Trump’s 5-D Chess: How Mass Firings Are Freezing the Deep State

Spread the love

Loading

by Jeff Childers

President Trump’s federal workforce policy is beginning to look, even to his enemies, like 5-D chess. I’ll explain it in two stories. First, yesterday Newsweek ran a defiant story under the headline, “Former USDA inspector general defies Trump order, escorted from her office.” As you probably recall, President Trump fired 17 of 74 Inspectors General (IGs). The 17 former highly-paid inspectors, who are now disgruntled ex-employees, got together over soy latte and explored their options. Sue? File a grievance? Call the Union? The ex-IGs, well acquainted with technical legal arguments, dithered over the validity of their own termination notices and wondered whether Trump had “legally fired” them. Of the 17, only former USDA Inspector General Phyllis Fong (fake name alert) has decided to hashtag-Resist. FAFO, Phyllis.

image 3.png

 
Ms. Fong’s War was not quite the heroic standoff that media has painted. It seems more like she just waited for security to come get her from her office. Nevertheless, a handful of corporate media articles about Fong’s departure tried to paint the 22-year bureaucrat as “apolitical” and super-effective since she once requested a listeria investigation or something.

I don’t know Ms. Fong. But I’ll go out on a limb here. If the President fires you and then you refuse to leave the office, forcing a security showdown, that sort of proves the point of why you were fired in the first place. Inspectors General are classified as Executive Level III or IV, with an annual salary of around $200,000, plus generous benefits.

Because they criticize other officials, Inspectors General are expected to be among the most professional and ethical employees in the federal government.

If Ms. Fong thought her dismissal was wrong, she could have professionally challenged it in several legal and procedural ways. There was no reason to stage an embarrassing spectacle. The way media tells it, Phyllis was a brave Resister. But when security arrived, Phyllis folded like a cheap pair of LuluLemon knock offs. She just walked out. She didn’t chain herself to her desk. She didn’t make them arrest her. Phyllis clearly isn’t martyr material.

Consider this: What made you think most partisan federal workers were any braver than Phyllis Fong? Was it media narratives?

In other words, the radical “Resistance” the plagued Trump’s first term was always a 2-dimensional branding exercise, a cheap cardboard cutout. It was never an actual movement. Bacteria-like, the Resistance only thrived in a temperature-controlled culture of anonymity where defiance was cost-free—where brave bureaucrats could slow-roll policies, leak fake news to the press, and quietly sabotage the Trump 1.0 Administration while still cashing their taxpayer-funded paychecks with ironclad job security.

As we will see, those assumptions are now in doubt. But in 2017, the stakes were low and there were no real risks, not with any real consequences. So partisan federal workers boldly cast themselves as brave warriors for democracy wielding jiu-jitsu-like weapons of bureaucracy.

But Trump 2.0 flipped the script. Now there are real consequences. People are getting fired. There’s real accountability—Trump’s Team seems to know who they are. This time, there’s no guarantee the Resisters can ride out another four years unscathed. The big blue wall is cracking. Now that they’re forced to stand on their principles and take tangible risks, it looks more like a cowardly, disorganized retreat than steely-eyed defiance.

Fong is a Lego figurine version of The Resistance. It’s not real. It has always been mirage constructed out of convenient narrative. “The Resistance” is like those inflatable fake tanks that confuse the enemy. Sure, Fong dragged her feet, made a little scene, emoted to reporters, and fed the narrative—but Fong wasn’t really willing to fight. Let somebody else do it.

The Resistance narrative is a media myth. There was never a true rebellion; it was always just a childish, passive-aggressive, bureaucratic temper tantrum wearing a cheap Halloween superhero mask and cape.

Now let’s look at that second article.

The President’s enemies are beginning to awaken to the formidible possibility that Trump knows exactly what he is doing and is setting traps for them to fall into. The New York Times covered the story yesterday under the headline, “Trump’s Firings Could Bring Court Cases That Expand His Power.” (The article even mentioned our beloved Ms. Fong.)

Over the past several days, the President has “abruptly fired dozens of officials,” if not hundreds of them. The Times, at least, is beginning to detect a figure of rationality emerging from the fog of administrative war. It claims to have uncovered a pattern among Trump’s firings of powerful federal actors who thought they were safe. These included the 17 aforementioned Inspector Generals (including high-heeled rebel Fong), plus cemented-in officials from agencies like the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB), the Privacy and Civil Liberties Oversight Board, and the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC).

Note that all four categories include officials appointed by the President and confirmed by the Senate.

Astonishingly, Trump’s mass firings of top-level commissioners from the NLRB, the Privacy Board, and the EEOC, were thought to be illegal and impossible. But even more historic and astonishing, Trump has fired so many it leaves those agencies without quora. They are dead in the water. These now-paralyzed agencies literally cannot undermine Trump’s agenda, even if they wanted to, for the practical reason that there simply aren’t enough commissioners left to vote on anything. They’re frozen.

