The Trump administration is trying to remove civil service protections from tens of thousands of federal employees. That will allow them to fire at will and to replace expert and professional employees with political loyalists.
Each day this week, I commit to doing one small thing—a phone call, a letter, a comment on a regulation. I’m going to walk through my commitment right here on the blog, which will keep me accountable and might also get a reader or two to join me. Information and suggestions for today’s action from “Can We Still Govern?”—Dan Moynihan’s Substack.
“Take the time you would have spent complaining about politics online, and use it to write a comment opposing the proposed Office of Personnel Management rule to politicize public services. You can do it in 5 minutes. Deadline is May 23rd!”
So you’ve never heard of commenting on a proposed rule? Writing a comment for the Federal Register sounds intimidating? Don’t worry—it’s not hard. Here’s why it matters and how to do it.
Why it matters:
[“Can We Still Govern?”] “The proposed rule seeks to reinstate Schedule F, Trump’s never implemented plan to institutionalize political control and loyalty tests for the career bureaucracy by turning 50,000 or more career civil servants into political appointees.”
Think about it.
With Schedule F protections gone, every administration can fire scientists whose findings they don’t like. They can fire researchers who collect information on unemployment, inflation, maternal deaths, discrimination in housing—everything. They can fire civil servants who do not profess complete political loyalty.
[“Can We Still Govern?”] “‘Schedule F’ (now renamed Schedule Policy/Career) is shorthand for an executive order that is a sharp break with civil service merit principles, which assume that career employees should be retained on the basis of performance and protected against political coercion. The US is already unusual in the degree to which it reserves the top layers of organizational leadership for short-term political appointees. Schedule F will vastly expand the number of appointees, adding a proposed 50,000 from the current 4000. It does so by involuntarily reclassifying career civil servants as appointees, removing job protections, the basic constraint against political interference.”
More from the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities:
” This would cause particular harm at an agency like the Social Security Administration (SSA), where the Trump Administration and its so-called Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE) have already pushed through radical staffing cuts that have jeopardized SSA’s ability to reliably deliver benefits to seniors and workers with severe disabilities. The rule would create a new “Schedule Policy/Career” (Schedule P/C) classification that could be used to get rid of thousands of additional civil servants at SSA, giving the Administration even more power to undermine Social Security. …
” On April 23, the Trump Administration published a proposed rule that would let the President unilaterally change the employment status of any civil servant in a position that he deems to be “policy-influencing.” Under the rule — which revives a similar proposal from the first Trump term known then as “Schedule F” — the administration could fire, suspend, demote, or reduce the pay of employees they classify as Schedule P/C without regard for performance or due process.”
What you can do:
Regulators are required by law to consider public comments on proposed new regulations. The comment process is open to the public. Regulators are required to respond to comments when they issue a final version of the regulation, including an explanation of why they have made changes or not made changes in response to comments.
“Federal comments really do matter. By law, they must be read by the administration, and substantive comments require a response. Failure to do so can see the rule tossed out by courts. …
“The volume of opposing comments matters, so writing something short and sweet is great. You don’t need to read the rule in depth or be an expert. The proposed rule is bad and protecting nonpartisan civil servants is good. See more details below or take a look at the comments people have already posted.”
To comment on the Schedule F regulation, click here. Then click on “Submit a Public Comment.”
Write your comment in the comment box. Or write your comment ahead of time and upload it as a file. Either way works.
Here’s my comment—short and not expert, but it will still count.
“I support continuation of civil service protection for public employees and I oppose the creation of the so-called “Schedule F.”
Schedule F would contribute to politicization of public employees. It would allow this and future administrations to prioritize political loyalty over professionalization and competence.
“I remember growing up knowing about civil service. My dad was active in DFL politics. Someone approached him for help in getting a job as a mail carrier. He explained to that individual—and to me—that it was not possible. Mail carriers were federal civil service employees. They were hired because of competence, not because of politics. As long as they did a good job, they would have a job.
“The individual who approached him for help was a Republican. He was also a good and competent person who got the job—and my father completely approved of that process. Even as a child, I knew this was important, and that civil service protection was an important part of our government.
“I oppose the withdrawal of that protection embodied in Schedule F.”
Mary Turck