Political Awareness

The Erosion of Norms in Federal Agencies

For most of the past century, federal agencies have served as the quiet backbone of American governance. They implement laws, manage national programs, conduct scientific research, enforce regulations, and provide stability during transitions of political power. Their work rarely makes headlines, yet millions of people depend on their functioning every day — from Social Security checks to food safety inspections to disaster response, transportation oversight, environmental protections, and national security operations.

But in recent years, something deeper than political disagreement has taken place: the slow erosion of institutional norms inside federal agencies. These norms — unwritten rules about professionalism, neutrality, expertise, and continuity — once held the administrative state together. They allowed agencies to remain stable even as elections changed leadership and political priorities. Today, those guardrails are weakening, leaving agencies more vulnerable to politicization, disruption, mistrust, and unpredictable swings in policy.

Understanding how these norms erode — and what it means for democracy — is essential to understanding the challenges facing the modern American state.

What Norms Used to Mean in Federal Agencies

American agencies were built on a conceptual foundation known as the “nonpartisan civil service” — a workforce guided by professional standards rather than political loyalty. Career officials were expected to:

• provide neutral expertise
• implement laws consistently across administrations
• maintain continuity during leadership changes
• keep politics separate from operational decisions
• protect the integrity of public services

While political appointees set priorities, career staff provided stability and institutional memory. This arrangement allowed agencies to work in predictable, professional ways irrespective of which party controlled the White House.

Norms were the invisible infrastructure that made this possible.

But norms are fragile. They are not enforced by law — only by culture, expectation, and shared belief in how government should function.

The First Fractures: Politicization and Leadership Turnover

One of the earliest signs of erosion appeared in the rapid turnover of agency leadership. Departments once accustomed to long-term strategic planning became increasingly subject to dramatic swings every time political power changed hands. Leadership churn increased, advisory boards were replaced, and long-standing policy frameworks were rewritten or dismantled.

This instability weakens agencies in several ways:

• projects cannot mature
• long-term planning becomes difficult
• experts leave faster than they can be replaced
• institutional knowledge dissipates
• morale declines
• oversight becomes reactive instead of strategic

When agencies struggle to retain experienced personnel, they become more vulnerable to political pressure, lobbying influence, or outside interest groups seeking to fill the expertise vacuum.

The Decline of Expertise and Institutional Memory

Federal agencies depend on subject-matter experts — scientists, economists, analysts, engineers, intelligence professionals, and regulatory specialists. When these experts leave due to frustration, uncertainty, or political pressure, agencies lose something irreplaceable: institutional memory.

Once that knowledge disappears, it cannot be rebuilt quickly.

A shrinking expert workforce also increases reliance on contractors, private consultants, and politically aligned organizations. Instead of agencies shaping policy through internal expertise, policy becomes shaped by external forces with their own agendas.

This shift has implications for everything from environmental regulation to national security.

The Politicization of Enforcement and Guidance

Federal agencies enforce thousands of rules across industries including aviation, energy, food safety, pharmaceuticals, housing, banking, and transportation. Historically, enforcement decisions were guided by professional standards, risk assessments, and scientific evidence.

But in recent years, enforcement patterns have become increasingly politicized. Political leadership sometimes directs agencies to:

• deprioritize certain violations
• pause or accelerate enforcement
• reinterpret regulations
• shift resources based on ideological preference
• issue guidance favoring specific industries or interest groups

Even when legal, these actions weaken the perception of neutrality. When the public or regulated industries begin to see agencies as political actors rather than professional arbiters, trust declines — and compliance declines with it.

Whiplash Governance: The Battle of Executive Orders

Another major driver of norm erosion is the rise of “whiplash governance,” where major policy areas are rewritten every four or eight years through executive orders rather than through stable legislation.

Climate rules, immigration policies, public health measures, net neutrality standards, financial regulations, and environmental protections have swung back and forth dramatically between administrations.

