Appointing Unqualified Cabinet Members To Destroy the Federal Government Is Appalling, But in This Case It’s Illegal As Well
A diverse array of more than 50 advocacy groups, including Friends of the Earth, ActionAid USA, the National Family Farm Coalition, Patagonia, and Sierra Club, delivered a letter to all 100 U.S. senators earlier today, demanding that they disapprove the nomination of Sam Clovis to serve as chief scientist at the U.S. Department of Agriculture, referring this choice as “a direct attack on science and our food and farm system.”
According to this coalition, Clovis, a staunch climate denier and former conservative talk radio host who was Trump’s campaign co-chair, “lacks the formal training in the hard sciences and expertise in food and agriculture policy” to serve as undersecretary of research, education, and economics (REE) at the USDA.
As I noted in a previous post, Clovis:
• Has called progressives “race traitors” and “liars.”
• Has referred to President Obama as a socialist supported by “criminal dissidents who were bent on overthrowing the government of the United States.”
• Has no experience with agricultural research.
• Denies the human impact on climate change.
So what’s the big deal here? Doesn’t this sound like business as usual for Trump? What makes the Clovis nomination any different than that of, say, Rick Perry to run the Department of Energy, given that Perry knows less about energy than the average high school student?
Sure, past REE undersecretaries include highly credentialed scientists such as biochemists, plant physiologists, and nutritionists. Yet that’s no different than the history of the DoE, where the two most recent leaders were Dr. Ernest Moniz, eminent nuclear physicist from MIT, and Dr. Steven Chu, Nobel laureate who has a Ph.D. in physics from the University of California, Berkeley.
So aside from breaking from tradition, what makes this news? It’s that it violates the 2008 Farm Bill that reads in part:
The nominee for undersecretary of REE shall be appointed by the President …from among distinguished scientists with specialized training or significant experience in agricultural research, education, and economics.
Mr. Clovis has also stated that climate science is “junk science” and has made clear that Donald Trump’s administration will not prioritize climate science in its agriculture policy. This is alarming given that our industrial agriculture systems are a leading cause of climate change and contribute at least 30 percent of greenhouse gas emissions globally. Our country’s food and agriculture systems face complex challenges—from pollinator declines and deteriorating soil health to severe drought and flooding due to our rapidly changing climate—and without competent, science-based leadership, the USDA will be unable to protect our environment and help thousands of farmers and their communities adapt to these worsening burdens.
Our farmers and food and agriculture workers who work in one of the most hazardous industries in our country also deserve the attention of an Undersecretary who understands, rather than dismisses, their challenges—especially around fair labor and immigration. Almost 90 percent of workers in our food system earn low or poverty-level wages. These workers need a Chief Scientist who will be fair in his or her oversight of statistical reporting on farm labor, wages, and finances. Sam Clovis is not that person. He is vocally against fair wages for working people and believes raising the minimum wage is “nonsensical.” He is also against a pathway to citizenship for undocumented immigrants and supports the construction of a U.S -Mexico border wall.
Kendra Klein, staff scientist at Friends of the Earth, weighs in as follows: “Clovis’s nomination is an affront to America’s farmers and citizens who deserve a healthy, resilient food system.”
Craig,
In reality, despite the grand title of “Chief Scientist’, the position of Under Secretary for a Federal Government Agency is largely administrative and the Under Secretary is responsible for ensuring the agency adheres to policy and directives from the Executive, while adhering to the legal restrictions and mandates of imposed by legislation.
Under-secretaries do not make policy. By the nature of the appointment, they are required to be administrators and liaison conduits between the executive and the permanent Agency expert employees and bureaucrats. .
In the past, but not always, the Executive has been able to find nominees with suitable qualifications, while also being talented administrators.
The safeguard has always been the appointment must pass Senate confirmation.
Dr Samuel H. Clovis Jr Phd, is certainly a qualified administrator. I’ll agree he wouldn’t be my choice for such a position (well any position really) but that’s not the point.
The position is a political appointment. The constitution provides for the position to be a political appointment so the legislature and the voters can just the success or failure, and act accordingly at the next election.
These appointments were intended to be within the political gift.
Craig, correct me if I’m wrong, but I cant find anywhere in the US Constitution mention of the Sierra Club, or appointments being only suitable if the candidate hate the policies, and actively opposes, the elected Executive !
I’ve had the distinct misfortune of meeting Dr Clovis and listening to his rants. I wouldn’t appoint him to any government appointment. I found Dr Clovis a thoroughly unpleasant, and bigoted individual, but I’ll admit that impression was formed from only a short acquaintance.
I’m informed, on very reputable authority, during his time as an commander of the 70th Fighter Squadron in the US Air Force he served in the middle east. His record of active command was excellent and as Colonel Clovis his reputation for intelligent analysis saw his promoted to the pentagon.
Colonel Clovis also served in the exceedingly difficult position of Inspector General of the North American Aerospace Defense Command and the United States Space Command, during a very sensitive period of restructure. His record as an effective administrator is impressive.
In the end, the Constitution leaves the appointment of such positions to the best judgement of the elected Executive and elected Senate.
For good or ill, in the end such appointments are made by the US people by way of their chosen elected representatives, not you, or I, or odd politically motivated coalitions of opponents.
For that matter, President Obama appointed Dr Catherine Woteki who is certainly well qualified in her field. The problem is her field is personal nutrition.
Now with all due respect to Dr Woteki,her lack of suitable ‘scientific’ and absence of any formal administrative qualifications made her also ‘unqualified’.
(personal nutrition may be vaguely connected to agriculture, but so is Tractor maintenance !)
The DoA has a long history of poor administration, ill-conceived and and badly managed policies which have resulted in vast wastage of public money.
Maybe the President figures an administrator is what’s needed, rather the “book of the month’ author of ‘ Eat for Life’.
Or maybe, just maybe, the President cunning thought that by appointing Clovis to a position the Senate would confirm, he can get rid of an obligation to a supporter, without losing that support 🙂
(Oh, by the way I’m amazed the ” average high school student” has a Bsc, and can fly a fighter jet ! Rick Perry can do both).
Notwithstanding, his abilities as an administrator, the intention of US 7 U.S.C. 6971 is quite clear. Clovis could possibly squeak by on economics, but the Senate would be hard pressed to accept he had done any agricultural research of any significance !
The President has done nothing “illegal’ in nominating Clovis, only if the Senate confirms him would the legality of his appointment be questionable.
The President would have been be advised to have appointed a more suitable candidate, such as Dr Judith Curry and appointed Clovis as DoA “Inspector-general’. (Now would that drive the UCS crazy !