Over the past decade, a growing number of legal and political theorists have looked to ideas of trusteeship and fiduciary relations to explain foundational concepts associated with the rule of law, constitutional government, the role of judges and legislators, and the idea of public authority itself. Professor Evan Criddle and I have contributed to this literature by arguing that fiduciary principles can help explain administrative law and international law. This public fiduciary literature has attracted thoughtful and nuanced critiques. Some of the critiques reject the public fiduciary project outright, while others are of a more in-house variety, and take exception to some of the arguments I have defended, either solely or with Professor Criddle. In this chapter I reply to the thorough-going critiques of Timothy Endicott and Seth Davis, and the in-house criticism of Paul Miller.