Living under Trump 2 aka Musk!!!
Big swings, big misses: DOGE struggles to back up its outsized claims
Elon Musk’s cost-cutting and fraud-finding apparatus, the Department of Government Efficiency, came out swinging in recent days.
The result? Two stunning strikeouts.
A series of announcements by DOGE as well as claims by Musk and President Donald Trump about the agency’s efforts have crumbled under scrutiny even as they’re broadly repeated by conservative pundits, sympathetic media and the White House.
Two of the most notable claims — around Social Security fraud and $8 billion savings found in a Department of Homeland Security contract — have been debunked. Meanwhile, Trump’s agenda is set to add to the federal government’s deficit well in excess of what DOGE is cutting.
“It’s amateur hour in their federal government,” said Martin O’Malley, the former Maryland governor who ran the Social Security Administration under President Joe Biden. “There’s unelected people that are being given powers to go through and rummage through our personal data for reasons that nobody can quite figure out yet. It’s not for efficiency.”
Cutting government waste and hunting for fraud are perennially popular topics for politicians across the political spectrum. Federal agencies each have their own internal watchdogs — known as inspectors general — meant to hunt for misuse of taxpayer dollars. More than a dozen of them have been fired by the Trump administration.
In their place, DOGE has worked to make sweeping cuts, most of which appear to be focused more on Trump’s politics than anything else, and many of which experts warn could have unintended consequences.
“They’re throwing out the baby with the bathwater,” said Elaine Kamarck, a senior fellow at the Brookings Institution who oversaw an eight-year effort to cut government spending and waste under President Bill Clinton.
Click on the link for the full article
Elon Musk’s cost-cutting and fraud-finding apparatus, the Department of Government Efficiency, came out swinging in recent days.
The result? Two stunning strikeouts.
A series of announcements by DOGE as well as claims by Musk and President Donald Trump about the agency’s efforts have crumbled under scrutiny even as they’re broadly repeated by conservative pundits, sympathetic media and the White House.
Two of the most notable claims — around Social Security fraud and $8 billion savings found in a Department of Homeland Security contract — have been debunked. Meanwhile, Trump’s agenda is set to add to the federal government’s deficit well in excess of what DOGE is cutting.
“It’s amateur hour in their federal government,” said Martin O’Malley, the former Maryland governor who ran the Social Security Administration under President Joe Biden. “There’s unelected people that are being given powers to go through and rummage through our personal data for reasons that nobody can quite figure out yet. It’s not for efficiency.”
Cutting government waste and hunting for fraud are perennially popular topics for politicians across the political spectrum. Federal agencies each have their own internal watchdogs — known as inspectors general — meant to hunt for misuse of taxpayer dollars. More than a dozen of them have been fired by the Trump administration.
In their place, DOGE has worked to make sweeping cuts, most of which appear to be focused more on Trump’s politics than anything else, and many of which experts warn could have unintended consequences.
“They’re throwing out the baby with the bathwater,” said Elaine Kamarck, a senior fellow at the Brookings Institution who oversaw an eight-year effort to cut government spending and waste under President Bill Clinton.
Click on the link for the full article
Trump order declares independent US agencies aren’t independent anymore
President Trump yesterday issued an executive order declaring sweeping power over agencies that were created to operate independently from the White House. The order declares that "officials who wield vast executive power must be supervised and controlled by the people's elected President," and that "it shall be the policy of the executive branch to ensure Presidential supervision and control of the entire executive branch."
An accompanying fact sheet issued by the White House said the order applies to "so-called independent agencies like the Federal Trade Commission (FTC), Federal Communications Commission (FCC), and Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC)." The Federal Election Commission is also expected to be affected by the order.
The White House said it will require independent agencies to submit draft regulations for review, except for the monetary policy functions of the Federal Reserve. Independent agencies are also ordered to "consult with the White House on their priorities and strategic plans." The order claims more White House control over how agencies spend their budgets.
