Reshaping the Federal Workforce: Trump’s Plan to Break Bureaucracy
Donald Trump has proposed sweeping changes to the federal workforce, aiming to reduce its size and fundamentally reshape its structure. Three primary strategies stand out in his agenda: the revival of Schedule F, the strategic relocation of federal jobs, and attrition. While these plans promise to streamline bureaucracy and enhance executive control, they also face significant barriers and long-term implications for governance in the United States.
What is Schedule F?
Schedule F was created by an executive order signed by President Trump in October 2020. This new federal employment category was intended to reclassify certain civil service positions, moving them from the competitive service (where hiring and firing are subject to rigorous rules) to the excepted service. Specifically, Schedule F targeted roles involving “policy-determining, policy-making, or policy-advocating” functions—positions that Trump and his allies argued gave unelected federal employees undue influence over government policy.
This reclassification would have dramatically altered the federal workforce, potentially affecting tens of thousands of employees. Under Schedule F, individuals in these roles would lose many of the job protections granted under traditional civil service rules, making it easier for agency heads to hire and fire employees at their discretion.
The Rationale Behind Schedule F
Proponents of Schedule F, including Trump and members of his administration, viewed it as a necessary tool to address what they as an entrenched federal bureaucracy resistant to political leadership and the implementation of presidential directives. By reducing the job security of these employees, the administration argued, Schedule F would empower agency heads to remove underperforming or obstructive workers and align the workforce more closely with the administration’s policy goals.
For example, Trump’s team frequently pointed to instances where career officials allegedly delayed or obstructed the implementation of executive orders or regulations. Schedule F was intended to break these bureaucratic bottlenecks by granting leadership greater authority to shape their teams.
Concerns About Schedule F
However, the proposal sparked intense criticism and concern. Opponents argued that Schedule F would politicize the federal workforce, undermining its nonpartisan nature. Positions reclassified under Schedule F often require specialized knowledge and expertise, particularly in areas like public health, environmental science, and foreign policy. Critics feared that removing job protections would discourage qualified professionals from entering public service, resulting in a brain drain of expertise.
The American Federation of Government Employees (AFGE) and other unions also expressed alarm, warning that Schedule F could allow for mass firings of federal employees based on political loyalty rather than performance. They noted that such changes could erode trust in the government’s ability to provide impartial, evidence-based advice and services to the American public.
Legal and Administrative Challenges
The implementation of Schedule F was cut short when President Biden rescinded Trump’s executive order shortly after taking office in 2021. For Schedule F to be reinstated, it would require either a new executive order or legislative action, both of which would likely face legal challenges. Civil service protections are deeply embedded in U.S. law, with the Pendleton Civil Service Reform Act of 1883 and subsequent statutes designed to shield federal employees from political retaliation.
Even if Schedule F were reinstated, reclassifying federal positions and implementing the new system would be a massive administrative undertaking. Agencies would need to identify which roles meet the criteria for Schedule F, a process that could take months or even years. This complexity raises questions about whether such changes could be effectively implemented within the span of a single presidential term.
Historical Context
Schedule F is part of a broader historical debate about the role and composition of the federal workforce. For decades, U.S. administrations have grappled with balancing the need for a professional, nonpartisan civil service with the desire for greater executive control over policymaking. Trump’s proposal represented a significant shift toward the latter, raising concerns about the erosion of long-standing norms and protections.
Relocating Federal Jobs: A Tool for Workforce Restructuring
In addition to Schedule F, Trump has championed relocating federal jobs as a way to streamline operations and reduce workforce numbers. During his first term, the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) relocated two of its research agencies from Washington, D.C., to Kansas City. The move resulted in significant staff attrition, as many employees opted not to relocate.
Proponents of this strategy argue that moving federal jobs away from Washington decentralizes government operations, making agencies more attuned to regional needs. However, critics point to the disruption caused by these relocations, including the loss of institutional knowledge and delays in critical work. The USDA’s Kansas City move, for instance, left many positions unfilled for months, hampering the agencies’ ability to meet their objectives.
Attrition as a Key Component in Workforce Reduction Strategies
In the context of reshaping the federal workforce, attrition emerges as a critical tool for achieving reductions without the legal and political complications of mass layoffs or formal reductions in force (RIFs). The natural departure of employees—whether through retirement, resignation, or transfers—offers a non-confrontational path to reducing federal headcounts, particularly when paired with strategies like Schedule F and job relocations.
Leveraging Attrition for Strategic Workforce Reduction
Attrition provides a subtle yet effective means of reshaping the federal government. Unlike sudden layoffs, attrition operates as an organic process, allowing agencies to adjust staffing levels gradually. This aligns well with the goals outlined in Schedule F, which emphasizes flexibility in managing personnel.
Natural Workforce Reduction through Aging Demographics
A significant portion of the federal workforce is nearing retirement age. According to data from the Partnership for Public Service, nearly one-third of federal employees are eligible for retirement within the next five years. This presents a unique opportunity to reduce the size of the federal workforce through retirement incentives rather than direct intervention.
