On a day not too distant in the past, the White House, under the leadership of Joe Biden, took an unprecedented step. It handed over the reigns of federal grant distribution to those whose main qualification is political alignment, not expert knowledge. This meant an upheaval of the established order where neutral professionals from agencies including the National Institutes of Health and the National Science Foundation used to decide the flow of funds. The turn of events can be equated to allowing political patrons to call the shots.
Buried within the intricacies of this executive order was an increasingly prevalent term – ‘Discretionary awards must advance the President’s policy priorities, where applicable.’ A seemingly innocuous statement that has appeared in numerous instances in recent times, it hints at a power game being played out in the corridors of the White House.
Expressions echoing this sentiment can be found in various official documents. From outlining the responsibilities of the Presidential Scheduling Office to the Coast Guard explaining the duties of its secretary, there seems to be a constant emphasis on aligning with ‘the President’s priorities’. A law professor at UC San Francisco observed that this mantra has become a mainstay of the Biden administration.
The same professor noted the assertiveness with which the administration upholds the unitary executive branch’s power to steer agencies’ functions. This suggests a taste for a top-down ruling style, where all departments fall into line with the directives from the top. One could say it’s like the conductor leading an orchestra, but in this case, there seems to be little room for improvisation or debate.
There are many instances of such attempts to centralize decision-making. In February, an executive order decreed the director of the Office of Management and Budget should ensure regulatory agencies’ compliance with the President’s policies and priorities. Later, an April memorandum from the OMB’s Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs provided guidelines on implementing this directive.
Regulatory actions submitted for review must align with ‘the President’s priorities,’ meet statutory requirements, and show analytical coherence. In other words, they need a seal of approval based on how much they reflect the whims of the President. However, these so-called ‘priorities’ of the President are seldom clarified, inviting myriad interpretations and potentially jeopardizing constitutionally mandated roles.
While it’s true the term ‘the president’s priorities’ wasn’t coined by the Biden administration, it’s the frequency and context of its use that raise eyebrows. Notably, previous administrations, including Obama’s, have used the term. It’s certainly within a president’s remit to set objectives for the government sector under their purview. However, Biden seems to have gone the extra mile in stretching the implications of this phrase.
It’s a departure from the past, defining the tasks of officials across the executive branch as channeling what they perceive as the President’s priorities. What’s perplexing is how this notion is infiltrating institutions like the Coast Guard, which traditionally abides by a strategic priority-setting process.
A Harvard Law School professor has raised concerns about this unusual instruction. He points out that typically, setting priorities is not about officials guessing the President’s mood swings. It’s about carefully deliberated decisions made in the interest of the entity and the public.
With this new approach, it seems the Biden administration has tossed out all conventions. The significant shift to what some might call a heavy-handed approach raises questions about the administration’s respect for the principles enshrined in the Constitution.
It’s almost as if the administration is attempting to turn career bureaucrats into mind readers, expected to forecast and follow the President’s undulating preferences. This has introduced a level of unpredictability and instability, potentially hindering the operation of public institutions.
Furthermore, by centralizing power and focusing on ‘the President’s priorities’, the administration risks sidelining the expertise accumulated in these agencies over the years. Handing over decision-making to political appointees without regard for their professional competence could adversely affect the effectiveness of these institutions.
In a nutshell, the depiction of the Biden administration’s governance through these developments paints a picture of an administration keen on consolidating power, with an ill-conceived fondness for top-down control. Such a move, critics argue, could be detrimental to the very institutions that the presidency is meant to guide and safeguard.
The post Biden’s Power Grab: A Parade of Political Patronage? appeared first on Real News Now.
About Author
