Is the World being run and controlled by Civil Servants?

[grapevine]

I've often wondered whether it is in fact the Civil Service who run this country as they are "the constant", ie. the same team who work for the government whichever party is in power. They also run the monarchy and imo are responsible for all the adverse crap being released to the press. The hit comedy series "Yes Minister" was reportedly based on real goings-on at Downing Street.

Dominic Raab a 'neurotic bully' who thrives off picking on junior civil servant

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ChBFSqNm1UU&ab_channel=GBNews
Probably of interest only to those from the UK is that Dominic Raab, Deputy Leader of the Conservative Party, resigned on Friday 21st April 2023 following allegations of bullying his staff. Like Boris before him, it wasn't his own failure that led to his downfall (eg. when he was Foreign Secretary he as on holiday abroad when the Afghanistan evacuation fiasco took place and didn't return until afterwards), but that he upset the wrong people. Just for completeness, below is a link to the full report.

Link to full report
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/politics/2023/04/21/dominic-raab-bullying-report-full-resigned-rishi-sunak/

What I find interesting is that Dominic Raab alluded to a conspiracy of "activist civil servants" who conspired to oust him. Suella Braverman is supposed to be next in the activist civil servants' sights.

Just to name a couple of senior civil servant roles:

Sir Philip Barton, Foreign Office's top civil servant, earning around £185,000pa (more than an MP), was also on annual leave at the time Afghanistan fell to Taliban control. He too didn't return.

Sir Oliver Robbins KCMG CB is a former senior British civil servant who served as the Prime Minister's Europe Adviser and the chief Brexit negotiator from 2017 to 2019. He was a controversial figure among Brexit supporters. (Surprise surprise, he's now MD at Goldman Sachs)'

In addition, many famous men and women have been civil servants:

. William Chaucer was an official in the Customs department.
. John Milton was an official working on correspondence with foreign countries.
. Samuel Pepys was Secretary of the Admiralty.
. William Wordsworth was a distributor of stamps for the county of Westmorland.
. Rabbie Burns was an Excise Officer.
. Anthony Trollope was a surveyor in the Post Office.

Perhaps we should be looking more closely at our Civil Servants and the influence they wield behind the scenes.

[grapevine]

https://ichef.bbci.co.uk/news/976/cpsprodpb/5CD1/production/_128516732_gettyimages-1232540860-594x594.jpg.webp

Simon Case, Cabinet Secretary and Head of the Civil Service in the UK,
is the Prime Minister's most senior policy adviser.

He acts as Secretary to the Cabinet and is responsible for supporting all ministers in the running of government and providing professional leadership to the Civil Service.  This (presumably) is the very top job in the Civil Service to whom all other departments, like MI5 etc., report.  

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-64518188
Simon Case: 'Keeper of secrets' under scrutiny
In a period of heightened political turbulence, one senior civil servant has been attempting to keep his balance at the centre of power. A former spy, and private secretary to Prince William, who came in for barbed criticism in Prince Harry's memoirs, Simon Case is a figure who seems to attract controversy and fascination in equal measure. In his current job as cabinet secretary, he has served three very different prime ministers - a powerful, but largely invisible figure.

Sat at the PM's side at every cabinet meeting, but prevented from commenting publicly by civil service impartiality, Mr Case is tasked with ensuring government policy is put into action. But the cabinet secretary is also the PM's chief adviser - someone who has the power to find out what is really going on inside the government machine and to decide what should be reported back to his political master. Good governance requires strong civil service leadership providing robust advice to ministers who behave with propriety. Never more so than under a prime minister who has promised to lead a government of "integrity, professionalism and accountability at every level". Which is why the spotlight has been turned on Mr Case in recent months, as Rishi Sunak has faced a series of controversies and scandals, including:
-The inquiry into bullying allegations against Deputy Prime Minister Dominic Raab
-The sacking of the former Conservative Party chairman Nadhim Zahawi
-The arrangement of an £800,000 credit facility to Boris Johnson

To his allies, Mr Case is considered to be a highly effective civil servant with a firm grasp on his duties. Former business secretary, Jacob Rees-Mogg said he found the cabinet secretary to be "a good and efficient civil servant, who helped a democratically elected government deliver its promises in the proper way". Another recent cabinet minister said: "He's a great man. A fixer by nature. Makes things happen and finds way through tricky problems". His critics take a different view.