Agencies can further capitalize on this trend by strategically targeting roles for elimination or realignment as senior employees exit. This aligns with the goals of Schedule F, where positions reclassified into more flexible categories can be phased out without replacing them.The Role of Hiring Freezes in Amplifying Attrition
Implementing a hiring freeze is another powerful tool to accelerate workforce reduction through attrition. By limiting or halting the replacement of departing employees, agencies can see workforce sizes shrink naturally over time. However, hiring freezes must be carefully managed to avoid overburdening remaining staff or undermining critical operations.Voluntary Retirement Incentives (VERA and VSIP)
Programs such as the Voluntary Early Retirement Authority (VERA) and Voluntary Separation Incentive Payments (VSIP) can further encourage attrition. These tools provide financial incentives to employees who might otherwise stay in their roles, helping agencies reduce headcounts while maintaining morale. Targeting these programs to align with the reclassification goals of Schedule F could amplify their impact.
Attrition and Job Relocation: A Combined Approach
Relocating federal jobs, as highlighted in the original document’s discussion of USDA’s move to Kansas City, is another way to use attrition strategically. Relocation often results in increased turnover, as employees unwilling or unable to move voluntarily leave their positions. This complements attrition-based strategies, allowing agencies to reduce headcounts without issuing direct layoffs.
Challenges in Relying on Attrition
While attrition offers an effective way to reduce the workforce, it comes with several challenges:
Loss of Institutional Knowledge: As experienced employees retire, their expertise and institutional memory may be lost, potentially impacting the effectiveness of federal agencies.
Service Delivery Gaps: High attrition rates in certain agencies, such as the Department of Homeland Security, could lead to delays or disruptions in essential services.
Disproportionate Impact: Agencies with already high turnover rates may face exacerbated challenges, while others may not see sufficient attrition to meet reduction targets.
Aligning Attrition with Schedule F and Relocation Strategies
When combined with the flexibility of Schedule F and job relocation efforts, attrition becomes a powerful tool for strategically reshaping the federal workforce. Schedule F enables the reclassification of roles into the excepted service, allowing agency leaders to make swift personnel changes. By relying on natural departures to phase out positions, the federal government can reduce headcounts while minimizing backlash associated with workforce reductions.
Job relocations further amplify the effects of attrition. For example, relocating federal offices, as seen with the USDA's move to Kansas City, often results in increased turnover, as employees unwilling or unable to relocate choose to leave their positions. This indirect method of workforce reduction complements Schedule F by targeting specific roles or agencies for downsizing without requiring direct layoffs.
Together, these strategies represent a concerted effort to reduce the size of the federal workforce and reshape its composition. The combination of reclassified roles and attrition-driven reductions leads to a workforce with fewer career bureaucrats and more at-will employees aligned with the administration’s priorities.
While this approach enhances the executive branch’s control over federal operations, it raises concerns about long-term consequences for policymaking and program implementation. The loss of experienced career officials through attrition and relocations may result in less continuity and expertise, potentially undermining the government’s ability to address complex, nonpartisan issues effectively. Balancing these changes with the need for institutional knowledge and operational efficiency remains a critical challenge.
Barriers to Implementation
Despite its ambitions, Trump’s plan to overhaul the federal workforce faces numerous barriers. Legal challenges are perhaps the most significant, as existing civil service protections are deeply entrenched in U.S. law. The implementation of Schedule F, for example, was halted by President Joe Biden upon taking office in 2021, and any attempt to revive it would likely face immediate court challenges.
Legislative opposition also looms large. Congress could use its oversight powers to block funding for such initiatives, as it did with attempts to restrict Schedule F during Trump’s first term. Administrative delays are another obstacle. Reclassifying jobs under Schedule F or relocating entire offices is a time-consuming process that could extend well beyond a single presidential term.
Resistance from federal employees and unions presents an additional challenge. The AFGE and other unions have already signaled strong opposition to these efforts, warning of potential strikes or other forms of organized pushback. Moreover, practical considerations, such as the loss of institutional knowledge and the costs associated with relocations, could undermine the effectiveness of these strategies.
Long-Term Implications
If implemented, Trump’s proposed changes could set a precedent for how the federal government operates, shifting its focus toward at-will employment and decentralization. While supporters argue that these changes would increase efficiency and reduce waste, critics warn of the risks of politicization, reduced transparency, and weakened public trust in government institutions.
These strategies also pose questions for future administrations. If Trump succeeds in implementing Schedule F and other workforce changes, subsequent presidents may either build on or dismantle these policies, further contributing to the instability of the federal workforce.
Bring it All Together
Trump’s plan to reduce the federal workforce through Schedule F and job relocation represents a bold vision for reshaping the federal government. While these strategies could streamline operations and enhance executive control, they face significant legal, logistical, and political hurdles.
If you aren't a Squared Compass partner, what are you waiting for? From getting your business set up with specific government set aside programs at both the State and Federal level, to being empowered by a Fractional Capture team to win government contracts, to receiving tailored government contract opportunities Squared Compass delivers immense value which helps propel our partners to success. Schedule a chat with our team today.
