Reverse FDR
You never go full "expert."
"Managerial Bureaucracy’s Threat to Democracy and Humanity"
The dominance of the managerial class comes as a natural consequence of the rise of bureaucracy.
Bureaucracy expands to meet the needs of bureaucracy. Its growth is exponential. The more of it there is, the faster its rate of growth.
What could replace its superior position? Could AI be democratizing?
‘One gets the sense that the honest view of our exasperated political elites is as captured in a Bloomberg News headline from last year which read: “2024 is a year of elections, and that’s a threat to democracy.”
‘In country after country, governments are moving to desparately tighten their grip over the people they rule, sharply curtailing freedom of speech and access to information, and using alleged threats to security and stability to justify granting themselves emergency powers, weaponizing the law, criminalizing dissent, and suppressing any meaningful political opposition.
‘…
‘What really ails our democracies? Not populism, but a regime type inimical to the essence of democracy itself. What we are witnessing around the world is a growing struggle between an entrenched technocratic elite class bent on exercising ever greater control, and common people in revolt against the tightening grip of their distant, opaque, uncaring, and unaccountable form of political regime.’
If Conservatives have it in them to change the bureaucracy from within, instead of just recoiling at its growth over the past eighty years, well, hooboy, things could get interesting.
‘The New Right must not only challenge the administrative state from without; it must transform it from within. As I’ve written elsewhere, this does not mean endorsing the metastasis of federal, or centralized, power. Federalism, the separation of powers, and checks and balances, although not ends in themselves, still matter. The Left may have watered them down, but they’re not beyond saving. Prudent statesmanship may rescue them yet. Indeed, if every institution is, at bottom, a moral enterprise, then there is always a reason to hope. America may, as Tolstoy’s Bezukhov once observed, have been torn out of its habitual path, but that doesn’t mean today cannot be the beginning of something new and good.
‘That said, we do not need more bureaucrats; we need fewer, and better, ones. We need our bureaucrats. Faithful conservatives, armed with moral clarity, institutional competence, and a commitment to what Crenshaw describes as the “substance” of America, should be encouraged to pursue public service—not as a fallback for those who can’t do otherwise (to borrow from the old adage), but as a vocation. They can become the ballast in agencies prone to drift. They can preserve what remains when the bulls have finished in the China closet.’
Trump is working toward reversing decades of bureaucratic growth started by Roosevelt
The complaining in DC circles is welcome in reformist circles. Ferguson describes it as “the New Deal reversed.”
‘“The second Donald Trump administration is engaged in the first real transfer of power since 1933. What is taking place is an attempt at national transformation, and that is never quiet.”
‘Those are the words of Mike Gonzalez, a senior fellow at The Heritage Foundation, when he’s speaking with others about what is happening in Washington, D.C.
‘There’s no question that he’s right because transfers of power produce winners and losers. And it’s the losers who, understandably, don’t accept their new status quietly.
‘“So we are at peak moaning. Go to any gathering inside Washington’s Beltway, and you’ll likely encounter the men and women who used to run the ‘permanent bureaucracy’ — and thus expected to do so permanently — spitting spitefully at Elon Musk,” Mr. Gonzalez recently wrote.’
Hugh Hewitt Reveals the Policies That Allowed the Deep State to Emerge, and How to Fight It
Bad policy, unionization, tenure, “burrowing in,” and the inability to fire people.
Is it any wonder that people are disappointed with the civil service?
‘While presidents appoint more than 3,000 people for positions within the government who serve at the pleasure of the president, the federal government directly employs roughly 2.3 million people, most of whom serve in career positions. Political appointees often apply to switch to “career” positions in order to stay in government permanently.
‘“‘Burrowing’ is a term of art, and at the end of every administration, those who like the gig, you know, 35-hour work weeks and remote work forever … they convert from being a Schedule C or a Schedule A that’s been hired under a political authority to a career service GS-protected, and that’s called burrowing,” Hewitt explained.’
How Many Biden Appointees ‘Burrowed In’ To The Permanent Bureaucracy?
You’re not the boss of me. Well, maybe you are.
‘“Some of it is overt, and we saw an example of that with the FBI employee trying to coerce his subordinates to ‘dig in’ against the administration,” he noted, referencing an email FBI agent James Dennehy wrote in January shortly before his retirement.
‘“What’s worse is the quiet insubordination,” Whitson warned. He said many bureaucrats will “slow policy,” simply ignoring the president’s orders.’
Regulatory Benefit-Cost Analysis Under the Trump Administration
What’s the point of policy you don’t enforce, government agency edition?
