Trump Accelerates Push to Reward Loyalty in Federal Workforce

President Trump is accelerating changes to the federal workforce, prioritizing loyalty to his administration over traditional, merit-based hiring practices. This shift is ominous for civil servants who fear increased politicization and loss of job security. New proposals may require job applicants to focus on advancing Trump’s priorities, posing challenges for recruiting skilled professionals amid concerns of discrimination and declining interest in public service roles.

In recent developments, President Donald Trump is pushing his agenda to reshape the federal workforce, shifting focus towards rewarding loyalty to him rather than adhering to the traditional merit-based hiring system. This transformation poses a significant departure from decades of practices aimed at evaluating hiring and promotions based on skills and experience, raising alarms among federal employees, public service experts, as well as employment attorneys.

The House-passed budget proposal now under Senate review offers a striking ultimatum to new federal workers: accept an “at-will” status that could facilitate easier terminations, or face higher retirement contribution rates. Additionally, job applicants may soon be required to submit essays outlining strategies to support Trump’s priorities. The administration is also making moves to reclassify numerous federal roles, further blending political appointments with career positions.

Critics of the changes, like Joe Spielberger from the Project on Government Oversight, argue the shift prioritizes obedience to presidential orders over obligations to uphold the Constitution or serve the public interest. Employees are apprehensive, fearing that these alterations will dismantle a once impartial federal workforce competency, replacing it with a cadre of political allies.

Several civil servants interviewed expressed deep concern for the future, describing these new initiatives as an attack on the core principles of public service. They worry this trend is set to replace expertise with loyalty—a troubling sign for a foundational system meant to provide enduring public service.

The Trump administration claims these changes are necessary because, in their view, merit-based hiring practices have faltered and bureaucracies have become laden with diversity initiatives. Recently, the Office of Personnel Management (OPM) directed agencies to halt diversity programs and limit workforce demographic disclosures.

In a controversial memo dated May 29, OPM called for an overhaul of federal hiring practices, emphasizing a focus on objective application of skills over subjective assessments. The memo suggests that the latest steps will ensure that the workforce is composed of the most loyal and competent candidates aligned with the administration’s vision.

Conservative politicians, including Sen. Rick Scott of Florida, have applauded these shifts toward a corporate-style job outlook for the government, arguing that it should operate under the strictures of the business model—aiming for a more efficient, results-driven workforce.

On the flip side, Aisha Coffey, a former FDA communications specialist recently dismissed from her position, expressed outrage over the motivations behind the OPM’s directive, suggesting the strategy is to mold the civil service into a group that merely caters to political whims rather than serving the public.

As discontent echoes across various departments, experts see waning interest in federal jobs due to the uncertainty this approach fosters. Fields such as computer science, environmental science, and legal professions, once considered stable within the government, now appear less appealing if they’re viewed as politically charged jobs.

Traditionally, the civil service has enjoyed protections from political influence due to laws like the Pendleton Act of 1883, which prohibited political firings and mandated merit-based examinations. Recent actions threaten these historical safeguards, with Trump’s intention to reinstate Schedule F, a policy that would strip thousands of civil servants of their security.

Under the proposed plan, many positions deemed policy-related could be reclassified, making it easier for the administration to eliminate roles that it finds undesirable. Observers and labor groups argue this introduces dangerous precedents, making it easier for officials to reshape agencies without accountability.

Trump’s former aides now in power, like Russell Vought and James Sherk, are behind many of these proposals aimed at solidifying control over the workforce. Some argue that tighter presidential control is necessary to avoid government obstruction encountered during Trump’s first term.

Yet, experts argue against equating federal job protections with corporate hiring practices, suggesting that the skills and experience of civil servants are irreplaceable assets for effective governance. Significant changes to federal hiring and firing could undermine the stability and appeal of government jobs, especially against competitive private sector options.

Max Stier of the Partnership for Public Service warns that the hiring changes could induce rampant partisanship in the federal workforce. Furthermore, employing politically charged essay questions in job applications raises concerns about discriminatory practices against those with dissenting political views.

Returning to the past practices of interviewing rooted firmly in skills and experience seems a distant memory as anxiety grows over these new measures, which many believe will skew the hiring process toward candidates who resonate more closely with Trump’s political views.

Original Source: www.washingtonpost.com