generous interpretation). I would also make sure that before recommending that I fire any group, I at least have a high level understanding of what that groups works on. So I don't, say, fire the people who oversee the nuclear arsenal, or a group of researchers working on the current bird flu outbreak (both of these have been done). Rehiring takes money and time because upon firing their contact information is apparently deleted, and you aren't going to get a 100% return rate.
I also have some experience working with giant bloated blobs of legacy code managing critical systems, where many variables are arcane acronyms because they were written in a time where compilers had character limits. Moving fast and breaking things in that environment is just a good way to break a lot of things and not even understand how you did it. Which is fine if it's twitter, and a little more important when you're managing aircraft, nuclear weapons, disease outbreaks, entitlement payments that people depend on, etc.
It's actually *worse* than blindfolded. It's extremely partisan [1]
[1] https://bsky.app/profile/adambonica.bsky.social/post/3lil7yl...
For one, with responsibility and care for the public. Not with reckless abandon. Not with malice. Not with a child-like perversion towards breaking things because it’s fun.
Politics aside, this has been an extremely unsettling disruption in the faith we have in our institutions. Trust and stability are the backbones to societal and economic growth. The unseen costs Trump/Musk/doge have wrought are massive, are spread equally among all people (globally, in US, minus the wealthy class), and is hard to see on a spreadsheet
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Office_of_Inspector_General_(U...
They are independent of the things they review, they find inefficiency, overspending, fraud, and embezzlement. They make their reports public and work with transparency. There are also other similar departments like CIGIE. There have been very substantial results.
What DOGE is doing is not finding inefficiency. They are doing two basic things. 1) Completely eliminating programs they don't think the US should be spending money on. And 2) Reducing headcount. Both of these actions may reduce costs, but may end up costing the US more money in the long term.
Governments with central banks can mismanage their currency, but they can't run out of it.
Why not spend all 500 trillion today? What are we waiting for?
I am entirely certain you do not believe in your own position.
Which is what happens when bond yields go so high that governments default. To my limited understanding, US Treasury bonds are used to determine the 'risk-free rate' of return because the US government reliably pays its bills.
what does this comment even say?
I really think we're getting to a point where people are too hyper emotional and sensational about most topics which further limits real discussion and response.
As for the idea of nickle and dimming, everything adds up and they're no where near done yet. Sunlight is the best disinfectant and we need a lot of it. Nearly every person that has run for president in modern years has stated they would go after excess spending and fraud, yet none follow through. This time someone is. If years of doing nothing gets us further down the debt rabbit hole, what harm is being done?
> I really think we're getting to a point where people are too hyper emotional and sensational about most topics which further limits real discussion and response.
Maybe, but this has nothing to do with emotion. I'm not a moron. An actual audit would be great, but would take more than the 30 days that Trump has been in office. They are lying, so I am left to speculate as to what.
> This time someone is.
Do you have any direct evidence they are doing something about it? I see several people supporting these actions that are based on emotion, but at a factual basis, it appears you are just regurgitating party propaganda.
As for an actual audit, those have been done left and right. Audits only validate where the money is going not why.
Clearly they are doing something, budgeted spend is being cut and most notably if they weren't doing anything we wouldn't be having this discussion. We are also only a handful of weeks into the presidency. They're being very clear about what they are doing. Looking line by line at some of these cuts, I've yet to see anyone here actually debate the validity of all of the spend. Yes good programs will likely be impacted, things will be course corrected and brought back where appropriate.
It's a painful process no mater who is executing it. The only way to reduce the budgetary spend of the country is to do just that, cut spend. You start small and work your way up.
I'm not a leftist, and I mostly don't care about the groups, the right can have them. I care about things like medical research, nuclear energy and the food supply, which are all at risk because the regime's only tactic seems to be to unplug everything and see what breaks, and then decide if they even want it to work. They're not trying to run the country efficiently, they're trying to punish federal employees.
Most people are like me - they want real solutions for housing and health, not the impotence we get from the neoliberals or the kayfabe we get from Trumpism.
Remind me how many people voted for someone else than the current president?
Yes. Many big bipartisan bills, immigration crackdown that Trump can't even match now.
Progressives weren't defending the status quo, they were trying to improve the lives of people who were at the bottom of social order for centuries.
Which one is it?
I am sharing my personal opinion
The opposition will always employ fear tactics like socialist, marxist, fascist, science denier etc
You are embracing those clear, simple answers. You are going to pay dearly for it.
Sorry you feel threatened by people not wanting to be pigeonholed into your tiny tidy restrictive categories.
Sex: A person’s immutable biological classification as either male or female.
Female: is a person of the sex characterized by a reproductive system with the biological function of producing eggs (ova).
Male: is a person of the sex characterized by a reproductive system with the biological function of producing sperm.
Woman: an adult human female.
Girl: a minor human female.
Man: an adult human male.
Boy: a minor human male.
Mother: a female parent.
Father: a male parent.
You can argue what you want, but they are enacting actions against what they have defined as truth. That's the by product of winning an election, you get to make the changes you ran on.
Marko "normalize Indian hate" Elez did have read/write access, as DOGE lawyers admitted in court after first claiming that he did not[0].
[0] https://thehill.com/business/5141149-former-doge-employee-ed...
Come on man, are we really at the level of just letting that slide and pretending this is a legit operation? That Musk has only the best intentions, as his track record clearly shows right?
I can't believe what I'm seeing, the world has gone fully crazy.
The left had their turn to "fix things" they didn't. The right are trying now, and maybe their methods are wrong, but they're trying. What you're seeing is a power struggle playing out, the people who've been king of the hill are being throw to the side and don't like it.
It’s not their fucking luxury. It’s our fucking government being dismantled before our eyes by a handful of complete amateurs.
Mind you, my reply was to your statement that they “course corrected”. They didn’t course correct. They reaffirmed that that they’re happy for the insane and wildly destructive course they’re on to be piloted by open and avowed racists.
The average American is surprised to learn that Obamacare and the ACA are the same piece of legislation. It says nothing that they’re equally surprised by the existence of a 60+-year old government agency, and that those same uninformed bozos are outraged by aid programs of which their entire understanding stems from a single maliciously-crafted Fox News headline.
Do better.
There are numerous projects that should not be funded. There is bloat, waste, and fraud through out the government. If you don't see that or know that, you've clearly never worked within it.
Your projection against fox news viewers could be turned back on you and argued you're doing the same thing. The difference is, that those fox news viewers for better or worse, voted for this and they get what they voted for. You can be mad, you can be sad, you can vote, and you can try and bring it up with the courts, but bottom line is it's happening.
Do. Fucking. Better.
Do you think Nixon did something wrong by creating this team?
If not, then we have an answer for why most people see this whole thing differently from you — most people see the Nixon presidency as clear overreach and abuse of power.
If so, what is the significant difference between Nixon's plumbers and the DOGE team, in your view?
You can’t with a straight face call the party of small government pro authoritarian. Unless you’re purposely skewing reality.
And don't say Trump because he is currently asserting federal authority over NY for the laws they passed, and claiming he is a king. In his last term he spent more money than all other presidents combined. He argued in court he had the right as President to use the military to assassinate his political opponents. The Biden administration argued against that idea. I forget, is murdering your political opponents an expression of authoritarian or democratic values?
As far as Democrats, they didn't storm the Capitol and beat police when they lost this year, so that's a false equivalence. One side is happy to burn down the Capitol if they don't win, the other grumbles but accepts the results of the election. One response is authoritarian, the other is democratic.
Ronald Reagan (1981–1989): Fiscal Year 1981: Federal spending was approximately $678 billion. Fiscal Year 1989: Federal spending increased to about $1.14 trillion.
George H. W. Bush (1989–1993): Fiscal Year 1989: Inherited a federal budget of $1.14 trillion. Fiscal Year 1993: Federal spending rose to approximately $1.41 trillion.
George W. Bush (2001–2009): Fiscal Year 2001: Federal spending stood at about $1.86 trillion. Fiscal Year 2009: Federal spending increased significantly to approximately $3.52 trillion.
Donald Trump (2017–2021): Fiscal Year 2017: Federal spending was around $4.1 trillion. Fiscal Year 2021: Federal spending rose to about $6.8 trillion.
Can you explain how the Republican Party is the party of small government, if Republican Presidents in my lifetime have always increased federal spending?
This was campaigned on, The election was won. In this instance the outcome is what the majority elected. You don't have to like it, some may change their mind, but this was made clear as a goal from day 1.
I've also not been cagey in my support. I fully support what is going on. If you see overreach follow the processes in place and litigate. That's how the country works. There's two distinct issues people have here, the "WHO" and the "WHAT" no one questions the "WHY", because no one can stand here and say we don't need to have cuts across the board. Ignoring the "WHO", the "WHAT" so far has been pretty clear. It's things that socially are supported by one party and not the other. This is the outcome of an election and it's going to keep going until someone proves they are outside of their authorities and the courts agree.
It sucks to have a narrative perspective for years and then see everything supported under that narrative cut back. I get the emotions, but ultimately none of that matters if we can't afford to keep the proverbial lights on.
I don't see how this can be blamed on DOGE. If anything it shows that DOGE employees are closely monitored, and their access is minimized and audited.
https://www.zetter-zeroday.com/court-documents-shed-new-ligh...
They're firing people's, seeing the repercussion and the publishing a list of program names. Not evaluations, not analysis. Nothing substantial, just gotcha out of context strings.
Do you think the entirety of USAID was "fraud" and waste? What about the US park service?
I am not American and the only time I saw my country do this kind of action in this manner was during its military government.
I would start by not firing people doing jobs I don't understand. They do that a lot, even for very, very important jobs.
Beyond that, yes, large-scale government audits have been done before. In fact, we already have institutions designed to do exactly that. The GAO, the Office of the Inspector General, and even bipartisan commissions have uncovered fraud and inefficiencies without letting an extremely partisan private individual with massive conflicts of interest connected to his businesses arbitrarily rip apart government agencies.
Your claim that the continued existence of fraud means the system does not work is also specious, it's obviously not possible to eliminate all fraud, statements like that make me doubt that your comment is made in good faith.
These agencies all have Inspector Generals, who are outside of the agency and responsible for auditing their particular agency. And they do, there are reports on this sort of thing.
Most of the IGs, if not all, were fired by Trump first thing.
> corruption wouldn’t persist
We still haven't seen any evidence of corruption, by the way. Yeah, I'm sure there's some gov employees here and there doing fraudulent stuff, skimming off the top or getting gov contracts to their buddies. But there has been zero evidence of any widespread or systemic corruption in a single agency. Nothing.
The agency that did get axed the most -- USAID -- was because of "woke ideology" that they were supposedly pushing (though there wasn't any evidence of that being widespread either), not corruption/fraud (breaking the law).
It's like the WMD excuse to invade Iraq.
https://www.npr.org/2025/02/19/nx-s1-5302705/doge-overstates...
Twitter guy is going to do so much damage to America.
An actual cherry-picked example of DOGE's potential fraud finding is at the SSA where Musk showed his query of "DEAD" = "FALSE" (I am paraphrasing a bit) yielded a huge number of folks over ages 115. Context is what is scarce. Are they receiving payments, are there other reasons for why the query returned those results, what other context do I have to interpret these results? Again, I have no idea.
I think the safest way of couching what is going on, is a drastic curtailment of government programs and employees. Equivalents to this? Maybe Gorbachev. I am sure there are other historical parallels, but they are probably apples to peaches comparisons at a certain level.
And to your last question, I am not sure if anyone really knows the problem/s that are being addressed right now other than debt and the capability to pass a tax cut.
[1] https://www.bloomberg.com/news/newsletters/2025-02-14/elon-m...
1) How long do you think it takes to perform a comprehensive audit of an agency in order to accurately determine waste, corruption and fraud. If you've ever audited a large corporation, you know what that takes -- it is not something you whip up in a week or two.
2) Who do you think is qualified to audit government entities? Some "young Turk" DOGE engineers? We're not talking about determining whether computer systems are well architected or should be refactored (though that also takes time to do correctly). We're talking about financial transactions and whether they were legitimate and legal (because if not, that would be "corruption" or "fraud").
Which Fortune500 company would hire a team of (relatively inexperienced) software engineers to audit its books?
Reagan also had the Grace Commission [2].
[1] https://www.cnn.com/2024/12/06/politics/doge-musk-gore-rego-...
[2] https://www.history.com/news/ronald-reagan-grace-commission-...
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=43116844
https://www.axios.com/2025/01/25/trump-fires-inspectors-gene...
Is doge actually doing this in a meaningful way? What is the website? Thus far I'm only aware of them celebrating partisan victories like chopping funding for trans theater etc.
They are 't reviewing and publishing shit, it yes there is historical moments when those types of things happened, usually after coup, dictatorship, or just any authoritarian government everyday dismantling everything, that's why everyone looking outside of USA with a bit of history knowledge see as a very bad precedent
I would not do it differently. Well, probably it's going to be worse (but most measures). DM and EM are being too nice in my opinion.
https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/c93q625y04wo
I already know the answer to this, but if Obama had George Soros hire a bunch of anti-white people to oversee the Doge systems, would you still be supporting it? Or it's okay because you're white and the people are in charge are white.
I don’t know if the cross reference is true for the US, but it is for other countries.
Are you asking why it's any different a non-American billionaire who has multipole government contracts having access to your data any different than Joe Bob who was hired and vetted by those same people unlike the other guy?
This is false.
Elon Musk has South African, Canadian, and US citizenship. Let's not play the xenophobia card.
The only thing that protects that data is professional ethics, and in extremely paranoid (i.e. airgapped) environments, metal detectors.
Sincerely, God Mode on x DBs, where x > 1.
None of that matters with what DOGE is doing. That should worry you.
Isn't this title clickbait?
There's an implication this is access to all government data - but the article doesn't explicitly state that but would lead you to believe that.
Given that I highly doubt all government data is in a single data store ... this is probably more like - GOGE has access to all GSA contracts (just one department) ... which is way less sensationalized (and appropriate for a government agency looking review contracts for efficiency)
Note: I'm not taking a political stance on this.
There’s absolutely no telling what additional software has been installed alongside existing, or which systems have been modified that would require audit. Purging this will be an absolute fucking nightmare to the American taxpayer.
This may turn into one of the most significant IT incidents in world history.
Perhaps it's cheaper to assume everything leaked or will leak soon.
Thinking of it objectively, almost nobody here can say they would stand for this at any company they worked at or ran. This is not an acceptable IT practice no matter which side of the fence you are currently sitting on - allowing an unvetted entity to modify your internal systems without audit or oversight is completely absurd.
