A president can fire staff and tell an agency to wind down, but Congressionally created programs keep running until Congress repeals or relocates them. Ordering 'closure' while demanding 'uninterrupted services' just hollows the agency without changing what it must legally do.
— It clarifies that shrinking the administrative state requires statutory change, not headline‑friendly executive theater.
by Andy Kroll
2025.10.17
82% relevant
The article details Vought’s use of OMB budget execution—freezes, redirects, and review choke points—to effect policy changes (e.g., wall funding, Ukraine hold) despite Congress, illustrating how executive orders alone can’t end programs but budget gatekeeping can hollow or redirect them in practice.
Don Kettl
2025.10.15
74% relevant
The article describes Trump using reductions‑in‑force during a shutdown to gut programs he opposes and says 'they’re never going to come back,' illustrating how executives can hollow agencies even when statutes still require them to operate—echoing the idea that programs persist in law even if the president orders 'closure.'
David Josef Volodzko
2025.10.12
70% relevant
The piece shows an EO cannot create a domestic terrorist designation because Congress hasn’t authorized one, paralleling the broader point that executive orders can’t do what statutes don’t allow. It grounds this in First Amendment association rights and the INA’s Section 219 foreign‑only framework.
Jordan Weissmann
2025.09.19
70% relevant
It highlights the administration’s attempts to hollow out or eliminate agencies (USAID, CFPB) via executive action and budget maneuvers, underscoring that Congressionally created programs persist absent statutory repeal—aligning with the limit on shuttering agencies by order.
by Jake Pearson
2025.09.09
80% relevant
Trump’s 'fair banking' executive order asks regulators to crack down on politicized account closures, yet his administration imposed stop‑work orders and mass layoffs at the CFPB, stalling probes into JPMorgan, Citi, and third‑party screeners—an example of executive actions hollowing statutory enforcement capacity while demanding uninterrupted services.
Oren Cass
2025.09.03
68% relevant
The Federal Circuit’s finding that IEEPA does not authorize emergency tariffs limits unilateral executive action in a domain where Congress traditionally sets rules, echoing the broader principle that presidents can’t use executive authority to do what statutes don’t allow.
Jordan Weissmann
2025.08.26
50% relevant
Lisa Cook’s stance that the president has 'no authority' to remove a Fed governor highlights separation‑of‑powers limits and the legal insulation Congress gave the Fed—illustrating the broader point that executive orders can’t simply rewrite statutory institutional design.
Neal McCluskey
2025.08.26
100% relevant
Trump’s order to close the Education Department 'while ensuring the effective and uninterrupted delivery of services,' plus bills by Massie/Paul (termination date) and Rounds (reassigning OCR to DOJ and FSA to Treasury).