Important cases get sent up the chain of command for approval or discussion. Initiatives get sent down. Budgets go through the top members of each bureaucratic division.
Biden had a whole-of-government drive for DEI. Trump cancels it, it's up to cabinet officers to make sure their reports cancel things and report back on cancellation efforts and what can't be cancelled easily without other things being done--regulations, maybe request for tweaks to the law. When Biden pushed student-loan forgiveness when the FAFSA revision was due, somebody that wasn't just project manager for FAFSA had to get a report on how FAFSA was doing and decided to put money and staff to the presidential initiative; and when it flubbed up, somebody above had to talk to those in charge and relay and presidential displeasure and repurpose staff and funding--and when it wasn't ready the second year but more student loan forgiveness programs had been devised and even the code for it live on the Web, somebody that was between those staffers and the President was in the loop or was responsible for negligence.
There are court cases pending. When the DOJ guy gets appointed, it'll be his call to stop appealing those Biden lost or withdraw court cases that Biden's DOJ initiated. It's a common complaint on the right that very often NGOs sue and a colleague or (quasi-)ally in the government makes a weak case or no case so that a court settlement does something that is political in nature. If NGOs and the EPA do this, and it seems from the evidence I've seen that they probably do, why not Heritage Foundation and the DOE or some RW "environmental' group and Trump's EPA?
Now, maybe Trump's appointees will just punt on doing anything, but even then they have to sign off on reports and if the reports are corrupt that's their signature confirming their validity and risk having ketchup thrown at them.
= new reply since forum marked as read