This is what leaves me incredulous about so many people here defending this. I've been on this site daily for how many years I don't know but the one thing that has been consistent is the security idea that an outside entity gaining physical access to your server means that it is irreparably compromised, and that it should be treated as a liability and re-built from the ground up. But somehow it's fine if it's public data in a federal database?
https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2025/02/17/trum...
Whether it benefits from being in a single datalake idk. We really don't know how the operations are being done, we're mostly just reacting to news reports and outside guessing.
I'm assuming it will be basically how Palantir works in government health care and intelligence agencies where they aggregate multiple data sources from a bunch of old and new databases and have complex analytical tools on top.
Furthermore, another comment went in depth about how boosting the irs and following other agencies guidelines would have had a positive return, but none of this happened. On the contrary, we're seeing agencies such as the irs being infiltrated by this thing that resembles a metastasis
Even their stated reason - to fund trillions in tax cuts for the .1% [0] - is heinous. Inequality is already breaking the economy. 4.5 trillion dollars ($13k for each and every American) being transferred to the yacht class will inflict generational harm.
0 - https://www.usnews.com/news/us/articles/2025-01-10/trump-tax...
In this case Musk reckons he can save $2tn which some (better informed) analysts are saying is bollocks.
In fact, it's cover to let him destroy/neuter agencies they don't like and get endless material to pressurise any opponents.
One positive though: if there is any alien tech, Musky will find it. You can bet that's high on his list, as improbable as it may be.
A lot of this depends on how you measure. For example, there are a lot of social assistance programs that provide in-kind benefits (e.g. you get subsidized housing) and those programs both require a bureaucracy to administer them and are less efficient than cash transfer payments, so they could be converted into refundable tax credits. Then the program costs somewhat less (you eliminate the administrative bureaucracy) and is more efficient and with better outcomes, but you can count the entire cost of the program as a reduction because it's now a tax credit (i.e. a tax cut) instead of a government budget item.
Do that with the entire social assistance system and you could get a sizable budget reduction before you even get into overpriced government contracts etc.
That tech has been handed over to the private sector as a precaution and also as a method of keeping the politicians' hands off it. Gives them cover to honestly say "I know nothing, I was briefed on nothing, we have nothing". Plausible deniability.
Elon Musk is also quite possibly the last person I'd ever want to touch world-changing technology. let alone be the sole arbiter of who gets to get near it.
Also what's with the blue non-link links? Never seen that before on HN.
It really is. There have always been 'third rail' topics that get rapidly flagged despite community interest, but I've never seen so many.
> what's with the blue non-link links? Never seen that before on HN.
No idea; all the links seem to work for me anyway.
A quick search will show that it used to be fine to talk about Curtis Yarvin on here a decade ago but now that he's more relevant than ever it's suddenly taboo?
Did Curtis Yarvin and the ideas he espouses suddenly become less interesting or are a group of people working together to prevent critical discussion of his ideas?
That isn't even what your link is saying. To begin with, it's citing a Treasury Department document requested by the Biden administration to do an analysis comparing the proposed tax cuts with a contrived alternative.
If you do generic across-the-board tax cuts, not targeting any particular income group, everyone's taxes are reduced in proportion to how much they were paying to begin with. Obviously then the people who make more money and pay more taxes have them reduced by the given percentage and that is a larger absolute number.
The same thing happens even if you target only the brackets for people who make less money. Suppose you lower the rates by 2% for every bracket below $400,000. That's not even enough to be in the 1% (for which you'd need to make ~$800,000), much less the 0.1%, but what happens in that case? Well, everyone's taxes go down by 2% of their income up to $400,000. If you make $40,000, they go down by $800. If you make $400,000, they go down by $8000. If you make $4,000,000, they also go down by $8000, from your first $400,000 in income. The absolute amount of the reduction is still highest for people who make more money, simply because it's a percentage of higher number.
The analysis the Biden administration requested was to do the tax cuts for people making less than $400,000 and then raise the tax rates on people above $400,000 to make sure they didn't get any net reduction, and their contrived example would have people making $400,000 paying a higher tax rate than people making $500,000+. Basically the purpose of the analysis was to generate a large number to put in a headline rather than compare it to a real proposal to lower taxes in general. This is also why they announced the cumulative total over a decade rather than listing the annual number as you would when comparing it against an ordinary government budget. Because "~3.5% of the budget" sure sounds a lot less than "trillions of dollars".
You can find any number of links talking about how unequal the tax cuts are. No one in the bottom 60% is going to be better off. The .1% are benefiting the most. That's an insane thing to do in an economy that's already breaking records for inequality.
> If you do generic across-the-board tax cuts
That's not what these are. The reaction of every billionaire to Trump's admin ought to tell you that on it's own.
> Because "~3.5% of the budget" sure sounds a lot less than "trillions of dollars".
Trillions of dollars are trillions of dollars.
A million seconds = ~11.5 days A billion seconds = ~31.7 years A trillion seconds - 31,710 years.
We're not talking about play money, or monopoly money. Musk bought the election for a fraction of a billion dollars, ffs.
And again, America is already on record inequality, about the same or more as right before the French Revolution.
Money IS a zero sum game, and when too much of it is going to the 0.1% it inflicts massive harm to millions of people. If you want to learn more about this, and what's about to happen to the US economy, you can listen to one of the world's best traders talk about it here [0].
All of those links are comparing dollars rather than percentages. It's obvious that a given percentage of $400,000 is more than the same percentage of $40,000.
> That's an insane thing to do in an economy that's already breaking records for inequality.
The cause of inequality isn't taxes, it's market consolidation. Rich people are rich because they own a large fraction of a megacorp. Under the existing system, higher corporate taxes, if anything, increase market consolidation because massive international corporations can use cross-border avoidance mechanisms whereas smaller purely domestic corporations can't, so they're effectively a tax on businesses too small to get out of them.
> That's not what these are.
It's essentially what they are, and the rate reduction in the lower brackets was slightly more. The highest bracket was lowered by 2.6% whereas the brackets from ~$12k to ~$100k were each lowered by 3%. And as a percentage of taxes paid, 39.6% was only 7% more than 37% at the top, whereas for the working poor 15% had been 25% more than the current 12%.
> Trillions of dollars are trillions of dollars.
You can turn any annual amount into trillions of dollars by multiplying it by an arbitrary number of years. And the only reason it can get so big so fast is that the US government spends a stupefying amount of money, so if you reduce it by even a small percentage it's a big number.
> Money IS a zero sum game
This is definitely false and is one of the major fallacies in the taxes vs. inequality problem.
In general people don't actually store wealth as money. Rich people store it as stocks and things. So if you tax them, you're not causing them to have less cash, or even causing them to sell their car or mansion. You're causing them to sell stocks.
If the person you transfer the money to is doing anything with it other than buying the same exact stocks, you're reconfiguring the economy, which is very much not zero sum and could be negative or positive sum depending on who gets it and what they do with it.
But Wall St. and Main St. are somewhat isolated pools of money. Making a transfer from one to the other has effects not entirely unlike printing new money and handing it out, because it gets spent very differently than it would have otherwise. And this is the nasty part: The sources of inequality are money sinks.
If you're paying high rents because there is a housing shortage as a result of captured zoning boards inhibiting new construction, and all the tenants suddenly have more money, the rent is going up. That's one of the reasons you can't solve it with taxes. You have to address the actual causes of inequality -- market consolidation and regulatory capture. Otherwise the incumbents just take the money right back out of your pocket.
https://x.com/netanyahu/status/1882392668497756279
https://thehill.com/homenews/administration/5097676-elon-mus...
Definitely good to keep a watch, though.
If on DOGE, that is ill intent.
So yeah, I don't trust him. Ever since he reneged on interns, I noticed that...he has a tendency to think about things as if they're entirely meat and to worship the false god Scarcity. He's been gargling Ron Paul's gold coins so much that he completely fails to comprehend basic nation state financing and why deficits are manageable and our debt is also manageable given our $160T+ net worth and climbing...
https://x.com/netanyahu/status/1882392668497756279?lang=en
https://thehill.com/homenews/administration/5097676-elon-mus...
The ADL doesn’t want to get sued out of existence so… of course they going to say it wasn’t a Nazi salute.
This is the same chilling effect that Trump suing ABC and ABC settling so yeah nobody feels comfortable enough to speak truth to power because nobody has the money or the army to back it up
But those of us with ears to hear and eyes to see know what we saw. He might not want to exterminate Jews but he knows what MAGA likes and he like they loves the power a fascist dictator like Hitler wielded
Of course they'll claim not.
It was a nazi salute.
You should read more about the things he says, does, and the way he treats people, especially from those who are close to him. The picture it paints is something I'd consider "cruel, bordering on inhuman" (and thats before the nazi salute.)
Alternatively, I have a lucrative investment opportunity I'd love to get you in on.
We criticize engineers who drop into a code base and try to make changes without understanding. You can be forgiven for doing it a few times, but after that you're doing it intentionally. And if they hired engineers that didn't know this, that's incompetence at both levels.
Not only is this different code bases and IT products, it's across organizations and done very rapidly.
I am also not convinced that they don't simply have malicious intent most of the time.
There is certainly a level of incompetence that requires active ignorance to one's naivety. I'd certainly consider a stubborn person who arrogantly ignores concerns of experts malicious. The active nature certainly matters.
The "140 year old people in social security DB" post is just the latest example of bad-faith. Either there is actually >>$100B of social security fraud and that's the story or he wants to pretend like that's the case when he knows full well that presence in the DB does not indicate eligibility or payouts.
What about the corner-case person who actually is legitimate and now has incredibly private information out there to make stealing their identity trivial? As a statistical anomaly who is often that corner case, I'm glad you're not the one making the policy. I wish Elon wasn't as well, and I'm sure there's going to be a giant mess at the end, but using government power (which Elon has, whether rightly or wrongly) to publish personal information about people (which they get by force giving their monopoly on government power) especially without trial or due diligence is very wrong IMHO.
Unless you don't actually care about the truth and want to send a convenient lie twice around the world before the truth gets its pants on. Then you should act like Elon is acting.
Elon usually has doesn't have any compunction about throwing innocent people under the bus if he thinks he gains something even if indirectly.
But that aside, you can show evidence of massive fraud, without revealing private information to general public. Can certainly reveal it to relevant authorities.
To steelman the argument though, it seems reasonable to audit these recipients so that we can get their true birthdate entered. The number of recipients who lack a valid birthdate because they found a way to fraudulently claim benefits is likely non-zero, but probably low. But in any event, cleaning up the data can’t be a bad thing.
Imagine the brouhaha these same folks would be raising about "wasting your tax dollars hiring historians" if that other direction was in their self-interest.
Yet audits of individuals making < $25k per year is over 5.5 times higher than those in all other income brackets (1.27% vs 0.25%). So we chase down citizens when likely they probably don't even had a tax burden anyway. Maybe they misfiled some taxes and should be taxed a few hundred or even a thousand dollars more. But the manpower to chase down these little checks is a net negative on the department.
Sure, it is possible you find fraud in some of these low income cases. Someone claims to only make $25k but really they run a cash business and make $80k. But these are likely so limited thanks to other validations the IRS has access to, that the number of cases that reveal this is extremely tiny. So back to another argument on here, there an expectations that fraud is non-zero, and we accept that because getting fraud to zero is not worth the cost.
Given the age of the COBOL programmers I know, that window is rapidly shrinking...
Poor record keeping and bad policies about data validation tied to sending money to people if not today will eventually result in massive fraud.
Furthermore the notion you put forth is trash lazy thinking. Cost or no cost you do things the right way. But I don’t even buy you can calculate the cost of doing it wrong correctly to even have a sound conjecture that fixing it is more costly.
Cost was not the only factor. They seem to be trying to handle missing data the right way rather than use a kludge.
They did not want to add inaccurate death data to Numident records, for a variety of reasons, one being that it could cause release of information for living people when they're accidentally added to dead people records. The SSA also thought adding annotations would legally require a new regulation and would have impacts on other consumers of the data (ie. states, etc).
How to handle missing death data in this case does not appear to have a clear and simple solution. But it also does not appear to be evidence of poor record keeping for modern records or a major cause of concern for "eventual massive fraud".
This creates a driver, somebody who is motivated to get it fixed. If the person does not exist they won’t be calling for their check, or if the entry fraudulent, fraudster will run the risk of exposing them self in the process of trying to get the checks flowing again.
We acknowledge that almost none of the numberholders discussed in the
report currently receive SSA payments. However, SSA issued each of these
individuals a valid SSN and these SSNs could allow for a wide range of
potential abuse.
[...]
We also note we initiated our 2015 review upon the receipt of information
that a man opened several bank accounts using SSNs belonging to
numberholders born in the 1800s who had no death information on the
Numident. In addition to being used to obtain employment or open bank
accounts, identity thieves can potentially use these SSNs to create
synthetic identifies, obtain credit, government benefits, or private
insurance.What is the evidence these exist?
“The optimal amount of fraud is non-zero
He was talking about the banking system. But he was also hinting at something bigger. There is a game theory problem often referred to as the meter maid problem. What is the optimal amount of meter maids in a city, where optimal can be defined in at least a few different ways, but roughly means the cost to revenue optimal. You end up with a couple of obvious extremes, no parking enforcement means no cost, but no revenue (plus parking may end up out of control if charging for parking is more than just revenue generating). The other extreme is thay you have enough people policing parking that no one ever fail to comply, this is the highest cost, but not the highest revenue, because you don’t get revenue from ticketing. So the answer is that the optimal number lies somewhere where the number of meter maids allows some percentage of people get away with failing to comply with parking rules (whether deliberate or accidental can further complicate the problem since both will happen).
So back to your steelman. Cleaning data is most certainly a desirable thing, but it is likely not the optimal thing, especially if the cost is high. And unauditable access to systems is a very high cost. Seems to me much of this auditing could be done in a much more acciuntable way.
Or, as is really common with the federal government, the agency is actually underfunded and hasn't been able to modernize because the Republicans in congress have been trying to starve the administrative capacity the classic, slow way until now.
Like with the IRS. I've made mistakes in filing, and gotten a notice from the IRS about it, but sometimes years later (!). In the meantime, if you "audited" the IRS records, you'd see that my records are out of compliance and could claim "See, there's fraud!". In reality, the IRS just has slow antiquated systems, and is barred from giving taxpayers direct access to their records. Which is by design from the rich and anti-government.
That's like saying null columns in a particular database table must be filled in (or have the row entirely erased) because someone, somewhere, somehow, might infer the wrong thing about them, if they completely ignore all the other tables and business rules.
___
"Hello, I am Oldy McOldperson. Give me money."
