While the lights are off, let’s rewire the government



The United States faces an existential threat from the accelerating military power of communist China — a buildup fueled by decades of massive economic expansion. If America intends to counter Beijing’s ambitions, it must grow faster, leaner, and more efficient. Economic strength is national security.

The ongoing government shutdown may not be popular, but it gives President Trump a rare opportunity to make good on his campaign pledge to drain — and redesign — “the swamp.” Streamlining the federal government isn’t just good politics. It’s a matter of survival.

A government that builds wealth rather than expands debt can out-produce China, sustain deterrence, and restore the American ideal of self-government.

George Washington ran the nation with four Cabinet departments: war, treasury, state, and the attorney general. The Department of the Interior came later, followed by the Department of Agriculture, added by Abraham Lincoln in 1862 when America was an agrarian power.

The modern Cabinet, by contrast, is a bureaucratic junkyard built more in reaction to political problems than by design. The Labor Department was carved from the Commerce Department to appease the unions. Lyndon Johnson invented the Department of Transportation. Jimmy Carter established the Department of Energy in response to the Arab oil embargo. The Department of Homeland Security and the Office of the Director of National Intelligence emerged after 9/11.

The result is a patchwork of agencies wired together with duct tape, overlap, and patronage. A government designed for crisis management has become a permanent crisis unto itself.

Enter the Department of National Economy

A return to first principles starts with a single question: How can we accelerate American productivity?

The answer: consolidate. Merge the Departments of Commerce, Labor, Agriculture, Transportation, and Energy into a Department of National Economy. One Cabinet secretary, five undersecretaries, one mission: to expand the flow of goods and services that generate national wealth.

The new department’s motto should be a straightforward question: What did your enterprise do today to increase the wealth of the United States?

Fewer bureaucracies mean fewer fiefdoms, less redundancy, and enormous cost savings. Synergy replaces stovepipes. The government’s economic engine becomes a single machine instead of six competing engines running on taxpayer fuel.

Fold Homeland Security into the Coast Guard

Homeland Security should be absorbed by the U.S. Coast Guard, which already functions as a paramilitary force with both military and police authority, much like Italy’s Carabinieri. Under the Uniform Code of Military Justice, DHS personnel would share discipline, training, and accountability.

FEMA would cease to be a dumping ground for political hacks. Any discrimination in disaster aid — such as punishing Trump voters — would trigger a court-martial.

The Secret Service would focus solely on protective duties, handing its financial-crime work to the FBI. The secretary of the Coast Guard would gain a seat in the Cabinet.

Restoring intelligence to the OSS model

The Office of Director of National Intelligence should be re-established as the Office of Strategic Services, commanded by a figure in the tradition of Major General “Wild Bill” Donovan. Elements of U.S. Special Operations Command would be seconded to the new OSS, reviving its World War II lineage.

All intelligence agencies — CIA, DIA, FBI, the State Department, DEA, and the service branches — should share common foundational training. The current decline in discipline and capability at the National Intelligence University, worsened by the DEI policies of its leadership, demands urgent correction. Diversity cannot come at the expense of competence.

RELATED: Memo to Hegseth: Our military’s problem isn’t only fitness. It’s bad education.

Photo by Isaiah Vazquez/Getty Images

Law enforcement and the flat tax

At the Department of Justice, dissolve the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives. Shift alcohol and tobacco oversight to the DEA, firearms and explosives to the U.S. Marshals.

Let the DEA also absorb the Food and Drug Administration, which would become its research and standards division.

Return the FBI to pure investigation — armed but without arrest powers. Enforcement should rest with the U.S. Marshals. Counterintelligence would move to the Defense Counterintelligence and Security Agency, reinforced by the Naval Criminal Investigative Service.

The IRS should be dismantled and replaced with a small agency built around a flat-tax model such as the Hall-Rabushka plan.

Move the Department of Health and Human Services’ Administration for Strategic Preparedness and Response to Homeland Security. Send its Office of Climate Change and Health Equity to NOAA — or eliminate it entirely.

At the Department of Housing and Urban Development, expand the inspector general’s office tenfold and pay bonuses for rooting out fraud.

Restoring deterrence

The Pentagon needs its own overhaul. Because of China’s rapid military buildup, the Air Force’s Global Strike Command should be separated from U.S. Strategic Command and report directly to the secretary of war and the president under its historic name — Strategic Air Command.

