Trump, the CDC and incentives ignored

[Bloomberg]( Follow Us //link.mail.bloombergbusiness.com/click/20448699.16236/aHR0cHM6Ly90d2l0dGVyLmNvbS9ib3Bpbmlvbg/57d8157f3f92a424d68d6450Bb881d206 [Get the newsletter](hash=b9b2681361bede0e1069ca238efb1ec2) It’s amazing how quickly the CDC has squandered its reputation for straight-shooting and scientific excellence during Donald Trump’s presidency (the latest embarrassments are [here]( and [here](). There’s a lot to say about this and similar failures across the federal government, but what strikes me is what they reveal about healthy incentives — and how Trump manages to ignore them. First, having an agency with a gold-standard reputation is a terrific resource for leaders who care about getting their way and also care about re-election. It allows them to speak with the authority of experts even if they themselves are relatively ignorant. It also gives them an opportunity to have most of the nation, and not just their supporters, at least potentially support their policies, since those policies can have the certificate of expertise attached to them. That matters. It matters desperately for Trump right now. His obvious goals are to reduce the spread of the virus while rebooting the economy as quickly as possible; for that, he needs ordinary citizens to follow best practices for safety and also to trust that it is safe to return to activities they gave up in March. And he needs strong supporters, strong opponents, and everyone in between to do both of those things, or else it won’t work. No politician is ever able to do that on his or her own. But trusted experts make it possible for the president to get it done. To be sure, there’s a cost. For a president to get the seal of approval from experts, he or she has to listen seriously to them. This may mean compromising the president’s preferred approach. If the president simply ignores the experts but tries to use their reputation anyway, the agency’s bureaucrats may refuse to endorse the policy, or undermine it through such strategies as press leaks or testimony to Congress. Or, if the president succeeds in undermining the agency’s integrity enough that it will slavishly grant his every whim, its reputation — and thus its political usefulness — will be destroyed. Notice that healthy incentives are built into the system. Agencies care about their reputations for reasons of professional pride, but also because it benefits them at budget time and helps them do their jobs without outside interference. And presidents have good self-interested reason to listen to those agencies. That’s a way to force politicians who care mainly about elections to seek expert input into policy. Now, I should be clear that good presidents should listen seriously to experts in the executive branch — not necessarily do whatever they say. Experts can be wrong! That’s why presidents beginning with Harry Truman have built up a White House staff with parallel teams of experts who don’t have the same bureaucratic practices as those inside executive-branch agencies, and who are more naturally attuned to the president’s political interests. And beyond that, good presidents apply their own political judgment to the subject-matter expertise that they have access to in order to make good decisions. Trump, unfortunately, is so bad at presidenting that he fails to follow those clear healthy incentives. To be fair, he did seem to take some expert advice seriously for two or three weeks in April. But he rapidly lost interest, and either he or others in the White House seem to have pressured agencies to go along with him even as he ignores their counsel. Now he wants the economy to reopen safely, but he has no idea how to get there from here, and he doesn’t have the assets the presidency once had. It’s not apt to work very well for the nation, or for him.  1. Dan Drezner on [Trump and norms.]( 2. Michael C. Davis and Victoria Tin-bor Hui at the Monkey Cage on [China and Hong Kong](. 3. Jacob S. Hacker and Paul Pierson on a Republican Party that doesn’t seem to care about [doing popular things](. 4. Dahlia Lithwick and Rick Hasen on [the Federalist Society pushing conspiracy theories](. 5. My Bloomberg Opinion colleagues Timothy L. O’Brien and Nir Kaissar look at how the [fiscal and monetary relief efforts]( are working so far. 6. David Roberts on the [Democratic climate agenda](. 7. A ProPublica team reports on [fraud and more among federal contractors]( during the pandemic. Essential reporting, although keep in mind that at least some mistakes are simply the price for rushing to get results. Still, there sure seems to be a lot of abuse — especially given the very mixed signs of federal government successes. 8. And James Poniewozik on [Sarah Cooper, Trump lip-sync specialist](.  Before it’s here, it’s on the Bloomberg Terminal. Find out more about how the Terminal delivers information and analysis that financial professionals can’t find anywhere else. [Learn more](.  You received this message because you are subscribed to Bloomberg's Early Returns newsletter. [Unsubscribe]( | [Bloomberg.com]( | [Contact Us]( Bloomberg L.P. 731 Lexington, New York, NY, 10022