Skip to content
Search

Latest Stories

Top Stories

Restoring trust in government: The vital role of public servants

Washington, DC, skyline
John Baggaley/Getty Images

This past year has proven politically historic and unprecedented. In this year alone, we witnessed:

  • The current president, who received the most votes in American history when elected four years ago, drop out of the presidential race at the last minute due to party pressure amid unceasing rumors of cognitive decline.
  • The vice president, who was selected as the party-preferred candidate in his stead, fail to win a single battleground state despite an impressive array of celebrity endorsements, healthy financial backing and overwhelmingly positive media coverage.
  • The former president, who survived two assassination attempts — one leading to an iconic moment that some would swear was staged while others argued Godly intervention — decisively win the election, securing both popular and Electoral College vote victories to serve a second term, nonconsecutively (something that hasn’t happened since Grover Cleveland in the 1890s).

Many of us find ourselves craving more precedented times, desiring a return to some semblance of normalcy, hoping for some sense of unity, and envisioning a nation where we have some sense of trust and confidence in our government and those who serve in it.


Restoring Trust

Public trust in government has been declining for decades and shows few signs of improving. A 2024 State of Public Trust in Government survey suggests only 45 percent say most federal civil servants can be trusted to serve both political parties, two-thirds of the country believe there are many civil servants who work to undermine policies they disagree with, and just under a quarter say civil servants are nonpartisan.

This certainly portrays public servants unfavorably and reinforces why, according to the same survey, a mere 23 percent of Americans trust the federal government. This distrust, coupled with reports of poor performance and efforts to resist administration policies, was, arguably, the impetus for such controversial polices as Schedule F.

The 2024 presidential election didn’t help matters. The demeaning, divisive and derisive campaigns further undermined trust in government, public servants and fellow Americans.

While many Americans believe the government is wasteful, civil servants who are competent, non-partisan, and professional are key to improved outcomes for the public, which leads to greater transparency, accountability and trust.

Public servants must know their roles and responsibilities; ensure top performance and responsiveness; and fulfill their public oath to serve the American people and serve them well. This includes seeing past the campaign rhetoric and preparing to advise on — and help implement — policies (whether the candidate they supported was victorious or not).

At the same time, demoralizing and over-the-top disparagement of government is not helpful. Yes, government can be streamlined and reformed (and it should be done, respectfully and responsibly), but wholesale, indiscriminate dismantling would be ill advised and would fail to appreciate the complexity of such an undertaking as well as the the everyday public good that civil servants provide.

Administering and Implementing Policy

Every voter wants to know how the election outcome will affect them directly, including the topics they expressed concern about, including:

  • Inflation, which saw sharp increases during the current administration.
  • Immigration, which has expanded beyond the southwest border and includes a reported 11 million unauthorized immigrants.
  • Global conflict, which is changing in nature, increasingly includes more regions of the world and diverges from the more intense worries about what’s happening at our own front door.

But campaigning is different from governing. How lawmakers, advisors and public administrators execute policy on these, and a myriad of other issues such as healthcare will ultimately determine our future.

Guiding the way will be our next president, an unabashedly unconventional leader who has a major job ahead, particularly as we look to him to manage — and unite — the nation. Policy is important. How the policies are implemented, and the people who make it happen, matter just as much. And, career civil servants will play a key role, whether that role is contracted or expanded. It now comes down to the principles of public administration; economy, effectiveness, efficiency and equitable implementation

Supporting Civil Service, the President and All Americans

The landscape in which public servants do their work continues to shift. Fiscal constraints, ethical application of artificial intelligence, climate disasters and foreign affairs — all grand challenges in public administration — add to the difficulty of delivering good government.

Our future is as bright as our public servants are dedicated and accomplished. This is especially true if we support our civil servants, take an intergovernmental perspective, embrace bipartisan solutions, focus on data driven and evidence based policy and decision making, and deliver trusted analysis and research to our government leaders at all levels, including the next president.

While change in political direction is all but certain, the role our public servants play — and the value they impart — remains vital. And, they must lean into their responsibilities as they have for past administrations. There must be public servants who stand ready to support our next president with the much-needed, invaluable expertise only they can provide to ensure his and our country’s success.

Public service is honorable and should represent competence, nonpartisanship and excellence. Our public servants must faithfully give their best service and advice to our nation— playing their vital role in restoring public trust, impartially implementing the policies and laws that will change the lives of millions of Americans and countless others, and fulfilling their sacred obligation to the Constitution and the American people.

Blockwood, a former senior career executive in federal government, is an adjunct professor at Syracuse University’s Maxwell School of Citizenship of Public Affairs and incoming president and CEO of the National Academy of Public Administration.


Read More

An empty grocery cart in a market.

NYC Mayor Zohran Mamdani proposes five city-run grocery stores. See the arguments for and against, from food deserts to bodega concerns and the $70M cost.

Getty Images, Kwangmoozaa

Government-Owned Grocery Stores: Accessible Nutrition or Government Overreach?

