Jump to content

Schedule F appointment

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

A Schedule F appointment was a job classification in the excepted service of the United States federal civil service that existed briefly at the end of the Trump administration during 2020 and 2021. It would have contained policy-related positions, removing their civil service protections and making them easy to fire. It was never fully implemented, and no one was appointed to it before it was repealed at the beginning of the Biden administration.

The purpose of the provision was to increase the president's control over the federal career civil service. While proponents stated this would increase flexibility and accountability, it was widely criticized as providing means to retaliate against federal officials for political reasons. It was estimated that tens or hundreds of thousands of career employees could have lost their civil service protections, increasing the number of political appointments by a factor of ten.

Since mid-2022, the 2024 Trump campaign's plan to reinstate the provision has attracted attention and commentary. Common criticisms include the threat to democracy and the functioning of government. In April 2024, the Biden administration adopted a regulation that would prevent most of the effects of a reinstatement of Schedule F, the repeal of which by a future administration would delay implementation by several months.

Characteristics

[edit]

Justifications

[edit]

The legal basis for the Schedule F appointment was a section of the Civil Service Reform Act of 1978 (5 U.S.C. § 7511(b)(2)), which exempts from civil service protections federal employees "whose position has been determined to be of a confidential, policy-determining, policy-making or policy-advocating character". The provision had been little noticed and unused before its application by the Schedule F order.[1]

As for the constitutionality, proponents also point to the unitary executive theory as justification. Opponents note that the theory is not long-established or widely accepted, but is rather controversial.[2][3][4] Beyond disputing its constitutionality,[5][6][7][8] common criticisms include the idea that the theory leads to poor outcomes[9][5][10] and undermines democracy.[4][11][12][13] A few critics point to other countries where similar ideas of a more unitary executive have resulted in democratic backsliding, or to the vast majority of democracies (including US states and local governments) that purposefully diffuse executive power more widely, with positive results.[14][12][15][16]

Implementation

[edit]

The stated purpose of the order was to increase flexibility in hiring and firing to improve performance management[17] and accountability.[18] The Civil Service Rules and Regulations would not have covered employees within the Schedule F classification,[17] including due process and possibly collective bargaining rights.[18] However, appointees could not have been fired based on certain protected statuses, such as whistleblower status, partisan affiliation, or for claiming discrimination or harassment.[18][19] It would also have streamlined hiring for these positions, since a competitive examination would not be required.[20]: 2 

The executive order also provided transition procedures for transferring covered positions out of the competitive service into Schedule F, by which executive agency heads must petition the director of the Office of Personnel Management (OPM) with a list of positions to be converted with a written rationale. The OPM director had the sole power to decide whether to grant the petition.[17][21][22]

The Schedule F classification included "positions of a confidential, policy-determining, policy-making, or policy-advocating character not normally subject to change as a result of a Presidential transition".[17] They are distinguished from Schedule C appointments, which cover policy-making positions that do change with the presidential transition.[20]: 5–6  The executive order listed several characteristics of jobs that may fall under the Schedule F classification:[17]

  • substantive participation in advocacy, development, or formulation of policy, especially of regulations and guidance
  • substantive policy-related work in an agency or component that primarily focuses on policy
  • the supervision of attorneys
  • substantial discretion to determine how the agency exercises functions committed to it by law
  • working with non-public policy proposals or deliberations generally covered by deliberative process privilege, and either:
    • directly reporting to or regularly working with an individual appointed by either the president, or by an agency head paid at the GS-13 level or higher, or
    • working in the executive secretariat of the agency or component
  • conducting certain collective bargaining negotiations on the agency's behalf

According to OPM, these provisions were guidelines, as not all positions covered by them were required to be converted to Schedule F, and positions not covered by them may have been converted.[18][23] The provisions were broad enough to include many scientists, attorneys, regulators, public health experts, and others in senior roles. The estimated number of employees they covered ranged from tens of thousands to hundreds of thousands.[18]

History

[edit]

Planning

[edit]

