Donald Trump’s proposed plan to reshape the federal workforce by purging thousands of civil servants has sparked significant skepticism from former officials, who argue that the initiative, tied to “Schedule F,” is fraught with challenges.
Ronald Sanders, who served as the Federal Salary Council’s director during Trump’s first administration, voiced doubts about the feasibility and consequences of the proposal. In an interview with Anna Kramer of NOTUS, Sanders explained his concerns:
“My conversation with [the] White House led me to conclude that Schedule F was going to be used to put loyalists in place, and used not just to achieve policy alignment.” Sanders resigned in protest when the policy was first introduced during Trump’s initial term, citing fundamental disagreements with its objectives.
Schedule F is designed to convert certain federal positions into political appointments, making it easier to hire and fire employees based on loyalty and alignment with administration goals. However, Sanders sees significant obstacles to its success and broader implications for the federal workforce.
“There’s no easy button here. There are limited ways to reduce large numbers, and they both have consequences,” he stated, emphasizing the practical and ethical dilemmas involved.
Jenny Mattingley, a former staffer with the White House and the Office of Management and Budget, echoed Sanders’ concerns. She noted the potential for increased turnover among politically appointed positions. “You are just expanding the number of political appointments out there.
They tend to turn over, come and go every four years. That level of turnover makes it really hard to keep efficient or effective services going,” Mattingley explained. She also warned about the broader impact of such reforms, adding, “People are talking about reform at a very broad level and in a way that will have negative impacts on how the federal workforce can deliver for the public.”
Critics like Jennifer Pahlka, a former Obama administration official, have described Schedule F as a “loyalty test.” She emphasized the need for a balance in managing federal employees: “In order to have a healthy civil service that enables a government that can do what it says it’s going to do, you need to be able to hire the right people and fire the wrong ones. And we don’t actually have that today.”
As Trump prepares for a potential second term, the debate around Schedule F highlights the complexities of overhauling the federal workforce while maintaining its efficiency and effectiveness.
