BNCL Law Firm - Burris, Nisenbaum, Curry & Lacy

Trump’s Executive Order on the Federal Workforce: A Shift Toward Politicization

January 21, 2025

On January 20, 2025, President Donald Trump wasted no time in reshaping the federal government, signing 26 executive orders on his first day back in office. Among the most consequential was his executive order targeting the federal workforce. This order mandates an end to remote work, a hiring freeze (except for positions in the military, national security, and immigration enforcement), and the elimination of diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) programs. More concerningly, it reinstates “Schedule F,” a classification that strips thousands of federal employees of their job protections, potentially turning career civil servants into politically loyal operatives.

The Implications of Trump’s Federal Workforce Overhaul

Trump’s changes are poised to alter the federal government in multiple ways fundamentally:

1. Politicization of Civil Service

Trump’s revival of Schedule F reintroduces the possibility of purging nonpartisan career employees and replacing them with political appointees. This shift erodes a long-standing tradition of an apolitical civil service that upholds the rule of law, irrespective of presidential administrations. Federal employees would now serve at the pleasure of the president rather than focusing on their institutional obligations to the American people.

2. Chilling Effect on Whistleblowers and Ethical Employees

Stripping career federal workers of due process protections could lead to increased self-censorship. Employees might avoid flagging unethical behavior, corruption, or legal violations for fear of immediate termination. This could erode transparency and accountability within government agencies.

3. Impact on Diversity and Inclusion Efforts

Trump’s order eliminates all government diversity programs and directs agencies to identify which federal contractors have promoted DEI initiatives. This move signals a rollback of efforts to create a more inclusive and representative federal workforce, potentially affecting hiring practices and workplace culture.

4. Disruptions to Government Services

A hiring freeze combined with the removal of remote work options could reduce federal efficiency. Many agencies rely on flexible work policies to attract talent, and eliminating those options may result in significant staffing shortages and decreased productivity.

5. Legal Challenges and Potential Blockages

Experts predict Trump’s order will face multiple legal challenges, particularly regarding Schedule F, which was never fully implemented in 2020 due to legal and bureaucratic pushback. If courts deem the move unconstitutional or exceeding executive authority, it may be blocked before taking full effect.

 

Unintended Consequences of Federal Workforce Changes

History has shown that drastic changes to government employment policies can lead to unforeseen consequences:

  • Talent Drain: Many qualified public servants may leave government jobs rather than risk being dismissed for political reasons, reducing institutional expertise.
  • Partisan Government Services: If federal agencies become staffed with partisan loyalists rather than neutral experts, the quality of public service could decline.
  • Frequent Policy Reversals: With each new administration undoing its predecessor’s reforms, continuity in governance is compromised, leading to inefficiency and instability.

 

Q&A: Understanding the Executive Order’s Impact

1. Can my job be terminated under the new Schedule F rule?

If you are a federal employee in a policy-related role, your job could be reclassified under Schedule F, making you easier to fire. However, legal challenges may delay or prevent implementation.

2. Will remote work be completely eliminated?

Yes, unless your department head grants an exemption. Trump’s order directs agencies to end telework arrangements and requires full-time in-office work.

3. How does this impact hiring in the federal government?

The hiring freeze applies to most federal positions except for national security, immigration enforcement, and military roles. This could result in staffing shortages and slow down government operations.

4. Can this order be reversed by a future administration?

Yes, as seen with Biden reversing Trump’s previous Schedule F order. However, constant reversals disrupt government continuity and create instability in federal employment.

5. What can I do if I feel my rights are being violated?

If you believe your employment rights are at risk due to political retaliation or unfair termination, consult a legal professional. BNCL specializes in civil rights litigation and can provide guidance on potential legal remedies.

 

BNCL’s Commitment to Protecting Civil Rights

At BNCL, we recognize that a fair and impartial federal workforce is crucial for democracy. We stand against efforts that erode worker protections, politicize government agencies, and undermine institutional integrity. If you or someone you know is affected by these policy changes, reach out to BNCL for legal support.

 

By ensuring legal accountability and protecting employees’ rights, we can work together to safeguard democracy and resist the erosion of a neutral and effective federal government.

Case Results

Reginald Oliver v. City of Oakland

Oakland Police keep fabricating evidence and lying about minorities to arrest and prosecute them for supposed “gang” crimes, in violation of a settlement that prohibits …

Read More
Named plaintiff Reginald Oliver claims the Oakland PD continues violating the Constitution, in defiance of the settlement in Delphine Allen e al. v. City of Oakland, USDC No. C-00-4599 TEH, also known as "The Riders" litigation. Read Full Course
John Burris
Jane Smith v. City of Oakland

Racial profiling of Asian women by police officer resulting in a class action complaint for damages, declaratory and injunctive relief

Read More
Finding evidence about defendant's post-conviction parole violation unfairly prejudicial "since the jury could have construed that parole violation as character evidence in violation of Federal Rule of Evidence 404(b)" Read Full Course
Rodney King
Rodney King v. City of Los Angeles

Rodney King has filed a petition for a writ of mandamus seeking to have Judge John G. Davies disqualified from presiding at the trial of …

Read More
Rodney King waited too long to file a malpractice suit against the first of 27 lawyers who represented him in connection with the infamous beating he suffered from Los Angeles police in 1991, this district’s Court of Appeal ruled yesterday. The ruling by Div. Two affirmed Los Angeles Superior Court Judge Ann Kough’s grant of summary judgment to Steven Lerman. King earlier this year dismissed his appeal of Kough’s ruling in favor of two other lawyers sued in the case, Federico Sayre and John Burris. Read Full Course
FEATURED News & Updates

Civil rights lawyer John Burris confronts police narratives

Written by Janie Har, AP researcher Rhonda Shafner also contributed to this report. To read on AP News click here OAKLAND, Calif. (AP) — Before …

Watch our video
Share via
Copy link