The Corner

Politics & Policy

Maintaining Our Constitutional Order Might Require Splitting Up the FBI

There has long been a bipartisan consensus that the Federal Bureau of Investigation ought to be insulated from political pressure, and it has been reaffirmed in the wake of President Donald Trump’s firing of FBI director James Comey. Republican and Democratic lawmakers alike insisted that Comey’s successor, Christopher Wray, be independent of the White House, and he has by all accounts endeavored to do just that. But should we really want a truly independent FBI, and is an independent FBI in keeping with America’s constitutional order?

In keeping with the conventional wisdom, my inclination has been to answer yes to both questions. So I was struck by a recent working paper by Justin Walker, a law professor at the University of Louisville’s Brandeis School of Law (and a newly-minted contributor to National Review), which argues that just as the military is subject to civilian control, on the grounds that an independent military would represent a grave threat to civil liberties, the FBI, a powerful agency charged with a number of national-security functions, should answer to the president. While we might hope that an independent FBI will be led by public-spirited officials, Walker reminds us that this hasn’t always been the case. He recounts the FBI’s long history of abusing its power, which reached its nadir under FBI director J. Edgar Hoover, concluding that an independent FBI “threatens civil liberties in ways similar to how an independent military threatens civil liberties,” which is why “it should be controlled by the President, like the military whose purpose it shares.”

But don’t we need an independent FBI to investigate presidential wrongdoing? Walker disagrees:

First, Congress can investigate suspected criminality by the President or his administration. It has the means and the constitutional responsibility to do so. And second, if one believes that as a general matter federal crime should be investigated by an agency independent of the President, the solution is to split the FBI, reserving its national-security functions for one agency and its criminal investigative functions for another. This is the model that many western democracies have adopted.

Though Walker acknowledges that Congress does not have the resources to conduct serious criminal investigations of the executive branch, he offers a straightforward solution: They ought to build this investigative capacity, which they have the constitutional authority to do. And if Congress fails to do so, voters have the right to elect members who will take their responsibilities more seriously. To those who find this solution overly ambitious, Walker offers an alternative: splitting the FBI between an agency focused on criminal investigations, which would be shielded from political interference, and another devoted to protecting U.S. national security against foreign threats. Note, however, that Walker does not recommend splitting the agency. His preferred alternative, it seems, is for Congress to take the lead in investigating the executive branch.

This, however, raises a separate concern, which Daryl J. Levinson and Richard Pildes, both of NYU Law School, addressed in their article “Separation of Parties, Not Powers”: the Framers assumed that the legislative branch would be eager to check the powers of the executive branch, but what they failed to anticipate is that partisan loyalties might outweigh institutional loyalties. That is, partisans in Congress might not be especially interested in investigating a partisan ally in the White House. Relations between the branches tend to be cooperative under unified government and contentious under divided government, which is why Walker’s preferred alternative, in which Congress steps up to the plate to investigate presidential wrongdoing, might only obtain when the partisan stars are (mis)aligned. If Walker really is right that an independent FBI represents a serious civil-liberties threat, splitting the FBI seems like the sounder solution.

Reihan Salam — Reihan Salam is executive editor of National Review and a National Review Institute policy fellow.

Most Popular


Trump’s Disgraceful Press Conference in Helsinki

On Monday, President Trump gave a deeply disgraceful press conference with Russian dictator Vladimir Putin. The presser began with Trump announcing that although the Russia–U.S. relationship has “never been worse than it is now,” all of that “changed as of about four hours ago.” It was downhill from ... Read More

Questions for Al Franken

1)Al, as you were posting on social media a list of proposed questions for Supreme Court nominee Brett Kavanaugh, did it occur to you that your opinion on the matter is no more relevant than Harvey Weinstein’s? 2) Al, is it appropriate for a disgraced former U.S. senator to use the Twitter cognomen “U.S. ... Read More

Democrats Are Dumping Moderates

The activist base of the Democratic party is lurching left fast enough that everyone should pay attention. Activists matter because their turnout in low-turnout primaries and caucuses almost propelled leftist Bernie Sanders to victory over Hillary Clinton in 2016. Last month, Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez unseated New ... Read More
National Security & Defense

Trump’s Helsinki Discord

Donald Trump is not, and never will be, the Moscow correspondent for The Nation magazine, and he shouldn’t sound like it. The left-wing publication is prone to extend sympathetic understanding to adversaries of the United States and find some reason, any reason, to blame ourselves for their external ... Read More