Consistent with President @realDonaldTrump’s instructions, all federal employees will shortly receive an email requesting to understand what they got done last week.
— Elon Musk (@elonmusk) February 22, 2025
Failure to respond will be taken as a resignation.
What does that mean? I did my job? 
https://old.reddit.com/r/fednews/comments/1ivrftv/comment/me7xvc7/?context=8
https://old.reddit.com/r/fednews/comments/1ivrftv/comment/me7xw9h/?context=8
https://old.reddit.com/r/fednews/comments/1ivrftv/comment/me7yp0w/?context=8
Supervisor > President 
https://old.reddit.com/r/fednews/comments/1ivrftv/comment/me7xra1/?context=8
I'm selling my Tesla!
https://old.reddit.com/r/fednews/comments/1ivrftv/comment/me7z2j7/?context=8
WTF They're not allowed to do that!
https://old.reddit.com/r/fednews/comments/1ivrftv/comment/me8616j/?context=8
You're not my boss!
https://old.reddit.com/r/fednews/comments/1ivrftv/comment/me85t8u/?context=8
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
Presidents have argued that the Take Care Clause empowers them to ignore unconstitutional laws. If the President was supposed to have the Constitutional power to fire any federal employee (which is part of the Unitary Executive Theory). It is the President's duty to take care that the Constitution is faithfully followed and and ignore civil servant statutes.
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
the constitution doesn't mention a power to remove people from office at all.
i don't see how a president can be "taking care" to ensure laws are followed faithfully if he just ignores lawfully defined firing criteria. if there was a lawful reason, he should be able to demonstrate it in court.
this is literally just sophistic garbage from unamerican dimwits
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
Are you an American, because you do not know Constitutional law well. "the executive power of the government- i, e., the general administrative control of those executing the laws, including the power of appointment and removal of executive officers-a conclusion confirmed by his obligation to take care that the laws be faithfully executed" Myers v. United States, 272 U.S. 52, 164, 47 S. Ct. 21, 41, 71 L. Ed. 160 (1926). The Removal power comes from three main places, the Appointments clause, the Executive clause, and the Take Care Clause.
The highest law is the constitution, a statute that violates the Constitution, violates the law. Republican legal scholars have always claimed that the President has a constitutional duty to ignore unconstitutional laws. Some legal scholars agree (see https://irp.fas.org/agency/doj/olc110294.html).
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
i've read the constitution. it doesn't actually specifically grant a power to remove, it only mentions execute, and appoint (with advice/consent)
i get that certain lawyers, including some supreme court justices can't read all that well, but the constitution only mentions a power to execute laws as stated, and specifically states that appointments are defined by congressional law. that includes the bounds and constraints of the appointments, including when they can be removed early ... which is not just because a newly elected official dislikes them.
trying to convolute "take care that laws are executed faithfully" into "he can exercise removal power not actually specifically granted by the law, or even the constitution"... is as stupid as trying to claim that me locally growing weed for personal consumption falls under the purview of "interstate commerce", when it is literally not interstate, nor even commerce.
i'm really fricking tired of living on a clown planet.
!commenters
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
Well, your opinion does not carry much legal precedent as you are just a singular r-slur. Your opinions count for very little in this world and will never carry any effect on anyone's life. The decision of the First Congress in 1789 heavily implied the President had removal power (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Decision_of_1789). The Supreme Court since 1928 has officially stated this is so (Myers v. US). This is not the opinion of "some supreme court justices" this has been the opinion of all modern supreme court justices. If the President has the "Executive Power", what executive do you know that can not fire an employee?
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
the fact u even think u need to point that out is indicative of internalized philosophically dishonesty, u have little respect for actual inherent truth or coherency ... or why the frick else would ur dumbass bring that up???
i get that most lawyers can't read all that well, nor can u if u think executing the law means one can just ignore the removal criterial for appointments as defined by law. the fact i need to state this is clown planet level criteria. the exceptions upon exception defined by the supreme court is literally just fricking r-slurred nonsense from people who don't have the heart to judge honestly.
frick u and frick everything u ever stood for.
he's not a god darn corporate ceo u r-slurred moron, he's an officer bound to execute the law, not whatever the frick shareholder's will is. he doesn't even fricking employ them u moron, he appoints officials into terms who are then employed by the govt under conditions of those terms.
the nation isn't a fricking a corporation, it demands a heck of a lot more stability. we don't have competitors sitting around to catch the slack when it fails to promote stability.
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
I have no respect for the truth, the truth is a non-existent figment of collective delusion. But the fact is you think the truth matters is pathetic.
First, you said I was non-American, now I am a lawyer, I can't wait to find out what you think I am next.
