> A self-coup, also called an autocoup (from Spanish autogolpe) or coup from the top, is a form of coup d'état in which a political leader, having come to power through legal means, stays in power through illegal means through the actions of themselves and/or their supporters.[1] The leader may dissolve or render powerless the national legislature and unlawfully assume extraordinary powers. Other measures may include annulling the nation's constitution, suspending civil courts, and having the head of government assume dictatorial powers.[2][3]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Self-coup

For a recent example see the events in South Korea with President Yoon.

Seizing legislative power, which up until about 7 days ago included all control over federal funding, for the executive branch is a coup.

Separation of powers, checks and balances. The executive branch taking powers from the legislative branch with the judicial branch approving can be seen as a coup.

If it is illegal, then it can be coup. You are elected to act within the law.

Democracy becomes non democracy by illegal acta, typically.

Trump cannot legally delegate his power to just anyone. Delegations of power are done through appointed positions that must be confirmed by the Senate.

There's so many laws they're breaking it's hard to name them all and that's part of the point, flood the zone with misbehavior and it becomes difficult to track and react to it all. The President is not a little tyrant able to do whatever he wants with the Executive Branch just because he was elected, the idea that he is and should be is a bizarre new reading ideologically motivated to allow someone like Trump to tear anything they don't like to shreds and only keep the parts they want.

This isn’t Trump’s power to delegate. Congress dictates spending, not the President. Usurping that power from Congress is the coup.

It's only democracy when I like it.

Don't forget that Trump is approaching 80. I don't know how well he will be able to keep up.

I would use the term 'purge' for what's happened so far, along with 'seizure'. the coup would come after the purge, once musk has full control of the monetary system and the republican congressional leadership and the courts have made it clear they won't do anything to stop Trump.

Whether Trump was duly (?) elected is still up for debate, after all he's a convicted felon, an insurrectionist, there's investigations into voter fraud, and foreign interference / propaganda that helped get him elected again.

He can't just delegate power to an unelected civilian like this.

To invoke Godwin's law, Hitler was democratically elected, Austria democratically voted to join the Reich, the people of the UK voted in favor of leaving Europe. Just because it doesn't technically meet your definition of a coup, doesn't mean it's a hostile takeover of the country's government and systems. But if you'd rather argue semantics that's fine too. If this keeps up, the US government will shut down by March and people will die - or, more will, as there's a link between the plane crashes and the Trump admin's cutting down on already understaffed air control staff.

Do you have a reference for "clearly", from case law or a lawyer/judges perspective? IANAL, and I don't see any commenting here.

The downvotes are because Musk has a large personality cult, especially on tech oriented sites like HN.

I'll add to the other good reply - in our constitutional system, branches are not allowed to delegate significant amounts of their power to other entities.

So congress, for example, cannot delegate making laws to some other entity. The courts, for example, cannot give their judicial power to others.

Similarly, the president can't delegate significant executive authority to others.

Where are the limits of this?

It's usually about delegating significant amounts of power or functions that the constitution explicit calls out as being owned.

But the limits are not tested often, so not tons of cases.

In the case of agencies, the executive branch also has no power in the first place to either set up, or disband, agencies. This is a power that congress owns. They can't, per above, delegate it, even if they wanted to.

No, they are not actually part of the government, authorized by any act of Congress, nor paid by it.

They're accessing extremely sensitive government systems that do things like disburse trillions of dollars in federal funding and trying to shut down agencies like USAID. I highly doubt they have the right clearances for that. Additionally, congress controls the purse, not the executive branch. Even if DOGE was an above board agency approved by congress, withholding money that congress approved is incredibly illegal and may lead to a real constitutional crisis.

Giving their names is hardly doxxing them, especially since they are breaking the law. And if they are government employees, it would still be illegal to hack into sensitive databases, copy data to insecure devices, suspend payments to federal contractors, bar federal employees from their offices, and disband entire agencies.

If a presidential aide ordered USAID staffers to not go to work and physically locked them out, it would violate multiple federal laws and protections. Here’s why:

1. USAID Employees Have Legal Employment Protections

USAID employees—both civil servants and Foreign Service officers—are protected by federal employment laws. A presidential aide cannot simply tell them to stop working without a legal order, such as an official reorganization approved by Congress or a government shutdown following a funding lapse.

Under Title 5 of the U.S. Code, federal employees cannot be arbitrarily removed or prevented from performing their duties. The Anti-Deficiency Act (31 U.S.C. § 1341) prohibits government officials from unilaterally stopping agency operations without congressional authorization.

2. Locking USAID Buildings Would Violate Security & Property Laws

Physically locking the doors to prevent USAID employees from entering their offices would likely violate:

18 U.S.C. § 371 (Conspiracy to defraud the U.S. Government) if it were done to obstruct lawful government operations. 18 U.S.C. § 1361 (Willful injury of government property) if it involved unlawful restriction of access to a federal facility. Federal Continuity Directives require that government agencies maintain essential functions even in emergencies.

3. Presidential Authority Has Limits

The President does not have unilateral authority to suspend an entire federal agency’s operations without following proper legal processes.

Only Congress can permanently dissolve an agency like USAID by repealing its statutory mandate.

Even if a president wanted to reorganize or defund USAID, they would need to work through legal channels—such as submitting a restructuring plan to Congress.

What Could Happen If Someone Tried This?

If an aide illegally ordered staffers to stop working and locked the doors, several things could happen:

Congressional & Legal Challenges – USAID officials or Congress could sue, arguing the action was unlawful. Federal Court Intervention – A court could issue an injunction blocking the order.

Potential Criminal Charges – Any official involved in obstructing a federal agency’s work could face legal consequences.

Historical Precedents

Trump’s 2018-2019 Government Shutdown: While federal agencies, including USAID, were partially shut down due to funding lapses, career employees were still required to follow proper procedures.

Nixon’s Attempt to Defund Agencies: President Nixon tried to defund programs by impounding funds, but Congress passed the Congressional Budget and Impoundment Control Act of 1974, limiting executive control over funding.

Bottom Line

Simply ordering USAID employees to stop working and locking the doors would be blatantly illegal and would likely lead to immediate legal challenges, congressional intervention, and possible criminal liability for those involved.