'Keeper of secrets'
One former senior civil servant thinks Mr Case could have been more robust in challenging the prime ministers he's worked for."There are too many examples of things having happened that shouldn't have happened," they said. As questions swirl over Mr Case, is the system of civil service working as it should be?

Mr Case first took the job in September 2020, when he replaced Sir Mark Sedwill, who was sacked by former Prime Minister Boris Johnson .A Cambridge graduate with a PhD in political history, Mr Case ascended through the ranks of the civil service after joining in 2006. He held roles in the UK's intelligence agency, GCHQ, and in the Royal Household on the way to the job top. At 41, he became the youngest cabinet secretary in recent times. Before he took the post, Mr Case's former PhD tutor, historian Peter Hennessy, told the BBC: "From next week, he will be the ultimate keeper of secrets in the UK."

'Tested the boundaries'
The appointment was a "surprise" and there were question marks over how much authority he'd have, given his relative inexperience, says Jill Rutter, a former senior civil servant. But Ms Rutter, a senior research fellow of UK in a Changing Europe think tank, said Mr Case was put in a difficult position by the Johnson government, which "tested the boundaries of proprietary". She mentioned the so-called Partygate affair as one example. When an internal investigation into lockdown parties at Downing Street was launched, Mr Case removed himself from the process after it emerged an event was hosted in his office. Suddenly, the bespectacled cabinet secretary with a low profile was revealed by the glare of publicity.

This would suggest that there are still people above Mr Simon Case, but who are they?

[Matthew]

Yes, the remainer, globalist, Civil Service happily run things while a politicians job is to take the attention. When Priti Patel or anyone else tries to order them around they pull the 'bullying' card which suspiciously gets lots of press. The same boring pattern, like their modus operandi. Civil Servants are a strange breed allergic to any attention which they avoid because attention is a politicians job. Politicians change but the Civil Servants stays the same underneath them.

[Tintin]

Great thread - thanks :sun:

Really worthy of a further dive, for sure. 'Yes' would be the really reductionist response to the question posed by the thread, but here's a great opportunity for those of us who like a research challenge to dig deeper :highfive:

[norman]

Is the UK being run and controlled by Civil Servants?

I think the answer is more complex or broader than a simple yes.

The civil service seems to have been infiltrated by an organization that infiltrated many other administrative bodies too. It's hard to find solid evidence of that organization, I'm relying on anecdotal testimony to say this. That organization is known as Common Purpose. It's a kind of neo secret society that came on the scene, I think, during the Blair era.

It recruits people from all over, selecting people who have power or influence. You're kids' school teacher or headmaster could be involved. Police chiefs, hospital administrators, council leaders and councilors. Anyone.

I think there was a big recruitment effort made in my area around 10 or 15 years ago. An organization that didn't call itself Common Purpose ( I don't think it called itself anything in particular ) twice put leaflets through my letterbox over a 1 year span. It invited me to a meeting to talk about ideas to help our community/society. I felt a spookiness about it right then and I was curious to find out what it was all about. I considered going on both occasions but didn't actually go.

I had not heard of Common Purpose at that time. If I had, I surely would have gone just to check out what was going on and who were the leading players involved etc. A missed opportunity.

Later, I heard one of the UK Column people tell a story about his first encounter with Common Purpose. That joined a couple of dots for me.


I would like to hear more from members here about what they know, or think they know, about Common Purpose. I'm fairly convinced that's what we are dealing with.

[Bill Ryan]

As many Brits will know, the [extremely clever and funny!] long-running BBC comedy series Yes, Minister (and later Yes, Prime Minister) was entirely based on this theme. It was said to be Margaret Thatcher's favorite show. :)

Alexander Mercouris, who was and is well connected with the unelected British elite, often refers to the British "political class" who control the puppet strings on everything, just one recent example being the rapid removal of incompetent Prime Minister Liz Truss.

