I am not sold on these actions being done in good faith, or legally. There’s a lot of evidence of forceful behavior in obtaining access to highly sensitive systems.

Also, the government is here to run services, for us, with the money we give it in the form of taxes.

Removing all government services in order to save money (and provide tax cuts to the 0.1% richest people and corps.) seems to be based in the belief that we are here to serve the people at the top. This is not the spirit of democracy.

Another notable fact is that the current leadership consists of people who are not known for healthy governance providing care and benefit for many. They are known for maximizing extraction, and shocking lack of compassion and understanding.

Besides the open racism and sadistic dickishness. Which, to be fair, we’re a part of the hatred and fear-based platform.

I have lived experience dealing with selling software to government agencies. I have observed egregious activity, which to my company's government salesmen, didn't cause them to blink an eye. In one case, the DoD budget ran out of money, but the DoD budget for Disabled Veteran purchasing still had money, so we added 10% to the contract and resold through a disabled veteran's LLC, the taxpayer got screwed, the LLC-owner made a 6 figure fee for doing nothing, and we got paid. This, I was told, was literally nothing compared to what else our salesmen had seen! But I was scandalized as an honest 20-something worker bee.

Such a minor case of course. But this is a microcosm of the entire problem. No one cares, no one is incentivized, no one represents the taxpayer. How does a US politician on a $175k salary become worth $80 million after 30 years in congress? The system is rigged, and the majority of the American people see themselves as suckers and are tired of it.

> How does a US politician on a $175k salary become worth $80 million after 30 years in congress?

Which politician are we talking about here? Or are we being generic? From what I've seen, the majority of people in Congress started off rich because, well, you need to be rich (or at least rich-adjacent) to even consider running.

Chuck Schumer, who has been in Congress since 1998 https://www.lawyersclubindia.com/wealth/chuck-schumer-net-wo...

Not wishing to disparage the good name of "lawyersclubindia" and their guesstimates but OpenSecrets has him at just over $1M in 2018[0] and ThisNation has him at $900k in 2022[1]. (Neither sounds that plausible but they are definitely less shady than "lawyersclubindia".)

The only places that have him in the 10s of $M bracket look like spam content farms who've stolen the majority of their content from Wikipedia.

[0] https://www.opensecrets.org/personal-finances/charles-schume...

[1] https://www.thisnation.com/politics/people/chuck-schumer-net...

I posted the comment above yours.

Nowhere did I mention that accountability for government spending is a bad thing or that government spending is not out of control. Especially with military contracts.

Of course we should address overspending. Of course we should have accountability. Of course we should end the brazen insider trading, and end citizens united, and reform campaign financing.

Defunding USAID, defunding Medicare, deregulating profits on medications, defunding NPR etc. are none of these things and we all know it.

The Pentagon has been failing audit after audit. How come we are not starting with that? (Rhetorical question).

Subsidies for industries that don’t need subsidies.

Let’s not pretend that the waste is in the essential historically underfunded services.

All the cuts are funds already legally allocated by congress.

EM or DT do not have the authority to reverse that funding decision outside the democratic / congressional process.

With DACA, Obama unilaterally decided not to enforce laws duly enacted by congress.

So what keeps Trump from unilaterally deciding not to spend money duly appropriated by congress?

> With DACA, Obama unilaterally decided not to enforce laws duly enacted by congress. > > So what keeps Trump from unilaterally deciding not to spend money duly appropriated by congress?

I had to think about this.

What's the point/goal of giving the power of the purse to Congress if it's actually just a slush fund?

If Congress can allocate money for the courts, but the executive is the one tasked with execution (DOJ) and decided not spend that, we are saying there is no real need to balance power.

So if there's no authority to direct spending, what prevents the executive from spending money on replacing the courts and Congress?

The impoundment act. But good luck getting that enforced with a do-nothing, complicit Congress.

I think the issue is Congress enacting a slush fund and then getting mad that the executive is treating it as such.

Congress does have the authority to direct spending, but doesn’t always do so.

Here’s an example appropriation for USAID:

> development assistance

> For necessary expenses to carry out the provisions of sections 103, 105, 106, 214, and sections 251 through 255, and chapter 10 of part I of the Foreign Assistance Act of 1961, $3,000,000,000

https://www.congress.gov/bill/118th-congress/house-bill/8771...

