The 8,000 People You Never Voted For Who Actually Run the Government
While Americans debate which party controls the White House and Congress, a largely invisible class of roughly 8,000 federal executives wields the real power in Washington — and no election can touch them. The Senior Executive Service, created in 1978 as a supposed reform to improve government efficiency, has evolved into something the Founders never envisioned: a permanent ruling class that serves across administrations, shapes policy implementation, and operates with near-total immunity from political accountability.
These aren't low-level bureaucrats shuffling paperwork. SES officials occupy the top tier of federal agencies, serving as deputy administrators, regional directors, policy chiefs, and program managers who translate political directives into operational reality. They control budgets worth hundreds of billions of dollars, oversee hundreds of thousands of employees, and make decisions that affect every aspect of American life — from environmental regulations that close factories to immigration enforcement policies that determine who enters the country.
Yet unlike cabinet secretaries or agency heads who face Senate confirmation, SES officials are hired through internal processes, protected by civil service rules that make removal nearly impossible, and operate with a level of job security that would make tenure-track professors envious. The result is a shadow government that operates according to its own institutional priorities, regardless of what voters decide every four years.
How the SES Became Untouchable
The Senior Executive Service emerged from the Civil Service Reform Act of 1978, sold to Congress as a way to create a more flexible, performance-based management system for senior federal employees. President Carter and reform advocates argued that government needed an executive corps similar to what exists in major corporations — professionals who could move between agencies, take on challenging assignments, and be rewarded for exceptional performance.
Photo: President Carter, via images-wixmp-ed30a86b8c4ca887773594c2.wixmp.com
The original design included provisions for performance-based pay, easier transfers between agencies, and even removal procedures for poor performers. In theory, SES officials would enjoy more flexibility and opportunity in exchange for greater accountability and performance standards.
In practice, the accountability mechanisms were systematically weakened while the protections grew stronger. Performance evaluations became pro forma exercises with over 99% of SES officials receiving satisfactory ratings. Removal procedures were buried under layers of administrative review that could stretch for years. Union protections, administrative law judge proceedings, and appeals processes created a legal labyrinth that made firing incompetent or insubordinate executives nearly impossible.
Meanwhile, compensation and benefits steadily improved. SES officials now earn between $132,552 and $212,100 annually, with locality pay adjustments that can push salaries significantly higher. They receive the same retirement benefits as other federal employees, plus performance bonuses that average $10,000-$25,000 per year. Most importantly, they enjoy job security that exists nowhere in the private sector.
The Trump Administration's Collision with the Administrative State
The true power of the SES became visible during the Trump administration, when career executives openly resisted presidential directives they disagreed with. The "resistance" wasn't just a hashtag movement among junior staffers — it was an organized effort by senior executives to slow-walk, sabotage, or simply ignore orders from the elected government.
Deployment orders for immigration enforcement were delayed or modified by career officials who disagreed with the policy. Environmental deregulation efforts were buried in bureaucratic procedures that stretched simple rule changes into multi-year processes. Defense Department officials slow-walked troop withdrawal orders from Syria and Afghanistan. State Department executives continued implementing policies that contradicted presidential directives.
Photo: State Department, via www.maritimegateway.com
The most telling example came from the anonymous "senior official" who wrote an op-ed in the New York Times describing "a quiet resistance" within the administration working to "thwart parts of his agenda." This wasn't a whistleblower exposing corruption — it was a career executive bragging about subverting the elected government's policy agenda.
When President Trump attempted to address this problem through Schedule F — a new employment category that would have made senior policy-making positions at-will employees — the administrative state fought back with everything it had. Legal challenges, congressional pressure, and media campaigns painted the reform as an attack on "nonpartisan expertise." The Biden administration immediately rescinded Schedule F upon taking office, restoring the SES to its protected status.
Photo: President Trump, via www.usatoday.com
The Institutional Incentives That Corrupt Governance
The current SES structure creates perverse incentives that prioritize institutional preservation over effective governance. Career executives know they'll outlast any political appointee, so their incentive is to avoid risks, expand their domains, and maintain relationships with congressional staff, interest groups, and media contacts who can protect them from political pressure.
This dynamic explains why federal agencies consistently resist efforts to reduce their scope or eliminate ineffective programs. Environmental Protection Agency executives have no incentive to streamline regulations that might reduce their staff or budget. Education Department officials will never recommend eliminating programs that justify their existence. Defense Department civilians actively resist base closures or weapons program cancellations that might affect their career prospects.
The result is a government that grows inexorably, regardless of election outcomes. Federal employment has increased under both Republican and Democratic presidents. Regulatory compliance costs rise year after year. Program spending expands even when programs demonstrably fail to achieve their stated objectives.
SES officials aren't necessarily malicious — they're responding rationally to institutional incentives that reward empire-building and punish accountability. When job security depends on demonstrating that your agency is essential and under-resourced, every problem becomes a reason for expanded authority and bigger budgets.
The Constitutional Crisis Nobody Talks About
The fundamental constitutional problem with the SES is that it creates a governing class accountable to no one voters can remove. Article II vests executive power in the President, not in a permanent bureaucracy that serves its own institutional interests. When career executives can effectively veto presidential directives through administrative resistance, the constitutional principle of democratic accountability breaks down.
This isn't about partisan politics — it's about the basic structure of representative government. Whether you support Trump's immigration policies or Biden's environmental agenda, the principle remains the same: policy should be implemented by people accountable to elected officials, not by career bureaucrats pursuing their own priorities.
The Founders understood that concentrated, unaccountable power inevitably becomes corrupt power. They designed a system of checks and balances specifically to prevent any institution from becoming too insulated from democratic oversight. The modern SES represents exactly the kind of permanent governing class they sought to prevent.
International Comparisons Prove Reform Is Possible
Other democratic countries have successfully balanced professional expertise with democratic accountability in their civil services. The United Kingdom allows incoming governments to replace permanent secretaries — the equivalent of SES officials — who don't align with new policy directions. Canada permits more extensive political appointments at senior levels while maintaining professional civil service ranks below.
Australia's system includes "at pleasure" appointments for senior executives who serve at the discretion of elected officials, combined with merit-based career tracks for professional civil servants. These countries maintain effective governance while ensuring that senior administrators serve elected governments rather than institutional inertia.
The United States could adopt similar reforms without destroying professional expertise or returning to a pure spoils system. The goal isn't to politicize every government position — it's to ensure that senior policy-making roles remain accountable to democratic oversight.
The Path to Democratic Accountability
Reforming the SES requires both immediate executive action and longer-term legislative changes. A future president should immediately reinstitute Schedule F or a similar classification that makes senior policy positions at-will employment. Congress should pass legislation explicitly defining which positions require Senate confirmation and which can be filled through political appointment.
More fundamentally, Americans need to recognize that "nonpartisan expertise" often serves as a euphemism for unaccountable power. Professional competence and democratic accountability aren't mutually exclusive — they're both essential for effective governance. When career executives can ignore or subvert the directives of elected officials, expertise becomes a weapon against democracy rather than a tool for better governance.
The deep state isn't a conspiracy theory — it's an organizational chart. Until Americans demand that their government actually answers to them rather than to its own institutional interests, representative democracy will remain a polite fiction while real power rests with people no voter ever chose.
