I asked ChatGPT and it said many other agencies were established by EOs (e.g. FEMA, NSA, NASA, EPA). Quote from ChatGPT: "Many agencies later received congressional authorization, but their initial formation or restructuring was often directed by executive orders."
So it seems like the last paragraph is incorrect.
It's not wrong, it just depends on what you consider an "agency".
If you mean "any organized entity that contains federal employees", by that definition, sure lots of "agencies" exist that are created by the different branches.
If you mean "something that can create binding regulations that interpret or implement law" - no, those have to be authorized by congress in some fashion. Even if they are run by the executive later, which is also somewhat muddy.
etc
Traditionally, they agencies are the things that have officers who are nominated by the president and approved by the senate, and have useful power as a result :)
I'll also point out - even the ones that are entirely created by other branches (executive, judicial) have to be funded by congress one way or the other.
This includes all the ones you listed.
They cannot legally spend money otherwise - ""no money shall be drawn from the Treasury, but in Consequence of Appropriations made by law".
Sometimes they are created with a small, more general emergency appropriation or something, but again, if they want to spend money, that also requires them to be authorized and appropriated by congress.
Some of the more interesting questions that we have thankfully never had to answer for real (outside of blustering) is around various branches using their power to deliberately interfere with the basic functioning of other branches (except as authorized by the constitution, which, for example, says congress can set the jurisdiction of courts except for the supreme court. Where we've come close to it has mostly been around appropriations designed to force another branch to do or not do a certain thing. We may come a lot closer the next few years depending on what happens.
The constitutional limit is easy (none of them is more powerful than the other, and may not interfere with the basic sovereignty of each other), but the lines are not.
Sure, thanks for the explanation! I didn't mean to imply that this was intentionally misleading, just wanted to point out that a lot (most?) of people, including mainstream media, are using the term "government agency" with a meaning closer to your first definition. And with that in mind it's valid to say that the exec branch actually does have the power to create / disband agencies.
And even if we stick to the latter definition of the "agency" - it feels like there's a certain asymmetry here. Perhaps EOs can't be used to create a new agency, because that requires new funding to be approved by another branch. But what about disbanding an existing agency? That doesn't require approving new funding, right? So what stopping an EO to disband an agency?
So the thing about appropriations is - they actually have to spend them unless it says something else.
It's not like a budget. It's an order to spend money a certain way. That's why generally congress is said to have the power of the purse - they give the directions on how money is spent.
So appropriations come with directions, time frames, etc.
The executive branch must spend them as directed, and they must be applied to the specific purpose as directed.
This is also why you will sometimes find federal agencies or the military spending infinite money towards the end of the fiscal year, because they are just making sure they spent all the money they were supposed to. Again, sometimes the appropriation says "spend up to", etc. But whatever it says, they have to do it.
So if they say "you have to spend 1 billion on USAID", they must in fact, spend 1 billion on USAID.
Let's take the agencies that are specifically authorized or created by congress out of the picture - they literally can't disband these (and i don't believe they've tried yet). These are usually the things created or later authorized by bills that say something like "their shall be an office of the xyz" or something similar.
(I just picked a random one, the establishment language is fairly standard, the rest i have no opinion on :P)
Given it is created and provided for by law, it must be disbanded in the same manner - legislation that removes it.
So if we are sticking to the other ones - it basically comes down to whether an appropriations bill allows it in some fashion.
Does it say "1 billion must be spent on USAID" or does it say "1 billion must be spent on giving aid to ukraine" or does it say ....
That is what in practice, enables or prevents an EO from disbanding an agency that is not specifically provided for by congress.
At least, as far as money/etc goes. There may be other reasons they can or can't disband an agency.
For example, Congress has a congressional research service that provides it with information. It is basic to the functioning of congress (or just slightly above basic). Whether established by law or not, it's unlikely to be constitutional for the executive to disband an agency that another branch depends on, since they are supposed to be coequal branches.
This has rarely, if ever, been tested in practice though.
Even when different branches have hated each other with a passion in the past, the degree to which they would test the limits of constitutional power while pissing on each other was fairly restrained.
There are a few exceptions, but they are definitely the exception and not the rule.
Also keep in mind - while the president has some special powers, the general purpose of the executive branch is simple - to faithfully execute the laws. The only discretion in even doing that comes from the laws themselves and the constitution's description of the executive's discretion.
EO's (no matter who makes them) were not intended to be a path for the executive to do whatever it wants, and use power not granted to the executive
I say this not offering a view on the legality or not or wisdom or not, just trying to make sure i answer your question completely.
