Does Trump have the right idea to dismantle the Deep State?

The linchpin of Donald Trump’s “Plan to Dismantle the Deep State” is to assert the authority to fire senior officials at will: “First, I will immediately reissue my 2020 Executive Order restoring the President’s authority to “To remove rogue bureaucrats.” And I will use that power very aggressively.”

Trump’s diagnosis is partly correct, but his reform proposal clearly misses the mark. He is right that the federal civil service has become a kind of anti-merit system instead of a “merit system”:

• Federal employees are largely unaccountable: 99% of federal employees are rated “completely successful.” Bad performers are virtually impossible to fire, even if they’re caught spending their days surfing porn sites.
• Many federal employees are also uncontrollable: Supervisors must negotiate with “union representatives” over rudimentary management decisions – who does what, even who sits at which desk.
• Under the guise of following the bureaucratic labyrinth, federal officials can undermine legitimate instructions from political officials. True believers in the authorities simply delay until the next election. There’s an acronym for that: Webehwyg (We-Be-Wig): “We’ll be here when you’re gone.”

Trump’s proposed Appendix F addresses only one of these deficiencies: bureaucratic subversion. By giving Trump the authority to fire high-ranking officials for almost any reason, Appendix F goes too far while doing too little. The proposed overhaul should aim to be a “merits system” rather than a new spoils system, and needs to be much bolder to attract the talent needed in 21st century government.

Schedule F goes too far. Trump’s order would move 50,000 or more senior officials to a new Schedule F with “volunteer” employees.

Appendix F assumes that public employees should do whatever the president wants. But civil servants have a dual loyalty: they respect the orders of political leaders within the boundaries of law and ethics. A “merit system” requires a culture of professionalism in which officials are accountable for their performance but also protected from partisan retaliation.

Appendix F would instead create an ethos of fear and lead senior officials to behave like sycophants — following the president’s every dictate, even if it contradicts facts or science. This is not an abstract fear for Trump, as demonstrated by the “Sharpiegate” incident when he pressured weather officials to confirm his inaccurate claim that Hurricane Dorian would hit Alabama and when he tried to get FDA officials to do so To re-authorize use of hydroxychloroquine to treat Covid.

Appendix F also allows the President to appoint senior civil service personnel regardless of qualifications. The main flaw of the 19th century spoils system was to place serious public responsibility on incompetent political hacks rather than on their partisanship. It’s hard to see how a new version of the loot system is in the public interest.

Schedule F doesn’t do enough. Appendix F does not help to equip senior officials to lead their subordinates. For example, complex legal procedures require a superior to prove in a grievance process that Mr. How does a manager demonstrate a bad attitude or poor judgment? Personnel judgments can be easily verified by other colleagues, but they are judgments, no objective facts. Since it is almost impossible to prove ineffectiveness, there is almost no liability.

The greatest harm caused by a lack of accountability is not the mass of poor performers, but a discouraged public culture. Mutual trust is difficult when everyone knows that performance doesn’t matter.

“We detect deep dissatisfaction within the civil service,” the Volcker Commission concluded in 2003. “They resent the protections afforded to the underperforming people among them, who hinder their own work and tarnish the reputation of all government employees.”

Appendix F also does not remove the stranglehold of public union collective bargaining agreements, which require that even minor management decisions—such as training for a software upgrade—be negotiated separately.

Modernization of the public service by regulation. Like the aging infrastructure, America’s public service should be largely abolished. The civil service system was designed for white-collar workers to process forms and was changed in the 1960s to appease federal unions. It is a rusty industrial-age machine, disconnected from performance and repelling highly skilled people. The need for civil service reform was first voiced by Paul Volcker in 1989, but numerous reform proposals failed due to congressional indifference and union opposition.

Trump’s Schedule F, while heavy-handed, points the way to a bolder approach – redesigning the civil service by executive order. By asserting the executive branch’s constitutional powers, the president can distance himself from strict congressional and union controls and provoke a constitutional challenge that must be decided by the Supreme Court. This dispute is also likely to push civil service reform to the top of Congress’ agenda.

The Constitution provides in Article II that “the executive power shall vest in a President.” Numerous Supreme Court rulings have limited Congress’ ability to influence “executive power” in personnel decisions. Under these rulings, a president could deny important aspects of civil service law, including refusing to comply with:

• the detailed disciplinary procedures that make termination, discipline or even an honest assessment of job performance impossible;
• collective bargaining powers that undermine management authority; And
• the mechanistic hiring processes that drive away good candidates.

In place of these statutory provisions, a president could, by executive order, create a framework aimed at implementing the goals of a merit system—generally, empowering officials to assume responsibility and empowering other officials to hold them accountable. Protection against unfair personnel decisions can be achieved by transferring oversight authority to an independent group or committee, not through litigation.

Congress will continue until it is forced to act. A redesign of the civil service via executive order could prompt Congress to undertake a long-overdue modernization of government.