Submarines and silos are invisible; bombers are not. Deterrence depends on visibility. A line of B-1s, B-2s, B-52s, and 100 new B-21 Raider stealth bombers, all bearing the mailed-fist insignia of the old SAC, would send an unmistakable message to Beijing.

RELATED: Exclusive: China behind massive nationwide SIM farm network that directly threatens American critical infrastructure

Photo by Jakub Porzycki/NurPhoto via Getty Images

Toward a leaner republic

With Trump back in the White House, this moment is ripe for radical efficiency. A government that builds wealth rather than expands debt can out-produce China, sustain deterrence, and restore the American ideal of self-government.

George Washington’s government fit inside a single carriage. We won’t return to that scale — but we can rediscover that spirit. A lean, unified, strategically organized government would make wealth creation easier, limit bureaucratic overreach, and preserve the republic for the long fight ahead.

The Federalist’s Guide To The 2025 Supreme Court Term

From challenges to President Trump's tariffs to the longstanding battle over race-based redistricting, the Supreme Court's 2025-2026 term is shaping up to be as exciting as the last.

SCOTUS Tees Up Potential Takedown Of Progressives’ ‘Independent Agencies’ Theory

Humphrey's Executor has had major negative implications for America's separation of powers and the ability of presidents to fully exercise their Article II authority.

Why Republican victories keep delivering Democratic policies



Conservatives often imagine that winning statewide elections means gaining control over the machinery of government. But this is wrong — and dangerously so. For far too long, red states have confused the two. The assumption that political victory automatically confers political authority is one of the chief falsehoods circulating on the right. It is the reason Republican states often look like Democrat ones, only with different bumper stickers.

This is an uncomfortable but necessary message for conservatives to hear: Red states are facing a major crisis of governance.

Red states have built conservative brands on progressive machinery.

The State Leadership Initiative’s new “Index Report” lays out the evidence in extensive detail. By the most basic measures of lean, accountable, and ideologically grounded government, red states are failing. Many of the policies their representatives are voting for and their governors are signing into law are profoundly out of step with the wishes of voters. Bureaucracies are bloated, universities multiply administrators faster than scholars, schools have fewer teachers than administrators, New York-style regulations pile up in red states like Texas, and seven of the 10 most federally dependent states wear the Republican label.

The key takeaway is not just that red states are doing poorly — it is that red states are almost indistinguishable from blue states on the metrics that matter.

This is not conservative governance. It is branding atop the chassis of managerial progressivism. Governors may cut a ribbon, sign a bill, or post a slogan, but beneath the surface, the operating code of their states is indistinguishable from California’s.

How can this be the case?

The bureaucratic cartel

The deeper reason for this unfortunate reality is explored in the State Leadership Initiative’s second major publication, the “Shadow Government Report.” It shows how state bureaucracies have been colonized — quietly, methodically — by a cartel of national associations and professional guilds no voter ever approved. These groups wield more influence over daily governance than most state legislatures, yet they are invisible to the public, untethered from electoral accountability, and drenched in progressive orthodoxy.

These associations are neither think tanks nor trade associations in the old sense. Yet they wield massive powers: They write standards, provide training, host conferences, and broker grants. These guilds credential personnel and tell agencies what “best practice” means.

Because legislators rarely read the fine print in the legislation they pass, the blueprints crafted by these associations become the law of the land by default. When the public wonders why every state suddenly adopts the same jargon, the same metrics, and the same “tool kits” on climate, equity, and inclusion, the answer is almost always because the same group of associations decided it.

The depth of ideological capture in these associations is astounding. The examples border on parody. The National Association of State Treasurers insists that environmental, social, and governance investing is a fiduciary duty and trains treasurers in diversity, equity, and inclusion.

The National Association of Medicaid Directors declares equity — not health outcomes — the “foundational principle” of Medicaid reform and pushes race-based service priorities.

The Association of State and Territorial Health Officials maintains that “structural racism” is a public health emergency and coordinates messaging on abortion, climate, and even online speech with the White House.

The National Association of State Procurement Officials encourages states to embed race- and gender-based scoring rubrics into contracting, turning neutral bidding into an ideological loyalty test.

The National Governors Association, which is supposedly a bipartisan forum of executives, functions as a relay for the left, peddling DEI and ESG tool kits like a traveling salesman.

These examples are far from exhaustive.

