In an unfolding story that could redefine the nature of the federal government, former President Donald Trump has outlined plans for a dramatic reshaping of the bureaucratic landscape should he return to the White House.
At the heart of Trump’s agenda is the promise to deport millions of undocumented immigrants, abolish certain government agencies, and execute a sweeping purge of tens of thousands of federal workers, replacing them with loyalists. This blueprint for governance has sparked a flurry of activity among liberal organizations and legal experts, who are rallying to counteract these potential moves with legal and procedural safeguards.
Amidst the political tug-of-war, the Office of Personnel Management (OPM) has emerged as a key battlefield. In September, the OPM proposed a rule aimed at making it more challenging to reclassify federal employees in a manner that would ease their dismissal. This move, expected to be finalized in April, represents a significant effort to erect barriers against a rapid overhaul by any future administration.
The gravity of the situation is not lost on political and legal observers. Michael Linden, a former executive at the White House Office of Management and Budget under President Joe Biden, has voiced concerns over the limits of preemptive actions against such sweeping changes. Echoing Linden’s sentiments, Biden campaign spokesperson Kevin Munoz underscored the existential threat of Trump’s stated intentions, describing them as emanating from an “authoritarian playbook.”
Norm Eisen, a senior fellow at the Brookings Institution and former ethics counselor to President Barack Obama, has advocated for the issuance of executive orders that could limit the domestic use of the military, a move that reflects the seriousness with which opponents view these plans.
Central to the controversy is the concept of “Schedule F,” a proposed reclassification that would strip job protections from thousands of federal employees, effectively making them at-will and susceptible to dismissal. Introduced in the waning days of Trump’s term, Biden revoked this order, but Trump has vowed to reinstate it if re-elected. Critics argue that such a move could increase the number of political appointees within the federal workforce more than tenfold, undermining the merit-based civil service system.
The Heritage Foundation, a conservative think tank leading the “Project 2025” initiative to prepare for a potential conservative government-in-waiting, has remained tight-lipped about its specific plans. However, Heritage’s president, Kevin Roberts, has publicly advocated for a “destruction in the government,” indicating a desire for profound changes within federal agencies.
Opposition to the proposed changes is robust and multifaceted. Twenty-seven advocacy organizations have endorsed the OPM’s proposed rule against the easy reclassification of employees. James Sherk, a former Trump administration official and current member of the America First Policy Institute, has contested the rule, arguing that it would prevent presidents from implementing their agendas due to ideological resistance within the bureaucracy.
The debate extends beyond personnel policies to encompass broader issues such as agency relocation and the erosion of congressional authority. Legal scholars and public policy experts warn that Trump’s proposed measures could represent the most sweeping overhaul of the government in modern times, with profound implications for democracy and governance.
As the political landscape continues to evolve, the federal workforce finds itself at the epicenter of a potentially transformative struggle. With both sides preparing for a legal and legislative showdown, the outcome of these efforts could shape the contours of federal governance for years to come, highlighting the enduring tension between political ambition and the principles of a stable, effective civil service.
