> A self-coup, also called an autocoup (from Spanish autogolpe) or coup from the top, is a form of coup d'état in which a political leader, having come to power through legal means, stays in power through illegal means through the actions of themselves and/or their supporters.[1] The leader may dissolve or render powerless the national legislature and unlawfully assume extraordinary powers. Other measures may include annulling the nation's constitution, suspending civil courts, and having the head of government assume dictatorial powers.[2][3]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Self-coup

For a recent example see the events in South Korea with President Yoon.

But which of those actually fits the present situation? Four years haven't passed. Congress is not dissolved. It's literally just a bunch of executive orders and firings within the executive branch, which, last time I checked Article II, is under the authority of the president.

I think “unlawfully assume extraordinary powers” may apply.

It’s certainly debatable, but shutting down agencies created and authorized by Congress and refusing to distribute funding legislated by Congress seems to be an overstep of executive power, and therefore an undermining of Congress’s power.

My main point was that ousting an incumbent or defying an election is not a requirement for something to be a coup, as the previous comment was suggesting. A legitimately elected official seizing more power than they are legally entitled to is a form of coup.

There is certainly a transfer of power going on, but whether that's unlawful will be for the courts to decide.

I’m not sure a court ruling is a requirement for something to be called a coup.

[delayed]

First the coup starts happening, then the coup happens

Seizing legislative power, which up until about 7 days ago included all control over federal funding, for the executive branch is a coup.

No. That's not a coup as anyone understands the word.

From the dictionary:

> A sudden appropriation of leadership or power; a takeover.

Yes, it's well-known for taking leadership, but any kind of appropriation of power like this is a coup.

So you would agree with my statement that "That's not a coup as anyone understands the word." then

It's always been clear to me that federal agencies aren't allowed to spend money that congress hasn't authorized.

It's been less clear to me whether federal agencies are obligated to spend money that congress has authorized.

Thanks, I had to dig, but impoundment looks like what i need to research.

Separation of powers, checks and balances. The executive branch taking powers from the legislative branch with the judicial branch approving can be seen as a coup.

It's only democracy when I like it.

Conversely: It’s only an overstep of constitutional power when I don’t like it.

There's so many laws they're breaking it's hard to name them all and that's part of the point, flood the zone with misbehavior and it becomes difficult to track and react to it all. The President is not a little tyrant able to do whatever he wants with the Executive Branch just because he was elected, the idea that he is and should be is a bizarre new reading ideologically motivated to allow someone like Trump to tear anything they don't like to shreds and only keep the parts they want.

Trump cannot legally delegate his power to just anyone. Delegations of power are done through appointed positions that must be confirmed by the Senate.

He also doesn't have the power to just shut down a part of the government created and funded by an act of congress.

It looks to me like this is the natural outcome of the executive branch deciding what mandates from congress it will uphold. I.E. deciding which laws to focus on enforcing and which one's to have lax/non-existent focus.

Until Congress grows a spine and starts legislating again, the executive will continue to run rampant.

I’m not sure how having Congress “start legislating again” would be effective if the executive branch can simply ignore that legislation under your interpretation.

Congress did this on purpose.

Republican's STATED OBJECTIVE for decades has been obstructionism, entirely so they can go on the news and say "Look how ineffective the government is". Go look at how debates happened on the floor of congress 40 years ago. Go look at the AMOUNT of work done by a functioning congress. Compare it to how little republicans have done in congress since.

Then go ask republican voters and they will tell you that they explicitly prefer a congress that does nothing.

They want a king.

I would use the term 'purge' for what's happened so far, along with 'seizure'. the coup would come after the purge, once musk has full control of the monetary system and the republican congressional leadership and the courts have made it clear they won't do anything to stop Trump.

Don't forget that Trump is approaching 80. I don't know how well he will be able to keep up.

If it is illegal, then it can be coup. You are elected to act within the law.

Democracy becomes non democracy by illegal acta, typically.

Hitler was duly elected. It took 54 days from the time he took power to end democracy in Germany.

This will be downvoted, but it is mostly true. Altrough that election was highly violent, there was large suppression going on.

I don't think you're allowed to say that on Hacker News.

Hitler wasn't elected, he was appointed chancellor by Hindenburg. He then used the Reichstag Fire Decree to arrest the opposition to his Enabling Act, guaranteeing it's passage and solidifying his hold on power.

That’s some careful hair splitting.

He was legally placed in the role by the democratically available processes in place after his party won significant seats in several elections.

This isn’t Trump’s power to delegate. Congress dictates spending, not the President. Usurping that power from Congress is the coup.

Whether Trump was duly (?) elected is still up for debate, after all he's a convicted felon, an insurrectionist, there's investigations into voter fraud, and foreign interference / propaganda that helped get him elected again.

He can't just delegate power to an unelected civilian like this.

To invoke Godwin's law, Hitler was democratically elected, Austria democratically voted to join the Reich, the people of the UK voted in favor of leaving Europe. Just because it doesn't technically meet your definition of a coup, doesn't mean it's a hostile takeover of the country's government and systems. But if you'd rather argue semantics that's fine too. If this keeps up, the US government will shut down by March and people will die - or, more will, as there's a link between the plane crashes and the Trump admin's cutting down on already understaffed air control staff.