If you look at the foreign assistance act it’s extremely broad. That’s how you end up with USAID giving money to AFL-CIO to fund labor movements in Bangladesh. They get three billion dollars to spend however they can creatively fit under the general categories of things like “education.” So what supervisory role has Congress really left itself over that money?

It could choose to direct the same billion to DOE, or FCC instead and end up with very different outcomes.

Let's assume it is all one giant slushfund for the executive. What now enables checks on the slush funds use?

If Congress says "here's 10 billion to spend on X and Y but not on Z. And the executive says "nah, I'm going to actually not spend it on X, but Y and Z sure." So Congress says "ok here's half as much so you can't spend it on Z "

Executive replies "now I spend it all on Z"

Congratulations you've discovered a defunding spiral I guess?

To be clear, I don’t think the executive can just ignore the difference between a billion to the FCC versus a billion to USAID.

My point is that, having given a large slush fund to USAID with only vague guidance on how to spend it, they’ve put the ball in the President’s court. The President isn’t obligated to spend the money on the priorities career USAID people want to spend it on. He can spend it on whatever smart lawyers can justify as being within the broad terms of the corresponding appropriation bills. Congress never specifically appropriated money for grants to bankroll left wing labor organizations in Bangladesh. The executive did that and the executive can undo that. And they can see where they stand in terms of total program funding after all that’s done.

And it’ll take time to see whether he’s going to end up spending less than appropriated for statutory programs, such that there’s an impoundment. Remember, USAID isn’t going away, it’s keeping 600 or so mission critical employees.

> To be clear, I don’t think the executive can just ignore the difference between a billion to the FCC versus a billion to USAID. >

Right, he tried that last term with the wall and didn't win in the courts.

> My point is that, having given a large slush fund to USAID with only vague guidance on how to spend it,

How certain are you that it's as vague as you claim?

>The President isn’t obligated to spend the money on the priorities career USAID people want to spend it on. He can spend it on whatever smart lawyers can justify as being within the broad terms of the corresponding appropriation bills.

I think it's a large assumption to say the POTUS can spend the money for an organization on lawers meant to defend dismantling the organization.

What statues do you believe enable this? >Congress never specifically appropriated money for grants to bankroll left wing labor organizations in Bangladesh. The executive did that and the executive can undo that.

Not familiar with the specifics you are waving at, do you have more information?

> And it’ll take time to see whether he’s going to end up spending less than appropriated for statutory programs, such that there’s an impoundment.

So logically the lawyers mentioned earlier by you, could demand a fee sum large enough to ensure the spending, and try to prevent any impoundment?

> Remember, USAID isn’t going away, it’s keeping 600 or so mission critical employees.

You don't have to take all the water away from a tree to kill it, but take away enough water, for long enough time, and it can only wither and rot.

I don't see how the current actions are leading to a reduction in waste. Could you elaborate on how the recent actions are connected with improved spending outcomes?

Something like USAID is established by statute (The Foreign Assistance Act of 1961). It cannot be eliminated or gutted by executive order.

Sidestepping this, which is happening left and right currently, is democracy failing.

Eliminated and gutted are loaded terms here. They are auditing everything and pointing out stuff that is outside the scope of the target’s purview.

People are so wrapped up in this that they are forgetting the information commons are so polluted with rage and nonsense that they think democracy is failing.

Shutting down everything isn't an audit. Looking at some top level line items is not an audit. An audit takes time and you have a plan and reasons to back it up when it's done.

What is happening is things are being indiscriminately torn down.

Maybe it's for the best, but as there's no analysis, people are rightfully concerned about what is happening.

No, they are laying off all staff and shutting down established programs.

“I went over it with him in detail, and he agreed that we should shut it down,” Musk said.

“And I actually checked with him a few times [and] said ‘are you sure?’” The answer was yes, he said.

“And so we’re shutting it down,” Musk said.

Technically, it was created by JFK issuing an, checks notes, Executive Order.

After the Act. Read the very first line of JFK's order that created it.

https://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/documents/executive-order-10...

The Act gave authority (power) to JFK. The EO created USAID.

Technically this was superseded and USAID was legally established by statute in the Foreign Affairs Reform and Restructuring Act of 1998 [1]. Perhaps you forgot to take notes when that happened.

1. https://crsreports.congress.gov/product/pdf/IN/IN12500

Hence the appropriate use of the word "Technically"

USAID still exists, it's now under the State Department. It is true that one could argue where the authority of the President starts and stops, but that's going to be figured out in the courts.

