At the peak of the COVID-19 pandemic, then-White House chief medical advisor Anthony Fauci joined state and local health authorities to hold powerful sway over Americans’ daily affairs and quality of life. Across the country, the men and women issuing virus-related guidelines and mandates were appointed by the president, city mayors, or county governments — not elected by the voters.
Unelected officials have similar sway in California, which, if an independent country, would be the world’s fifth-largest economy. The Golden State’s quality of life is greatly affected by the edicts of powerful environmental and ecological government organizations such as the California Air Resources Board and the California Coastal Commission.
While both bodies issue enforceable mandates under governmental authority, their members are selected by Gov. Gavin Newsom (D-CA). With the Democratic-dominated state legislature in Sacramento unlikely to go from blue to red anytime soon, if voters want to change anything CARB or the California Coastal Commission commands, their only unreliable option resides in California state courts, which also lean progressive.
Most prominently these days, not a single American voter poked a ballot chad for Elon Musk to be chief executive of the United States — and not just because the megabillionaire was born in South Africa. Musk, the world’s richest man, is now aggressively issuing orders in his post atop the President Donald Trump-anointed Department of Government Efficiency.
The role gives Musk almost presidential powers at the federal level when it comes to slashing government spending, which has led to job losses among former federal workers numbering in the tens of thousands and climbing. While Trump made it clear Musk would take on a major role in his administration, the public again has no recourse if it deems Musk’s decisions too drastic. He is not an elected official, and even his boss can’t run for reelection.
In all of these cases, the power of the political “czars” seems to grow beyond the original understanding of the term, leaving voters with limited options to respond to unpopular policies.
Focusing on Musk as the most recent and prominent example, Political Research Quarterly Editor-in-Chief Charles Anthony Smith, JD, explained that the decisions and policies of appointed authorities are legal to the extent Congress authorizes them.
“For example, the CDC has broad authority to do things to preserve public health,” Smith said. “But it is not clear where the statutory authority for DOGE comes from, and taxpayers don’t have standing to challenge (either body).”
According to Smith, in the case of DOGE, the House and/or the Senate could sue whenever there is executive overreach. He said any such challenges are unlikely with the Republicans controlling Congress and the House speaker and Senate majority leader “seeing their roles as nothing more than delivering for Trump.”
Smith considered any immediate or effective challenges to Musk’s policies and actions unlikely as collective action barriers to constitutional reform are great.
“The leadership in the House and Senate need to re-read Federalist 10 and 51 so they can appreciate that they don’t work for the president,” he added. “They represent a collective co-equal branch, and they should act accordingly to protect their institutional powers. I do not expect that to happen until after the midterms.”
Pamella Seay, JD, a law professor at Florida Gulf Coast University, pointed out that while the emergence of powerful, unelected “czars” might seem like a recent phenomenon, it’s all an extension of the long-time reality of government bureaucracy.
“It’s just circumstances for the last few years have brought (unelected bodies) more to the fore,” Seay said. “The situation has always been there, and part of the reason is the scale of our government and the need for bodies to get something done.”
She urged anyone who is worried about unelected government authority to read the Federal Register and discover how many appointed authorities are always in power.
“They’ve always been there, but their numbers grew the bigger we grew as a country and government,” she explained. “But the understanding is power really descends from the executive, whether it’s a governor or the president. (A czar) is a way to disseminate the chief executive’s power down to appointees.”
Seay pointed to possible limitations on appointed powers following the 2024 Supreme Court decision on Loper Bright Enterprises v. Raimondo. The case overturned the Chevron Doctrine, which allowed government agencies to interpret statutes and implement regulations. The court canceling Chevron allowed industries to challenge regulations from appointed officials and organizations in the future.
Ronald J. Allen, the John Henry Wigmore Professor of Law at Northwestern University, insisted that the growing power of appointed officials and independent agencies dates back to former President Franklin D. Roosevelt’s administration. He agreed with Seay that none of the czars or appointed bodies had any actual power. It all rests in the man or woman appointing them.
“For example, DOGE has no power to fire anybody,” Allen said. “Like this demand that people respond to emails within a week? If they don’t respond, Musk can’t fire them. That power comes from the executive. What Musk is doing, he could have done with or without all this surrounded hoopla about DOGE is because he’s implementing Trump’s ideas.”
For Allen, the controversy over the power of appointed officials adds to the importance of campaigns.
“Elections matter,” he said. “You buy your ticket, and you take the ride. It’s the exercise of power and legal authority. Whether it’s Trump in the White House or Newsom in California, once you voted for the executive position, you end up with whatever appointees and unelected power bodies you have underneath them.”
For those objecting to the powers and authorities of unelected appointees, Allen pointed to the only real paths of opposition — enlisting the courts or petitioning legislative representatives.
“If I think appointees of Trump or Newsom press the meaning of their powers and adversely affect me, I get to go to court to say, ‘you can’t do that,’” Allen explained. “If Congress wanted to act in a way to stop X, Y, or Z, they’d have to pass a bill that would clear Trump’s veto.”
Despite the controversy cooking around Musk or DOGE now or Fauci in the past, Allen said he believes the term “independent agency” is oxymoronic.
AOC’S OPPOSITION TO SCHUMER ON SPENDING FIGHT FUELS SENATE PRIMARY SPECULATION
“They can’t exist,” he said. “These are bodies obviously implementing executive authority and are completely under the control of the executive branch. If voters find fault with their policies, they can make those changes at the next election.”
John Scott Lewinski, MFA, is a writer based in Milwaukee.