According to reporting by Axios, the idea for the Schedule F appointment was devised by James Sherk, a member of the advisory Domestic Policy Council who was seeking ways to prevent career civil service employees from resisting President Trump's agenda. In January 2019, while searching through Title 5 of the United States Code, which contains provisions on civil service protections, he came across 5 U.S.C. § 7511, and brought it to the attention of the White House Counsel's Office.[1]

The executive order was drafted secretly over the following months and was completed by late spring of 2019. However, due to large agency workloads, it was decided to delay issuing it until 2020, which was further delayed by the COVID-19 pandemic. Trump was reportedly motivated by a desire to get even with recalcitrant officials after his first impeachment trial, which concluded in February 2020.[1]

Implementation

[edit]

Schedule F was created by Executive Order 13957 on October 21, 2020.[17] Heads of all federal agencies were ordered to submit a preliminary list of positions that could be reclassified as Schedule F by January 19, 2021, the day before the next presidential inauguration, to John D. McEntee, the director of the Presidential Personnel Office,[24][20]: 8  with the final list to be submitted on May 19, 2021.[20]: 8 

By the January 19 deadline, two agencies had submitted their petitions to reclassify employees. The Office of Management and Budget submitted a list of 140 position types, of which 136 were approved by OPM, excluding four Presidential Management Fellow positions. These 136 position types would have applied to 415 employees out of the agency's total of 610 employees. Most of the affected employees were in program examination, digital services, and policy analysis positions.[20]: 13–16  Some positions, such as administrative assistants, office managers, and IT workers, were potentially not clearly policy-making positions.[25] The necessary human resource processing steps were not taken prior to the change in administration, and no one was actually reclassified. The International Boundary and Water Commission submitted a petition to reclassify five of its 234 employees, but the executive order was revoked before OPM could approve them.[20]: 13–16 

Seven other agencies stated to OPM that they needed more time to finalize their lists, but five of these had made draft lists that they were still reviewing. The Federal Energy Regulatory Commission determined more than half of its positions met the criteria for reclassification, while the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, Environmental Protection Agency, Federal Trade Commission, and OPM itself each had draft lists that would have reclassified around or less than 10% of their employees. Six agencies determined that they would not reclassify any positions: the Federal Maritime Commission, Federal Retirement Thrift Investment Board, National Archives and Records Administration, National Transportation Safety Board, National Labor Relations Board, and AmeriCorps.[20]: 17–18 

Repeal and later developments

[edit]

It was repealed by President Biden through Executive Order 14003 on January 22, 2021, the third day of his administration.[26][27] No employees had been moved to the new classification.[28][29]

In mid-2022, it was reported that Trump and his allies planned to reinstate the Schedule F provisions if he were elected to a second term,[1] including identifying around 50,000 workers who could be reclassified.[30] In March 2023, reinstatement of Schedule F was included at a top of a list of proposals from the Trump 2024 presidential campaign,[31] while Ron DeSantis had written approvingly of it in his book The Courage to Be Free.[32][33] The next month, it was reported that Project 2025, a coalition led by The Heritage Foundation, was preparing a personnel database that could be used to fill up to 20,000 potential Schedule F appointments in a future Republican administration.[34]

The Preventing a Patronage System Act was introduced at the beginning of the 117th Congress by Democrat Gerry Connolly of Virginia.[35][28] It was passed by the House in July 2022 as part of its version of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2023.[36][37][38][39] However, it was removed from the final bill passed in December 2022.[30][40] A similar bill, the Saving the Civil Service Act, was introduced in the 118th United States Congress.[41]

In September 2023, the Biden administration proposed a regulation that would allow employees to keep existing job protections even if their positions were reclassified, preventing most of the effects of a reinstatement of Schedule F. While the regulation could be repealed by a future administration, it would delay any implementation by several months.[42][43] The rules were put into effect in April 2024.[25]

Response

[edit]
See also: Unitary executive theory § Criticism

The creation of Schedule F was controversial. Critics feared a transition from a non-partisan government of subject-matter experts to one where partisan or presidential loyalty tests had a role in the hiring process.[18] At the time, it was estimated that tens or hundreds of thousands of career employees could lose their civil service protections including union representation,[18][44] and that it would increase the number of political appointments by a factor of ten.[45] Conversely, there was concern that political appointees of Trump, whose appointments are supposed to expire at the end of his term, could "burrow in" by being converted to positions with that are harder to fire.[46][44]