"...Sorry sir, but that person would be almost 150 years old now, and that's well past our Impossibly Old threshold of 115 years. Furthermore, one our other databases says that person was reported as missing 90 years ago."
"But Oldy's--I mean, my precise confirmed date of death is still blank, therefore I'm alive, so give me money!"
"Sir, only a complete moron would believe that's how it works."
The no administrative benefit bit checks out with napkin math. Of the 18.9 million entries for people age 100 or older they are paying out benefits to 44,000. The total number of people in the US age 100 or older is around 90k to 100k, depending on time period for comparison.
There's an Inspector General audit report in a nearby comment for source.
The “super old person” SSN numbers are in the DB mostly because non-citizens are using them to pay into the system. If you delete those numbers, the next payroll run will inject them right back in.
And you would remove important accounting metadata for each payment. Metadata that is consumed by the systems that prevent fraudulent payments from going out.
The only way to stop the fake/bad SSNs is to go into the field and address each instance with employers. This is time-consuming and expensive, which is why no one has done it much.
...
Whereas the regulation in your context pertains to regulations that are codified as laws or rules to follow.
Audits measure compliance to an process or objective. They require that you have written down the process or objective, and retain sufficient information to measure whether you achieved it or not.
In this case, the DOGE boys do whatever Elon says. What is said isn’t recorded or written. People who attempt to do their duty who are seen as obstructive of the whim of the DOGE “agent” are fired.
But remember, Elon doesn’t follow the rule of law, and has no doubt engineered things in such a way that his little minions are accountable.
Eh, they are going in like a bunch of bloodhounds smelling blood.
Musk killed USAID because he had a personal axe to grind.
Perhaps you could read their statements? DOGE communications are filled with ill intent, and their publicly stated goal, and the goal for which their supports seem to support them, is the destruction of the bureaucracy. That's ill intent.
That's before we look at their actions.
Elon Musk absolutely has ill intent or else DOGE wouldn't have all this access that they absolutely DO NOT NEED!
Are we talking about something that happened, or just conjecture?
How can you possibly disagree with this and call yourself good at your job or a technologist? What an embarrassing take. Seriously you might want to delete your post if you want to ever be employed again. Actually trying to help you here.
What are you even talking about? People (myself included) were fucking livid! The reason we got the 6mo credit check was because so many people tried to claim the monetary compensation (which the court had ruled they were owed!) that Equifax was unable (unwilling) to pay the resulting volume of money. The 6mo credit check was the weasel compromise that the Trump regulatory apparatus rubber stamped.
We've already had the occasional large leak and survived, why not just leak continuously! Also leave your doors unlocked, you wouldn't want robbers to break an expensive door to get into your house, and most of your stuff isn't worth anything anyway!
As a concrete example, if you have read-only access to someone's email inbox that's enough to steal most of their accounts on other services since you can request a password reset link and then click on it.
What about security reasons now? The federal government includes the military. Giving DOGE “God mode” on the federal government is a national security risk right now.
Not to mention the open question of whether we will ever arrive at later.
There's at least some belief that the people looking at the data haven't been vetted or instructed as they should be when handling data of this nature.
It doesn't help that the guy who is running the show is basically doing it as a friend of the president and has some conflicts of interest.
>> The question isn't what's being accessed, it's who is accessing it.
There will always be good reasons to access data, and sensitive data. There is always good that can come out of this. But just because you can do something good with it doesn't mean you should. You can do a lot of good with a nuclear bomb, but I don't want any ever built because it takes only a small mistake (not an act of malice!) to have huge consequences. There is always a cost, you must always consider if the costs are worth the benefits.
Second, while that was a major topic in international news for years, it did at least stay in the national security space where access is restricted. A lot of the concerns around DOGE are because they bulled through all of the normal rules for who gets access to sensitive data and how it’s handled. Say what you will about the NSA, and many here have, they didn’t just hand out credentials to inexperienced people with a history of leaking data or condone use of personal computers for government work.
This is especially of concern if the reports of write access being used to push code changes or deploy monitoring keyloggers are true: do you really want to bet that the guys who made a .gov site world-writable couldn’t be compromised by a foreign intelligence agency? There are legitimate concerns about the level of process overhead in government IT but that doesn’t make the reasons for it go away.
It's been there, and growing, ever since.
Did you also miss the global protests against the 2003 invasion of Iraq?
I and many people would argue to rebuild it based on the lack of transparency we have seen. There are enough people that feel that way that a rebuild is inevitable, regardless if you end up right. The position is that we really don't know, so the only way to be safe is a do-over. Or at the very least, a completely transparent audit, which is also insanely expensive and very hard to scope.
…but also much more. It is intellectually dishonest to equate these two.
Cutting through red tape can technically be done by nuking the red tape, but why cause all this harm when you can use scissors?
https://talkingpointsmemo.com/edblog/doge-dives-into-core-na...
"DOGE currently has far deeper and far more extensive access to U.S. government computer systems — and is far deeper into the national security space — than is conceivably necessary for anything related to their notional brief and goals."
I am honestly shocked at the amount of wrong or naive takes being posted on HN as of late.
Also things are happening at a breakneck pace and, uhm, the media is tragicomically incompetent.
From your link written by John Marshall, a “progressive liberal”: “It’s obvious that you’d want to be very cautious about centralizing this much power in anyone’s hands, especially people working outside all existing frameworks of oversight and accountability.” It’s called.. the President. The whole point of electing a president alongside of congress is to have a consolidated point of power.
1. To ask for READ access to all the data with PII/sensitive scrubbed.
2. Any action to modify the content/data should ideally have followed the existing path/mechanism
https://www.texasobserver.org/ice-prosecutor-dallas-white-su... https://gizmodo.com/doge-engineer-resigns-over-extremely-rac... https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2025/feb/07/musk-doge-st...
How is that clear? What proof do you have of this other than Musk's word?
The systems were built as separate systems to avoid (in a systems designers most fevered nightmares) a scenario like this.
We've spent the better part of 80 years moving power from legislative to execute and granting executive a whole host of new powers.
We made this bed, now it sure seems like Trump is making us sleep in it.
The people who do support it believe that they themselves will be granted noble status within the new regime, rather than being serfs.
The problem above any American political and philosophical questions (moral questions notwithstanding), is mistaking Trump for anything resembling a worthy king. It will bring trouble.
In the ancient world the king was a symbol of the prosperity of the people and scapegoat for the sins and troubles of the people and was ritually killed and replaced when things weren’t working out. History whispers that one should be careful what one wishes for.
If they want to be abused, then lean all the way in.
It’s the same reason the antagonist in nearly every film is a single bad guy who is eventually karate-chopped down to size. It’s the same reason WW2 is a ‘simpler’ and more palatable narrative (a couple main bad guys) than WW1 (complex political and social movements across many countries led to war). Even though the same complexity of politics and social changes were also at play
In a big society where end effects are far away, we look to the strong men to handle the big problems
> But the same individuals peddling this theory are simultaneously objecting quite vigorously to the notion that they are bestowing George Bush with the powers of a King. Bill Kristol and Gary Stevenson, for instance, called such claims "foolish and irresponsible" in the very same Washington Post Op-Ed where they argued that Bush need not "follow the strictures of" (i.e., obey) the law, and the President himself angrily denied that he is laying claim to a "dictatorial position" in the very same Press Conference where he proudly insisted on the right to eavesdrop on Americans without a warrant even though FISA makes it a crime to do so.
https://glenngreenwald.blogspot.com/2005/12/do-bush-defender...
And he was equally critical of Obama admin not only keeping those powers but further expanding them.
Americans stopped caring around the Patriot Act and executive power has only grown under every administration since
Breaking things will destroy lives if not literally kill people
If it was this "easy" someone would have made a proposal years ago even if it was turned down
And Congress, not ANY President controls spending
We do not elect Kings in this country, there was an entire very brutal war to make it that way
This data is going to leak if it's not copied already into insecure sources and every foreign adversary is going to have it
Cannot be undone
And there should be investigations and prosecutions for this to prevent it ever happening again by ANY President
It is already killing people. They fired people giving out food and medicine. They fired people on suicide hotlines. And of course, people have been killing themselves in response to being fired.
Why is this hard to accept?
Are you an idiot? Can you point to the last time some foreigner was given access to American's personal data without any oversight?
It's a joke that any of you assholes are defending this. This does not pass any sniff test.
Stop making excuses.
The president therefore has the authority to access every last secret and every last system within the executive branch. No statute can limit this power. The president also has the authority to delegate (to some extent; only the president can issue EOs, but presumably his officers can recommend EOs to him) these powers to his or her officers.
The titular of the U.S. Digital Service (DOGE) is statutorily not subject to Senate confirmation, though considering how Trump's controversial nominees have sailed through Senate confirmation it's easy to suppose that Musk would also likely be confirmed to head the USDS were it an appointment subject to Senate confirmation. Since the president can appoint someone like Elon Musk to head the USDS, and since the president can delegate his clearance and declassification authority to someone like Elon Musk, his doing so does very much "pass [the] sniff test".
This is absolutely the job of the executive branch.
Perhaps DOGE should have been created by an act of congress, but in reality that's just a formality because the Republicans control Congress right now.
I'm not sure it'd be better as an agency because there are strict rules and hierarchies around agencies. The way DOGE is operating right now, seemingly, is:
- Agency directors are directed by executive order to work with DOGE and give them access to what they need
- DOGE team members are actually hired as employees of the agencies in which they are operating
- DOGE makes recommendations to agency directors on what things to cut
- Agency directors review recommendations and make cuts
This means that all cuts are being recommended and made within the scope of each individual agency. It is not the case that one agency is telling another what to do, and all decisions are ultimately being made by each agency's director. It simplifies the hierarchy and authority.
It should not be a formality because while it is true that the Republicans have a slight majority in Congress, the founding fathers never intended this most powerful of the three branches to be run by parties. The power in Congress is split up geographically for this very reason, but the party system, that secured its seats with gerrymandering, is highly toxic for a functioning legislative power in the US. It is disappointing to see Republicans in Congress not restricting the executive orders of the new self-proclaimed King.
There are two precedents for this to my knowledge, though there may be more:
- the failed impeachment of
Andrew Johnson established
that the president can fire
principal officers without
the Senate's advice and
consent
- Spicer vs. Biden, which
established that the president
can fire officers with fixed
terms
He was clearly trolling. Grammatically that tweet does not parse like himself calling himself a king. For all you know he loves the British king, or some other king, or maybe he was referring to Jesus. But he got what he wanted from that quip: it got reported, along with credit for ending congestion pricing in Manhattan. Why the media still falls for that, I don't know.
As a result, opponents are hyper-focused on Musk's involvement instead of Trump's.
And why would you trust Trump or Musk?
That was the whole basis of your constitution.
- fire principal officers without
the Senate's advice and consent
- fire other appointed offices who
did not require the Senate's
advice and consent to confirm
- lay off federal employees in the
executive branch
- audit the executive branch's
agencies
- set policy for all executive
branch agencies
The president can also abrogate treaties without the Senate's advice and consent.
Most of the above are not explicitly in the Constitution as such, but are understood to be constitutional law either due to SCOTUS decisions, longstanding and unchallenged practice, or the result of the failed impeachment of Andrew Johnson.
Not only that but also most if not all recent presidents going back decades have done some if not all of the above. That includes Reagan, Bush Sr., Clinton, Bush Jr., Obama, Trump, and Biden.
In other words: there is no innovation here, no judicial controversy. This is all standard fare for any new administration. The only difference is the extent of what Trump is doing in his second term compared to any other recent presidency. The sheer number of EOs, the auditing (which basically hasn't been done recently), and the layoffs (which are rare in DC). And yes, he's goring a lot of oxen -more than other presidents in recent memory-, but they all do that, just not eliciting so much outrage from the opposition.
Because a lot of people on the other side of the aisle from the current executive said it is bad.
And then they used ad hominem attacks and random slanders to try to shout down anyone who says otherwise.
It's unfortunate.
You'll have to deal with people replying who have been driven literally insane by propaganda.
Money was sent to media agencies (e.g. 9mil Reuters) , to run this massive psyop.
You can't put a band aid on what has been done to them, and they can't critically think their way out of it.
Perhaps the first foreign adversary nation state getting there will patch the security flaws after stealing the data?
That "just an advisor (but not really)" Musk and his ragtag group of junior developers get god mode access to lots of governmental systems is less expected. There are legal ways for the president to direct these departments, so when he opts for the illegal path, it's definitely noteworthy.
The article also mentions information about employees operating in conflict zones.
It seems most payroll companies send data to TWN [0]. Though I'd question the quality and breadth of each data feed. I also haven't looking into the percentage of US companies who use payroll software from the big providers and/or do it themselves
[0]: this comment tree at https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=41510103#41512326
They likely have records of the people inside organisations who provide data for them. These people usually want to remain anonymous because they fear retaliation. And in many cases, we’re not just talking about being fired or legal actions as retaliation.
a) creating more productive value than you or doing something more in demand by society [strong signal you should join them!]
or
b) manipulating their situation for better outcomes unfairly or fraudulently
In both cases it's in the interest of the greater good to have these things out in the open.
[0] https://lexing.network/swedens-latest-inquiry-into-protectin...
As a foreigner who moved to Sweden, it was quite shocking first to see all this info displayed online for everyone to see but there are definitely some good sides and bad sides to it.
One of the good side is that, you can look at the people living in a given area and decided if this is the kind of neighborhood where you want to live. Lower (declared income) can have a correlation with crime so if you just want to have a quite life, you may want to select an era that has loads of working people with a higher than average income.
One bad side, some people have used it in the past to harass people, think ex-lovers and so on. There is a procedure in place where if you are afraid of being stalked you can ask for your information to be removed from these registries or at least be hidden from public view.
I hate this system. It used to be a good system when most people was law abiding and there was no gang criminals. But today? Jeez, you are like a fish just hoping not to get struck by the sharks and there is no protection available due to the failing state.
It acts as a great tool for journalists, who are able to obtain meaningful insight into the actions of the state at all levels. While of course there are downsides, I think this is a very important principle.
There is no consequence, or even drastic change in policy, for the police in the face if this phenomenon. But if the same private citizen were to hire or manipulate a gang to carry out such an attack, everyone would be in prison for life.
Fantastic point, agreed. My 1980s anger at the authoritarian misuse of "freedom" by Regan-nauts all wearing the same their greased helmet hair is affirmed moreso these days
In Finland they publish everyones salaries over a certain threshold in the newspaper every year.
https://teara.govt.nz/en/zoomify/33070/page-from-the-public-...
Anecdotally they were mainly used to evaluate potential dates.
