Our federal government is comprised of three different branches as well as numerous administration and committees. The purpose of such entities in democratic governments like our own is to provide a system of checks and balances in order to ensure that no single entity has a disproportionate amount of authority over the others. The Legislative Branch is composed of a bicameral congress (the House of Representatives and the Senate) while the Executive Branch is composed of the commander-in-chief (the president), as well as the vice president and the presidential cabinet. The fifteen executive departments consist of individuals who are trusted by the President and are typically appointed by him. To officially become a member of the Presidential Cabinet, though, the appointee must be confirmed by the Senate. This is a perfect example of how these two branches of our government exist to balance each other out. While they serve slightly different purposes, their common interests are rooted in the welfare of the United States. Moreover, the people who fill positions in these branches are in charge of fulfilling their roles while ensuring that other branches do not impede on their ability to do so fairly and effectively. In doing this, members of the Legislative and Executive Branches routinely commune with one another in hopes of collaborating on common issues. The many difficult decisions that the country is faced with are addressed in these interactions and decisions are made according to negotiation and collaboration. The Executive Branch ensures that laws passed by Congress are in line with the interests of the nation while Congress has the authority to bypass presidential authority in the case of majority rulings.

Bureaucracy is present, though limited, in the Executive Branch. Since the President has the authority to appoint his own cabinet members and choose his Vice President, the direction that this branch of government will pursue will often rely primarily on the discretion of the President. While this group of people are charged with the duty of keeping out nation on track by passing policies that align with such a goal, their ability to do so is limited by the restrictions of their authority. In order to approve any major policy changes on a federal level, the President must sign off on bills approved by Congress. If he vetoes the bill, Congress may still pass it with a significant majority revote. Moreover, any changes to individual state laws that do not contradict federal law are typically reserved for the elected officials of those states. Since the Executive Branch, consisting primarily of non-elected officials, plays a major role in how new policies come to pass, it could be argued that their influence is overly bureaucratic by nature. However, the elected officials of each of the individual states have, in a sense, an even greater level of authority in the implementation of new legislature. Bureaucratic ideology holds that the most important decisions are made by state officials (on the national level, this would be considered the members of the Executive Branch) as opposed to elected representatives. While the Executive Branch gets a final say in the passage of the most important matters, its ability to do so is not without its limitations. Since the main purpose of the Executive Branch is to direct the country in a common direction while addressing its most crucial needs, the bureaucracy that is present is limited by its obligations and checks by the Legislative Branch. This dynamic creates a functional system of checks and balances that evenly distribute authority among these branches.

Since Bureaucracy relies more heavily on the decision-making abilities of state officials, it could be argued that the influence of the rational actor model is another limited force within the Executive Branch. Since their bureaucratic influence relies more heavily on the instincts and knowledge of the officials themselves, the notion of voting and systematic procedure for approving new policies lies more with the Legislative Branch. The non-rational actor model essentially dictates that the actor makes decisions on the basis of their intuition and personal judgement. This is to be expected in Bureaucratic governments. To draw a basis for policy changes, though, the voice of the common people is a force that can drive the decisions of the Executive Branch. Lipsky draws a parallel between street-level bureaucracy has the potential to gain the attention of a higher-level bureaucracy (i.e, the federal government). In order to do this, though, lower officials who work as service workers for the state must rely on their own judgments to effectively make their cases for change. This would not typically come about through use of the rational actor model. On the contrary, the nonrational actor model would be used in gathering their evaluations and ideas for any pertinent policy reformation/implementation. To rationally analyze data to implement involvement of the Executive Brach could be ineffective and not meet the needs of those seeking change. This would lead to dysfunction in the public sector, making its members feel as if their voices are not being heard.

In our government, bureaucratic decision-making is a part of rulemaking on a federal level. However, the influence of the Executive Branch’s decisions is greatly impacted by the will and intentions of the Legislative Branch. Neither negotiated rulemaking nor bureaucratic rulemaking is entirely dominant in our government; the system for making rules relies on a combination of both methods through the cooperation of these two branches. The system of checks and balances that exists ensures that, when in doubt, negotiations and revisions can ensue when the two branches are not entirely aligned on certain matters. The bureaucratic method of rulemaking provides the direction in which the country will head while the method of negotiated rulemaking ensures that this direction is not taken against the consent of the governed.