Thomas Paine once remarked, “Government, even in its best state, is but a necessary evil; in its worst state, an intolerable one.” With the approaching 250th anniversary of the Declaration of Independence, much has clearly changed.
President Donald Trump’s move to reduce government is now portrayed as evil in its own right. Elon Musk’s move to draw down various agencies was presented as a virtual return to the state of nature.
Democratic members staged protests in front of various agencies to declare “war” and to accuse Trump of “destroying the government” by shrinking it. Rep. Kweisi Mfume (D., Md.) declared “Every time you hear DOGE, the Department of Government Efficiency, you just remember it is the department of government evil.”
Americans say Trump is keeping his promises
The coordinated efforts of Democratic leaders and the mainstream media have once again not resonated with the public. Trump, according to polls, is now at higher popularity levels than during his first term. And a strong majority of Americans say Trump is keeping his promises, including in his efforts to reduce government spending and waste.
Those efforts include a generous buyout offer for federal employees. The Trump administration offered federal workers the chance to stay home for months while receiving full pay if they would agree to resign from government employment.
It was an extremely clever move. The best way to shrink the government is to get people to leave voluntarily. But Trump and Musk also have warned that layoffs will follow if not enough federal workers accepted the buyout.
It is a type of self-deportation from government service. And it worked, with about 75,000 federal workers accepting Trump’s offer before the deal ended Wednesday.
It worked so well, in fact, that Democrats rushed to stop the voluntary exodus by falsely suggesting that it was a scam. Sen. Tim Kaine, D-Va., warned employees that Trump would “stiff you,” even though the offer comes with the authority of the federal government.
His colleague, Mark Warner (D, Va.) added ominously for workers to “Think twice. Has this individual in his business world ever fulfilled his contracts or obligations to any workers in the past?”
At the same time, unions (looking at a major reduction of force) have filed with Democratic groups to stop these employees from taking the offer. They found a favorable court with U.S. District Court Judge George O’Toole who enjoined the program. However, after citywide celebrations over the injunction, the court then lifted the injunction on the buyout program, agreeing to allow the buyouts to go forward.
Unions representing federal workers and liberal legal organizations are likely to now appeal O’Toole’s decision. The unions, which are facing a major reduction in dues-paying members, have a disturbing conflict of interest in trying to deny federal workers the benefits of an offer they chose to accept.
The legal challenges to the buyout have relied on a plethora of arguments asserting that a president cannot allow employees to stay home and receive pay pending their departure from federal employment. Those arguments cited the Antideficiency Act, which bars agencies from spending beyond the money appropriated by Congress.
President has the authority to manage the executive branch
The counterargument is that money used for the buyouts was allocated to pay employees whose service normally continues year after year. Under Article II of the Constitution, the president is given ample discretion in running the executive branch, including the work status of federal employees.
Congress clearly has a role in controlling use of the federal purse. For example, Congress can determine whether to allocate money to build certain Navy vessels. However, once the ships are built, it is the president who decides where to send them and who will serve on the crew. The commander in chief also can expand or shrink the size of the crew.
Trump was well within his authority in offering to change employees’ duties while they look for new positions, and the employees had every right to agree to eight months of paid leave in exchange for their resignation from government service.
The opposition from Democrats and labor unions is the ultimate form of paternalism. In the name of protecting employees, opponents fought to prevent workers from accepting offers they believe are best for themselves and their families.
Federal employees are entitled to protections in their employment. But they’re not entitled to permanent employment. Congress is entitled to appropriate money for specific purposes. But it is not entitled to manage the executive branch.
Trump is very willing to fight on this hill. He holds a strong constitutional position and an even stronger political position.
For those who proclaimed themselves as defenders of democracy throughout last year’s election cycle, this is what democracy looks like. Voters made clear that they want changes in the size and the focus of government.
Those voters are unlikely to be convinced by the warning of Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer, D-N.Y., that Musk is “taking away everything we have.”
That is precisely what Americans asked for in reelecting Donald Trump.
* * *
Jonathan Turley is the Shapiro professor of public interest law at George Washington University and the author of “The Indispensable Right: Free Speech in an Age of Rage.”