Addresses are not public information, you can opt out from having your info public. They are not even a national registry (one exists, not public) but your telco will put you in "the phone book" if you don't opt out.
Taxes are public information but only to a degree. You can opt out from having them shared en masse (primarily to the media) but you can still inquire someone else's paid taxes from the tax office but it requires you to know their full given name, year of birth and home town.
Salary is not public information, only the total amount of paid income taxes. You can correlate them to some degree but you won't be able to know how many jobs a person has or where their capital gains are from.
Access to this information can also be limited in exceptional cases (politicians, harassment victims, identity theft etc).
Employers do, individual stockholders of the employing firm do not, generally.
> Government workers are (in theory) employees of the citizens.
No, they are in theory employees of the government, in which the citizenry are stakeholders. They are not, even in theory, direct employees of the citizens.
A US Attorney is not, in theory, your attorney just because you are a US citizen.
Not in theory nor in practice, for the same reason a teacher isn’t the employee of a student’s parents.
If this isn't a glaring conflict of interest and corruption, I don't know what is.
In my country there are laws stopping agencies doing a simple SQL join between two databases, even within the same government agency. There is a separate agency that handles the requests when agencies want to join information.
I am not an expert in the matter. But my gut is telling me that our experiences with east Germany and Stasi left a scar.
It can quickly turn into a real nightmare, and there for there are check and balances to make it slow. It’s deliberate inefficiency.
In contrast the Europeans have descended into petty mass wars and dictatorial regimes multiple times, and each time America has come to save Europe through that very Executive branch.
A bit thankless don't you think?
This is what democracy looks like, Americans should learn from Germany's example:
> According to the court document, the public prosecutor stated “public interest” in pressing criminal charges as the retweet was “punishable as an insult against people of political life”. It potentially constituted “incitement of the people”.
> Publicly insulting a politician has been a criminal offence in Germany since 2021 when a set of laws “against hate and hate speech” were passed under then-chancellor Angela Merkel.
https://brusselssignal.eu/2024/11/german-police-raid-mans-ho...
Also how about never descending into dictatorships and authoritarian regimes?
The erosion of trust in institutions and elections, up to insurrections are way out of that picture. Infront of that background, boasting about a strong executive branch, being cleansed not by merit (opposed to trumps own standard) sounds so absurd to me as a german.
Your orwellian interpretation about limited free speech is rooted in your free speech absolutism. We distinguish between limited freedom speech and unlimited freedom of oppinion. We also have processes involving courts to ban new, factually incorrect statements, aka. non-oppinions, to make it illegal bullshit.
Europe hasn’t descended into total war since WWII because the US has military bases all over Europe, mostly in Germany.
> The Bavaria resident is also accused of posting Nazi-era imagery and language earlier in 2024. According to prosecutors, this post may have violated German laws against the incitement of ethnic or religious hatred.
> The man was arrested on Thursday as part of nationwide police operations against suspected antisemitic hate speech online.
https://www.dw.com/en/germany-greens-habeck-presses-charges-...
This article is more informative:
Translated (with DeepL.com):
> The public prosecutor's office in Bamberg has now announced: The search had already been requested before the Green politician himself filed a criminal complaint in the case.
> Habeck only filed a criminal complaint in the case more than a month after the search warrant had been requested.
> According to the public prosecutor's office, the suspect is also facing another charge: According to this, in spring 2024, he allegedly uploaded a picture on X with a reference to the Nazi dictatorship, which could potentially constitute the criminal offense of incitement to hatred. According to the investigators, it shows an SS or SA man with the poster and the words “Germans don't buy from Jews” and the additional text “True democrats! We've had it all before!”.
https://www.spiegel.de/politik/deutschland/schwachkopf-belei...
That's the level of delusion in your own greatness that led to Trump. USA was the first (representative!) democracy with written constitution at best. And that's if you overlook the fact that only some people were entitled to vote at all.
And no, the executive branch had much less power “in the beginning”. As many people have learned, what America’s constitution says has never really matched what America does. The increasing mindless worship of a dead text, called “originalism”, is part of what will destroy it.
Inefficiency is a useful property of many systems [0,1]. Current cultural obsessions around the word are a burden and mistake, and the word "efficiency" now feels rather overload with right-wing connotations.
That doesn't mean that being deliberately inefficient will improve resiliency. Also, some of the deliberate inefficiency (i.e. looking at weird thing us healthcae/health-insurance system has going on) is more ... extractive? That sounds like the word I am looking for.
In its current form, it's a set of SOAP or REST APIs that your organization gets access to after completing paperwork about your needs.
It was established by a 1990 law [1].
There is also a similar legal and technical setup for information on companies [2] where most information is public, and the register of residents [3] which is even more guarded.
[1] https://www.ksz-bcss.fgov.be/fr/page/loi-du-15-janvier-1990-...
[2] https://economie.fgov.be/en/themes/enterprises/crossroads-ba...
I was very much more intrigued about the statement that data can’t be easily/legally shared within the same agency
And since the current understanding is that even the combination of an IP address and a timestamp is personally identifiable... many organizations are actively not collecting usage stats. Which leads to the abuse of public funds, but this is a different story.
I worked for the equivalent of the IRS for two month in my country (student job basically). When people asked for a deferred payment, i could accept it if it was the first time, but when they asked for a deffered payment the second time, or for reduced taxes (recent job loss, loss of a house or big events like this), i had the mean to verify who the person asking for this was, but not the mean to approve it.
I verified the information and filled a form, then asked for approval. The person approving had no idea who the person asking was (he had no access to the tool i used to match the internal ID to an actual person), but had the form i filled, and approved of the deferred payment/reduced taxes without any knowledge of who asked. Also i did not know who that person was, and he did not know who i was.
All of that is not very effective, but it reduces the risk of corruption from civil servants: you either have limited information, or limited power (this isn't the case with mayor or other elected officials though).
Consider it from this hypothetical perspective: My mom is an analyst in the health service and has database access to produce various reports. Her access is extensive, to allow reporting on things like whether the courses of antibiotics prescribed by doctors are of the recommended length.
Meanwhile, I'm a rebellious teenager. My doctor asks me how often I smoke, drink, take drugs and engage in promiscuous sex. If my doctor enters my answers into my electronic medical record - should my mom be able to look at my record?
The answer, of course, is that her right to access data depends on what she's doing.
Americans are ultimately conditioned to accept leadership. Belgians have never and never will agree on anything.
This is why the electoral college is a weak point in American democracy and no wonder it was the actual target of the Jan 6th coup attempt, the Capitol invasion being merely a distraction. Weak points like this must sealed over so that the overall system is more robust to attacks.
Whenever anyone proposes to allow it, the members of the informal "Party for Tax Evasion" scream and denounce the descent towards "Taxation Fascism". It's so pathetically cheeky, that it feels a bit endearing (how dare them, what rascals!)
Case in point In Germany the Polizei will SWAT and arrest you if you post a meme on social media that angers someone's dignity. That's not a joke that actually happens.
This typical German "our government is not slow and inefficient, it's just protection against totalitarianism" is pure cope.
Edit: @helloplanets Source: https://youtu.be/-bMzFDpfDwc?si=eIUkEuDBx3iX_TEx
Source?
You can still say anything, with a modicum of decency.
In the US we see that the only things keeping authoritarianism at bay is larger the people following norms (like the peaceful transfer of power after losing an election), and the executive obeying orders from the judiciary. All it takes is for a group to not to that any more and boom.
Short road to where 'slander' means any criticism (however objectively true and justified) of people in power and you get a swat team at your door and steel boot on your neck.
It is constantly abused, the issue is Germans have gaslit themselves into thinking that it's the right thing to do "because nazism was bad", so they have Nazi levels of speech censorship to fight imaginary Nazism, because once you label someone who disagrees with you as a Nazi you are free to censor them, which then in turn is causing the uprising of actual Nazism because people are tired of being censored for having opinions that oppose the mainstream narrative. Germans are really a difficult bunch to reason with logically.
> because once you label someone who disagrees with you as a Nazi you are free to censor them,
Show examples of it.
You're deflecting valid criticism about Germany's speech censorship with "Americans should shut up". Unbelievable.
In one case it wasn't slander. A person pointed out a politician's Nazi/Stati past on social media and he still sued abusing the "muh dignity" bullshit law.
Laws rarely include technical language like SQL joins.
Compare this to a physical storage of paper documents that need to be SQL joined, the effort required is several magnitudes more.
What it is good for is data breaches, it effectively limits the data that can be leaked at once.
Is that $50,000 annual? Because if so that's less than a rounding error for the budget of almost any country, much less the US. The costs associated with ending this program (organizational, employee time) may even be higher than just continuing to pay it.
> Paying dead people social security isn’t popular.
Is there any public statistical data on this? As far as I know US social security does periodically verify if recipients are still alive. Of course some cases will slip through the cracks, but unless DOGE plans to individually track down every recipient and see them in person I don't see how they can solve this problem. This inevitably happens with pretty much any social security system, anywhere.
> Sending money to the Taliban isn’t popular.
Is there a source for this?
> When you say Trump doesn’t care about waste, that isn’t supported by the facts. The deficit isn’t about waste, fraud or abuse, it’s about overspending. They aren’t the same thing.
He could start by reducing overspending on the US' titanic corporate subsidies, but something tells me he won't.
As far as the experiences of the Stasi and previous German governments, it must not have too much of a scar: Germany still asks people to register their religion — ostensibly for tax purposes, but if I recall correctly, Germany had a problem in the past with having a list of all people in a specific religion.
Doing that does not require anywhere remotely near the level of data access DOGE has been given.
[1]: https://www.washingtonpost.com/technology/2025/02/07/apple-e...
There are vast differences between how the different governments operate.
How is the most populous state in the EU doing?
> The German parliament amended two laws on June 10th granting enhanced surveillance powers to segments of the federal police and intelligence services. They allow the use of spyware to hack into phones and computers circumventing encryption used by messaging applications such as WhatsApp and Signal, raising concerns about the right to privacy.
> The new federal police law allows interception of communications of “persons against whom no suspicion of a crime has yet been established and therefore no criminal procedure measure can yet be ordered”. This fails to ensure the necessary protection against unjustified and arbitrary interference in people’s privacy, required under international law. Human Rights Watch and the United Nations have pointed out the importance of encryption and anonymity for data protection and the right to privacy.
> The government argues that new legislation is needed to keep up with technological developments and claims the new powers are to help federal police stifle human trafficking and undocumented migration.
https://www.hrw.org/news/2021/06/24/germanys-new-surveillanc...
...oh
Norway, Sweden, Denmark, Finland, Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, Poland, Czechia, Croatia, Romania, Bulgaria, Albania, Greece, Italy, Spain, Portugal, France
but I know my home country Sweden, which used to have solid freedoms, have deteriorated quickly in the last few years.
Which is why I have moved to Switzerland, where the citizenry respect each other privacy(no country is perfect, but I do believe their decentralised direct democracy will keep protecting their liberties).
A recent law has enabled the Swedish police to open mail to private individuals if they suspect there might be drugs in them. This is just one change of many that has reduced the liberties of the citizens.
Don’t get me wrong, the Swedes want it this way. They are no longer a freedom loving people, sadly.
https://www.sverigesradio.se/artikel/police-to-contact-thous...
A good reason might be to back up the serious accusation a few comments above.
> A recent law has enabled the Swedish police to open mail to private individuals if they suspect there might be drugs in them. This is just one change of many that has reduced the liberties of the citizens.
While this isn't ideal in a vacuum, I don't see the alternative. If physical mail is given inviolable privacy, you're pretty much handing bad actors the perfect delivery system on a silver platter. I'm sure there's other examples of decisions that increased Swedish authorities' surveillance capabilities, but to call a country a surveillance state requires a little more than "They can check your mail if they suspect you're using it for drug delivery".
Now there is enough reason to open private mail if the mail is a little squishy and it was sent from the wrong address.
You're saying agencies can be directed to opress people and organisations.
Op is saying agencies don't get to willy nilly look into the db of other agencies.
https://www.nbcnews.com/news/s-just-insanity-atf-now-needs-2...
Guns are constitutionally protected in a way that humans aren't.
This is a big reason they can’t get anything done or retain talent.
Government is no different.
European democracies have been dying from the same sclerosis their legacy multinationals have.
The US is going through actual change. The outrage over things not being done as they always have is nonsensical.
It is like that to prevent the state from persecuting people on the base that it is hard for a branch of the government to figure out who is someone based on a number from a different branch.
Do you know why they want to prevent the government from persecuting people?
Because it has already happened, and the portuguese don't want it to happen again.
Ex-Yugoslavian countries have had a global ID forever - the JMBG or, in Croatia, OIB [1].
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unique_Master_Citizen_Number
It’s an important thing about free countries that is seldom appreciated: aspects of their governments are designed to be tar pits, on purpose. It’s a way of restraining government.
I have a personal saying that touches on something adjacent. “I like my politicians boring. Interesting government was a major cause of death in the twentieth century.”
When I think of governments that are both interesting and streamlined I think of the Nazis, the Khmer Rouge, Stalin era USSR, Maoist purges, etc.
They should have developed good security practices first and maybe spent more than a week reviewing a plan, and not having a double standard about their own activities.
On its face, that’s a reasonable comment. But that’s not what’s happening here. This is not oversight. This is the world’s richest man arbitrarily seizing control of the government’s data. He’s able to do this because he bought the presidency for Trump.
Are you ok with that?
I'm OK with democratic elections and executive appointments. I'm OK with the "read access" part of the control, the "write access" should only go as far as the laws passed by Congress permit.
As an example, Musk mislead the public with claims about Social Security fraud. None of that was unknown, and in fact the independent inspector general had a much better quality report years ago where they confirmed that the old records did not show signs of fraud and recommended paths for improvement. DOGE made a lot of noise but added nothing but risk.
You think it didn't already have access to its own data? Please explain how it did not.
Most of this power is vested in congress whom is abdicating their power.
The president should not be able to declare war without an act of Congress. The constitution grants the power to make law to congress, but then congress has enacted many laws which create agencies under the executive branch, which in turns empowers the executive branch.
So I agree that Congress should make/repeal laws that reduce the size of the executive branch so that only necessary powers are entrusted to the executive branch.
However, until that day comes, the separation of powers is the Legislative, Judicial, and Executive. Within the executive, inward looking (not external like killing people), yeah, the president and his appointed cabinet should have control. Without that control, you are defining an unaccountable form of government.
This is essentially what the courts are doing through the interrogation of the limits of the offices power. If that’s what you are looking for it’s already WAI.
Let's not be disingenuous.
DOGE is finding monies are being spent without Congressional authorization, and is stopping that, exactly as you asked for. The president is also stopping expenditures that are allocated by Congress -- many presidents have done this.
