"No Kings" vs. the Democrat Deep State
They oppose Presidential power because they don't want elections to matter. That's the true purpose of the Administrative State: to nerf elections and enable unfettered rule by unelected bureaucrats.
This analysis is free, but with Premium Membership you get MORE. Join today.
NOTE: The Republican response to today’s “No Kings” protests has been that Democrats’ outrage is selective. They hate Trump having power, but when they were in power, Obama famously said he didn’t need Congress because he had a “pen and a phone”. But hypocrisy is only half the story.
As I’ve chronicled unendingly here at The Rod Martin Report and in my recent Essays on the Counterrevolution, America has suffered unconstitutional one-party rule for nearly a century. FDR created the modern administrative state — allegedly “independent” agencies with legislative, executive, and judicial power fused, unaccountable to and unfireable by the elected President. He did so knowing that the millions of bureaucrats he hired would all do his bidding, but after he was gone, they would continue to do his bidding, regardless of the outcome of any election. And part of that bidding would be hiring their own, handpicked successors.
Ever wonder why no matter who wins the White House most things never change? That’s why. There’s one President. He gets to appoint less than 5,000 people, many of whom are ambassadors and others with few policy-making powers. But together, they’re supposed to manage nearly 3 million bureaucrats they cannot fire and who don’t actually have to answer to any of them.
The Democrats say they don’t want kings. Perhaps. But they absolutely want that de facto aristocracy: allegedly impartial technocrats who rule us “for our own good,” since we “can’t trust” elected officials to be experts, or incorruptible.
Of course, the assumption in all of that is that bureaucrats ARE experts and ARE incorruptible. But they aren’t. They cannot be. And even ignoring their sin natures and their general susceptibility to corruption, they are partisans. Yet you have no say over them. And if their so-called “expertise” leads us off a cliff, you cannot — not even through winning a national election — change their course.
That’s unconstitutional. It’s anti-American. It’s one-party rule. It’s certainly not freedom. And it wouldn’t be even if all of them were always experts, and were always “neutral”. Citizens have the right to be wrong, and bureaucrats should not have the right to a final say, much less a veto, over the electorate’s choices. Should the voters not have the right to peacefully overthrow their government every two to four years?
Oddly, some Republicans are uncomfortable with Donald Trump asserting his Constitutional powers over the Executive Branch. Some fret that he’s setting precedents for future behavior by Democrats.
To which I say: Good!
First, when real change is actually possible through the outcome of an election, people take elections more seriously. Debate ensues. Turnout increases. Citizenship matters.
But even more than that, if the American people vote for a policy platform in the person of a President, they should get what they voted for. We have two houses of Congress and a judiciary to keep all that inside the lines. Article II doesn’t set up a king, but it does set up a President. He is one of three branches, which check and balance one another. But if he is constantly held in check not by Constitutional branches but by unelected employees, elections really don’t matter, and two of three branches are beyond the voters’ say.
You can have rule by technocrats — elitist masters — or rule by the people. You can’t have both.
Restoring the President’s constitutional authority over the Executive Branch is restoring the meaning of elections and the power of the people. And if Democrats get to use that power too, how is that not better than now, when they exercise greater power than that no matter who the voters choose?
What follows is Jeffrey Tucker’s brilliant essay on why personnel is the central issue of politics. Read carefully. — RDM
Personnel Is the Central Issue of Politics
by Jeffrey A. Tucker
October 18, 2025
Let’s say you are tapped to be in charge of a local hardware store that is losing money. As a seasoned industry person, you accept the job.
When you arrive, you discover a number of underperforming employees. You start dealing with the problem, but then you are informed that you have no control over anyone who works there. It does not matter how lazy, bloated, or insubordinate the staff is; there is nothing you are permitted to do about it.
Are you genuinely in charge? Not really. How can you possibly turn this store around if you are denied discretion over fundamental matters of personnel? You cannot. You are still heretofore held responsible for the sales performance of the store. If it continues to lose money, it’s your fault. If employees don’t show up, that’s your fault too. If the accountants are stealing money, it’s under your watch.
Bottom line: If you are in charge and bear responsibility for outcomes, you absolutely must have final control over personnel. You need to be able to hire your managers, who then need to hire employees and so on, throughout an organization chart that ends at the top. It’s the only way it works.
I’ve personally seen occasions in both for-profit and nonprofit institutions when something like this happens. It’s proof that the institution is beyond reform. Anyone who seriously attempts a change is eventually driven out. The result is a zombie institution. They can persist for decades as long as the money is there, but they achieve little to nothing.
There is no such thing as a leader of any institution who cannot control personnel. The private sector as a whole cannot work this way. Nothing can work this way. The new pastor chooses a new staff. The new coach selects his players and starting lineup. The CEO selects the C-suite and hires and fires. It has to be this way or nothing works — ever.
Believe it or not, whether and to what extent the U.S. president can make personnel decisions over the civil service has long been a murky area of American political life. We never even had something like a career civil service until after 1883. Even then and for decades after, no one dared say that the president could have no control over it. That presumption emerged after the establishment of FDR’s technocracy.
Since that time, there has been a strange ambiguity in the law and practice of government. The organizational chart speaks at once of “independent” agencies but then places clean lines of reporting from themselves through the executive branch straight to the U.S. president. That would imply that the president can hire to and fire from them.
