‘Law and order’ Dan Bishop gives mixed signals on following the law at Senate hearing | Opinion
Former Rep. Dan Bishop has had plenty of opportunities to say that he will follow the law if confirmed as a member of Donald Trump’s administration. You’d think that would be an easy question. But it’s one that Bishop has struggled to answer.
The first opportunity came last week, when Bishop testified before the Senate Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs as Trump’s nominee for deputy director of the Office of Management and Budget.
During that hearing, he was asked what he would do if Trump told him to do something that violated the law. He wouldn’t give a direct answer.
The second opportunity came Tuesday, when Bishop again testified regarding his nomination, this time before the Senate Budget Committee. At one point, Bishop said he would commit to following the law. But that answer seemed to change when Sen. Patty Murray mentioned that appropriations passed by Congress are also law, and the Trump administration has seemingly violated that law by not using federal funds as directed.
Murray asked a simple question: Will you follow the law and use the funds as directed?
Bishop responded by saying that he shares Trump’s view on impoundment, which is a process in which the president refuses to spend funds appropriated by Congress. Trump believes he has the power to do that, despite the fact that the Constitution is quite clear about the fact that spending authority lies with Congress.
Murray pointed out that there is a law known as the Impoundment Control Act, passed by Congress in 1974, that says impoundment is illegal. Does that mean Bishop won’t follow that law?
Bishop acknowledged the law’s existence, but said he believes it is unconstitutional. But, as another senator pointed out, it remains the law of the land until a court overturns it, regardless of how Bishop personally feels about its constitutionality. And that means that Bishop, and everyone else in Trump’s administration, must follow it in the meantime. Bishop, however, said it’s not up to him to decide that.
“I’m not a lawyer,” Bishop responded, before correcting himself to say, “I’m not a lawyer in this administration.”
Bishop may not have been appointed to serve as a lawyer in Trump’s administration, but he is a lawyer. He spent decades practicing law before entering public service. He unsuccessfully ran to be North Carolina’s attorney general with a campaign centered around “law and order.” He’s more than qualified to know what the law says, even if his job doesn’t require knowing it. Is he really willing to throw law and order out the window when Trump asks him to?
This may all sound like a lot of inside baseball, but it’s a tremendously important issue, and the position Bishop is hoping to fill is an important one, too. OMB is the agency behind the attempted federal funding freeze. It has also played a role in the mass firing of federal employees, and it’s worked closely with Elon Musk and DOGE to attack the federal government from within. If confirmed, Bishop would be second-in-command of that agency, putting him in a position to make a far greater impact than he did while in Congress. That’s worrying.
Unfortunately, that wasn’t the only concerning response Bishop had Tuesday. He was also asked whether he still believes the 2020 election was rigged. Bishop said that he does.
At one point, Bishop told the committee, “I’m not being nominated to serve my own views and interests, I’m being nominated to implement the policies that President Trump wishes to have implemented.”
That’s exactly what people are afraid of: that Bishop’s blind loyalty to Trump will eclipse his loyalty to anything else, most of all the law. They worry that Trump’s directive is the only law that matters to Bishop. And based on what we heard in his confirmation hearings, it’s safe to say those fears are warranted.
