Why it will be hard to summarily disband federal agencies

[jmbar2]

I spotted this from a poster on X, but didn't grab the tweet. Hat tip to whoever posted it.

Threats to dismantle DOE, etc. may be tactics to get us to "obey in advance" and accept that they can do it, when there are considerable barriers to destroying agencies. Congress has the power to fight it. Many of those who want to go along with the plot will be up for reelection in the midterms.

Fight, fight, fight!

An agency's powers are granted by Congress in an "enabling act," sometimes referred to as an "organic act," and in other specific legislative grants of power. See Administrative Statutes tab. The exercise of those powers, through rulemaking and decisonmaking, is the subject of administrative law. An agency's power to promulgate legislative regulations is limited to the authority delegated by Congress

https://guides.law.fsu.edu/administrativelaw/agencies#:~:text=A%20federal%20agency%20exists%20because,specific%20legislative%20grants%20of%20power

[Irish_Dem]

2. Trump appears to control congress, so it is doubtful they will fight him.

We know that Putin has interfered in US electrons and will do so again.
So voter sentiment is not an issue.

[Mariana]

5. Yes. It will be like when Shrub was in office.

They'll just rubber-stamp whatever the hell he wants to do. They all know that Trump is more popular than they are.

[Irish_Dem]

7. Yes.

Trump can do what he wants.
Instead of destroying foreign countries and making $billions like Bush jr did,
Trump will destroy the US and make $trillions.

[Ocelot II]

3. SCOTUS' striking down the Chevron doctrine

in Relentless v. Department of Commerce and Loper Bright Enterprises v. Raimondo might turn out to be a good thing after all, considering that the federal agencies under Trump's stooges will become either anti-science cesspools or completely useless. According to these cases the courts are not required to defer to agency expertise when interpreting the agency's rules. That seems like a pretty stupid decision - isn't the FAA in a better position to fashion and interpret rules for aviation safety, for example, and shouldn't the FDA be able to explain why it decided a drug is unsafe than a court interpreting the rule? But if Robert F. "Brainworm" Kennedy is telling his agency to remove the fluoride from drinking water, maybe a court hearing the testimony of dentists could prevent that from happening.

[jmbar2]

6. I'm not familiar with these cases

Thanks for pointing them out. Gonna follow that thread....

[enough]

4. Only if Trump decides to follow the law, which seems unlikely.