[Goose]

The structure is broken and it's because we had assumed "norms" would be sufficient safeguards and if norms were broken, checks and balances like congressional impeachment powers would be sufficient.  This has proven not to be sufficient.  If the president and the Senate are together on doing whatever they want, POTUS can fire Inspector Generals, which really should be similar to independent counsels.  The IGs have been decimated under Trump and most were monitoring clear violations (e.g., asking UK to move British Open to Trump's golf course, firing employees despite whistleblower protections, etc).  I've edited out examples in a number of departments for the sake of Terry's Rule.  In the case of both the FDA and the CDC, norms are also being violated.  CDC has been effectively muzzled.  Compare H1N1 and SARS-CoV-2 in terms of CDC press conferences and autonomy.  Unlike some other institutions, I'm not sure anyone anticipates an attack on medical or science policy.  It's interesting that there are IGs for both the CDC and FDA as well.  I didn't know that before I googled it.

I agree that we have relied on "norms" to ensure rational actions by the POTUS. We also relied on the voters not to elect a POTUS that would violate norms and reasonable management principles at will. Indeed, we all also assumed that if the POTUS was a habitual liar and engaged in behavior that was manifestly harmful to the country, he would be impeached. Unfortunately, none of that has happened. Even more unfortunately it is also not a for sure thing that the POTUS will be defeated in the upcoming election.
However, I don't think the structure can be changed to avoid this type of situation. I am willing to listen, but I believe no executive branch can run well without a CEO, and that CEO can't be in a position where half his employees are doing their own thing. I certainly don't mean a CEO that is all-powerful. The POTUS has a Board of Directors (Congress) and a bunch of stockholders (citizens) who can remove him when his conduct as a CEO is outside the norms. We have had many presidents who perhaps pushed the envelope of acceptable management behavior. However, what we see now is beyond anything we have ever seen before, IMHO.
IMHO there is no substitute for an informed, involved citizenry and an effective, vigilant Congress. Every government that has attempted to significantly avoid a chief executive with considerable power has come to grief, AFAIK. Passing laws and added layers of oversight just bogs down the government. If it is run by an unprincipled idiot, things will go badly until said idiot is replaced, no matter how the organization is gerrymandered.

[Goose]

The structure is broken and it's because we had assumed "norms" would be sufficient safeguards and if norms were broken, checks and balances like congressional impeachment powers would be sufficient.  This has proven not to be sufficient.  If the president and the Senate are together on doing whatever they want, POTUS can fire Inspector Generals, which really should be similar to independent counsels.  The IGs have been decimated under Trump and most were monitoring clear violations (e.g., asking UK to move British Open to Trump's golf course, firing employees despite whistleblower protections, etc).  I've edited out examples in a number of departments for the sake of Terry's Rule.  In the case of both the FDA and the CDC, norms are also being violated.  CDC has been effectively muzzled.  Compare H1N1 and SARS-CoV-2 in terms of CDC press conferences and autonomy.  Unlike some other institutions, I'm not sure anyone anticipates an attack on medical or science policy.  It's interesting that there are IGs for both the CDC and FDA as well.  I didn't know that before I googled it.

I agree that we have relied on "norms" to ensure rational actions by the POTUS. We also relied on the voters not to elect a POTUS that would violate norms and reasonable management principles at will. Indeed, we all also assumed that if the POTUS was a habitual liar and engaged in behavior that was manifestly harmful to the country, he would be impeached. Unfortunately, none of that has happened. Even more unfortunately it is also not a for sure thing that the POTUS will be defeated in the upcoming election.
However, I don't think the structure can be changed to avoid this type of situation. I am willing to listen, but I believe no executive branch can run well without a CEO, and that CEO can't be in a position where half his employees are doing their own thing. I certainly don't mean a CEO that is all-powerful. The POTUS has a Board of Directors (Congress) and a bunch of stockholders (citizens) who can remove him when his conduct as a CEO is outside the norms. We have had many presidents who perhaps pushed the envelope of acceptable management behavior. However, what we see now is beyond anything we have ever seen before, IMHO.
IMHO there is no substitute for an informed, involved citizenry and an effective, vigilant Congress. Every government that has attempted to significantly avoid a chief executive with considerable power has come to grief, AFAIK. Passing laws and added layers of oversight just bogs down the government. If it is run by an unprincipled idiot, things will go badly until said idiot is replaced, no matter how the organization is gerrymandered.