Centralizing executive authority
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Attacking the professionalized civil service
“Fire every single mid-level bureaucrat, every civil servant in the administrative state, replace them with our people.”
- Vice President JD Vance's 2024 RNC Speech
“We want the bureaucrats to be traumatically affected. When they wake up in the morning, we want them to not want to go to work because they are increasingly viewed as the villains. We want their funding to be shut down so that the EPA can’t do all of the rules against our energy industry because they have no bandwidth financially to do so. We want to put them in trauma.”
- Russel Vought, Director of the Office of Management and Budget, speaking in 2024 to the Center for Renewing America
From Nicolas Maduro and Nayib Bukele to Viktor Orban and Recep Tayyip Erdogan: they have all done it. The mass firing of civil servants and their replacement with loyalists is often one of the first moves of the aspiring authoritarian. By dismantling the professional bureaucracy, these leaders ensure that government agencies function as personal extensions of executive power rather than as independent institutions serving the public interest. Since obtaining office, the Trump administration has moved on almost no issue as quickly as it has in removing and weakening the professionalized civil service.
POLITICIZING THE FEDERAL WORKFORCE
The US federal civil service is designed to be nonpartisan and merit based. Depoliticizing and professionalizing the civil service and bringing it under the oversight of Congress has been a centuries-long process in the United States. A competitive, merit-based system replaced an earlier spoils system that wreaked havoc on public safety and stole from the public purse. The Pendleton Civil Service Reform Act of 1883 established that federal employees should be selected through competitive exams, not political connections.
According to Protect Democracy, politicizing the public service has several pernicious effects on democracy and public integrity:
Politicizes previously expertise-based organizations
Lessens the representativeness of the civil service by removing any public servants who may come from the opposition party (even if it does not affect their individual work)
Aggrandizes the role of the executive and weakens the link between agencies and their congressional statutory and budgetary authority (Russell Vought, head of the Office of Management and Budget, established this as a key benefit of a purge.)
Provides scapegoats to deflect criticism when leadership goes through inevitable failures
Can be a useful tool for disseminating propaganda when subverted
Can be used to deny services to perceived political enemies and opposition groups, or to provide services in exchange for political support
(Last updated 4/21/2025)
ACTION 57 | Reclassify career civil service positions and strip them of job protections
President Trump has taken steps to weaken the nonpartisan and meritocratic basis of the civil service, by reviving and expanding his Schedule F executive order, originally issued in his first term, which allows the administration to reclassify thousands of career civil service positions and strip them of job protections. The new order, issued on April 18, 2025, effectively turns nonpartisan policy experts into at-will employees who can be fired for political reasons and replaced with loyalists. The Office of Personnel Management (OPM) estimates that 50,000 positions, or about 2% of federal workers, will be reclassified under the new rule. (Last updated 4/21/2025)
ACTION 58 | Assign personnel policy to appointees linked to DOGE and Elon Musk companies
OPM, the bureau charged with setting human resource policies across the government, has been staffed by three appointees associated with DOGE. At least one of the staffers is on unpaid leave from xAI, Musk's artificial intelligence company. Reports indicate that DOGE may be using AI to analyze data collected by OPM to identify federal workers for termination and even, potentially, to replace employees with AI. (Last updated 4/21/2025)
ACTION 59 | Surveil the civil service for political opinions to determine loyalty to the president and the MAGA agenda
According to media reports, DOGE is using Musk's own AI chatbot Grok to surveil and weed out employees whose work "did not align with the administration's mission" based on any anti-Trump or anti-Musk language they may have used. Approximately 160 members of the NSC civil service had their employment reviewed based on their political affiliations to determine their loyalty to the president. The administration has denied these claims but the lack of DOGE record-keeping and transparency obscures their methods. (Last updated 4/21/2025)
ACTION 60 | Fire the head of the Office of the Special Counsel (OSC) and member of the Merit Systems Protection Board (MSPB)
The US system of government has established bodies that hear and adjudicate conflicts around public servants. The MSPB is a quasi-judicial federal agency that hears disputes about firings or other disciplinary measures. Its role is to ensure that such actions are rule-based and apolitical. The OSC hears whistleblower complaints with the aim of rooting out corruption. Each appointees to these bodies has a fixed term as set out by Congress. This power was upheld in the case Humphrey’s Executor v. United States (1935), when the courts denied President Franklin D. Roosevelt the power to fire an appointee.
