Federal employees swear a constitutional oath that supersedes presidential order and they have civil service protections beyond what most workers have available. Many are in unions.
As executive workers, they have a legal obligation to execute the law irrespective of what is decreed. Even then, they have their own - private - moral principles. The Nuremberg trials were clear: following orders is not a defense.
I completely agree with all of this. But at the same time your whole argument applies both ways.
I'm not sure it's fair to place the burden of constitutional interpretation on every federal employee. Understanding the constitution is complex, and frankly in many places open to a lot of interpretation.
And of course if unions want to join the fray, they're welcome to.
I will however note this. Your argument gives every federal employee freedom to do anything they like. This is true for left wing and right wing alike.
The problem with the "following orders is not a defense" logic is that it implies the person had choices (feds do, they can quit, guards didnt). Equally it implies that future-winners can retro-determine what you "should have done". It judges your present actions based on some future standard. Which means you need to decide which standard you think will ultimately win.
Clearly every person has their own limit. Lots of people quit their jobs every day. And clearly that is everyone's option.
At some fundamental level though, when you enter public service, you serve at the pleasure of the public. Right now it's hard to argue that this isn't the will of the public.
You may not like it, I certainly don't, but the permissions we tell ourself now are the same permissions that apply 4, 8, 12 years from now.
Which leads to the question- are you happy if a racist working under a Dem president uses your exact argument? And if not, why not?
I was making the deontological argument because I assumed that was the meta-ethical framework you were using, which can be extended by just saying "abiding by moral commitments and oaths is a matter of moral necessity". I think all the arguments you levied can be addressed by that extension.
Trump didn't run on project 2025 precisely because he knew it wasn't the will of the public.
My personal view is that much evil in the world occurs because people who make decisions and those that do them are not the same set. That any one, or any small group, can inflict so much unnecessary suffering seems surely to be a sign of pathology in the structure of our civilization. The fix, in my view, is to reassert direct personal responsibility, and to deny the legitimacy of looking to systems of rules to launder responsibility.
If I was a fed right now I'd probably already have been arrested for breaking people's legs. There are way more feds than there are people telling them what to do.
>ultimately your job is to serve whichever politician is in power
No they don't? They a take an oath to the constitution. "I do solemnly swear that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic"
The president is temporary. The constitution endures.
The constitution is a complex document that seems (to me) to say whatever you want it to say.
Even people who have spent their entire lives in that space (aka Supreme Court judges) have trouble agreeing what it says.
To fall back on the "oath to the constitution" to determine your path seems difficult. As an employee it seems like those above my pay grade pretty much interpret the constitution for me.
> The very essence of democracy is that he gets to set policy
The President is supposed to execute the laws faithfully. It's Congress' job to set policy. Not that it matters because we hav the Republican Party setting policy instead.
Congress has turned away from that responsibility by giving ever more discretion to the executive branch throughout the history of the nation. Prior to that, "federal agencies" like the EPA, FCC, FTC, SEC, etc., were illegal. All of these agencies are formed from powers that Congress relinquished to the executive branch, to unburden themselves from the difficult job of passing laws.
The Roman Empire had a similar demise as emperors relinquished power to nobles who also didn't want the responsibility.
Government is work and no one wants to do it. Anyone agreeing to take on the responsibility that Congress didn't want has a reason for doing it. It's likely not for the reason that they desperately want to act for the good of the people.
Political parties in America don't have a traditional, singular "party leader" per se. The President, House Speaker (or Leader if the party does not hold speakership), and Senate Leader generally consider policies within their purview and consult with each other as necessary. A national committee governs a party outside of government.
Trump has an outsized presence and influence upon the Republican Party, both as President and as an ordinary American citizen, but this is rather unusual and not the norm.
No, that's ridiculous. Not every person who voted for Trump wants the crazy. Many of them (edit: many of his swing voters) just want better pay and cheaper consumer goods and thought Trump was more likely to deliver than Harris. And they hoped his crazy talk during the campaign would remain mostly talk like in his first term.
The population does not support this. People are surprised.
>> Not every person who voted for Trump wants the crazy
Crazy is literally his brand. Voters can choose to rationalize this if they like, but voting and hoping doesn't seem like a good strategy to me.
>> just want better pay and cheaper consumer goods and thought Trump was more likely to deliver than Harris.
Given that he ran on setting tarrifs its hard to see that bringing prices down. But hey, maybe they will.
Trump is the most transparent politician ever. There's no guile here. That's apparently his appeal. He says whatever he likes, will grift at every opportunity, commits crimes in plain sight, is a convicted felon, is completely transactional and holds a grudge.
Make no mistake- people voted for this. They may not -want- it, but there's no deception here. How can people possibly be surprised?
But then the whole federal work force becomes politicized. I mean, if I stand up for what's right, then I can't complain when a right-wing worker does the same when say Obama is in power.
If a racist was to follow your logic (allowing each individual to determine their "rightness") and they start applying rules on racist principles, is that OK?
If Trumps orders, and by extension the CDC orders are unlawful, then a court will decide that.
I don't think a CDC employee should break the law, equally I don't think CDC employees should be lawyers interpreting the law.
So the point stands. If you're asking employees to rebel against their employers, yet stay within the law, then I guess they need to lawyer up, and hope that (ultimately) Supreme Court judges agree with them.
Whether you know the law or not, you are expected to obey the law. If society worked any other way, then all murderers just didn't know the law and we can revert to living in caves.
And anyway, who doesn't know that discrimination is illegal at work in 2025? Maybe a handful of recent immigrants from a tiny fraction of terrible countries?
There is no law requiring you to stand up for others at work. But in cases of discrimination, personally, I do. Because the law is on my side, and my employees need me to.
Your point might stand, but your example about discrimination doesn't make your point.
Trump ordered to Army Corps of Engineers to just start releasing water from dams, so they did. They them took the initiative upon themselves to stop when it became obvious continuing would just cause damage. Are you saying the Army corps should have waited for a case to make it's way through the supreme court?
Our government doesn't run top to bottom, that is how fascism/dictatorships work. Our executive branch executes laws/policy, Trump oversees that, not dictates. Trump does not give federal employees orders. He can only give orders to the military. We also don't go for the 'I was just following what I was told' excuse. In fact, we've executed a whole nations leadership for using that excuse in how they governed.