National associations operate outside democratic oversight while having a greater influence over shaping state policy than most legislatures. They are the Trojan horses of managerial progressivism. While legislators debate property-tax rates or curriculum, these associations push a suite of prepackaged policies — procurement guidelines, Medicaid waivers, regulatory thresholds — that heavily favor the status quo.

Protecting progressives

Civil service rules protect progressive careerists from political oversight. University boards rubber-stamp DEI because accreditation bodies — another arm of the cartel — say so. Procurement officers copy and paste National Association of State Procurement Officials templates. Medicaid directors take their orders from the National Association of Medicaid Directors rather than the governor.

The bureaucrats Republican governors inherit have been trained in association doctrine, are credentialed by association certifications, and are acculturated in association conferences. Even the vocabulary their agencies use — “resilience,” “inclusion,” “climate readiness,” “public-private partnership” — is imported from slide decks in Washington, D.C.

Our adversaries built the shadow government that now runs the states. The only question is whether conservatives will summon the courage to challenge it.

You may elect a conservative governor. But if his health agency still sends staff to Association of State and Territorial Health Officials trainings, his Medicaid office still uses National Association of Medicaid Directors templates, and his treasury department still follows the National Association of State Treasurers guidelines, the day-to-day governance is leftist by default.

Even if personnel are swapped out, the new trainees will be accepting “best practices,” model regulation, and training seminars from supposedly neutral industry experts. But this neutrality is a farce.

The result is a peculiar kind of political theater. Voters think they have chosen a government. Governors think they are in command. But the machinery hums along, indifferent to election returns and guided by national bodies whose values are taken from the faculty lounge and the federal bureaucracy. It is government by autopilot — and the autopilot was programmed by the left.

Rooting out the cartel

The cartel of leftist national associations needs to be dealt with in order for red states to prosper. The remedy is not tinkering around the edges but an aggressive structural overhaul.

First, states must begin by auditing and restricting association membership. Every agency should disclose its dues, trainings, grant pipelines, and template adoptions. Sunshine is a good disinfectant.

Second, agencies should be barred from importing association policies without legislative approval. If a procurement office wants to adopt National Association of State Procurement Officials rubrics, let it defend that choice in front of elected representatives in open hearings.

Third, association-led DEI trainings should be prohibited outright; they are not professional development but bureaucratic catechism.

Fourth, rival associations must be built, as the State Financial Officers Foundation has already done, to provide training and credentials aligned with republican self-government.

Finally, and most importantly, political leadership must penetrate the bureaucracy — more appointed positions, stronger sunset rules, and the restructuring of state agencies that resist accountability.

Some will protest that this sounds radical. It is not — it is the work of self-government. The radicalism lies in the present arrangement, in which anonymous guilds in a faraway capital dictate to sovereign states what their procurement contracts should look like or what principles guide their Medicaid systems. The radicalism lies in states whose constitutions enshrine republican rule yet whose daily operations are outsourced to entities their people cannot name.

This reform in red states is not optional if conservatives mean to govern.

Changing the machinery

The Index reveals the failures; the Shadow Government Report reveals the cause. Paired together, they teach a crucial lesson: Red states have built conservative brands on progressive machinery. They talk like Jefferson but regulate like Albany. They thump their chests about liberty while paying dues to organizations that smuggle equity quotas into their hiring manuals.

RELATED: The deep state is no longer deniable — thanks to Tulsi Gabbard

Photo by Chip Somodevilla/Getty Images

To continue on this path is to win hollow victories, mistaking campaign slogans for statecraft. It is to send governors into battle armed with speeches while the other side controls the maps, the supply lines, and the ammunition. The work ahead is not to shout louder but to actually govern — to tear down the scaffolding of association rules and build institutions that are faithful to the people they’re supposed to serve. Until that is done, every red state risks being a blue state in disguise.

Governance is not automatic. It is not the inevitable byproduct of winning elections. It is the patient, disciplined, steady construction of institutions aligned with the people’s will. Our adversaries have known this for decades. They built the shadow government that now runs the states. The only question left is whether conservatives will summon the courage to challenge it.

Editor's note: This article was published originally at the American Mind.

Report: Left-Wing Bureaucracies Are Quietly Subverting Red State Governance

Left-wing bureaucracies are quietly undercutting the will of Republican voters in so-called “red states” across the country, according to a new report. Published this week by the State Leadership Initiative (SLI), the group’s “Shadow Government” analysis reveals how “Republican voters elect Republican governors and legislatures — only to find their states governed by the same […]

There Are Three Good Reasons To Cut Bureaucratic Bloat, And Only One Is About Money

The real goal of DOGE is the return the government to the limited, constitutional order envisioned by the founders.

