#spoils system

Many critics say the administration is scrapping a nonpartisan, merit-based civil service in favor of a biased, politicized system.

"How would you help advance the President’s Executive Orders and policy priorities in this role? Identify one or two relevant Executive Orders or policy initiatives that are significant to you, and explain how you would help implement them if hired."

— One of four questions asked of applicants for GS-5 jobs and above, Office of Personnel Management’s May 29 “Merit Hiring Plan” memo

This is a gift🎁link, so there is no paywall. Below are some excerpts.

President Donald Trump is accelerating efforts to transform the federal workforce from a nonpartisan, merit-based civil service to a system that values loyalty to the president and to push policies that allow the administration to more easily dismiss career employees, according to federal workers, public service experts and employment attorneys. [...] The House-passed budget proposal...would give new federal workers an ultimatum to accept “at-will” status — meaning they could be more easily fired — or pay a higher retirement contribution. The administration also unveiled a plan to require job applicants to write short essays describing how they plan to advance Trump’s priorities. And Trump has revived his previous efforts to reclassify thousands of federal employees and blur the line between political appointees and career professionals. [emphasis added]

COUNTERMANDING CIVIL SERVICE LAWS: The above Washington Post report explains how Trump is basically countermanding much of the 1883 Pendleton Act, which turned the civil service from a "spoils system" to a merit-based, nonpolitical system of dedicated civil servants, and the 1978 Civil Service Reform Act, which created the Merit Systems Protection Board (MSPB) to adjudicate worker complaints (which Trump disabled by firing "its Democratic chair," thus denying the MSPB a "quorum" to meet).

EVEN CLERICAL/SUPPORT STAFF MUST BE LOYAL: The loyalty questions that federal job candidates have to answer apply to "GS-5 jobs and above." One WaPo reader commented that GS-5 jobs include positions like "Clerk-Typist/Clerk-Stenographer," "Administrative Assistant," and "Support Services Assistant." In other words, even people in clerical and support roles would have to demonstrate their loyalty to Trump in order to be hired.

MERIT WAS ALWAYS A PART OF AFFIRMATIVE ACTION/ DEI: The Trump administration claims that the civil service, prior to Trump's recent changes, was not "merit-based" due largely to affirmative action/ DEI initiatives.

This is simply not true. To my knowledge DEI/ affirmative action still kept in place the merit parts of the civil service system (and any system to which those policies were applied).

[See more under the cut.]

Don Moynihan at Can We Still Govern?:

A basic democratic norm is that laws are implemented as they are written. Another norm is that the implementation of the law be even-handed, applied equally to all groups. The idea that some groups would become less eligible for public support or fired from their job simply because of their presumed partisan affiliation feels obviously undemocratic. And so, we are appalled at reports that Trump was less willing to provide emergency support to parts of the country that lean blue. But increasingly, this is our government now. Reluctant Republicans were persuaded to vote for a continuing resolution for a budget they dislike because the appropriations, as passed, will never be implemented. Instead, the President will withhold spending to recraft appropriations to fit his own priorities. Lets just pause to reflect on how far beyond the looking glass we are. Trump, via Musk, is engaged in impoundment, which is illegal and unconstitutional. It also vastly weakens Congress. And yet, the Trump pitch to get Congress to pass appropriations is that he will ignore what they actually pass! Impoundment is a feature, not a bug, in their model for governing.

No member of Congress should support an illegal theory of governing that strips them of their power. No member of Congress should vote for a bill unless they are promised that the bill will be implemented as written. Breaking such promises should trigger Congress to use its oversight powers, all the way to impeachment. This is all pretty straightforward checks-and-balances stuff. You protect your institutional power, or you become irrelevant, as does the US model for governing. In recent years, the Supreme Court has significantly limited the ability of Presidents and executive branch officials to interpret laws in ways that overstep Congressional intent, via the major questions doctrine and revoking the Chevron doctrine. It remains to be seen if SCOTUS will allow Trump to completely ignore the laws on impoundment, but there is no reason why Congress should. So why are Republicans going along with Trump’s promises to ignore their appropriations. Many genuinely want to cut government, and don’t care about the means. But they also, like every politician, want to claim credit and minimize blame. Recall all of the Republicans who opposed Biden’s infrastructure bill, and then touted spending in their jurisdiction. So what gives? Republicans in Congress are not being told that their appropriations will be ignored: they are being told that appropriations will be selectively ignored, and they will be protected. DOGE is accepting requests from Republican officials to reverse cuts in their jurisdictions. It is a form of spoils system in reverse: your pet projects will be spared from elimination. 

[...] This is not the 19th century spoils system built just on quid pro quos; it is also about destroying perceived enemy capacities. A Republican familiar with Musk’s downsizing plans told Wired: “You know none of this is about saving money, right? It’s all about destroying a liberal power base.” For example, keep an eye also on which universities are targeted for cuts. After removing $400 million from Columbia, the White House announced a $100 million cut in US Department of Agriculture funds to the University of Maine system — mostly directed on research and outreach that benefits rural communities — after Trump clashed with the Governor over her refusal to accept policies that would exclude transgender athletes from sports. There are just a few aspects of the new spoils system and the corruption it breeds. A whole other topic is the defanging of government oversight of contracts (e.g., the closing of 18F) and private businesses (e.g., the gutting of CFPB), while private businesses are paying up to five million dollars to meet and curry favor with Trump. In short: Trump and Musk are engaged in a broad-based downsizing of government, using that downsizing to selectively target their enemies, while expanding their political power by trading exceptions to the downsizing.

So is the Civil Service Reform Act of 1978 no longer the law?

System of bureaucrats, appointments and spoils: this is how power changes in the rooms of Palazzo Chigi

The grand maneuvers of the Palazzo Chigi estate system (the change of leaders based on the political indications of the government that takes office) are losing steam. The 45 days by law required by the ministers’ oath to make changes expires this morning and the organizational chart of the big bureaucrats who will lead the state machine, transferring Prime Minister Meloni’s decisions to…

Il Ministero perde l’esperto: epurato Max Bruschi

Tecnicamente si chiama spoil system e si tratta del momento in cui insediato un nuovo capo, uomo o donna che sia, nel nostro caso, allora si fa pulizia delle cariche inutili, cioè di quelle di fiducia del capo precedente. Una sorta di linea di discontinuità o desiderio di cambiamento per evitare di essere messi in ombra o per relegare l’epurato nel limbo della damnatio memoriae. Continue reading

My brief experience at Washington has led me often to utter the wish with an emphasis that I do not often use that I might be forever relieved of any connection with the distribution of public patronage. I covet for myself the free and unpurchased support of my fellow citizens, and long to be able to give my time and energy solely to...public affairs.

Quoted in the Indianapolis Journal, August 30th, 1882.