A bipartisan group of government experts warn about the risks of Schedule F

Schedule F is not just bad - it is sidelining a real agenda to modernize state capacity

Back in April, I joined a small working group concerned about the short- and long-term future of American state capacity and especially worried about the risks of a reimposition of Schedule F, the Executive Order that Trump is promising to use to fire career civil servants who are insufficiently loyal to him.

Source: Christine Cato

Those pushing Schedule F will dismiss us. After all, they view expertise itself to be disqualifying. Convened by Don Kettl, Francis Fukuyama and Paul Verkuil, the Working Group to Protect and Reform U.S. Civil Service wrestled with the challenges of government in a way that was different from those who created Schedule F. While the creators of Schedule F were a partisan group that sought no input from experts on governance, our group featured:

• real experience in looking first-hand at the strengths and weaknesses of government;

• a good-government rather than partisan approach to reform;

• was intentionally diverse - we included researchers who study government, and those who have worked in government; political appointees and career officials; those who have worked in the executive branch and on the legislative side; those who have worked for public sector unions and those who have argued for eliminating those unions; those with significant private, non-profit, and public sector experience; Republicans and Democrats.

We disagreed on much, but found common ground in critical areas. I took away three lessons.

Lessons 1: While there are real challenges for American government, Schedule F is not the answer. Indeed, it would undermine state capacity and the ability of government to deliver results.

Lesson 2: There is a bipartisan and credible coalition interested in modernizing American government, rebuilding its ability to get things done. This is important because there is a tendency to see the political dynamics as Republicans pushing Schedule F and Democrats simply opposing it. But many conservatives are concerned about giving the Presidency unchecked power (this is a theme that used to be central to conservatism!), and many Democrats are worried about the ability of government to implement ambitious policy goals. This nascent coalition has emerged as progressives have become more attentive to conservative critiques of proceduralism and vetocracies in the administration of public power. Crucially, these groups share real and credible principles, anchored in a vision of an effective modern government, rather than the politicized and unaccountable one that Schedule F would deliver.

Lesson 3: As long as Schedule F dominates the policy conversation, real government reform opportunities will be set aside. My (perhaps naive) hope is that if Trump is defeated, both parties will come to the table and start a real conversation about an ambitious agenda to rebuild American state capacity. My concern is that if Trump is elected, things will get very bad, perhaps triggering a wave election that generates some public sector reforms, but at the cost of real damage to the American state. And my deepest fear is that Trump’s deconstruction of state capacity will not be corrected in the short-run, but will deal a deep and long-lasting blow to American governance. This is why I am doing all I can to raise the alarm about Schedule F now.

Lesson 4: It is really, really important for the public to understand the stakes around Schedule F, and right now they don’t. Last November I wrote a piece in the New York Times about Schedule F and other ways that Trump could use power to move the US toward an authoritarian model. If you write something in the Times, you generally get a bunch of emails and media requests. One weird pattern was that I got many more interview requests from overseas media (Germany, Norway, Denmark, Japan, Australia, and the Netherlands) than I did from US media sources. Obviously, my personal experience is not representative, and there is some terrific media reporting happening about what Trump 2.0 might look like. But I do wonder why American media seems less engaged in explaining the stakes of what a second Trump term would means for democracy in America.

Our statement is below.

---

Statement of the Working Group to Protect and Reform the US Civil Service

A group of non-partisan experts and scholars convened a workshop at the National Academy of Public Administration to discuss “Protecting and Reforming the US Civil Service.”  This question has become urgent in light of plans, such as those outlined in the Heritage Foundation’s Project 2025, to revive the executive order issued at the end of the Trump administration to create a new “Schedule F.”  The latter would reclassify large numbers of federal employees from positions with longstanding civil service protections that undergird their objectivity in advising political leaders about policy options based on evidence.  Schedule F would convert those positions to “at-will” status, meaning that employees could be hired or fired based on political loyalty rather than competence or expertise. This would likely have negative effects on the quality of American government by opening the door to politicization and patronage throughout the federal workforce. 

We believe that there is an alternative vision for a future and more effective federal workforce that serves the nation. This vision includes:

1. Agility. The federal government must have the ability to adapt quickly to the challenges posed by relentless technological, economic, and social change. A government pay and classification system designed 75 years ago when most federal employees were clerks will not meet the challenges  like artificial intelligence and a complex globalized economy.