Rebecca Beitsch, writing for The Hill, wrote that unions were criticizing Trump's executive order as "the biggest change to federal workforce protections in a century, converting many federal workers to 'at will' employment."[47] The National Treasury Employees Union sued the administration in the United States District Court for the District of Columbia over the executive order, arguing that the administration did not properly justify it satisfied the legal requirement that the changes are "necessary" and as "conditions of good administration warrant."[48][49][needs update]

An official statement from Infectious Diseases Society of America (IDSA) further stated that the executive order was "alarming".[47] The six authors, all infectious disease specialists, and epidemiologists, wrote:

We rely on the judgment of civil service experts to lead responses against the pandemic, inform the public, drive research, update guidance and review data supporting the use and distribution of vaccines and treatments to address the impacts of COVID-19. Replacing our scientists and public health experts with politically motivated staff will reduce our ability to respond, and reduce public confidence in our response, to COVID-19 and other public health crises.[50]

On October 26, 2020, Ronald Sanders, the chair of the Federal Salary Council, resigned. Writing that he was a "lifelong Republican" who prided himself on having "served three Democratic and three Republican presidents,"[51] Sanders sent a letter to John D. McEntee, Presidential Personnel Office director, characterizing Executive Order 13957, which had purported to hold federal employees more accountable, as a transparent attempt to fill the government with those loyal to the presidents at the expense of experts who are loyal to the Constitution and the rule of law.[52][53]

Rachel Greszler, a fellow at The Heritage Foundation, said: "I really think that the order is unlikely to affect many of those workers because the overwhelming majority of federal employees are upstanding individuals, they're providing valuable knowledge and experience that the managers in the agency heads don't want to lose. It's only those bad apples who are derelict in their duties, or they're outright trying to thwart their agency’s actions that would need to worry about their job security."[19]

Congress

[edit]

House Democrats introduced a bill in the 116th Congress, the Saving the Civil Service Act, that would halt the executive order's implementation and restore any converted or fired Schedule F appointees back into competitive service positions.[48] There was also discussion of adding the same provisions to either the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2021 or a continuing resolution for fiscal year 2021 appropriations.[54] A coalition of 28 labor unions supported these provisions.[55] However, no provision regarding Schedule F was included in the Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2021.[46]

House Democrats also requested documents about the creation of the executive order.[48]

Representative Don Beyer (D-VA) said, "it's an attempt to redefine the civil service as a political arm of the presidency rather than public servants who work for the American people", leading to "open cronyism that does not benefit the country, but the president."[18] Former federal human resources executive Jeff Neal called the order "the most direct assault on the career civil service since the passage of the Pendleton Act in 1883," which had created the merit-based federal civil service.[54]

Representative James Comer (R-KY) supported the change, saying that “our founding fathers never envisioned a massive unelected, unaccountable federal government with the power to create policies that impact Americans' everyday lives... President Trump has long pledged to take on this bureaucracy and restore power to the people by draining the swamp."[45]

Discussion

[edit]
See also: Democratic backsliding in the United States § Unitary executive theory

Much of Project 2025 or Agenda 47 relies on Donald Trump reenacting Schedule F.[56]

Experts have argued that it would create chaos in the civil service, which was overhauled in the Carter administration to have a more professional workforce and end political bias and the corruption of the spoils system.[56][57][58]

Others have argued it threatens American democracy.[56][59][60][58] Dean Obeidallah goes further by arguing that requiring government workers to swear loyalty oaths to the president and not the Constitution is a common authoritarian tactic.[61]

See also

[edit]
  • The Fifth Risk – a book documenting political appointments at the beginning of the Trump presidency

