Trump’s Bold Overhaul: New Rule Eases Path to Firing Thousands of Federal Employees

Lean Thomas

It's about to get easier for Trump to fire federal workers
CREDITS: Wikimedia CC BY-SA 3.0

Share this post

It's about to get easier for Trump to fire federal workers

A Long-Sought Goal Realized (Image Credits: Unsplash)

The Trump administration finalized a controversial regulation Friday that grants the president expanded authority to reclassify federal positions and remove job protections for career civil servants.[1]

A Long-Sought Goal Realized

President Trump first pursued this kind of change during his initial term with a 2020 executive order known as Schedule F.[1]

That effort aimed to target civil servants perceived as obstacles to his agenda, but incoming President Biden revoked it shortly after taking office.

Five and a half years later, the administration revived the concept through a new Office of Personnel Management rule titled “Improving Performance, Accountability and Responsiveness in the Civil Service.”[1]

Officials argued the measure addresses longstanding issues, including difficulties in dismissing underperformers and instances of employees delaying presidential directives.

Over the past year, Trump demonstrated readiness to dismiss career staff he viewed as adversaries, such as Justice Department lawyers handling January 6 cases.[1]

Key Provisions of the Regulation

Effective March 9, the rule permits reclassification of “policy-influencing” roles – including supervisors – into a novel category called Schedule Policy/Career.[1]

OPM previously projected around 50,000 positions could shift, though agencies must review their staffs and seek recommendations, with the president holding final say.[1]

Reclassified workers lose access to the Merit Systems Protection Board for appeals, though OPM maintained protections against certain prohibited practices persist.

Discrimination claims could still go to the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, but the president remains exempt from those laws.

  • Targets policy-making, advocating, or confidential roles.
  • Aims to boost efficiency without lengthy firing processes.
  • Maintains merit-based hiring but emphasizes policy execution.
  • Applies to an unspecified number beyond the 50,000 estimate.

Wave of Public and Legal Backlash

The public comment period drew over 40,000 responses, with 94 percent opposing the change – a volume OPM attributed partly to misconceptions about federal laws.[1]

Critics warned of politicizing an apolitical civil service designed for continuity across administrations.

Max Stier, president of the nonpartisan Partnership for Public Service, stated, “This new designation can be used to remove expert career federal employees who place the law and service to the public ahead of blind loyalty and replace them with political supporters who will unquestioningly do the president’s bidding.”[1]

Skye Perryman, president and CEO of Democracy Forward, called it “a deliberate attempt to do through regulation what the law does not allow – strip public servants of their rights and make it easier to fire them for political reasons.”[1]

Lawsuits have already emerged to halt implementation.

Current At-Will Appointees New Potential Reclassifications
Around 4,000 political roles Up to 50,000 policy-influencing positions
Full presidential discretion Reclassified to Schedule Policy/Career

Balancing Accountability and Independence

Proponents highlighted frustrations with a bureaucracy where poor performance often evades consequences.

Yet opponents noted the U.S. already exceeds other democracies in at-will political roles.

The Office of Special Counsel, which probes whistleblowers, lost independence after Trump dismissed its leader last year.[1]

Key Takeaways

  • Rule takes effect March 9, affecting potentially 50,000 jobs.
  • Aimed at efficiency but criticized for enabling political purges.
  • Multiple lawsuits challenge its legality.

This overhaul tests the civil service’s role in serving the public over any single leader, raising questions about government stability amid rapid change. What do you think about these shifts in federal employment protections? Tell us in the comments.

Leave a Comment