Former President Donald Trump has revealed plans for a major reorganization of the federal government if he returns to the White House, a move that could redefine the federal landscape.
Trump’s agenda includes mass deportations of undocumented immigrants, the abolition of certain government agencies, and a significant reduction in federal employees, which he plans to replace with supporters.
His intentions are prompting action from liberal groups and legal experts, who are organizing legal and procedural defenses to counteract the potential changes.
The Office of Personnel Management (OPM) is a crucial point of contention in this political dispute. In September, the OPM introduced a rule making it harder to reclassify federal employees in a way that would facilitate their dismissal. The rule is expected to be finalized in April and represents a concerted effort to prevent a quick overhaul by any future administration.
Political and legal commentators grasp the seriousness of the situation. Michael Linden, a former executive at the White House Office of Management and Budget under President Joe Biden, has raised concerns over the extent to which preemptive measures can be taken against such drastic changes.
Kevin Munoz, Biden’s campaign spokesperson, has described Trump’s plans as an “authoritarian playbook.”
Norm Eisen, a senior fellow at the Brookings Institution and former ethics counselor to President Barack Obama, has suggested using executive orders to limit the domestic use of the military, reflecting the gravity with which opponents view these plans.
At the heart of the controversy is the “Schedule F” proposal, which could remove job protections from thousands of federal employees, making them vulnerable to dismissal. Introduced during Trump’s term, this order was revoked by Biden, but Trump has promised to reinstate it if re-elected. Critics argue this could dramatically increase the number of 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 in preparation for a potential conservative government, has refrained from disclosing specific plans. However, its president, Kevin Roberts, has publicly expressed a desire for significant changes within federal agencies.
Opposition to these changes is strong and varied. Twenty-seven advocacy organizations back 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 objected to the rule, arguing that it would obstruct presidents from implementing their agendas due to ideological resistance within the bureaucracy.
The debate goes beyond personnel policies and addresses broader issues like agency relocation and the erosion of congressional power. Legal scholars and public policy experts warn that Trump’s proposed measures could be the most significant government overhaul in recent history, with significant implications for democracy and governance.
The federal workforce is at the heart of this potentially transformative struggle. As both sides gear up for a legal and legislative showdown, the results could shape federal governance for years to come, emphasizing the ongoing conflict between political ambition and the principles of a stable and effective civil service.