Independent agencies with a core mandate to protect civil servants—especially those who call out wrongdoing—would be first on the chopping block for an aspiring kleptocrat.
The Trump administration fired the head of the OSC and the Biden-appointed member of the MSPB, Cathy Harris. These actions were challenged in court, and in recent rulings each of these firings were reversed. The White House has appealed the firing of OSC head, Hampton Dellinger, to the Supreme Court. As reported by FedWeek, "the Administration has conceded that it cited no such reason in the firing of Harris or of several other senior officials of such agencies in brief no-explanations emails, but instead contends that the law improperly limits a President’s authority over the executive branch." The law says that MSPB members may be removed “only for inefficiency, neglect of duty, or malfeasance in office.”
The MSPB is again without a quorum as the US Supreme Court has granted the Trump administration’s request to block a lower court’s order to keep Cathy Harris on the three-member governing board while she continues to challenge her firing. The lack of quorum keeps MSPB from addressing the surge of cases brought forward by laid-off probationary employees and many others affected by the Reductions in Force (RIFs). (Last updated 4/15/25)
ACTION 61 | Ban civil service staff from engaging in professional organizations
On February 14, 2025, Federal Trade Commission Chair Andrew N. Ferguson announced a new policy that prohibits FTC political appointees from holding leadership roles in the American Bar Association (ABA), participating in ABA events, or renewing their ABA memberships. Alleging that the ABA has "a long history of leftist advocacy," Ferguson also announced that FTC resources could not be used to support ABA membership or activities. One week later, the ABA discontinued its use of DEI criteria for the accreditation of law schools. (Last updated 4/21/2025)
ACTION 62 | Firing experts and staff
The Budgeting Executive Order sets out a plan for a federal Reduction in Force (RIF). The EO seeks to eliminate all roles, “not mandated by statute or other law…including all agency diversity, equity, and inclusion initiatives;… operations that my Administration suspends or closes; and all functions…not typically designated as essential during a lapse in appropriations.” It is unclear whether it is legal for a president to order such a reduction or what a lawful process for doing so might be.
Numerous agencies have seen a gutting of technical staff, especially those on probationary status -- including long-time civil servants who were recently promoted to new positions. These staff have fewer protections. As instructed by the administration, numerous agencies have summarily and quickly dismissed them. A number of high-profile dismissals have been walked back, including scientists working on bird flu, nuclear safety staff, and staff at the Indian Health Service. In March 2025, a judge called for thousands of federal workers to be rehired immediately.
Ostensibly, these mass firings have proceeded on the basis of fiscal austerity, but there is discretion in how political appointees carry out the executive orders. Questions of conflicts of interest have been raised at the Department of Health and Human Services and the FAA related to DOGE-linked political appointees and staff. The FAA is already an understaffed agency, reeling from high-profile crashes, and is reportedly being reviewed by SpaceX employees. (The reader is reminded that SpaceX is involved in multiple investigations by the FAA, as detailed in other sections.) This represents a risk not only to public integrity, but also to public safety. (Last updated 4/21/2025)
Weakening independent watchdogs
“Independent watchdogs” are organizations inside and outside of government that are autonomous or insulated in some way from the direct line of authority of the Chief Executive. Inside of the government, Congress has established these watchdogs to protect the public interest and prevent waste, fraud, and abuse. Outside of government, Americans have a constitutional right to free association to form organizations.
Watchdog organizations have been fundamental in exposing corruption and state capture in numerous countries.
In South Africa, the news outlets amaBhungane and the Daily Maverick uncovered massive collusion between President Jacob Zuma and the Gupta family. Public Protector Thuli Madonsela’s 2016 State of Capture report and the Zondo Commission established an official government record of massive theft and misappropriation.
