Timothy Carney writes:
”While President-elect Donald Trump drives out FBI Director Christopher Wray, Trump’s critics have taken to the airwaves, suggesting that the federal law enforcement agency should be beyond the reach of politicians. They posit a fourth branch of government outside of the executive branch and lean on the idea of a 10-year term for the director to suggest the bureau has always and should be run immune to the demands of elected officials.”
Reading this, two things come to mind.
In regard to politics…
I am curious as to whether Trump’s critics believe that the FBI should be beyond the reach of politicians or that agency should stay out of politics, Clearly the FBI is anything but apolitical. To the list that Carney provides at the link, I would add that the FBI not only investigated parents protesting school boards but also at the very least presumably knew the outlines of Jan. 6 well-ahead of time given it had dozens of informants there. If it didn’t know, it should ask for its money back.
No word yet on how many agents were pulled off tasks such as combating human trafficking or cracking down on criminal gangs coming across the southern border in order to conduct one of the biggest criminal investigations in US history. Hundreds of thousands of children may be missing and Tren de Aragua and other gangs might have taken root in American cities, but thanks to the FBI no one who walked through the velvet ropes in the Capitol rotunda will be at large.
Note, Carney actually understates the authoritarianism in the Mark Houck case. Not only did the FBI create a task force to target pro-lifers, but when it came time to arrest Houck for shoving a pro-choice volunteer that was accosting his son, the FBI organized a team of 20 law-enforcement agents to arrest him. Back in the days when I was in politics, it was understood that such displays of overwhelming force used to intimidate would merit a budget cut.
Somewhere Roger Stone might be nodding in agreement.
As far as the “fourth branch of government”?
There is, of course, no fourth branch of government. The Constitution establishes the branches of government (legislative, executive, judicial) within the first three articles; the FBI falls within the executive branch subject oversight by the legislative branch.
The fight both over the meaning of 10-year terms for FBI directors and the authority of politicians (meaning elected officials) over the FBI isn’t just relevant in respect to a single law enforcement agency, but points to a deeper, century-long crisis in American government concerning the growth of the bureaucracy, what John Marini terms the ”Administrative State” that operates within a post-constitutional environment. The fight over FBI is a coming attraction over a much larger battle to come between Trump and the DC establishment.
Marini states that administration was originally understood to be an executive branch function subordinate to a political theory of liberal constitutionalism and therefore the bureaucracy had no constitutional authority in of itself outside of the executive branch (meaning the president). However with the intellectual and political victory of Progressivism there has been a fundamental transformation in American politics to tacitly accept administration as something roughly co-equal to the other three branches.
Progressivism in its original form, and therefore the Administrative State, rests not in nature meaning the preexisting condition of natural rights but rather within reason. Marini traces the roots of this back to Hegel and his conception of “History” through Woodrow Wilson and into the present,. Through the use of “reason” and “science” by experts there are “correct” answers and therefore politics could be avoided. This laid the foundations of modern administration and legitimized its insertion into our political system. It is an anti-constitutional system nested, through a soft coup, within a limited-government constitutional framework.
Note “politics” is used in this case as an epithet to mean “elected officials.” The only thing worse than the FBI subject to elected officials is to not be subject to them at all. That was the entire point of limiting the FBI director to a ten-year term, to avoid the rogue antics of another J. Edgar Hoover.
Note to Chris Wray and all other people who would defend the “independence” of the FBI from political control. There is a specialized institution out there with all sorts of weapons of war and is very proficient at using them, they are also under civilian (meaning political) control. It is called the military. If it’s good enough for the Marines, it’s good enough for those in the Hoover Building.
The battle regarding the legitimacy of the Administrative State has been waged for the past 50 years all the back to Nixon; in fact Marini states that Watergate can only be understood through the subterfuge and sabotage of the DC establishment. The Administrative State has been able to insulate themselves within the constitutional text and also through the good old-fashioned way of all guerrilla armies where as enemy politicians may have watches, the bureaucrats have the time.
The key as to why bureaucrats tend to win is not so much they are smarter or they are more powerful is that while their enemies have (other) day jobs, this is the bureaucrats’ day job and they will be collecting a paycheck to frustrate Elon, Vivek, and the DOGE barbarian hordes.