And the Trump administration was smart to start with USAID. It's been an arm of the CIA since it's origination. Look at the role it played in the Vietnam War - arming of a militia under the guise of "development". It also was the org that funded the fake "polio vaccination campaign" in the search for Bin Laden.

And it's funny to see the pearl clutching going on when only 3-4 years ago there were numerous press reports on just how unaccountable USAID was to the federal government.

Trump disavowed Project 2025 during the campaign and his voters believed him. If democracy worked, he would be held accountable for this enormous bait-and-switch.

> root out corruption and waste, fraud, and abuse

That is not what they are doing by most accounts.

Trump disavowed Project 2025 during the campaign, is just a performance appreciated by his voters, as many of his voters believed “be a racist but don’t say it”.

The same reason that one of the DOGE youth got fired, not because he is a racist, but because his racism remark got caught.

> That is not what they are doing by most accounts.

Let's wait and see for the audits of NGOs! Your opinion says it isn't working, but my opinion says it is.

Part of the difficulty of arguing about this is that the effectiveness is very clearly not there. The following is from treasury.gov[1]:

21 % Social Security 15 % National Defense 14 % Health 13 % Net Interest 13 % Medicare 9 % Income Security 6 % Veterans Benefits and Services 3 % Education, Training, Employment, and Social Services 2 % Natural Resources and Environment 2 % Transportation 2 % Other

To get the level of cuts they want they cannot legally do it without Congress.

[1]: https://fiscaldata.treasury.gov/americas-finance-guide/feder...

1. There is question of legal authority for the executive branch to be doing what it is doing.These departments were established by acts of congress and an act of congress would need to shut them down. What DOGE is doing is by passing congress and de facto shutting them down by not letting them operate. Eventually the courts will probably catch up and and say DOGE has to stop doing X,Y, and Z, but in the short-term they are taking advantage.

2. It is of legal question whether Musk should have been confirmed by congress given the the access and power he is wielding.

Yes, Trump was democratically elected and yes, Musk was appointed, but democracy requires the rule of law to be followed or the whole thing starts to fall apart.

Trump is ignoring laws. Canning USAID is a great example. Ignoring background check processes is another.

It’ll be handled by the courts then, right?

Personally, I like the bold approach. I really dislike Trump and would never ever consider voting for the guy. This isn’t the outcome that I hoped for, but I appreciate that he’s trying to do something at least, even if it fails. Only 34% of Americans trust the government for a lot of valid reasons. We’ve been at war for pretty much forever. We keep innerworkings of government secret for ‘national security’. And, I have never liked how we influence elections and governments around the world. It always felt so gross.

I’ve done work with USAID and have seen first hand their ineffective humanitarian aid programs. It’s not surprising that they haven’t made much progress in over 50 years when you consider the perverse incentives.

OK, we have an independent judiciary to decide on the legality. Just because you say it's illegal doesn't mean it is. Biden unilaterally cancelled a trillion dollars of college debt, which the Supreme Court said was illegal, then he tweaked the executive order and did it again, which the Supreme Court said was illegal again.

This is the system.

But the DOJ replied to that independent judiciary that was not bound by their decision... It wasn't appealed to a supreme court that would likely overrule the lower court, it was simply asserted that the judges order didn't matter. That is the sort of thing I find concerning. Firing non appointed law enforcement officers without stated cause too. If you walk down the autocratic playbook for the rise to power, there are way too many parallels for comfort. Ask chatgpt to provide them along with relevant quotes from well known autocrats. Some of the judicial orders do seem to be getting followed now, I have some bit of hope that the supreme court won't do anything too obviously biased.

> OK, we have an independent judiciary to decide on the legality.

You don't.

> Just because you say it's illegal doesn't mean it is.

It's illegal to the point it even violates the US constitution.

> Biden unilaterally cancelled a trillion dollars of college debt, which the Supreme Court said was illegal, (...)

The Supreme Court ruled that the Department of Education didn't had the authority to enact such a large program and needed to seek approval from congress, and the rule was called by Trump's appointees.

Biden's student loan debt programs still went ahead because, unlike the original claim, the department of education already was running student debt forgiveness programs before and during Trump's first term, and those existing programs were never questioned as being illegal or unconstitutional.