Through the Panama Papers megaleak, the International Consortium of Investigative Journalists (ICIJ) and Alexei Navalny’s Anti-Corruption Foundation (FBK) uncovered how Putin’s inner circle moved billions in stolen dollars across borders to support their lavish lifestyle.
In Romania, the National Anticorruption Directorate (DNA) uncovered large-scale fraud in EU funds and public contracts. This led to the conviction of dozens of high-ranking officials, including former Prime Minister Liviu Dragnea.
Kleptocrats go out of their way to defund, discredit, and intimidate these kinds of organizations. Corrupt officials crack down on auditors doing their jobs, send thugs to threaten investigative journalists, undermine anti-corruption agencies, and block funding for pro-democracy and anti-corruption groups.
The Trump administration seems to be working from this playbook as well.
ACTION 63 | Firing inspectors general undermines oversight
On its first Friday night in power, the Trump administration fired multiple inspectors general (IGs) without cause or notice, a move that may violate the Inspector General Act. IGs serve as independent oversight officials within federal agencies, investigating fraud, waste, and abuse. During Trump’s first term, he dismissed a number of IGs who investigated potential ethical and legal violations. By eliminating key IGs early in the second term, Trump has sent the message that independent accountability will not be tolerated.
A second point of vulnerability to watch will be the Government Accountability Office (GAO), which is a congressional agency responsible for auditing federal spending. The head of the GAO, Gene Dodaro, is up for the end of his 15-year term this year and, although the agency is part of the legislative branch, the president appoints its head. GAO works to ensure that the agency’s independence is maintained and that the public can have access to independent audits of federal programs, including military contracts and pandemic relief funds.
INDEPENDENT REGULATORS
Independent regulators are a key feature of American government. Congress established such regulators to ensure that disputes are settled in a fair fashion, markets function efficiently, and people can earn a living in safe conditions. Because of their commitment to independence, such regulators can also raise the ire of major companies. In a kleptocratic system, regulatory independence is a problem. Friends of the president or prime minister may face significant challenges from such regulators. Independent agencies, once broken, can be an excellent tool to prosecute enemies as well. To that end, the Trump administration appears to be following a pattern used in other countries of bringing independent regulators to heel. While the administration could attempt to revise these agencies' powers through Congress, it appears to have chosen instead to reform or weaken these organizations in a way that prioritizes the personal interests of the President and his inner circle. Notably, the amount of business the president or close associates have before such bodies presents numerous significant potential conflicts of interest.
ACTION 64 | Attacking the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB) enriches Trump allies at the cost of consumers
The CFPB is under siege. Established after the 2008 financial crisis to protect consumers from predatory financial practices, the CFPB has long been a target of conservative politicians and their backers. The unilateral attempt to shutter the agency entirely and gather its data is a problem. Senator Elizabeth Warren, who has promoted and protected the agency since its conception, raised several alarms about potential conflicts of interest with Elon Musk and his DOGE team. First, she notes that Musk is introducing the X Money payment platform on X, the social media platform he owns. It is entirely possible that this venture may (or perhaps already has) run up against regulatory action by the CFPB. As Warren notes, “Elon has got a problem: the financial cops. The CFPB is there to make sure that Elon’s new project can’t scam you or steal your sensitive personal data. So Elon’s solution? Get rid of the cops. Kill the CFPB.” Second, she raised concerns that the CFPB data that DOGE is accessing may include information on what other financial technology and bankers are doing. In essence, DOGE could be accessing significant data that would give Musk an unfair advantage in deploying financial instruments. The possibility that deregulation goes beyond a policy preference to a direct personal benefit is what makes DOGE’s approach cross the line from merely unethical to kleptocratic.
Few agencies have seen as many mass layoffs as the CFPB. Courts have been ambiguous about whether mass layoffs of staff should proceed. The CFPB has been a strong return on investment for taxpayers. But a new priorities document suggests that the remaining agency has new enforcement priorities. To no one's particular surprise, they do not include cryptocurrency or online payments.
