Yeah, it's a bummer when the "little people" vote for somebody who forces the entrenched bureaucracy to be answerable to them instead of the bureaucrats' own personal political agendas. If bureaucrats are acting on overtly political motivations (see below), then the public (via their democratically elected administration) should be able to fire them.
If I didn't know better, I'd guess that Fukuyama prefers an unelected ruling elite over actual democracy.
"A December 2024 poll by Scott Rasmussen's Napolitan Institute surveyed federal government managers in the National Capital Region earning at least $75,000 annually. The findings revealed that nearly two-thirds (64%) of those who voted for Vice President Kamala Harris would ignore a *legal* order from President Trump if they believed it was bad policy, choosing instead to act according to their own judgment. In contrast, only 17% of these individuals indicated they would follow such an order."
Something I keep seeing missed in responses like yours is the fact that these actions actually exempt the largest segment of the federal workforce. Defense and security-related federal employees make up 70% of the federal workforce. Yet these positions are excluded from “answering to the president” as you say. There has been documented audit after audit of the tangible waste occurring at these agencies but yet they are not the focus, why?
The chain of command is an inveterate and honored reality in the military. So yes, they absolutely do answer to the president -- well, except in the case of Mark Milley, of course, who arrogated independent decision-making power to himself.
It hasn't been lost on Musk that defense procurement is inefficient and corrupt in some instances. It's probably a good place to pick up another $100 billion or so of savings.
I appreciate the genuine reply. To clarify, my question was in regards to the executive orders that exempted the majority of the 70% I referred to. Some could argue that they are grabbing the low hanging fruit for political reasons and not actually tackling the most wasteful spending because that would upset their donors.
Interesting that ANYONE thinks what DOGE is doing is good for the country. Replacing civil service employees with wealthy Trump supporters will no doubt make most of the latter more wealthy. Most of them are already benifiting from government overspending. Now they will control where the money goes! Add to that the fact that people who legitimately need aid from the government will now suffer. Those of you who support Trump, tell me: In what culture / religion / society is it evil to support people who legitimately need aid? Some of you no doubt go to church - is it preached in your church that the lesser among us should be left to fend for themselves?
I agree that there has been some corruption and too much waste in our government. Getting rid of hard working American civil service employees is not the answer! I am concerned that if this continues, our country, within 6 months, will be in a much worse place.
Your underlying assumption is that the administrative state (the Swamp) actually functions the way that idealistic progressives say that it does, while the reality is that it behaves as a fourth unconstitutional branch of government beholden to and advancing progressive causes regardless of who is President. I know that to progressives that is a feature, not a bug, of the administrative state, but to actual people in the real world it is why they hate and fear the government, and elected Trump in part to clean up the dysfunctional mess the Swamp has become.
If the people elect the President, who is the head of the administrative state, why shouldn't the state be responsive to his directives and carry out his priorities? That's what he was elected to do. But a large part of the functionaries in the Swamp have stated that they will actively work against President Trump's directives and priorities. What choice does he have but to remove them and replace them with people who are aligned with the goals of the voters who elected him?
Nowhere do you acknowledge that the Dems have effectively weaponized the Swamp against anyone who disagrees with them, who they consider to be enemies, not political rivals. Is it right for Americans treat people who disagree as enemies? The Dems have done this since Obama, and you and others like you have cheered them on. Now you are afraid that Trump will turn that back on you, so now you complain. That is hypocrisy in its purest, and most disgusting, form. Come clean and admit what the Dems have been doing. Censorship, lawfare, IRS audits, agencies taking enforcement actions against individuals who they see as enemies, that's all Dem behavior, and there is no evidence that Trump is doing anything except removing people from positions of power so they cannot continue to do harm. Some of these people have committed crimes, and they should be prosecuted for them. That may or may not happen.
You are projecting what the Dems have already done by claiming that Trump can weaponize the Swamp against individuals and groups he doesn't like. That's been going on by Dems since Obama. Look in the mirror and admit what your side has done, then maybe there will be something to talk about.