The fact that you are trying to compare this event to Trump's string of illegal and unconstitutional efforts to shut down and dismantle the whole federal government, not to mention the whole sabotage campaign involving threatening long-standing allies of military invasion and economic war, speaks volumes of how disingenuous you're being.

And what's even worse, the person you replied to may lot even realize how disingenuous they are being. This is the level of propaganda that is tearing through the US.

Which laws protect USAID from Trump's EO, pray tell?

The part of the constitution that says only Congress can create laws and the president just implements them.

He didn't create any law in this matter and he used a legal path way, executive orders. Do cry about the broken system.

No, he is closing down an agency using Executive Orders; however, as currently constituted, only Congress can shut down the agency.

> The Foreign Affairs Reform and Restructuring Act of 1998, 22 U.S.C. 6501 et seq.) established USAID as its own agency. In a section titled “Status of AID” (22 U.S.C. 6563) it states:

>> (a) In general

>> Unless abolished pursuant to the reorganization plan submitted under section 6601 of this title, and except as provided in section 6562 of this title, there is within the Executive branch of Government the United States Agency for International Development as an entity described in section 104 of title 5.

Because the agency is an independent agency, it cannot be interrupted without going through the appropriate channel.

[0] https://www.justsecurity.org/107267/can-president-dissolve-u...

Please stop promulgating the misinformation about background checks, it only serves to discredit people on the left. Focus on things that are actually illegal or irregular.

The access that DOGE and Elon has is strictly legal via standard government processes.

I guess one positive out of all of this is that Americans will (hopefully) actually learn something about how the government works. I have the benefit of having worked in DC for a long time but every American should have a passing familiarity with this. Misconceptions are rife.

> The access that DOGE and Elon has is strictly legal via standard government processes.

Nope, you are mistaken. The EO gave access for DOGE and unclassified systems. Treasury has quite a bit that is classified. This is why the lawsuits to stop them have merit.

https://home.treasury.gov/about/general-information/orders-a...

You are mistaken. Individuals can be granted access to any classified system without a clearance by an appropriate authority. Happens all the time in some parts of government. I am quite familiar with this part of the law by virtue of need.

I am sure the trivial act of granting that access was done given that the people now in charge have that authority.

Again, this ignorance of the basic mechanics of US government is discrediting to valid arguments. You are being manipulated to look like you have no idea what you are talking about, which will discredit your valid arguments by association.

Cite the regs. Cure what you feel is inaccurate.

This isn’t a serious request. The ability of authorities to grant arbitrary people access to classified information has been the law of the land forever. If you are unfamiliar with this then you are not in a position to make a credible argument. I am not going to play a game of “fetch a rock” with someone incapable of cursory research.

This is my world, I know how it works.

> This is my world, I know how it works.

"Trust me bro"

Where you have made your claim isn't 'your world,' it's the open web. You may or may not spend any time at all, but taking people at their word was ruined by 4chan and other trolls.

Since I'm pretty sure you're wrong, and I actually chatted about my questions with people who operate in the space, let me add more information to the conversation.

First, governing documents:

Executive Order 13526 - Governs classification of national security information, including Top Secret, Secret, and Confidential levels. - Who Can Override? President - Override Process: The President can declassify or reclassify any classified information at will.

Classified Information Procedures Act (CIPA) - Controls handling of classified information in legal proceedings. - Who Can Override? Federal Courts (Judges) - Override Process: Judges can determine whether classified evidence can be disclosed in court.

National Industrial Security Program (NISP) (Executive Order 12829) - Regulates access to classified information by contractors and private entities. - Who Can Override? President, Defense Counterintelligence and Security Agency (DCSA) - Override Process: The President can issue waivers; DCSA can grant or deny access based on security clearances.

Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) - Regulates intelligence gathering on foreign entities and individuals. - Who Can Override? FISA Court (FISC) - Override Process: Judges can approve or disapprove classified surveillance requests.

Atomic Energy Act (AEA) of 1954 - Governs access to classified nuclear information ("Restricted Data"). - Who Can Override? President, Department of Energy (DOE), Congress - Override Process: The President and DOE can declassify certain nuclear information. Congress can pass legislation altering classification.

Presidential Records Act (PRA) of 1978 - Regulates access to presidential records, including classified materials. - Who Can Override? Incumbent President - Override Process: The sitting President can restrict or release prior administration records.

Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) - Allows public access to government records but exempts classified materials. - Who Can Override? Agencies, Courts, President - Override Process: Agencies can deny requests, courts can order disclosure, and the President can override agency decisions.

