It does though. It requires federal employees to not behave in an arbitrary and capricious manner. It requires them to move slowly when arbitrary and capricious policies come down. Go read the case law. They can't just to be told to start denying people something because the President wants it so, unless the authorization for what they are doing allows the President that sort of authority. They very much can and should follow the actual law and policies, not 'what the President wants'. What you are talking about is a banana republic, not the USA executive branch as it has worked since the 1940s.

I literally litigate APA cases. The APA is what you invoke if the government grants you a permit and then takes it away without a good reason. But individual executive branch employees cannot invoke the APA to oppose an administrative policy they disagree with.

You also seem to think the President is a dictator that can dictate what people do and they are required to follow those dictates up to an until the courts come back. We do not have a top down dictatorial system of government.

This is basic high school US civics 101 on how our government functions.

Show me a civics textbook that says federal employees have any independence from the president. You won’t find one. The founding fathers created a very specific system, not a general vibe. The government as a whole isn’t dictatorial—there are three branches that check each other. But within each branch it’s close to dictatorial. The Supreme Court justices decide the law. Their staff can privately express their opinions, but have no independent power. Same for congressional staff. It would be unthinkable for a Supreme Court clerk or congressional staffer to declare “Resistance.” The same should be true for federal employees. Express your concerns through proper channels, but otherwise keep your mouth shut and follow the directions of those with constitutional authority.

The branches have to be dictatorships inside themselves. The founders were very deliberate in creating a system with democratic accountability. Everyone with power is either elected or appointed by someone who is elected. Career civil servants are not elected. Voters have no way to influence them other than by electing the president. And so career civil servants cannot have powers beyond the ministerial. Otherwise you end up with a government that isn’t responsive to elections—where people can’t change the course of government by voting.

Trump ordered random water released from dams in California last week. That is a dictate, not sound policy. There was zero documentation on our tariffs on over 40% of goods coming into the country as of this morning. The press secretary last week tried to clarify the freezing that was initiated, ultimately leading the the rescinding of the clarifying order that were given to the entire US government. That is dictatorship, not sound executive policies in line with the office of the President. Those are all dictates from the person on top. Yes, offices would be correct in ignoring them. In fact, the Army Corp of Engineers ultimately did have to stop release water due to potential negative outcomes. And the Army Corps acted correctly. But according to you, they acted wrongly and illegally.

I'm not going to give a basic civics lesson. The executive 'executes' the rules and policies established by the legislative branch. Government employees execute those rules, the President oversees. The only people the President gives orders to are the military. Musk has control of the National Checkbook, with no oversight, protocols or security to limit his actions. That is dictatorial power, not Constitutional executive authority.

Sorry bud, you want blind following of dictates. That is not the American system of government.

Many of those things will be litigated, and some may be overturned. That happens to administrations all the time. That is checks and balances. But federal employees are not at liberty to ignore directives from the President because they don’t think it’s “sound policy.” Nobody voted for them. You’re talking about unelected, unaccountable bureaucrats short-circuiting the operation of the democratically accountable branches.

By the way I’d give the same courtesy to any president. His student loan forgiveness was obviously illegal, as well as being bad policy. But it would’ve been beyond the pale for his Department of Education to ignore the directive.

> The executive 'executes' the rules and policies established by the legislative branch. Government employees execute those rules, the President oversees.

Show me where it says anything like this in Article II: https://constitutioncenter.org/the-constitution/articles/art...

Article II is crystal clear. The very first sentence says: “The executive Power shall be vested in a President of the United States of America.” It’s parallel to the congressmen or Supreme Court justices. The “civil service” are just staff. The constitution doesn’t even bother mentioning them.

What you’re saying is that there’s this key organ of government—the “non-political civil service”—with independent responsibilities exercising their best judgment, that somehow isn’t even mentioned in the constitution!

> What you’re saying is that there’s this key organ of government—the “non-political civil service”—with independent responsibilities exercising their best judgment, that somehow isn’t even mentioned in the constitution!

You're saying that as if it were a real zinger, clinching the argument for you. I don't think it is or does.

Yeah, the constitution may not mention a non-political civil service. So what?!? It ultimately regulates a whole lot of shit that it doesn't explicitly mention. Like, does the constitution explicitly mention Elon Musk's employees installing drives on government computers? No? Clearly unconstitutional, then!

If the President orders a Treasury Department employee to transfer $1 billion to the President's personal bank account in Switzerland, does that employee have the right to say "no"?

According to the theory you're espousing here, that employee is a drone who will have to transfer the money, even though it's obviously illegal.