| |
| ▲ | viraptor 2 days ago | parent | next [-] | | None? > Advisors with unlimited power Apparently they have the power to fire people, ignore access clearance rules, get full read/write (this was already confirmed and documented by multiple sources) access to data, terminate federal programs and agencies. Or at least there's no executive opposition to them trying to, so... in practice they do have the power. So far a few judges are still holding the ground, but we'll see how long that is allowed. Musk announced a few big changes as done before they were officially confirmed by Trump. > and endless conflicts of interests Musk practically leads the efforts to cut government spending while receiving government funding in defence and comms spending. And with weird procurement entires appearing https://www.ttnews.com/articles/armored-teslas-government Those are conflicts of interest. > with zero obligation for transparency? There are no obligations for transparency. The agencies being reviewed don't get a report of things to implement and we don't see any of the audit reports. I get you may like how this unfolds, but denying it happens is weird. | | |
| ▲ | scarab92 2 days ago | parent [-] | | [flagged] | | |
| ▲ | alistairSH 2 days ago | parent | next [-] | | That is so absurdly naive, I'm not sure if you're serious or trolling. | |
| ▲ | lz400 2 days ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | I think all those things are obviously and trivially opposed to evidence coming daily now. | | |
| ▲ | dionian 2 days ago | parent [-] | | For example? | | |
| ▲ | disjunct 2 days ago | parent [-] | | The CFPB. He intends to create a payments app within X and shut down their most immediate regulator of banking and fintech. That's certainly a material conflict. |
|
| |
| ▲ | steve_adams_86 2 days ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | Why are there multiple examples of agency heads resigning, in series, until someone agrees to implement Musk’s advise? They report being pressured and bullied into doing so. This isn’t how advising typically works. | | |
| ▲ | hcurtiss 2 days ago | parent [-] | | It's because this particular advisor has the full backing of the duly-elected President. It's absolutely wild to me that HN refuses to acknowledge this fact. This idea that the civil servants should defy the President (and his advisor) is substantiating the deep state critiques from the right. | | |
| ▲ | steve_adams_86 2 days ago | parent [-] | | As a Canadian I disagree entirely. Our prime minister Stephen Harper years ago muzzled scientists who had time sensitive, extremely pertinent research to act on. After he was replaced, that research was immediately put to use in policy making. Throughout his term, scientists in the public service spoke out about what was happening. If justice is important to a democracy, these scientists did the right thing. That takes real courage. I see no difference in what’s happening in the American public service. The processes occurring now are not democratic in nature. Musk’s role is extremely unorthodox and only ostensibly voted for ‘by the people’. In the weeks since Trump took office, I see no hard evidence to support any kind of deep state corruption. I see inefficiency, and yet, I see that in how DOGE dismantles things as well. I see it in every organization I work in, in every industry, in every home. It’s inevitable. | | |
| ▲ | hcurtiss 2 days ago | parent [-] | | Yes, but to the degree you believe in "democracy," then you believe the duly-elected President gets to come in and make changes, provided he's acting within the scope of the law. Trump specifically ran on the DOGE/Musk platform/strategy. It was a major component of his closing argument. This is, in fact, the exercise of popular will -- that is, "democracy." Civil servants ultimately work for the President. That's how it works. There have been many reductions in force prompted by Presidents over time (my own grandfather took one in the seventies). I appreciate there is some disagreement about whether Trump is tripping over any specific laws, but to the degree he's not (the courts will answer that), then he's well within his right to take the direct advice of his advisors, and to act within the scope of his authorities. The President also has the power to get access to even the most confidential information (how could he not?), and to share that with his advisors who have the requisite security clearances (which in many cases he can dictate). I'm just stunned by all the hand wringing about access to "government data." They're government employees! |
|
|
| |
| ▲ | viraptor 2 days ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | > Musk does not have the authority to fire anyone, or terminate any programs. He's only an advisor Sure, I agree he has no authority. He's only an advisor that seems to have any advice rubber-stamped. And he announces the changes personally before the executive action is announced. And opm employees get an email with basically the same wording as Twitter employees about a leave offer which legally cannot be offered to them. We can pretend that "actually it's not Musk making those changes" but it's obvious he's telling others what to do. And not in an "advice" way. (He's obviously shielded from legal responsibility in this case.) > The team aren't accessing data they don't have appropriate security clearances for. You're arguing against a federal judge. Do you know something they don't? https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/cjw4g2q62xqo Even if they were allowed access, we know they disregard the access rules by posting NOFORN level data publicly https://www.huffpost.com/entry/elon-musk-doge-posts-classifi... > They don't have write access to data, only read access. Are you arguing that both Ron Wyden is incorrect and the treasury secretary is lying about granting write access? https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2025/feb/02/elon-musk... And that the staff didn't remove the access later on with audit note of that change? https://archive.is/s5myG > Musk is not authorised to review any agency or program where he has a material conflict. Yet he's involved in the review of treasury which he has conflict with. (from the score jumping up and down, I'm guessing people don't like seeing receipts...) | |
| ▲ | ben_w 2 days ago | parent | prev [-] | | De facto/de jure. He's an advisor with no lawful power to fire, no lawful security clearance for the DOGE team*, no lawful authority to terminate programs. De facto, anyone standing in his way gets pushed. Which is why nuclear weapons teams were let go. * unless President said so. I think the office of President can do that, but has Trump actually done so, or is this like those classified documents he refused to return? |
|
| |
| ▲ | randerson 2 days ago | parent | prev [-] | | This is the line the White House told us, but it contradicts what Musk and Trump themselves have said. It's also clear from their actions and social media posts that if Musk is merely advising, then Trump is rubber stamp approving whatever Musk tells him without any independent verification. | | |
|
