President Trump and the Shallow State: Disloyalty at the Highest Levels

Abstract

President Donald Trump often complained about the "deep state" of career civil servants who, he asserted, were determined to undermine his presidency. But it was his own presidential appointees who most visibly resisted his directives. Political appointees are expected to be the most loyal advocates of a president's policy agenda, riding herd on the many bureaucracies of the executive branch. This article analyzes resistance to Trump's policy directives by his own appointees in the White House, cabinet, military, and intelligence community. It concludes that this level of resistance is unprecedented in the modern presidency.President Donald Trump often complained about the "deep state" of career civil servants who, he asserted, were determined to undermine his presidency. But it was his own presidential appointees who most visibly resisted his directives. Political appointees are expected to be the most loyal advocates of a president's policy agenda, riding herd on the many bureaucracies of the executive branch. Yet Trump's appointees in the White House, cabinet, military, and intelligence community refused to carry out many of the president's directives to an extent unprecedented in the modern presidency. President Trump's appointees went well beyond the normal disagreements about policy that characterize every administration; they resorted to slow-walking orders, refusing to comply with directives, and even outright sabotage (e.g., removing documents from the Resolute Desk in the Oval Office). Even Vice President Mike Pence, under Trump's pressure, refused to break the law when presiding over the formal counting of electoral votes on January 6, 2021. Leadership is central to the 573 Presidential Studies Quarterly

The Outsiders: Examining the Effects of Political Appointments on Public-Sector Employee Engagement

“…A key component of politically motivated intercessions is a disregard -or even disrespect -for the knowledge and capabilities of public servants in executing policy directives (Kim et al, 2022). These interventions can be symbolic (e.g., President Reagan's "nine scariest words" quip -RRPF&L, 2021), indirect (e.g., holding up Senate confirmation hearings to force unrelated agency action - Dull et al, 2012), or direct (e.g., repeated characterizations of government control by the "deep state" - Pfiffner, 2022). Like all organizational leaders, political appointees' words and actions influence how their workforces perceive their motives and judge the legitimacy of their authority.…”