Strikingly, none of the “abruptly fired” officials have yet sued the federal government—even though Trump is trampling on all sorts of precedents, customs, and statutes. Ms. Fong merely staged a bizarre mini-protest rather than assert her legal rights. All this legal restraint is especially strange considering that in at least one agency, the NLRB, federal law expressly limits the President’s ability to fire commissioners except in very limited circumstances.

The Times and the fired officials smelled a Trump trap.

“The prospect of getting dragged into court,” an alarmed Times observed, “may be exactly what Mr. Trump’s lawyers are hoping for.” What terrified and dismayed the far-left Times and its progressive allies was the ghastly prospect that “any rulings in the president’s favor would establish precedents that would expand presidential power to control the federal government.”

In other words: Trump is hoping that they’ll sue him.

The New York Times began connecting the dots starting with a Reagan-era constitutional interpretation of broad Executive Branch power. The Reaganites believed “that presidents must be able to fire any executive branch official at will.”

“In recent years,” the Times realized with growing horror, “the Supreme Court’s majority — led by Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr., who worked in the White House Counsel’s Office under the Reagan administration — has pushed that idea” of broad executive powers in employment.

Reagan called his constitutional interpretation “unitary executive theory.” It is an uncomplicated view of constitutional separation of powers, holding that the president must exclusively control his own executive branch. Any laws passed by Congress (under Article II) purporting to make Article I executive branch officials independent from the president’s sole control must therefore be unconstitutional.

Hahaha! The mass firings are genius! Trump has got progressives doubting their own theory of permanent federal employment. The President has tied these people into pretzel-like political knots. They literally don’t know what to do.

The Times’ reporter spoke to the 17 Inspectors General —Ms. Fong’s cohort— and asked them when are you going to sue the Orange Man? The depressing answer was: we’re not sure. They worry they might be playing right into Trump’s hands:

image 8.png

 
Haha! Can you see it now? The sheer brilliance of Trump’s plan? If they do sue him, then Trump is likely to grow even more powerful. Their only other option to just take it.

Back in April 2021, I won my first and biggest mask case at Florida’s First District Court of Appeal. The three-judge panel agreed that mandatory mask ordinances were presumptively unconstitutional. Normally, in response the County and its squidlike mask allies would have appealed that decision up to Florida’s Supreme Court. But they didn’t. They took the “L,” even though my victory deleted mask mandates in 33 of Florida’s 67 counties, and created a significant legal precedent.

Why did they just take the “L”? It was because, if they also lost at Florida’s Supreme Court, it would have outlawed mandatory masking in all 67 Florida counties. They didn’t want to risk it. Better to live with losing 33 masking counties rather than risk the whole Sunshine State.

As far as the Times can tell, all these far-left, fired appointees —many, like Ms. Fong, even appointed by Republican presidents, but still— they all seem to be leaning toward taking the “L” too. None so far have filed a single lawsuit. It turns out that, despite the Democrats’ howls of protest, the legal limits on presidential hiring and firing might not be quite so constitutional after all, and they know it:

image 9.png

 
How about that? Now the Times tells us there are serious questions over whether Congress can limit a president’s power to fire his own employees.

Hamlet once asked, to sue or not to sue, that is the question. (It was in an earlier draft of the play.) That is the question confounding the Democrats right now. They just don’t seem to have any ideas. In fact, many of the article’s comments were white-hot with fury since the Times only presented the problem, not any solution.

Astonishingly, none of the Times’ “legal experts” quoted in the article offered any possible strategy to counter the President’s maneuver. Not one. That’s partly why I called Trump’s plan “brilliant,” since there are no clear countermoves. It’s also why I called the Resisters cowards, because, at least so far, they’ve refused the risks of lawfare, too chicken to stand up for their principles in a fair fight.

The Deep State’s usual tactics—delay and sabotage—aren’t effective against this mass-firing strategy. Bureaucratic slow-walking and procedural hurdles are great for stalling policies, but they don’t work, can’t work, when an agency’s entire leadership has been physically removed by security. Bye, Felicia.

If Congress wants these crippled agencies, like the EEOC, to resume function, they will have to wait for Trump to nominate replacement commissioners and then the Senate must consent. But Trump won’t do that until his Cabinet nominations are heard first. So, the firings also pressure the Senate to confirm quicker.

Finally, take a moment to consider how much work was invested in carefully charting all these myriad agencies and, one by one, figuring out which bureaucrats to yank. They had it all ready to go on day one. That precise kind of detail and planning is what the Democrats now face. So it is unsurprising they remain in response mode, where they’ll stay until they can figure out what the heck is going on.

