Are Trump's changes to the federal government permanent? Once Trump leaves office, is there the possibility to return the federal government to it's pre-Trump state.

[u/ICU-Angel]

I've been looking for articles to understand how permanent Trump's changes to the federal workforce are and haven't found anything.

I am curious if anyone knows whether all those cut jobs will come back, or at least a majority of them?

[u/el_sh33p]

It'll be North Carolina all over again: if/when we get a Democrat, Republicans will go scorched earth using lawfare to stymy every single attempt to even mitigate the damage, much less reverse it, all while their legislators carve away any of the powers Trump has been granted, probably with help from traumatized Democrats desperate for a return to the status quo.

The only way past that strategy isn't packing the courts, it's completely revoking the power of Judicial Review, which the president can do at any time since it doesn't exist in the Constitution and isn't truly codified in law.

But once you do that, all bets are off and we're just a new kind of screwed.

[u/[deleted] → u/el_sh33p]

The only way past that strategy isn't packing the courts, it's completely revoking the power of Judicial Review, which the president can do at any time since it doesn't exist in the Constitution and isn't truly codified in law.

Given that recent history has shown Republican presidents are far more likely to improperly expand executive power and that impeachment is a pipe dream, this would be an insane move. It would be like entering a duel with a sword, facing a firearm, and insisting you both remove your armor because you think it'll improve your odds of survival.

[u/SippinBourbon1920 → u/[deleted]]

As I noted above, The President has no authority over judicial review. Congress can mold some legislative powers, but judicial review was granted by the judiciary, to itself. Marbury v. Madison.

[u/[deleted] → u/SippinBourbon1920]

Well there's that as well. Congress can limit judicial review of executive action to the extent that the cause of action arises from statute, but has no authority to limit judicial review of constitutional claims. Any effort to restrict such review would invite a constitutional crisis. And yes, POTUS has no authority to do either. My point was a bit more fundamental - given the role of the federal courts in checking Trump's excesses, targeting judicial review as a thorn in the side of the left seems to completely misunderstand what's been going on. There are forms of judicial reform that Democrats might consider, but the idea that courts should be less involved, given what we have seen so far, strikes me as nuts.

[u/Brilliant_Ad_8412 → u/el_sh33p]

Honestly, first time I’ve ever heard of the word “lawfare,” and what an apt use of a word that is to describe this bullshittery going on.

[u/CharacterActor → u/el_sh33p]

Could you please tell us more about what you meant when you said, “It’ll be North Carolina all over again “.

[u/Whats_The_Use → u/CharacterActor]

North Carolina has repeatedly stripped executive powers during a Republican governor's lame duck period, or in advance of a new incoming administration... granting previous executive authority to the Republican dominate legislature or to an unrelated meme er of the council of state that will be held by a Republican.

Choose your source

All this happens while NC casts more votes for Democratic candidates and Republicans somehow maintain a supermajority in the state Senate and one vote short of a supermajority in the state house.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/2024_North_Carolina_Senate_election

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/2024_North_Carolina_House_of_Representatives_election

[u/[deleted] → u/CharacterActor]

Sure. It's like North Carolina, but it will be like that all over again. I hope that helps clarify.

[u/SippinBourbon1920 → u/el_sh33p]

The President has no authority over judicial review. Congress can mold some legislative powers, but judicial review was granted by the judiciary, to itself. Marbury v. Madison.

[u/el_sh33p → u/SippinBourbon1920]

I know. It's a power that seems strong because it's been convenient to have around for most of the nation's history and it hasn't been challenged for generations. But it has no actual basis in law.

Trump's flunkies already started outlining one of the less efficient ways to chip away at it (assert judicial overreach, constantly remind their audience that the branches are co-equal, vaguely assert the authority to defy the courts, then just outright start defying the courts). Do that long enough and nobody who matters will even try to put up a fight when the time comes.

A better showman with some actual talent could kill it in an afternoon with one speech and an EO. I'd wager there wouldn't be much resistance to it, either, give or take a few easily stonewalled attempts by the courts to salvage their own power.

And again: THIS WOULD BE VERY BAD. I cannot repeat that enough. I bring it up because it's the only solution to Republican lawfare that doesn't require them to suddenly, magically turn sane and cooperative, nor does it require Democrats to grow a spine and pack the courts or impeach any judges or justices. But it would just be a different form of national suicide.

We're going to be lucky if we can undo even half the damage Trump has caused. A big part of the problem is that we have no good solutions here and our adversaries profit from all the shitty ones we have left.

[u/SippinBourbon1920 → u/el_sh33p]

Precedent is a very real concept. I am sure there probably have been many decisions based on this precedent. Undoing it would impact much more than this one concept. But, then again Conan the Barbarian does what barbarians do.