In what world is the word "Executive" and the word "Executive Power" not related? The Country is going to heck because unelected judges and bureaucrats have deluded themselves into thinking they work for something greater than the popular will. The people voted for Trump, they did not vote for Gail in HR in the Department of Agriculture. Therefore Trump can fire Gail, as she is just a bureaucrat that serves at the will of the people.
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
and so that's what... not even the truth????
there's no point in arguing with someone voluntarily admitting such abject philosophical confusion.
!commenters
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
Does that mean you win the argument and can stop pinging everyone?
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
More options
Context
Darn your #god comment really got me. But explain to me, if everyone of importance from the highest courts and presidential chambers to the lowest apparatchik enforces a rule, why does it matter if the rule is real? Your fetish object of "objective truth" doesn't matter because it's not real, it doesn't exist in reality. Objective truth exists in the minds of syphilitics and mental patients but no actual authority has ever been stopped by the "truth" of a law. If someone points a gun at you and shoots you because they claim you're an alien, does it actually matter that you're not from Mars?
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
More options
Context
More options
Context
More options
Context
More options
Context
More options
Context
Frick you! Shut up libtard! Downmarseyd. Firing and downmarseying libtards is just common sense and plainly constitutional. You're not entitled to my tax dollars or dramacoin!
!project2025
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
congress is... it's literally stated right there in constitution
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
!commenters I owned this libtard so hard he's just responding with total nonsense.
Here I'll spell it out for you: The president is the head of the executive branch. He obviously has the power to fire employees of the executive branch. Any claim to the contrary is libtarded and unconstitutional.
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
literally no where in the constitution does it say that,
he only has the power to execute the law, and is constitutionally bound to take care the law is faithfully executed
any judge that thinks faithfully executing the law means totally ignoring the law on when someone can and cannot be fired should be forcibly disbarred from ever practicing the law again
any claim to the contrary is just being too r-slurred to read
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
More options
Context
More options
Context
More options
Context
YEEEEE HAAAAAW THIS ERE IS MAGA C*NTY, YOU LIBEROULS BEST REMEMBER!
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
More options
Context
More options
Context
More options
Context
The only member of SCOTUS who supports this view is Thomas.
All laws congress passes are assumed constitutional until a court rules them otherwise. If POTUS can ignore laws then there is no separation of powers and congress dont have any role.
This is like saying that congress can override commands POTUS gives to the military.
Most of the federal government are not executive officers. Trump's bands of r-slurs keep trying to argue that point but it's been ruled on before, there is a distinction between civil service and executive officers.
The only clear executive officers are cabinet members and SCOTUS justices. I'm not sure what's so hard to understand about federal employees being employed by congress.
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
Read Seila Law and SEC v. Jarkesy, Thomas and Gorsuch are totally behind Unitary Executive Theory. Roberts basically is for it but won't say it honestly. Alito and Kavaungh also seem less gun-ho but would probably support it in most situations due to their general Conservative principles. Looking at West Virginia v. EPA, I think ACB may be the least pro Unitary Executive Theory Conservative Justice. Also if you read those cases you'll learn that there's a whole bunch of people considered Executive Officers, and there are Principal officers and lesser officers.
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
More options
Context
More options
Context
More options
Context
Let's take it for granted that the president somehow doesn't have the power to fire federal employees (even though he has the power to employ them.)
Okay.
Trump immediately creates duplicate institutions of every single US federal agency. Let's helpfully call them the X departments. They have identical jurisdictions written into their charters of the departments they shadow. Nothing in the Constitution says you can't have federal agencies with overlapping duties.
But according to you, a succeeding Democratic president would have no power to fire them, because the civil service is above scrutiny.
And don't say 'muh bad faith'. Your opinion on the executive powers is regarded. The power to hire is the power to fire. Why else would it be otherwise?
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
actually he can't create any appointments unless allowed by law, so unless the law says he can create duplicates, he cannot...
and he certainly can't appoint to those duplicates without the advice and consent of the senate, unless otherwise stated by law, which the law certainly doesn't allow for these agencies u allege he can duplicate...
both of these are very clearly stated in the constitution.
have u even read the constitution? it's not actually that long. i recommend reading it over once or twice before trying to form opinions on it.
!commenters
the executive branch intentionally isn't supposed to have much decision making power
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
That's why they put the Legislature in first, so they can make decisions based on the elected representative of the several States to form our laws and establish our budgets.
The President executes on the budget and makes sure the departments created by Congress deliver what they were meant to do.
The Judiciary makes sure everyone is adhering to the constitution.
This isn't rocket surgery.
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
More options
Context
More options
Context
More options
Context
More options
Context
More options
Context