The title of David Bernhardt’s new book stems from one of the first conversations he had with President Donald Trump when he asked who he needed to report to as Secretary of the Interior. President Trump stated, “You report to me.” On its face, that seems like the obvious upstream of communication between secretary and the chief executive; but Mr. Bernhardt gives the reader an abundance of evidence and personal experience for why that is not the case.
“You Report to Me: Accountability for the Failing Administrative State” discusses in broad terms and also in minute detail the difficulties a political appointee like himself faces when confronted with the bureaucratic behemoth that is the administrative state (commonly termed “the swamp”).
Mr. Bernhardt discusses his beginnings working in the George W. Bush Administration and makes comparisons between the Bush, Obama, and Trump administrations. The insight is ground level, though it is hardly beyond an American citizen’s suspicion of how things go within the federal levels. Mr. Bernhardt simply confirms our suspicions.
Three Kinds of Decision Makers
These high levels refer to those elected, those nominated by the President and appointed by the Senate, and the career staffers within federal agencies who are neither elected nor appointed, but are simply hired employees.As one could guess, the blame for the bureaucratic morass is due to all three. Career staffers have become entrenched in their positions of both privilege and power and often dictate what is required of the state and its citizens. This, of course, as Mr. Bernhardt points out, is unconstitutional.
Unelected bureaucrats are not supposed to possess legislative powers. As Mr. Bernhardt makes clear, the Constitution does not allow Congress to “delegate” its powers; but this has not stopped Congress from such delegation, nor has it forced the Supreme Court to end such practices. The court has excused it by labeling it as “deference.”
The constitutionality of “deference,” however, has lately been argued before the Supreme Court and it appears that “deference” is falling out of favor with both the liberal and the conservative sides of the court. According to Mr. Bernhardt, that’s a good thing. But not favoring it and not allowing it to continue are two different things; and without the latter, it will undoubtedly continue, no matter how much the justices spend their time writing negative opinions about it. As Mr. Bernhardt writes, “[The Supreme Court of the United States] has not struck down a statute on nondelegation grounds in nearly a century.”
This “deference” provided to agencies, such as the Environmental Protection Agency, enables federal employees to stifle the executive agenda of a sitting president. Of course, depending on who is in office, one half of the country will applaud those stifling efforts. But Mr. Bernhardt’s point is that that is not how a representative government is supposed to work.
There appears to be an ongoing struggle among the varied federal bureaucratic levels of elected representatives, appointed officials, and employees regarding who knows best. Again, Mr. Bernhardt suggests that shouldn’t be the point. Ultimately, the people of the United States vote for the executive and, therefore, that executive’s agenda has won the day (indeed the following four years).
Fire Them!
So why not fire those people? Why not clean house? Mr. Bernhardt refers us back to legalities. So many lawsuits, court decisions, and union organizing over the past century-plus have structured the government bureaucracy we have today. It is a dragon (or as Thomas Hobbes referenced it, “Leviathan”) that has worked to protect itself against the dragonslayers, whether those dragonslayers be right-intentioned politicians or agency heads.
By enabling the administrative state (or swamp or dragon) of federal agencies to dictate law, they therefore have the final say on the American people, regarding what they can do, where they can go, what and where they can build, and so on. This power of law comes via federal regulations.
Call to Action?
For those on the outside looking in (such as myself), it seems so obvious that what Mr. Bernhardt is suggesting is a bureaucracy corrupt to its core and incessantly hunting for more power. The fact is that the federal agencies are hardly interested in regulating themselves. The greater problem, as the author states, is that there is no “political will in Congress―which is precisely why the status quo persists.”Mr. Bernhardt’s book is a frustrating read, not because of its form, but because of the content. For those who believe the federal government has become the uncaged behemoth that the Founders feared and warned against, the book hardly possesses anything positive. But that type of reader is apparently Mr. Bernhardt’s intended target audience.
His book is multifaceted in that it explains what to expect as a political appointee (such as he was) and as a federal employee. It is both a guide for maneuvering within the bureaucracy and a collection of Mr. Bernhardt’s wishful thoughts.
At its conclusion, he gives a call to action for anyone interested in civil service and who wishes to create positive change. But after reading the book, who would want to subject themselves to such a working environment? Then again, a defeatist mentality is hardly the antidote.
