Evidently the president appointed one of his personal attorneys to be the new librarian of Congress. The library turned him away because Congress hasn't approved him. It seems it's becoming more of a clusterfuck just about every day.
It's an concerted attempted authoritarian takeover through bureaucratic methods. When they exhaust this, you'll see them frustrated and declare states of emergencies. The founders wrote about this in the Federalist Papers, people like this have always existed.
What was your intention here?
No, what we are seeing is a coup. The USA has exhausted in causing coups in other parts of the world. Now, we are in a coup caused by the USA government.
The executive branch is captured. The courts are captured. Most of Congress is captured. Those left over whinge about 'illegal' and basically send out more emails for more donations. And throw in a few stump speeches.
I genuinely don't understand how this can be a coup when all three branches agree. I mean sure, we are well outside the strict scope of Constitution, but that ship left generations ago.
Look at Orbán, Erdogan, and similar new authoritarians, the coup is a slow grinding of every facet of democracy: grind the press, grind the judiciary, throw a new law into the mix made up by your cronies in the parliament/Congress, keep grinding at the foundations of democracy over decades and you get a shell of institutions that used to be the foundation of a democratic state being re-purposed to push the agenda of the dictator.
The veneer of institutions is the point, it's to make you have exactly this reaction:
> I genuinely don't understand how this can be a coup when all three branches agree.
Because you are expecting an overt coup, not a slow moving covert one.
They did actually try it, though, and all the prior involved got pardons from the president. Totally agree with you overall point, just wanted to point this out.
It's not an enjoyable read in either subject matter or style, but provides invaluable insights into the mechanics of authoritarian rule behind the iconic renditions of oppression in snappy uniforms.
https://us.macmillan.com/books/9780805087260/hitlersbenefici...
The courts have been captured and politicized heavily. Clearance Thomas should be expelled for emoluments. Kavanaugh also for lying on the stand.
Congress has a bare majority for republicans. So getting impeachments for actual crimes by republicans is a non-starter.
POTUS and executive branch can run roughshod, and order all sorts of illegal actions. Congress won't impeach. And they can pardon anybody underneath them. Musk is a perfect example - no clearance, yet somehow 'legally' is destroying sections of government that was investigating him. And given a complete pass. Its also how ICE can kidnap and traffick people, all the while flaunting disobeidance from a federal judge.
This is a coup by the oligarchy against the people. And aside violent uprisings (of which I do not condone), there's not much at all we can do.
This isn't a real thing. They're not captured, people are just on them that you don't like and they're ruling against your values.
>Congress has a bare majority for republicans
So the majority is governing?
I wasn't calling out party political disputes. I was calling out taking massive bribes, violating the emoluments clause, and perjury.
Your politics are showing. I prefer rule of law, not of kakistocrat.
This is a very myopic view.
In the past 3 months, we've seen curtailing of civil liberties (bypassing due process), open bribery (memecoin pay-to-play, Qatari airplane), illegal interference with independent agencies (firing head of CFPB), executive overreach ("emergency" tariffs), violations of free speech (punishing law firms for their clients), etc. None of this is precedented at this scale.
What you are doing is exactly what aboutism, by claiming that minor transgressions in the past excuse blatant authoritarianism.
Pelosi insider trading is a minor transgression? She was the most powerful congressman for years. You think she didn't do anything to earn those stock tips?
Yes, those are problems. Congressional stock trading should be illegal, although it isn't at the moment. The Clinton Foundation was noticeably founded after Bill Clinton was president; lots of presidents get money for speeches, but typically after they hold elected office.
What you are missing is the scale and openness of the current corruption. Hillary Clinton, as secretary of state, received a pearl necklace valued at $425 from Bangladeshi Prime Minister and was not allowed to keep it; now, Trump is getting a $400 million plane from the Qataris and apparently is allowed to keep it. Does that seem the same to you?
They're not ruling against "my values", they're actually illegally. The people who are supposed to stop them aren't, and are thus captured.
Firing the head of the CBFP, installing a non-approved Librarian of Congress, bypassing agency regulations such as IRS privacy laws, etc. That's all illegal. It's a coup by the President against the rest of the government.
It's just not officially a coup until they refuse to cede power. We know they are very capable of it (already tried it once). In the meantime they are sowing chaos and destroying institutions.
Thanks for the clarification.
If you know the enemy and know yourself, you need not fear the result of a hundred battles. If you know yourself but not the enemy, for every victory gained you will also suffer a defeat. If you know neither the enemy nor yourself, you will succumb in every battle.
-- Sun Tzu, The Art of Warhttps://reason.com/volokh/2025/05/04/america-first-legal-fou...
"The suit was prompted by the refusal of the Judicial Conference and Administrative Office to respond to AFLF's FOIA requests for copies of communication with the offices of Senator Sheldon Whitehouse and Representative Hank Johnson, two legislators who have worked overtime to stir up ethical allegations against sitting Supreme Court justices. The Judicial Conference and Administrative Office rebuffed the requests on the grounds that each are exempt from FOIA."
"The basis for AFLF's suit is that the Judicial Conference and Administrative Office are not part of the judiciary, but are instead executive branch agencies subject to FOIA. According to AFLF, neither entity is a "court," and insofar as each has other responsibilities, including the promulgation of rules governing federal courts and responding to Congressional inquiries, each is an "agency" under FOIA."
I don't think I'll convince you otherwise, but those interested can read this counterpoint to the Reason link with more background and detail: https://www.democracydocket.com/news-alerts/trump-ally-steph...
I was raised in a very left wing family where pulling on the rope was required, it's in my blood.
Nelson was deputy assistant to President Joe Biden and principal deputy director for science and society of the White House Office of Science and Technology Policy
Is she even a highly qualified? She has a Ph.D., but in what?
Nelson earned a Bachelor of Science degree in anthropology
She earned a Ph.D. in American studies from New York University in 2003.
If you want to disagree with her commentary, do so on its merits. Dismissing her arguments because of who is making them is ad hominem fallacy.
You're using a person's associations as an excuse to avoid engaging with their ideas.
They are both political appointees, you like one and don't like the other is just political bias.
No: one was appointed legally, the other was illegally installed in an unconstitutional power grab. That's all that matters.
Because so far every appointee by Trump has been, objectively, less qualified than the people they replace?
There's no bias in that, it's just looking at credentials. We have people in public health who have never worked in healthcare. We have people leading the DOD where their only battle thus far has been alcoholism. We have a surgeon general who can't even practice medicine. I mean... what pattern are we noticing here?
Are we just supposed to play stupid forever, in pursuit of some "fairness"? We're not blind, we're not deaf, we can understand what's going on.
There are no scientific qualifications in her education.
The obvious difference is stated in the post you are replying to: "Congress hasn't approved him."
> She earned a Ph.D. in American studies from New York University in 2003.
The NSF funds humanities/social science grants, so it needs experts in those areas. Note that she is deputy director for science and society. This funds work associated with history, sociology, etc.: https://www.nsf.gov/funding/opportunities/sts-science-techno....