Thanks for the discussion, and for agreeing to not let partisanship get in the way. This will be my last reply in this thread, but I'll still check back and read your reply if you'd like to get in the last word.

> I find it funny to say "appeal to the authority of courts", when in fact the court are the authority.

You're taking my words out of context and omitting a critical "future". My point is threefold:

(1) Courts are already issuing injunctions (e.g., [1]) and in at least one case having to double down because the administration is failing to comply with an earlier injunction [2], which indicates which way they are leaning.

(2) Because the courts haven't made any sort of final ruling yet, there's no way to appeal to their present authority (apart from 1), and trying to appeal to their future authority is rather silly.

(3) The courts are indeed the authority, but relying on being able to say "the courts said so" is still a fallacious appeal to authority [3]. We should respect the courts and what judges have to say, but we can also analyze their thought processes critically. We also know that even the Supreme Court has been egregiously wrong in the past (e.g., [4]), never mind lower courts. (Yes, I know this applies to my first point, which is why there are the second and third points. :))

All this to say, you're dodging my question of how DOGE defunding these agencies could possibly be constitutional.

> Every change the government tries to do is a long, drawn out and politically damaging...

I'm not sure what point you were trying to make here. So let me tell you where I think we agree. I agree that Congress has been shamefully dysfunctional for the past, oh, 15 years. I agree there's waste in the government - certainly in the DoD. I agree Trump was elected because the people wants something different. And I agree, the framers would be horrified at the current state of Congress.

Where we disagree is that I see the current administration making the worst assault on the American democratic system since perhaps 1861, with DOGE being the tip of the spear. I too want a more effective, less wasteful, less deadlocked government. But not an autocratic one. The great danger is that autocracy is appealing precisely because it can appear at first to be more efficient, more decisive, cutting through all that democratic nonsense. Never ends well, though.

Sure, we can hope the courts settle these debates. Curious, though, why Vice President Vance and Elon Musk feel the need to already start laying the groundwork for ignoring court orders. [5][6]

> And presumably once we move to budget surpluses...

Thanks for giving me a laugh (not really, I'm still feeling quite grim). Last year's deficit was $1.8T. Tack on some tax cuts and we're looking at $2T or more this year before spending cuts.

> Where does the $2T come from?

That's what Musk was promising, wasn't it? It's also the size of the current deficit. Apologies if I was being confusing there - I was referring to the promised spending cuts, not the size of the anticipated tax cut. I hope you'll agree that if Trump cuts taxes by $300B and cuts spending by, say, $500B, that's not a meaningful dent in the deficit.

Anyway, time for closing arguments - I'd like to think these as fact-based arguments, but you'll probably accuse me of only offering opinions regardless. :)

- Shutting off funding to agencies established by Congress, where the money has already been appropriated by Congress, is unlawful. There have been multiple injunctions against Trump and DOGE, and they are already floating the idea of defying court orders. It remains to be seen how judges rule in the end, but the law and the constitution are there for all to read; I've made my arguments, but I've yet to hear yours (besides "I don't agree").

- US federal spending has hovered around 20% of GDP since ~1975 (see my original post). Running a persistent and growing deficit is not great (just my opinion - some economists think it's fine) but it's not a five-alarm fire that justifies unconstitutional actions.

- Letting unvetted members of Musk's circle get access to sensitive code and data carries a lot of risks that are neither justified by their goals (see previous point) nor by their current results.

- Based on the top-level breakdown of the federal budget, it's hard to see how this administration can turn a budget surplus without raising taxes, never mind if they go through with cutting taxes. Defense, health, and "everything else" as I mentioned adds up to 38%, or about $2.6T. If you think we can dial defense spending down to $0...

At the end of the day, honestly, I hope I'm wrong, and history proves you right. But I'm not going to hold my breath.

[1] https://ag.ny.gov/sites/default/files/court-filings/state-of...

[2] https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.rid.589...

[3] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_from_authority

[4] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dred_Scott_v._Sandford

[5] https://x.com/JDVance/status/1888607143030391287

[6] https://x.com/elonmusk/status/1888403715767337282