He sometimes calls this the "British Deep State", and of course in the US this is exactly the same thing, where elected politicians are just regarded as inconvenient temporary workers to be tolerated, used, controlled, corralled and directed in any way possible, fair or foul.

[Gwin Ru]

...

... is this when Project Avalon fulfills its role of a wealthy repository of chronicles from the past via a few keystrokes in the "Advanced Search" box?

Typing " "Common Purpose" " in that box yields things like:

What is "Common Purpose"? It's mind-control in extremis (https://projectavalon.net/forum4/showthread.php?54613-What-is-Common-Purpose-It-s-mind-control-in-extremis)

As for the many misdirects and divisions, here is a good summary:


https://henrymakow.com/upload_images/elephant-jew.jpg



So... Common Purpose is only one step down from the WEFers' Global Young Leaders; the ghosts that are always there regardless of who is in "power"... the technocrats that keep going and going... all seemingly orchestrated by the Khazarian Mafia

[grapevine]

The Blob undermines democracy, says Patrick Christys


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3YzfmO02gKc&ab_channel=GBNews

Patrick Christys from GB News Channel reporting on UK civil servants, who are hellbent on leaking and pushing slanted/prejudicial information to the media in order to bring down anyone in opposition of their left wing views. At the moment they appear to be targeting pro Brexit MPs.

In the past week, Dominic Raab has said he will not stand in the next election and is leaving politics altogether, Suella Braverman has managed to stay another day after a speeding misdemeanour and, just today, Boris Johnson has been accused of breaking Covid rules (again) at Chequers. Boris is thinking of suing the Cabinet who have bounced the issue back to the civil servants.

Firstly named "The Blob" by Michael Gove in 2016, Patrick posits that BLOB stands for Bloody Lazy Overpaid Bureaucrats. They obviously have far too much power and not enough proper work to do and it's time they were culled, from the top down.

[jaybee]

.


Just watched this interview from GB News with Jacob Rees-Mogg and thought of this thread - it seems that the Civil Service are threatening to strike because they don't like Government policy regarding sending asylum seekers by plane to Rwanda to be processed there and don't want to have anything to do with it...

In other words they want to actively sabotage policies put forward by democratically elected Members of Parliament.....because they don't agree with said policy...

Rees-Mogg says, quite rightly that if they don't want to do the job they are there to do they should resign rather than strike...

The cheek of these people - they are there to oil and maintain the business of Parliament not make or break policy - but it's interesting that the mask of the Civil Servants is slipping - as with all the other institutions that have been infiltrated and manipulated by adherents of a covert agenda (cultural Marxism, communism, Globalism, 'woke'- ism.... and similar) the gloves are coming off and they are applying pressure to help bring down the country from within...on this occasion from the heart of government...

Here's the video for anyone who's interested...


Civil servants threaten to STRIKE over Rwanda policy | 'They should resign!' says Jacob Rees-Mogg(7.27)

bq2s9xiqqTw

[grapevine]

In the light of Nadine Dorries's resignation letter, quoted in full courtesy of Tintin on the "Turmoil in the UK" thread, it seems appropriate to bump this thread, in particular for its references to the Civil Service:






Dear Prime Minister,
(snipped)
Long before my resignation announcement, in July 2022, I had advised the cabinet secretary, Simon Case, of my intention to step down.

(Snipped)
Having witnessed first-hand, as Boris Johnson and then Liz Truss were taken down, I decided that the British people had a right to know what was happening in their name. Why is it that we have had five Conservative prime ministers since 2010, with not one of the previous four having left office as the result of losing a general election? That is a democratic deficit which the mother of parliaments should be deeply ashamed of and which, as you and I know, is the result of the machinations[ of a small group of individuals embedded deep at the centre of the party and Downing Street.

To start with, my investigations focused on the political assassination of Boris Johnson, but as I spoke to more and more people - and I have spoken to a lot of people, from ex-prime ministers, cabinet ministers both ex and current through all levels of government and Westminster and even journalists - a dark story emerged which grew ever more disturbing with each person I spoke to.

