#executive branch

you aren't governed

you are ruled (and fooled).

You need a badge to get in. If you don't have a badge you will at minimum have to go through a metal detector and have your stuff be x-rayed and sign in and then have an escort. You might get a guest lanyard, a temporary ID badge, or a wristband. At maximum you just won't get in.

You can potentially get in with a badge for a different agency, but you will still likely need to sign in and be let in manually, because your badge won't have building access to swipe you in past security

It can take a long time to get a badge, and it's way worse for contractors. For contractors it can take anywhere from days to over a year to get badged.

Working for the federal government doesn't necessarily mean you have a security clearance. A lot of civilian agencies just require a public trust, which generally involves much lower requirements and a much less invasive background check but can involve the equivalent of a Secret clearance background check (namely if you have a law-enforcement sensitive public trust).

You need to get fingerprinted, which may happen at the actual badging office or at a random contracted fingerprinting place. Basically all fingerprinting is digital at this point.

You need to get fingerprinted even if you have already been fingerprinted/badged elsewhere. They generally don't talk to each other.

Having a clearance can make it a bit easier/faster to get a public trust elsewhere due to reciprocity, but it can still take a while.

Federal buildings are often set pretty far back from the road and/or they have barricades in front of them.

It's not uncommon in some agencies to see mix of people in uniform and people not in uniform. Not all uniformed services are military. Public Health Service Commissioned Corps and NOAA Commissioned Officer Corps are both non-armed uniformed services.

Most federal employees operate under the General Service (GS) pay scale, and people will sometimes be referred to as a GS-X (e.g., GS-13, GS-14). This is an easy reference of relative position.

Paul Blumenthal at HuffPost:

The U.S. Supreme Court on June 29 overturned 90 years of precedent to end the independence of multimember regulatory agencies in a decision made in the case of Trump v. Slaughter, allowing the president to fire any agency member for any reason. The stunning, yet predicted, decision hands Donald Trump the power to control every regulatory agency in the executive branch, a key plank of his Project 2025 agenda. Congress created multimember agencies to be independent of presidential control by only allowing the president to fire them for cause — not for policy disagreements. In 1935, the Supreme Court upheld for-cause removal protections in Humphrey’s Executor v. Federal Trade Commission. This enshrined the progressive era idea that the administrative state should be insulated from the political whims of the executive and legislative branches. But now those protections are gone after the Supreme Court’s six conservatives affirmed the long-held goal of the conservative legal movement in their decision. The case came before the court after Trump fired FTC commissioner Rebecca Slaughter, a Democratic appointee, in March 2025, along with commissioner Alvaro Bedoya, for no stated reason.

In overturning Humphrey’s Executor, the conservative justices have enshrined the unitary executive theory, which holds that all executive power is vested in the president alone, as the law of the land. This marks a move away from the balance of power created by Congress when it enacted the for-cause removal protections and a move towards autocratic presidential control. This has been the primary objective of the second Trump presidency. Since retaking office, Trump has pushed the boundaries of the balance of powers and the independence of the administrative state by claiming it is his constitutional right to dictate everything from prosecutions at the Department of Justice to regulations and investigations at bodies overseeing everything from universities to finance, including his own companies. It also happens to dovetail with a longstanding project of the conservative judiciary. Trump will now be able to officially control every regulatory body in the executive branch by threatening removal for any disagreement. That is with one exception: the Federal Reserve. The majority opinion was careful to craft an apparent carve-out for the central bank to insulate it ― and, therefore, markets ― from direct presidential control despite there being no real legal, historical or constitutional reason to do so.

In a big Supreme Court ruling (and the only Trump win of the day), the radical right-wing MAGA 6 judicial tyrants on the court ruled 6-3 that overturned Humphrey’s Executor v. United States in Trump v. Slaughter that Donald Trump can fire Rebecca Slaughter or any agency member for any reason (except for the Federal Reserve, which was ruled separately in Trump v. Cook).

See Also:

The Guardian: US supreme court rules Trump can fire leaders of independent agencies

Elon Musk, a prominent figure in the Trump administration and the man many think is actually running the government, recently expressed significant frustration as multiple federal judges blocked key policies. In a span of just 90 minutes, three judges issued rulings against the administration’s initiatives, prompting Musk to voice his discontent on social media.