‘More importantly, there is substantial agency noncompliance with Circular A-4’s analytic requirements, which neither the 2003 nor the 2023 version of the Circular would likely resolve. This noncompliance is documented in the reports OMB has issued since 1997 to the U.S. Congress that summarize agencies’ analyses of the costs and benefits of federal regulations. The most recent report was issued in early 2025 and covers the 2022-2023 federal fiscal year. These reports suggest that only about half of the major regulations subject to the analytic requirements in each year are accompanied by analysis of both benefits and costs. The OMB reports discuss some of the reasons for incomplete compliance, indicating that quantitative analysis of benefits is particularly difficult and infrequent. The requirements for distributional analysis are also largely ignored.
‘This lack of full compliance suggests that OMB enforcement of Executive Order 12,866 and Circular A-4 requirements is inconsistent. Although uneven enforcement may result in part from analytic challenges, it likely also reflects political concerns. If an agency conducts an analysis, it risks finding problems that it lacks the authority or political will to address. For example, if an agency issues a regulation consistent with the administration’s ideology or policy goals, but the analysis suggests that a different option would lead to substantially greater net benefits, the analysis will feed opposition to the administration’s preferred policy.’
Trump to Order Agencies to Ease Up on Regulatory Enforcement, Prosecute Only Intentional Violators
In an era of regulatory sprawl and bureaucratic conflict, it is entirely possible to be in breach of some rules while complying with others or to be unaware of the rules you are breaking.
Regulation in previous regimes has been an option on enforcement with all the power that entails.
This is a significant diminution of the power of the state.
‘President Donald Trump is expected to sign an executive order Friday afternoon discouraging the criminal prosecution of individuals who unknowingly violate regulatory statutes, National Review has learned, part of the administration’s broader effort to ease up on regulatory enforcement.
‘“The Order discourages criminal enforcement of regulatory offenses prioritizing prosecutions only for those who knowingly violate regulations and cause significant harm,” according to a White House fact sheet shared with National Review by a White House official.
‘“The Order requires each agency, in consultation with the Attorney General, to provide to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) a list of all enforceable criminal regulatory offenses, the range of potential criminal penalties, and applicable state of mind required for liability,” the fact sheet continues.’
Bureaucratic Resistance in Times of Democratic Backsliding
Apparently, there has been autocratic leadership in the US, the UK, and Brazil, at some points in history.
In the tautology of civil service, autocratic leadership is a set of elected officials that wants to do things the bureaucracy doesn’t think they should do, making resistance not only justifiable but necessary.
Something, something, democracy.
‘This Element investigates how public employees react to illiberal policies proposed by authoritarian leaders during democratic backsliding. Using survey experiments employed with 942 bureaucrats from the United States, the United Kingdom, and Brazil, the research explores their willingness to resist the implementation of illiberal policies. Findings show a significant readiness for resistance. The results indicate varying levels of resistance across countries, with Brazilian bureaucrats showing the highest, followed by British and American counterparts. Additionally, within-country analysis identifies individual characteristics affecting the intent to resist. The Element explores the dynamic relationship between politicians and bureaucrats, the autonomy of civil servants, and the perils of working under autocratic leadership. It also underscores the need for tailored strategies in recruiting and retaining public employees to uphold democratic values. These findings shed light on the complex dynamics between bureaucrats and democratic governance, emphasizing the importance of safeguarding institutions in times of authoritarian challenges.’
The Case of District Judges vs. Trump
The upcoming CASA case at the Supreme Court could be “supremely” consequential if it bans or limits the ability of individual District Court judges to impose nationwide injunctions.
‘In our interview, Judge Ho describes judicial overreach as a threat to the constitutional balance. “In high-school civics class, we’re told that the three branches of government are separate and coequal,” he says. “I think that’s wrong. The judiciary is not coequal. The judiciary is the weakest branch.” Congress has the purse; the president has the sword. “All we have is our voice. All we can do is issue judgments. Whether those judgments are respected, whether they’re enforced, requires the respect of the other branches.” The only way for judges to earn that respect is by “following the law themselves.”
‘The most controversial use of district judges’ power is the issuance of “nationwide” or “universal” injunctions stopping the government from carrying out its policies in or out of the district’s jurisdiction, sometimes even before a trial. Dozens of such injunctions have targeted the two Trump administrations on issues from immigration and spending to civil rights and federal personnel management. There’s a pending Supreme Court case on nationwide injunctions, Trump v. CASA, so Judge Ho declines to discuss the subject in our interview. But he addresses it in another footnote of that April 17 opinion.
‘It cites a 2018 essay by Gregg Costa, then a Fifth Circuit judge, who elaborated on the reasons to think such orders are an abuse of power and a corruption of the judiciary’s structure. For one, a “lone judge issuing a nationwide injunction effectively overrules numerous judges who may have already rejected the same claim.” For another, “a nationwide injunction issued by a single district judge has greater effect than a court of appeals’ decision on the same issue in a noninjunction posture,” since the latter is binding only in the states under the circuit’s jurisdiction. That, Judge Costa said, “subverts our judicial hierarchy.”’