Cutting Back the Administrative State

The Trump Administration’s approach to the government shutdown is aimed above all at recovering the unitary executive as envisioned by the framers of the Constitution. Article II’s vesting clause, the epitome of “short and sweet,” empowers the president to control the executive branch, as Alexander Hamilton explained in Federalist 70. Though the administrative state steadily seized the chief executive’s power throughout the 20th century, President Trump seems determined to wrest it back by reasserting his authority over the executive agencies under his purview.

In preparing for the shutdown, each agency created contingency plans for operating during a lapse in appropriations. These are required by law and managed under guidance from the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) to ensure that essential government functions continue even when Congress fails to pass funding.

Each shutdown plan outlines an agency’s core mission, identifies which functions are critical, and lists how many employees will keep working and how many will be furloughed. It also explains how the agency will communicate with staff, why certain programs are allowed to continue, and how operations will restart once funding is restored.

The key law for our purposes is the Antideficiency Act, which makes it illegal for federal employees to obligate or spend money not appropriated by Congress, or to continue working when funding has lapsed—that is, unless the work is tied to constitutional powers or has an explicit exception. For example, the Department of War keeps nearly all uniformed personnel on duty, the Treasury Department continues key financial activities like IRS collections, and agencies such as the EPA, Department of Education, and HUD typically place most of their employees on furlough.

All of this raises an important question: If someone isn’t essential, why should they be employed at all? If an agency is performing duties that are out of step with President Trump’s agenda, shouldn’t he have the power to release those employees and close those departments? This is, after all, what any successful chief executive would do.

After Satya Nadella became the CEO of Microsoft in 2014, he saw that the phone hardware division was a non-essential drain on resources and talent and had a less-than-meaningful market share. Within a year, he shut down the entire division, writing off over $7.6 billion in the process and firing 18,000 employees. He refocused efforts on Microsoft’s core mission, which has proven quite successful. What was controversial at the time has since been seen as a decisive act that has been critical to the company’s success.

Elon Musk did a much more drastic version of this at Twitter/X. Steve Jobs famously eliminated dozens of Apple product lines in 1997. Andy Jassy streamlined Amazon.

Chief executives are the embodiment of an organization’s focus and mission. So it is with the President of the United States. Without the power to hire and fire at will, without the power to close unprofitable product lines, what is his role other than being a national figurehead?

And that is the rub—the modern liberal wants a figurehead who serves the managerial state instead of a managerial apparatus which serves the executive as the Founders wanted.

The late Sam Francis argued that modern liberal democracy produced the very managerial regime that enslaves the executive. The power the regime wields is unaccountable. No one votes on the staffing at HUD, for example. Therefore, this regime is self-perpetuating and naturally becomes monolithic in ideals. This structure becomes an antibiotic-resistant infection that is impossible to treat or to remove.

Francis further argued the Constitution’s grant of “the executive Power” to the president had been hollowed out by civil service protections, administrative law, and vast agencies that followed their own agendas. Instead of being constrained by lawyers and career officials, he contended that decisive leadership from the president could break up the procedural paralysis of the modern state.

Drawing on thinkers like James Burnham and Vilfredo Pareto, Francis maintained that only a strong, centralized executive could reassert discipline and restore national purpose, much like a CEO who can swiftly reorganize a failing company. For Francis, restoring full presidential command was a constitutional and moral necessity to ensure that the people’s elected leader, not an entrenched bureaucracy, actually governs.

Enter the reduction in force (RIF), a formal mechanism under federal personnel law that allows agencies under the supervision of the OMB and the Office of Personnel Management to permanently eliminate positions when funding or organizational needs change.

During the early stages of a shutdown, employees are temporarily furloughed but remain on the payroll. If the funding lapse continues and it becomes clear that some programs won’t reopen or that budgets will not return to previous levels, agencies may need to reorganize to preserve essential functions. At that stage, OMB can authorize a formal reduction in force, making those job cuts permanent.

A reduction in force follows a strict legal process in which agencies identify positions to eliminate, rank employees by service and performance, and give at least a 60-day notice before separation. Affected employees may receive severance pay, have priority for reemployment, and can appeal their dismissal to the Merit Systems Protection Board.

OMB’s main role during a prolonged shutdown is to coordinate staffing reductions across federal agencies, ensure compliance with fiscal and personnel laws, and prevent inconsistent or overlapping cuts. If the shutdown appears likely to continue, OMB can shift from temporary furlough management to planning permanent workforce reductions, turning short-term pauses into long-term structural downsizing.

Russ Vought, the head of OMB and a Claremont Institute Lincoln Fellow, understands that the shutdown is an opportunity to permanently scale back the federal Leviathan. This is beneficial from a mission standpoint, from a budgetary standpoint, and from a moral standpoint, which is why Vought should be supported politically and procedurally. It is immoral to ask the American people to employ nonessential people. It is immoral to ask the American people to support an unconstitutional system.

Donald Trump once promised, “I will shatter the Deep State (this administrative monster), and restore government that is controlled by the People” (emphasis added). He needs every bit of support, every bit of help, to achieve this important goal. The administration must have the will to follow through with the president’s stated intentions. It must show the intestinal fortitude to restore executive power as it was envisioned by the framers of the Constitution.

There are further tools to explore at a later time. Impoundment and Schedule F should be revisited. But now this is a time of opportunity. A time of decision. A chance to give the country a leaner heart and a clearer head.

This is a once-in-a-generation chance to restore constitutional government in the executive branch and remove entrenched powers that have only served to drag the country to the Left.

The post Cutting Back the Administrative State appeared first on The American Mind.