As President-elect Donald Trump prepares to take office, there is a sense of unease among several current and former officials from the Department of Justice (DOJ) and the FBI. Reports from NBC News indicate that many of these officials are considering hiring legal representation due to fears of criminal investigations under the new administration. This preemptive measure highlights the widespread belief that Trump intends to carry out his promise to cleanse the government of what he terms “rogue and corrupt actors.” The atmosphere is tense within the federal agencies, and these concerns reflect a deep-seated anxiety regarding the potential consequences of their past actions during the Trump presidency.
A transition adviser to Trump, Mark Paoletta, has notably warned DOJ career attorneys of the repercussions they may face if they attempt to undermine or sabotage Trump’s policies. He outlined various initiatives that the incoming administration is likely to pursue, including strict immigration enforcement, the examination of race-based affirmative action, and investigations into alleged censorship by big technology companies. This stern warning has instilled fear within some ranks of the DOJ, with reports indicating that certain officials even shed tears upon learning of Trump’s electoral success, underscoring a belief that they could be seen as adversaries in a new political landscape.
The concept of the “administrative state” has been at the forefront of discussions surrounding the balance of power and accountability within the U.S. government. The term refers to the authority held by unelected bureaucrats and various administrative agencies that create and enforce regulations, often operating outside the checks and balances designed by the Constitution. Critics argue that this phenomenon allows these agencies to consolidate power and circumvent the authority of elected officials. In light of Trump’s past comments about purging these entities, there is a palpable fear among career civil servants that their autonomy is at risk.
In October 2021, Trump introduced an executive order aimed at classifying federal employees into a new category known as Schedule F. This move would enable increased oversight and performance evaluations for bureaucratic staff, aiming to hold them accountable for their work. Trump expressed concerns that certain officials were inappropriately shielded from accountability, suggesting that the bureaucracy has become a breeding ground for ineffectiveness and partisanship. Although President Biden rescinded this executive order, should Trump reclaim the presidency, he could reinstate it, which would significantly disrupt the status quo within the federal bureaucracy.
The role of unelected officials in shaping policy and governance has often sparked controversy, particularly when it appears that their agendas influence public discourse. An example highlighted in recent discussions is the case of the public response to Hunter Biden’s laptop during the 2020 election. Fifty-one intelligence officials claimed that the laptop’s materials represented Russian disinformation, a narrative that was subsequently seized upon by mainstream media. This assertion was used as a political tool during the election, despite the fact that the FBI had been in possession of the laptop prior to the allegations being made. Such incidents serve to illustrate the power and potential misuse of agency authority in influencing public perception and political outcomes.
In summary, the incoming Trump administration is poised to challenge the established norms within federal agencies, eliciting a defensive response from many career officials. The fears surrounding potential criminal investigations reflect a dramatic shift in the political climate, with Trump signaling an intent to impose accountability on what he perceives as a corrupt administrative state. As the transition unfolds, the implications of Trump’s policies, particularly related to the reorganization of the civil service and the handling of federal employees, will likely reverberate throughout the bureaucracy, shaping both governance and public policy for years to come. The interplay between elected officials and unelected bureaucrats remains a critical battleground in the ongoing discourse around accountability and power within the U.S. government.