“Oh no! Big mistake we cancelled hundreds of thousands of people from voting just before the election! It just happens to be 99.9% Democrats in swing states who all happen to be marked as dead in all government systems!”
It will be similar to Cambridge Analytica - with all the US Government’s data on one side, this is a massive advantage for targeting even without direct cheating.
At least, not from America! It's no secret that these NGOs are now trying to attach themselves to Brussels to continue ops in the US, leeches will be leeches
1) Acquire god mode access to government systems and citizens information (contacting, grants, spending, taxes, SSI benefits, you name it).
2) Add features to the Treasury Department’s software to allow him to, with extremely high granularity, control what payments go out. Friends can be rewarded, enemies punished. At first it will take the form of government entities he doesn’t like (USAID, for example). Next will be government opposition in our federal system, mostly blue cities and states with whom he disagrees. Next will be large private entities with whom he disagrees or are business competitors. Finally, individuals opposing him or the government will be personally targeted (for example, by not paying SSI benefits or paying out tax returns, perhaps extended to family members of the opposition, etc). These individual sanctions could extend to large geographic area he dislikes (all of coastal California, for example). He’s putting in place the tools to accomplish this right now as we speak.
3) Fire all bureaucratic opposition elements who might prevent this. Dress it up as a government efficiency measure if you like.
4) Eventually they will pressure large (and maybe small, too) private financial institutions to take part in this scheme (they may have already succeeded, see Citibank and NYC federal funding for migrants).
He’s putting in place the tools for total control by controlling access to money and resources. I don’t exactly know what he plans to do with them but I don’t want to find out given constant interaction with racists and neo nazis on his site.
Now they'll control payments to defund opponents as well as sacking anyone who doesn't support them to gain total loyalty. In fact, the way they're doing this is clever: Sack and then make former colleagues compete to be rehired. That way they'll feel extra grateful to have a job and will toe the line in future.
I expect they'll use this data for leverage against opponents in future. They probably haven't decided how yet, which is why they're in hoover mode. Loot the systems quick while they still can.
But it's ok. Half the US thinks there's nothing to worry about. Good luck getting fair elections ever again.
> this means you can use the district-level gerrymander to control Senate-level seats. This has bought the GOP a ~+3-+8 bias in the Senate.
What?? No, you cannot gerrymander States (and therefore Senate seats). You can only gerrymander districts smaller than States. States with one House seat can't gerrymander that House seat either. State legislature seats can be gerrymandered. U.S. House seats in States with more than one House seat can also be gerrymandered. (EDIT: Well, I suppose if Oregon counties are allowed to move into Idaho then that would be a gerrymandering of States, but this is a very very rare event.)
The GOP might have a bias in the Senate, but that would be due to small-population States having more oomph in the Senate than large-population States. Though in 2024 the Electoral College was neutral in terms of partisan bias, which implies at most a small bias in the Senate for one or the other party.
As for gerrymandering of U.S. House districts, that has been going on since the very beginning, and even since before, since Colonial legislatures did it, and the English parliament did it before that. In fact, part of the reason for the Democrats' 62 year dominance of the U.S. House from 1933 to 1995 was gerrymandering.
But as Justice Sandra Day O'Connor explained in one of her decisions, gerrymandering is self-limiting because the party in power (in the legislature) can only optimize for seat safety (thus reducing their majority in their House delegation) or for number of seats (thus rendering some if not many of those seats not-very-safe). Since that decision we've had numerous wave elections in the House, including numerous changes in party in control of the House: 1994, 2006, 2008, 2010, 2018. Arguably in today's day and age gerrymandering doesn't count for all that much compared to the heyday of the Democratic party between 1933 and 1995.
I believe it's called an autogolpe as Trump is supporting him in this.
Documentation found of US agencies funding psyops to basically crush critical thinking skills and scream what their handlers want them to scream. "Hate the smoke detector, not the fire!"
For this situation, that these agencies and their psyops have put you in, you have my greatest sympathy.
The president, as the chief executive, has broad authority to ensure that executive agencies function efficiently and effectively. While there are statutory and congressional constraints, the executive branch is ultimately responsible for implementing policies and running departments. If existing bureaucrats and Treasury officials have had access to this data for years but failed to act, then it is not only within the president’s prerogative but arguably his duty to bring in outside expertise—whether that be Musk or anyone else—to tackle waste and inefficiency.
The actual laws just speak about things being critical to national security and don't use the words like "Top Secret" and etc.
The whole actually labeling things "Top Secret" and etc started off with Clinton [1] but then Bush [2] and Obama [3] modified the rules around classification.
[1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Executive_Order_12958
What could go wrong?
good question
You'll be on your knees begging for bureaucracy after all your info is sold to the highest bidder and you spend the next 20 years fighting identity theft.
"New court documents shed light on what a 25-year-old DOGE employee named Marko Elez did inside Treasury Department payment systems. They also provide extensive new details about which systems Elez accessed, the security precautions Treasury IT staff took to limit his access and activity, and what changes he made to the systems. The documents indicate that the situation at Treasury is more nuanced than previously reported."
(...)
"Additionally, he could only connect using a government-issued laptop that had "cybersecurity tools" installed on it to prevent him from accessing web sites or cloud-based storage services with the laptop or connecting a USB or other external storage device to it to copy large amounts of data from Treasury systems. "
You're argument is "This document said this one dude isn't currently accessing the system" as if that somehow means they aren't going to in the future and or that other team members don't have access. What are you even talking about? No one is saying "It's all this guy"
Also, not all court documents are the same. You can make whatever claims you want in some of them.
His first term, he handed out security clearances to anyone who would ask. There is even less stopping him from just giving them out this term too.
WTF are you talking about? What govt agency does haven't oversight the way DOGE does? Stop lying.
congress didn't create DOGE. no one is overseeing that goon running it. you're a child if you believe the words coming out of his mouth
They're using public LLMs to analyze it. Every single LLM provider collects the data you put into it.
There's also the NRO incident recently where they publicly released the classified org chart.
In a publicly traded company you get to chose whether to buy or sell the shares of a company based on how the CEO is running the company (including who he appoints to audit it)
In US Govt, we don't get to chose whether to "invest" in the govt or not, our taxes our collected by force.
So instead we have the power to vote for people in congress (who decide home much taxes are collected on how they are spend), and the president (who can execute on the spending directed by congress, but also has the power granted by constitution to audit and spend effiecntly)
The US Govt Shareholders (Voters) have SPOKEN, and SPOKEN LOUDLY! (Electoral College victory, and Popular Vote victory). They elected republican majority congress, and President Trump. Thus the voters voted for a deep gov't audit headed by Musk (Trump publicly campaigned on auditing and cleaning up spending, and publicly stated who will be in charge of the audit).
Many of the findings Musk has published have been proven to be mischaracterized or erroneous (numbers off by 1000x etc), which gives us grounds to question the rest. Except their process and data is opaque. Trump is firing entire departments based on this bad information. This could ironically _increase_ govt expenditure when they realizes we need to hire new people, possibly at higher salaries (after paying the old people a severance).
They are auditing a Multi-Trillion bureaucratical behemoth (with terrible record keeping on top of it). Even a "certified auditor" can make a few mistakes.
Instead of focusing on onef misreported 8 billion line item, you should focus on the fact that they discovered 3 TRILLION in payments with no budgetary codes (literally TRILLIONS in blank untraceable checks)
I would rather have an businessman experienced making billion dollar companies efficient doing the audit, and doing it FAST, but making some mistakes.
Than having a typical beurocratic "certified auditor" audit, that does it slowly and won't even make a dent in a budget in a single year.
The US Govt is paying TRILLIONS in just INTEREST on the debt every year, and not even paying down the principal right now. And they have to borrow MORE MONEY, just to be able to cover the INTEREST payment next year. The US Gov't is in dire financial straights. We don't have time for a typical "bureaucratic auditors" auditing a trillion dollar bureaucracy.
We need an experienced businessman to come in and start cutting, and cutting FAST.
Now they _allege_ to have found 3 trillion in mystery payments, but we can't take them seriously because of their lack of proper audit techniques. They have no idea what they are doing.
I believe the entire country is watching in real time as a teenager tries to navigate his first legacy system and he just hasn't found the rest of the business logic. Just like how they implied that millions of dead 150 year olds were still receiving social security payments. It was a known issue that dead people are still in the database, but they are not in fact receiving payments. A real auditor would have known what to ask and where to look.
The article is hyperbola and ultimately trying to push the "Auditing and finding corruption is bad"
Doesn't everyone at work, any $WORK, do this? I do! I even type my thoughts "aloud" so to speak in order to help anyone viewing my sessions on replay.
The president should obviously have this level of access.
There is a french say I like. If you need to cut a dog’s tail, don’t cut an inch every day, chop the whole thing quick
Dismantling USAID overnight will do a lot of damage.
Well there’s cutting off the dogs tail, and then there’s accidentally cutting off your own fingers in your haste to get the dogs tail.
There is another saying:
Slow is smooth and smooth is fast.
Act quickly when needed but not so quickly that you don’t have time to assess. You should know what you’re cutting before you cut.
I see the legal status of tail docking is slightly laxer in France but in North America the US and Canadian Vetinary Associations disavow the practice as bad for the dog.
> Vice-president JD Vance has cited Yarvin as an influence, saying in 2021, "So there's this guy Curtis Yarvin who has written about these things," which included "Retire All Government Employees," or RAGE, written in 2012. Vance said that if Trump became president again, "I think what Trump should do, if I was giving him one piece of advice: Fire every single midlevel bureaucrat, every civil servant in the administrative state, and replace them with our people. And when the courts stop you, stand before the country and say, 'The chief justice has made his ruling. Now let him enforce it.'"[17][52]
It's obvious from recent video of Musk and Trump that Trump is also a figurehead at this point.
1) Staying out of prison
2) Being adored
What happens to the country is beside the point, from his perspective. Which is why he's more than happy to let Musk and the Heritage Foundation call the shots. He has no interest in actually running things, that's too much work.
I was not expecting the complete takeover of computer networks and rapid firing of large numbers of employees.
Easier to ask for forgiveness than for permission.
YOLO.
> We’ve got to risk a full power start—a full reboot of the USG. We can only do this by giving absolute sovereignty to a single organization—with roughly the powers that the Allied occupation authorities held in Japan and Germany in the fall of 1945.
> Trump himself will not be the brain of this butterfly. He will not be the CEO. He will be the chairman of the board—he will select the CEO (an experienced executive). This process, which obviously has to be televised, will be complete by his inauguration—at which the transition to the next regime will start immediately.
The incompetence at DOGE is staggering. Absolutely no security on their .gov webiste: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=43045835
can't even get mail merges to work, see some of their emails terminating people. Telling people to sign the doc and then not attaching the doc.
The search for 'probationary' employees failing 3 times because they didn't check the definition of the term.
No, technical competence really isn't DOGE's strong point.
We need political pressure to design these systems correctly to avoid "god mode" nonsense, and for that we need politicians who understand and embrace the technological need. If the system is designed correctly you don't need "god mode" access to conduct an audit or even to make lasting changes. Their changes should be non-destructive writes, with an audit trail.
Also, I'm going to need more information than "god mode". God mode over which specific databases? And what specific access levels? And which admin granted the permissions? If DOGE is serious about transparency they will communicate this sort of thing.
You mean like the Government Accountability Office? [1] Or the dozens of Inspector Generals at most agencies? [2]
[2] https://www.oversight.gov/where-report-fraud-waste-abuse-or-...
The US federal government has lots of laws, agencies, and procedures to address, investigate, and remediate fraud, waste, and abuse.
"Blame the smoke detector, not the fire" people are demoralised people driven insane
So even if DOGE is benign (and I don't think they are, but lets assume for a moment), if something goes wrong, who is to blame? Where is the transparency they are expecting of government agencies?
Would you trust an outside team like that, say some brash McKinsley team of "experts", to come in and do whatever they want with your systems? What company would allow that?
Also turns out that they're making up shit. $8 billion "saved" was actually $8 million because they didn't do their homework.
[0] https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2025/02/doge-mu...
That's because they believe in maximum transparency.
I have no reason to believe anything in this article.
Yes. In 2014, after the disastrous rollout of the Healthcare.gov site, President Obama created the "United States Digital Service" (USDS). Its stated mission was to modernize technology and improve efficiency across all US departments and agencies.
President Trump renamed the USDS to the "United States DOGE Service" (USDS) and created a temporary "Department of Government Efficiency" (DOGE) organization within the USDS that will operate until July 4, 2026.
Every US government agency is required to establish a DOGE team within that agency to work with the USDS to "improve the quality and efficiency of government-wide software, network infrastructure, and information technology (IT) systems".
Yes. With full support from the recently democratically elected president of the united states.
Will your company fail the audit if don't hand over the information?
Or will your company fail the audit if if you do hand it over?
In the case of the IRS, generally, you must hand over the data they request or you go to jail.
Whether or not it's behind a password protected internal system is irrelevant. Everything is potentially material to any conspiracy to commit tax fraud.
I see no reason why the Federal government itself, which works for us, should not be subject to reciprocal treatment.
It's currently being passed around Lagos on zip drives as we speak, and has been for years.
Personal privacy aside, how are secrets imperative to national security protected if you allow full audits by any American citizen?
Musk is roughly as democratically elected as the average IRS bureaucrat (arguably more so, since the guy auditing you most certainly never appeared on the campaign trail), so I view it as a wash.
Like, audit's require root access? What? Is this real life? Are people just making things up and saying whatever to defend someone who has no allegiance to this country getting the keys to the kingdom while also coincidentally making a fortune off of taxpayers through federal subsidies? Are you slow?
In general, you don’t give out broadly permissive access to sensitive systems because people (yes even incredibly competent people) are prone to getting confused or mistyping and you really don’t want anyone deleting the entire database at the drop of a hat because they didn’t have enough coffee that morning and were logged into the wrong system.
Why should it? I've participated in a number of audits. None of them involved giving the auditors root access. They get read-only access to exactly what they need and nothing more, if they get access at all. Oftentimes it's the people with access pulling data based on what they request.
No, it is not tasked with audits. It is not performing any audit before its actions, nor is it producing anything resembling an audit.
No, audits do not require root access. And in fact root access (the ability to change data) contradicts audit best practices.
though you don't wanna fuck with the fbi https://le.fbi.gov/cjis-division/cjis-security-policy-resour...
Also - he's a narcissist and he wants all the credit.
Also - he's a wannabe dictator, and on his way to making it a reality, so he's demonstrating that he does not need permission or help.
But yes, "Flood the Zone" is the strategy to combat Democrat's media and court strategies.
