xyzzy

They... didn't?

The first reference is framed very skeptically. It's written in such a way to lead readers to think: if GAO exists for this purpose and is good at it, why did they create DOGE?

That said, GAO and DOGE supposedly have a very similar mission, says Walker, who has been nominated to Senate-confirmed positions by both Republican and Democratic presidents over the years.

Both GAO and DOGE are supposed to root out waste, fraud and abuse. But GAO has been doing that for decades, has a staff of several thousand people and, Walker says, is really good at it.

The second is near the bottom and is just reporting what the White House claims.

The White House did not respond to NPR's request for comment for this story but has defended DOGE for finding waste, fraud and abuse throughout the federal government.

Yes, and why was it not mentioned immediately after his quote in this article, let alone challenged immediately after he said it? Historical illiteracy is so common in news reporting. It's embarrassing.

I was very close to just unloading everything except index funds if it had gotten maybe 10% higher. Oh well.

Trump is a buffoon, but I don't think more than 2x the cost counts as "razor-thin margins"

This is hilariously melodramatic

The dude is playing Victor von Doom. The entire premise of the character is over-the-top pompous jerk. He's playing into it.

150 minutes of parrying, dodge rolling, and running away

I would take Franken over 99% of Democratic politicians at this point. I wonder what's he up to lately anyway?

They've already cost me a lot of money, and they will continue to cost me a lot of money.

Who would have standing to bring a case?

I guess he figured if any pro-Palestinian speech was deemed terrorism, he might as well become a terrorist. I just don't know why people like this target low-level staffers instead of the individuals most responsible, other than ease of access I guess.

OK, so they eliminated $2.6 billion in federal grants. Now they're preventing Harvard from enrolling foreign students.

Sounds bad, right? Definitely for the students, but even if you assume $100,000 per year per student, that's "only" $680 million. So their second attack is with reduced leverage. If your goal is to crush Harvard into compliance, you want the attacks to amplify, not weaken each time. So it's already feeling like a deflated balloon.

They want to strip Harvard of its tax exempt status, but that's around 20% in capital gains, which are only realized when they sell assets. So if I'm the president of Harvard, I ride it out; I sell just enough to get by for the next year until it winds its way to the Supreme Court and gets overturned. So they just need to sell $3 billion in assets and pay about $600 million in taxes. After a verdict is rendered, they might even get that amount back in the judgement.

Either way, once again a weaker attack than the previous one (assuming, as the Trump administration must) that any revocation of tax-exempt status will be overturned.

And what's left? Arresting the president and board of overseers? There aren't many things to realistically try after this. Time and momentum seem to be on Harvard's side.