On April 23, the Trump administration formally published a rulemaking proposal in the Federal Register that would lay the legal groundwork for creating a new category of civil service personnel called “Schedule Policy/Career” — better known as “Schedule F.” Long anticipated, this policy would strip civil service employees of century-old employment protections, effectively making them “at will” employees, much like a president’s political appointees.
This change is not merely inside-the-Beltway “inside baseball,” either. These legal protections are exactly why we can count on a professional and apolitical corps of thousands of experts to ensure our drinking water is free of contaminants and our planes land safely.
While important under all circumstances, these protections are especially crucial when facing a worst-case scenario like we are now. President Donald Trump has made it clear that he intends to purge career civil servants for insufficient loyalty and to replace them with hacks who will follow any order from above, no matter how illegal or contrary to the public interest.
Tellingly, the proposal itself provides an unintentional demonstration of why a professional civil service is so crucial in a complex, industrialized democracy like ours. Its policy analysis is often conclusory or superficial. Supporting evidence is scant and even nonexistent. Worst of all, it lacks serious consideration of more tailored policy alternatives that would address the problems it identifies — for instance, better accountability for poor performing career staff — that are supported by evidence and permissible by law.
These are all the indicia of the kind of reason-based, deliberative decision-making administrative law requires for new rules. And it is the role of career staff at agencies to make sure that new rules meet these standards. This proposal is Exhibit A for what happens when you cut career civil servants out of the policy formulation process, and it substantially increases the likelihood that the final version of the rule, if one emerges, will meet a quick demise in the courts.
This action triggers a 30-day public comment period, which ends on May 23.
Showing 2,891 results
James Goodwin | April 23, 2025
On April 23, the Trump administration formally published a rulemaking proposal in the Federal Register that would lay the legal groundwork for creating a new category of civil service personnel called “Schedule Policy/Career” — better known as “Schedule F.” Long anticipated, this policy would strip civil service employees of century-old employment protections, effectively making them “at will” employees, much like a president’s political appointees.
Sophie Loeb | April 23, 2025
As North Carolinians continue to grapple with rolling blackouts, rising energy bills, and recovery from a once-in-a-generation hurricane event, another pending environmental catastrophe is developing in our backyards. On Monday, May 5, the North Carolina Utilities Commission will hold a public hearing to gather feedback on Duke Energy’s plans to build a second new methane gas power plant near its existing coal plant on Hyco Lake in Person County as part of the state’s decarbonization plan.
Federico Holm | April 21, 2025
Since our last update (April 7), we have seen some important developments regarding Congressional Review Act (CRA) resolutions. In addition to the two resolutions signed into law on March 15 (easing protections that will mostly benefit the fossil fuel industry), one more resolution has become law.
Bryan Dunning | April 16, 2025
On April 8, the Trump administration issued the “Protecting American Energy From State Overreach” executive order (EO), another in a blitz of orders and declarations focused on the energy sector. As with the other energy-related EOs, it contains numerous references to advancing so-called “energy dominance” — which is largely and ideologically focused on fossil fuel industries — despite the United States already being “dominant” in this sector.
Sophie Loeb | April 15, 2025
In the midst of countless federal deregulatory actions, it’s easy to lose track of what’s happening to undermine states’ climate regulations and laws. Here in North Carolina, we are facing the cascading consequences of federal deregulation layered on top of threats to our state’s carbon plan law.
James Goodwin | April 10, 2025
During the night of April 9, President Donald Trump continued his administration’s radical assault on our nation’s critical system of regulatory safeguards with three new executive orders and a separate memorandum. These actions build on several previous ones that target regulatory safeguards, and they traffic in a lot of the same false rhetoric about the essential role our regulatory system plays in our society. But what makes these actions different is the manner in which they trample on administrative law and the procedural protections that it is meant to uphold.
Daniel Farber | April 9, 2025
On April 8, flanked by a few coal miners in hard hats, President Donald Trump signed four executive orders to restore their industry to its past glory. Given that coal is now the most expensive way to generate power other than nuclear, that’s going to be a heavy lift. Like many of Trump’s orders, these four are full of threats and bluster but will have little immediate effect.
Federico Holm | April 7, 2025
Since our last update (March 31), we have seen some movement regarding CRA resolutions. There have been no new resolutions signed into law (only two so far), but two more resolutions have cleared both chambers, so we can expect a signature from the president soon.
Federico Holm | April 1, 2025
On March 3, Randy Moore, the 20th chief of the U.S. Forest Service, stepped down after a lifelong career that started in 1981. A soil scientist and forester, Moore was also the first African American chief of the Forest Service. His resignation came on the heels of a widespread wave of mass firings of Forest Service personnel that amounted to approximately 10% of its workforce. In his farewell letter, Moore laid bare his frustration regarding the ongoing dismantling of the agency and the need for personnel to stick together and remain nimble, adding that for those in the Forest Service “feeling uncertainty, frustration, or loss, you are not alone.” Moore was replaced by Tom Schultz, a timber executive with deep ties to the logging industry. Schultz is also the first chief in Forest Service history who has not previously worked in the agency. In his introduction letter, Schultz highlighted his 25 years of land management, focusing on his timber and mineral extraction directive roles in Idaho.