Department of Defense (DoD) Information Security Program (DoDM 5200.01) - Regulates access to military and defense-related classified information. - Who Can Override? Secretary of Defense, President - Override Process: The Secretary of Defense can restrict access within DoD, and the President can override classifications.

While a President could certainly grant access to classified (and sensitive) systems, there are still laws that prevent hostile takeovers like what Elon Musk and DOGE have done (which, you recall, were explicitly given access by executive order to unclassified systems).

The laws, acts, and regs I would have expected you to cite include:

- FISMA (2014)

- CISA (2015)

- EO 13800

- Intelligence Reform and Terrorism Prevention Act (2004)

- CFAA (Title 18, USC Sec.1030)

Can the president override these restrictions? Not directly -- while the prez has authority over classified information and executive agencies, federal laws explicitly prohibit unauthorized access to IT systems, even by high-ranking officials such as DOGE. IT systems within agencies like the Treasury, OPM, and USAID operate under internal security policies and congressional oversight. A president attempting wholesale access to these systems without proper legal justification can lead to legal challenges (as it has), congressional investigations, and potential violations of federal law.

Some of the policies in these agencies, based on decades of experience in securing the systems, are

- DoD Instruction 8500.01 (Cybersecurity) - established RBAC and principle of least privillege

- DoD Instruction 8530.01 (Cybersecurity Activities Support to DoD Information Network Operations) -- monitoring of privileged users

- Army Regulation (AR) 25-2 (Army Cybersecurity) - MFA requirements -- Army specific, but similar regs at other agencies.

Now, what if someone with authority grants unauthorized access? You're talking espionage act now. CFAA too. Privacy act. Insider threat (EO 13587). Granting unauthorized access to federal IT systems, classified data, or sensitive records is a serious crime. If national security is compromised, penalties become even harsher under espionage laws.

Now, if you're actually in this world, I welcome your substantive additions to the conversation.

Not legal at all I'm afraid to say

Laws are being broken, Congress is being bypassed, and power is being consolidated by the executive branch and a private unelected citizen. The next part of the playbook is to ignore orders by the court. The goal is to dismantle democracy. The playbook is so obvious - Trump himself even said nobody would have to worry about voting for him again because they would "fix it".

Which law is being broken?

> Which law is being broken?

Have you been living under a rock?

Because this thread is taking about US Aid. Unfortunately for everyone, this is not an isolated case.

https://www.businessinsider.com/donald-trump-elon-musk-usaid...

Pretty much. Person asks "how did Americans allow this?". Someone responds and get downvoted and flagged to hell.

Funny enough, that also models the reason why people are in shock? "How could this happen, all the posts, media, and polls I saw were predicting a Harris win? Was it the Russians? The aliens?". Yet here someone responding honestly, and they get downvoted to hell and disappear. Next cycle it will be the same, "how could this happen, everything I read and everyone I asked all agreed with ... and then ..."

Oh please. Good faith requires facts, which this current administration does not use.

Or perhaps you'd be surprised to learn they aren't eating pets in Springfield?

> Oh please.

Oh sure, anytime

> Good faith requires facts, which this current administration does not use.

I don't know, the OP (or GP?) post said they were wanted to continue discussing the issue in good faith. I'll take them at their word until I see them saying something else, what else should we do, downvote and flag everyone to hell? And it seems it's not about the administration having good or bad faith or good or bad facts but the OP presenting their case.

> Or perhaps you'd be surprised to learn they aren't eating pets in Springfield?

There are farms around there, for sure. Some chickens or cows may even have names and eventually get eaten, too. Who knows. I had never been, but was just South of it, in Yellow Springs. A nice little town and big a dairy farm with their own ice-cream and rides and everything.

Yet Trump claimed they (Haitian immigrants) were eating people's dogs and cats.

So your first part of the comment could have been an exercise towards food faith, and your latter part, perhaps mildly excusable as an ill attempt at humor in normal times, is for most who read it an attempt to muddy the very clear facts that Trump lies all the time.

> Yet Trump claimed they (Haitian immigrants) were eating people's dogs and cats.

Sorry, I don't follow all the Trump's doings or saying or what others comment about them. So I simply don't know about it one way or the other. But I have been near Springfield, so I said what I knew about it personally. Have you ever been there?