ACTION 65 | Limiting the independence of the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) and its ability to regulate new investments
The SEC regulates financial markets, including stocks and bonds. The incoming chair has introduced new rules to limit shareholder action and communication which, increasingly, have been used to push boardrooms toward more climate-friendly and social justice policies, often termed Environmental, Social, and Governance (ESG) Standards. This, by itself, is a policy change, not necessarily indicative of kleptocracy. On the other hand, a new executive order seeks to rein in the SEC’s rulemaking authority, which has a long been independent. The EO requires the SEC to submit any new regulation to review by the Office of Management and Budget. The specific office within OMB responsible for reviewing regulations is the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs (OIRA), which has long been a black box both for the right and the left. So, in some sense, this is continuing on a path of the consolidation White House power. Igor Rozenblit of Iron Road Partners notes that this expansion “could include opining on an enforcement approach” and “could open the door for the White House to intervene in specific enforcement matters.” As DOGE prepares to eviscerate the SEC, it is worth noting that Elon Musk has business before the independent agency, which has sued him, arguing that he cheated investors out of $150 million. In addition, both Trump and Musk, who are creators of crypto assets, have moved to reverse Biden administration rules treating crypto-assets as securities. This is all happening after the crypto industry set records as the largest financial backer of the 2024 Trump campaign. It is a significant enough conflict of interest that would normally be met with both a recusal and moving assets into a blind trust. In this case, however, no such gesture has been made. (Last updated 2/28/25)
ACTION 66 | Major donors jockey for favor as the administration subdues the once-independent FTC
The FTC is responsible for remedying monopolistic practices and corporate fraud. Historically an independent agency, the commission has recently faced major threats to its ability to operate free from political influence. In March 2025, President Donald Trump dismissed two Democratic commissioners, Alvaro Bedoya and Rebecca Kelly Slaughter, prompting lawsuits that argue the removals violate the Supreme Court’s precedent in Humphrey's Executor v. United States, which limits presidential power over independent agencies. Both commissioners contend that their removal undermines regulatory independence.
At the same time, the Department of Justice under Attorney General Bondi announced it would no longer defend the FTC’s independent status in court, arguing that protections against the removal of commissioners are unconstitutional, which represents a major shift in direction from past administrations. Adding further pressure, the House Judiciary Committee has proposed transferring the FTC’s antitrust enforcement powers to the Department of Justice, consolidating competition regulation under executive control.
Together, these developments have sparked serious concerns about the erosion of independent oversight and the risks of politicizing regulatory enforcement.
On its own, this might look like another episode in the long-running debate over independent agencies. But it has taken on another dimension because tech oligarchs see the agency as a major battleground. Amazon and Meta (both recent donors to Trump) have active cases before the FTC. Notably, reporting suggests that Mark Zuckerberg, CEO of Meta, has attempted to influence the outcome of the commissions decision-making (to no avail) not just as a witness but also by directly trying to get President Trump to intervene. The commission is also the site of an ongoing dispute between Elon Musk and OpenAI. Musk seems likely to receive a favorable ruling in his ongoing dispute with OpenAI.
ACTION 67 | Using the pardon power to reward loyalty
Unchecked presidential pardon power can enable kleptocracy by allowing leaders to shield political allies and associates from accountability, weakening the rule of law and concentrating power around loyalty rather than legality. In its worst-case scenario, a president may ask someone to commit a crime and then pardon them. During Donald Trump's first term, the former president issued controversial pardons to allies such as Paul Manafort, Roger Stone, and Charles Kushner, bypassing the traditional Department of Justice review process and raising concerns about favoritism and abuse of power. In the aftermath of the January 6th Capitol attack, Trump further expanded the use of clemency by granting pardons to individuals connected to the insurrection.
Recent developments suggest an even more aggressive use of the pardon system. According to an interview in Democracy Docket, former White House Pardon Attorney Liz Oyer was forced out after objecting to politically motivated clemency decisions, including the case of actor Mel Gibson, whose gun rights were at issue. Her firing suggests that the pardon process is being reshaped to reward loyalty rather than uphold justice.
