Trump Accelerates Push to Reward Loyalty in Federal Workforce

President Trump is increasing efforts to reshape the federal workforce, prioritizing loyalty over merit-based hiring. New practices are in place that could make it easier to dismiss career employees, raising concerns about politicization and implications for public service integrity. The proposed changes include an ‘at-will’ employment status and essay requirements for job applicants, aimed at advancing Trump’s policies, which many fear could erode decades of civil service protections.

President Donald Trump is ramping up a campaign to reshape the federal workforce, prioritizing loyalty over the traditional merit-based principles that have guided it for decades. This shift, aimed at facilitating easier terminations of career employees, is raising alarms among federal workers, public service experts, and employment lawyers about the potential impact on nonpartisan public service.

A key component of the administration’s approach is a budget proposal that could compel new federal employees to accept an “at-will” status. This would make it simpler for them to be dismissed without cause, or they could opt to pay higher retirement contributions instead. Additionally, job applicants may soon need to submit essays outlining how they intend to support Trump’s policies. This has spurred fears that the current federal workforce may increasingly be staffed by political loyalists rather than skilled professionals.

“These employees could be replaced with partisan loyalists — people who will obey any order, regardless of the Constitution,” said Joe Spielberger, a senior policy counsel at the Project on Government Oversight. He emphasizes that this shift prioritizes fealty to the president over the ethical duties of public service, which historically relied on skills and neutrality.

Federal employees are expressing serious concerns regarding these changes. Interviews with 13 individuals across seven different agencies revealed a widespread sentiment that the administration’s efforts represent an attack on the principles of public service. Speaking anonymously, these workers described a push to replace an expert-driven government with one filled with Trump supporters, undermining neutral public service.

The Trump administration has argued that merit-based hiring has diminished in favor of demographic information and diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) initiatives. As part of this wholesale change, the Office of Personnel Management recently announced an overhaul aimed at eliminating DEI policies and focusing on recruiting younger workers in STEM fields and veterans.

Critics of the new policies decry the overarching message: that federal service must serve the President first and foremost. Aisha Coffey, a communications specialist at the FDA who faced termination, said that the memo outlining these changes effectively aims to convert a neutral civil service into a cadre of “MAGA loyalists.”

Experts worry that the attractiveness of federal jobs, known for stability, will diminish if the work culture shifts to be centered around personal loyalty to the president. Those in fields like computer science or law apparently have many appealing options outside government, and might avoid working in such a potentially unstable environment.

Despite long-standing protections via the Pendleton Act of 1883 and the Civil Service Reform Act of 1978, aimed at ensuring rights for federal employees and protecting hiring based on skills, new policies are undermining these principles. The lack of a quorum at the Merit Systems Protection Board only raises further questions about the future of these protections.

Questions for applicants seem particularly concerning. For any GS-5 jobs and above, they must now explain their plans to implement Trump’s policy directives. Some experts believe this could push against meritocracy in hiring and might lead to claims of political discrimination.

There’s a growing fear among many that Trump’s renewed ambitions, like reinstating Schedule F, may lead to thousands of policy-related federal positions being decoupled from career protections. The legal battles brewing around these attempts could prolong uncertainty in federal hiring processes.

Supporters, however, like Senator Rick Scott of Florida, see the changes as necessary for government efficiency. Meanwhile, veteran policy experts caution that a transition modeled after private industry, where hiring and firing are more casual, doesn’t reflect how public service operates. Max Stier of the Partnership for Public Service argues these changes threaten to inject unprecedented partisanship into the federal workforce, while employment attorneys draw attention to the new hiring procedures as troubling realms for potential discrimination claims.

Thus, the tumult and friction within the federal landscape looks set to intensify, rooted in a fundamental clash between tradition and a bold new approach prioritizing loyalty.

Original Source: www.washingtonpost.com