References

[edit]
  1. ^ a b c d Swan, Jonathan (July 23, 2022). "Trump's revenge: How the former president could gut the federal bureaucracy". Axios. Retrieved July 26, 2022.
  2. ^ Dodds, Graham G. (2023), Akande, Adebowale (ed.), "Is the President a King? The Unitary Executive Theory and the Presidency of Donald J. Trump", U.S. Democracy in Danger: The American Political System Under Assault, Cham: Springer Nature Switzerland, pp. 487–517, doi:10.1007/978-3-031-36099-2_21, ISBN 978-3-031-36099-2, retrieved July 12, 2024
  3. ^ Wendling, Mike (July 7, 2024). "Project 2025: A wish list for a Trump presidency, explained". BBC. ...a controversial idea known as 'unitary executive theory'
  4. ^ a b Dodds, Graham G.; Kelley, Christopher S. (2024). "Presidential Leadership and the Unitary Executive Theory: Temptations and Troubles". In Akande, Adebowale (ed.). Leadership and Politics. Cham: Springer Nature Switzerland. pp. 548, 550–551. doi:10.1007/978-3-031-56415-4_22. ISBN 978-3-031-56414-7. Retrieved July 18, 2024. Turning devoted public servants into mere servants of their master and by privileging presidential desires over institutional expertise and independence, the theory risks turning the chief executive into an absolute monarch. Moreover, by enlarging the already considerable powers of the presidency, it threatens to upset the country's delicate inter-branch balance by relegating Congress and the judiciary to inferior status...Trump showed us what happens when you support the use of such power with a person who appears to care little about the institution, the Constitution, or America's democracy....Thus the United States could see the unitary executive theory employed to significantly erode basic democratic principles.
  5. ^ a b Pilkington, Ed (June 7, 2024). "Trump plots capture of DoJ in renewed assault on US justice system". The Guardian. ISSN 0261-3077. Retrieved July 19, 2024. 'That's what happens in authoritarian states – there is a semblance of a legal system, but it becomes useless,' she said. 'If that happens here it would be extremely troubling. We're not there yet. But I do think a second term could cause significant damage that may or may not be permanent.'
  6. ^ Ornstein, Norman (June 26, 2007). "Blog: Cheney's chutzpah". The Economist. ISSN 0013-0613. Retrieved July 11, 2024.
  7. ^ Manheim, Karl; Ides, Allan (September 2006). "The Unitary Executive". Los Angeles Lawyer. SSRN 943046. Loyola-LA Legal Studies Paper No. 2006-39.
  8. ^ Barron, David; Lederman, Martin (2008). "The Commander in Chief at the Lowest Ebb: A Constitutional History". Harvard Law Review. 121. Cambridge, Massachusetts: Harvard University: 941. Archived from the original on January 24, 2009. there are those who would argue that the 'unitary executive' must have effective control over all Article II functions, in which case the superintendence guaranteed by the Commander in Chief Clause would not appear to do any additional work with respect to superintendence.
  9. ^ Somin, Ilya (May 3, 2018). "Rethinking the Unitary Executive". Reason. Retrieved July 20, 2024. UPDATE: I perhaps should have mentioned the oft-made argument that maintaining a unitary executive—even when it comes to powers beyond the scope of the original meaning of the Constitution—is desirable because it enhances political accountability. Even if true, this claim is about what is pragmatically desirable, not about the text and original meaning of the Constitution. But the claim is dubious even on its own terms. The greater the scope of executive power, the harder it is for rationally ignorant voters to keep track of more than a small fraction of it. Moreover, it becomes difficult to figure out how to weigh the president's performance in one area against what he does in others (assuming there is variation in quality, as will often be the case). It is therefore unlikely that concentrating a vast range of power in the hands of one person does much to enhance accountability.
  10. ^ "How MAGA Republicans plan to make Donald Trump's second term count". The Economist. July 13, 2023. ISSN 0013-0613. Retrieved July 19, 2024. One reason for the professionalisation of the bureaucracy in the 19th century was to provide the ship of state with enough ballast to keep sailing from one administration to the next...The vain and tyrannical whims of an emperor-president would emerge from the rubble.
