Former executives warn that Schedule F poses a national security risk

Former federal officials and good governance groups warned lawmakers on Tuesday that reinstating Schedule F and then converting tens of thousands of federal employees into randomly appointed political appointees could endanger the country’s security situation.

The former officials’ testimony came as part of a hearing on Schedule F, the failed 2020 attempt to repeal civil service protections for “policy-related” positions across the federal government. Former President Trump had promised to reinstate the plan if elected in the fall. The hearing was hosted by the Senate Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee. No Republicans spoke at the hearing. James Sherk, one of the initiative’s architects and an adviser to Trump during his first term, was originally scheduled to appear but was not mentioned in a press release announcing the hearing on Monday.

“The previous administration sought to replace 50,000 nonpartisan officials with individuals who followed the former president’s policies,” said committee chairman Gary Peters, Democrat of Michigan. “Not only would this change undermine government efficiency, it would be disastrous for the American people and would strip the federal government of institutional knowledge, expertise and continuity. It would slow down services, make us less prepared when disaster strikes and undermine public trust in government.”

Former heads of the Defense and Homeland Security departments said the arguments of Schedule F supporters — namely, that it is too difficult to fire underperforming federal employees and that presidents are hampered by entrenched bureaucrats who oppose their policies — are built on a fundamental disregard for the role of nonpartisan civil servants.

“There are two essential roles for civil servants, and one of them is to inform policy,” said Elaine Duke, who served as deputy secretary of Homeland Security and undersecretary of management at the Department of Homeland Security under presidents of both parties. “With their years of experience, it’s important for civil servants to understand policy goals and help shape them so they can be made as effective as possible. The second role of civil servants is to implement policy, and that’s linked to the first role, because we learn a lot from implementing policy, like what works and what doesn’t.”

Both Duke and Peter Levine, former deputy chief management officer and deputy assistant secretary of defense for personnel and readiness at the U.S. Department of Defense from 2015 to 2017, said they had never seen a senior federal official oppose a policy decision by a political official.

“The ability of public officials to offer open and honest advice without losing their jobs allows politicians like me to benefit from their knowledge and expertise,” Levine said. “The risk that politicians will not listen to the informed views of public officials is far greater than the risk that public officials will not follow a politician’s directive once it has been issued.”

Levine said that even if a second Trump administration implements Schedule F but is limited in the exercise of its authority, it will ultimately mark the beginning of a trend toward even more cumbersome presidential transitions every four to eight years.

“The president who first introduces Schedule F would probably think, ‘I can just replace people over time so there isn’t this big discontinuity. [between administrations],'” Levine said. “The problem is that if a president replaces 2,000 or 3,000 or 5,000 or 10,000, the next president is going to feel like he can’t rely on those 2, 3, 5 or 10,000 people… If, instead of replacing a few hundred political appointees and being able to rely on the career employees, [during a transition]You want to replace 2,000 or 3,000 or 5,000 and you couldn’t keep the lights on.”

Jenny Mattingley, vice president of government affairs at the Partnership for Public Service, said lawmakers should not only take action to protect federal employees from attacks on the benefits system, but also explore other ways to improve management and address “root causes,” such as difficulties in dealing with poor performance.

“One thing we see a lot in federal agencies is ad hoc or often cut training budgets and leadership development budgets,” she said. “Those are not the things we do when it comes to really developing our workforce and our leaders. To do the things we’re talking about, which is creating good environments, good culture, strong leadership culture, you see a lot of investment in that workforce area in the private sector, particularly large corporations, and so we encourage you to look at how those things can be strengthened within government as well.”