It became clear to me as I worked that remaining as a back bencher was incompatible with publishing a book which exposes how the democratic process at the heart of our party has been corrupted. As I uncovered this alarming situation I knew, such were the forces ranged against me, that I was grateful to retain my parliamentary privilege until today. And, as you also know Prime Minister, those forces are today the most powerful figures in the land. The onslaught against me even included the bizarre spectacle of the Cabinet Secretary claiming (without evidence) to a select committee that he had reported me to the Whips and Speakers office (not only have neither office been able to confirm this was true, but they have no power to act, as he well knows). It is surely as clear a breach of Civil Service impartiality as you could wish to see.

Nadine Dorries


Even our late Queen was quoted as saying: “There are powers at work in this country about which we have no knowledge.” Could she have been referring to the Civil Service?

[Tintin]

In the light of Nadine Dorries's resignation letter, quoted in full courtesy of Tintin on the "Turmoil in the UK" thread, it seems appropriate to bump this thread, in particular for its references to the Civil Service:






Dear Prime Minister,
(snipped)
Long before my resignation announcement, in July 2022, I had advised the cabinet secretary, Simon Case, of my intention to step down.

(Snipped)
Having witnessed first-hand, as Boris Johnson and then Liz Truss were taken down, I decided that the British people had a right to know what was happening in their name. Why is it that we have had five Conservative prime ministers since 2010, with not one of the previous four having left office as the result of losing a general election? That is a democratic deficit which the mother of parliaments should be deeply ashamed of and which, as you and I know, is the result of the machinations[ of a small group of individuals embedded deep at the centre of the party and Downing Street.

To start with, my investigations focused on the political assassination of Boris Johnson, but as I spoke to more and more people - and I have spoken to a lot of people, from ex-prime ministers, cabinet ministers both ex and current through all levels of government and Westminster and even journalists - a dark story emerged which grew ever more disturbing with each person I spoke to.

It became clear to me as I worked that remaining as a back bencher was incompatible with publishing a book which exposes how the democratic process at the heart of our party has been corrupted. As I uncovered this alarming situation I knew, such were the forces ranged against me, that I was grateful to retain my parliamentary privilege until today. And, as you also know Prime Minister, those forces are today the most powerful figures in the land. The onslaught against me even included the bizarre spectacle of the Cabinet Secretary claiming (without evidence) to a select committee that he had reported me to the Whips and Speakers office (not only have neither office been able to confirm this was true, but they have no power to act, as he well knows). It is surely as clear a breach of Civil Service impartiality as you could wish to see.

Nadine Dorries


Even our late Queen was quoted as saying: “There are powers at work in this country about which we have no knowledge.” Could she have been referring to the Civil Service?

Thanks for putting this here; most apropos indeed. :thumbsup:

Members here are much brighter than most and would, in Nadine's instance certainly be reminded of the role of Cabinet Secretary who is to all intents and purposes serving as a sort of Whip for the Deep State. UK viewers will remember the much loved series' 'Yes Minister' and 'Yes, Prime Minister'. which although brilliantly lampooning how government works were also providing folks with a very instructive window, even outside the Overton variety ( :) ), which is partially open and allowing a slight breeze to carry some insights in. And there is also probably my favourite, the drama series from 1990, 'House of Cards (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/House_of_Cards_(British_TV_series))' which, although dramatised, is probably yet more revealing.

The incumbent Cabinet Secretary, Simon Case (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Simon_Case), seems to be the appointee du jour behind the scenes overseeing how government runs. Although Wikipedia is so utterly compromised these days, and biographies so skewed to suit certain agendas, his background would be easy enough to substantiate and what's published there does seem reliable. Do check his background.

The BBC, when it used to be very good at its documentary work, broadcast an interesting series in 2011 called 'The Secret World of Whitehall' (https://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b00zn1m1/episodes/guide) written by Michael Cockerell, who has an impressive pedigree as a broadcast journalist, and connected well enough to be able to get access that others might not so readily be able. Still, as good as it is, and I do recommend it be viewed, there always seems to be a little something missing. But, it is worth the time.

Preceding Nadine Dorries' more than justified frustrations was, of course, this, which ought to be printed and posted on the walls of every home throughout the land:

From March, 2001:


“What power have you got? Where did you get it from? In whose interests do you exercise it? To whom are you accountable? And how can we get rid of you. And if you can't get rid of the people who govern you then you don't live in a democratic system”
― Tony Benn

https://avalonlibrary.net/Tintin/Tony_Benn_HoC_What_power_have_you_got_address_in_British_Parliament_Mar_2001.mp4

And Nadine's situation is reminiscent of the forces that brought Margaret Thatcher down in the end.