ELECTION OVERSIGHT
Kleptocrats and autocrats, once in power, often continue to hold elections, which helps bolster their legitimacy. At the same time, they tip the playing field in their favor by loosening the restrictions on money in politics. But kleptocracy does not just rely on money. It also relies on controlling the information about elections, spreading election disinformation, and undermining election oversight institutions and confidence in their leadership. In the United States, actual election administration is highly decentralized and is the purview of state-level secretaries of state and smaller governments—more than 8000 jurisdictions. The federal government plays a coordination, support, and standard-setting role to states while making sure campaign finance laws are followed. The Trump administration’s early actions should raise concern about its commitment to the integrity of elections at all levels of government.
ACTION 68 | Trump attempts to fire the Chair of the Federal Election Commission (FEC), the independent agency that enforces campaign finance laws
Trump attempted to fire outspoken FEC Chair and Commissioner Ellen Weintraub. The decision remains in dispute and drew notable rebuke from a former Republican FEC chair. FEC requires six members to legally conduct high-level business. With the firing of Weintraub and upcoming resignations, the FEC is facing a de facto shutdown. Without quorum, FEC cannot investigate or penalize campaign finance violations, allowing dark money groups and foreign actors to influence elections with impunity. (During Trump’s first-term, the FEC lacked quorum on two occasions, weakening its ability to prevent oversight of Super PACs and illicit campaign finance practices.) This is occurring as WIRED reports that business leaders are paying as much as $5 million to meet one-on-one with the president at his Florida compound, and an analysis of FEC disclosures found that corporations facing federal investigations or enforcement lawsuits collectively gave $50 million to Trump’s inauguration (out of a record $239 million raised).
Notably, Democrats filed a suit in February 2025 seeking a ruling declaring that FEC's independence from the president is constitutionally permitted and barring the Trump White House from attempting to apply his related executive order to the agency. Concerns include that FEC's powers to decide complaints against national parties or candidate committees, and its routine role as advisor to campaigns on campaign finance law compliance, "would become corrupted" or that decisions would not be impartial. (Last updated 4/25/25)
ELECTION SECURITY
The Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Agency (CISA), part of the Department of Homeland Security, leads the coordination of cybersecurity protections with states and local governments, including for elections. It is the election cyber watchdog, providing election offices around the country with vital cybersecurity services to keep elections safe and secure. It oversees sensors that can detect malicious attacks, trains thousands of state and local election workers, and shares the latest threat information. In 2023 and 2024 alone, CISA conducted over 700 cybersecurity assessments for local election jurisdictions around the country. As threats to election workers have increased, CISA also helps state and local officials shore up physical security at polling places and election offices. Since inauguration, significant concerns have been documented about the weakening of CISA and election cybersecurity oversight by the Trump administration.
ACTION 69 | Trump freezes the election security activities of the US election cyber security watchdog, cancels funding, and fails to release agency review
In early February 2025, the Trump Administration froze the election security activities of CISA, pending review. WIRED reports that "the move represents the first major example of the country’s cyberdefense agency accommodating President Donald Trump’s false claims of election fraud and online censorship." The review was finalized in March but was not disclosed. CyberScoop reports that critics found that the lack of transparency "creates broad uncertainty among election security stakeholders and jeopardizes the collaboration between the federal government, states and local governments" that depend on CISA. The halt cut off related federal funds for several key organizations and functions, including monitoring foreign interference. This includes cuts to the Elections Infrastructure Information Sharing & Analysis Center (EI-SAC), which serves as a coordinating body for the elections community, and worked with CISA before the 2024 election to warn election officials about envelopes filled with white powder sent to election offices in at least 15 states. (Last updated 4/14/25)
ACTION 70 | Trump orders the DoJ and DHS to investigate his first-term cybersecurity agency head for denying that 2020 election was rigged
