Federal workforce experts told lawmakers today that the potential revival of a controversial Trump-era Federal workforce policy known as “Schedule F” would not only disrupt the stability of the Federal workforce, but it would also weaken national security.
The policy resulted from the Trump administration’s October 2020 executive order that created a new “Schedule F” classification for Federal employees deemed to be in policy-making positions. The order made it easier to hire and fire employees who were put into the proposed Schedule F class.
Ultimately, the executive order calling for creation of Schedule F was not implemented. President Joe Biden canceled his predecessor’s order shortly after taking office in 2021.
The Office of Personnel Management (OPM) also published a final rule in April 2024 confirming protections for career civil servants – making it more difficult for a future administration to reapproach a Schedule F-type arrangement.
However, former President Donald Trump has pledged to reissue an order implementing the Schedule F classification “on day one” of his next administration.
As the presidential election is less than 50 days away, the Senate Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee gathered Federal experts for a hearing on Tuesday to learn what this would mean for the Federal workforce.
“The prior administration sought to replace at least 50,000 nonpartisan career civil servants with appointees who followed the former president’s politics. This change would not only hinder our government’s efficiency, it would be disastrous for the American people,” committee Chairman Gary Peters, D-Mich., said.
“It would drain the Federal government of institutional knowledge, expertise, and continuity. It would slow down services, make us less prepared when disaster strikes, and erode public trust in government,” Sen. Peters continued. “Perhaps most importantly, it would weaken our national security and make us vulnerable to serious threats that continually face our nation.”
The senator explained that over 70 percent of the Federal workforce serves in defense and national security-related agencies. “Proposals that would remove career national security experts in order to increase a president’s political influence over agencies would hit hardest where the stakes are the highest,” he said.
Elaine Duke, the former deputy secretary and former under secretary for management at the Department of Homeland Security (DHS), agreed with Sen. Peters, also warning that Schedule F would put national security at risk.
“I’m opposed to any decision that has high potential to undermine effective national security policy and operations. I am concerned that Schedule F will do just that,” Duke said.
Duke explained that stability in national security positions is important, as many of the roles within DHS take years to train and develop. She said that Schedule F would create “turnover” and “chaos” within agencies that “would obviously detriment the capabilities and the skills of the mission workforce.”
Similarly, Jenny Mattingley, the vice president of government affairs at the Partnership for Public Service, also stressed the importance of a stable national security workforce.
Mattingley explained that each president can fill about 4,000 political appointments to carry out their agenda, a number she said is already “tough” for a president to fill. Additionally, Mattingley said Senate-confirmed positions take even longer to fill through that confirmation process.
“Having an increased level of turnover every four years would exacerbate this challenge. It’s one we already see during presidential transitions,” she warned.
“Many new administrations face significant national security challenges early into their first year in office,” Mattingley added. “Having nonpartisan career professionals who serve across administrations in place, ready to provide the expertise and deal with these challenges is necessary to our country’s safety and security, particularly when a president doesn’t yet have a political team in place.”
Career civil servants also play a vital role in agencies’ budget process, according to Peter Levine, the former acting under secretary for personnel and readiness and former deputy chief management officer at the Department of Defense.
Levine, who is now a senior fellow at the Institute for Defense Analyses, said that without the expertise of career civil servants, “I don’t know that you’d be able to fund the department.”
“Without their expertise, the levers at the department simply would not move,” Levine said, adding, “If a leader isn’t competent enough in himself to consider a range of views before acting, perhaps that person shouldn’t be in a leadership position at all.”
The American Federation of Government Employees (AFGE) – the largest union for Federal employees – submitted a statement for the record for Tuesday’s Senate hearing, also warning about the risks of Schedule F.
“Proposals to reclassify the hundreds of thousands of Federal positions currently in the competitive service to the political excepted service are profoundly wrong and should be categorically rejected. The reclassification aimed at politicization would create not only dire national security risks, it would also undermine the ability of executive branch agencies to achieve their missions on behalf of the American people,” AFGE National President Everett Kelley wrote.
