Bureaucrats will regularly provide Trump officials with as little information as possible, causing them to waste valuable time looking elsewhere for the answers to their questions.
Keep in mind, the civil service is supposed to be politically neutral.
Example: During Trump's first term, bureaucrats in the EPA Office of General Counsel intentionally "failed to keep political appointees informed about significant cases."
It got so bad that appointees were forced to check PACER (public) to keep up to date on these cases (!).
Misrepresenting facts
Federal bureaucrats are not just content to withhold information – they often provide inaccurate information to Trump officials, particularly when it comes to what agencies can and cannot do.
Example: A career employee at the Department of Labor told Trump appointees that they couldn't issue Direct Final Rules (DFR).
But on the first day of the Biden administration, that *very same* career employee did just that.
Refusing ideologically disagreeable work
The civil service, again, is supposed to be politically neutral. However, many federal bureaucrats believe that it is up to them to determine whether to do work with which they take political issue – that is, Trump's agenda.
Example: In 2016, Trump's DOJ opened an investigation into racial preferences in college.
Bureaucrats moved at a "snail's pace." Only in 2020 when a political appointee took over did the case proceed. Civil servants didn't want anti-white and anti-asian discrimination to end!
Delays and slow-walking
Civil servants will regularly accept, but then delay or slow-walk work that they disagree with.
Example: Career federal employees slow-walked Trump's DOJ investigation into the Cuomo nursing home scandal, in which bad policy led to the deaths of tens of thousands of elderly people.
Unacceptable work product
Federal bureaucrats will accept work from Trump officials, only to turn in an unacceptable product, ensuring that the objective is thwarted.
Example: During Trump's first term, political appointees at the DoEd were forced to write all sensitive regulations because career lawyers at the department kept turning in unusable drafts – on purpose, of course.
Leaking
We're all familiar with this one. When internal obstruction fails, civil servants are known to leak stuff to the press, often misrepresenting the policy or work in the process.
Such leaks can be incredibly damaging and time-consuming.
Intransigence and insubordination
Sometimes federal bureaucrats will outright refuse to do work assigned to them by the Trump administration.
Example: After Trump took office in his first term, he issued a federal hiring freeze.
Later, admin officials at the HHS discovered that several HHS advisory committee employees were hired after the hiring freeze. HHS bureaucrats had crossed out the hiring dates with a pen.
Hiring ideologues into career positions
The civil service, as we have discussed, is ostensibly politically neutral. While some federal employees certainly are, many are not. Both Dem political appointees and career employees will give other ideologues civil service jobs.
Example: During Obama's first term, all but one employee hired into a section of the Civil Rights Division had previously worked for the Democratic Party or a left-wing activist organization. None were Republicans.
This partisan hiring even continued during the first Trump term.
In summary, Trump and @elonmusk are absolutely justified in their quest to downsize the federal government, which entails both reduced funding and mass firings.
Drain the swamp!
@elonmusk Credit to @A1Policy's James Sherk, who authored the report from which I took these screenshots. He's also the guy behind Schedule F. Trump recently gave him a job – good!
Launching missile strikes against hostile Shiites who are targeting American ships and disrupting global trade is hardly "war" – it is an entirely necessary and justified use of military power, but war entails a lot more than that.
"Muslims have the right to attack US ships without any retaliation because they're anti-Zionist" is not a serious foreign policy.
I have consistently supported the US scaling back its presence in the Middle East. But you can't just let hostile forces attack your military without responding. Expecting Trump (or any president) to do so is completely delusional but par for the course for this crowd.
WATCH: Angry liberal flips out and starts trying to shove me at the DC anti-@elonmusk rally after I reminded everyone that Americans voted for DOGE.
These people are totally deranged!
Deranged liberal women ATTACKED me for reminding them that Elon does in fact have the authority to audit government agencies—and that this is exactly what Americans voted for!
Gross, unhinged behavior!
Later, I saw a Jewish woman with a shirt that read “I Stand With Israel” being pushed around by protestors.
“Of course she supports Israel,” one of them said.
How many of these violent freaks are employed by the federal government?
Previously, the FAA’s CTI program worked with 36 colleges to educate future air traffic controllers. These colleges offered 2 & 4 year degrees requiring courses in air traffic control and aviation administration. It also employed a rigorous skills test.
Both the CTI program and skills test (AT-SA) appear to still exist, but as we'll see, other selection criteria have been introduced in order to promote diversity.
Incredible – Curtis Yarvin admits he was wrong about Trump, says he owes @realchrisrufo an apology (and a bottle of scotch).
@realchrisrufo Why was Yarvin wrong? According to him, he mistakenly expected Trump 47 to be a lot like Trump 45.
@realchrisrufo Yarvin believes that the "moral energy" (something he argues the USSR lost, which is why the US outlasted it) of the new executive branch exceeds that of the other branches – hard to argue that this isn't the case.