If I am not mistaken, slightly fewer than 50% of the members of the House and Senate are Democrats (or independents who caucus with the Democrats). Further, there are Democrats in high state and municipal office. Where are they? Why are they doing nothing more than hand wringing? The Democrats are making the same mistake they made before November, which is not providing an alternate vision for America to what Trump said he was going to do and is doing. More of the same wasn't and isn't an alternate vision for the 2026 midterms and 2028 general election.
The irony, of course, is that Trump has turned so many decisions over to another unelected official, Elon Musk, who, it is clear, doesn't understand how the US government works and seems to have no official place there. Unlike other high-ranking officials, he apparently does not have to be approved by the Senate after submitting to public hearings. The paranoiacs concerned by the "entrenched bureaucracy" have to do the normal work of argument and provide evidence of actual harm done by the technocrats who do their jobs. I have yet to see it. And following the law when asked to contravene it does not count.
The Washington Post ran a story last Friday about the forced departure of David Lebryk from Treasury. The New York Times ran a story the next day on Scott Bessent's handing access to Treasury disbursements to Elon Musk. There has been coverage of the firings of Inspectors General, including one who went into work since her dismissal was iillegal, and was promptly escorted out of her office. There have been stories about the firings of prosecutors involved in the Department of Justice's Trump cases as well as of plans to investigate all FBI agents involved in those cases. Stories on the dismantling of USAID (covered also in the European press), the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, and (breaking news) this headline from WaPo: "Trump preps order to dismantle Education Dept. as DOGE probes data." [Maybe there's some reason my keyboard briefly switched into German. :-)) None of these stories has been free of consideration of the implications of these actions. Meanwhile Persuasion has offered a potpourri including a complaint about the Vatican's taste in Nativity scenes and the value of Dry January. Thanks for getting on board with this story.
However, I find it disturbing that the blurb for this article and series promises to discuss the workings of the administratiive state, its shortcomings, and "undifferentiated attempts to dismantle it." No mention of the *value* of the administrative state? It's as though Persuasion has bought the Trump premise. What about the value to the American people of federal agencies and programs--Social Security, Medicare, environmental protections, grants and funding of scientific research, law enforcement, diplomacy, an endless list? What about the intent of Congress in authorizing and funding numerous agencies and activities? I, for one, find this wholesale attack on the federal government and its consequences, not to mention the power of Elon Musk, outrageous and terrifying. The question I can't answer--other than for contacting members of Congress--is what to do.
Several times comments have been made asking Persuasion to move out of analysis into discussion of ways to take action. Surely now is the time. Can Persuasion find ways to combine analysis with discussions of how to use the power of persuasion in action?
The DOJ has been made into a political hit squad for Dems over the last 20 years, it needs to stop, and corrupt agents need to go. USAID is a very dirty agency (as we have found out in the last few days, although it was suspected for years), working against US interests and refusing accountability. The CFPB has a very dubious structure and also lacks accountability. A very brief audit turned up hundreds of programs whose authorization have lapsed but were still being funded on autopilot, shouldn't those be at least reviewed? Many agencies have been spending millions on DEI initiatives that the public hates and that provide no value. Our own government has been censoring and spying on us, that needs to be rooted out and ended. The public also does not support the was on fossil fuels, but billions have been spent, adding to the deficit, for "green" projects that will never even get built, and certainly not profit, but the proponents get to keep the money with no consequences although most of the spending was wasted if not fraudulent. You mention the "intent of Congress", but all of the "clean energy" and war on everyday products like cars, stoves, furnaces, and power plants that work in the name of CO2 have no basis in legislation at all, there was no authorization anywhere to regulate CO2, the progressives in government have invented that entire regulatory and grant structure from unconstitutional and unintended interpretations of statutes for other purposes.
No one is shutting down Social Security or Medicare.
So tell me again why anyone should support the administrative state in its current corrupt configuration?