On the flip side, if there was a time to go after the Administrative State, it is now. The Supreme Court has Chevron. The DC establishment after COVID, with DEI, and all the other shenanigans of the past eight years is discredited. The recent election is a thundering mandate for change.
We’ll see.
On the mean time, a recommendation for DOGE. The FBI wants a new HQ. Tell them they can have it, in any configuration they want. However it has to built out in Pie Town, NM. It’s good country but you have to drive about 70 miles to find a traffic light. Never cared for the pie though.
That’ll learn the FBI to mess with constitutional rights.
The only way I can imagine that significant pruning can work is to massively reduce their budgets while offering generous early retirement. It will still be a bloody (notional not literal) struggle.
Start with the low hanging fruit, such as the FBI. They are no longer respected or trusted. The IRS, sure. Start with their gun slingers, weapons and ammo and the recently added agents (some fraction of the 89,000 authorized).
If these show good results, go after Education, State, etc. and most of the three lettered government organizations. I think the executive branch (president) can effectively put a choke hold (notionally not literally) on their money and programs.
Most of the departments and activities/commissions/etc. have extensive contractor augmentation and these should be especially targeted for pruning or contract termination.
All DEI staff positions should be unfunded and buried (notionally not literally).
death6
That 10 year term should be viewed as a limit which cannot be exceeded rather than a term that must be fulfilled.
A quick thought to rein in the Rip Van Winkle tactics of the Administrative State.(hang around, asleep if necessary, long enough and the new boss will be replaced by the new boss)
Should Congress fulfill its actual remit to write legislation rather than pass off the task to its administrators ‘as they shall see fit’, they would have less opportunity to create ‘law’ from whole cloth.
If that is too difficult perhaps setting the term limits on GS of high level(get rid of the group who report to no one and cannot be fired – I forget the name) in situ would disable building of private armies of civil servants that reinforce the wishes of the sitting I cannot say how far down the chain of command would need regular changes of station, but the ‘institutional knowledge’ is, I think, not held at the highest level. The choices and direction, howver, are.
Get the high mucky-mucks on a rotational basis just as Military officers are rotated regularly, to prevent fiefdoms along with broadening the knowledge of those expected to be leaders of the future.
Pretty sure ‘your job is in Cleveland, show up Monday’ is within the powers of the new bosses.
Beyond that, defund the whole organization, and all will walk out the door. If you want them back, rehire them. Void all union contracts as there is no need for unions, except to enrich the union officers…
Let’s observe where the root of the problem lies — in the abject miserable failure of the worthless individuals we “elect” to Congress. Those CongressScum have totally failed to write concise laws, and instead have delegated immense powers to a bureaucracy they are afraid to oversee. Those same CongressScum have totally failed to exercise their power of the purse to rein in the bureaucracy.
What to do? Simple rule — individuals holding any elected position are prohibited from running for election or re-election; i.e., prevent individuals from spending a lifetime in Congress. Another simple rule — no pension can be awarded for service in an elective office. Yet another simple rule — only properly-passed laws can bind citizens; regulations may not be issued by unelected bureaucrats. Final rule — before Congress can vote on any law, it must be read aloud in its entirety to a quorum of at least 95% of members.
A couple of thoughts….
I’m with Tommmy re: Congress actually writing legislation as opposed to the old Pelosi gem concerning Obamacare “so that you can find out what is in it and letting the bureaucrats flesh it out with regs. Marini actually deals with that as well and states that the big turning point happened when Congress just gave up in the 1970s and decided to just act of custodians of the bureaucracies.
It doesn’t help that Congress seems addicted to no longer passing budgets through regular order and instead uses the fat-laden continuing resolutions.
Vivek and Elon were saying something like $2 trillion in savings, not sure about that. I think there is bigger bang for the buck in eliminating regulations. Trump is calling for 10 regs to be repealed for every new on enacted. It won’t cut budget but it will get the economy moving
Oh and just for kicks given California just got approval from the EPA to ban gasoline-powered cars by 2035? I would have the EPA remove the ban and then threaten California under inter-state commerce laws to stop destroying the market for gasoline sales in the state (or force them to come up with a plan to build gas stations on the state tax dollar)
The easiest way to reduce the federal workforce is at 12:01 PM, Jan. 20, right after he takes the oath and before he gives his inaugural speech, Trump signs an executive order requiring all federal workers to come in to the office. Take a nice slice off the top