President Trump issued an executive order on a Wednesday afternoon in early June that, in the eyes of many federal employees, immediately altered the regulations governing their careers. Some 8,000 career civil servants — most of them at the GS-15 level, the highest rung of the federal pay scale before political appointee territory — were reclassified into a new employment category called Schedule Policy/Career. The practical effect is blunt: they can now be fired without the agency needing to provide a formal reason.
The White House has been moving toward this moment for years. The original version of this idea surfaced in October 2020, under the name Schedule F, and was signed into an executive order during Trump’s first term. Biden revoked it on his first day in office, so it never really took off. This time, the administration moved more deliberately — issuing new regulations through the formal notice-and-comment process, letting them take effect in March, and then spelling out exactly which jobs would be affected through Wednesday’s order.
What’s striking is how the final number landed. Up to 50,000 federal positions might be reclassified, according to early Office of Personnel Management estimates. About 8,000 were named in the June 3rd order. The focus, according to a senior administration official, is on “the most senior level career policy officials”—those who oversee grants and spending, manage regional operations, run policy offices, and handle public affairs at a senior level. The administration may view this as a first wave rather than a ceiling.
The jobs affected aren’t entry-level. These individuals have frequently worked for decades navigating the government’s machinery, creating regulations, counseling agency leadership, and overseeing initiatives that affect millions of Americans. One of the officials who briefed reporters on Wednesday, Scott Kupor, took care to emphasize that political opinions will not influence any decisions about removal. “All this does,” he stated, “is basically say: if you allow your views to interfere with your willingness to carry out lawful orders, this is a mechanism for you to be removed.” Time will tell if that assurance holds up in real life.
Critics aren’t holding out for more information. Before the executive order was even signed, federal employee unions filed lawsuits claiming the policy violated the Administrative Procedures Act, the 1978 Civil Service Reform Act, and the Constitution. One of the groups opposing the rule, Democracy Forward, framed it in terms of public consequences rather than just worker rights, pointing out that those most impacted are frequently those in charge of law enforcement, public lands, airport safety, and environmental protection.
This place has something worthwhile to sit with. The civil service protections that are being eliminated weren’t created at random. They came about as a result of a lengthy history of federal corruption and patronage, a spoils system that gave government jobs to political loyalists regardless of their qualifications for the majority of the 19th century. The reforms that followed were designed to create a professional class of public servants who could outlast any single administration. Whether that system needed updating is a fair question. Whether removing protections for 8,000 people at once is the right way to do it is a different one entirely.
Research on at-will employment in state governments offers a murky picture. Modest efficiency gains are reported in some studies. Others document increases in political favoritism and a chilling effect on honest internal advice — the kind of candid pushback that agencies sometimes need before making consequential decisions. The federal government is not a corporation. The incentive structures are different. In many situations, the stakes are significantly higher.
For the time being, the 8,000 employees affected by Wednesday’s order must adjust to a new work environment. Some people will adjust. There will undoubtedly be some who begin searching for alternatives. It will take years, if at all, to provide a clear answer to the more difficult question of whether eliminating their protections makes the government more efficient or just more submissive.
