Democrats Are Helping Bureaucrats Sabotage A GOP President

On the Friday afternoon before Labor Day, the Office of Special Counsel (OSC), the federal investigative and prosecutorial agency that oversees prohibited personnel practices, proposed new rules that would change how whistleblower lawsuits are handled by the federal government. The proposed rules would empower whistleblowers and enable their claims to become public before any investigation is concluded. Notably, one change would require that OSC place on its website the existence of allegations of censorship or efforts to distort, misrepresent, or suppress information. Currently, such information would not be made public without a finished investigation with OSC’s findings.

The proposed rules sound reasonable enough. After all, an increase in transparency, especially when things like censorship are involved, is generally a positive step forward. But the story doesn’t end there. We must look at these changes in the context of several other efforts in recent months apparently intended to “Trump-proof” the federal government.

Restricting Authority with ‘Scientific Integrity’ Policy

For instance, the Biden-Harris administration has quietly been promulgating changes to the “scientific integrity” policies of several agencies. These policies were originally intended to ensure that data, studies, and government decision-making are evaluated objectively and transparently. Under this administration, however, they have become politicized and seemingly erected to prevent future agency leadership from exercising lawful discretion.

This effort is often portrayed as protecting objective, well-meaning civil servants and scientists from improper interference. But the result would be to limit presidential appointees’ constitutionally given ability to properly supervise and exercise agency authority.

Agencies like the Environmental Protection Agency or the National Institutes of Health are heavily influenced by scientific study. For example, significant regulations like the Biden-Harris electric vehicle (EV) mandate impose dramatic costs on the U.S. economy based on assumptions that are both speculative and highly controversial. Prohibiting a new administration from revisiting the Biden-Harris administration’s  questionable assumptions and economic analysis would hinder a reversal of the EV mandate. According to Politico, this is the whole point.

Thus, if agency leadership directives aimed at shaping research are deemed “political” or “improper,” then the proposed rules would take away the very essence of being a constitutional officer. Indeed, by making ambiguous terms like “political” or “improper” the standard for misconduct by political appointees, political appointees will have to constantly wonder if their directives will violate the agency policy.

The OSC proposal would give teeth to these already highly politicized scientific integrity policies. If the OSC proposal becomes final, career employees would be empowered to sully, resist, and mire in controversy any effort by a future administration to lawfully revisit the career employees’ work performed under a previous administration.

So long as the allegations are deemed by the OSC director to be substantially likely to be a violation, they will be made public. The determination will be made within OSC’s own discretion without any oversight or agency opportunity to dispute the allegations.

Admittedly, after years of witnessing whistleblowers attempt to reveal genuine government misconduct, such as information related to the various investigations into President Joe Biden’s son, Hunter Biden, there will be an inclination to embrace the OSC proposal. However, the OSC director’s decision to delay the decision to adopt these proposals until after the fiscal year (i.e., possibly after the November election) heightens skepticism.

Protecting Bureaucrats

Adding to the concern is the career employees’ and Democrat special interests’ opposition to a re-issued Schedule F. Schedule F was a nickname given to a Trump executive order that reclassified career employees with policymaking functions so as to treat them more like appointed constitutional officers, who have fewer protections and are more accountable to carrying out the directions of the nation’s chief executive. These employees have fewer protections in instances of poor performance or insubordination.

Democrats consistently condemn (perhaps signaling fear) the potential of reissuing Schedule F and those familiar with internal meetings have witnessed their effort to lobby OSC to prevent a Schedule F order from having its intended effect. It is not difficult to view this latest proposal as part of those efforts.    

This is dangerous. An essential component of a democracy is that the government perform the will of the people. If the American people elect President Donald Trump, he and his officers must be able to execute their duties without constant fear of retaliation via claims that have not been fully investigated but are nonetheless made public.

Collectively, the Biden-Harris administration has pieced together policies that will make it much more difficult for a future administration to make important policy changes, even those plainly on the ballot this fall. It is imperative that these policies be rolled back, rejected, and seen for what they are. 

Curtis Schube is the executive director of the Council to Modernize Governance, a think tank committed to making the administration of government more efficient, representative, and restrained. He is formerly a constitutional and administrative law attorney.