Who would be doing the shielding? The current US government has been operating under the assumption of an incredibly expansive executive power, even over "independent" agencies.
I'm not a legal expert at all but so far the most useful mental model has been to assume absolutely no one is shielded from executive power (including organizations and people entirely outside the federal government) unless the courts have delivered a final ruling on it.
How would a final court ruling shield someone from executive power? The court relies on the executive to enforce its decisions. They can find a person in contempt, and order fines or jail time until that person complies, but I believe the orders are then enforced by U.S. Marshals, who are executive appointees.
If the Marshalls neglect their oath to the Constitution (whether ordered to by superiors or not) then the court can deputize others to carry out court orders. IIUC correctly that's usually the police.
I think there's no hard power stopping them but in general they've been reluctant to openly defy courts (they have defied lower courts some while claiming they haven't). I think at least adhering to some pretense of American democracy has so far been important to this administration and if they abandon that pretense carelessly they run a real risk of losing necessary support (popular support, Congressional support, but also support of executive branch institutions).
Also, it's not that I think they won't defy courts but they'll be very careful in doing it (well, at least as careful as this administration can be) so it's still a reasonable base assumption that court orders protect you since while it's not the ironclad protection it was it still gives you some protection for now. Though that "for now" is obviously rather ominous.
The president nominates the SEC chair, and can fire him.
This explains how, written just before Trump assumed power:
While he can't force Gensler to step down as a commissioner at the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission, he can name a new interim SEC chair as soon as he's inaugurated on Jan. 20. He can also nominate a new commissioner to the Senate, which has to confirm the pick.
If you’re POTUS or closely related to POTUS with access to sweeping information about erratic tariff policies that actual do shift entire markets index funds index against, why couldn’t you?
In general I think you’re correct because the “inside” information is typically not as broad or powerful. But I don’t think we live in general times. If POTUS gave me personally a heads up about such adjustments on tariffs, after watching indexes tumble after announcing them, and knowing the opposite direction, I would dump almost everything I had access to in such stocks largely effected by reevaluation from tariffs.
Knowing major policy shifts before they happen from one of the powerful governments in the world is useful information, especially when the policies are being set by a handful of people who can limit access to knowledge escaping even more than regularly so markets don’t adjust from larger sets of insider information.
Now is it really considered “insider” trading in this case? Probably not, and this administration can get away with anything it seems.
That's the whole point. It CANNOT have been someone inside all 500 companies. It wouldn't make much sense because those companies did not do anything at the time. It was president Trump's tweet that moved the market. So it can only have been someone that new of Trump's announcement hours before he made that announcement.
In this administration they will be fired for cases Trump doesnt like. Who would protect their independence, Congress? The house members will not oppose any trump policy unless the US is in a depression due to his action
SEC is a federal agency so falls under the Executive which is controlled by Trump. Trump will fire any SEC employee who investigates the "wrong" people and install a loyalist in their place.
This is the truth, they have been recently divesting of anyone who wants to prosecute for white collar crime. The next four years will see at least one trillionaire because he/she will be able to game the system without any barriers because the sheriff is also the criminal.
I agree, at this point. There is of course voter agency in 2 years.
Of course lots of voters (specifically the ones that voted for this) are pretty happy with the way things are going. So any kind of blowback is uncertain at best.
If the population were genuinely interested in removing Trump, they could elect 60 democrats to the senate and a house majority, then impeach. But again, a healthy chunk are happy, and a lot if the rest can't vote Democrat for social / tribal reasons.
But make no mistake, he operates above the law because the people think it's OK. They alone have the power to remove him.
Not necessarily. First for soft reasons: media and tech companies spreading disinformation. Second for hard reasons: elections can be postponed for <reasons>.
Article II Section 2 of the U.S. Constitution, "the President shall be Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy of the United States, and of the Militia of the several States, when called into the actual Service of the United States."
The military repeatedly drills into trainees that they serve to defend and uphold the constitution, not the presidential orders. There are all kinds of lessons on when to disobey direct orders, when to speak up, how to speak up, what your protections are, etc. etc.
The military is not going to take action until it is absolutely necessary. Yes, the military is sworn to uphold the constitution, even over presidential rule but it's also well understood that a military coup should be avoided at all costs. Once initiated you cannot undo this. It has significant repercussions and has significant risk of starting a civil war. It is not a thing that starts one day and ends the next. It is a thing that at best last weeks, likely lasts months, but could last indefinitely.
It is also worth mentioning that the military is not a uniform and monolithic entity. If you're asking what arm is on the other side of that civil war, well it was originally part of the one the initiated the coup in the first place.
Trust me, no one wants a military coup. It should not be a tool used lightly. Do not ask for this until all other options have been exhausted
So far, their actions are compatible with both hypotheses.
It's when the orders come in to directly use military force to support unconstitutional acts that we find out, not simply when the military fails to intervene in legal disputes.
Military answers to whomever it thinks it's best to get paid. If relationship between government and the people fails so hard that collection of taxes to fund the military is threatened then the military sides either with the people and deposes the government or with the government and suppresses the unrest.
"the military" isn't a single entity. If things really got bad I suspect there would breaks all over the place as various groups (across all ranks) decide to either follow or refuse orders coming down. It would be chaos, the fact that things could get so bad that we're even talking about it is already a very bad sign.
I'm sure there's always some back and forth inside the structure of the military but since it's insular singular top down organization it's usually not visible to civilians and they only get exposed to the consensus that military eventually reaches. Since everybody in the military is armed there's very little benefit to actively fighting with each other using sizable force because it brings no one closer to ensuring getting paid. So any staunch opponents of consensus are just getting deposed or at most assassinated. Everything usually happens quite peacefully.
U.S. law requires the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff to have served as the vice chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, the chief of staff of the Army, the chief of naval operations, the chief of staff of the Air Force, the commandant of the Marine Corps, or the commander of a unified or specified combatant command.
Just after 2:00 a.m. eastern time this morning, the Senate confirmed Retired Air Force Lieutenant General John Dan Caine, who goes by the nickname “Razin,” for chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff by a vote of 60–25.
Although Caine has 34 years of military experience, he did not serve in any of the required positions.
The law provides that the president can waive the requirement if “the President determines such action is necessary in the national interest,” and he has apparently done so for Caine.
The politicization of the U.S. military by filling it with Trump loyalists is now, as Kendall writes, “indisputable.”
There is a chain of command in the military, you have to follow orders even if you disagree with them (unless they are unconstitutional). You may express your disagreement to your superiors, but you may not publicly distance yourself. She would be courtmartialed for this in most militaries, and probably in the US as well in a more serious situation.