However, it does seem like you're angry and trying to insult me. That's ok, too. I don't mind, I can take it, just has to be acknowledged and said publicly. No need to beat around the bush with hidden allegations or anything. For one, I don't remember the OP or the GP mentioning Springfield at all. You brought it into the conversation. Which is totally fine, of course, I even gave you upvotes.

Not angry at you in the slightest, and if you feel insulted take it as a opportunity learn that people push back on equivocation, disingenuousness, and deliberate ignorance.

Since your later comment is dead, here is a timely news update to help you remain informed.

https://www.the-independent.com/news/world/americas/us-polit...

Thanks for the link, that's helpful.

> Claiming the new Haitian community threatened “the good White residents” of Springfield, Blood Trump members descended on the city in August during Springfield’s annual Jazz & Blues festival, marching downtown while displaying guns and waving swastika flags.

That's horrible. The city sued them, hopefully they all land in jail for a long time.

> “the Blood Tribe made good on those threats,” noting that the city and its residents received at least 33 bomb threats in subsequent weeks

That looks like a slam dunk case, hopefully the city judges and prosecutors there have no problem handling it.

I saw the mention about Temporary Protected Status of the immigrants at the end. I had no idea that existed https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Temporary_protected_status.

I'd would think the fact that disgusting group marched there and made bomb threats would make the community and the government protect them even more. The city launched a law suite after all.

Now ask the question -- if Trump hadn't amplified allegations of this community as illegal immigrants eating dogs and cats, would they have been harassed and threatened?

To me, the counterfactual clearly points to no.

The Harris/Trump debate gave a set of clear accusations on film, so many that the denizens of the internet made several clever remixes to fight bullies with humor.

[0] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5llMaZ80ErY

[1] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3BrCvZmSnKA

> if Trump hadn't amplified allegations of this community as illegal immigrants eating dogs and cats, would they have been harassed and threatened?

Agree you're probably right. I never watched that debate, thanks for the clip. I won't watch it further I didn't like either one of them too much.

I did like the remix though, I am sure there are plenty of more of those.

But it seems that group is being sued and that's hopefully they lose and that'll be the best outcome here.

Don't bother joking with serial abusers of good faith on HN. They don't have a sense of irony. It's likely congenital.

Always helpful to review the guidelines. Thanks for the opportunity to do so [0]

> In Comments

> Be kind. Don't be snarky. Converse curiously; don't cross-examine. Edit out swipes

> Comments should get more thoughtful and substantive, not less, as a topic gets more divisive.

> When disagreeing, please reply to the argument instead of calling names. "That is idiotic; 1 + 1 is 2, not 3" can be shortened to "1 + 1 is 2, not 3."

> Please don't fulminate. Please don't sneer, including at the rest of the community.

> Please respond to the strongest plausible interpretation of what someone says, not a weaker one that's easier to criticize. Assume good faith.

This isn't comprehensive, but it is enough to identify what you and I may take for granted from others in the community. If you feel I have abused good faith in my comments, I request you delineate what, exactly, you feel is not in good faith.

[0] https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html

tomrod, you're a serial abuser of the guidelines. You should take some time to think about what you say and do on HN and whether you are adding to the discourse are detracting from it. I think you could adjust your tone on almost all your political comments to be more thoughtful and less combative. It would be less work to point out cases where you observe the spirit of these guidelines than where you violate them. I'm sure you wouldn't wish to be so prejudiced, but you come across as an ideologue. Is that really who you want to be?

Agree to disagree on your general take. Best to you.

Responding in good faith:

Winning the popular vote does not make you dictator. It makes you president within the existing laws.

You want to change the way things are done? That's fine. You have a mandate to do so based on the vote? Also fine. Do it within the existing laws.

There are laws in a number of areas (firing federal employees, impoundment, spoils system, probably others that don't come to my mind immediately) that Trump seems to be violating. He doesn't get to do that. He has to stay within the law, because it's the law that makes him president instead of "most popular guy this year".

And it doesn't seem to be that he missed a few steps. He doesn't seem to care about the law at all. That's democracy failing - having a president who thinks he can do whatever he wants, and the law doesn't bind him. That's a president who's trying to be a king.

Now, that's kind of a "vibe" thing. It's not one action; it's more a perception of the cumulation of all his actions. Which means that other people can perceive it differently from how I do, because they assign different weights to his actions. But to me, the trend of the whole is troubling.