  11. ^ Howell, William; Moe, Terry (November 1, 2021). "Analysis | Big government vastly expanded presidential power. Republicans use it to sabotage the administrative state". Washington Post. ISSN 0190-8286. Retrieved July 20, 2024. The unitary executive theory provides a veneer of legal authority for an authoritarian-inclined president to engage in a range of anti-democratic behaviors. By the time George W. Bush had shown what the unitary executive could justify — torturing prisoners, surveilling ordinary citizens, ignoring congressional statutes — constitutional scholars were already pointing to presidents as the chief threat to American democracy. With the rise of right-wing populism and the election of Trump in 2016, this threat was magnified by the accompanying transformation of the Republican Party itself, with its elites in Washington and around the country abetting Trump's authoritarian behavior in office...The Republican Party is now an anti-democracy party, and its future presidents — empowered by the unitary executive theory — threaten the fundamentals of the U.S. democratic system...Democrats have been complicit, but Republicans have pushed the trajectory beyond democratic bounds.
  12. ^ a b Driesen, David (November 1, 2020). "The Unitary Executive Theory in Comparative Context". UC Law Journal. 72 (1): 1. ISSN 0017-8322.
  13. ^ Greenhut, Steven (June 28, 2024). "Project 2025: The Heritage Foundation's plan to embrace bigger government during Trump's second term". Reason. Retrieved July 11, 2024. But implementing what critics call 'unitary executive theory'—i.e., putting all aspects of the federal government under the control of the president—is a prescription for authoritarianism and abuse.
  14. ^ Hennessey, Susan; Wittes, Benjamin (January 21, 2020). "The Disintegration of the American Presidency". The Atlantic. Retrieved July 20, 2024. But the American system gets sticky when you contemplate vesting the executive power in one person who cannot be easily removed when that person is as mercurial and peculiar as Trump. In such situations, the structure can start to seem downright reckless. In concentrating power so that this person directs the federal government to do things—and in making this person exceptionally difficult to depose for a protracted period of time—one has to have a certain amount of confidence in that person's intentions and abilities.
  15. ^ Gersen, Jacob; Berry, Christopher R. (March 2008). "The Unbundled Executive". University of Chicago Public Law & Legal Theory Working Paper No. 214, 2008: 10–11. SSRN 1113543. Indeed, partial unbundling of executive authority is the norm rather than an exception in virtually all levels of non-national government units in the United States, of which there are more than 80,000. Authority that the governor or mayor would otherwise exercise is frequently given to a specific state or local officer. Often these officers are directly elected by the public. Other times they are elected by the legislature; other times still, they are appointed by another state official. These arrangements are only approximations of the unbundled executive ideal because they there is residual responsibility or authority for the policy in the general purpose executive...The average number of elected executive offices per state was 6.7 in 2002...
  16. ^ Berry, Christopher R.; Gersen, Jacob E. (2008). "The Unbundled Executive". The University of Chicago Law Review. 75 (4): 1399–1400. ISSN 0041-9494.
  17. ^ a b c d e f "Executive Order on Creating Schedule F In The Excepted Service". whitehouse.gov. October 21, 2020. Archived from the original on January 30, 2021. Retrieved October 24, 2020 – via National Archives.
  18. ^ a b c d e f g h Rein, Lisa; Yoder, Eric (October 22, 2020). "Trump issues sweeping order for tens of thousands of career federal employees to lose civil service protections". The Washington Post. Retrieved October 24, 2020.
  19. ^ a b Temin, Tom (October 29, 2020). "Civil service executive order has some supporters". Federal News Network. Retrieved November 2, 2020.