Fukuyama hits on something I don’t understand- how none of Trump’s backers ever seemed remotely concerned about his rank nepotism, personalized leadership, and cronyism. I had thought every intelligent person knew by now that this is the stuff of banana republics.
The lemonade that might possibly be made of the situation is for a future administration to re-write the rules Trump is tearing up, not simply reinstating the status quo ante, but giving the government more flexibility to attract and retain highly skilled people as are required for effective oversight of, e.g., the financial industry.
That is very wishful thinking as those agencies are actually the most at risk of attrition due to the current work environment. Many specialists come to the government for better work hours and actually take pay cuts because they believe in public service, these actions and inflexibility will drive out the talented in droves. I can actually guarantee it.
Aw, come on, now. Keep yer chin up! One of these days, a rich dude who likes little red-haired girls is going to show up and adopt all of us out of this filthy orphanage. And we’ll all break into song! Sing it with me now…
"'A December 2024 poll by MSNBC surveyed federal government managers in the National Capital Region earning at least $75,000 annually. The findings reveal that nearly two thirds of those who voted for Donald Trump would ignore a *legal* order from President Harris if they believed it was bad policy, choosing instead to act according to their own judgment. In contrast, only 17% of these individuals indicated they would follow such an order.'
Well, that just goes to show that Harris hasn't (yet) booted out all free-thinking, professionally non-partisan government workers, experts in their respective fields, hired according to merit and talent, and replaced them with an army of clueless stooges, hand-picked for nothing other than blind devotion to her dangerously destructive policies. Soon conscience and common sense will be stamped out of every level of government, and ordinary folks will, as usual, be paying the price."
Hey there, Jens. I'm just having a bit of fun. Honestly, you may well be right--what do I know? I guess we'll all be finding out over the next four years :)
Yeah, it's a bummer when the "little people" vote for somebody who forces the entrenched bureaucracy to be answerable to them instead of the bureaucrats' own personal political agendas. If bureaucrats are acting on overtly political motivations (see below), then the public (via their democratically elected administration) should be able to fire them.
If I didn't know better, I'd guess that Fukuyama prefers an unelected ruling elite over actual democracy.
"A December 2024 poll by Scott Rasmussen's Napolitan Institute surveyed federal government managers in the National Capital Region earning at least $75,000 annually. The findings revealed that nearly two-thirds (64%) of those who voted for Vice President Kamala Harris would ignore a *legal* order from President Trump if they believed it was bad policy, choosing instead to act according to their own judgment. In contrast, only 17% of these individuals indicated they would follow such an order."
Something I keep seeing missed in responses like yours is the fact that these actions actually exempt the largest segment of the federal workforce. Defense and security-related federal employees make up 70% of the federal workforce. Yet these positions are excluded from “answering to the president” as you say. There has been documented audit after audit of the tangible waste occurring at these agencies but yet they are not the focus, why?
The chain of command is an inveterate and honored reality in the military. So yes, they absolutely do answer to the president -- well, except in the case of Mark Milley, of course, who arrogated independent decision-making power to himself.
It hasn't been lost on Musk that defense procurement is inefficient and corrupt in some instances. It's probably a good place to pick up another $100 billion or so of savings.
I appreciate the genuine reply. To clarify, my question was in regards to the executive orders that exempted the majority of the 70% I referred to. Some could argue that they are grabbing the low hanging fruit for political reasons and not actually tackling the most wasteful spending because that would upset their donors.
Schedule F Is Here
And it’s much BETTER than you thought.
There, fixed it for ya.
Interesting that ANYONE thinks what DOGE is doing is good for the country. Replacing civil service employees with wealthy Trump supporters will no doubt make most of the latter more wealthy. Most of them are already benifiting from government overspending. Now they will control where the money goes! Add to that the fact that people who legitimately need aid from the government will now suffer. Those of you who support Trump, tell me: In what culture / religion / society is it evil to support people who legitimately need aid? Some of you no doubt go to church - is it preached in your church that the lesser among us should be left to fend for themselves?