It was started by Steve Bannon in 2018, but expanded massively under Stephen Miller.
The rest of your post is just hysteria so I won't comment on that.
- supported funding Project 2025's development by GOP members
- talked about Project 2025 favorably
- saw Project 2025 demonized by the media
- THEN denied they support Project 2025
- got elected using Project 2025 tactics
- hired Project 2025 author INTO this new administration
- are currently implementing Project 2025 policies.
SO "THEY ARE ASSOCIATED WITH PROJECT 2025" seems closer to "true" and "fact" than unlikely.
In every instance, he has said he is not affiliated with it and doesn't support it as a whole.
Now there are some agendas in Project 2025 that are fine, some that are pretty out there. So yeah there will be overlap in policies.
Just wanted to point out you were wrong about their strategy. There's a name for it it's called "Flood the zone" and it's older than Project 2025.
Trump said parts of Project 2025 are "very good" in Dec 2024. Can't link a clip right now as I'm at lunch at work, but it should be easy to find
That does not translate to supporting the entire agenda.
I don't think anyone in this thread has claimed that he supports the entire agenda.
> That does not translate to supporting the entire agenda.
You're moving the goalposts.
Project 2025 was misattributed to this, it's called "Flood the Zone".
Everything after that is just noise.
So someone can only be accused of supporting something if it is caught on video?
Trump is either in charge and actively supporting its goals, or he is not really in charge and is being duped into supporting its goals. “Some overlap” is an understatement, especially only this far into his presidency. They’re doing exactly what they said they would.
Right, but they are visibly are. Russ Vought (project 2025) is the Office of Management and Budget director. He drafted the executive orders months ago that would lead to exactly this. Part of Project 2025
Other members in Trumps cabinet from Project 2025:
- Tom Homan (Border Czar)
- Brendan Carr (FCC)
- John Ratcliffe (CIA Director)
> The rest of your post is just hysteria so I won't comment on that.
Maybe don't accuse others of hysteria while you spout that Democrats are the ones coordinating every independent attorney and judge to come after Trump.
> In every instance, he has said he is not affiliated with it and doesn't support it
You sound like you were born yesterday. If you can't imagine why a politician would say one thing and do the other, I really can't help you. You're maliciously ignorant.
It's good to have a cabinet of diverse thought. You can pool all perspectives to make a final informed decision.
That's why he has ex-democrats like RFK and Tulsi. Doesn't mean he will implement all of RFKs views though.
And I didn't say they coordinated every judge/attorney, you put those words there. I simply said court strategies.
It's a well known strategy to shop around for judges to bring a court case. Republicans do it too. Though Democrats excel at it.
lmao the chief author is the head of the OMB my guy[1]
[1]https://apnews.com/article/trump-russell-vought-confirmation...
That doesn't mean all of their views will be implemented. Just a subset that Trump agrees with, or even some they disagree with that Trump tells them to.
https://www.npr.org/2025/02/19/nx-s1-5302705/doge-overstates...
> According to a DOGE post on X, that number was a typo that was corrected in the contract database to $8 million on Jan. 22 of this year before being terminated a week later, and DOGE "has always used the correct $8M in its calculations."
Jeez, that's pretty damning.
It's not even the access that's the issue though, it's the lack of oversight. If I login to a Prod database, my commands are logged which allow the team to go back and figure out what happened if something didn't go as expected. We have backups and response processes to deal with "oops" situations. I strongly doubt the DOGE team has any fallback plan, and it would be irresponsible to simply assume they've thought fallback through.
This is more troubling with the systems being tricky legacy systems. You might have the best intentions, but it is really easy to make mistakes in brittle systems even if you are careful. We've already seen evidence that the team may have no idea how to interpret the data they're seeing. It'd be reckless to start making edits while only having a partial understanding of the system.
The story from DOGE is "look at all this fraud we've found, we're going to fix it now". It's not "here's a bunch of things we want to investigate further". It's not "here's how we're going to test whether this is actually fraud". It's not "here's what we're going to try and how we're going to revert if we are wrong".
[1] - https://www.newsweek.com/doge-list-staff-revealed-2029965
For example, USAID is 1% of federal spending, but buys the US a disproportionate amount of soft power and good will for that investment.
Also, why 20-year olds? You'd think a person as resourced as Musk would have access to more capable people. When I was 20 years old I didn't know a thing about the Federal government or all the ways it benefits Americans.
I don't see DOGE solving an actual problem, and even if it did, this is a horribly incompetent way to go about it.
Just my opinion, but the most obvious motives seem to be:
* Breaking the back of the institutional opposition Trump experienced in his previous term
* Flexing strength and creating a narrative of unitary executive power
Why not just say they have root access? 'god mode' is a ridiculous expression and just obscures the truth.
I get that some people need information dumbed down but this is pathetic.What do I mean by that? Well, during the previous political era (loosely 9/11 through the COVID-19 pandemic), when intellectuals spoke truth to power, power listened.
So people like us could voice our opinions on constitutionality, historical precedent, etc, and eventually our points made their way up through the news cycle and someone in a position of power would validate our concerns.
Whereas today, people like Elon Musk belittle academic arguments as nonconstructive because they haven't made us money and we aren't rich. So obviously we're wrong.
This wasn't always the case. Some billionaires could be very stubborn, but at their core, they still held themselves to a higher standard, a geek ethos. It mattered what academics thought.
I can't believe I'm saying this, but I side with Bill Gates on this.
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2025/jan/27/bill-gates-e...
Where's the evidence of widespread corruption? If there really was corruption and fraud, then we'd be hearing of people being investigated and/or charged with breaking the law, not randomly fired or fired for ideological/loyalty/retribution reasons.
The current administration’s safeguards are faltering, running like a government still in FSD beta. With U.S. debt dismissed as “just debt,” inflationary tariffs in play, and an emergency Fed rate hike imminent, shockwaves are inevitable.
Deficit panic may soon lead to manipulated figures and a narrative bent to suit unstable agendas. The bond market’s credibility will collapse, making the Liz Truss debacle seem trivial compared to the turmoil expected over the next two years.
Even the most sophisticated hedge funds and quants can’t quantify an administration gone off the rails... But just look at the current price of gold...
The narrative already started: "Trump says US may have less debt than thought because of fraud - Trump says some Treasury payments might 'not count'" - https://www.reuters.com/markets/us/trump-says-us-might-have-...
"The World’s Most Important Market Sends a Warning" - https://www.bloomberg.com/opinion/articles/2025-02-18/the-wo...
Ugh, is that different words for "we ain't paying this because we say it's fraud"?
HN clearly not :-))
They've fired and hobbled all of the inspectors general and parties that are supposed to monitor and hold them accountable. This is nothing short of a security nightmare and insider threat of the highest degree.
He's going to fill these fired probationary workers with new loyal probationary workers hand picked by him.
He will then make these new probationary workers in charge of the agency.
If they don't do what he wants, they can be fired at will.
I legitimately believe his reasoning is money and ego pumping. But mostly money.
This is basic disaster economics, but with a self-made disaster instead of a natural disaster.
However, he needs these groups to some extent to roll back regulations. He can't be assured existing people will play ball.
So with hand picked cronies with no job security pushed to run the show over the ones with some job security he can push for deregulation.
If disasters happen along the way he can blame Brandon er Biden, etc and sell a heroic fix for profits.
You should be extremely worried! Run in Fear of what might come to pass!" because some guy filled out a request to have admin access to some government data stores. Ridiculous. Between United, BCBS, and existing Chinese infiltrations into OPM and telcos your data is already compromised by real / confirmed bad actors. This is disappointing click bait from the Atlantic and their editors should be ashamed of its publication.
Half Life 3 confirmed.
So he conned the stupidest but most powerful man alive into letting him be acting president.
Reading this article it appears on the surface to be a little more conclusive... but once you peel back ther layers, we are back to square one. There are many red flags still that make me question the reliability of this:
the senior USAID source said. “What do you do with this information? I had to ask myself, Do I file my taxes this year or not? I had to sit and debate that.”
Ok this is kind of silly - assuming they are being fully honest and forthright, then their account information would already be 'compromised' unless they change banks yearly which seems.. unlikely.
So why wasn't their question "Should I close the account I used for tax refunds in the past? Should I try to create an insulated account instead" -- rather instead, they subtly implant the idea that maybe they should do something illegal in response to this supposed breach. (not file taxes, like them or not - not interested in sovereign citizen arguments btw).
So this right out of the gate feels like FUD by virtue of that alone... and if you are cynical enough you could probably argue this is propaganda meant to cause well-meaning citizens to break the law out of fear, which is deplorable.
"Over the past few days, we’ve talked with civil servants working for numerous agencies, all of whom requested anonymity because they fear what will happen if they lose their job—not just to themselves, but to the functioning of the federal government."
Ok so it's all anonymous sources again - everyone is up in arms and there isn't even clarity in this article if the anonymous sources are first party, second party, third party, or what. Previous FUD campaigns at least made that clear, but I'll try to pick this one apart as well. Additionaly, they are implying that somehow not being anonymous may jeopardize the entire functioning of the federal govt... excuse me, what??
I did the same AI analysis using CoPilot as I did on previous articles, and this is what it came up with breaking down the 'sources':
Anonymous Source: Type: Anonymous Details: The article cites an anonymous source described as a “civil servants” who provides insights into the Doge God Mode Access incident.
NOTE (from me not CoPilot): This is entirely irrelevant, they are presenting a 'nightmare' situation a security researcher and asking their opinion of it. This does not mean the scenario is happening, and does not support the thesis.
Hypothetical Scenarios: Type: Hypothetical Details: The article includes hypothetical scenarios, such as the one about NASA’s thermal-protection or encryption technologies, to illustrate potential risks and vulnerabilities.
NOTE (from me not CoPilot): I think we can all agree hypotheticals are pointless if you haven't reliably established baseline 'facts' the support the hypothetical - so far there is a running trend, as it's all based on hypothetical fear mongering
That's it - that's the meat of this article.
The articles is also riddles with other clues that this is a slanted report like: "One experienced government information-security contractor offered a blunt response to the God-mode situation at USAID: “That sounds like our worst fears come true.”" -- ok but he clearly has no knowledge, so describing a worst fear and then going 'omg that soudds bad' is pointless..
People really need to step up their media literacy skills if they want to get through the next four years without having an aneurhysim -- and this to me just says that the work DOGE is doing is probably threatening the pocket books of many 'important people'.
Hey speaking of important people, who funds The Atlantic anyway...
"The Atlantic is a left-of-center literary, political, and ideas magazine that publishes ten issues per year. It was founded as The Atlantic Monthly in 1857 by several prominent American literary figures such as Ralph Waldo Emerson and Henry Wadsworth Longfellow. 1 In 2017 the Emerson Collective, a left-of-center private grantmaking enterprise funded by Laurene Powell Jobs, the widow and heir of Apple Computer executive Steve Jobs, purchased majority ownership. 2 Jeffrey Goldberg, previously a prominent writer for the magazine, was named editor-in-chief in October 2016. 3
In contrast to most of its editorial history, after 2016 political criticism became a much larger priority for The Atlantic. From its founding in 1857 to 2016, the publication had endorsed only two presidential candidates, but then did so for two elections in a row in 2016 and 2020, declaring in 2020 that President Donald Trump “poses a threat to our collective existence.” After Trump’s 2016 election, the magazine sharply increased the attention it dedicated to politicians and the presidency. From 2016 through 2019 (covering the 2016 election and first three years of the Trump administration), President Donald Trump was the subject of eight cover stories–all negative. This contrasts with President Barack Obama, who—following a cover story for his January 2009 inauguration—was not the subject of another cover story for the next two years. Similarly, from 2000 through 2003 (i.e.: the 2000 Presidential election and first three years of the George W. Bush administration) President George W. Bush was directly referenced in just one cover feature."
I bet these guys are super duper impartial and we should all just trust that this journalists 'anonymous sources' who never are quoted in any manner which implies the god mode claims are true must be true. I couldn't conceive of a situation where they may lie about something this egregious through carefully worded articles which state nothing of the nature of the access, are all off record anonymous sources, and which clearly has an axe to grind with Trump in particular.
Just days prior to Goldberg’s promotion, the magazine endorsed Democrat Hillary Clinton for president, The Atlantic’s first presidential endorsement since 1964 and only the third in its history. In October 2020, the Goldberg-led publication made its fourth presidential endorsement for Democratic nominee (and eventual winner) Joe Biden. The essays were respectively titled “Against Donald Trump” (2016) and “The Case Against Donald Trump” (2020). The 2020 endorsement asserted Trump “poses a threat to our collective existence” and that “the choice voters face is spectacularly obvious.
In July 2017, David G. Bradley, then the owner of The Atlantic, announced he was selling a majority stake in the magazine to the Emerson Collective, a left-of-center private grantmaking enterprise funded by Laurene Powell Jobs, the widow of Apple Computer executive Steve Jobs. The announcement stated the Emerson Collective would likely assume “full ownership” of the publication within five years, or by summer of 2022. The reported purchase price for Jobs’ initial 70 percent stake was $100 million. ”
....
“It felt like the place was becoming a hot-take factory,” said one recently departed writer. “That can be profitable, of course, because hot takes don’t cost much.”
Here are a few choice items though that just -might- impact their impartiality and should maybe cause you to second guess if 'anonymous, unquoted sources' are a great journalistic bar for 'the truth':
"A September 2020 report authored by Jeffrey Goldberg, editor-in-chief of The Atlantic, cited “multiple sources” claiming President Donald Trump had disparaged the historical sacrifices made by American military personnel. The headline read “Trump: Americans Who Died in War Are ‘Losers’ and ‘Suckers’” with a sub-headline sentence stating “The president has repeatedly disparaged the intelligence of service members, and asked that wounded veterans be kept out of military parades, multiple sources tell The Atlantic.” 15
Both the content and context of the allegation was disputed in whole or in part by the president, his staff, and even some of his critics, including left-wing journalists.
The two opening paragraphs set the context and provided the sourcing for the allegation:
When President Donald Trump canceled a visit to the Aisne-Marne American Cemetery near Paris in 2018, he blamed rain for the last-minute decision, saying that “the helicopter couldn’t fly” and that the Secret Service wouldn’t drive him there. Neither claim was true.