The first setback came when Judge Loren AliKhan issued a preliminary injunction, halting the administration’s attempt to indefinitely freeze federal grants and loans. AliKhan described the freeze as “irrational” and warned of a potential nationwide crisis if it proceeded. Shortly after, Judge Amir Ali ordered the government to fulfill its financial obligations to contractors and nonprofit organizations involved in foreign aid, emphasizing that presidential authority has limits. Finally, Judge Jamal Whitehead blocked the administration’s proposed refugee ban through another preliminary injunction.

In response to these judicial decisions, Musk took to social media to question the role of the judiciary in overriding executive actions. He argued that allowing unelected judges to countermand presidential orders undermines the democratic process, suggesting it leads to a “tyranny of the judiciary.” Musk’s comments have ignited a debate about the balance of power among the branches of government and the judiciary’s role in checking executive authority.

Adding to the controversy, Musk engaged in an online exchange with El Salvador’s President Nayib Bukele, who has faced criticism for consolidating power by removing judicial checks in his country. Musk’s reference to Bukele’s actions raised concerns about his views on judicial independence and the potential implications for democratic institutions.

The ONLY positive off the top of my brain is the fact the Senate removed the part where we wouldn't be able to push for any regulation in AI for 10 years 😶

I'm being so serious when I say we need to take cue from Puerto Rico protesting the govenor and South Korean's stopping the coup. It's to that point. Take notes those that live in the states where the Supreme Court and congresspeople live along with the buildings they work off of. Until the congresspeople who sold out their communities and citizens give up their positions and we can elect new people to come in. They must also immediately push for term limits (and age limits). They must call for an impeachment of the president and look into the election fraud that occurred. We are not dense. There have been reports of the "maintenance" Trump's daughter and Elon did. There's been enough speculation to call for a re-election. For the Supreme Court, we demand those who have been taken bribes (large gifts and vacations) and not reported them as is required for their job, step down immediately. Potentially call for a new seat addition to the court and change how it functions so it's no longer til death. Folks used to live to hopefully 30 or 40 years old when that was implemented. Now, folks bodies are living to the 100s even when their brains get left behind. It's time to re-evaluate.

We the people - the hard working class - the everyday people are fed up. NOW is the time to talk and establish a third party, not a year before the election. THIS IS WHAT I CALL FOR. The party is We the People. Politians that want to run under our party must advocate and follow our demands - lawyers or other people that can make this more official and focused for the people, feel free to contribute or take it for yourself - spread the message and fine tune until we are ready to recruit for our party:

Pass legislation against lobbying. Why are we allowing large corporations to pay off our congresspeople to pass legislation that actively works against the working class? We are the only nation that has absolutely no guaranteed paid time off requirement. No guranteed paid leave for new parents - do you wonder why? Nestle, who creates baby formula, has invested millions of dollars to our politians to strike down any legislation suggestions to gurantee paid parent leave. Follow the money. This is the root of our issues.

With the bullet above, politicans running under our party would not accept large donations from corporations. They will let us know any attempts they recieve so we the people can use our buying power effectively and boycott against them.

Following the bullet above, they will lobby to pass legislation and spending to help support small businesses. Allow them to thrive so we can actually fight against the three large monopoly of companies that currently own basically everything. Especially local grocery stores that would allow them to offer competitive pricing to places like walmart.

There is absolutely no reason why a person that works full-time at a company has to be on SNAP benefits because they don't get paid enough. We need a shift in our salaries and minimum wage. The minimum wage should be as the definition suggests, the minimum wage required to pay for the price of living. So many people will be like "well this person shouldn't get paid more than (insert profession like teachers)". EXACTLY - why are they still also getting paid so little?! Wages have been STAGNANT while the cost of living goes up. This is no way for we the people to live!! There needs to be a re-evaluation of all the professions's worth and minimum wage to those professions. For example, in higher education, many new jobs are minimum requirement a master's degree, but the starting pay is $40,000.... UMMM EXCUSE ME?! (I have to move on or I'll get stuck here)