Agencies are forced to:

• halt ongoing programs
• reverse existing initiatives
• revise or rescind regulations
• retrain staff
• reallocate budgets
• rewrite guidance documents
• re-litigate previously settled issues

This is not stability.

It is governance through rapid oscillation.

Over time, constant reversals undermine public trust and impose significant operational costs on agencies that were designed to deliver consistency, not turbulence.

Declining Trust and Rising Public Scrutiny

Federal agencies were once seen as relatively impartial institutions. Today, they are increasingly pulled into political conflict. Public trust in agencies now often aligns with partisan identity rather than performance, creating a cycle of suspicion:

• one side accuses agencies of overreach
• the other side accuses them of sabotage
• internal staff morale declines
• recruitment becomes more difficult
• expertise becomes politicized
• performance suffers
• mistrust deepens

This cycle reinforces itself, creating the perception that agencies are partisan tools rather than neutral institutions.

When the public loses trust in federal agencies, even well-intentioned policies become harder to implement, and national challenges become more difficult to address.

Congressional Gridlock and the Administrative Burden

The erosion of agency norms is tightly connected to congressional dysfunction. When Congress cannot pass comprehensive legislation, agencies are left to interpret outdated laws and regulate emerging issues without clear direction.

This creates several challenges:

• courts strike down agency actions more frequently
• legal uncertainty slows implementation
• agencies become over-reliant on executive orders
• regulated industries face unstable rules
• public messaging becomes inconsistent
• long-term planning becomes nearly impossible

Agencies are forced into a role they were not designed to fill: primary policymakers rather than implementers. This structural mismatch increases both political pressure and operational fragility.

The Growing Influence of Interest Groups

As norms erode, outside influence grows. Lobbyists, trade associations, advocacy groups, and dark-money networks increasingly shape agency policy. When agencies lose internal expertise, these groups fill the gap by providing:

• draft regulations
• talking points
• policy frameworks
• research
• economic models
• legal memos

This is not inherently corrupt — but it is a sign of vulnerability.

A weakened agency becomes an arena for competing private agendas rather than a guardian of the public interest.

The Courts as Gatekeepers

Federal courts now play a larger role in shaping agency action than at any point in modern history. Doctrines like the “major questions doctrine,” stricter Chevron review, and increased judicial scrutiny of administrative actions have shifted power away from agencies and into the judiciary.

In some cases, courts act as stabilizers; in others, they act as accelerants of norm erosion. Either way, agencies face new constraints, new risks, and new uncertainties.

Why the Erosion of Norms Matters

Federal agencies are not glamorous institutions, but they are vital to the functioning of the country. Their erosion affects:

• national security
• public health
• economic stability
• disaster preparedness
• environmental protection
• transportation safety
• consumer safeguards
• civil rights enforcement
• scientific research
• regulatory fairness

When norms weaken, outcomes suffer. When expertise declines, mistakes happen.

And when neutrality disappears, public trust collapses.

And when the administrative state cannot function effectively, democracy itself becomes less stable.

Paths to Strengthening Federal Agencies

Rebuilding federal agency norms will require structural, cultural, and political changes. Potential reforms include:

• reinforcing civil service protections
• rebuilding institutional expertise
• modernizing recruitment pipelines
• reducing leadership turnover
• updating obsolete statutory frameworks
• limiting excessive reliance on executive orders
• increasing transparency in enforcement decisions
• strengthening scientific integrity policies
• investing in long-term planning

These reforms aim to restore what has been lost: the belief that federal agencies can operate with professionalism, expertise, and neutrality.

A Future Worth Rebuilding

The erosion of norms in federal agencies was not caused by a single administration, party, or moment. It was the product of decades of slow shifts — political, cultural, economic, and structural — that accumulated into a fragile reality.

But erosion is not the same as collapse.

Federal agencies still possess enormous capacity, deep reservoirs of talent, and a foundational commitment to public service. Rebuilding their norms is not about returning to the past — it is about strengthening the institutions necessary for the country’s future.

A democracy cannot function without a resilient administrative state. Restoring its norms is not optional.

It is essential.