Book Review: Phantoms of a beleaguered republic: The deep state and the unitary executive by Skowronek, S., Dearborn, J. A., & King, D

• Author: David H. Rosenbloom
• Published date: 01 January 2022
• Date: 01 January 2022
• DOI: http://doi.org/10.1177/02750740211034813
• Subject Matter: Book reviews

Book Reviews

Skowronek, S., Dearborn, J. A., & King, D. (2021). Phantoms of a beleaguered republic: The deep state and the unitar y executive. New York, NY:

Oxford University Press. pp. 304. Hardcover, $27.95. ISBN 9780197543085.

Reviewed by: David H. Rosenbloom , American University, Washington, DC, USA

DOI: 10.1177/02750740211034813

This important book has three parts. Part I, “The Deep State

and the Unitary Executive,”focuses on how the presidency of

Donald J. Trump brought a long-standing competition

between two approaches to organizing the U.S. federal gov-

ernment’s executive branch to a head. One approach is ini-

tially labeled “The Deep State,”though subsequently

considered a “republican”(democratic-constitutional)

means of organizing federal administration. The other

approach is to unify the executive branch by making it

solely subordinate to the president. The authors’“thesis is

that the Deep State and the unitary executive are two sides

of the same syndrome, that the contest they frame speaks

to basic issues of governance long suppressed, and that two

distinct conceptions of authority are now drawing each

other out to no good effect”(p. 12). The authors are particu-

larly “interested in the developments that have unleashed the

phantom twins”and their “worry is that, left untamed, they

will continue to pull American government apart”(p. 12).

“The Deep State is a political allegation,”while “The

unitary executive is a constitutional inference. Both are

abstractions, conjectures”(p. 9) that the authors treat as

“phantoms.”“Beleaguered,”is commonly defined as

having great difficulties, facing serious problems from multi-

ple directions, or under siege.

The depth in the Deep State is “More than the vertical dis-

tance from top to bottom”and “refers also to the insulation

that, by degrees, circumscribes [federal administrative]

authority at all levels and protects it from arbitrary decisions

and impositions”(p. 5). Depth can contribute to governmen-

tal stability, continuity, and the likelihood “that political lead-

ership serves the public’s purposes”(p. 5). Depth is “first and

foremost a function of public sector penetration into all

aspects of national life”and “areflection of the enormous

resources now committed to social regulation and national

security”(p. 4). Basically then, the Deep State is more or

less what we have been referring to as “The Administrative

State”ever since Dwight Waldo’s classic book by that title

was published in 1948.

There is no doubt that the administrative state is “thick,”in

Paul Light’s term and “unwieldy”in Joanna Grisinger’s.

However, it is not unified or singular. At the federal level,

it is structurally and institutionally fragmented and operates

under a massive and varied legal regime framed by constitu-

tional law, administrative law, and judicial decisions as well

as presidential executive orders, memoranda, proclamations,

and other directives. Broadly conceived, it comprises roughly

two million federal employees, interest groups and stake-

holders represented on advisory committees, government

contractors, experts and organizations with which it consults

and collaborates, those who engage its mechanisms for

public participation, and others who significantly contribute

to its outputs and outcomes. Its core actors in the middle

and upper ranks of federal departments and agencies

include some who engage in rogue, illegal, and “guerilla”

activity (in Rosemary O’Leary’s formulation), whether for

reasons they believe are in the public interest or otherwise.

However, conceptualized and defined, though, the federal

component of the administrative state can be an obstacle to

full presidential domination and control of the national gov-

ernment’s executive branch.

The concept of a unitary executive at the federal level is

informed by a variety of propositions and constitutional inter-

pretations contending that the entire executive branch should

be hierarchically subordinated to the president alone. In this

context, unitary executive branch theory can be traced back at

least as far as Alexander Hamilton’s contributions to the

Federalist, if not further. Its modern version can be found

in presidential remarks and actions—President George

W. Bush’s signing statements being a prime example—law

review articles and other scholarly works, and advocacy by

the Federalist Society among other sources. A fair encapsula-

tion would include the following: (a) the president has a con-

stitutional responsibility to defend the constitutional powers

of the presidency from encroachments by Congress and, pre-

sumably, the federal courts; (b) the president’s constitutional

responsibility to “take care that the laws be faithfully exe-

cuted”and to serve as commander in chief of the military

requires the president to ignore statutory provisions (and

perhaps court decisions) that the president believes are

unconstitutional; and (c) any delegation of legislative author-

ity to or legislative empowerment of an executive branch

agency, such as authorizing the Environmental Protection

Agency to regulate air quality, can be exercised directly by

the president or indirectly through the president’s political

Book Reviews

American Review of Public Administration

2022, Vol. 52(1) 87–90

© The Author(s) 2021

Article reuse guidelines:

sagepub.com/journals-permissions

journals.sagepub.com/home/arp