In 6 months, Donald Trump has done the impossible



President Donald Trump released a video highlighting his landmark accomplishments over the past six months — and the results speak for themselves. While the media fixates on negative polls and manufactured controversy, this period marks one of the most dramatic political turnarounds in recent memory. Now is the time to take stock of what conservatives have achieved — victories that once seemed unimaginable.

Reining in gender radicalism

Nowhere has the shift been more profound than in the fight against gender ideology. Just five years ago, opposing male athletes in women’s sports brought swift condemnation from corporate boards, activist groups, and political elites. Today, the momentum has flipped.

This is no time to coast. The next phase demands aggressive follow-through. Now it’s about willpower and execution.

Americans no longer feel compelled to nod along as ideologues insist that men can become women — or vice versa. This change didn’t happen because it polls well. It happened because we reclaimed a basic principle: truth.

The same country that once put a Supreme Court justice on the bench who couldn’t define “woman” now has a federal government unafraid to say, “That’s a chick.”

That shift marks a massive cultural victory. A few years ago, it felt impossible. Now, it reflects a growing national trend — a long-overdue return to reality in public life.

Securing the border

Border enforcement has taken a decisive turn. For years, Americans watched as federal officials failed to act, leaving the southern border wide open and allowing criminal networks to thrive. That era has ended.

Under President Trump, the government began doing what it should have done all along. Targeted enforcement raids have sent a clear signal: Illegal immigration won’t be ignored, and those here unlawfully face consequences. Self-deportation has increased. Illegal crossings have declined.

The policy works — and the message is unmistakable.

This marks more than just a policy shift. It’s a cultural and political turning point. Americans now recognize that a secure border isn’t just possible — it’s essential. National sovereignty is back on the table.

A resurgent economy

Trump’s economic agenda has delivered real results. When he returned to office, the nation was still stuck in the inertia of the post-COVID economy and the slow-growth legacy of the Obama-Biden years. That changed quickly.

Trump’s signature 2017 tax cuts, now made permanent, have sparked renewed business investment, job creation, and wage growth. These are the largest tax cuts in U.S. history — and they’re doing what they were designed to do: make American companies more competitive and American families more prosperous.

Meanwhile, the Trump administration has broken the regulatory chokehold that once blocked vital infrastructure and energy projects. Nuclear plants are coming back online. American energy is rising — without relying on foreign regimes.

This pro-growth agenda doesn’t just create jobs. It revitalizes the core of the American economy: workers, builders, producers, and risk-takers. By slashing taxes, limiting government overreach, and putting American interests first, the Trump administration has reignited prosperity — and buried the stagnation of the past.

Peace through strength

Trump has reshaped American foreign policy with bold, decisive leadership. For decades, presidents vowed to stop Iran from acquiring a nuclear weapon. None followed through. Trump did.

He launched targeted strikes, enforced crippling sanctions, and shattered the illusion that diplomacy alone would stop Iran’s ambitions. Critics warned of escalation. But Trump understood what past leaders refused to admit: Weakness invites aggression. Strength deters it.

His response proved the U.S. will defend its national interest — no matter the cost.

RELATED: Justice at last? Obama intel chiefs face fallout from Russia hoax

Photo by Alex Wong/Getty Images

Trump didn’t just contain Iran. He rewrote the rules of diplomacy in the Middle East. The Abraham Accords shattered decades of failed orthodoxy, establishing historic peace deals between Israel and its Arab neighbors. The foreign policy establishment said it couldn’t be done. Trump did it anyway.

He also forced NATO allies to pay their fair share — a long-overdue correction. For years, U.S. taxpayers carried the burden of Europe’s defense. Trump ended the freeloading and demanded real commitments.

Together, these achievements mark a dramatic departure from the weak, consensus-driven diplomacy of the Obama-Biden era. Trump hasn’t just restored credibility on the world stage. He’s proven that America leads best when it leads with resolve.

Just the beginning

These past six months have delivered a series of political and cultural victories many thought out of reach. A year ago, they seemed impossible. Today, they’re reality.

But this is no time to coast.

The next phase demands aggressive follow-through — especially on immigration. Trump must solidify the gains made on border security and ensure illegal immigration remains in retreat. The infrastructure exists. Now, it’s about willpower and execution.

