Earlier this year, President Trump dealt a new blow to civil servants with a Presidential Order that introduced a “Schedule G” classification, increasing the number of political appointments within federal agencies.
The Trump administration argued that this new classification would ensure these political appointees faithfully carry out the administration’s agenda. Critics, however, are fixated on significant layoffs framed as government efficiency, viewing this as yet another attempt to undermine merit-based civil service and reduce it to a tool of presidential power.
While it’s valid to be concerned about the shift from nonpartisan experts to politically loyal appointees, it’s crucial to note that this trend isn’t solely about Trump. The implementation of Schedule G is part of a broader, decades-long bipartisan effort that has gradually eroded the norms designed to keep civil servants insulated from political influence.
The ideal of merit-based federal service took shape in the late 19th century when the expanding size and complexity of government called for a new administrative framework. Reformers since the Civil War have reacted against the low skill sets and high turnover associated with federal jobs. They sought to establish a professional civil service to meet the increasing responsibilities of the federal government.
The Pendleton Act of 1883 ended the spoils system, creating a Civil Service Commission tasked with establishing a merit-based system through examinations for civil servants. Over the following decades, effective management came to be seen as a nonpartisan discipline, and by the 1930s, most federal employees were covered under the Merit System.
However, as time went on, traditional administrations faced growing skepticism from the public.
During World War II, the expansion of wartime agencies resulted in dissatisfaction over controls on prices and distribution. Additionally, the rise of the Nazi regime raised alarms about the dangers of a neutral government that could be weaponized for any political purpose.
In the ensuing years, there were widespread calls to bring back partisan governance. Reformers targeted the merit system, arguing that too much discretion had created a detached bureaucracy with managers merely enforcing policies.
In 1949, critics claimed that the reorganization efforts initiated by President Harry Truman’s Civil Service Committee were “slow, impersonal, and difficult to navigate,” arguing against strict employment regulations meant to maintain neutrality. By 1953, President Eisenhower introduced Schedule C, allowing exemptions for certain civil servants from the merit system to create more policy-making positions.
In the 1960s, activists focusing on civil rights criticized the neutral administration, suggesting it failed to address marginalized groups’ needs by stifling public participation. By the 1970s, the separation between politics and governance was increasingly questioned. Administrative experts began advocating for a “New Administration” that embraced responsiveness to political demands instead of mere neutrality.
Over time, contributions from across the political landscape proposed the politicization of governmental roles. The Civil Service Reform Act of 1978, which dissolved the Civil Service Commission in favor of a Personnel Management Bureau, highlighted this trend. The Washington Post pointed out this shift, noting that the Carter administration responded to a politically charged environment.
During President Ronald Reagan’s administration, significant changes took place with Donald Devine at the helm of the Personnel Management Bureau. The new HR framework emphasized the political leadership in governmental roles. President Bill Clinton also took steps to reform the government by promoting responsiveness and encouraging federal employees to leave through buyout programs.
These trajectories have significantly influenced the Trump administration’s attempts to politicize and destabilize civil service. While the quick pace of these reforms is noteworthy, they represent an ongoing trend. For over 75 years, the US government has gradually moved away from maintaining administrative neutrality. In this larger context, Schedule G isn’t an anomaly but rather a logical culmination of years of declining administrative impartiality.
Those aiming to restore merit-based governance need to confront not just Trump himself but also the deeper ideological shifts that his tenure embodies.