USAID was "created" by EO originally, but was recreated in 1998 by congressional act (The Foreign Affairs Reform and Restructuring Act of 1998, 22 U.S.C. 6501 et seq.):
"(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. "
(there is being the key words here. Not there can be)
The last relevant appropriations bill (section 7063 of the FY24 State and Foreign Operations Appropriations Act) says:
" Sec. 7063. (a) Prior Consultation and Notification.--Funds
appropriated by this Act, prior Acts making appropriations for the
Department of State, foreign operations, and related programs, or any
other Act may not be used to implement a reorganization, redesign, or
other plan described in subsection (b) by the Department of State, the
United States Agency for International Development, or any other Federal
department, agency, or organization
[[Page 138 STAT. 844]]
funded by this Act without prior consultation by the head of such
department, agency, or organization with the appropriate congressional
committees: Provided, <<NOTE: Requirement.>> That such funds shall be
subject to the regular notification procedures of the Committees on
Appropriations: Provided further, That any such notification submitted
to such Committees shall include a detailed justification for any
proposed action: Provided further, That congressional notifications
submitted in prior fiscal years pursuant to similar provisions of law in
prior Acts making appropriations for the Department of State, foreign
operations, and related programs may be deemed to meet the notification
requirements of this section.
(b) Description of Activities.--Pursuant to subsection (a), a
reorganization, redesign, or other plan shall include any action to--
(1) expand, eliminate, consolidate, or downsize covered
departments, agencies, or organizations, including bureaus and
offices within or between such departments, agencies, or
organizations, including the transfer to other agencies of the
authorities and responsibilities of such bureaus and offices;
(2) expand, eliminate, consolidate, or downsize the United
States official presence overseas, including at bilateral,
regional, and multilateral diplomatic facilities and other
platforms; or
(3) expand or reduce the size of the permanent Civil
Service, Foreign Service, eligible family member, and locally
employed staff workforce of the Department of State and USAID
from the staffing levels previously justified to the Committees
on Appropriations for fiscal year 2024.
"
So the executive branch cannot eliminate, reorg, or downsize USAID without, at a minimum, consulting with congress.
At 18-22 people are very young and, generally speaking, have very little life experience. They are looking for their place in life, so it's not surprising they are trading places easily. As they mature, they become more stable and better realize what they need/want in life (and job is a major part of life for most of us), so it's only natural they start sticking more to what they found.
This seems a little too psychological: even people who know exactly what they plan to do at a very young age are likely to change jobs many times during those years.
I spent 18-22 enrolled at one university earning a degree in the major that I listed on my application packet, but I interned at a different company each summer. If I'd worked during the academic year, I'd probably have had several additional jobs during the period: folding towels at the gym, computer laboratory attendant, resident advisor, off-campus food service and off-campus retail.
PS: I'm not just trying to pick a fight here: I dislike political discourse where the challenges of being a young adult are attributed to imagined moral, emotional, or intellectual deficiencies of people under 30 / 40 / 50.
Similarly, one could argue that people accumulate debt 18-22 because their immature brains are too stupid to understand cause and effect, ignoring more salient facts like:
1) 18 year olds have not had time to establish specialized professional experience so their earning potential is low due to no fault of their own
2) Immigration and trade policies have deliberately and drastically reduced the earning potential of unskilled labor (which includes basically all 18 year olds, including future MD's and PhD's)
3) Housing costs and especially education costs have skyrocketed in the past 40 years
4) Education is increasingly financed through debt rather than loans.
This is not as much fun as "kids today are so stupid!", but IMO a far more accurate explanation for why a current college student will incur more debt than a Boomer who could earn enough each summer hauling hay or working in a unionized factory to pay a year's tuition at State U.
Of course. Pie charts look natural and easy to comprehend when visualizing things like market share of certain products, for example browser market share (http://www.netmarketshare.com/browser-market-share.aspx?qpri...). In fact I'd argue that that's a much better representation than a bar chart, like http://www.w3counter.com/globalstats.php, because the former makes it easier to comprehend roughly what proportion of the total market each browser represents, which is not as straightforward to see in a bar chart (in bar chart it's only easy to see how different browser market shares compare to each other). So yes, pie charts may be appropriate at times, although I agree that it's a poor choice in this particular case, as the root comment explains.
How about a stacked single-bar chart? I'd suggest that it has all of the benefits of a pie chart without introducing perception issues of angles and areas.
Well, I guess you could make a fat bar and still run into problems... Ah, visualisation!
I asked ChatGPT and it said many other agencies were established by EOs (e.g. FEMA, NSA, NASA, EPA). Quote from ChatGPT: "Many agencies later received congressional authorization, but their initial formation or restructuring was often directed by executive orders." So it seems like the last paragraph is incorrect.