Foreign policy also demands continued focus. The world remains volatile, and America needs a president who won’t hesitate to defend U.S. interests. Trump has shown he can meet that challenge. He must keep doing so — with clarity, strength, and resolve.

And then there’s spending. The left hasn’t let up. Democrats want more programs, more debt, more control. Trump’s tax cuts delivered real growth, but long-term stability means confronting the bloated federal bureaucracy and forcing Congress to spend less — not more.

The first half of 2025 brought a revolutionary shift. We reversed trends that once looked permanent. We reclaimed cultural and political ground that had been written off.

But none of it will last without vigilance. To secure lasting change, conservatives must stay engaged, focused, and relentless. The future won’t protect itself. We have to do it — now.

Want more from Glenn Beck? Get Glenn's FREE email newsletter with his latest insights, top stories, show prep, and more delivered to your inbox.

Why the Epstein story cannot be buried



Why does the story of Jeffrey Epstein matter so deeply to the American right? Why does it persist, years after his death, as a source of outrage, fascination, and dread? Why is the call to “move on” met with such visceral resistance?

The answer lies in what Epstein’s case reveals. It is not merely the record of one man’s depravity or even the scale of the crimes committed. It is a window into a concealed architecture of unaccountable power, intelligence protection, institutional rot, and elite impunity. For many on the right, it confirms long-standing fears about how power in the United States is really organized and who it is designed to serve.

These questions strike at the heart of an older conservative concern: Who governs? And who is permitted to ask?

These concerns are hardly new. They are the very ones that helped elect Donald Trump, and they have shaped conservative criticism of the American regime since the New Deal. The Epstein affair provides a rare glimpse into the soft underbelly of the administrative state. At some point, moral clarity demands that we stop parsing and start acting. This is a time to strike, to “fire for effect.”

From the expansion of the federal bureaucracy under Franklin D. Roosevelt to the postwar rise of the national security state, conservatives have warned about the merger of government power with private influence. The most dangerous feature of that merger is not the bureaucracy itself, but the consolidation of authority among entrenched intelligence services, elite financial networks, and foreign-aligned interests. These actors operate in close coordination, beyond democratic oversight, and with the consistent protection of institutional power.

Epstein is valuable because he exposes that structure in plain sight. He had no obvious source of legitimate wealth. His hedge fund, insofar as it existed, had only one known client. Yet, he moved in elite circles, befriended presidents and princes, and maintained access to corporate titans and scientific institutions.

Most disturbingly, Epstein appears to have operated a long-standing sexual blackmail network. The question is not merely how he got away with it, but who allowed him to do so.

Staggering implications

The answers are deeply unsettling. The FBI curtailed its investigations. The CIA has remained silent. The media showed little interest and declined to pursue the story in any depth. Meanwhile, the possible involvement of foreign intelligence services (especially those operating through figures like Leslie Wexner) has been treated as politically untouchable. This refusal to investigate is not born of ignorance or oversight. It is protective behavior. It signals that the wrong people are implicated.

Even if one adopts the minimalist position, that Epstein was not a formal intelligence asset, the implications remain staggering. Why would a known predator be permitted to operate so openly, with so many connections to power? Is the American state unable or unwilling to act when the guilty hold the right kinds of passports or relationships? Have we reached a point where elite networks are simply beyond reach, shielded by layers of shared interest and mutual compromise?

These questions strike at the heart of an older conservative concern: Who governs? And who is permitted to ask?

RELATED: The White House will need to do plenty more to get past Epstein

Photo by ALEX WROBLEWSKI/AFP via Getty Images

Epstein’s case offers a rare and ugly answer. What it uncovers is not a fever dream of conspiracy but an observable mode of governance that relies on secrecy, compromise, and shared immunity. It appears that intelligence actors have conducted operations not only abroad but also inside the United States, targeting the American elite itself. An immoral country condones sexual blackmail as a mechanism of influence and protection, integrated into a broader system of control ... ironically an indication of a country spinning out of control.

A complicated inquiry

One can find instructive parallels in the operations of Israeli intelligence during the 1980s and 1990s. Under the direction of Mossad officials such as Efraim Halevy, Israel conducted systematic surveillance and developed personal leverage over Syrian elites. These methods included financial inducements, covert recordings, and exposure of private behavior. Such tactics are common in international espionage and are recognized tools of statecraft.

