The White House has been sued by unions on the grounds that the merit-based hiring pushed by the Trump administration undermined the principle of political neutrality for federal civil servants. The controversy erupted amid criticism that personnel reforms centered on a presidential executive order had effectively morphed into a "loyalty test," and it is spreading as an issue that shakes the tradition of political neutrality in the civil service.
According to Axios on the 6th (local time), three unions—the American Federation of Government Employees (AFGE), the American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees (AFSCME), and the National Association of Government Employees (NAGE)—filed a lawsuit that day in a Massachusetts district court against the Office of Personnel Management (OPM). The plaintiffs said, "Hiring based on merit, not political loyalty, is the cornerstone of American democracy, and this system undermined that principle." Citing the Civil Service Act enacted in the 19th century, the suit criticized the move as "an unconstitutional attempt by the White House to evaluate civil servants by party loyalty."
At the center of the controversy is an essay question included in the merit-based hiring system that OPM released in May. Applicants were required to answer the question, "If you take this position, how can you contribute to advancing the president's executive orders and policy priorities?" On the surface, it is an item to assess job understanding and administrative execution, but unions noted it was "effectively a loyalty screening to check whether applicants support the president's policies."
The problem is that this question was applied to more than 5,800 federal job postings, including roles unrelated to politics such as butchers at the Ministry of National Defense and laundry workers at the Department of Veterans Affairs. The unions filed suit, saying, "Asking even applicants for simple administrative or technical jobs about the president's policy direction is a clear political bias."
In response, the White House and OPM explained that "the question is not mandatory and each agency can use it at its discretion." The White House did not immediately respond to a request for comment, but an OPM official told Axios in June, shortly after the hiring plan was released, "The president has the constitutional authority to oversee the executive branch, and asking about the will to carry out policy is lawful and not a loyalty test." The official argued, "Because civil servants must act consistently under the president's lawful executive orders, having hiring candidates describe their interest in policies is a legitimate procedure."
Still, concerns are growing inside and outside the civil service that the system could expand the political influence of the executive branch. Critics say it could shake the foundations of the U.S. civil service system, which has maintained a nonpartisan personnel principle. Elaine Kamarck, a public administration professor at Harvard Kennedy School, said, "Personnel policy based on loyalty can create a vicious cycle in which the civil service structure is shaken every time an administration changes," adding, "The White House is effectively pushing politicization under the pretext of administrative efficiency."
The unions are seeking a comprehensive review of the hiring system through the lawsuit, and if the court finds it unconstitutional, the broader effort to overhaul executive branch personnel could be halted. Don Kettl, a public administration reform expert at the Brookings Institution, assessed, "This lawsuit goes beyond a simple personnel dispute and exposes a fundamental clash between executive power and the nonpartisan civil service system."