I agree that there has been some corruption and too much waste in our government. Getting rid of hard working American civil service employees is not the answer! I am concerned that if this continues, our country, within 6 months, will be in a much worse place.
Your underlying assumption is that the administrative state (the Swamp) actually functions the way that idealistic progressives say that it does, while the reality is that it behaves as a fourth unconstitutional branch of government beholden to and advancing progressive causes regardless of who is President. I know that to progressives that is a feature, not a bug, of the administrative state, but to actual people in the real world it is why they hate and fear the government, and elected Trump in part to clean up the dysfunctional mess the Swamp has become.
If the people elect the President, who is the head of the administrative state, why shouldn't the state be responsive to his directives and carry out his priorities? That's what he was elected to do. But a large part of the functionaries in the Swamp have stated that they will actively work against President Trump's directives and priorities. What choice does he have but to remove them and replace them with people who are aligned with the goals of the voters who elected him?
Nowhere do you acknowledge that the Dems have effectively weaponized the Swamp against anyone who disagrees with them, who they consider to be enemies, not political rivals. Is it right for Americans treat people who disagree as enemies? The Dems have done this since Obama, and you and others like you have cheered them on. Now you are afraid that Trump will turn that back on you, so now you complain. That is hypocrisy in its purest, and most disgusting, form. Come clean and admit what the Dems have been doing. Censorship, lawfare, IRS audits, agencies taking enforcement actions against individuals who they see as enemies, that's all Dem behavior, and there is no evidence that Trump is doing anything except removing people from positions of power so they cannot continue to do harm. Some of these people have committed crimes, and they should be prosecuted for them. That may or may not happen.
You are projecting what the Dems have already done by claiming that Trump can weaponize the Swamp against individuals and groups he doesn't like. That's been going on by Dems since Obama. Look in the mirror and admit what your side has done, then maybe there will be something to talk about.
"The Treasury is simply a cash register that disburses money to designated payees, not a watchdog of the public purse."
Sorry to mix metaphors, but the fastest way to deal with a leaky hose is to shut off the tap, not attempt to go inch by inch patching holes as you go.
If I am not mistaken, slightly fewer than 50% of the members of the House and Senate are Democrats (or independents who caucus with the Democrats). Further, there are Democrats in high state and municipal office. Where are they? Why are they doing nothing more than hand wringing? The Democrats are making the same mistake they made before November, which is not providing an alternate vision for America to what Trump said he was going to do and is doing. More of the same wasn't and isn't an alternate vision for the 2026 midterms and 2028 general election.
The irony, of course, is that Trump has turned so many decisions over to another unelected official, Elon Musk, who, it is clear, doesn't understand how the US government works and seems to have no official place there. Unlike other high-ranking officials, he apparently does not have to be approved by the Senate after submitting to public hearings. The paranoiacs concerned by the "entrenched bureaucracy" have to do the normal work of argument and provide evidence of actual harm done by the technocrats who do their jobs. I have yet to see it. And following the law when asked to contravene it does not count.
The Washington Post ran a story last Friday about the forced departure of David Lebryk from Treasury. The New York Times ran a story the next day on Scott Bessent's handing access to Treasury disbursements to Elon Musk. There has been coverage of the firings of Inspectors General, including one who went into work since her dismissal was iillegal, and was promptly escorted out of her office. There have been stories about the firings of prosecutors involved in the Department of Justice's Trump cases as well as of plans to investigate all FBI agents involved in those cases. Stories on the dismantling of USAID (covered also in the European press), the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, and (breaking news) this headline from WaPo: "Trump preps order to dismantle Education Dept. as DOGE probes data." [Maybe there's some reason my keyboard briefly switched into German. :-)) None of these stories has been free of consideration of the implications of these actions. Meanwhile Persuasion has offered a potpourri including a complaint about the Vatican's taste in Nativity scenes and the value of Dry January. Thanks for getting on board with this story.