What makes Epstein so alarming is the apparent use of similar techniques within the United States, directed inward rather than outward. The uncomfortable possibility is that foreign intelligence services (including Israeli cutouts operating through figures like Wexner) were not merely bystanders, but active participants or beneficiaries of the Epstein operation. That possibility remains largely uninvestigated, not because it lacks merit, but because it threatens established political alignments.

Wexner’s history as a major donor to Republican candidates is one example of how these relationships complicate any honest inquiry. For a sitting senator or rising intelligence officer, confronting these questions comes at great cost.

This story is not important only because of the criminal sexual behavior it contains. That abuse, particularly of underage girls, is monstrous and demands full exposure and justice. But Epstein’s operation mattered at a higher level because those crimes were used to build networks of control. They were not incidental. They were instrumental. This is the cold logic of espionage deployed inside a supposedly self-governing republic.

RELATED: The conspiracy theorist is the last honest man

Photo by PATRICK T. FALLON/AFP via Getty Images

For the political right, Epstein represents a grim vindication. The warnings about politicized intelligence services, compromised elites, and foreign impunity were long dismissed as paranoia or fringe thinking. Yet, the details of this case suggest those warnings were not only plausible, but understated.

Consider the unequal application of the Foreign Agents Registration Act. Consider the way domestic allies are hounded while foreign-aligned actors operate with impunity. Consider the cultural message that those with the right credentials and connections will never face consequences. Epstein’s story reveals the inner wiring of a regime that no longer pretends to serve the citizen, only itself.

Denial becomes confirmation

Was Epstein a direct employee of a domestic or foreign intelligence apparatus? I highly doubt it. My best guess is he was a very well-connected money launderer with a psychopathic lack of empathy who was therefore the perfect tool for intelligence gathering and manipulation. He operated in the open, however, and was criminally harmful to some of the most vulnerable U.S. citizens. But we have seen how little citizenship means in the modern internationalist cosmopolitan soup.

Efforts to bury this story are morally callous and institutionally suicidal. Each attempt to suppress, ignore, or discredit the legitimate questions raised by the Epstein case erodes the remaining credibility of the agencies involved. The denial becomes confirmation. The silence becomes testimony. The cover-up increases the criminality, the offense to the American people.

President Dwight D. Eisenhower (R) warned in his farewell address of a rising military-industrial complex. But the deeper danger he identified was the fusion of state power, private capital, and unaccountable influence. Epstein should be understood as a grotesque product of that fusion. Refusing to confront it will not preserve institutional authority. It will ensure its collapse.

In the end, the Epstein story is not simply salacious. It is foundational. It forces a reckoning with how the American regime truly operates and what moral and political compromises have become routine. That is why so many are eager to see it buried.

And that is precisely why it must not be.

Trump gave Americans a choice, not an echo



The American Enterprise Institute is an unlikely place to be reminded of why Donald Trump was necessary 10 years ago and is no less needed now. But a comment by Yuval Levin on a recent AEI panel succinctly brought out the difference Trump has made. Criticizing today’s populist, Trump-led Republican Party, Levin said, “The right has to ground its approach to the public in a more conservative message, in a sense that this country is awesome. It is not a festering, burning garbage pile — that is a strange way to talk to the next generation, and it’s not true, even a little bit.”

Trump has never used the words “festering, burning garbage pile,” but he’s used similarly strong language to describe America’s condition in this century under administrations other than his own. Trump’s slogan “Make America Great Again” implies that America hasn’t been great lately, although he and his voters can change that. Whenever Trump alludes to what Levin calls “a festering, burning garbage pile,” he’s referring to the poor leadership our country has suffered from in the not-too-distant past and the results of its misgovernance.

Trump’s task is clear: Restore the people’s power over the elite. Only then will the elite feel compelled to reform.

But that’s not what Levin or other AEI types hear. To them, Trump’s criticisms of the ruling class sound like criticisms of the country.

He upended the system

It would be unfair to guess that Levin simply believes the nation’s elite and the institutions they run are what count as the country itself, but there are precedents for such a view. In traditional monarchies and aristocracies, the rulers are the embodiment of the realm. Our Declaration of Independence was quite radical in breaking away from that understanding, asserting that the people are the realm and that all its institutions are answerable to them, not the other way around.

Levin and other intelligent non-populist conservatives know this, and they’re well aware of the failings of the pre-Trump Republican Party and the country’s political establishment as a whole. But knowing and feeling are different things.

