Trump v the Deep State:  Who wins?

Trump v the Deep State:  Who wins?

While the polls are still 50-50, there are signs the betting markets are moving towards Trump.  I don’t have anything very useful to add to that, other than amazement that Harris is still in the game when consistently well over 60% of Americans think the country is on the wrong track, and under 30% think it’s on the right one. 

This is quite the testimony to Trump’s negatives, and Harris’ basic likeability, whatever you think of her other qualities as a candidate. 

Every day sees new claims about the threat to democracy Trump poses.  How dangerous would a Trump victory be, and to what extent has he learned the lessons from his chaotic first term, and developed a serious plan to impose his authority this time round?

Until a few months ago, it looked as if the Heritage Foundation run Project 25 was going to provide the detailed plan for government, but Trump has now distanced himself from it.  Trump’s own “Agenda47” a series of videos, is compelling viewing but less systematic – and also a year old and not mentioned as much by Trump now, so it’s hard to tell if this is still the official programme.  

There is some interesting stuff about breaking up the ‘deep state’.  It varies from some ideas which are actually popular – Congressional term limits are supported by 87% of Americans, but would need a constitutional amendment so won’t happen. 

He also promises massive clear out of the national security agencies, the reintroduction of ‘schedule F’ – a new politically appointed layer below the Senior Executive Service into which large number of policy specialists would be transferred, enabling them subsequently to be removed at the President’s discretion.  Hugely controversial, expensive, and does Trump have 20000 capable administrators to draft in anyway? 

He wants to get the Department of Justice to use, ironically enough, the Civil Rights Act to take on the ‘Soros DAs’ (elsewhere he calls them ‘maniacs’), meaning the ultra liberal elected prosecutors who have introduced controversial policies in many Blue cities. 

The most striking for me is the abolition of the 1974 Impoundment Act which removed the Presidential discretion not to spend money that had been voted by Congress and massively altered the balance of power between the President and Congress, but also  between the President and public agencies. 

Trump talked about ‘draining the swamp’ last time.  This time, three Supreme Court rulings could,  give an incoming Trump administration a head start.  These are Loper Bright v. Raimondo,which overruled the Supreme Court’s 1984 Chevron decision and curbs agencies’ powers to develop the law without explicit Congressional authority; Seila Law LLC v. Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, whichtrims the limitations in Humphrey’s Executor (1935) on presidential powers to remove officers;and Trump v. U.S., with its broad statement of presidential competences.

Given the chaos last time, how likely is this programme to be implemented?  There is a route to radical reform, which would in the process significantly enhance the powers of the presidency for all future holders.  But it is complex. It will require first class legal minds to target the priority areas and run the cases, a deft approach to political handling and considerable tenacity in the face of no doubt dogged opposition. Come to your own conclusions how likely this is to happen, given the experience of last time.

To get any results in a single term, would require very fast action.  So we will probably know very soon how serious the drive for reform actually is should Trump be elected.   

Does the administration head straight to the courts in an attempt to get the Impoundment Act declared unconstitutional?  Has Trump identified some key agencies he sees as problematic and made early steps to remove the leadership, in order to test the Seila caselaw?

Potentially exciting times ahead…

This is a shortened version of a paper over at my substack

Stephen Webb

Stephen Webb is a former senior civil servant. 

@stephenfhwebb

Comments are closed.