DC police help DOGE force its way into office of Institute of Peace

[Anonymous]

I'm surprised that MPD entered into a building that they were not welcomed into and removed people. I've called them before and they do not take action but rather, give you advice to go to court to get anything done.

My guess is that someone did go to court and get the proper documents and that is why MPD went in and did what they did.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Wtf MPD

https://www.npr.org/2025/03/18/nx-s1-5331354/doge-staff-enter-the-u-s-institute-of-peace-d-c-police-help

The US Institute of Peace, was the scene of a dramatic standoff between a Department of Government Efficiency team and Institute members on Monday. DC police attended the scene after being contacted both by USIP staff and the DOGE team on site.

Former diplomat and President and CEO OF USIP George Moose told NPR "DC police showed up at my office and said it is time for you to go." USIP is a think tank funded by Congress.

NPR spoke to him on the steps of the Institute just across from the State Department during the day long standoff on Monday.

Some members of DOGE, as the Elon Musk efficiency team is known, tried several times to get inside to install a new president.

White House Deputy Press Secretary Anna Kelly, posted on X Monday evening, along with a screenshot of a resolution from USIP's three remaining board members appointing Kenneth Jackson USIP's acting president on March 14.

Moose was fired last week along with most of the board members. According to USIP's website, the bipartisan board of directors is composed of 12 members plus four "ex-officio" members including the US Secretaries of State and Defense.

But Moose and the USIP is challenging the administration in court. He was held up in his office for some time on Monday before being escorted out by police. Moose called it a sad day.

(f) Removal from office

A member of the Board appointed under subsection (b)(4) may be removed by the President—

(1) in consultation with the Board, for conviction of a felony, malfeasance in office, persistent neglect of duties, or inability to discharge duties;

Seems legit.

https://www.lexisnexis.co.uk/legal/guidance/consultation-requirement-process

Oh? Do tell us what conviction of a felony, malfeasance in office, persistent neglect of duties, or inability to discharge duties was evidenced by USIP management.

Failed to follow an executive order: persistent neglect of duties. They explicitly thumbed their nose. FAFO.

https://www.usip.org/press/2025/02/operating-status-united-states-institute-peace

The board members who tried to shut it down neglected their duties to run the institute. They should be removed.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Following the agency's "noncompliance" with the executive order, the Trump administration fired 11 members of USIP's board on Friday, White House spokesperson Anna Kelly told Axios Monday.

However, the authorizing statute (https://www.usip.org/sites/default/files/2017-03/usip_act.pdf) says:
A member of the Board may be removed by the
President—
(1) in consultation with the Board, for conviction of a felony, malfeasance in office,
persistent neglect of duties, or inability to discharge duties;
(2) upon the recommendation of eight voting members of the Board; or
(3) upon the recommendation of a majority of the members of the Committee on Foreign
Affairs and the Committee on Education and Labor of the House of Representatives and a
majority of the members of the Committee on Foreign Relations and the Committee on Labor and Human Resources of the Senate.

These conditions were clearly not met so the firing of the Board members was illegal.

It says or not and.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Following the agency's "noncompliance" with the executive order, the Trump administration fired 11 members of USIP's board on Friday, White House spokesperson Anna Kelly told Axios Monday.

However, the authorizing statute (https://www.usip.org/sites/default/files/2017-03/usip_act.pdf) says:
A member of the Board may be removed by the
President—
(1) in consultation with the Board, for conviction of a felony, malfeasance in office,
persistent neglect of duties, or inability to discharge duties;
(2) upon the recommendation of eight voting members of the Board; or
(3) upon the recommendation of a majority of the members of the Committee on Foreign
Affairs and the Committee on Education and Labor of the House of Representatives and a
majority of the members of the Committee on Foreign Relations and the Committee on Labor and Human Resources of the Senate.

These conditions were clearly not met so the firing of the Board members was illegal.

It says or not and.

Which one do you think is the one that they were fired under?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Following the agency's "noncompliance" with the executive order, the Trump administration fired 11 members of USIP's board on Friday, White House spokesperson Anna Kelly told Axios Monday.

However, the authorizing statute (https://www.usip.org/sites/default/files/2017-03/usip_act.pdf) says:
A member of the Board may be removed by the
President—
(1) in consultation with the Board, for conviction of a felony, malfeasance in office,
persistent neglect of duties, or inability to discharge duties;
(2) upon the recommendation of eight voting members of the Board; or
(3) upon the recommendation of a majority of the members of the Committee on Foreign
Affairs and the Committee on Education and Labor of the House of Representatives and a
majority of the members of the Committee on Foreign Relations and the Committee on Labor and Human Resources of the Senate.

These conditions were clearly not met so the firing of the Board members was illegal.

It says or not and.

Then which one was it?

[Anonymous]

A semi-related point: Congress has been very generous with USIP over many years. But they have also raised private funds for at least some costs, including part of the cost of the fancy new building. This announcement suggests that Congress gave USIP the land as well as $100m to build, but the board at that time was raising another $86m for the cost of the new space: https://www.usip.org/press/2008/09/bp-america-foundation-contributes-15m-united-states-institute-peace-headquarters

[Anonymous]

Why is NYtimes referring to DOGE as a cost cutting team? They are adolescents robbing taxpayers and increasing costs.

https://www.wired.com/story/federal-auditors-doge-elon-musk/

[Anonymous]

This thread should be allowed to be in politics forum too. Concerning matter.