Sue? Or don’t sue? Is it a trap?

Everything we’ve seen suggests Trump has a deep bench of legal and administrative expertise—people who understand the intricate mechanics of the federal bureaucracy and know how to dismantle the procedural obstacles without sparking immediate legal defeats. And even better, they’re teeing up bigger legal victories.

Democrats and the media are still scrambling because they never expected Trump 2.0 to include this level of precision and premeditation. I hate to keep saying it, but we’re seeing something that’s never happened before. Against all odds, Trump is really doing it.

He’s taking the government back for the people.

Read more

4.9 51 votes
Article Rating
Subscribe
Notify of

22 Comments
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments

There’s squeaking on line by work-from-home fed gov’t employees about “quiet quitting.”
They intend to return to the workplace but get as little done as possible without getting fired for cause.
Trump’s new bosses over them will counter by making sure they keep up with new daily/hourly quotas.
Trump has already told Border Patrol that he is aiming to deport 1,800 criminal illegals per day.
That was double what they had been doing up until the day he set up this quota.

Eventually, Trump is going to come face to face with this pissy little employee’s union that voted for working from home. Hopefully, it can be crushed.

It can be crushed. Originally it was authorized by EO. JFK if I am not mistaken. So, authorization can be rescinded by EO. Then let the fireworks begin.

This is a typical pattern for companies that need a turnaround. Hire a new hard nosed abrasive CEO who makes those resistant to change mad enough to quit. Then when the dead wood is gone, the hard nosed CEO resigns and a new kinder CEO is hired to smooth things over for those who remain.

I do hope somebody sues over the firings so that we can establish once and for all that Congress cannot shackle the Executive branch by making some Executive branch employees un-fireable. Congress says these employees are “independent” but they are really just unaccountable.

I wonder how many more deep state enclaves Trump and his team have figured out that should have been attacked long ago but whomever was just afraid confront it, but they cannot be defended? This term could be bigger than anyone ever imagined, far more than simply interrupting, for the time being, the left marching this country towards a fascist socialist totalitarian police state.

Excellent reasoning.
However, the icing on the cake was, “Hamlet once asked, to sue or not to sue, that is the question. (It was in an earlier draft of the play.)”


The Earl of Oxford was a lawyer, so that interpretation makes sense.

Remember Project 2025? It lays out the bureaucratic structure. The rest is history.

Very interesting and germaine analysis – thank you. On a related note is Judge Loren AliKhan about to stomp on the burning paper bag full of dog poop on her doorstep? Interesting times.

Pull the Plug on Agenda 2030 and stop this plan by the UN/Globalists

You make your excellent content hard to read for us old farts by making the text low-contrast gray.

This is most interesting. God bless you.

Ctrl+A. Highlights it in white-on-black.

I too will complain about the text. It is very difficult for an older person like myself to read. You my consider it to be aesthetically pleasing, but it is a real strain for older eyes.

Wow. Great post. Thanks.

Out with Big Brother in with Freedom

Personally, I don’t think enough federal employees will be fired. Trump will NEVER truly kill the Deep State unless he gets the vast majority of these clowns. Unless he REALLY decimates the ranks of the FBI and DOJ, there’s no shot at all.

I don’t understand the paragraph, “Reagan called his constitutional interpretation “unitary executive theory.” It is an uncomplicated view of constitutional separation of powers, holding that the president must exclusively control his own executive branch. Any laws passed by Congress (under Article II) purporting to make Article I executive branch officials independent from the president’s sole control must therefore be unconstitutional.” as Article I of the Constitution is about the legislative branch.

Yes, Article I governs the legislative branch, but the key point is that if Congress uses its power (under Article I) to pass laws limiting the President’s control over executive officials, it may conflict with the President’s authority under Article II. Under the “unitary executive” theory, the President should have complete control over the executive branch—so any attempt by Congress to create truly “independent” executive-branch officials could be unconstitutional.

OK. I can see that as an argument. However, given that many (probably most) of these offices are due to legislation signed by the President, one could make a presumption that these offices are a legitimate ‘carve out’ based on mutual understanding..

That’s a fair point, but the president’s signature alone doesn’t guarantee these legislative “carve outs” are constitutional. Even if both branches agreed in principle when passing the law, courts may still strike it down if it impermissibly restricts the president’s core authority under Article II.

Agreement between the Congress and President sometimes goes in the other direction. With respect to tariffs and war powers, Congress has passed and the President has signed legislation in which Congress voluntarily gives up constitutionally enumerated power to the President.

I thought the right of the president to fire executive branch employees, up to and including cabinet members confirmed by the Senate, was resolved with the acquittal of President Andrew Johnson. He had been impeached by the Radial Republicans during Reconstruction for firing some of Lincoln appointees.

Some game plans just keep getting re-run over and over again.