>Rubio assessed the agency, decided to keep 300 people and let go of the rest.

With all due respect this is a complete joke. Rubio has been basically cut out of the process and is along for the ride.

And no, the President can't unilaterally do that, and if they want to argue that they can, they need to have that proven out by the courts, instead of proclaiming that the executive branch is the arbiter of what is and isn't constitutional.

Do you have any facts to support your assertion? The executive order named Rubio as the interim admin. Rubio did a press interview stating that the agency went rogue and he fired all but 300 of them.

Absolutely the POTUS cannot just cancel contracts he thinks are a waste of taxpayer money. Some, not all. The President cannot ignore laws passed by Congress unless he gets agreement, by way of a court ruling, that the law is unconstitutional. Now if you are saying he can ignore all that without consequences because people bend over and let him, yes that can happen if we are all very stupid.

Are we really going to do this? You going to grind people down making them demonstrate the sky is blue to your satisfaction? We can all point to multiple EOs in the last weeks that are clearly, or at least arguably, not under the authority of the POTUS. That is what the fuss is all about, no? If you can't agree to that then there is no point in going on because you are being dishonest. In any case, once a court is involved (case clear or not) you follow court procedures to conclusion. You know, the whole reason our POTUS isn't in jail right now.

Your statements are correct and I generally agree. Let the courts sort it out.

I was replying to this statement "USAID funding is controlled by Congress. Trump cannot just order them to redirect funds on a whim." which is clearly false.

> Do you really believe that the POTUS cannot cancel contracts he feels are a waste of taxpayer money (and that position will stand up in court)?

Let's assume you're right.

There's a video of a farmer going around who had invested some money in an IRA project (passed under Biden) and he's complaining that the money he is contractually obliged is being held up by Trump.

So assuming Trump had the right to cancel this contract and it will hold up in court, what does that do for the government's ability to stimulate economic activity by passing legislation? How can people trust a law if it can become null and void upon the next admin coming in?

The farmer in question says the only reason he engaged in this activity was because he determined in the contract that the money was guaranteed. Meaning that although he made sure he wouldn't be in this situation, he's nonetheless in it because of POTUS, making the contract he signed with the federal government basically worthless.

So in the future, if the government needs to stimulate production of a certain crop through economic incentives, are farmers going to listen, knowing that the money they will need to depend on in 4 years may or may not exist depending who wins the next election? How can we make long term plans as a country this way? What method will the government turn to if can't use statutory incentives to stimulate economic activity?

> How can people trust a law if it can become null and void upon the next admin coming in?

The law is not null and void with the next admin. The law specifies the exec branch can determine who gets the grants and how much. So everyone is aware that a new admin may not give grants the same as the old admin.

> he determined in the contract that the money was guaranteed.

Then he was misled. There is no contract between the US and the grantee making a guarantee over a time period. Would you complain if a new Congress passed a new budget cutting this fund? Is that breaking a guarantee??

> making the contract he signed with the federal government basically worthless.

You are not signing a contract with the federal government! You are getting a grant. very big difference

> depend on in 4 years may or may not exist depending who wins the next election?

It's even worse than that! Congressional elections are every 2 years. Everyone who gets federal money knows that money is dependent on their patronage, which could change every 2 years. That is why there is so much money and power in politics! $4T is a lot of money to allocate, so of course a lot of money is going to spent determining who controls the purse.

These kinds of arrangements happen all the time with the government. For example NSF gives me a grant, I get that money over a period of maybe 5-8 years, and I make hiring and equipment purchase decisions based on the availability of that money. This provides stability and allows for long-term planning. It's been the case over many revolving administrations over the course of decades.

What we are talking about now is a fundamental shift from that, and you're acting like it's business as usual. No. You mention congressional budgets, I would be fine with that because that's how things are done. The budgets are set by representatives who advance our local agendas, and then everyone agrees on a budget that works. Generally speaking this is a stable way of advancing the country.

Now you are talking about a system where the executive can come in and just upend everything because he doesn't like it personally. There's no accounting for local needs in a population of 300 million spanning 4+ time zones. My question to you was: how do we as country plan long-term when the guy in charge can just shut down all scientific research in the country if he doesn't like the topics people are researching? Or he can cancel all contracts laid out by the last administration? Or cancel all contracts just in blue states? That's the country you're advocating for, so now keep going with this concept, what do we do if in 4 years a Democrat comes in and decides to cancel all contracts in Red states?

> What we are talking about now is a fundamental shift from that

Agreed. And you arguing that a democracy (or constitutional republic) cannot make a fundamental shift in policy via elections. That administrations have to be bound to decisions based on prior administrations, even if that is directly against the will of the electorate. Did I state your position correctly?

No. I'm saying as our Constitution is the foundation of our government, any changes must be made within the framework provided by the Constitution. The "will of the electorate" comprises hundreds of millions of voters; it's varied, complex, multifaceted, and cannot be distilled into the agenda of one man or even the platform of an entire party. For this reason the Constitution puts most of the decision making power in the Congress, who represent the will of the electorate at a much more granular level than POTUS.

If the next administration want to make changes, they can go through Congress. They can pass legislation. They can amend the Constitution. They can express their budget priorities. But they cannot do an end-run around the Constitutional order just to get things done faster because it avoids the pain of debate and finding consensus. The whole point of the Constitution is to prevent that.

Please don't cross into personal attack (as you did in this post and unfortunately also elsewhere - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=42994959).

... and please stay within the site guidelines, regardless of how wrong another commenter is or you feel they are.

If you wouldn't mind reviewing https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html and taking the intended spirit of the site more to heart, we'd be grateful. I realize this material is provocative and super activating but that's what this principle, for example, is intended to cover:

"Comments should get more thoughtful and substantive, not less, as a topic gets more divisive."

Understood.

Which comments you put this on tells us a lot.