Personal Ethics vs Executive Authority in U.S. Agencies
This paper examines the ethical responsibilities of employees within U.S. executive agencies, focusing on two primary areas: the tension between personal ethics and compliance with presidential executive orders, and agencies' obligations under the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA). The paper explores whether agencies or individual employees can legally or ethically resist executive orders, how conflicts between personal and institutional ethics might be peacefully resolved through peacemaking theory, and what categories of documents agencies may lawfully withhold from the public. Drawing on case examples such as the 1995 Clinton executive order and the 2017 Trump immigration order, the paper provides a practical framework for understanding ethical conduct in public administration.
- Introduction to Personal Ethics in Executive Agencies: Overview of personal ethics in government agency context
- Executive Agencies and the Power of Executive Orders: Whether agencies can ethically resist presidential orders
- Legal and Ethical Limits of Resisting Executive Orders: Legal cases examining agency defiance of executive orders
- Resolving Conflicts Between Personal and Institutional Ethics: Peacemaking theory as a framework for ethics conflicts
- Administrative Agencies and Public Access to Records: FOIA obligations and employee ethical responsibilities
- FOIA Exemptions and Exclusions: What Stays Private: Nine exemptions and three exclusions under FOIA law
✍️ How to write this paper — guide, tools & examples ▾
What makes this paper effective
- Uses concrete historical examples — the Clinton Executive Order 12954 and the 2017 Trump immigration order — to ground abstract ethical arguments in documented events.
- Clearly separates two distinct ethical domains (executive order compliance and FOIA obligations) while maintaining a unified theme of employee ethical responsibility.
- Applies a named theoretical framework (peacemaking theory) to propose a constructive resolution to ethics conflicts, giving the analysis academic grounding.
Key academic technique demonstrated
The paper demonstrates the use of question-and-answer structuring to organize a multi-part policy analysis. Each subsection responds directly to a specific normative question, allowing the writer to build arguments incrementally while keeping the analysis focused. This technique is effective for applied ethics papers in public administration, where issues often have both legal and moral dimensions that must be addressed separately before a synthesis is possible.
Structure breakdown
The paper is divided into two major thematic sections. The first covers executive agencies and executive orders across four sub-questions: whether agencies can ethically or legally resist orders, whether personal ethics can override institutional ones, and how conflicts can be resolved. The second section addresses FOIA, covering employee ethical responsibilities, the nine exemptions and three exclusions available under the law, and the rationale for distinguishing public from private government documents. References follow APA format.
Introduction to Personal Ethics in Executive Agencies
Employees of executive agencies face a recurring tension between their personal ethical convictions and the institutional demands of their roles. This paper examines two dimensions of that tension: the extent to which agency employees can ethically or legally resist a presidential executive order, and the ethical obligations agencies hold regarding public access to government records under the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA).
Executive Agencies and the Power of Executive Orders
Technically and practically, it is nearly impossible for an executive agency to rebel against an executive order. An executive order issued by the United States president is a directive for the executive branch and must be implemented by the government. Given the deliberative process involved in formulating an executive order and the various legal professionals involved at the White House, most executive orders are ethical and lawful. Accordingly, the relevant administrative agencies are required to implement them.
However, if an executive order is illegal, the checks and balances within the U.S. governance system work to filter it out. For example, Executive Order 12954, issued by President Bill Clinton in 1995, sought to stop the federal government from contracting organizations that had strike-breakers on their payroll (Edwards, 1999). The order was found to present legal conflicts, and the federal appeals court subsequently overturned it. From this standpoint, if an agency believes an executive order is unethical, legal channels exist to seek redress. At the individual level, if a single employee believes an executive order is unethical, the most available option is resignation from their position.
Legal and Ethical Limits of Resisting Executive Orders
An executive agency can attempt to resist an executive order, but such resistance is largely an exercise in futility. In January 2017, the then-acting U.S. Attorney General instructed the Justice Department not to defend President Trump's executive order on immigration policies. This decision was based on a personal conviction that defending the order was inconsistent with the responsibility of standing for what is right, and that the orders were unlawful (Fullerton, 2017). This episode demonstrates that an executive agency employee can take a stand against an executive order from the president.