Issue Introduction

Over the past few years, affordability has become the most central issue affecting Americans and the quality of life in the United States. The prices of groceries and basic necessities have risen 25-30% since the COVID-19 pandemic and are projected to rise another 3.2% in 2026. At the same time, the exodus of grocery chains from rural and low-income areas has scattered food deserts throughout individual states. Recent mass closures include Grocery Outlet’s shuttering of 36 stores and continued shut-downs of many Albertsons locations. These factors have led politicians to make affordability a major campaign issue.

During his progressive campaign for mayor of New York City, Zohran Mamdani raised the idea of opening grocery stores owned and operated by the city government to provide New Yorkers with affordable groceries. In his April 2026 public address that marked his first 100 days in office, Mayor Mamdani announced plans for the first of five city-run grocery stores. Mamdani’s proposed initiative will use $70 million in capital funding to build five city-owned municipal stores–one in each borough–and place them under control of the New York City Economic Development Corporation (NYCEDC). NYCEDC will then select third-party operating staff in accordance with city standards for affordability and proper labor practices. Public opinion following the announcement continues to be divided between uproar and support.

Keep ReadingShow less
​U.S. Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth

U.S. Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth testifies during a Senate Committee on Appropriations hearing on Capitol Hill in Washington, D.C., on July 21, 2026. Hegseth is crafting a strong and masculine identity for his audience as he reportedly contemplates a presidential run.

(Alex Wroblewski/AFP/Getty Images/TNS)

Politicians Can’t Just ’Give the People What They Want’

For reasons that will baffle my many detractors, I am often asked for advice about being an opinion journalist. One of my standard responses is: You have to be willing to disappoint your biggest fans.

What I mean is that if you start to see your job as telling fans what they want to hear, you risk becoming an entertainer rather than a thinker, and eventually you become a caricature. I’ve seen it happen numerous times. Patrick Buchanan was a brilliant columnist and a serious person. But over the course of his career, he listened too much to the people who said, “Go Pat, go!” and too little to friends who said, “I think that’s taking it too far.”

Keep ReadingShow less
White marble exterior of the United States Capitol, often called the Capitol Building, is the home of the United States Congress and the seat of the legislative branch of the U.S. federal government

Congress approval is at a record-low 10%. Moderation and consensus-building, not partisan theatrics, are how Washington gets problems solved.

Richard Sharrocks / Getty Images

Reclaiming the Politics of the Possible

Washington is stuck in a cycle of performative conflict. The incentives seem to reward outrage, not outcomes that last; purity tests, not problem‑solving. So it’s no surprise that after three shutdowns in less than a year, public approval of Congress collapsed to just 10 percent this spring. (Gallup, April 2026.) But the country we live in — where many middle-income families report persistent financial strain and businesses are navigating unprecedented technological upheaval — cannot be governed by theatrics. Breaking this cycle requires moderation, consensus‑building, and a cooperative approach to governance.

This is not a call for centrism as an ideology. Instead, this is a call for transformative leaders to embrace moderation as their governing strategy, recognizing that in a pluralistic country of nearly 350 million people durable solutions require broad and stable alliances. Ultimately, this is a call for the 240 million of us who are eligible to vote in November to elect consensus-builders instead of bomb-throwers, and healers instead of arsonists.

Keep ReadingShow less
Adult man holds a microphone while asking a question during a town hall meeting.

Congress ignored 90% of public support for background checks. Learn how citizen assemblies and sortition helped Ireland break gridlock and could work in the US.

SDI Productions/Getty Images

Consensus Without Power: How Sortition Could Break America's Legislative Gridlock

In April 2013, four months after the Sandy Hook Elementary shooting killed twenty children, the US Senate voted on the Manchin-Toomey Act to expand background checks and to include gun-show and internet sales of firearms. Roughly nine in ten Americans, including a majority of gun owners, supported the bill—a figure that has held steady across more than a decade of polling. It fell short of the 60-vote threshold by six votes. This was not an outlier. On complex issues, representatives often fail to translate public consensus into reality. Research shows that legislators consistently vote in line with donor and interest group preferences over constituent opinion. Before the vote, the National Rifle Association (NRA) warned every senator it would “rate” their vote on its annual rating system, and a low NRA rating could cost senators their next primary. Consequently, the bill died 54-46, and the majority of Americans watched, powerless, as their consensus was overridden by self-interested representatives.

Liberal democracies need a method to bypass electoral incentives that run counter to public opinion. One already exists: Ireland faced the same stalemate on complex issues before it instituted a process called sortition. The beauty of sortition lies in its removal of the primary pressure that misaligns representatives’ interests from public interest: reelection. Much like jury duty, citizens are randomly drawn from the population. An independent body then stratifies the pool, so the final group mirrors the country by age, gender, geography, and income. The group meets over weeks or months, hearing from experts and the public, as well as debating frequently. At the end, it issues a recommendation that parliament may then put to a referendum or pass into law.

Keep ReadingShow less