Aside: the UK Column posted something up on their Twitter feed (https://twitter.com/ukcolumn/status/1694813122094375076) earlier this week, from an interview from July 2023 with Leon Krier:



"""I wrote to Prince Charles two years ago, urging him to dissociate himself from Klaus Schwab, who is clearly a psychopath. I reminded him that he was the only public figure who had dared [forty years ago] to stand against [architectural] modernism. But he wrote back. "This is too far gone, and even I can't do anything about it."" - Leon Krier

Related link/s:

Avalon Library: BBC The Secret World of Whitehall (2011) (https://avalonlibrary.net/?dir=BBC%20The%20Secret%20World%20of%20Whitehall%20%282011%29)

The Nation: Tony Benn and the Five Essential Questions of Democracy (https://www.thenation.com/article/archive/tony-benn-and-five-essential-questions-democracy/): Article by John Nichols from March 2014

Avalon Library: House of Cards (1990) (https://avalonlibrary.net/?dir=House%20of%20Cards%20%281990%29)

UK Column: Prince Charles correspondence (https://twitter.com/ukcolumn/status/1694813122094375076) from a video interview July 2023: A Glimpse into Cities, Architecture, Planning and Control with Leon Krier - UK Column interview link (https://www.ukcolumn.org/video/a-glimpse-into-cities-architecture-planning-and-control-with-leon-krier)

[shaberon]

This may be important for those of us who do not know how democracy works.

Civil Service (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Civil_Service_(United_Kingdom)) is a Crown employee, but, it says on paper at least, they are supposed to obey appointed ministers. It is redundant because the Prime Minister is the Civil Service Minister. Then he appoints the ministry which acts as advisory to the Crown.


House of Lords (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/House_of_Lords) is a bloated body, second only to NPC China. It is not hereditary as it once was, but, is an appointment, life or at least long term.



My first guess is they couldn't manage their way out of a paper bag.

Secondly I think they probably do have a rapid delivery system for metastic mental disease. That seems to me what might be going on there.

[jaybee]

.

Saw this video.... a bit of push back from a group of senior Civil Servants fed up with the encroachment of Woke Stuff within Whitehall -

@2:23.....letter signed by 42 staff from 16 departments - "many of us have experienced some form of personal disadvantage because we do not believe that the concept of gender identity is meaningful, or that it is more important than sex. Several of us have been through stressful and intrusive employment disputes."

Anti-Woke Civil Servants RISE UP Against Establishment

zp0hUXw4jYc

Mahyar Tousi says at the beginning... it's a small group but they are senior civil servants and it's a good start...

[grapevine]

Rory Stewart's shocking story about Britain's ‘deep state’

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BRkoYHZOGcw&ab_channel=MallenBaker (13:33)
In his recent book about his time in politics, "Politics on the Edge", Rory Stewart tells one particular story about when he was a minister in the Department for International Development and his account shows just how completely broken the system really is and why nothing works, and yet it's utterly believable at the same time. Faceless top civil servants in the UK have their own agenda regardless of the party who's in power, and it would seem to be the same in the US too.

[earthdreamer]

https://www.zerohedge.com/political/never-underestimate-power-unfinished-business

https://www.malone.news/p/never-underestimate-the-power-of

This article spells out how entrenched unelected bureaucrats run the federal agencies across multiple administrations (US, similar to UK elites calling the shots behind the curtains).



The Fathomless Bottom of the Deep State

The Senior Executive Service (SES) class of federal employees was created under President Carter through the passage of the Civil Service Reform Act of 1978. The SES was established to “…ensure that the executive management of the Government of the United States is responsive to the needs, policies, and goals of the Nation and otherwise is of the highest quality.”

Another Carter-created component of the State, as is the Department of Education. The SES employees were supposed to ensure top performances in all the various agencies. That was the theory, but the reality is something entirely different, as is so often the case with these initiatives such as the “Department of Homeland Security.”

