The 2024 Republican platform is full of references to the “weaponization” of government by the “radical left.” Alleged Democratic weaponization has similarly been featured by speakers at the Republican convention this week in Milwaukee. Yet despite this consistent Republican rhetoric of victimization, it is their own nominee who has promised to radically politicize the federal government for his own ends.
In its waning days, the Trump White House issued an executive order establishing a new employment classification for civil servants, “Schedule F.” This new classification would allow many traditional civil servants, who are supposed to be non-partisan and hired by merit, to be reclassified as political appointees, who are selected by the president. This would give presidents the power to stock key executive branch agencies with people whose only qualification for the job is political loyalty. While the incoming Biden administration quickly rescinded the order, former President Trump has made restoring Schedule F a centerpiece of his campaign to “shatter the deep state,” promising to “wield [it] very aggressively” if reelected.
Implementing Schedule F would take America back to the patronage system that dominated in the early days of the republic. Under this so-called “spoils system,” incoming presidents replaced executive branch employees en masse at the start of every term based on their partisan loyalties rather than their performance in office. The transition to the modern civil service emerged through a series of significant reforms, starting with the Pendleton Act of 1883, which mandated that government positions be awarded based on merit rather than patronage. Subsequent legislation like the Hatch Act (1939) and Civil Service Reform Act (1978) established the system we now know today.
This system remains far from perfect. Meaningful reforms are needed to improve the quality of the civil service and make government agencies more swift, nimble, and responsive to citizens. Solutions to many 21st-century problems, such as climate change, are often as inhibited by government regulation as they are helped by it. To combat corroding public trust in government, civil servants must have the flexibility to reduce this type of procedural red tape when it is preventing viable solutions to public problems, rather than be incentivized to embrace it. In addition, the civil service needs to better promote meritocracy and attract talent by streamlining its personnel decisions and hiring process. Agencies need to hire, develop, and retain young talent in particular, given the aging federal workforce.
Schedule F is anything but a reasonable reform. If reimplemented, it would take a sledgehammer to the civil service, politicizing, and destabilizing federal agencies in the process. Imagine what might have happened if, instead of impartial and technical experts, scores of political loyalists staffed public health agencies during the COVID-19 pandemic, or controlled the release of unemployment and inflation numbers. Some estimates claim that at least 50,000 senior civil servants would be subject to this order, likely representing the longest-tenured and most experienced officials. However, this likely underestimates how aggressively a second Trump administration might seek to reclassify employees. For example, the Office of Management and Budget (OMB), one of the few agencies that began implementing the order, was prepared to transition nearly 70% of its workforce to Schedule F positions. Despite the executive order’s claim to focus on more senior officials, administration officials showed no hesitancy to completely politicize agencies. Implementing Schedule F would allow the Trump administration to exert its control over many traditionally independent agencies, including the Department of Justice, the Federal Reserve, and the IRS.
Maintaining an impartial and merit-based civil service is essential to good governance. While policy changes across administrations, the implementation of any policy requires a neutral set of skills and expertise. Take energy regulation as an example. Whether the president favors long-distance transmission lines or drilling on public lands, the implementation requires the same understanding of existing systems, thorough consultation with stakeholders, and robust analysis of outcomes.
It is essential that the government be able to hire staff with these skills and retain them across administrations. Evidence confirms this: a review of 96 studies found that governments that rank higher on impartiality or professionalism are associated with higher economic growth, performance, and public trust. Conservatives argue that the civil service is undemocratic because it is accountable to the merit system and not the president. But precisely because the civil service faces different incentives, it can speak truth to power, particularly if the president tries to obtain an electoral advantage (e.g., by corruptly allocating spending) at the expense of the national interest. On this front, five different studies have found more meritocratic recruitment is associated with less corruption.
Trump’s promise to reinstate Schedule F would upend the modern civil service. Rather than engage in any real reform of the federal workforce, it would massively politicize federal jobs and turn back the clock to an antiquated patronage system. As the presidential campaign kicks into high gear, voters should not underestimate the radical nature of this proposal, or the consequences it would have for the basic functioning of government they might take for granted.