Trump vs. Burrowing Bureaucrats

How Democrats Are Embedding Loyalists to Undermine Trump

The specter of political appointees transitioning into permanent civil service roles—a process known as "burrowing"—is once again haunting Washington, D.C. Reports suggest that President Biden has already moved more than a thousand political appointees into civil service positions, with some estimates indicating that he could move upwards of 3,000 by the end of his term—far surpassing President Obama's record of 2,500 such transfers. As one insider noted, 'This is about cementing policy influence for decades to come.' This stealthy reshuffling is not merely a bureaucratic quirk; it is a potent political strategy designed to embed partisan loyalists deep within the machinery of government, shielding them from the whims of future administrations. As Republicans prepare for 2025, the lessons of 2016 loom large. Burrowing, once seen as an innocuous administrative maneuver, has been wielded by Democrats as a weapon to undermine conservative agendas, and they are poised to use it again.

The 2016 Blueprint: How Burrowing Sabotaged Trump

In the waning days of the Obama administration, a concerted effort was made to entrench political appointees in civil service roles across major government agencies. These carefully selected operatives, embedded within departments like State, Justice, and Homeland Security, were more than bureaucratic placeholders; they were soldiers in the ideological struggle to resist the incoming Trump administration. For instance, officials within the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) notoriously slow-rolled efforts to revise climate policies, deliberately delaying meetings, burying reports, and circumventing directives to maintain Obama-era environmental regulations. When President Trump assumed office in 2017, these entrenched officials used every available tactic to obstruct, delay, or outright sabotage his agenda. Burrowing allowed the Obama political class to outlast its electoral defeat, transforming policy disagreements into bureaucratic trench warfare.

These embedded bureaucrats became the source of endless leaks to the media, administrative slow-rolling, and regulatory bottlenecks that hampered Trump's attempts to enact his policy vision. Every major move—from immigration reforms to deregulation—faced not only an overt political battle but a covert bureaucratic one. The Democratic establishment understood that while political appointees can be replaced at will, career civil servants are shielded by a labyrinth of federal protections, effectively making them irremovable. Thus, they weaponized the machinery of government to function as a shadow opposition.

The Legality of Burrowing

Burrowing is not explicitly illegal, but it operates in a gray area that tests the boundaries of federal employment rules and ethics. Typically, the process requires approval from the Office of Personnel Management (OPM) and sometimes additional scrutiny from the Office of Special Counsel, particularly for Senior Executive Service (SES) positions. However, these processes are often rubber-stamped, especially when the outgoing administration exerts significant pressure to solidify the placement of loyalists.

This maneuver has faced criticism for undermining the merit-based nature of the civil service system. By moving political operatives into ostensibly non-partisan roles, burrowing erodes the impartiality that is supposed to define the civil service. It turns career bureaucrats into de facto political agents, beholden not to the ideals of neutrality but to the ideological agenda of the party that installed them. The Biden regime's current push to break Obama's record reveals just how crucial Democrats consider these quiet entrenchments in their broader battle for control over the executive branch.

Can Trump Reverse It? Legal and Administrative Challenges

President Trump, during his first term, recognized the threat posed by these deeply embedded partisans and signed Executive Order 13957, which created a new category of federal employee: Schedule F. This move faced immediate and intense resistance from federal agencies and unions, such as the American Federation of Government Employees (AFGE), which argued that it threatened the nonpartisan nature of the civil service. Agencies like the Department of Health and Human Services and the Department of Justice publicly criticized the move, with some officials refusing to cooperate in its implementation. This category was intended to cover positions of a "confidential, policy-determining, policy-making, or policy-advocating character" within the civil service, effectively making it easier to fire bureaucrats who were undermining the administration’s goals. While bold in conception, the execution of this strategy floundered. The federal bureaucracy, supported by labor unions and the courts, mounted significant resistance, and the incoming Biden regime swiftly revoked the order.

The failure of Executive Order 13957 to gain traction underscores the complexities of reining in the entrenched federal workforce. In practice, the sweeping nature of Schedule F threatened not just partisan actors but potentially non-partisan experts, leading to widespread pushback. The courts were skeptical, and implementation stalled amid procedural challenges and political blowback.

A Different Approach for 2025?

If Trump returns to power, his approach to handling burrowed bureaucrats will need to be more refined. Rather than attempting a sweeping overhaul of civil service protections, a more targeted approach could be key. By strategically appointing aggressive reformers to lead OPM and the Office of Management and Budget (OMB), Trump could more effectively scrutinize burrowing cases and leverage existing performance review mechanisms to root out obstructive officials. Names already circulating as potential OPM leaders include allies who have publicly emphasized reforming the federal workforce to ensure accountability.

Additionally, legislative support will be crucial. A Republican-controlled Congress could push for reforms that tighten the rules around converting political appointees into career roles, adding layers of oversight that would make burrowing more difficult. Such legislation would need to focus on transparency, requiring public disclosures of all conversions from political to civil service roles and mandating that OPM report to Congress on these moves.

Trump could also enhance whistleblower protections for those within the federal bureaucracy who are willing to expose partisan activity. By creating an environment that encourages internal accountability, Trump could counterbalance the influence of burrowed officials without relying solely on Schedule F-type mass reclassifications.

Conclusion

Burrowing is a sophisticated tool in the political arsenal, allowing outgoing administrations to secure a long-term foothold within the federal government. The Biden regime’s current effort to embed over 2,500 loyalists into the civil service reveals an awareness of its efficacy, particularly in stymying conservative policy initiatives. For Trump, the lesson from his first administration is clear: sweeping reforms are easily reversed, but targeted, strategic dismantling of bureaucratic strongholds could provide a more durable solution. The battle for the soul of the executive branch is not just fought at the ballot box but within the invisible trenches of the federal bureaucracy, and burrowing remains one of the most potent tools in this ongoing war.

If you don't already, please follow me on 𝕏 at https://x.com/amuse