Trump rejected the idea of the visit because he feared his hair would become disheveled in the rain, and because he did not believe it important to honor American war dead, according to four people with firsthand knowledge of the discussion that day. In a conversation with senior staff members on the morning of the scheduled visit, Trump said, “Why should I go to that cemetery? It’s filled with losers.” In a separate conversation on the same trip, Trump referred to the more than 1,800 marines who lost their lives at Belleau Wood as “suckers” for getting killed. 15
John Bolton, the President’s former National Security Advisor turned Trump critic, was on the 2018 trip and involved in the discussion regarding the motive for the helicopter grounding and cancelling of the motorcade alternative. Despite having become a severe Trump critic who had by September 2020 stated that President Trump was not fit for office, Bolton gave the New York Times an eyewitness account of the incident that differed sharply from that presented by The Atlantic
Mr. Bolton said he was in the room at the ambassador’s residence when Mr. Trump arrived and Mr. [White House Chief of Staff John] Kelly told him that the helicopter trip had to be canceled. A two-hour motorcade would have put him too far away from Air Force One and the most capable communications array a president needs in case of an emergency, per usual protocol, Mr. Bolton said. “It was a straight weather call,” he said." .... "Former White House press secretary Sarah Huckabee Sanders stated: “I was actually there and one of the people part of the discussion — this never happened.” And Jordan Karem, the former personal assistant to the president during period in question, replied to the story with a Twitter statement: “This is not even close to being factually accurate. Plain and simple, it just never happened.”"
So they literally have just 'made up' stuff about Trumpt to make him look vein and stupid, and people who basically hate him even called them on this charade. And I know for sure I remember this making the rounds -- so their lies get around due tot their perceived authority.
This was the rationale:
Goldberg replied: “They don’t want to be inundated with angry tweets and all the rest … In this case I decided that I felt I knew this information well enough, from high enough sources, and multiple sources, that I thought we should put it out.”
I'll stop here - but if you go on to read the rest, Glenn Greenwald (an actually good investigative journalist with integrity) rips The Atlantic to shreds, they have multiple other controversies, they have dubious financial ties... and so on
If you believe this 'God Mode' article it is strictly an act of faith in the party you have pronounced your allegiance to.
Think about it once they begin putting the opposition on show trials.
https://twitter.com/electricfutures/status/18918983362081056...
> The single biggest ticket item is a DHS contract listed as saving $8 billion. Wow, that's a huge contract! Actually no, it's $8 million. They must have tried to automate scraping the FPDS form and failed.
And it does not say anything about what is being cut by cancelling the contract and whether it is useful or not.
https://www.nytimes.com/2025/02/18/upshot/doge-contracts-mus...
The DOGE website initially included a screenshot from the federal contracting database showing that the contract’s value was $8 million, even as the DOGE site listed $8 billion in savings. On Tuesday night, around the time this article was published, DOGE removed the screenshot that showed the mismatch, but continued to claim $8 billion in savings. It added a link to the original, outdated version of the contract worth $8 billion.
Trustworthy and transparent. I guess fixing a typo is worth $8B?
It's possible that DOGE or someone else in the Trump administration can claim credit for fixing the error in the contracting database, given that the value was downgraded to $8 million two days after President Trump took office. "
-NYT TFA
So Bureaucracy incompetence, mistake is around for >2 years, DOGE fixes it.
Screenshot and FPDS DB were out of sync, "PDS posting of the final termination notices can have up to a 1-month lag."
Your bias is blinding you to what is the obvious explanation that I'm sure you'd recognize if you saw it on a non-political website.
I just want to point out one more thing: DOGE didn't advertise this 8M savings anywhere, there wasn't a speech about it etc. This was found on https://doge.gov/savings
They occasionally make minor mistakes! If only voters had known that occasionally minor mistakes (in reporting of all places) might be made, they'd have insisted we stick with the bureaucracy they know and love!
But hey, I guess it at least did happen. It's better than the grasping-at-straws "they'll probably leak your SS number" talking point. And the "he'll redirect treasury payments to himself" talking point.
I think the people in DOGE have the skills and access to address it.
I have no evidence that they are doing so, and some evidence of widespread loyalty tests which, while not identical, remind me of how Stalin came to power.
However, absence if evidence is not evidence of absence, and some evidence is not the same as proof.
I have dozens of explanations which fit the facts, and I don't have any way to determine which, if any, is correct.
I doubt they will fix that
And even if you’re ok with getting rid of these jobs, the biggest impact might not even be the loss of these jobs but the loss of the consumers who had these jobs spending money in their local communities.
That benefits no one, except for the employee.
Millions vs billions.
Given that just getting the names of the people involved in this process incurred Musk's wrath and accusations of criminal behaviour... how can you have any justified belief in people having 'skills' to address 'fraud' and 'inefficiency'?
We'd need some common definition of 'fraud' in the first place. Many of the things that have been labelled 'corruption' seem to just be 'things Musk doesn't like'; I suspect 'fraud' would be similar.
"Inefficiencies" - we have the Chesterton's Fence idea to illustrate that what might be 'inefficient' is intentional with an overall positive purpose. Again, define 'inefficiency'. The rate at which firings have been happening may certainly be 'efficient' from an operational standpoint, but having to scramble to rehire key people who shouldn't have been fired in the first place is 'inefficient' at best.
> I have dozens of explanations which fit the facts, and I don't have any way to determine which, if any, is correct.
I'm not sure we have enough verifiable 'facts' that can support many conclusions at all, and I think that 'fact' itself is evidence of intentionality in keeping the public in the dark about what's going on and why.
Do we know any of them? How many are accountants, auditors, etc, people with decades of experience with government affairs?
This may change at some point in the future, but I would hardly say that using an LLM is "close to having someone with that experience and knowledge," or maybe it is "close" but it isn't a substitute for "having" when dealing with serious topics.
LLMs are basically a C+/B- student, I wouldn't trust my life to any of them.
https://www.wsj.com/politics/policy/doge-musk-government-was...
"This is incompetence born of self-confidence. It’s a familiar Silicon Valley mindset, the reason startups are forever reinventing a bus, or a bodega, or mail. It’s the implacable certainty that if you’re smart at one thing you must be smart at all of the things."
"And if you don’t believe in the public good? You sprint through the ruination. You metastasize from agency to agency, leveling the maximum allowable destruction under the law. DOGE’s costly, embarrassing mistakes are a byproduct of reckless nihilism; if artificial intelligence can sell you a pizza, of course it can future-proof the General Services Administration.
https://www.wired.com/story/doge-incompetence-mistakes-featu...
The top-line summaries are definitely consistent with “waste.” Probably some of them have more nuance when you dig deeper, but does anyone disagree that there is not waste in the government?
Fraud and abuse are less clear. But it’s also difficult to ascertain the legitimacy of payments when they’re leaving treasury on checks with no memo or reference, and they’re compared to “do not pay” lists that lack frequent updates.
Here are some of my opinions, as someone who is mostly supportive of the effort but also realistic about its outcomes and risks:
1. The people voted for smaller government, and if the executive doesn’t have the power to reduce the size of its own bureaucracy, then there is no check on ever-expanding government. The executive must have full authority to examine all data produced by itself.
2. Federal spending on salary, agencies and operations is a drop in the bucket compared to entitlements and defense budget. Slashing jobs and even deleting entire agencies will not make a significant dent in the deficit. But if DOGE can really cut $1 trillion by end of year, it will have positive knock-on effects in the bond market.
3. Entitlements shouldn’t be treated with same bull-in-a-china shop approach as the current one towards agencies.
4. Social security probably has some fraud but I doubt it’s significant and is better resolved by identifying and punishing retroactively. Most of the “150 year old people” problems are exaggerated or outright wrong. However, it’s worrying that a system of age-based payouts has such uncertainty in its data.
5. It’s widely known there is significant fraud in Medicaid and Medicare. The true volume of this fraud is unknown and any effort to quantify it would be welcomed. But while fraudulent claims may be an issue, the real problem is unaccountable pricing of the healthcare system that allows for “legitimate” claims to cost more than any sane person would pay out of pocket.
6. In general, “if nothing breaks, you’re not cutting enough” is obviously true. But it does not follow that “things breaking” is an acceptable cost to pay. The approach needs to come with a well-defined rubric for evaluating not only “what to cut,” but also “which cuts to rollback.”
The 'right' are all about being open. If something is being cut, or fired, then publish those finding openly. Make the data public, for open review.
Funny how all of a sudden "we need to keep what we are doing secrete" is a fine argument.
Otherwise you are just putting in place a new 'Deep State'. Guess that is fine and dandy now.
But one of the first things Trump did was fire a bunch of them. Blatantly illegally, because of course that’s how he’d do it.
The data itself may have to be interpreted, which I would classify as 'suboptimal', but seemingly 'normal' for most projects I work with. I often have to join together various tables, remembering to include or exclude specific data via conditional logic. The conditional logic may be context-dependent, and documenting those cases is really key. Why include/exclude specific subsets of data to answer questions XYZ? Have those criteria changed over the years (and if so, why?)
Looking at raw data tables it's often quite easy to come up with ways to show the data to support whatever case you're trying to make.
But, every organization accumulates waste, and then needs to have a review process to make corrections. The whole burn it all down is pretty immature take on leadership.
Every corporation has waste, and bloated salaries, entitlements (the bosses son doesn't do much but has fat salary). Should DOGE go in and cut them also?
Can you give a reference for an analysis of some cancelled contract or program that illustrates your point that it was wasteful spending? I'm looking for something that explains what the contract or program did beyond the 10-word title of the appropriations document saying something like "DEIA Training". (I work for a big private corporation and we also have such training, and I don't think from the corporate perspective its waste; I strongly suspect they attempt to balance the spend on that training to the cost reduction on lawsuit payouts. And especially from the government perspective, harm reduction should also be accounted separately from pure cost considerations.)
It will certainly be interesting to see how the US economy will be affected by $1 trillion less money circulating.
How and why would this produce positive knock-on effects in the bond market?
I personally am just as worried that reducing US gov spending will worsen a potential 2025 or 2026 recession (which might lower rates...)
https://bipartisanpolicy.org/explainer/immigration-social-se...
From a policy perspective making it harder for illegal immigrants to be employed might make it worth cracking down on this. But doing so would cost the government money both by preventing these payments into Social Security that don't have to be paid out and also the cost of the crackdown itself.
Their is a huge conflict of ingerest of giving this power to a major economical actor that vastly depends on public investment and under public scrutinity.
Executive should have the audit right and in some measure probably it should be widespread to all citizens up to sensitive data not being leaked. But what good is there to give this power solely to one of the richest and more powerful man in the world? This is crazy.
The people voted for President and the people voted for Congress. If Congress, who under the US Constitution controls the purse, votes for a level of "X" spending why does the President get to decide to spend <X?
> 6. In general, “if nothing breaks, you’re not cutting enough” is obviously true.
It is not obviously true. Because what you're cutting may be resiliency.
To use a tech analogy: if I have two firewalls in an HA configuration, then decommissioning one to save on support costs will not break things… until the first one goes belly-up and there's no failover.
There's a reasonable argument to be made that more government capacity is actually needed (at least in certain sectors):
* https://www.noahpinion.blog/p/america-needs-a-bigger-better-...
The IRS for example would probably do better with more resources:
> That’s one reason that five former commissioners of IRS, Republican and Democrat, have argued eloquently that additional IRS resources would create a fairer tax system. The logic is simple. Fewer resources for the IRS mean reduced enforcement of tax laws. Though the tax code has become more complex, prior to the IRA real resources of the IRS had been cut by about 23 percent from 2010 to 2021.
* https://taxpolicycenter.org/taxvox/cutting-irs-resources-and...
> Congress asked the IRS to report on why it audits the poor more than the affluent. Its response is that it doesn’t have enough money and people to audit the wealthy properly. So it’s not going to.
* https://www.propublica.org/article/irs-sorry-but-its-just-ea...
Congress specifies the size of most government bodies through its Article 1 power of Appropriation. The Executive's job is to administer what the People's delegates have decided to do. Deciding how much to spend is not the President job, and never has been.
The Republican Congress that was also presumably just elected to reduce government can at any time send legislation to the Republican President that will reduce the size of government; in fact, they are working on a budget bill right now. They are free to restructure government as much as they want, because Congress has been explicitly vested with that power.
A lot of people don't like this, but the Constitution is very clear on this point. It's also quite readable; you can read it yourself and verify that I am not making this up!
The people should educate themselves then. The way to reduce the budget is to elect different congresspeople. We did this in the 90s. It sure is funny how insistent all these people are that we can't just do what we've done before. Are they children who didn't live through the deficit hawk era?
2. "Their claim is impossible, but if they did it, that would be great"
4. "However, it’s worrying that a system of age-based payouts has such uncertainty in its data."
SS payouts ARE NOT based on age, but "eligibility", which age is an input to. The government purposely keeps very gentle records on it's citizens because once we saw a country keep really good records on it's people and then Bad Things happened, and also stuff about the mark of the beast. More importantly, the government takes a light touch to data integrity because the data doesn't matter. If you say you are eligible for benefits, the data says no, you can verify your eligibility a lot of ways and the data does not get updated, because we aren't supposed to be a surveillance state like that. If you want to update your records with the government, you can contact the Social Security admin and do it that way. One of the things Social Security pays out for is Ex Spouses, and that includes Abusive Ex Spouses. Your Abusive Ex I'm sure would love if the SS admin had accurate records about where they can find you. This is a legitimate concern that people working in government have had to address regularly.
5. Define significant. "Everyone thinks X" is a stupid heuristic when ONLY 47% of the country can even name the three branches of government. I don't care what Tim or Sasha think of medicare fraud, I care what GAO or an AG say about medicare fraud.
6. “if nothing breaks, you’re not cutting enough” is obviously true. Nope. Sometimes you just cannot recognize the breaks right away. The stricken vessel can keep going for quite some time before fully sinking. Cutting until shit breaks means you have to figure out what else is broken but not obviously so
And all this nonsense is shattered anyway when the basic premise of "Reducing the debt" is horseshit, which you can see from the tax plan being pushed.
This is based on their statistics so I imagine the next step is to find the actual waste and fraud and stop it or get the money back.
More broadly: People who care about improving things move carefully and deliberately and involve all stakeholders. They are open and transparent and they listen. Trump and Musk are exhibiting horrible leadership skills because they do not care about improving things. Trump wants to hurt his perceived enemies and feel like he’s a big smart boss man. Musk wants to be the first trillionaire. That’s the start and end of it.
1. The people who'll suffer or die from their mal-management will generally be faraway foreigners, as opposed to people voters know.
2. More of the victims have a much more difficult time launching any kind of lawsuit in US courts.
3. It has a small veneer of Presidential-involvement-ness due to its proximity to diplomacy and foreign relations.
4. Like tariffs, being able to withhold aid allows Trump to commit extortion against other countries, much like how he was impeached for extorting Ukraine in his first term.