2. Accountability. While federal employees’ loyalty to the Constitution and the rule of law is paramount in providing expert guidance, they must be responsive to the lawful policy direction of elected officials and their political appointees. Our system of civil service must continue to reflect these long-standing principles.  

3. Collaboration. Federal workers must draw on the skills, knowledge and assistance that exist across  government, in the private sector, universities, and other places where knowledge is being generated. The federal government needs greater encouragement as it seeks to draw on diverse skills, and in rewarding those who excel.  

4. Outcomes. The federal workforce must be driven by the desire  to produce real-world outcomes that the public values, and that go beyond simple compliance with existing rules. The procedural complexity of government operations today absorbs federal employees’ time and energy, saps creativity, innovation and necessary risk-taking, while creating frustration and increasing cynicism on the part of citizens.  Where possible, simplicity and results should replace complexity both inside the government and in its dealings with the public.

5. Capacity. Federal workers will not be able to deliver on their agencies’ missions and serve the American public without the proper skills, training, and education.  Federal workers need training not just in narrow specializations, but in leadership and management skills necessary in a hi-tech and boundary-spanning environment.  Congress and the Administration must secure the resources and tools necessary to recruit, hire, train, and retain a highly-skilled workforce.

We believe that the proposed revival of  Schedule F will not assist  an Administration to lawfully and effectively execute its policies, or  help meet the forward-looking goals enumerated above, and in fact would dangerously undermine them. Government workers will not take justified risks or innovate if they  feel they are being judged on the basis of political loyalty rather than results. In the coming weeks and months, our group will elaborate how the federal government must evolve in order to meet these challenges and truly become a government of the 21st century.

Signed,

Anne Joseph O'Connell*, Stanford Law School
Dan Chenok*, Senior Executives Association
Daniel Tangherlini*, Emerson Collective
David Wilson*, Dean and Professor, Goldman School of Public Policy, UC Berkeley  
Don Kettl*, Former Dean, Univ. of Maryland School of Public Policy
Don Moynihan*, Georgetown University
Chris Mihm*, National Academy of Public Administration
Doug Edwards, Board Co-Chair, Maplight
Ed DeSeve*, Coordinator, Agile Government Center
Francis Fukuyama*, Stanford Center on Democracy, Development and the Rule of Law
Heath Mayo, Founder, Principles First
Jennifer Pahlka*, Niskanen Center and the Federation of American Scientists
Jenny Mattingley*, Partnership for Public Service
John Palguta*, Career Federal Executive (retired)
Larry Diamond, Freeman Spogli Institute, Stanford University
Max Stier, President, Partnership for Public Service
Mickey Edwards, Princeton University; former member of Congress
Nils Gilman, Berggruen Institute
Norm Ornstein, American Enterprise Institute
Patria de Lancer Julnes, Rosenthal Endowed Professor and Director, School of Public Administration, University of New Mexico; 2023-2025 President, American Society for Public Administration
Paul Brest, Former (and Interim) Dean and Professor Emeritus (active), Stanford Law School
Paul Verkuil*, Former Chair, Administrative Conference of the United States and President Emeritus, College of William & Mary    
Peter Morrissey*, Volcker Alliance
Philip K. Howard*, Common Good
Robert Shea*, GovNavigators
Robert M. Tobias*, American University                       
Ron Sanders, NAPA Fellow, ASPA National Council, former Associate Director of OPM, former Chair of the Federal Salary Council
Samuel Pooley, Adjunct faculty, University of Hawaii, formerly Federal SES
Stan Soloway, President & CEO Celero Strategies LLC
Former Deputy Undersecretary of Defense/Acquisition Reform and Director
Thomas, Ross, President Emeritus, Davidson College and the University of North Carolina
Trevor Brown, Dean of the John Glenn College of Public Affairs at The Ohio State University
Uriel Epshtein, CEO, Renew Democracy Initiative
William Shields, Executive Director, American Society for Public Administration

Signed as an Institutional Partner:
American Society of Public Administration

* The asterisk identifies those who originally participated in the April 2024 workshop held in Washington, DC. They all signed and endorsed this effort on April 30, 2024.

If you have experience with government and wish to add your name to the signatory list, you can do so here.