Gallup: Few Major U.S. Political Figures Rated Positively on Balance

What we are slowly seeing across the two Trump terms is this concept of "rule by Party". You see, especially with Trump, rule by executive order, despite the responsibility of Congress. Congress is handing over their authority to the Executive branch in order to align to the party. A very scary switch if it continues to swing in that way across multiple administrations. Everyone is super happy with Trump doing it, but not so sure if they would have been equally happy from a procedural perspective if the Democrats had won and done the same thing pushing their agenda.

I don't disagree with reducing the influence of USAID, but only 6 months early, practically the entire Republican party, with the Democrats opposing, passed the funding bill for USAID. But with the shift in the party leadership, all of them, including Marco Rubio are towing in line with Trump that this is a wasteful institution. They didn't need Trump to dismantle the institution, they had the entire authority and the strength of votes to do it themselves.

So while 1 in 4 US adults are not as familiar with some of the people, I don't think the people matter, as much as the party.

While I LIKE Trump's orders, I DO NOT like that it's being done with orders.

But I equally don't like that government agencies (like Education, USAID, etc. etc.) are deciding how much to spend and what to spend it on.

Letting agencies have that much power is Congress abandoning their responsibility just as much as allowing the President to do it with Executive Orders.

I love the idea of a balanced budget amendment partially because it would force congress to debate and decide how much to spend on what.

Everyone is super happy with Trump doing it, but not so sure if they would have been equally happy from a procedural perspective if the Democrats had won and done the same thing pushing their agenda.

The Democrats did. Biden posted 162 executive orders and Trump has rescinded 62 I believe. Democrat FDR issued 3721. Clinton did 364 apparently. Obama issued 274.

I am not a big fan of them but both sides do them

Larry,

I am not talking about Executive Orders, although I don't like having so many. I am talking about him creating executive orders that are in conflict with the law and Congress letting him just do it. This part, if it continues will be unprecedented. My concern is ensuring the branches are doing their responsibility and ensuring the integrity of the constitution.

For example. USAID was established as an independent agency by Congress and it is funded, like everything else by Congress. Congress controls the purse. Trump instead creates an executive order, dismantles a department and then stops paying people and vendors. Again, I am not against the removal of USAID. What I would have been fine with is, Trump issuing an executive order to create a proposal, he brings it before Congress and Congress approves the abolishment of USAID and redirects funding in whatever manner Trump proposes. Congress certainly has the votes to do it. I would even be fine if it rushed through Congress. Trump technically is not allowed to stop payment to USAID, the payments and funding was mandated by Congress, technically by the Republicans in Congress.

What it is going to do is setup a precedent, that while many may be cheering because they agree with Trump, may not like the approach if it was Kamala. The precedent moves us much closer to a monarchy, where the supreme leader does as they wish, and the other branches fall into step and transfer their power to the leader.

I am not attacking Trump for what he is doing, but against the approach and the precedent it is setting and may be picked up by leaders that we may not agree with in the future.

Dan,

Those groups are not deciding how much to spend, and in most cases on what to spend it on. For example, the funding for USAID in 2025 was passed in H.R.8771. It was overwhelmingly passed by Republicans and overwhelmingly voted against by Democrats. People like Marco Rubio who are complaining about the waste and crazy spending of USAID is one of the very individuals who voted in favor of exactly what they are spending money on. 56 distinct programs and initiatives are outlined with budgets for USAID in this Bill.

For example,

"not less than $5,000,000 shall be made available for programs to strengthen the capacity of the Central Tibetan Administration, as authorized by section 346(f) of the Tibetan Policy and Support Act of 2020 (subtitle E of title III of division FF of Public Law 116–260), of which up to $1,500,000 may be made available to address economic growth and capacity building activities, including for displaced Tibetan refugee families in India and Nepal to help meet basic needs, following consultation with the Committees on Appropriations: Provided, That such funds shall be administered by USAID"

Are the administrators of USAID to blame for spending $1.5M on Tibetan Administration, something that does not align to America First. Or was it the current Secretary of State, who authorized this spending. And didn't just authorize it, but mandated that the spending had to take place. USAID has some latitude on where to spend money in some of the programs, but the programs and the amounts are all dictated by Congress. They are required to find programs that strengthen the Tibetan administration and conform to 116-260.

Congress has gotten extremely lazy over the last decade. And instead of doing their job, they just want someone to come in, create an Executive Order and do it for them. So they can collect their pay check, pay their respects to their Chief and tout all of the benefits on the news circuits. Sounds very close to when the barons of feudal society gave up their responsibiliies to find favor in the King's court. As long as they paid respect to the King, supported the King in front of the public, they could keep their land and collect their payments from the King.

I am talking about him creating executive orders that are in conflict with the law and Congress letting him just do it.

I don’t think it is unprecedented. The point of executive orders in many cases is to do exactly that. It is not entirely dissimilar from court tactics. The point is to avoid the constitutional legislative process. So I am not defending Trump. I am only pointing out that it isn’t new.

As for USAID, it’s a disaster. But that’s another topic. At least it is getting some attention now.

It strikes me that the executive ought to have the right to crack down on an agency when it's doing a transparent run around the first amendment by subsidizing Politico and the AP. I can say "not so much with all executive orders, because that won't last", yes, and I can also say "shut down the whole apparatus?". But when there is clear evidence of basic money laundering, shut that part down and fire the people responsible. And to be fair to Trump, that may in effect shut the agency down for a while.