The Beef01 said:

---

My BIL loves him some Lincoln Project and is a sharp guy, but he keeps trying to convince everyone that they're crazy for voting for Trump.

He sent my brother and I this Tweet earlier and I've been buried and haven't had a chance to read anything about it.

I'm 100% sure this is a total perversion of the EO and I'm sure it's a completely insane framing of it, but can someone provide some context to this claim??

Donald Trump just signed an executive order declaring that only the president or the Attorney General can speak for “what the law is.”

Yeah, they’re telling us what they plan to do. pic.twitter.com/G4phReZ0D5

— Republicans against Trump (@RpsAgainstTrump) February 19, 2025

---

It doesn't look great. And I'm really not trying to be partisan because I know my name on here illicits immediate responses or assumptions that I'm just giving some liberal response, but nothing about this EO is good.


"Therefore, in order to improve the administration of the executive branch and to increase regulatory officials' accountability to the American people, it shall be the policy of the executive branch to ensure Presidential supervision and control of the entire executive branch."

...

"(b) "Agency," unless otherwise indicated, means any authority of the United States that is an "agency" under 44 U.S.C. 3502(1), and shall also include the Federal Election Commission. This order shall not apply to the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System or to the Federal Open Market Committee in its conduct of monetary policy. This order shall apply to the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System only in connection with its conduct and authorities directly related to its supervision and regulation of financial institutions.".

...

" Sec. 7. Rules of Conduct Guiding Federal Employees' Interpretation of the Law. The President and the Attorney General, subject to the President's supervision and control, shall provide authoritative interpretations of law for the executive branch. The President and the Attorney General's opinions on questions of law are controlling on all employees in the conduct of their official duties. No employee of the executive branch acting in their official capacity may advance an interpretation of the law as the position of the United States that contravenes the President or the Attorney General's opinion on a matter of law, including but not limited to the issuance of regulations, guidance, and positions advanced in litigation, unless authorized to do so by the President or in writing by the Attorney General. "

ETFan said:

---

The Beef01 said:

---

My BIL loves him some Lincoln Project and is a sharp guy, but he keeps trying to convince everyone that they're crazy for voting for Trump.

He sent my brother and I this Tweet earlier and I've been buried and haven't had a chance to read anything about it.

I'm 100% sure this is a total perversion of the EO and I'm sure it's a completely insane framing of it, but can someone provide some context to this claim??

Donald Trump just signed an executive order declaring that only the president or the Attorney General can speak for “what the law is.”

Yeah, they’re telling us what they plan to do. pic.twitter.com/G4phReZ0D5

— Republicans against Trump (@RpsAgainstTrump) February 19, 2025

---

It doesn't look great. And I'm really not trying to be partisan because I know my name on here illicits immediate responses or assumptions that I'm just giving some liberal response, but nothing about this EO is good.


"Therefore, in order to improve the administration of the executive branch and to increase regulatory officials' accountability to the American people, it shall be the policy of the executive branch to ensure Presidential supervision and control of the entire executive branch."

...

"(b) "Agency," unless otherwise indicated, means any authority of the United States that is an "agency" under 44 U.S.C. 3502(1), and shall also include the Federal Election Commission. This order shall not apply to the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System or to the Federal Open Market Committee in its conduct of monetary policy. This order shall apply to the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System only in connection with its conduct and authorities directly related to its supervision and regulation of financial institutions.".

...

" Sec. 7. Rules of Conduct Guiding Federal Employees' Interpretation of the Law. The President and the Attorney General, subject to the President's supervision and control, shall provide authoritative interpretations of law for the executive branch. The President and the Attorney General's opinions on questions of law are controlling on all employees in the conduct of their official duties. No employee of the executive branch acting in their official capacity may advance an interpretation of the law as the position of the United States that contravenes the President or the Attorney General's opinion on a matter of law, including but not limited to the issuance of regulations, guidance, and positions advanced in litigation, unless authorized to do so by the President or in writing by the Attorney General. "

---

Sounds to me like a response to the recent "Chevron deference" ruling that rolled back the ability of various federal agencies like ATF or EPA to interpret laws and convert them into new regulations. The old judicial precedent was to defer to the agency for interpretation of what a law means. Seems to me like Trump is trying to coalesce that interpretive power to the president or AG unless otherwise authorized by them. Not really all that weird or out there. Seems like it could head off a lot of lawsuits where agencies go rogue (like ATF) and decide to come up with some new interpretation of an old law to declare some activity illegal (like their pistol brace rule).

How else would it work? POTUS in consultation with his head of legal (AG) will be the source for ultimate determination on whether actions of the Executive are legal.

Else, as pointed out above the agencies would be up to that on their own.

Problem is libs twist themselves into believing this EO somehow excludes Congress and the Judicial. It does not from what I can see.

But chicken lefties must kick and squirm any time Trump tweets.

The Beef01 said:

---

My BIL loves him some Lincoln Project and is a sharp guy, but he keeps trying to convince everyone that they're crazy for voting for Trump.

He sent my brother and I this Tweet earlier and I've been buried and haven't had a chance to read anything about it.

I'm 100% sure this is a total perversion of the EO and I'm sure it's a completely insane framing of it, but can someone provide some context to this claim??

Donald Trump just signed an executive order declaring that only the president or the Attorney General can speak for “what the law is.”

Yeah, they’re telling us what they plan to do. pic.twitter.com/G4phReZ0D5

— Republicans against Trump (@RpsAgainstTrump) February 19, 2025

---

This tweet is, as you say, a perversion of what the EO says and does.

https://www.whitehouse.gov/presidential-actions/2025/02/ensuring-accountability-for-all-agencies/

What the EO is saying is that the Constitution outlines three branches of government, with the executive branch tasked with enforcement of the law via the President, who is checked in his powers by the Congress, Judiciary and regular elections by the People.

The EO goes on to talk about the proliferation of regulatory agencies which have had lax to no oversight in prior administrations and therefore have not had a check on their own expansion of legal power and authority.

Therefore, the EO clarifies, to maintain agency accountability to the American People the Executive (president and attorney general) have sole authority within the executive branch to provide interpretations of the law within the executive branch agencies and that they (the president by extent his cabinet) are in turn subject to their respective constitutional checks.

What his is really doing is saying the president is the duly elected executive by the people and by virtue of that has authority to oversee and manage the agencies in the executive branch - not the unelected heads of those agencies, and that the agency heads have no legal right to interpret laws which contravene the president of AG's interpretation.

So yes, this is in keeping with the ending of the Chevron doctrine, and is basically end executive branch recognizing itself as within it's rights to manage (and fire) personnel with the agencies so long as that it does not violate the laws as passed y Congress.

The last point there is where they will challenged, but my guess is that's part of the plan and the EO was drafted in such a way as to be an easy defense argument if taken up by the Supreme Court.

It does not say the executive is replacing the courts or is unchecked in the law, simply that it is within its power to interpret the law and not the subordinate agencies.

Weird

This EO that just dropped is the economic equivalent of a hypersonic tactical nuclear weapon. pic.twitter.com/fLPu2LiASO

— joshua steinman (🇺🇸,🇺🇸) (@JoshuaSteinman) February 22, 2025