[Anonymous]

Hate Trump but also see why this isn’t totally clear.

Trump fired board members. Might have had authority, might not.

Doesn’t seem like anyone filed a TRO to halt their firing or prevent the new USIP head being appointed.

So maybe this was deplorable but legal?

And it seems like MPD responded to an order from the US Attorney. If I was an MPD officer I would view that as a lawful order. And it means Bowser might have had no involvement. Dc is weird with its unique federal structure but in other states the AG is the top law enforcement official.
https://mpdc.dc.gov/release/mpd-statement-response-call-service-united-states-institute-peace

I dislike what happened to USIP just like I dislike the Kennedy Center takeover. But let’s pick the battles…this seems too gray to get worked up about.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Following the agency's "noncompliance" with the executive order, the Trump administration fired 11 members of USIP's board on Friday, White House spokesperson Anna Kelly told Axios Monday.

However, the authorizing statute (https://www.usip.org/sites/default/files/2017-03/usip_act.pdf) says:
A member of the Board may be removed by the
President—
(1) in consultation with the Board, for conviction of a felony, malfeasance in office,
persistent neglect of duties, or inability to discharge duties;
(2) upon the recommendation of eight voting members of the Board; or
(3) upon the recommendation of a majority of the members of the Committee on Foreign
Affairs and the Committee on Education and Labor of the House of Representatives and a
majority of the members of the Committee on Foreign Relations and the Committee on Labor and Human Resources of the Senate.

These conditions were clearly not met so the firing of the Board members was illegal.

It says or not and.

Then which one was it?

The statute doesn't mention that you have to supply the public with a reason. Talk to Congress if you don't like the President following the current laws.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:A semi-related point: Congress has been very generous with USIP over many years. But they have also raised private funds for at least some costs, including part of the cost of the fancy new building. This announcement suggests that Congress gave USIP the land as well as $100m to build, but the board at that time was raising another $86m for the cost of the new space: https://www.usip.org/press/2008/09/bp-america-foundation-contributes-15m-united-states-institute-peace-headquarters

Private fund raising doesn't sound independent.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Following the agency's "noncompliance" with the executive order, the Trump administration fired 11 members of USIP's board on Friday, White House spokesperson Anna Kelly told Axios Monday.

However, the authorizing statute (https://www.usip.org/sites/default/files/2017-03/usip_act.pdf) says:
A member of the Board may be removed by the
President—
(1) in consultation with the Board, for conviction of a felony, malfeasance in office,
persistent neglect of duties, or inability to discharge duties;
(2) upon the recommendation of eight voting members of the Board; or
(3) upon the recommendation of a majority of the members of the Committee on Foreign
Affairs and the Committee on Education and Labor of the House of Representatives and a
majority of the members of the Committee on Foreign Relations and the Committee on Labor and Human Resources of the Senate.

These conditions were clearly not met so the firing of the Board members was illegal.

It says or not and.

Then which one was it?

The statute doesn't mention that you have to supply the public with a reason. Talk to Congress if you don't like the President following the current laws.

It does require a formal vote or formal accusation. Neither of which was done or given. There is nothing to indicate that the law was followed. Therefore the involvement of MPD was inappropriate.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Following the agency's "noncompliance" with the executive order, the Trump administration fired 11 members of USIP's board on Friday, White House spokesperson Anna Kelly told Axios Monday.

However, the authorizing statute (https://www.usip.org/sites/default/files/2017-03/usip_act.pdf) says:
A member of the Board may be removed by the
President—
(1) in consultation with the Board, for conviction of a felony, malfeasance in office,
persistent neglect of duties, or inability to discharge duties;
(2) upon the recommendation of eight voting members of the Board; or
(3) upon the recommendation of a majority of the members of the Committee on Foreign
Affairs and the Committee on Education and Labor of the House of Representatives and a
majority of the members of the Committee on Foreign Relations and the Committee on Labor and Human Resources of the Senate.

These conditions were clearly not met so the firing of the Board members was illegal.

It says or not and.

Then which one was it?

The statute doesn't mention that you have to supply the public with a reason. Talk to Congress if you don't like the President following the current laws.

It does require a formal vote or formal accusation. Neither of which was done or given. There is nothing to indicate that the law was followed. Therefore the involvement of MPD was inappropriate.

Can you show me that in the statute?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I hate Trump but I think they’re right on this one. Statute says the president can remove board members. Then the remaining board members can appoint new leadership. I’m sure there will be lawsuits and whatever but unless a judge ordered them to stop, I don’t see how anyone could deny the new people entry.

I agree with you. For entities like USIP it would be normal to have a new president appoint new board members. It may be atypical for the entire board to turn over, but, just because it is atypical, doesn't mean it is "illegal."

[Anonymous]

I assume Woodrow Wilson Center is next on the DOGE list. Very similar mission to USIP.