- cross-posted to:
- [email protected]
- cross-posted to:
- [email protected]
Summary
Twenty-one staffers from Elon Musk’s Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE) resigned, citing ethical concerns over dismantling public services and compromising sensitive data.
Formerly part of the U.S. Digital Service, they criticized Musk and Trump’s overhaul, which included layoffs and politically charged interviews.
Their letter warned that removing skilled technologists endangers essential services like Social Security and veterans’ benefits.
The resignations add to growing concerns over Musk’s aggressive federal cuts, amplified by his recent CPAC speech where he symbolically wielded a chainsaw against “bureaucracy.”
Trigger word? I was asking why they are trying to tie an authoritarian move to a president who left office in the way a democratic Republic set up over 2 terms ago.
Have fun with your buzzwords.
As an end run around constitutional checks and balances, instead creating a new agency l they corrupted and took over an existing agency set up by obama
The president had no authority to create a new agency but seems to be getting away with a technicality
Notice you said a president can’t create a new agency, then said Obama did. He didn’t create it, the 114th Congress did. Both the Senate and the House were Republican majority when it was created. So it is true if Obama didn’t want it he could have tried to veto it, but the only way it could have been created was by a majority vote.
Something possibly worth noting as well: “This bill directs the President to continue to operate, for FY2017-FY2026, the United States Digital Service as such program operated using funds made available under the Information Technology Oversight and Reform account in division E of the Financial Services and General Government Appropriations Act, 2016.” -H.R.5372
DOGE may be auto defunded after Fiscal Year 2026 unless the Congress/Senate push through a continuation which undoubtedly they should be able to get approved being that they hold the house and Senate majority again.
You seem very confused about the text quoted by the previous poster.
How so?
Because you seem to imply that there’s something nefarious about citing Obama to describe that the US Digital Service office was established during the Obama presidency, when it’s just what happened.
The point of the copied text was to point out those workers were not newly hired and realizing they didn’t want to participate in bad acts, they were employees that existed prior to this administration and quit because they didn’t want to take part in bad acts.
At no point do we hear that the employees worked for that company for at least 9 years, meaning that Obama starting the US Digital Service office is irrelevant. They could have started 2 years ago, 7 years ago or 9 years ago, that information is unknown so to tie it to the Obama Administration was chosen for a reason. I don’t say the IRS started by the Abraham Lincoln has seen the O’Donnell resignation unless I am specifically trying to call attention to Lincoln.
It’s just a weird choice to bring it up
You were mistaken about contextual intent and now have leaned into your incorrect inference reaction full Reddit style.
It’s ok, it happens, no need to to keep spinning plates.
If you read something and don’t question why information not contextually obligated to be there is there, you will completely ignore bias and propagandas existence within text. Just because we agree with the bias of this article doesn’t mean I or anyone else shouldn’t question the intent.
They weren’t. They were responding to the FAFO comments about the people who resigned in protest.
deleted by creator