Much of what survives of the pre-Trump conservative movement even now feels that the virtues rather than the vices of the old elite (and the institutions with which they are almost synonymous) ought to be emphasized.

For reasons that are easy to understand, many temperamental conservatives have an abiding fear of demagogues and an irreverent public. However corrupt or incompetent Ivy League-educated leaders may be, they should not be criticized too harshly — likened to flaming rubbish, for example — lest Ivy League education itself be stripped of its mystique. That mystique is part of the decent drapery of republican life, instilling a proper attitude of deference among the public toward those who have the education and lifestyle preparation to lead them.

From the moment he came down the escalator a decade ago, Trump upended this system. He pays no heed to the norms that distinguish America’s leadership class from the rabble the way noble bloodlines distinguished leadership in traditional hierarchical societies.

Elite confusion

Trump draws strength from the weakness of America’s elites and the widening public awareness of their vices. This is why, again and again, he has been rewarded for violating the very norms the elites consider sacrosanct, even to the point of winning the Republican nomination and then the White House last year despite a slew of criminal convictions and many more pending charges.

In three consecutive elections, Trump has not offered voters only a choice of leaders but a choice between systems of government. The capaciousness of our republican Constitution is such that within its framework, more than one kind of regime is possible. The “informal regime” can be considered the regime of society as well as government, or a regime that in operation reflects the real dispensation of authority within the country.

Most Americans have sadly little familiarity with even the letter of the written Constitution, and even most educated Americans have never entertained the thought of an informal regime. Much of the country’s elite (think about the typical writer for the Atlantic, for example) suffers paroxysms of panic over Trump’s words and actions because its members conceive of the informal regime under which they’ve lived their whole lives — and under which people like themselves flourish — as being the only natural outcome of the written Constitution.

RELATED: Trump isn’t hiding a client list — he’s too busy saving the country

Bonnie Cash/UPI/Bloomberg via Getty Images

To violate the “norms” of this regime is to violate the Constitution itself, as far as their understanding can conceive.

It’s rare that voters get to make a choice not just between candidates but between regimes. The greater and lesser George Bush, the male and female Clinton, Bob Dole, John McCain, Mitt Romney, Al Gore, John Kerry, Barack Obama, Joe Biden, and Kamala Harris all represented the same regime and norms. Trump differs from them all not only in policy but in the relationships he represents between the people, elected power, and institutional elites (both inside and outside government).

They delegitimized themselves

Trump at last gave the American people a choice of regimes, with one regime — represented by his enemies, not just in the general election but in the Republican Party, too — operating on aristocratic presumptions and the other being a reassertion of popular self-government, including its characteristic parrhesiaand even vulgarity.

Crude materialists who understand power only in terms of wealth struggle to interpret Trump, because he and many of his associates obviously belong to the same affluent class as his enemies. Yet just as Christ said the poor will always be with us, so too does every regime, formal or informal, have its rich men. The regime is not defined by the existence of a wealthy group; it’s rather about relationships and authority, and that is what Trump has changed.

This change was necessary because the old regime had already destroyed its own legitimacy. It performed poorly for millions of ordinary Americans, but beyond that, it had also grown arrogant. Its norms were not a limitation on its power or abuses but rather a gag stifling criticism from within or below.

The new regime that’s in the making will have its own defects and will need various corrections, but the test of a regime lies precisely in its ability to correct itself. The old elite had lost that ability and would hardly have had the will to exercise the capability even if it had still been there.

Trump is not a revolutionary who has overthrown a healthy order. Rather, he, like the American revolutionaries of 250 years ago, has given the people a chance to be healthy again by ridding themselves of a debilitating regime. Americans had been tricked into living under an aristocracy within the form of a democracy.

Against the phony aristocracy

Thomas Jefferson hoped that voters would freely choose natural aristocrats — leaders of wisdom, virtue, and ability. But in recent decades, the country fell under the rule of an aristocracy against nature: a self-perpetuating elite that governed through institutions immune to the ballot box. Universities, nonprofits, media outlets, the permanent bureaucracy, judges, and political operatives in both parties — each aligned ideologically, broadly liberal — formed a web of power that shut down any real challenge.

Until Trump.

He offered the people a radical choice, and they took it. They rejected the aristocracy.