  20. ^ a b c d e f g "Civil Service: Agency Responses and Perspectives on Former Executive Order to Create a New Schedule F Category of Federal Positions". U. S. Government Accountability Office. September 1, 2022. Retrieved September 19, 2023.
  21. ^ Wagner, Erich (October 23, 2020). "Agencies to Have Wide Latitude In Deciding Which Jobs to Strip of Civil Service Protections". Government Executive. Retrieved November 2, 2020.
  22. ^ "Apply Authority to Move to Excepted Service Broadly, Agencies Told". FEDweek. October 26, 2020. Retrieved November 2, 2020.
  23. ^ Rigas, Michael J. (October 23, 2020). "Instructions on Implementing Schedule F". U.S. Office of Personnel Management. Retrieved October 31, 2020.
  24. ^ Wagner, Erich (October 22, 2020). "'Stunning' Executive Order Would Politicize Civil Service". Government Executive. Retrieved September 19, 2023.
  25. ^ a b Ortega, Bob; Lah, Kyung; Gordon, Allison; Black, Nelli (April 27, 2024). "What Trump's war on the 'Deep State' could mean: 'An army of suck-ups' | CNN Politics". CNN. Retrieved April 27, 2024.
  26. ^ Curran, John (January 22, 2021). "Biden Tosses Out Trump Administration 'Schedule F' Executive Order". MeriTalk. Retrieved January 14, 2022.
  27. ^ Alms, Natalie (January 22, 2021). "Biden repeals Schedule F, rolls back Trump-era workforce policy". FCW. Retrieved January 14, 2022.
  28. ^ a b Wagner, Erich (May 25, 2021). "House Panel Advances Bill Aimed at Preventing Future Schedule F Efforts". Government Executive. Retrieved January 14, 2022.
  29. ^ Shuham, Matt (January 20, 2021). "Trump Departs DC Without Carrying Out Order To Make Federal Workers Easier To Fire". Talking Points Memo. Retrieved July 26, 2022.
  30. ^ a b Wagner, Erich (December 28, 2022). "Year of the Living Dead: How Schedule F Continued to Threaten to Upend the Civil Service in 2022". Government Executive. Retrieved January 2, 2023.
  31. ^ "Agenda47: President Trump's Plan to Dismantle the Deep State and Return Power to the American People". Donald Trump 2024 presidential campaign. March 21, 2023. Retrieved December 14, 2023. First, I will immediately re-issue my 2020 Executive Order restoring the President's authority to remove rogue bureaucrats. And I will wield that power very aggressively.
  32. ^ Smith, Allan (April 26, 2023). "Trump zeroes in on a key target of his 'retribution' agenda: Government workers". NBC News. Retrieved September 19, 2023.
  33. ^ Weisner, Molly (June 30, 2023). "Schedule F is about accountability, not spoils system, ex-officials say". Federal Times. Retrieved September 19, 2023.
  34. ^ Swan, Jonathan; Haberman, Maggie (April 20, 2023). "Heritage Foundation Makes Plans to Staff Next G.O.P. Administration". The New York Times. ISSN 0362-4331. Retrieved September 19, 2023.
  35. ^ Ogrysko, Nicole (January 14, 2021). "New House bill would block future administrations from using Schedule F, or anything else like it". Federal News Network. Retrieved January 14, 2022.
  36. ^ Miller, Jason (July 13, 2022). "Connolly NDAA amendment would put a Schedule F revival to rest". Federal News Network. Retrieved July 26, 2022.
  37. ^ Wagner, Erich (July 15, 2022). "A Schedule F Ban Is Among Many Workforce Provisions in the Annual Defense Policy Bill the House Just Passed". Government Executive. Retrieved July 26, 2022.
  38. ^ Connolly, Gerald E. (July 26, 2022). "Opinion | How to stop Trump's sneak attack on the civil service". Washington Post. ISSN 0190-8286. Retrieved January 2, 2023.
  39. ^ "House Amendment 283". 117th United States Congress. July 14, 2022. Retrieved July 26, 2024 – via Congress.gov.
  40. ^ Wagner, Erich (December 7, 2022). "Lawmakers Left Anti-Schedule F Legislation Out of the Compromise Defense Policy Bill". Government Executive. Retrieved January 2, 2023.
  41. ^ Wagner, Erich (February 14, 2023). "Lawmakers Are Doubling Down on the Effort to Prevent the Next Schedule F". Government Executive. Retrieved September 19, 2023.
  42. ^ Friedman, Drew (September 15, 2023). "OPM aims to 'clarify, reinforce' protections against Schedule F, but some experts say it won't be enough". Federal News Network. Retrieved September 19, 2023.