The White House Office of Management and Budget will "adjust such agencies' apportionments by activity, function, project, or object, as necessary and appropriate, to advance the President's policies and priorities," the executive order said. These budget changes "may prohibit independent regulatory agencies from expending appropriations on particular activities, functions, projects, or objects, so long as such restrictions are consistent with law."
The executive order is likely to be challenged in court. Separately, the Trump administration is asking the Supreme Court to reverse a judge's ruling that blocked Trump's attempt to fire the head of the Office of Special Counsel, an independent agency that protects government whistleblowers.
Employees of independent agencies would also be forbidden from issuing legal interpretations that contradict the president's legal interpretations. "No employee of the executive branch acting in their official capacity may advance an interpretation of the law as the position of the United States that contravenes the President or the Attorney General's opinion on a matter of law, including but not limited to the issuance of regulations, guidance, and positions advanced in litigation, unless authorized to do so by the President or in writing by the Attorney General," the Trump order said.
The White House fact sheet said the goal of this provision is to ensure that the president and attorney general "interpret the law for the executive branch, instead of having separate agencies adopt conflicting interpretations."
John Bergmayer, legal director of consumer advocacy group Public Knowledge, said Trump's order is based on a "unitary executive" theory that "has made its way from the fringes of academia to the halls of power."
"In this latest Executive Order, the Trump regime purports to seize for itself the power Congress delegated to independent regulatory agencies, and as written, declares the White House's interpretation of the law as 'authoritative,' with no mention of the courts," Bergmayer said. "Of course, the president is not, and never has been, the final arbiter of what is lawful. Lawyers working for the government owe their allegiance to the American people, not to President Donald J. Trump."
Click on the link for the full article
President Trump yesterday issued an executive order declaring sweeping power over agencies that were created to operate independently from the White House. The order declares that "officials who wield vast executive power must be supervised and controlled by the people's elected President," and that "it shall be the policy of the executive branch to ensure Presidential supervision and control of the entire executive branch."
An accompanying fact sheet issued by the White House said the order applies to "so-called independent agencies like the Federal Trade Commission (FTC), Federal Communications Commission (FCC), and Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC)." The Federal Election Commission is also expected to be affected by the order.
The White House said it will require independent agencies to submit draft regulations for review, except for the monetary policy functions of the Federal Reserve. Independent agencies are also ordered to "consult with the White House on their priorities and strategic plans." The order claims more White House control over how agencies spend their budgets.
The White House Office of Management and Budget will "adjust such agencies' apportionments by activity, function, project, or object, as necessary and appropriate, to advance the President's policies and priorities," the executive order said. These budget changes "may prohibit independent regulatory agencies from expending appropriations on particular activities, functions, projects, or objects, so long as such restrictions are consistent with law."
The executive order is likely to be challenged in court. Separately, the Trump administration is asking the Supreme Court to reverse a judge's ruling that blocked Trump's attempt to fire the head of the Office of Special Counsel, an independent agency that protects government whistleblowers.
Employees of independent agencies would also be forbidden from issuing legal interpretations that contradict the president's legal interpretations. "No employee of the executive branch acting in their official capacity may advance an interpretation of the law as the position of the United States that contravenes the President or the Attorney General's opinion on a matter of law, including but not limited to the issuance of regulations, guidance, and positions advanced in litigation, unless authorized to do so by the President or in writing by the Attorney General," the Trump order said.
The White House fact sheet said the goal of this provision is to ensure that the president and attorney general "interpret the law for the executive branch, instead of having separate agencies adopt conflicting interpretations."
John Bergmayer, legal director of consumer advocacy group Public Knowledge, said Trump's order is based on a "unitary executive" theory that "has made its way from the fringes of academia to the halls of power."
