this post was submitted on 05 Mar 2025
342 points (98.9% liked)

politics

20665 readers
3637 users here now

Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!

Rules:

  1. Post only links to articles, Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.

Links must be to the original source, not an aggregator like Google Amp, MSN, or Yahoo.

Example:

  1. Articles must be relevant to politics. Links must be to quality and original content. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and rehosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
  2. Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
  3. No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive. Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.
  4. Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
  5. No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in a ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be banned without warning

We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.

All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.

That's all the rules!

Civic Links

Register To Vote

Citizenship Resource Center

Congressional Awards Program

Federal Government Agencies

Library of Congress Legislative Resources

The White House

U.S. House of Representatives

U.S. Senate

Partnered Communities:

News

World News

Business News

Political Discussion

Ask Politics

Military News

Global Politics

Moderate Politics

Progressive Politics

UK Politics

Canadian Politics

Australian Politics

New Zealand Politics

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
 

Summary

Trump’s speech to Congress may have deepened legal troubles for Elon Musk and DOGE by publicly stating Musk runs the agency, contradicting White House claims that Amy Gleason is in charge.

The administration previously argued Musk, officially a “senior adviser,” has no formal authority over DOGE to shield it from lawsuits.

Judge Theodore Chuang already questioned this discrepancy, calling it “highly suspicious.”

Trump’s statement could trigger further legal scrutiny into Musk’s role in dismantling federal agencies and mass firings, undermining the White House’s defense against ongoing litigation.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] [email protected] 47 points 1 day ago (1 children)

Contempt of court for us normal people

[–] [email protected] 34 points 1 day ago

Trump's entire Presidency, this time around, is nothing but contempt for any institution that is not him. "L'État, c'est moi". And Congress is letting it happen, because Republicans are more concerned with avoiding a Musk-funded primary challenge than with exercising their constitutional checks on the Presidency.

The Courts do not seem as eager to give up all their power yet. But they move slowly, and it has yet to be seen whether they can adequately enforce their rulings if the Executive Branch simply ignores them. The Administration is actively telling the courts what they want to hear in filings, while publicly saying something different. They hate that.

The Supreme Court may have given the President himself a shield against prosecution, but other officials are not (yet) covered similarly and an angry court can (and should) jail officials on (unpardonable) civil contempt charges until they take the courts seriously.