This all coincides with Trump’s essential overly simplistic understanding of problems and issues outside of his direct experience or interest combined with his contradictory self-assertion that he’s the smartest man in the room and understands everything better than anyone else. .
The general truth is that neither Republicans are in favor of small states, and neither are Democrats in favor of a big states. Both want a small and a big state at the same time but in different policy areas and for different groups of voters
While I am loathe to disagree with one of my intellectual heroes, I have to quibble a bit with a couple of important things.
First is the characterization of the central issue. While Mr. Fukuyama joins the major media consensus that Trump is engaging in an "assault" on the federal bureaucracy, it's also possible to view this in more neutral terms. Anything that can go too far in America will, and having some experience with federal and state agencies, I don't think its wrong to say that over much time, they have become bloated and inefficient, and need some reform. Better, in my opinion, agency by agency, but the need is there, and while I have never voted for Trump (and will never again have to even think about it, I hope), he has a point. Maybe more than a point.
I agree very much that he is using his usual, reprehensible tactic of billing this as a fight between evil and good -- "bureaucrats" vs. the people -- he is also bending the curve and putting this issue on the table in realistic terms that do not necessarily imply an assault, but rather moving the Overton window seriously and helpfully, on this and other issues. Trump does face the same challenges previous reformers have, but as Mr. Fukuyama notes, he has some tools available to him. I'd only call out one more tool in the toolbox: Congress, which has the authority to change any of the existing rules that the bureaucracy must abide by. All of those regulations -- substantive and procedural -- that govern the system didn't just appear one day. They are the result of Congressional permission. It will be hard to change them, of course. But that possibility is an important one, and I can imagine a number of changes that I could support.
Second, while Mr. Fukuyama is right to bring up two of the recent Supreme Court cases interpreting administrative law, maybe those aren't so bad. The major questions doctrine is, to me, an entirely fair and clear understanding of the constitutional relationship between Congress and the Executive. When an agency promulgates a rule that has enormous and nationwide consequences, it is not wrong for the Court to look carefully at the authorization the agency identifies, and sometimes to say that the magnitude of the change is out of whack with what's in the statute. That's not easy, but it's in their Constitutional job description. If Congress thinks the Court got it wrong, Congress can change their instructions to the Executive branch. Again, not easy, but part of their job duties.
Chevron deference is an easier call for me. Yes, there are atomized issues where it is hard to tell what is a legal issue the agency is making a call on and what is a substantive issue. Those hard calls are inevitable. But the principle is foundational, as articulated in Loper Bright: It is the agency's substantive expertise the Court must defer to; and it is the Court's statutory expertise where the agency must defer. Again, though, if Congress thinks the Court got it wrong, they have full Constitutional authority to let the Court know what they meant.
I still believe the Constitution got the nation's Operating System right, and while Congress has failed in its duties to be able to write programs that operate efficiently on that OS, that's the fault of politics itself, not the Constitution. I am convinced that the Court will continue to provide sound guidance to Congress and to a President Trump that will also be available to the next congress and the next president and the ones after that. It's easy to bash the current court because that's our conventional politics. But I see the court doing its job in telling the other two branches to do theirs.
This all coincides with Trump’s essential overly simplistic understanding of problems and issues outside of his direct experience or interest combined with his contradictory self-assertion that he’s the smartest man in the room and understands everything better than anyone else. .
The general truth is that neither Republicans are in favor of small states, and neither are Democrats in favor of a big states. Both want a small and a big state at the same time but in different policy areas and for different groups of voters
Please change your "Follow" link from X (formerly Twitter) to Bluesky
While I am loathe to disagree with one of my intellectual heroes, I have to quibble a bit with a couple of important things.
First is the characterization of the central issue. While Mr. Fukuyama joins the major media consensus that Trump is engaging in an "assault" on the federal bureaucracy, it's also possible to view this in more neutral terms. Anything that can go too far in America will, and having some experience with federal and state agencies, I don't think its wrong to say that over much time, they have become bloated and inefficient, and need some reform. Better, in my opinion, agency by agency, but the need is there, and while I have never voted for Trump (and will never again have to even think about it, I hope), he has a point. Maybe more than a point.
I agree very much that he is using his usual, reprehensible tactic of billing this as a fight between evil and good -- "bureaucrats" vs. the people -- he is also bending the curve and putting this issue on the table in realistic terms that do not necessarily imply an assault, but rather moving the Overton window seriously and helpfully, on this and other issues. Trump does face the same challenges previous reformers have, but as Mr. Fukuyama notes, he has some tools available to him. I'd only call out one more tool in the toolbox: Congress, which has the authority to change any of the existing rules that the bureaucracy must abide by. All of those regulations -- substantive and procedural -- that govern the system didn't just appear one day. They are the result of Congressional permission. It will be hard to change them, of course. But that possibility is an important one, and I can imagine a number of changes that I could support.
Second, while Mr. Fukuyama is right to bring up two of the recent Supreme Court cases interpreting administrative law, maybe those aren't so bad. The major questions doctrine is, to me, an entirely fair and clear understanding of the constitutional relationship between Congress and the Executive. When an agency promulgates a rule that has enormous and nationwide consequences, it is not wrong for the Court to look carefully at the authorization the agency identifies, and sometimes to say that the magnitude of the change is out of whack with what's in the statute. That's not easy, but it's in their Constitutional job description. If Congress thinks the Court got it wrong, Congress can change their instructions to the Executive branch. Again, not easy, but part of their job duties.
Chevron deference is an easier call for me. Yes, there are atomized issues where it is hard to tell what is a legal issue the agency is making a call on and what is a substantive issue. Those hard calls are inevitable. But the principle is foundational, as articulated in Loper Bright: It is the agency's substantive expertise the Court must defer to; and it is the Court's statutory expertise where the agency must defer. Again, though, if Congress thinks the Court got it wrong, they have full Constitutional authority to let the Court know what they meant.
I still believe the Constitution got the nation's Operating System right, and while Congress has failed in its duties to be able to write programs that operate efficiently on that OS, that's the fault of politics itself, not the Constitution. I am convinced that the Court will continue to provide sound guidance to Congress and to a President Trump that will also be available to the next congress and the next president and the ones after that. It's easy to bash the current court because that's our conventional politics. But I see the court doing its job in telling the other two branches to do theirs.