White House staffers who protest Biden should be fired

Although America is far from perfect, our government has some of the strongest processes in the world for officials to express disagreement on internal policy without fear of reprisal. Our country also has a long tradition of resigning these officials when they strongly disagree with certain policies.

However, instead of following either of these legitimate and well-established paths, a group of young Biden administration employees chose last week to hold a public vigil outside the White House, protesting the administration’s approach to the war in Gaza. Standing behind a sign reading “PRESIDENT BIDEN: YOUR STAFF DEMANDS A CEASEFIRE,” a spokesperson read comments demanding a “permanent ceasefire” and “immediate de-escalation now.”

We respect the constitutional right of these individuals and all Americans to express their opinions. But these White House employees do not have the right to both engage in active insubordination and remain employed by the U.S. government, including as members of the presidential cabinet.

Increasingly aware of the dangers of ideological monocultures, the White House and U.S. government departments and agencies have, over the years, developed formal channels of internal dissent. These processes were significantly strengthened at the State Department in 1971, to address very valid objections to the conduct of the Vietnam War. The expectation of these established procedures is that once views are expressed and considered, employees should support any decision of the President. If they cannot do this, their other option is to resign.

America has a long history of government officials doing just that. In 1793, Thomas Jefferson resigned as Secretary of State due to differences with President George Washington. In 1915, William Jennings Bryan resigned from his position because he felt that President Woodrow Wilson was too aggressive toward Germany after the sinking of the Lusitania.

Most recently, numerous National Security Council and other Trump administration officials resigned in protest following the Jan. 6 attack on the U.S. Capitol. Two months ago, Josh Paul, a State Department official, resigned in opposition to the Biden administration’s Gaza policy.

Such resignations are honorable expressions of dissent from people who feel they can no longer support the policies of their government in good faith.

Political differences are an essential part of decision-making in free societies, but there is a stark difference between expressing them internally or resigning on one side, and White House staff actively seeking to overturn government policies from the other. The former can be expressions of idealism and patriotism. The latter threatens the functioning of our government and American national security.

The recent protest cannot be called a youthful indiscretion, because presidential staffers have no right to impose their opinions on their elected boss. No American voted for them. Many of these employees, particularly those at the National Security Council, have a special obligation to the president they serve.

This doesn’t require blind loyalty the way North Korea does, but our government would cease to function if everyone on the White House staff felt empowered to advance their own political agenda, regardless of decision-making processes. officials. It is difficult to imagine that White House staffers so publicly engaged in insubordination could be counted on to help implement policies with which they so vehemently and publicly disagree, or that they can be completely trusted to access classified documents, which they might mishandle to get things done. their cause.

Serving in the White House is not a right. It is a privilege that comes with responsibilities, including putting the decisions of the individual elected by the American people ahead of their personal opinions. Regardless of political party, this must be true, or our government will be fatally undermined by the whims of individuals who possess no electoral mandate.

White House staff serve at the pleasure of the president. Those who participated in this public demonstration lost this privilege. If there are no consequences, they will be more encouraged to pursue their own agenda rather than the president’s.

These young people have every right to express opinions radically opposed to those of the commander in chief. But doing so publicly while remaining employed by the White House poses an unacceptable risk to the American government process and to national security. In the interest of our critical institutions and the presidency, violators must be identified and terminated immediately.

Victoria Coates, vice president of the Heritage Foundation, served on the National Security Council staff under President Donald Trump. Jamie Metzl, founder and president of OneShared.World, served on the National Security Council staff under President Bill Clinton.