back
1 comments
He still controls the congress, the white house and the supreme court. So he could potentially pull a completely illegal fast one and freeze their accounts. Since rule of law seems on fairly shaky ground right now in any case.
He may issue an EO against them similar to the ones he's successfully used to bring major law firms he doesn't like to heel: ban consideration of former Harvard employees (... maybe also graduates?) for Federal jobs, revoke clearances held by anyone employed by Harvard, and ban them from Federal property. Maybe with some other creative terms thrown in to mess with universities in particular.
> ban consideration of former Harvard employees (... maybe also graduates?) for Federal jobs

Oh, those federal jobs he’s been DOGEing for the past weeks in an attempt to demotivate folks out of them?

This administration’s incoherence comes back to bite it in the ass again.

That is always a risk of working for the government. Your job exists more or less at the whims of the currently governing administration.
>Your job exists more or less at the whims of the currently governing administration.

Perhaps in theory, but not in practice as a historical norm. And, certainly not for "standard" non-appointed, bureaucratic roles.

It's important that we don't normalize what we're seeing here, in terms of quality or degree.

No, this is not the case. This is a recent and never before seen phenomenon. Please, do not try to downplay it. And, if you do, do not do it dishonestly.
That has essentially never been a risk for a non-appointed government employee in the United States of America, at least for the past century or so. We Don't Politicize the Bureaucracy. And that was at least in part the secret sauce to our generational success, that we could immunize the workings of the government from the pique and emotion of its leadership.

Or we didn't. Now we do. Kinda sucks.

Since ~1885 and the Pendleton Civil Service Reform Act: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pendleton_Civil_Service_Refo...

Submitted some historical breadcrumbs here: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=43686221

Well this was advice my father (an academic and lifelong straight ticket Democrat) gave me decades ago. So it was nothing specific to the current administration.
The difference is that the people affected by whim were, by design, only supposed to be the political appointees, not the civil service rank and file. Those jobs existed for as long as Congress decided that they produced useful results for the American people. Positions could be eliminated by virtue of Congress deciding that a shift in policy was needed, eg fewer Kremlinologists after 1989, but that is not a whim, that is a result of debate.

The current administration is making all positions political, and in doing so, performing an end run around the legislative branch.

> he could potentially pull a completely illegal fast one and freeze their accounts

Harvard (and most institutions and powerful individuals) would be smart to maintain liquid assets and a bank account outside America’s control.

Maybe their endowment is held in treasurys they should start selling off...
LOL

I like the way you think!

>a bank account outside America’s control

There really isn't such a thing if you want to do business in America. If you're in the US and doing business with a bank, the courts can order that bank to do things or face isolation from the entire financial system.

> There really isn't such a thing if you want to do business in America

There are to varying extents. You want a country that isn't aligned with or dependent on America, but also isn't its adversary. (And which has a good banking system.) That list was classically Turkey, the UAE and Switzerland. Today I'd add India, Qatar, Canada and Brazil and remove Switzerland.

Yeah I'm no expert in financial systems but since the money ultimately needs to be spent in the U.S. it doesn't seem that important whether the funds are frozen in the U.S. or locked away overseas and can't be transferred in for the next ~4 years.
It's much more than that, foreign banks will comply with US court orders, it's not just a blockade.

US courts shut down a series of Swiss banks that were trying to hide American's assets behind the swiss banking secrecy laws while also doing business on American soil (just having bank employees in the country did it).

> since the money ultimately needs to be spent in the U.S. it doesn't seem that important whether the funds are frozen in the U.S.

Of course it does. The hypothetical we're considering is the administration illegally freezing bank accounts. You don't need something legally impenetrable. Just complicated enough that it slows down the goons while you fight them in court.

This is true, and they have likely been accelerating the arrangements they already had for a while now. At the same time however, getting 50 billion in assets into various European jurisdictions is not at all easy. I'd estimate Trump could cut off 70-90 percent of what Harvard has to work with.

Alumni will need to come through for continuing operations if the worst does happen. And I'm certain Harvard has put some thought into that contingency as well.

Trump can make that illegal in no time. „No foreign funds” is a well known method of fighting opposition, tried and tested in many soft regimes (looking for a recent example, Hungary comes to mind).
Bitcoin!
I mean, it turns out the fed has the power to pull any money from any account they wish, at any time, like they recently did with NYC.