Members of the SES serve in the key positions just below the top Presidential appointees. SES employees are the major link between these appointees and the rest of the Federal workforce. They operate and oversee nearly every government activity in approximately 75 Federal agencies. They are referred to as members by the Office of Personnel Management and are considered above “employee” designation. They are members of the SES, and don’t you forget that! Today’s SES runs the country.

The SES even has its own flag (which has been largely removed from the government web pages since I last wrote about the SES in June of 2022). and their own non-profit agency called the Senior Executive Association (SEA), whose stated goal is to protect the rights of SES members – which lists both lobbying Congress and instituting legal action to protect SES member status. This non-profit acts like a union.


SES members operate and oversee nearly every government activity in approximately 75 Federal agencies and serve in key positions just below the top Presidential appointees. Thus positioned, the SES bosses enforce political orthodoxy and fidelity to the deep state. They can act in this manner because their employment is virtually guaranteed. An SES employee’s job is so secure that an Agency Head cannot terminate an SES employee unless the Commissioner issues a certificate stating that the termination is in the public interest. Even then, the termination is subject to litigation.

Barack Obama believed that the SES program should be expanded and, through a 2015 executive order, “Strengthening the Senior Executive Service,” sought to expand and “facilitate career executive continuity between administrations.” But more than that, his executive order implemented:

“a comprehensive, integrated, and strategic focus on diversity and inclusion as a key component of the recruitment, hiring, retention, and development of their SES cadre.”

Yep – the federal government has been using DEI-based hiring and promotions for the SES instead of merit, well…ever since Obama’s presidency.

By May 31, 2016, agencies with 20 or more SES positions were tasked with developing a plan “to increase the number of SES members who are rotating to improve talent development, mission delivery, and collaboration.”

Obama’s other objective, other than securing more DEI employees, was to secure more loyal troops for the administration of his chosen successor, Hillary Clinton. Luckily, she then lost to Donald Trump. However, the increased number of SES employees, strengthening their stranglehold on government power and over the presidency, remained.

As it turns out, the Justice Department includes those elite, highly paid bosses from the Senior Executive Service. So does the Department of Homeland Security, from which the SES also deploys personnel into the Secret Service. As does just about every agency in the US government. As of 2018, there were almost 8,000 SES employees.

The other important point about the SES is that the president has no role in choosing them; he can’t reassign them or fire them. The SES comprises the non-transparent group of managers and elites who run the country from within. They are the employees who quietly block, slow-walk, and defer presidential orders. What President Trump and Kash Patel might call the “deep state.”

In effect, our democracy has been turned upside down while being captured by bureaucratic and corporate interests that endorse authoritarian policies – hence, we are now living under a system of “inverted totalitarianism.” The United States has been co-opted into a managed democracy, thanks to Carter and Obama.

President Trump was stymied in his efforts to reform the government due to the SES cadre, and then he finally hit upon a solution. That is an executive order known as “Schedule F,” which he signed in October 2020, just prior to leaving office. Biden canceled the Schedule F executive order on the first day of his presidency.

This new employee classification system would have included federal workers in “confidential, policy-determining, policy-making, or policy-advocating character,” which are “not normally subject to change as the result of a presidential transition.”

The “Schedule F” executive order would have allowed agencies to reclassify policy jobs under a new employment schedule and had proposed to give senior managers greater flexibility in hiring candidates and firing employees. Hence, the SES employees would have functionally become “at-will” employees. At-will employment means that an employer can dismiss an employee for any reason, without having to establish “just cause” for termination, as long as the reason is not illegal. At-will employment is the law of the land in all states except Montana.

President Trump stated that this executive order would be reinstated on day one.

But Not so Fast!

On January 22, 2021, shortly after taking office, President Biden repealed the Schedule F executive order. This action prevented Schedule F from being implemented, as it had not yet taken effect when Trump left office.

In September 2023, the Biden administration, through the Office of Personnel Management (OPM), began working on new regulations to make it difficult to reintroduce Schedule F policies.

On April 4, 2024, OPM issued a final rule aimed at stopping potential future attempts to implement Schedule F or something similar. This rule ensured that the new civil service job protections couldn’t be removed by reimplementing Schedule F.