  43. ^ Pager, Tyler; Rein, Lisa (September 15, 2023). "Biden administration proposes new rule that would limit Trump purge". Washington Post. ISSN 0190-8286. Retrieved September 19, 2023.
  44. ^ a b Mueller, Eleanor (October 26, 2020). "Trump federal salary adviser quits post over executive order reclassifying workers". Politico. Retrieved October 26, 2020.
  45. ^ a b Ogrysko, Nicole (October 23, 2020). "What they're saying about the new Schedule F". Federal News Network. Retrieved October 24, 2020.
  46. ^ a b Alms, Natalie; Mazmanian, Adam (December 21, 2020). "Schedule F workforce plan survives funding bill". FCW. Archived from the original on November 10, 2021. Retrieved December 22, 2020.
  47. ^ a b Beitsch, Rebecca (October 26, 2020). "Trump federal salary adviser resigns over order stripping worker protections". The Hill. Retrieved October 27, 2020.
  48. ^ a b c Ogrysko, Nicole (October 28, 2020). "House Democrats demand immediate stop to Schedule F executive order". Federal News Network. Retrieved October 31, 2020.
  49. ^ Smith, Ian (October 28, 2020). "NTEU Sues Trump Over Schedule F Executive Order". FedSmith. Retrieved October 31, 2020.
  50. ^ Alexander, Barbara; Gandhi, Rajesh T.; Pogue, Jason M.; Hayden, Mary; Bryant, Kristina A. (October 26, 2020). "Order to Reclassify Civil Service Posts Will Compromise Responses to Public Health Threats". Infectious Diseases Society of America (Press release). Retrieved October 27, 2020.
  51. ^ Wagner, Erich (October 26, 2020). "Salary Council Chairman Resigns in Protest of Trump Order Politicizing Federal Workforce". Government Executive. Retrieved July 22, 2024.
  52. ^ Czachor, Emily (October 26, 2020). "Trump Official Resigns Over Executive Order Asking for 'Political Loyalty'". Newsweek. Retrieved July 22, 2024.
  53. ^ Yoder, Eric (October 26, 2020). "Trump appointee resigns over the president's order removing job protections for many civil servants". Washington Post. ISSN 0190-8286. Retrieved July 24, 2024.
  54. ^ a b Mazmanian, Adam (October 23, 2020). "House Dems mull response Trump's order to remake the civil service". NextGov FCW. Retrieved November 2, 2020.
  55. ^ Wagner, Erich (October 30, 2020). "Coalition of 28 Labor Groups Urges Congress to Block Trump Order Creating Schedule F". Government Executive. Retrieved October 31, 2020.
  56. ^ a b c Mascaro, Lisa (August 29, 2023). "Conservatives aim to restructure U.S. government and replace it with Trump's vision". PBS News. Associated Press. Retrieved July 24, 2024. 'We have a democracy that is at risk of suicide. Schedule F is just one more bullet in the gun,' Guy said.
  57. ^ Mai, H.J.; Inskeep, Steve (August 16, 2023). "If Trump is reelected, the independence of federal agencies could be at risk". NPR. 'Under the previous regime, often referred to as the spoils system, both political parties were giving out government jobs on the basis of patronage,' Manners said. 'They would reward loyal party members with cushy government jobs and we ended up with a situation where you had not only corruption, but you just had a wasteful, ineffective government with people on the payroll who didn't have particular expertise in the role.' Manner, who has examined the legal structure of independent agencies, said she finds it somewhat ironic that those who now want to get rid of these agencies are using the same language, describing them as wasteful, inefficient and intrusive.
  58. ^ a b Linkins, Jason (September 23, 2022). "The Republican Plot to Weaponize the Government Against Political Enemies". The New Republic. ISSN 0028-6583. Retrieved July 24, 2024.
  59. ^ Ortega, Bob; Lah, Kyung; Gordon, Allison; Black, Nelli (April 27, 2024). "What Trump's war on the 'Deep State' could mean: 'An army of suck-ups'". CNN. Retrieved July 24, 2024.
  60. ^ Mascaro, Lisa (June 24, 2024). "Conservative-backed group is creating a list of federal workers it suspects could resist Trump plans". AP News. Retrieved July 24, 2024.
  61. ^ "'This is not original': Trump's 'Schedule F' executive order plan comes directly from authoritarian tactics". MSNBC. December 24, 2023. 2:37-6:13. Retrieved July 24, 2024.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Schedule_F_appointment&oldid=1237192726"