Ohio Senator J D Vance, a fervent supporter of Donald Trump, once envisioned a comprehensive strategy for Trump’s potential second term: “fire every single midlevel bureaucrat, every civil servant in the administrative state, replace them with our people”. Recent polls, a year ahead of the 2024 election, indicate favorable odds for Trump’s potential victory.
In preparation for a prospective win, Donald Trump and his supporters aim to strategize and lead the country differently than in 2016. For over a year now, groups aligned with Trump have been outlining plans to populate governmental positions with proven loyalists should Trump secure a second term.
Trump holds the belief that his first term suffered due to interference from “deep state” bureaucrats, “weak” legal advisors, and what he labels as “woke generals”. Some opponents argue that these government officials acted as a buffer, preventing some of Trump’s more contentious decisions from coming to fruition. Both Trump’s allies and adversaries seem to agree that his envisioned second term, which leans toward authoritarianism, demands more cooperative government officials compared to his previous administration.
However, the extent to which Trump could genuinely remodel the US government is a subject of debate. The Theory of Bureaucratic Politics In 1971, political scientist Graham Allison penned “Essence of Decision”, analyzing the Kennedy administration’s actions during the Cuban Missile Crisis.
Allison argued that US government’s foreign policy decisions aren’t mere responses to external situations but rather outcomes of intricate “games” among different internal actors. However, this view faced criticism, particularly from realist international relations scholar Stephen Krasner, who argued that such analyses exonerate high-level policymakers from responsibility.
Krasner maintained that the president remains the primary decision-maker, despite the internal negotiations among their staff and bureaucrats. Allison’s theory aligns with the notion of a “deep state” impeding a president’s agenda. Trump isn’t the first to criticize internal opposition—past presidents like Obama and Roosevelt used similar metaphors to describe bureaucratic obstacles. Yet, Krasner’s cautionary notes remind us that presidents often use bureaucratic opposition as an excuse for system failures they control.
Donald Trump faced challenges from appointees who disregarded his directives or refused to execute them due to legality concerns. Such dissenters seldom lasted in his administration. Trump’s tenure was characterized by record turnover among White House staff and Cabinet positions, with a high vacancy rate for Senate-confirmed appointments. Ultimately, disagreement and incompetence within his team posed larger hurdles than disloyalty and resistance. Focusing solely on loyalty when appointing high officials might lead to dominance without effective control.
Demolishing the Administrative State Beyond enforcing loyalty to a president with a limited term, Trump’s allies harbor broader aspirations. Former Chief Strategist Steve Bannon advocated early in Trump’s first term for the “deconstruction of the administrative state,” aligning with conservative goals dating back to Roosevelt’s New Deal.
Congress delegates many government powers to independent regulatory agencies, a structure criticized by conservatives who perceive these bodies as bypassing legislatures to promote liberal policies. The concept of the “unitary executive” challenges the constitutionality of independent agencies and defends the President’s authority to dismiss uncooperative civil servants.
Near the end of his presidency, Donald Trump signed an executive order to create Schedule F, intending to reclassify numerous career civil servants as political appointees, removing their employment protections. Biden overturned this order soon after taking office, but Trump’s allies view it as pivotal in reclaiming control of the administrative state. Their aim is to replace obstructive public servants with individuals aligned with Trump’s agenda, theoretically enhancing the president’s authority. However, flooding the civil service with politically motivated appointees could erode the government’s overall capability, degrade service quality, and further diminish public trust.
Not all conservatives support this plan. Some caution against reverting to the “spoils system,” wherein public sector jobs become rewards for political allies. Yet, the prevailing conservative sentiment aligns more with Trump’s grievances. Control Remains an Illusion Conservative think-tanks like the Heritage Foundation boast plans to dismantle the federal bureaucracy, a notion that aligns with Trump’s focus on retribution. However, these initiatives might offer an illusory solution, leaving any president, including Trump, disillusioned. It’s easy to blame bureaucrats and “traitors” for Trump’s first-term failures. However, recent presidents, Trump included, grapple with the difficulty of passing major legislation in a polarized Congress, leading to reliance on executive orders. Trump also faced legal constraints, as many of his desired actions were unlawful. While his allies seek administration lawyers willing to explore unconventional theories, aligning with Trump’s goals, judicial cooperation remains essential for implementation.
The hundreds of judges appointed by Trump have shaped a conservative legal landscape but might not serve Trump’s personal ambitions, notably his attempts to overturn the 2020 election results. Trump may realize that the lifetime appointments he made in his first term created a conservative legal establishment that supports his allies but contradicts his personal aspirations. Biographers of Trump suggest his insatiable desire for power and prestige might never be satisfied. A potential second term might not fulfill his ambitions but could become an opportunity for others to settle old scores.
