On October 4, Joel Clement, a career employee at the Department of the Interior, . In the letter explaining why, he didn鈥檛 hold back, citing Secretary Ryan Zinke鈥檚 鈥渞esume of failure鈥 and accusing him of wasting taxpayer money and betraying the American people.
Until June, Clement was in charge of the Office of Policy Analysis, where he worked primarily on the effects of climate change in Alaska. Then he was abruptly transferred to a position in the office that audits royalty payments from companies extracting oil and coal on public lands鈥攁n area well outside of his expertise. Clement concluded that the Trump Administration was trying to coerce him to leave the DOI, and , claiming that his reassignment was retaliation for his speaking out publicly about the danger of climate change.
国产吃瓜黑料 contributor Stephanie Joyce spoke with Clement a few days ago about his experience, how he sees the Trump Administration undermining the institutions of government, and what he wishes he鈥檇 said to Zinke. 聽聽
OUTSIDE: Describe the letter that outlined your reassignment.
CLEMENT: I got an email at 8 p.m.鈥擨 happened to check email because a friend said 鈥淗ey, I was just reassigned, you might want to check your email鈥濃攁nd the letter said something to the effect of, 鈥淲e鈥檙e going to move you, and we鈥檙e going to move you to this auditing office because you have economists on your staff currently, so you must know about money and numbers and therefore we鈥檙e going to move you to an auditing office.鈥
It was just ridiculous. It was an attempt to make some excuse for sending me somewhere where they hoped that I would quit.
As far as I know, you鈥檙e one of the few high-ranking officials, or the only one, to file a complaint. How did your colleagues at the Interior treat you after you filed it?
Well, first of all, I think there may be others, they just haven鈥檛 been public. We don鈥檛 know yet. I鈥檓 hoping that there are others.
I took a week off after filing, and when I came back, I was nervous about going in that front door, because I didn鈥檛 have any idea how people would react. Boy, I was so encouraged and relieved. Everyone was very supportive.
I鈥檓 not going to mention any specific people because everyone is quite nervous, everyone is looking over their shoulder. I will say there were a lot of smiles and handshakes and low-key appreciation in public spaces, and a lot of people came by my office in private just to say thank you and I hope you鈥檙e doing alright and good luck.
If, as you allege, shifting personnel is a strategy to get people to quit, do you think it鈥檚 been effective at silencing the conversation about climate change within the department?
First of all, it鈥檚 unlawful. But yes, I think it put quite a chill in the Senior Executive Service, in particular. Everyone is keeping their heads down, people are not talking much about it.
Where do you see the DOI headed? What鈥檚 the outcome of all of this?
There will be more turmoil. Secretary Zinke has not demonstrated the kind of dedication to ethics that you鈥檇 hope to see, so there may be other problems for him. There are several investigations going on right now, including the ones that I鈥檓 involved with.
But the career staff are dedicated and they鈥檙e on the ball and they can get the job done regardless of the turmoil upstairs. You know, there are 70,000 people that work for the DOI and there are probably 65 political employees there right now. So, there鈥檚 only so much damage they can do to an agency with so much inertia.
That was something people talked about a lot in the aftermath of the election鈥攖hat there鈥檚 a lot of inertia in the federal government and it鈥檚 hard to change things quickly. But a lot of things seem to have changed quickly, so do you really believe that?
Well, here鈥檚 why I haven鈥檛 revised my opinion: yes, there is this all-out assault and they鈥檙e trying to break down the agencies from within, particularly Scott Pruitt and Secretary Zinke, but they鈥檙e not very good at it, so they鈥檙e landing in court.
We鈥檙e seeing this over and over and we鈥檒l continue to see it. The nullification of the Clean Power Plan is a good example. Three times the Supreme Court has decided that the EPA must regulate CO2 emissions. You can鈥檛 just stop doing it, or you鈥檒l land in court.
They鈥檙e just sort of stalling tactics. The Administration is throwing kind of ham-fisted punches at rules and policies and laws and they鈥檙e not landing, for the most part. But you鈥檙e right, of course, that many things are changing and that鈥檚 frustrating to see.
So, in some senses, they鈥檙e not being very effective at getting things changed.
Yeah, they don鈥檛 really know what strings to pull to get it to happen. What they do know, what they鈥檙e experts in, is the kind of political language around what they are trying to do. But the actual implementation is not something that they鈥檝e demonstrated any acumen at.
Other than reassignments.
Well, yeah, but that was just a statement as much as anything else. And it was a failure. It was widely panned as a clumsy half-effort to make their mark on the agency. There are still only a handful of people who have been Senate confirmed. They still are missing a lot of positions.
Their political strategy isn鈥檛 going to trickle down to the career folks that way. But we鈥檒l see. Maybe they鈥檙e up to all kinds of crazy sneaky stuff and just not telling us about it.
But if the goal is to gum up the works, that鈥檚 not working well?
Right. They鈥檙e not succeeding at that, even though that is certainly the goal. What they are succeeding at is taking the scientists聽and experts out of the equation聽by putting all the advisory committees on hold and so on. That's happening across the federal level.聽They clearly don鈥檛 want to be challenged by people who know their subject matters.聽
You鈥檝e said your reassignment sets a dangerous precedent. Why is that?
With every transition there are new priorities and people get all spun up about the changes that will happen. But if you think back to when we went from Clinton to Bush and then Bush to Obama, the priorities certainly changed in that period of time, but never has a Cabinet member come in with the deliberate intention to disable the agency that he鈥檚 leading. And that鈥檚 a really dangerous precedent. That鈥檚 a disregard for the rule of law and the will of the people and Congress. And in my view, it鈥檚 flying in the face of the Constitution. So I think it鈥檚 a bigger deal maybe than a lot of other people think, and I worry about it.
Even if someone comes in with that aim, can they really accomplish that?
I think ultimately the mission of the agency and the intent of Congress and the intent of the Constitution will win the day. But we鈥檙e going through a terrible period of churning and disappointment with the behavior of these public servants, who are clearly not serving the public.
If you actually had the opportunity to meet face to face with Zinke, what would you say to him?
I would ask him to resign, I would ask him to step down. I鈥檝e thought about this a lot. If I got stuck in an elevator with him in the building before I left, that鈥檚 exactly what I would have said.
This interview has been edited and condensed for clarity.