Public administrators in the United States are exploring how to reshape the civil service as a pillar of American democracy.
Last year I reported in The Mandarin on the challenges public servants in the US were facing under the new Trump administration, whose determined attacks on the ‘deep state’ targeted the very public service it was relying upon to deliver its policies and programs. Then, at the 2025 annual conference of the American Society for Public Administration, I observed, amongst the anger and despair, and fear, some very thoughtful discussions of possible strategies to rebuild public confidence in the civil service as an institution in American democracy. These included its non-partisanship and merit-based employment.
The atmosphere at this year’s ASPA conference in Los Angeles last month was no less charged. Concerns about the undermining of the merit principle, disregard of ethical standards and of longstanding legal and institutional constraints, and loss of capability, were universal, though mostly expressed in the side discussions.
The formal presentations and discussions generally avoided direct criticisms of the Trump administration. Instead, they explored issues such as models of leadership character, responsible use of public resources, and strategies for improved capability and performance. This provided a powerful contrast with some of what is continuing to happen under the Trump administration and, despite the current climate, offered some constructive advice for public administration practitioners and scholars.
Perhaps the most powerful presentation was by senior Washington journalist and author, Garrett Graff, who spoke movingly about Robert Mueller, the former FBI Director who died the day the conference began. Graff did not mention President Trump’s statement on Truth Social that night (‘Robert Mueller just died. Good. I am glad he’s dead.’). He merely described in detail Mueller’s character and record of service, having interviewed him many times.
Mueller was a strait-laced son of a Second World War veteran; he himself served in the Vietnam War. He was first appointed FBI Director with a 98 to zero endorsement by the US Senate and reappointed with a 100 to zero Senate endorsement. As Director, he applied five key principles:
- ‘Make your bed’: a classic military discipline for order before getting on with the job.
- ‘Don’t kill the messenger’: listen carefully to advice, seek the truth, rely on people who are not afraid to say what they think and who don’t see their job is to try to protect you.
- ‘Take care of your people’: make sure you have the best, hire those who themselves have good teams with people who complement each other, never tolerate meanness.
- ‘Always wear a white shirt’: when leading big changes retain totems of continuity from the past, don’t change everything all at once, emphasise areas of stability, get acceptance of change.
- ‘In the end, it’s not what you do but how you do it’: act honestly and with integrity, not allowing any grey areas in this, recognise that, once lost, good reputation can never be regained.
Graff went on to spell out the pillars of US success Mueller had always supported, including the rule of law, a merit-based civil service, scientific research, free trade and a network of international alliances. The contrast with Trump’s character and policies could not have been more stark.
Former Georgian Congresswoman, Carolyn Bourdeaux, spoke about the importance of fiscal responsibility and the failures on both sides of politics in the US to address this. Indeed, she said the hardest thing in politics is to say ‘no’ to your own Party – she had experienced ‘sledgehammer’ criticism from the Left of the Democratic Party.
Paying interest on debt now represents 20 per cent of federal expenditure in the US and is projected to reach 25 per cent by 2030. The debt, Bourdeaux said, represents the biggest intergenerational transfer ever in the US. She called for greater willingness to ‘work across the aisle’ and for closer links between Congress and the public, including through local discussions to help constituents understand the problem and accept the need for repair. That repair must include measures to rein in growth in the sacrosanct social security and health expenditure areas as well as to increase revenues (which have fallen in recent years from 19 per cent of GDP to 17 per cent).
Bourdeaux’s refreshingly honest analysis rejected the growing polarisation in the US and offered more constructive ways to address America’s failings. She called for greater citizen engagement and highlighted the importance of responsible media and a capable civil service and academia, whose tenure she said was intended to allow them to speak truth to power and to show courage.
In a lower profile panel discussion, a senior civil servant in the Office of Personnel Management (OPM), Rebecca Ayers, demonstrated the ongoing responsibility of the civil service to support the elected government, while also upholding the values of impartiality and a merit-based civil service – quite a challenge in the Trump administration. She spoke of last year having to close programs and reduce staff by 40 per cent, in line with Presidential Orders, contrasting this with the forward-looking work OPM was now doing.
While avoiding commenting on continuing Trump administration controversies, including politicisation and down-sizing, Ayers showed her professionalism before a sceptical audience. Bravely, she suggested that the infamous Project 2025 guiding many leaders in the Administration in their attacks on the ‘deep state’ had some similarities with the 2021 recommendations by the National Academy of Public Administration (closely linked with ASPA).
Accordingly, she and OPM were looking for a shift from a compliance management culture to a performance and serving-the-public culture. This required acknowledgement that classification structures and recruitment processes in the US had been ‘frozen’ in legislation set more than 30 years ago.
With the pendulum now swinging back to centralisation, there were opportunities for useful reforms particularly around recruiting and developing talent and workforce planning. Unsurprisingly, her claims were challenged but I was impressed that such a professional dialogue remained possible.
Most of those I spoke to at the conference think there will be a shift back towards responsible democratic government. The chances are that the Democrats will regain control of the House of Representatives after the mid-term elections later this year. This will allow Congress to stall some of the more extreme initiatives proposed by the Trump administration.
Trump’s Supreme Court is showing signs that it may not be as compliant with his actions as he wants. Whatever the result of the 2028 Presidential election, some shift back towards respect for the various institutions of democratic government is regarded as likely, amongst this audience at least. With over two years to get their act together, the Democrats must have a reasonable chance of victory in that election.
But nearly everyone equally emphasised the risk that this pendulum shift might not occur. A Democrat win in the mid-term election is by no means certain, particularly given the extent of gerrymandering that is reducing the number of winnable House seats, plus the measures being taken that will make voting more difficult. The possibility of Trump challenging a loss is also real, and even of ignoring legal confirmation of a loss. Nor would anyone entirely rule out Trump finding a way to stay in power after 2028.
Even if there is a pendulum shift later this year or after the 2028 election, there is a risk it will be limited. Trump appointments to the judiciary will remain in ascendancy. The core MAGA base is considerable and strong. America has a long tradition of suspicion about government and a distrust of institutions. It also has a history of repeated long periods of isolationism and ‘America first’; there seems little reason to assume a reversal of the current attitude any time soon.
ASPA conference attendees are hardly representative, of course. Moreover, the conference is a huge event – run over five days with over 1400 participants including more than 500 from 37 countries outside the US, mostly Chinese academics – so that my observations necessarily come from a minority of the presentations made. Nonetheless, they involved many experts in government and many apolitical insiders.
Republished from The Mandarin, 15 April 2026
Andrew Podger is honorary Professor of Public Policy at The Australian National University, and former Australian Public Service Commissioner and Secretary of the Departments of Health and Aged Care, Housing and Regional Development, and Administrative Services. He was national president of the Institute of Public Administration Australia from 2004 to 2010, and a member of the foundation board of the Australian and New Zealand School of Government. He was made an Officer of the Order of Australia (AO) in 2004, and has written extensively on social policy including health financing, retirement incomes and tax and social security, and on public administration.