Comment by soraminazuki
1 day ago
I doubt there are any real assurances considering this:
> the career official who was in charge of that program resigned rather than grant the request. He was later replaced by a DOGE staffer on assignment to Treasury.
I do my best at work, and if my employer tells me to do something I don't agree with I continue choosing my actions, at the risk of getting fired. Point is, it's on them to fire me. I've only ever resigned when I don't want to do the work anymore or I'm moving away.
I've never made over ~$60k/year, and I'm fine with that; many ways to be rich.
Also, I like the idea of public luxury, private sufficiency.
The practice of resigning rather than follow illegal/immoral orders seems ill suited to operating in a context where the leadership is an active adversary and can instantly replace you with someone who will just do the thing. I feel like civil servants need to internalize that the old customary practices are based on a context where there are checks and balances in the system, as well as standards of decency and democratic accountability, that make these sorts of formal actions have teeth. When none of that exists a principled resignation is basically just saying “My principles make me a hurdle to your attempts at violating the Constitutional rights of the public, so let me just get out of the way so you can sprint towards that goal more easily.”
Obviously though, it’s the dirty hands problem. 99% of the time we don’t want civil servants to do this because 99% of the time the President isn’t actively trying to unmake the Constitutional order. It’s very problematic to have civil servants thinking their judgement should overrule their leadership, but we’re in extraordinary times and there is no leadership of an opposition movement that can coordinate to set any sort of guardrails around that kind of willful insubordination.
> 99% of the time we don’t want civil servants to do this because 99% of the time the President isn’t actively trying to unmake the Constitutional order. It’s very problematic to have civil servants thinking their judgement should overrule their leadership[.]
Civil servants use their personal judgment 100% of the time because they're tasked with bringing local context to decisions made elsewhere. 99% of the time this isn't a problem because most of the people involved understand the process and their role in it.
For local context yeah, but in open defiance of their leadership not so much.
> When none of that exists a principled resignation is basically just saying “My principles make me a hurdle to your attempts at violating the Constitutional rights of the public, so let me just get out of the way so you can sprint towards that goal more easily.”
While I sort of agree, there is also the very real threat of retaliation that could severely damage or destroy person's life. Both Trump and Musk are known to be very vindictive, and have both massive power and money. I'm not really sure what I would do when presented that kind of choice.