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 Biden posted 162 executive orders and Trump has rescinded 62 I believe.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.

Bert,

We need to be careful with terminology. USAID was not subsidizing Politico or AP. All government agencies for certain levels of employees will subsidize the subscription that an employee may pay for a news source. I have the same thing at my company for my level. This was across all agencies and not unique to USAID. This is not USAID not being transparent and all of a sudden Elon has found something. This is the Congressional and Senate oversight committees not doing their work. This comes down more to a break down of Congress and the Senate. Don't get me wrong, we probably shouldn't be paying $8.5M in subscription services. And the $8.5M is across all government agencies, USAID was a small part of it.

USAID, and I suspect many other aspects of our budget, are bloated with GARBAGE.

You're saying Congress approved it. I GUESS. But did they really? I mean did any of them actually READ it? They don't do due diligence, audit, review, debate, etc. They are given a omnibus and they pass it. (or pass it after a very brief negotiation). The most recent omnibus got the most internal scrutiny, probably because AI was used to read it.

Technically they approved it. Whether they read it or not may be another question. But they are 1) responsible for all funding and 2) responsible for oversight.

What bothers me is not the specific items Trump may be doing, I am bothered that Congress is not performing their role. They want the Executive branch to do it for them. The beauty is that Congress doesn't need the Executive branch for anything, really. But instead year after year, Congress becomes more "lame duck". They don't need a new president to "fix" immigration. They can pass rigorous border security laws (which they haven't done for a quarter of a century), and they can force the executive branch to fulfill them. Instead they keep just complaining and looking for a "savior".

What is more terrifying is if Trump begins to set a precedent, that subsequent presidents take on. The purpose of Congress is that it balances this out across administration. We may get to the point where Trump gets rid of DEI and the next president reestablishes, and around and around we go with no oversight from Congress.

Here is an interesting critique of USAID before DOGE went after it. USAID needed major reform, especially since USA recipient contractors retained 82 cents of every dollar that was spent among many other issues. The question pending is if Trump did anything illegal in bypassing congress? It may be legal. If I understand things right, Trump took the Obama Initiative United States Digital Services (USDS) and turned it into the United States DOGE System (USDS) to bypass congressional approval.

For example. USAID was established as an independent agency by Congress and it is funded, like everything else by Congress.

Fact Check: USAID was formed by executive order of JFK. The information above by another poster, should not just be taken at face value. BTW here is the documentation:

Records of the Agency for International Development (RG 286) | National Archives

I find it interesting that some of the people who had no problem with executive orders and unelected bureaucrats spending money, all of a sudden have a problem when that spending is reigned in.

Joel also correctly pointed out that DOGE is not a new agency made by executive order from Trump. It is simply using the powers given to an existing agency created by executive powers of President Obama years ago.

Some argue that Politico was selling legit subscriptions for over $10K apiece because they were important for helping the government agencies to make policy decisions. It should frighten us that unelected bureaucrats were paying to be influenced on how to make political decisions by Politico. Of course, those who liked the policies of Politico, were likely thrilled with that situation.

Also, please provide documentation for USAID being funded by Republicans 6 months ago. I would like the context for that vote. I have been searching for information on that and have not found it. I would like to know if it was a stand alone bill or something in a long list that was buried. Such information would determine whether or not I would call the suggestion of Republican support for USAID quite accurate, or somewhat misleading, or quite misleading.

JDMiller,

"Fact Check: USAID was formed by executive order of JFK. The information above by another poster, should not just be taken at face value."

FACT Check: Stop reading simple websites. John F. Kennedy created USAID through an executive after he was authorized by Congress. The Executive Order, states, "By virtue of the authority vested in me by the Foreign Assistance Act of 1961".

A President can't create an independent agency and fund it. He can create the mechanics of an agency through executive order, but Congress needs to create the heart of it first and fund it.

JDMiller,

Not too hard to look up. It is H.R.8771 Ohttps://www.congress.gov/bill/118th-congress/house-bill/8771)

Votes for H.R. 8771 (https://clerk.house.gov/Votes/2024313)

Besides, when it comes to funding, there is practically no funding bill that stands on its own. They are always bundled with a ton of other spending. This is a standard appropriations bill. The Republicans control Congress and they were responsible for everything in the appropriations bill. They are also responsible for the oversight of the spending.

Oversight of USAID is specifically managed by the Department of State Office of Inspector General which is an independent agency that reports to both Congress and the Secretary of State on their activities. They are governed by the Inspector General Act of 1978. Neither the president nor the Secretary of State can impede their investigations. While they only report every 6 months to Congress, as a part of that panels can have discussions independently with oversight committees to request investigations or other information.

I know it is easy to say something is buried or not easy to see. But that is the very responsibility of Congress. To just poo poo that and say, hey only Musk is able to find the waste, is not really accurate. I appreciate the Secretary of State looking into waste, my concern is that Congress is too willing to sit by idly and not be responsible for a whole lot of anything.