How Civil Service Gains Are Being Rolled Back a Century Later
On his first day back in office, the felon occupying the Oval Office symbolically declared war on labor and the middle class by reviving Schedule F, an executive order he first issued at the end of his initial term. The measure stripped civil service protections from tens of thousands of policy-influencing federal employees, making them “at-will” and easier to fire. This time, the Office of Personnel Management formally proposed rules to reclassify 50,000 federal workers.
Also on Jan. 20, 2025, he imposed a hiring freeze that halted nearly all federal civilian hiring. The freeze has since been extended twice and now runs through Oct. 15, with only limited exemptions for national security and public safety roles. A July memorandum further required that new hires receive approval from agency leadership — typically political appointees — centralizing control of the civil service.
That same day, he issued Executive Order 14151, mandating the immediate termination of all federal Diversity, Equity, Inclusion and Accessibility programs. Employees in those roles were placed on leave, DEI offices were eliminated, public materials removed and grant funding canceled. Separate orders rolled back affirmative action requirements for federal contractors and banned consideration of race, sex or gender in hiring, calling such practices “radical and wasteful.”
By day five, he fired 17 inspectors general, watchdog officials charged with rooting out fraud and abuse. The “Friday-night purge,” as it came to be known, disrupted oversight and likely violated statutory protections.
On day 29, Executive Order 14215 required independent agencies to submit major regulations to the White House and to follow legal interpretations issued by the president or attorney general — further eroding their autonomy.
The Office of Personnel Management estimated that 300,000 federal workers — about 12.5% of the workforce — would leave or be dismissed in 2025 as part of a sweeping downsizing initiative. At the IRS, one-quarter of the workforce departed amid politically motivated restructuring, while three senior executives were dismissed.
An OPM memo recommended reclassifying Chief Human Capital Officer positions from career-reserved to more politicized “SES general,” allowing political appointees to fill them and move against career officials deemed disloyal.
The Department of Education cut staff and resources in its Office for Civil Rights, closing regional offices and prioritizing investigations that cast diversity efforts as unfair advantages, while complaints from marginalized students went unresolved.
Changes to the Public Service Loan Forgiveness program penalized public service workers if their employers engaged in “illegal” activities, such as supporting transgender youth — putting teachers, nurses and social workers at risk of losing benefits.
The commissioner of the Bureau of Labor Statistics, Erika McEntarfer, was removed after releasing jobs data that did not align with the administration’s narrative, raising fears of politicized manipulation of economic reporting. At Yosemite National Park, a scientist was fired in another move seen as politically motivated retaliation against conservation work, threatening public service missions.
Not since the dawn of the 20th century, before the civil service system was fully established, have government jobs been dispensed this way.
A 1913 series in the San Pedro News Pilot told the story of Peter Pearce, a respected janitor who lost his city hall position after more than three years when the Los Angeles Civil Service Commission barred him from taking the janitorial exam, citing his age. Pearce, who had migrated from Guernsey in the Channel Islands with his wife Alice around 1884, was by then a pioneer San Pedran. His removal was linked to patronage politics that rewarded allies with government jobs.
Civil service reforms, beginning with the Pendleton Act of 1883, were designed to prevent such abuses. Age limits and merit exams were originally intended to ensure competence, maturity, and reliability, and to curb patronage systems that privileged loyalty to party over public service.
Now, more than a century later, history threatens to repeat itself.
Fortunately, pro-labor movements have stepped up the fight. Federal worker unions such as the American Federation of Government Employees, the National Treasury Employees Union and AFL-CIO affiliates have filed lawsuits challenging the executive orders and lobbied allies in Congress to block or defund anti-worker policies.
Unions and labor coalitions have justifiably framed these attacks on the civil service as a threat to democracy, warning that politicizing the workforce undermines stability and fairness. They have launched media campaigns highlighting federal workers’ roles during crises such as the pandemic response, natural disasters and veterans’ care.
Labor organizers are also working with civil rights, environmental and good-government groups to argue that undermining the civil service system damages not only workers, but also public accountability.
Political action committees and grassroots groups are targeting pro-management candidates in elections and backing pro-labor challengers, especially in swing districts. They use union scorecards to mobilize members and families against lawmakers supporting rollbacks of civil service protections.
Federal employee unions have organized days of action, rallies and informational pickets at agencies such as the Department of Veterans Affairs, IRS, and Social Security Administration. While federal workers face legal limits on striking, they have used demonstrations, petitions and “work-to-rule” tactics to resist changes.
The stakes are clear: if the civil service falls, so does the principle that government exists to serve the public, not a party or a president.