Former President Donald Trump has revealed plans for a significant restructuring of the federal government if he regains the presidency. This has set the stage for a potential reshaping of federal bureaucracy.
Trump’s proposed agenda includes the deportation of millions of undocumented immigrants, the elimination of certain government agencies, and a widespread removal of federal workers, to be replaced by loyal supporters. His plans have stimulated a response from liberal bodies and legal authorities, who are assembling legal and procedural defenses to counter these potential actions.
The Office of Personnel Management (OPM) has become a crucial site of contention in this political struggle. In September, the OPM proposed a rule to make the reclassification of federal employees, which would facilitate their dismissal, more difficult. This proposal, due to be finalized in April, is seen as an important move to guard against a hasty restructuring by future administrations.
The potential consequences of Trump’s plans have not been overlooked by political and legal analysts. Michael Linden, an ex-executive of the White House Office of Management and Budget under President Joe Biden, has expressed apprehensions about the efficacy of preemptive measures against such radical changes.
Echoing Linden’s concerns, Biden campaign spokesperson Kevin Munoz characterized Trump’s plans as reflecting an “authoritarian playbook.”
Norm Eisen, a senior fellow at the Brookings Institution and former ethics counselor to President Barack Obama, suggested the issuance of executive orders to limit the domestic deployment of the military, reflecting the gravity with which opponents are treating these plans.
The controversy revolves around the proposed “Schedule F,” a reclassification that would remove job protections from thousands of federal employees, making them susceptible to dismissal. Trump introduced this proposal towards the end of his term, and though Biden revoked it, Trump has promised to reinstate it if re-elected. Critics argue that this could multiply political appointees in the federal workforce, undermining the merit-based civil service system.
The Heritage Foundation, a conservative think tank spearheading the “Project 2025” initiative to prepare for a potential conservative government, has not disclosed its specific plans. However, Kevin Roberts, the president of Heritage, has publicly advocated for a “destruction in the government,” signaling a desire for extensive changes within federal agencies.
Opposition to the proposed changes is widespread and diverse. Twenty-seven advocacy organizations have supported the OPM’s proposed rule against the easy reclassification of employees. Conversely, James Sherk, an ex-Trump administration official and current member of the America First Policy Institute, has opposed the rule, arguing that it could hinder presidents from implementing their policies due to ideological opposition within the bureaucracy.
The debate extends beyond personnel policies to wider issues such as agency relocation and the diminishing of congressional authority. Legal scholars and public policy experts warn that Trump’s proposed actions could represent the most radical government overhaul in recent history, with significant implications for democracy and governance.
As the political landscape continues to shift, the federal workforce stands at the center of a potential transformative conflict. With both sides gearing up for a legal and legislative confrontation, the results could shape federal governance for the foreseeable future, underscoring the lasting tension between political aspirations and the principles of a stable, effective civil service.