If America’s ruling class had actually resembled the natural aristocrats Jefferson envisioned, the people might not have turned to Trump. But the elite they faced was an aristocracy of privilege: smug mediocrities, not public-spirited heroes or genuine geniuses. Swapping one set of insiders for another would have changed nothing. Trump gave them a worthwhile alternative.

Even conservatives like Yuval Levin — who value the role of a well-formed elite in a healthy republic — should recognize this moment. America can only return to true aristocracy, the kind America’s founders hoped for, by becoming more democratic and more populist. The people must want an elite — and they will only want one that serves them faithfully, competently, and without arrogance.

Trump’s task is clear: Restore the people’s power over the elite. Only then will the elite feel compelled to reform.

That path won’t destroy American institutions. It will save them.

Editor’s note: A version of this article was published originally at the American Mind.

Career feds act like they’re the ones running the country



It shouldn’t have to be said, but here we are: No, it is not normal for federal employees — whether career staff, political appointees, or otherwise — to defy the direction of the president of the United States.

It doesn’t matter which party is in power. It doesn’t matter if you disagree with the president on a certain policy. Short of a murderous dictatorship or truly Constitution-threatening administration (and regardless of what they say on Bluesky, this isn’t that), the powers of the executive branch are vested in a president. All federal employees work for the president and have a duty to the American people to see their will enacted through each new administration.

Those who are fearful of losing their coveted and protected government jobs are gnashing their teeth at the sight of real accountability.

You wouldn’t know it, however, watching the second Trump administration.

Amid the streamlining of the federal government, many federal employees have taken aim at Trump’s policies mandated by the American people. Some may actually be motivated by their understanding of the Constitution or their love of country. But given the years of malfeasance in the Beltway, few deserve the benefit of the doubt.

Most are federal employees looking to save their comfortable jobs and pampered skin. These employees are so entrenched that they believe they are entitled to their jobs on the taxpayers’ dime — with one recently going as far as to claim that the Trump administration shows “disrespect” to federal employees.

Entitlement runs deep

Their resistance goes beyond Trump-era deregulation. Many of these same employees continue to complain about returning to the office after COVID-era stay-at-home orders — something the private sector largely resumed years ago. They claim that going back to their federal workplace is an “arbitrary punishment.”

Worse, the corporate left-wing media is attempting to spin the lack of resources at these bloated offices on the Trump administration, as if the previous president hadn’t allowed wanton remote work.

At the center of this bureaucratic backlash is President Trump’s push to reinstate Schedule F — a policy that would reclassify certain federal employees to make them more accountable to the executive by placing them more directly under the president’s purview.

Naturally, the federal employees ringing alarm bells about this policy are the same ones who want to retain the litany of job protections not afforded to people in the private sector. Redesignating certain staff as Schedule F employees ensures that those working in the government aren’t phoning it in and collecting a paycheck for decades on end.

RELATED: When bureaucrats rule, even red states go woke

cmannphoto via iStock/Getty Images

This isn’t a new problem. Both Trump administrations have faced internal resistance from the civil service. But so did the Biden administration. Though Joe Biden didn’t see nearly as much resistance as Trump, the scenarios were just as egregious.

Arguably the most high-profile issue that spurred federal workers to buck Biden was Israel’s war against the Palestinian terrorist group Hamas after the deadly anti-Semitic attacks in Israel on October 7, 2023. Some federal employees didn’t just protest the Biden administration’s stance on Israel’s war outside the White House; they staged a walkout in support of the war-fighting Islamic terrorists who hate America. A U.S. airman even immolated himself in protest.

These instances underscore a significant problem facing the federal government: federal employees who believe themselves both above the policies of the presidents they serve and more knowledgeable than the American people who decide our leadership.

It doesn’t matter which party or president is in power — those who are fearful of losing their coveted and protected government jobs are gnashing their teeth at the sight of real accountability.

When bureaucrats act like they’re above democratic accountability, they not only weaken presidential authority, but they also jeopardize the nation’s credibility on the world stage. In doing so, they erode the trust Americans place in their government.

While it’s imperative that federal workers speak out in the face of actual constitutional danger from any administration that seeks to upend our nation, the actions undertaken by federal employees in the current and previous administrations severely run the risk of the American people viewing all federal workers as boys and girls who cry wolf.

Perhaps some of these individual revolts are emotional reactions to perceived injustices or policy blunders. It’s tempting to see a pattern in their occurrences and the media lionization of the malcontents. But wisdom says never to attribute to malice what you can to incompetence.