Trump's firing of the U.S. government archivist is far worse than it might seem

Fear of Authoritarian Dismantling of Government

• Many see the firing of the archivist as part of a broader “will to power” project: dismantling key institutions, weakening checks and balances, and normalizing rule by decree.
• Some believe the U.S. is already past the “downfall” point, with constitutional rule of law effectively suspended and the state “captured by hostile interests.”

Limits of Institutional Guardrails and Possible Resistance

• Courts and bureaucracy are seen as the last “guardrails,” but there’s skepticism they’ll be respected if rulings conflict with executive desires.
• Impeachment is viewed as the only fully legitimate internal remedy, but politically impossible given congressional Republicans.
• Extra-institutional options (general strike, mass protest, even revolution) are mentioned, but most commenters doubt Americans’ willingness to endure risk and hardship.

Class, Comfort, and Lack of Mobilization

• One line of argument frames the crisis as fundamentally class-related: deregulation, corporate control, and ultra-wealthy appointees.
• Others push back, saying Trump support does not map cleanly to class and that trying to make it a class issue is analytically weak.
• Broad agreement that a relatively comfortable, individualized population is unlikely to take large-scale action until personally threatened.

Media, Tech, and Corporate Power

• Fox News is described as having near-total sway over its viewers and could “stop this tomorrow,” though others note Fox originally resisted Trump.
• Tech and social media giants are seen as controlling the information space and largely aligned with current power, making objective understanding harder.

Implications of Firing the Archivist

• Commenters highlight Orwell’s “who controls the past…” line and worry about politicizing NARA, which touches elections, legal records, and historical truth.
• Concern that this will normalize filling traditionally neutral, technical posts with loyalists, damaging long‑term democratic functioning and transparency.

Musk’s Role and Conflicts of Interest

• Some are sympathetic to the stated goals of government “reform” but see Musk’s involvement as nakedly self-interested: regulatory deconstruction around EVs, space, AI, and social media.
• His record at X is cited as evidence against genuine neutrality or transparency.

Legitimacy, Elections, and Public Attitudes

• One camp says “this is the will of the electorate” and that the time to stop it was the election.
• Others argue the election was distorted by manipulation, suppression, and gerrymandering; they reject calling it “generally fair.”
• There’s dismay at how many people apparently never believed in rule of law or democracy beyond partisan advantage.

Meta: HN Moderation and Discourse Control

• Multiple comments criticize HN flagging and removal of threads like this as political censorship masquerading as “avoiding drama.”
• Others defend flagging as keeping within stated guidelines and preventing the site from becoming a generic political forum.