Personnel is policy

This was the message Pete Hegseth, head of the newly branded Department of War, delivered to the highest-ranking personnel of the United States Armed Forces, many of whom had to leave their posts abroad, and whom he had gathered at a military base in Virginia. Hegseth did not need to explain who would make the decisions on the personnel who would make policies. But US President Donald Trump reinforced his invitation to officers who disagreed with the principle to walk out, resign their commission, and, of course, lose their career and benefits.

The military setting and context for the policy directive raised alarm bells. American ideology and history stressed both the subordination of the military to civilian authority and the duty to respect the chain of command. Trump critics feared the use of ”personnel is policy” (PIP) to undermine the character of the military as a professional, non-partisan institution. It was not an idle threat; they saw the policy already exemplified in Hegseth’s own selection by Trump as secretary of what was formerly the Department of National Defense, despite bipartisan opposition to Hegseth as the most unqualified appointment ever proposed for the agency.

The Atlantic’s Tom Nichols spelled out the danger to officers at all levels of the chain of command. How do they respond to direct orders that were arguably illegal? “Even if one officer declines an illegal order, Trump can just keep firing people until he gets to another officer who is enough of a coward, or opportunist, or a true “Make America Great Again” believer, to carry out the order.” With military deployment to American cities, also historically anathema to the American public, the danger became clear and present.

Illegal orders enforced by an armed agency can cause immediate, deadly harm to the public. But they also placed security forces in danger, whether they chose to obey or ignore these orders. Police personnel ordered to carry out former President Rodrigo Duterte’s war on drugs faced this situation. The ”war” needed able and willing personnel. But even the unable and unwilling were at risk.

Legal and ethical obligations covering compliance with illegal orders also bind agencies that do not normally employ violence. The accountability of their personnel remains the same. The appointing and decision-making authorities certainly bear the heavier guilt. But subordinates can no longer plead that they were “only following orders.” Duterte recognized this point, though often denying that he had ever issued illegal orders.

Our own national issues have recently underlined the relevance of the PIP principle. These have involved decisions on appointments: to the Independent Commission on Infrastructure, the Ombudsman’s office, the Department of Justice, and the Senate Blue Ribbon Committee. In the business sector, the PIP principle applies across all appointments without much controversy. PIP can be effectively used when guided by appropriate guardrails: 1) established metrics on the essential qualifications for the position; 2) defined limits on the discretion allowed to the appointing power and the appointed executives; and 3) transparent decision-making processes that permit stakeholders to hold management accountable.

In the political arena, the guardrails are suspect, even in formally democratic governments. Elected illiberal leaders have proven adept at manipulating their operating systems to enhance their dominance and control. Their use of appointment powers provides a cautionary warning.

Separation of powers, a federal structure, a strong civil service bureaucracy, robust private sector institutions, and a tradition of civic engagement give Americans stronger protection against the creeping authoritarianism seen in younger democracies. But even within the US, concern has risen about its own vulnerability to the tools used in other countries: the reinterpretation of history; the use of social media; the manipulation of budgetary processes; and the weaponizing of laws against dissenting voices in the media, academic, and professional institutions.

We have constitutional safeguards (including separation of powers), complex bureaucratic processes, multiple laws, oversight agencies, and a supposedly free media—all aimed at curbing the corruption that undermines our democracy. All have proven ineffective. Is it possible that the power to implement these systems and policies has been entrusted to the wrong people? If personnel is policy, we, the citizens, need to keep asking: How are the personnel being selected and on what basis? And who is making the selection?

We, the voters, must also ask ourselves: Who have we been electing? Finding and empowering competent and honest people is not enough. But systems are useless without them.