Fontana: Destructive Federal Decentralization

In Destructive Federal Decentralization, David Fontana (George Washington University Law) examines how the power to spatially diffuse the federal government can become the power to destroy. Fontana explores how every one of the constructive elements of federal decentralization has a matching destructive element. For example, one possible argument in favor of decentralization is the increased independence of officials when located outside of Washington. On the other hand, such independence may translate into officials being isolated from those in power at the federal level and having less influence.

Fontana emphasizes how destructive decentralization can be very costly to reverse for several reasons including the challenge of passing statutes, successfully generating executive regulations, or requiring individual people to uproot their personal and professional lives and return. Fontana then moves from the hypothetical to the concrete and discusses the Trump administration’s efforts to decentralize the federal government.

After analyzing the rhetoric surrounding the 2016 election, including “drain the swamp,” Fontana provides examples of decentralization attempts both statutorily and regulatorily during the Trump administration by discussing the relocation of the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) and two USDA offices: the Economic Research Service (ERS) and National Institute of Food and Agriculture (NIFA). Fontana underscores the short timelines officials of BLM, ERS, and NIFA were given and the fact that few people chose to relocate. For example, only sixteen of the 181 officials told to relocate stayed with ERS. Fontana asserts these relocations provided no clear benefit while hampering the independence of these offices and suggests these instances of decentralization were an attempt to remove officials from the agencies altogether rather than an attempt at relocation.

Destructive Federal Decentralization examines how structural constitutional principles that have historically been relatively neutral can be wielded in a way that politicizes such principles and, as Fontana asserts, damage the federal government.

This digest was produced with significant contribution by Aurora Kenworthy, UNL Law Student.