However, all of these political machinations may come to naught.

Remember the Chevron Deference?

The Chevron deference was a key principle in U.S. administrative law for nearly 40 years, established by the Supreme Court in 1984 in Chevron U.S.A., Inc. v. Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc. It directed courts to defer to a federal agency’s reasonable interpretation of an ambiguous statute that the agency administers.

This doctrine significantly empowered federal agencies by giving them considerable leeway in interpreting and implementing ambiguous statutory provisions. It essentially allowed the administrative state to create laws without Congressional oversight.

However, in June 2024, the US Supreme Court overturned the Chevron doctrine in Loper Bright Enterprises v. Raimondo. The Court ruled that the Administrative Procedure Act requires courts to exercise their independent judgment in deciding whether an agency has acted within its statutory authority, and courts may not defer to an agency’s interpretation of the law simply because a statute is ambiguous.

The end of Chevron Deference represents a major shift in administrative law, reducing the power of federal agencies and increasing judicial scrutiny of agency actions. One of the implications of the Chevron deference is the reduced power for federal agencies in interpreting laws.

How Does This Affect Schedule F?

The Office of Personnel Management (OPM) may need to provide more robust justifications for its new policies regarding Schedule F, as it can no longer rely on the Chevron deference to support its interpretations of federal employment laws.

The truth is that as soon as President Trump implements Schedule F, the Senior Executives Association may challenge it in court, and the OPM will use its new rules to fight it tooth and nail.

Due to the Chevron deference, this legal fight may be aborted or short-circuited. Time will tell.

On the Legislative Side

In 2023, the House adopted an amendment to the annual defense authorization bill for 2023 that would prevent future administrations from reviving Schedule F or similar measures. However, during the reconciliation process between the House and Senate versions of the bill, the Schedule F ban was omitted from the final compromise version. The final version of the 2023 NDAA that was signed into law did not include the language banning future attempts at creating Schedule F, but Congress may pull those clauses out of the Democrat party’s bag of tricks at any time.

The easiest way out of this quandary in the long term is for Congress to amend the Civil Service Reform Act of 1978 to clarify the role of the SES employee and other employees within the federal government. This would be a permanent solution instead of a temporary bandaid.

By Robert Malone

(See original for embedded links)

[grapevine]

The BBC's Surprisingly Detailed Expose of the Deep State

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qH2aeha_UgU&ab_channel=TREXLABS (31:30)
"Decades ago, a British television serious provided the ultimate look into the mysterious world of the Civil Service. While there have been many imitators over the years, Yes Minister stands alone as the superior program." A good video showing how beaurocracy rules, cleverly using the "Yes Minister" series to demonstrate what is widely believed to be a true account of how government departments are run in the West.

[grapevine]

After Dark - British Intelligence Part 1

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=htT9SsXD6O4 (2hrs 5mins)
A real blast from the past. This highly interesting and candid episode (1 of 3 about British Intelligence) was first aired on Channel 4 in 1988 and then taken up by BBC3 in 2003. There were 98 episodes of After Dark in all, covering a range of topcs, although most of them are no longer available to view. Very unlikely, but I'd like to see more (unguarded) discussions like this on TV. Sadly those days are now over.

Are the security services accountable?
Are they above the law?
What is National Security and who defines it?
At what point does an open society suddenly close?


"In a discussion titled "British Intelligence", broadcast on 16 July 1988, the guests included Merlyn Rees, H. Montgomery Hyde and Robert Harbinson.

The journalist Paul Foot described it as "one magnificent edition of After Dark in which Robin Ramsay excelled himself." During the discussion, another guest, retired GCHQ employee Jock Kane, claimed "that the new procedures recommended by the Security Commission regarding the removal of documents from GCHQ had not been implemented four years later."

The following week The Guardian newspaper reported:

Thirty Labour MPs yesterday called for a judicial inquiry into claims that the Government has used private security companies to carry out undercover operations on its behalf. A motion, drawn up by Mr Ken Livingstone (Brent E), refers to statements made by Mr Gary Murray – a private investigator, who says he has been employed by the Government – on Channel 4's After Dark programmw"