The recent impeachment hearings led by Congressman Adam Schiff’s House Intelligence Committee featured career federal employees who have served under both Democratic and Republican administrations. These included former ambassadors to Ukraine, Marie Yovanovitch and Bill Taylor, Deputy Assistant Secretary of State George Hunt, Mike Pence aide Jennifer Williams, the National Security Council’s Lt. Col. Alexander Vindman, and the expert on Russia, Dr. Fiona Hill.
These career federal employees, seldom in the public eye, testified under congressional subpoena. They did not seek publicity and were visibly uncomfortable in that role.
Trump and his Republicans vilified them as “members of the Deep State.” Trump threatened them to the point of jeopardizing their physical safety. Trump even criticized Lt. Col. Vindman, a combat veteran still carrying shrapnel, for wearing his Army uniform while testifying. No Republican ever criticized Oliver North for wearing his uniform while testifying during Ronald Reagan’s Iran-Contra scandal.
Career federal employees have often been the target of politicians. Reagan denigrated them as nameless, faceless bureaucrats, implying that they were somehow unworthy. Succeeding politicians, predominantly Republicans, continued to make government employees scapegoats.
Examples of frequent targets include employees of the U.S. Dept. of Interior’s Bureau of Land Management in the West, for executing federal policy on public lands, and employees of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency for formulating environmental regulations as directed by Congress. These employees are trashed as “nameless, faceless, unelected bureaucrats.” This, even though their agencies are charged with administering laws and policy enacted by congress.
It’s convenient for congress to blame government employees rather than take responsibility for their own legislation. If, for example, a lobbyist for a chemical company screams about an EPA regulation designed to protect public health and the environment, it is the federal employee that takes the heat. Federal employees accept that being convenient scapegoats “comes with the territory.”
With the Mueller investigation and the impeachment hearings, President Trump and his supporters have carried criticism of federal employees to a new level. They are vilified as “The Deep State,” charging that they are part of a mysterious clandestine conspiracy operating under the radar with evil intent. Trump even vilified former Ambassador Yovanovitch while she was testifying, and harshly criticized Lt. Col. Vindman, the decorated combat veteran, and Dr. Fiona Hill. All three are immigrants, providing Trump the pretense to question their loyalty as Americans.
Trump went to the extreme level of suggesting that the whistleblower’s action amounted to treason, comparing the whistleblower to a spy deserving the punishment administered to spies. In fact, protection of whistleblowers is specified in legislation enacted through bipartisan action.
Republicans criticized the anonymous whistleblower’s complaint as based on “secondary information.” In fact, it was corroborated by witnesses having firsthand knowledge, making the identity of the whistle blower irrelevant. The real reason for Trump’s attack was to discourage other whistleblowers from coming forth, thereby effectively nullifying the bipartisan whistleblower legislation.
In view of the uncharacteristic visibility of career employees, as opposed to purely political appointees, a closer look at the federal civil service is in order.
The U.S. federal civil service is the civilian workforce (i.e., non-elected and non-military public sector employees) of the U.S. federal government, including those employed in the legislative, executive, and judicial branches. Although most federal agencies are based in the Washington, D.C.-area, only about 16% of federal employees are based in that region.
There are three categories of civilian federal employees. The majority of civil service positions are in the competitive service category, meaning that they are selected based on merit after a competitive hiring process for positions that are open to all applicants.
The second category is the Senior Executive Service (SES). This is the classification for non-competitive, senior leadership positions filled by career employees or political appointments. The SES was designed to be a corps of executives selected for their leadership qualifications, serving in key positions just below the top presidential appointees, as a link between them and the rest of the federal civil service workforce. These civilian positions are equivalent to general officer or flag officer ranks in the Armed Forces.
The third category is the excepted or unclassified service. That includes jobs in agencies with security and intelligence functions. These agencies include the CIA, FBI, National Security Agency, Foreign Service and several others. These agencies have their own senior executive positions and specialized hiring policies.
In the early history of our country, positions in the federal government were held solely at the pleasure of the president. This amounted to a “spoils system,” meaning that jobs were used to support politicians and political parties. As the size of the economy and the government grew, it became apparent that the federal workforce needed a merit-based cadre of competent professionals. This was accomplished by the Pendleton Civil Service Reform Act of 1883 and modified by subsequent laws.
The law required federal government employees to be selected through competitive exams and on basis of merit. It also prevented elected officials and political appointees from firing civil servants, thereby protecting them from influences of political patronage and partisan behavior. The Hatch Act of 1939 directed that civil servants not engage in political activities while performing their duties.
Like any citizen, civil servants are entitled to political views. Nevertheless, they are charged with administering policy regardless of agreement with it, provided it is within the law.
The very senior government positions, such as those at the cabinet level, remain as presidential political appointees. The rationale is that a president needs and deserves appointees consistent with his/her political philosophy and objectives, all while executing legislation enacted by congress.
We thus have a combination of political appointees at the top of the executive branch, with career professionals serving under those political appointees of either party.
It is a disservice to castigate career federal employees as members of “The Deep State.” These career professionals are essential to carry out the myriad functions of government and should be respected as the professionals they are.
— John Waelti of Monroe, a retired professor of economics, can be reached at jjwaelti1@tds.net. His column appears Saturdays in the Monroe Times.
