Trump Is Well within His Rights to Fire Christopher Wray

At the Atlantic, David Frum proposes that Donald Trump is scheming “a constitutional scandal far greater than Watergate.” The anticipated crime? Trump’s intention to fire the incumbent FBI director, Christopher Wray. Per Frum, the problem with this plan is not that Trump’s expected replacement, Kash Patel, is a bad guy — although Frum believes that he is — but that Trump might exercise the power to choose who serves as director of the FBI per se. “The essential harm,” Frum contends, “will be done by the firing of Wray, not the hiring of Patel (or whoever ultimately gets the job).” That, he concludes, is “the real outrage.”

In my estimation, this argument is entirely backwards. Adumbrating his case, Frum rehearses the history of what he describes as an “unwritten rule governing” the FBI director’s “appointment — no dismissal except for compelling cause.” Next, he submits that this “unwritten rule” is important, because “FBI directors wield awesome powers over the liberties of Americans.” But it is precisely because the FBI has so much power that Frum’s “unwritten rule” is problematic. The United States does not have an unwritten constitution; it has a written one. And that written Constitution is extremely clear in its allocation of power. As is proper, most of that power lies in Congress — including the power to consider and approve or reject executive nominees. But, per Article II, the president gets to run his own department. “The executive Power,” that provision holds, “shall be vested in a President of the United States of America.” Included within is the power to fire his subordinates.

About the Author

Charles C. W. Cooke

Charles C. W. Cooke is a senior editor at National Review and the host of The Charles C. W. Cooke Podcast.

Featured Tags

At the Atlantic, David Frum proposes that Donald Trump is scheming “a constitutional scandal far greater than Watergate.” The anticipated crime? Trump’s intention to fire the incumbent FBI director, Christopher Wray. Per Frum, the problem with this plan is not that Trump’s expected replacement, Kash Patel, is a bad guy — although Frum believes that he is — but that Trump might exercise the power to choose who serves as director of the FBI per se. “The essential harm,” Frum contends, “will be done by the firing of Wray, not the hiring of Patel (or whoever ultimately gets the job).” That, he concludes, is “the real outrage.”

In my estimation, this argument is entirely backwards. Adumbrating his case, Frum rehearses the history of what he describes as an “unwritten rule governing” the FBI director’s “appointment — no dismissal except for compelling cause.” Next, he submits that this “unwritten rule” is important, because “FBI directors wield awesome powers over the liberties of Americans.” But it is precisely because the FBI has so much power that Frum’s “unwritten rule” is problematic. The United States does not have an unwritten constitution; it has a written one. And that written Constitution is extremely clear in its allocation of power. As is proper, most of that power lies in Congress — including the power to consider and approve or reject executive nominees. But, per Article II, the president gets to run his own department. “The executive Power,” that provision holds, “shall be vested in a President of the United States of America.” Included within is the power to fire his subordinates.