From a House Committee report matching Elon’s actions to agencies he has personal issues with:
https://democrats-judiciary.house.gov/uploadedfiles/2025.02....
[1] https://www.newsweek.com/usaid-elon-musk-starlink-probe-ukra...
Musk gets his world view from far-right conspiracists.
Basically give/loan money, get international political support back. Use political support to bully international institutions (UN, WTO, WHO, etc) to do what you want.
I guess soft-power is not enough anymore, they want all the power.
Now the right is "screw soft-power" and the left is "think of the children". And in the middle people suffering like always.
The worse part is that a lot/most of that aid is probably of very benign influence, but it is definitely also used for nefarious reasons.
When Trump attacks USAID (or the CIA or the FBI) from the nationalist authoritarian right, it in no way counterbalances people criticizing it from the left.
In particular, the left criticism of USAID were always "think of the children" because they wanted it to do that more and better. They have remained consistent in that.
Oh, and of course, graft.
Lo and behold, the KKK contingent took over the entire party, to the point Liz Cheney (of all people) got kicked out. And the KKK, neo-Nazis, neo-feudalists, Christian nationalists fringes banded together in common cause.
So yes, the Republican party doesn't look like it did 40 years ago, but at the same time it looks exactly like it did 40 years ago.
A lot of that soft-power has been spent on getting other countries to be more democratic, which is a good thing. Although I don't doubt it has been used for bad reasons as well.
They were investigating Starlink:
https://web.archive.org/web/20250101100055/https://www.usaid...
That's now removed from the live website.
Point being, it's a little strange USAID was immediately targeted for destruction with extreme prejudice by the same man providing the terminals.
Especially given their contentious history:
Yeah wow, so corrupt. /s
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Agency_for_Inter...
https://abcnews.go.com/US/former-usaid-official-calls-closur...
>"U.S. District Judge Carl Nichols, a Trump appointee, ..."
>"Nichols noted that despite Trump’s claim of massive “corruption and fraud” in the agency, government lawyers had no support for that argument in court."
Meanwhile, the reality of the situation is simply tragic. [1]
[0] https://www.politico.com/news/2025/02/07/judge-blocks-trump-...
[1] https://www.theguardian.com/world/2025/feb/24/donald-trump-u...
Not sure what's your point on the Politico article. It is tragic that disrupt a lot of people's lives. Like I said, it doesn't mean there's no corruption, only good is happening. Both things can be true at the same time. This thing can be tragic, Congress might get their shit together - hopefully.
Harsh words for people documenting genocide.
>Not sure what's your point on the Politico article.
It was a supporting citation for the federal judge pointing out that no evidence was presented of the supposed corruption.
USAID funded the hepatitis vaccination drive that the CIA used as a cover for espionage against the bin laden family, leading to polio outbreak in pakistan.
https://pulitzercenter.org/stories/he-led-cia-bin-laden-and-...
Distaste for USAID in any other time would be bipartisan; the Clinton Administration floated shuttering it too. If you go to DC a lot of insiders will say, 'yeah, USAID's got to go'.
I think you’ve identified the wrong culprit there buddy.
> The decision to enlist Afridi was probably made by the CIA station chief in Islamabad and was passed on to the Counterterrorism Center back in Langley.
Again, do you think the head of USAID could have just told the head of CIA "no we're not doing this"?
What makes you think they were informed at all? That's kind of the entire MO of CIA - they don't inform other agencies what they are doing when it concerns national security, they just go and do it.
If you're a midlevel program manager (or whatever role label they have) at USAID you should be noticing that vaccines are not being given out. If USAID doesn't have the capability to monitor its programs to the point where that level of accountability exists, then it shouldn't exist.
"do you think the head of USAID could have just told the head of CIA "no we're not doing this"?"
>>If USAID doesn't have the capability to monitor its programs to the point where that level of accountability exists
If you think CIA hasn't thought about this and addressed it some other way, then I guess the assumption we're working with is that CIA is literally incompetent at their actual job.
You're barking at the wrong tree. Be angry at CIA for doing this shit, not at USAID for running a program that got hijacked by them.
However, I'm sure Cia has done, does, and will do much worse things than usaid
How do you imagine any agency to "stop spending"? Are salaries not to be paid? Are contracts not to be fulfilled? Are rents not to be paid?
So yes, I don't have any numbers, but I'm used to trusting my own eyes. And what I see (on this particular issue) is way more consistent with what Musk says than with what his opponents say.
Personal anecdotes are never a good proof of anything.
> So yes, I don't have any numbers, but I'm used to trusting my own eyes.
So you don't believe in viruses bacteria to name just a few things you can't see with your own eyes?
USAID had many programs, only a number which where about helping the poor, and it's possible those didn't specifically target your country.
E.g. between the poor and hungry people in Moldova (my own native country) and in Sudan USAID would probably chose those in Sudan (what with war and genocide and...). And they might chose to support businesses in Moldova instead (and they did).
I'm not saying it's a perfect program devoid of any corruption. What I'm saying I can come up with as many bogus numbers, and with as many personal anecdotes as the next guy.
And Elon sure as hell resists any attempts to shed light on his activities and claims.
> Only left-leaning democrat's shield "independent" journalists, whose job mostly consist of ideological reprogramming and who now scream all over twitter how Trump destroys their lives. ONLY.
Do you think they do that because they lost funding, or because, say, China or Russia stepped into the void with literally the same support programs?
Obviously. But when such anecdotes are consistent with the position of the democratically elected president of USA... What specific reasons do I have to not trust to MY eyes?
>So you don't believe in viruses bacteria to name just a few things you can't see with your own eyes?
No, where did you get that from?
>USAID had many programs, only a number which where about helping the poor, and it's possible those didn't specifically target your country.
Got it. My leftist country were targeted by programs, that promote democrat's left-leaning agenda. Helping poor and hungry - it is for others countries. It’s even surprising, why anyone would hinder such an amazing organization.
>Do you think they do that because they lost funding, or because, say, China or Russia stepped into the void with literally the same support programs?
How are you imagine this? I mean if China or Russia is ready to pay to promote the idea that Trump is the greatest evil on the planet, then maybe.
I despair at the thought process that crams these two things together.
2.5% overhead would be really good. Most charities don’t come close.
“Ideological reprogramming,” whatever that actually means, would be completely different.
[1] https://chatgpt.com/share/67b7a0c4-bf48-8011-9997-41b350dd0b...
How are you figuring that none of that is reaching endpoint users? E.g. I imagine the International Red Cross could be such a partner.
Boris Johnson shut down the British equivalent(Department for International Development) and scrapped the commitment to spend 0.7% of GDP on aid.
It's simplistic, drastic and brings no specific domestic effect which could be a rallying point for unrest.
It's also very easy to come up with rage bait stories of corruption and waste as justification, because in any organisation spending billions of dollars around the world you will always be to find something ridiculous that got funding, even though the proportion of the budget it represents is insignificant.
Neo-Conservatives were a branch of Democrat wark-hawks who wanted to police the world, that were upset about the pacifist attitude of the Democrats at the time - they emerged in the 60's and managed to largely take control of the Republican party moving forward, peaking under George W Bush.
Their founding principal was "Peace Through Strength" and have a strong belief in worldwide interventionism.
If you think the 'MAGA' / 'Trump' party is neo-conservative you literally just are ignoring the entire history, the power struggle (which Trump won) to retake the party from the Neo-Cons, and the fact that the trump admin is largely isolationist and opposed to being the world police.
Don't get me wrong there are still some neo-cons in office and with roles in his admin, but the republican infighting can be summarized as neocon vs MAGA.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neoconservatism https://www.britannica.com/topic/neoconservatism
Words mean things. The MAGE/America First party is focused on non-interventionism, advocate against regime change abroad, with a focus on America and it's interest rather than the endless wars.
You can debate the success or merit of that approach I guess, but the Neo-Cons are very happy to provide foreign aid as it is core to their ideology. They tend to do it via NED while the left uses USAID more (although both use both, but they each have lean in one direction).
Just for fun, I just tried this little experiment you can try to: " CoPilot: Can you rationally describe Trump as a neocon?
CoPilot: No, it would not be accurate to rationally state that Donald Trump is a neoconservative (neocon). Here are some key differences:
Foreign Policy: Neocons: Advocate for interventionist foreign policies, promoting democracy and regime change abroad. Trump: Emphasizes “America First” policies, focusing on non-interventionism, reducing military engagements abroad, and prioritizing domestic issues.
Military Engagement: Neocons: Support maintaining strong international alliances and a significant military presence globally.
Trump: Criticized NATO, praised authoritarian leaders like Vladimir Putin, and negotiated troop withdrawals from conflict zones like Afghanistan.
Economic Policies: Neocons: Generally support free trade and globalization.
Trump: Advocates for economic nationalism, including tariffs and renegotiating trade deals to favor American interests.
These differences highlight that Trump’s policies and ideology do not align with neoconservative principles. If you have any more questions or need further details, feel free to ask! "
/ ˌlɪbəˈtɛərɪən /
noun
1) an idiotThey were funding censorship campaigns on American citizens etc
If you wouldn't mind reviewing https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html and taking the intended spirit of the site more to heart, we'd be grateful.
If you wouldn't mind reviewing https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html and taking the intended spirit of the site more to heart, we'd be grateful.
Also: please don't use 'edit' to do deletions that deprive replies of context. That's unfair to readers.
Hell, there should have been massive riots by the left now, though the funding has now disappeared for the professional organisers and rent a crowd.
Democrats are 20 mil in debt from the election, and now their money funnels have been closed down. They simply weren't expecting this.
https://www.businessinsider.com/doge-savings-estimate-websit...
https://www.axios.com/2025/02/19/doge-musk-audit-mistake-sav...
https://www.cbsnews.com/amp/news/doge-wall-of-receipts-shows...
So yeah they are lying; whether intentionally or unintentionally. At this point I’m not sure what is worse.
A lot of people (particularly on Reddit) have been driven insane by psyops, they can't critically think outside what they are told to think anymore. It's amazing to watch, and also quite sad/scary
https://www.amnesty.org/en/latest/news/2022/06/el-salvador-p...
Because it's not a foregone conclusion that it is.
At least not based on "according to an employee in senior leadership at USAID".
A thin majority in an election with a poor (and/or constrained) turnout in a lop-sided nonsense of an electoral system with disproportionate weightings voted for parts of this.
The 2024 election had historically high turnout. The 2nd highest turnout since 1968, the 7th highest since 1932.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Voter_turnout_in_United_States...
Voter turnout nationally in 2024 was 63.9 percent (below the 66.6 percent voter turnout recorded in 2020).
So 31.8 percent of the eligible voters in the USofA voted for Trump in the 2024 elections, most eligible voters didn't vote for Trump.
Eligible Voters aside, an even greater percentage of people in the USofA didn't vote for Trump being too young or otherwise disenfranchised.
Of those that did vote for Trump it's a leap to say that all of them voted to fire the chief government records keeper, to empower DOGE to gut departments, etc; like Brexit, many of those who voted for it had no real idea what they had voted for.
In the campaign Trump ran to avoid jail he repeatedly stated he wasn't aware of the Project 2025 playbook, that he would be all things to all people. People who voted for Trump voted for what they heard, what they thought he promised.
Most of the citizens in the USofA did not vote Trump, not all of those voted to gut the government, the sciences, foreign aid, etc.
Like Brexit, people who don’t like what’s happening come up with all sorts of convoluted explanations for why democracy doesn’t apply when their position loses. It seems to regularly boil down to “people who don’t vote the way I would like are too foolish and were tricked or brainwashed and if only they were enlightened they would vote my way.” I don’t think this is a winning message but we seem to be doubling down.
It is very rarely what the minority that voted directly for a specific party of candidate wanted. That's just a dull bald fact, not at all convoluted.
49.8% Trump, 48.3% Harris
Though you could include the .49% that voted for RFK (you'd maybe need to decide which side to add Jill Stein Green and Libertarian candidate too).
Please don't post flamewar comments to HN generally. It's not what this site is for, and destroys what it is for.
(Fortunately your earlier comment history seems fine, so this should be easy to fix.)
I seriously want a real, non-politically based argument on why we shouldnt be trying to 1. find fraud 2. fire 10-20% of these people immediately
Imagine what we can do in 2025 by applying LLM search to all of the federal paperwork!
Especially when you look at the background of the Doge team - 'ex' hackers, 'security specialists', full-on racists...
Perhaps surprisingly, the CEO of YC and Paul Graham have been publicly supportive of the DOGE team, despite all the racism and existential threat. I don't know if that's from fear, or greed, but there are strong arguments for both.
Some of the stories about this topic which have been flagged here can be seen in my favorites. I'd be interested in collecting more examples, if you know of any missing.
> In the coming weeks, the team is expected to enter IT systems at the CDC and Federal Aviation Administration, and it already has done so at NASA, according to sources we’ve spoken with at each of those agencies. At least one DOGE ally appears to be working to open back doors into systems used throughout the federal government.
If discussing this openly and often this isn't possible due to very simple flag abuse, then what is this community actually even worth.
The issue isn’t what we think. The issue is what we think OTHERS think.
This is what social media truly fucks up. We can’t see the people nodding in disagreement. We can only see their silence, and we must respond to the person who IS talking and holding our attention.
Practically - I care about privacy, and I expect that damn near most people here care about it.
People can have their “well actually” arguments, but when push comes to shove, techies on HN should vocalize their annoyance with the way this is being done. Even if you support their politics, this ISNT how you execute secure projects.
Wrong from the start. The Emperor isn’t wearing any clothes territory. We dont have to agree on other things.
> …
> If discussing this openly and often this isn't possible due to very simple flag abuse, then what is this community actually even worth.
Just want to add to this topic that HN advertises YC AI Startup school: https://events.ycombinator.com/ai-sus - where Musk is listed as a first speaker.
Though it doesn’t surprise me - YC is in the same circle of radical technocrats (a16z, Altman, Musk, etc.) and hosted Balaji talking about dystopian plans about techno-authoritarian city states 10 or 15 years ago.
Listening to him talk about Elon taking over Twitter and that leading to more free speech was embarrassing. Like, actual adults believe this shit.
Protesting against police brutality of suffocating apprehended person is apparently “peak woke”.
Musk apparently “succeded in neutralizing” twitter - “without censoring either” (left or right). He argues in the notes that Musk prioritized paid users and paid users are more right wing and hence left wing users self censored themselves, but left “could tilt it back if they wanted to”.
EDIT: also again proving my original comment - PG is thanking Sam Altman for proof reading the post…
It seems more likely that they’ll gain access to all these systems, be completely overwhelmed about what to do, and then do small things that wouldn’t actually have an impact but would gain headlines, and then call it a day.