What Plan?

Trump's Recent Executive Actions

To achieve great things, two things are needed; a plan, and not quite enough time.” – Leonard Bernstein

Failing to plan is planning to fail. As I once taught new officers the military decision- making process and as I now teach university students, action starts with a concept, continues to a plan, leads to execution, and then assesses the process to inform future plans. For all of the vaunted “planning” of Project 2025, most of what the President has done so far does not seem to represent actual plans. This failing to plan undermines goals that we might actually share, in terms of simplifying the federal government, reforming the civil service, and tying trade agreements to shared interests.

Every federal agency has legislators that love it and believe it absolutely must be independent. As a result, Congress has mandated establishment of no fewer than 438 federal agencies and sub-agencies. Some consolidation would probably streamline management and help prevent agencies from working at cross purposes. Does that mean that FEMA’s functions should managed directly by the Department of Homeland Security or USAID’s functions should be managed by the Department of State? Reasonable minds may differ, but Congress has mandated USAID’s independence, and the President has no authority unilaterally to defund it and fire almost all of its employees. By failing to engage Congress constructively on this issue, the President’s actions have been blocked by the courts over the short term and he’s likely to engender more resistance from irritated lawmakers over the long term. He will also drive off the very employees he should want most to keep - those with marketable skills. The result will not be a leaner, more efficient government, but rather a slower, more chaotic one, run by inexperienced employees less familiar with systems and guidelines.

The Trump Administration’s goal of making a more efficient, flexible, and loyal workforce that embraces high performance standards is a good one, assuming “loyalty” refers to the law and Constitution. Elon Musk’s goal of automating more tasks performed by federal employees is also a good one - my experience is that the government underutilizes information technology. However, by suddenly promulgating a buyout offer that was an obvious violation of the Anti-Deficiency Act and was not coordinated with the actual agencies that actually employ federal workers, the so-called Department of Government Efficiency deprived workers of the information they needed to evaluate the offer. This led to poor uptake on the offer and it being temporarily stopped by the federal courts. “Moving fast and breaking things” may sometimes work for IT startups, but it’s an exceedingly poor way to run a government that people (and corporations) rely on to provide them with essential services. This approach will result in those best qualified to implement Trump’s vision going elsewhere, likely leaving the administration with the very employees he seeks to replace - those who are less efficient.

Can anyone tell me what the President’s goals are for tariffs with Mexico and Canada? The concept of providing the mutual benefits of freer trade with allies who share our values is a good one. Few people dispute that our trade relationship with China has unintentionally empowered an increasing despotic government there. However, the announced tariffs with Mexico and Canada lacked any stated goal, other than a vague reference to “immigration.” If we’re going to resort to politics by threat, at least the threat should be clear. In exchange for delaying the tariffs for 30 days, the Administration only received concessions that had already been agreed to by our neighbors. What’s the ask? US troops on Mexico’s southern border? Better policing of asylum-seekers by Canada? No one seems to know. For much of the Trump agenda, we at least have a goal, if not a plan. In our trade wars, we have no idea what “winning” means.

This deeply dysfunctional approach to governance reminds of the best advice I ever got in politics, from retired UO VP Dan Williams, “Know why something is the way it is before you try to change it.” With so little planning evident, it’s reasonable to speculate that the goal is not a smaller, more efficient federal government, but rather a dysfunctional one. None of us voted for that.

On Language

What does DEI actually mean? Our disagreement over the importance of “DEI initiatives” shows how little we agree on what “DEI” actually means. Most Americans disapprove of racial preferences in hiring and other government activities. In fact, overt racial preferences are relatively rare, as they have always required a very stringent justification. Conversely, most Americans strongly support programs benefiting disabled veterans. Is the disabled veteran hiring preference “DEI” or not? I hate it when a conversation strays into discussing DEI without first agreeing on a common definition of what it means.

What does “immigration” mean? When I teach students at UO, I often tell them to start with the numbers - how many people are included and how much money is involved? The US sees fewer than 500,000 applications for asylum every year. That’s a big number, but it’s a small fraction of the more than 10 million tourist visas issued every year. Are we talking about the 50,000 or so employment-related visas issued annually? Maybe the 250,000 or so immediate family visas? The 200,000 extended family visas? Again, how can we have a rational conversation about it when we don’t even agree on what we mean by the term “immigration"?

Keep Letters from a Recovering Politician Free

As always, the best thing you can do to support this column is to share it with people who might be interested. I do not have a paid plan because I want folks to be able to access it without worrying about money. If you’d like to leave me a tip to show your appreciation, you can click on the “Buy Me a Coffee” button below.

OK -

On Language

What does DEI mean to you?

What do you mean when you say “immigration”?