"In this latest Executive Order, the Trump regime purports to seize for itself the power Congress delegated to independent regulatory agencies, and as written, declares the White House's interpretation of the law as 'authoritative,' with no mention of the courts," Bergmayer said. "Of course, the president is not, and never has been, the final arbiter of what is lawful. Lawyers working for the government owe their allegiance to the American people, not to President Donald J. Trump."
Click on the link for the full article
Canada eyes more ways to ship oil to China as U.S. threatens trade
Almost every day since the expansion of Canada’s Trans Mountain pipeline was completed in May, a tanker laden with oilsands crude shipped through the line has passed under Vancouver’s Lions Gate Bridge en route to refineries around the Pacific.
Those tankers, bound for China and Japan among other markets, mark a significant shift for Canada, which has long been stuck exporting its vast flows of oil solely to the United States. And with President Donald Trump’s tariff threats highlighting the risk of that dependence, the success of the $34 billion Trans Mountain expansion is stoking Canada’s desire to further decouple from its unpredictable neighbour — and play a larger role in global oil markets.
Trans Mountain “is a good start,” said Adam Waterous, a former investment banker and the founder and chairman of oil producer Strathcona Resources Ltd. “Now we have to build on it. The very fortunate thing is that we’re not starting from scratch.”
Canada’s oil industry has long pushed for more pipelines, both to its own coasts and to the U.S., only to see them thwarted by opposition from environmental groups, Indigenous communities and courts as well as the country’s own federal and provincial governments.
But those efforts are garnering renewed interest as Canadians reel from Trump’s trade attack, an episode that has sparked anger and distrust at the country’s southern neighbour, even pushing hockey fans to go so far as to boo the U.S. national anthem at recent games.
Two mothballed projects in particular are being discussed as ripe for revival: Energy East, which would carry western Canadian crude east to refineries in Ontario and Quebec; and Northern Gateway, which would haul Alberta oil to a Pacific port in northern British Columbia.
Energy East would have converted an existing natural gas pipeline to carry about 1.1 million barrels of oil a day from Alberta and Saskatchewan to refineries and a shipping terminal in eastern Canada. Crucially, that would avoid moving crude through the U.S., as is done on Enbridge Inc.’s Line 5, which crosses the border on its route to Ontario and Quebec.
Click on the link for the full article
I'm sure the Trump administration is fine with this because they don't want any "Trans" oil.
Almost every day since the expansion of Canada’s Trans Mountain pipeline was completed in May, a tanker laden with oilsands crude shipped through the line has passed under Vancouver’s Lions Gate Bridge en route to refineries around the Pacific.
Those tankers, bound for China and Japan among other markets, mark a significant shift for Canada, which has long been stuck exporting its vast flows of oil solely to the United States. And with President Donald Trump’s tariff threats highlighting the risk of that dependence, the success of the $34 billion Trans Mountain expansion is stoking Canada’s desire to further decouple from its unpredictable neighbour — and play a larger role in global oil markets.
Trans Mountain “is a good start,” said Adam Waterous, a former investment banker and the founder and chairman of oil producer Strathcona Resources Ltd. “Now we have to build on it. The very fortunate thing is that we’re not starting from scratch.”
Canada’s oil industry has long pushed for more pipelines, both to its own coasts and to the U.S., only to see them thwarted by opposition from environmental groups, Indigenous communities and courts as well as the country’s own federal and provincial governments.
But those efforts are garnering renewed interest as Canadians reel from Trump’s trade attack, an episode that has sparked anger and distrust at the country’s southern neighbour, even pushing hockey fans to go so far as to boo the U.S. national anthem at recent games.
Two mothballed projects in particular are being discussed as ripe for revival: Energy East, which would carry western Canadian crude east to refineries in Ontario and Quebec; and Northern Gateway, which would haul Alberta oil to a Pacific port in northern British Columbia.
Energy East would have converted an existing natural gas pipeline to carry about 1.1 million barrels of oil a day from Alberta and Saskatchewan to refineries and a shipping terminal in eastern Canada. Crucially, that would avoid moving crude through the U.S., as is done on Enbridge Inc.’s Line 5, which crosses the border on its route to Ontario and Quebec.
