The Executive Branch Under Scrutiny: Is It Too Powerful?
A debate rages regarding the size and scope of the executive branch, particularly the federal bureaucracy. Republicans largely agree that the government has become excessively large and inefficient, hindering its effectiveness. Former President Donald Trump, despite assuming office with considerable executive power, spearheaded an effort to downsize the executive branch, a move lauded by conservatives in Congress.
Senator Rick Scott of Florida articulated this sentiment, stating that Trump was fulfilling his campaign promises. These promises included securing the border, tackling inflation, and curbing the federal government’s expansion. Scott emphasized the importance of adhering to the Constitution, arguing that the executive branch had accumulated excessive regulatory authority over time.
Senator Josh Hawley of Missouri echoed these concerns, expressing his support for eliminating waste and corruption. He highlighted the potential for codifying Trump administration changes through a rescissions package in Congress, requiring a simple majority in the Senate.
Despite these efforts, a White House official pointed out the significant growth in public sector jobs under President Joe Biden, emphasizing the federal government’s substantial expansion in recent years. This official defended Trump’s actions, arguing that his attempts to reduce the executive branch’s size aimed to enhance efficiency and eliminate waste, fraud, and abuse. This hardly aligns with accusations of dictatorial tendencies.
Former Trump attorney Jim Trusty attributed excessive spending to Congress, acknowledging its control over the power of the purse. He noted the absence of a line-item veto, which would allow the president to selectively reject specific budget items. Trusty also suggested that Congress had been negligent in certain areas, while the judicial branch had overstepped its authority. He expressed skepticism about the risk of an "imperial presidency."
Representative Celeste Maloy of Utah reinforced the notion that the executive branch had become too powerful. She clarified earlier remarks made during a town hall, where she had expressed concerns about the need to control the executive branch. Maloy asserted her optimism about the country’s direction but maintained her belief that the executive branch had grown excessively over decades. She advocated for smaller federal agencies and emphasized the unique opportunity to address the issue, praising the president’s efforts to trim the executive branch.
However, the narrative is not universally accepted. Sarah Binder, a political science professor at George Washington University and a senior fellow at the Brookings Institute, provided historical context. She noted that the 19th century was characterized by Congressional dominance, with the federal government playing a relatively limited role. Congress was heavily involved in setting tariff laws, building railroads, roads, and ports. This contrasts sharply with the 20th and 21st centuries, where the executive branch has gained significant power.
Binder attributed this shift to a combination of factors, including expediency and politics. Congress, being a reactive body, is not always well-suited to respond swiftly to crises. Additionally, lawmakers may find certain issues, such as tariffs, politically contentious, leading them to delegate authority to the president. Some Republican lawmakers, while unhappy with Trump’s tariff policies, are content not being responsible for setting those tariffs themselves.
Former assistant US attorney and Fox News contributor Andy McCarthy offered a nuanced perspective, differentiating between the executive branch and the administrative state. He clarified that so-called independent agencies, such as the SEC, FTC, and Federal Reserve, are not directly under presidential control, despite being technically part of the executive branch.
McCarthy explained that these agencies were created by statutes, which can only be repealed by statute. He argued that Trump’s ability to pare them back is limited by statutes and court decisions restricting his power to fire agency heads. The Department of Justice is seeking to overturn the Supreme Court’s 1935 Humphrey’s Executor decision, which supported the creation of independent agencies with multiple powers and restricted the president’s authority to fire agency heads. Overruling this decision would significantly expand the president’s control over federal offices outside of Congress or the courts.
The concept of "Schedule F" also emerged as a point of contention. This classification for government workers grants the president greater control over their respective offices, broadly classifying a large swath of federal workers as at-will, making it easier to fire or lay off workers en masse.
Critics of Trump’s move to expand "Schedule F" argue that it gives the president excessive power to fire workers in apolitical roles. Supporters contend that it would make government more efficient and reduce bureaucratic waste.
The debate surrounding the size and power of the executive branch is multifaceted, involving historical context, constitutional interpretations, and differing perspectives on efficiency, accountability, and political control. Understanding the nuances of this discussion is crucial for informed civic engagement. Ultimately, the questions of how much power the executive branch should wield and how to best ensure government efficiency and responsiveness remain central to the ongoing dialogue about the balance of power in the United States.
