Trump Administration Battles "Rogue Bureaucrats" at Institute of Peace and Other Agencies
A power struggle between the Trump administration and career government employees has escalated, with the White House accusing certain individuals of obstructing the president’s agenda and resisting efforts to streamline federal agencies. The conflict has manifested in physical standoffs, legal battles, and accusations of insubordination, raising questions about executive authority and the role of the civil service.
The focal point of the current dispute is the United States Institute of Peace (USIP), an independent institution established in 1984 to promote peace and diplomacy internationally. The Trump administration, citing an executive order aimed at reducing the scope of federal bureaucracy, sought to downsize the USIP. This initiative, spearheaded by the newly formed Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE), encountered resistance from within the institute, leading to a dramatic confrontation.
According to the White House, USIP officials failed to comply with the executive order to reduce its size, prompting the administration to remove 11 of the 14 board members. Secretary of State Marco Rubio, Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth, and National Defense University President Peter Garvin, remaining board members, then appointed Kenneth Jackson, a State Department official, as acting president. This decision led to the firing of George Moose, a Clinton-era diplomat who had served as acting president and CEO.
The situation intensified when Jackson attempted to enter the USIP building in Washington, D.C., but was denied access by employees. The standoff reached its peak on Monday, as Jackson and the DOGE team attempted to gain entry while Moose, who had already been fired, accused them of breaking into the building and threatened legal action. The White House claimed that Moose "barricaded himself" in his former office.
Local police were called to the scene, and after reviewing documentation presented by Jackson, determined that he was the legitimate acting president. Police then escorted Jackson into the building, and Moose left without incident.
The White House has characterized the events at USIP as an example of "rogue bureaucrats" attempting to undermine the president’s authority. White House spokeswoman Anna Kelly told Fox News Digital that the Trump administration would enforce the president’s executive authority and ensure his agencies remain accountable to the American people. Press secretary Karoline Leavitt accused USIP staffers of physically barricading themselves inside the building, disabling telephone lines and internet connections, and distributing flyers encouraging resistance.
The USIP, meanwhile, has filed a lawsuit against the Trump administration, seeking a court order to stop what it calls the "unlawful dismantling of the Institute." The lawsuit argues that the administration’s actions are impairing the USIP’s ability to perform its vital peace promotion and conflict resolution work.
The conflict at USIP is not an isolated incident. The White House has also accused "rogue bureaucrats" at the U.S. African Development Foundation (USADF) of barring a DOGE team and the acting head of USAID from entering their building. In that case, the DOGE team returned with U.S. Marshals after the Department of Justice determined they had a right to enter. The USADF’s president, Ward Brehm, who was fired by the administration, also filed a lawsuit, which was ultimately denied by a federal judge.
These incidents highlight a broader tension between the Trump administration and the federal bureaucracy. The administration views these employees as resisting necessary reforms and obstructing the president’s agenda. Critics argue that the administration is undermining the independence of government agencies and politicizing the civil service.
Stephen Miller, a former Trump administration official, has characterized the "unelected power" as the "rogue bureaucracy," suggesting a deep-seated distrust of career government employees. The administration’s actions have been met with both support and criticism. Supporters argue that the president has a mandate to implement his policies and that government agencies should be accountable to his administration. Critics argue that the administration is overstepping its authority and undermining the expertise and independence of the civil service.
The legal battles and political rhetoric surrounding these incidents are likely to continue. The outcome of these disputes could have significant implications for the balance of power between the executive branch and the federal bureaucracy, and for the future of government agencies like the U.S. Institute of Peace. The conflicts expose a fundamental disagreement about the role of government and the extent of presidential authority, leaving the future of these agencies uncertain. The administration maintains it is acting within its legal rights to ensure accountability, while those resisting see their actions as defending the integrity of their missions and safeguarding against political interference.