Click on the link for the full article
I'm sure the Trump administration is fine with this because they don't want any "Trans" oil.
I have to say, I love watching people that can't cope with reality. We just went thru the worst four years in American peacetime history, and the same people were silent. Now, they're losing their minds. My suggestion? Up your meds and buckle up, it's going to be a looooooooooooooong 12 years.Simmsy wrote: Wed Feb 19, 2025 5:21 pmI love this video, if you know about this creator, he's a massive cynic. The fact that he's being even slightly positive about this really does surprise me. This is the American people I hoped would show up, I expect to see more as time goes on.
Good grief. Really? Trump hasn't "gutted" the FAA. And the Aviation Safety Board liberals tout isn't in the FAA, either. It's in DHS, which doesn't have dick to do with aviation or aviation safety. We have our own Safety office called AOV which governs Air Traffic safety, and no one has been whacked from there either.
-
hail2skins
- Posts: 30
- Joined: Wed Jan 01, 2025 12:31 pm
- Reactions score: 12
The past 4 years were worse than Jimmy Carter?Sarge wrote: Wed Feb 19, 2025 5:35 pm
We just went thru the worst four years in American peacetime history, and the same people were silent. Now, they're losing their minds. My suggestion? Up your meds and buckle up, it's going to be a looooooooooooooong 12 years.
Predicting 12 years of either party having the WH is a fool's errand with the fickle population we have. 2028 is going to be, as always, a popularity contest, and the Dems will have someone more charismatic than Giggles running.
I'm glad Jimmy lived to see biden and know that he was no longer the worst president in American history. Carter was a good man. Terrible, terrible president, but a good man.hail2skins wrote: Wed Feb 19, 2025 6:03 pmThe past 4 years were worse than Jimmy Carter?Sarge wrote: Wed Feb 19, 2025 5:35 pm
We just went thru the worst four years in American peacetime history, and the same people were silent. Now, they're losing their minds. My suggestion? Up your meds and buckle up, it's going to be a looooooooooooooong 12 years.
Predicting 12 years of either party having the WH is a fool's errand with the fickle population we have. 2028 is going to be, as always, a popularity contest, and the Dems will have someone more charismatic than Giggles running.
Federal Court GRANTS
@democracyforward.org request to allow expedited discovery in lawsuit challenging DOGE access to Department of Labor data.
First instance of discovery being permitted in the Trump accountability cases.
@democracyforward.org request to allow expedited discovery in lawsuit challenging DOGE access to Department of Labor data.
First instance of discovery being permitted in the Trump accountability cases.
To begin, the Court concludes that properly-limited, expedited discovery would be appropriate and beneficial here. Defendants rightly point out that a district court’s role in traditional APA cases is limited to reviewing the administrative record. See, e.g., Am. Bioscience, Inc. v. Thompson, 543 F.3d 579, 582. However, this is an unusual case. Plaintiffs don’t contend that the decisions or policies they challenge were made through a formal process or otherwise produced a record like the Court may see in a typical APA case. Indeed, one of the core questions here is whether the defendants even took the actions (or established the policies) that plaintiffs challenge. There’s no way for the Court to decide that question—or the follow-up question of whether those policies were in accordance with law—without some evidence of defendants’ decisionmaking process. So, in this APA case, discovery is appropriate. Limited discovery could also benefit the Court by helping it decide additional factual questions necessary to resolving other critical legal issues. For example, plaintiffs have thus far asserted theories of standing, likelihood of success on the merits, and irreparable harm that turn on whether individuals not permitted under the Privacy Act to view personal information are viewing or will view that information. See generally Mem. Op. & Order [ECF No. 34]. Exploring that subject through expedited, targeted, and limited discovery thus should be beneficial.
Therefore, the Court will entertain plaintiffs’ forthcoming motion for expedited discovery.