But every manner of union contract and legal restriction has long discouraged or even forbidden presidents from doing this. If they come into office and start firing people, they will immediately bump into court challenges, as Trump discovered in his first term. He broke all precedent and fired the head of the FBI and elicited high dudgeon like we’ve never seen before.
Toward the end of his first term, Trump was determined to find a way to crack this nut. He happened upon a strategy of reclassification: Any government employee dealing with policy or regulatory interpretation had to be reclassified. He issued an executive order that expired, but it provided a template for the future.
Leaving office, Trump and his team had four years to think this through. They came to the conclusion that if they won again, they absolutely needed to take on the personnel problem. This time, it would have to be a mighty blow. It was not enough just to hire good heads of departments or employees for the executive office of the White House. Those employees also needed the authority to hire and fire, even to gut whole agencies. Without that power, a president can never really govern.
Yes, this system has long been described as the “spoils system.” This was the 19th-century smear term to describe the legitimate desire of the new president to have his own staff. What is the alternative? A permanent civil service that is immune from any control from within the government.
When I was first cutting my professional teeth, I lived in Alexandria, Virginia, in a housing complex with many employees of government agencies. Being young and naive, I thought they would be interested in politics. To my amazement, none of them cared in the slightest bit about the subject: not politics, not philosophy, not public policy, and not even much about the business of their own agencies.
It became apparent to me that they did not have to care. They all had permanent and very cushy and high-paid jobs that were more secure than any position in the private sector. They were lifers. They had huge pensions on the way. Their main job was to keep their heads down, pretend to work, and otherwise just exist until retirement.
This part of government I simply did not understand. Nothing in the civics text had ever explained this to me. So far as the average voter is concerned, when they send people to Washington, they expect them to be in charge of the system, the president especially.
In reality, that is not how Washington has worked for a century. There is instead a huge layer called the administrative state that stands between the voters’ representatives and policy outcomes. The people who really ran the system were not responsible to anyone at all — and hence were free to serve their own partisan interests or vulnerable to being manipulated by the industries they regulate.
And of course, for every bureaucrat who has no political interests, there are countless others who are entirely partisan, almost always in exactly one direction. In both cases, you have no say over what they do. But they have tremendous legislative, executive, and judicial power over everything you do.
This is the greater game that has been played in the living memory of everyone. The difference in the second Trump administration is that he has decided to do something about this problem. He wants his second term to matter in the history books. He wants to be the president as described in the U.S. Constitution without the presumption that millions of people working in the bureaucracy can just go about their business as if nothing has changed.
From the very first day, he set out to challenge and change the system. He issued a flurry of executive orders that directly affected the civil service, orders that went far beyond anything issued in the first term. Those hit the courts and were reversed. Half a dozen or so were sent to the Supreme Court, which has said very clearly precisely what the Constitution says: The president is in charge of the executive branch. They have said it countless times, over and over. Washington just doesn’t want to hear the message.
Now we find ourselves in the midst of the ultimate struggle. The president has fired a member of the board of governors of the Federal Reserve System. She has refused to leave, despite the president's clear statements that she has been fired. She is now litigating to keep her job.
I’m pretty sure that I know how this ends up. The Supreme Court will side with the U.S. president. Officials who have been fired will have to go. That decision will thereby set up a highly unusual situation. It will effectively abolish the civil service. The voters will be back in charge. That will be a new world unknown to any living person. That’s how high the stakes are for these current court battles.
I believe the whole future of freedom itself is on the line.
The great 19th-century liberal scholar Benjamin Constant and Lord Acton both described the difference between the ancient and the modern world as tracing to the capacity of the average person to have some say over the laws and legislation under which they live. In the ancient world, there were only a handful of free men, and everyone else lived in servitude: as merchants, serfs, slaves, foreigners, or whatever.
The modern world birthed a new system. It said that every person subject to the law as a citizen should have the right to have some influence over the shape, direction, and purpose of the regime under which they live. Everyone has a stake in the system, some influence over its direction.
The American idea — the most audacious attempt at people’s government in history — was that we would vote in representatives who would take our interests to the capital city and therein would rest our capacity to preserve freedom over the tendency toward despotism.
This is why this matter of personnel is so crucial. The president must have the ability to manage the staff of the executive branch. If he does not — and this includes his choices of Cabinet secretaries and also even the managers of the central bank — then he is not really in charge, and the voters have been disenfranchised.
I’m confident that the Supreme Court will decide correctly. One might suppose that the future of freedom would revolve around something more dramatic than the minute details of personnel management, but such is the strangeness of our times.
— This essay is published in cooperation with The Epoch Times.
Rod, another great piece by you and Russ. thank you. A few points: I think that Wilson initiated the Administrative state, FDR turbo charged it, Johnson doubled it, Obama weaponized it, and the auto pen administration executed the weaponization.
When the msm and Democrats warn that Trump is destroying democracy, what they really mean, and fear, is that he’s destroying the deep state. And more than his passion for peace, his talent for tariffs, or his crusade against crime and illegal immigrants, his disgust with the deep state is what they fear most.
And finally, I have no fear of a Democrat president executing on their agenda, not just because they already do so by using the deep state, but because the more success they have in implementing their policies, the more the voters reject them at the ballot box. Think Obamacare in 2010.
Have a great No Kings day!