However, I find it disturbing that the blurb for this article and series promises to discuss the workings of the administratiive state, its shortcomings, and "undifferentiated attempts to dismantle it." No mention of the *value* of the administrative state? It's as though Persuasion has bought the Trump premise. What about the value to the American people of federal agencies and programs--Social Security, Medicare, environmental protections, grants and funding of scientific research, law enforcement, diplomacy, an endless list? What about the intent of Congress in authorizing and funding numerous agencies and activities? I, for one, find this wholesale attack on the federal government and its consequences, not to mention the power of Elon Musk, outrageous and terrifying. The question I can't answer--other than for contacting members of Congress--is what to do.
Several times comments have been made asking Persuasion to move out of analysis into discussion of ways to take action. Surely now is the time. Can Persuasion find ways to combine analysis with discussions of how to use the power of persuasion in action?
The DOJ has been made into a political hit squad for Dems over the last 20 years, it needs to stop, and corrupt agents need to go. USAID is a very dirty agency (as we have found out in the last few days, although it was suspected for years), working against US interests and refusing accountability. The CFPB has a very dubious structure and also lacks accountability. A very brief audit turned up hundreds of programs whose authorization have lapsed but were still being funded on autopilot, shouldn't those be at least reviewed? Many agencies have been spending millions on DEI initiatives that the public hates and that provide no value. Our own government has been censoring and spying on us, that needs to be rooted out and ended. The public also does not support the was on fossil fuels, but billions have been spent, adding to the deficit, for "green" projects that will never even get built, and certainly not profit, but the proponents get to keep the money with no consequences although most of the spending was wasted if not fraudulent. You mention the "intent of Congress", but all of the "clean energy" and war on everyday products like cars, stoves, furnaces, and power plants that work in the name of CO2 have no basis in legislation at all, there was no authorization anywhere to regulate CO2, the progressives in government have invented that entire regulatory and grant structure from unconstitutional and unintended interpretations of statutes for other purposes.
No one is shutting down Social Security or Medicare.
So tell me again why anyone should support the administrative state in its current corrupt configuration?
Fukuyama hits on something I don’t understand- how none of Trump’s backers ever seemed remotely concerned about his rank nepotism, personalized leadership, and cronyism. I had thought every intelligent person knew by now that this is the stuff of banana republics.
The lemonade that might possibly be made of the situation is for a future administration to re-write the rules Trump is tearing up, not simply reinstating the status quo ante, but giving the government more flexibility to attract and retain highly skilled people as are required for effective oversight of, e.g., the financial industry.
That is very wishful thinking as those agencies are actually the most at risk of attrition due to the current work environment. Many specialists come to the government for better work hours and actually take pay cuts because they believe in public service, these actions and inflexibility will drive out the talented in droves. I can actually guarantee it.
Aw, come on, now. Keep yer chin up! One of these days, a rich dude who likes little red-haired girls is going to show up and adopt all of us out of this filthy orphanage. And we’ll all break into song! Sing it with me now…
I think I misread your original comment in a less charitable tone so yes here’s hoping for lemonade haha. :)
Would Treasury not be the best place to find out where the money goes?
Also, the spending plans don’t seem to be all that detailed.
MEANWHILE, IN AN ALTERNATE UNIVERSE...
"'A December 2024 poll by MSNBC surveyed federal government managers in the National Capital Region earning at least $75,000 annually. The findings reveal that nearly two thirds of those who voted for Donald Trump would ignore a *legal* order from President Harris if they believed it was bad policy, choosing instead to act according to their own judgment. In contrast, only 17% of these individuals indicated they would follow such an order.'
Well, that just goes to show that Harris hasn't (yet) booted out all free-thinking, professionally non-partisan government workers, experts in their respective fields, hired according to merit and talent, and replaced them with an army of clueless stooges, hand-picked for nothing other than blind devotion to her dangerously destructive policies. Soon conscience and common sense will be stamped out of every level of government, and ordinary folks will, as usual, be paying the price."
Hey there, Jens. I'm just having a bit of fun. Honestly, you may well be right--what do I know? I guess we'll all be finding out over the next four years :)