However, the acting Attorney General was fired and replaced with Dana Boente, who oversaw the implementation of the executive orders. This outcome illustrates the institutional limits of personal resistance: once an executive order has been issued, it remains active and can only be revoked by the president, by Congress, or by a court declaring it unlawful (Kessler, 2017).
As for whether personal ethical models can usurp institutional ones, personal ethics plays a crucial role in the workplace alongside professional ethics. Personal ethics determines what an individual considers right or wrong and guides the decisions they make at work. It shapes how an employee handles specific situations and how they grow within their career (Griffin, Kruger & Maturana, 2017). This dynamic applies equally to employees of executive agencies. In a democratic system such as that of the United States, government employees are not prohibited from acting on personal ethics; however, in practice, the most common response when employees feel they cannot compromise their ethics is resignation rather than open institutional defiance.
Administrative Agencies and Public Access to Records
The Freedom of Information Act gives citizens the right to request and receive information from government agencies. In fulfilling this mandate, government agencies have an ethical responsibility to follow established tests and procedures that uphold the values of informed consent, anonymity, confidentiality, and protection from harm. These procedures are set out in FOIA law and in the training and responsibilities of FOIA coordinators, who receive FOI requests, direct them to the relevant department, and manage the redaction of information in accordance with FOIA law and policy (Walby & Luscombe, 2018). Therefore, the core ethical responsibility of employees in executive agencies is to ensure that FOIA law is followed precisely when managing public requests, and that responses are provided promptly.
There are three exclusions and nine exemptions that can be used to deny FOIA requests. The nine exemptions are as follows (FOIA.gov, 2021):
1. Documents classified as national defense and foreign relations information.
2. Documents on internal agency personnel rules and practices.
3. Documents containing information that is prohibited from disclosure by another federal law.
4. Documents bearing trade secrets and commercial or financial information from an individual that are confidential or privileged.
5. Documents with inter-agency or intra-agency memoranda or letters protected by legal privileges.
6. Documents containing medical, personnel, financial, or other files whose disclosure would constitute an unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.
7. Documents containing specific types of information compiled for law enforcement purposes.
8. Documents contained in or related to examination, condition reports, or operations prepared by, on behalf of, or for the use of any agency responsible for the regulation or supervision of financial institutions.
9. Documents bearing geophysical and geological information, including maps pertaining to wells.
The three exclusions are (FOIA.gov, 2021):
1. Documents in which the subject is under investigation, is unaware of the existence of the records, and whose disclosure would interfere with the investigation.
2. Documents concerning informants held by a criminal law enforcement agency where the informant's status is not publicly known.
3. Documents on FBI foreign intelligence, counterintelligence, or international terrorism records.
References
FOIA.gov. (2021). Retrieved from https://www.foia.gov/faq.html
Banks, C. (2020). Criminal Justice Ethics (5th ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publishing.
Edwards, C. (1999, August 23). Emergency rule, abuse of power? Insight on the News, 18.
Fullerton, M. (2017). Trump, turmoil, and terrorism: The US immigration and refugee ban. International Journal of Refugee Law, 29(2), 327–338.
Griffin, J. M., Kruger, S., & Maturana, G. (2017). Do personal ethics influence corporate ethics? Personal infidelity and professional conduct. NBER Working Paper, 4, 16268–16273.
Kessler, S. (2017, January 31). There are three ways to revoke a US president's executive orders, and they rarely succeed. Quartz. Retrieved from https://qz.com/898683/can-an-executive-order-be-revoked/
Walby, K., & Luscombe, A. (2018). Ethics review and freedom of information requests in qualitative research. Research Ethics, 14(4), 1–15.
Create your account
Always verify citation format against your institution’s current style guide requirements.