More than 20 Musk staffers resign over DOGE's 'dismantling of public services' | Hacker News Reader

More than 20 Musk staffers resign over DOGE's 'dismantling of public services'

theguardian.com

74 pointsjmsflknr36 comments

This is a refreshing break from the usual 'Replacement Excuse' in tech—'If I don’t do it, someone else will, so I might as well profit from it.'

The headline seems kind of misleading. It looks like they weren't "Musk staffers", they were employees who worked at the US Digital Service.

They are Musk staffers now since the USDS was rebranded DOGE, making existing USDS employees DOGE employees.

However, Musk doesn't actually lead DOGE, or work in DOGE, he's a special advisor to the president, so they're not really even his staffers.

He's the one giving the orders, so yeah, they're his staffers. In Trump's own words, Elon is running DOGE.

Also the WH is unable to say who is actually in charge of DOGE and giving the orders if not Musk.

Yes and this is just obvious legal maneuvering to avoid accountability

Amy Gleason is in charge of DOGE.

LOL

Unfortunately, they will be replaced with those sympathetic to the nerd reich takeover and thus ultimately reduce friction and for those in charge looking to wield the wrecking ball. It feels like half the goal of DOGE and similar measures is to purge those with a conscience and loyalty to public service and replace them with those willing to do almost anything asked of them.

I think the idea is that they are some of the ones that know where all the procedures (and skeletons) are buried, so the DOGEkids will be slowed down because they'll be trying to examine and audit systems they don't understand.

I agree that's probably the rationale, I am just afraid the Dogekids won't let a lack of understanding slow them down.

Our government is starting to have a bit of a 1970's Cambodia feel to its anti-intelligentsia.

where and how does one acquire the '1970's Cambodia feel' without having actually been there?

If only there was some way to learn about things without experiencing them first hand. Alas!

> Our government is starting to have a bit of a 1970's Cambodia feel to its anti-intelligentsia.

Anti-intellectualism has a long history in the US:

* https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anti-intellectualism_in_Americ...

* https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anti-intellectualism#In_the_Un...

Here's the actual letter: https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/25544180-usds-resign...

https://archive.ph/es38j

Who will be hurt the most by this?

Not rich billionaires like Musk.

The answer is the working class folks who voted for Trump?

The same answer applies to who will be hurt the most by tariffs.

Amazingly, lots of ordinary folks were hoodwinked into giving rich billionaires more control --- over themselves and their lives. Stupid is as stupid does.

How is resigning a way to serve that oath?

They don't take an oath to the job.

See TFA?

“We swore to serve the American people and uphold our oath to the constitution across presidential administrations,” the 21 staffers wrote in a joint resignation letter, a copy of which was obtained by the Associated Press. “However, it has become clear that we can no longer honor those commitments.”

I still don't understand the question. Resignation because you don't feel you are able to fulfill the commitments of your job is a pretty standard way to publicly resign from some public service position in protest? There's probably a couple of hundred of years worth of examples.

Don't feed the trolls. You're arguing with somebody who is being obtuse.

Resigning in protest has been common over the years. Of course (like reading the TFA?). I don't see it being effective besides bringing attention to the problem. In this case, it's not like there isn't enough attention. There's already plenty of attention.

During the first Trump round, there seemed to be an effort to resist and obstruct from the inside. In some cases pretty effective. That also seems to be something Trump is trying to fight this time around. He noticed. Still an option.

A third method would be to remain in place, mitigate as possible, but mostly maintain the knowledge and experience in place to rebuild things at the next opportunity.

I'm sure more ways can be dug out from history too.

So, yeah, there are options.

> There's already plenty of attention.

This is what you're missing. No there isn't. The more people who publicly pay a high personal cost to bring further attention to these problems, the more awareness there will be among the electorate.

The "effort to resist and obstruct from the inside" was largely driven from the top, cabinet officials and agency heads pushing back, not from people at the edges ignoring or countermanding direction.

What would you do if your employer asked you to do something unethical?

For me, I would resign. Yes, they'll probably find someone else that is willing and able to do it, but I don't want to do the unethical thing.

When a federal employee is directed to do things that they feel violate their oath to the constitution, they have a few choices: 1. Violate their oath, 2. Refuse to follow the directive, 3. Resign.

In my view resigning, especially a large coordinated resignation that receives at least some media attention, is often the best of those options.

They swore an oath to support and defend the Constitution from enemies foreign and domestic, 5 USC 3331. The oath is not to a president. If staffers think the administration is ordering them to conduct in illegalities, they're obligated to resign.

IANAL but that statute doesn't protect them from remaining in the job and actively thwarting the administration's policies even if they are illegal. There are whistleblower laws that might provide such protections. But as this regime has asserted the concept of the unitary executive, it's likely the case that whistleblower laws are in abeyance for the duration of the regime.

Presumably, they already tried pushing back internally, and it didn't work. So they're resigning, publicly and loudly, which is the best available option.

As opposed to being fired though? I'm just spitballing here because I don't work there and don't know their workplace dynamic, but staying in the job and refusing to do the specific acts you find repugnant, forcing their boss to fire them, is another way to go about it. The precedent is set by county clerks refusing to sign marriage certificates for gay people despite the law explicitly saying that's allowed.

I think a splashy coordinated resignation seems better. But certainly there's not like some obvious best option!

Because what you're being asked to do is in contravention of that oath, therefore the only way to serve the oath is to resign.

Highly misleading article and reporting. These were apparently hold overs from USDS, not DOGE hires.

https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/doge/21-doge-staffers-resig...

It's not misleading. The article states they were originally USDS employees. Nonetheless when DOGE came into being, it became the USDS and changed its name, therefore all those USDS employees are DOGE employees and are resigning from DOGE not the USDS (which no longer exists). So the article is correct.

The misleading detail on the holdovers, the lack of acknowledgment that these people are just not doing their job, the lack of context on how big or small 21 is - all of it is intentional. The outlets that run these stories, like the guardian, and the people who work at them, have a bias.

Come on. That is ridiculous. Read the original letter, nothing biased about the article, just facts.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com