Trump released a memo in April 2025 to agencies accusing Chris Krebs, appointed by Trump in 2018 to head CISA, of misconduct for denying the false claims that the election was rigged. Trump fired Krebs via tweet in 2020 for debunking false claims about the election. The memo directed Attorney General Pam Bondi and Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem to investigate Krebs, directing Bondi and Director of National Intelligence Tulsi Gabbard to revoke security clearances held by Krebs and his cybersecurity company SentinelOne ($5.6 billion in market capitalization). Forty industry leaders wrote to President Trump calling for the "retaliatory" investigation to be dropped and clearances reinstated, saying “as members of the cybersecurity profession and information security community, we counter with a strong stand in defense of our professional obligation to report truthful findings, even – and especially – when they do not fit the playbook of the powerful." (Last updated 4/14/25)
ACTION 71 | Cybersecurity agency staff working on elections are cut or put on leave
The administration has removed staff members of CISA. The agency has a broad role in protecting infrastructure from dams to power plants, as well as cybersecurity around elections. Staff advising on election security were cut by DOGE, and staff who had been assisting secretaries of state in fighting election misinformation and disinformation, ensuring physical security, and notifying social media platforms of disinformation were put on leave. Further cuts to CISA staff are expected, raising warnings about risks to national security. (Last updated 4/14/25)
Weaponizing the Department of Justice (DoJ)
“The most visible means of weaponizing the state is through targeted prosecution. Virtually all elected autocratic governments deploy justice ministries, public prosecutors’ offices, and tax and intelligence agencies to investigate and prosecute rival politicians, media companies, editors, journalists, business leaders, universities, and other critics. In traditional dictatorships, critics are often charged with crimes such as sedition, treason, or plotting insurrection, but contemporary autocrats tend to prosecute critics for more mundane offenses, such as corruption, tax evasion, defamation, and even minor violations of arcane rules.”
- Steven Levistky and Lucan Way, “The Path to American Authoritarianism”
Before the election, Donald Trump made more than 100 threats to prosecute his rivals. Among those enemies, he includes members of the Select Committee on January 6, including former Representative Liz Cheney, former Vice President Kamala Harris, New York Attorney General Letitia James, and Judge Arthur Engoron. This will only be possible if the DoJ becomes highly politicized. How likely is that?
The Department of Justice is, put simply, America’s police, responsible for enforcing the law. It is made up of numerous departments, from environmental lawyers to prison guards and from immigration judges to surveillance courts. The most attention, however, has been paid to DoJ attorneys as well as the Federal Bureau of Investigations (FBI), which assembles cases. The ways in which this department can be weaponized to prosecute rivals, insulate the president, and extract loyalty from would-be dissidents are too numerous to recount here (see Just Security). In addition to the alleged Eric Adams quid pro quo arrangement explained in Action 39, in the first few weeks of the administration, there are already a number of concerning actions, even before a single case has been opened.
ACTION 72 | FBI Director Kash Patel publishes an "enemies list"
FBI Director Kash Patel has repeatedly called for prosecution of Trump’s rivals and has even published an “enemies list” in a 2023 book. Patel testified that this is a mischaracterization of his writing. Nonetheless, other signs point to trouble at the FBI. A number of agents have sued the DoJ, alleging that the bureau is actively compiling a list of agents who worked on January 6 cases, with the intent to publish. In addition, these agents claim that those details have already been leaked to the dark web.
At the time of writing, no cases have been opened on “political enemies.” However, Ed Martin has notified Senate Minority Leader Charles Schumer that he is under investigation and, on February 20, 2025, Interim US Attorney Martin threatened Representative Robert Garcia with an investigation for a statement, in reference to Elon Musk, that “What the American public wants is for us to bring actual weapons to this bar fight.” (Last updated 4/28/25)
ACTION 73 | Firing January 6th prosecutors
The January 6, 2021 attack on the Capitol building was a direct attack on the regular and peaceful transfer of power—the first in the nation's history. After the attack, the Department of Justice, through the office of Special Counsel Jack Smith, sought accountability for those who entered the Capitol illegally. The prosecution stopped just short of bringing Donald Trump to trial, calling off the case following the 2024 election.
Almost immediately upon assuming office, Acting Attorney General James McHenry fired more than a dozen prosecutors involved in the Jack Smith cases. (The Special Counsel's portfolio also included the Mar-a-Lago documents case.)
Interim U.S. Attorney Ed Martin also fired at least two dozen prosecutors who worked on criminal cases stemming from the January 6 attack. (See "Legal profession" for additional repercussions for lawyers participating in January 6th.) (Last updated 4/28/25)