01-30-2025

Restoring Accountability for Career Senior Executives

MemorandumView the Original .pdf
View the Original .pdf

The 1-Minute Brief

What: This executive memorandum directs federal agencies to take immediate steps to increase the president's control over the Senior Executive Service (SES), the government's highest-ranking career managers. It aims to make it easier to reassign, evaluate, and remove these officials to ensure they implement the administration's agenda.

Money: The memorandum does not specify any appropriations or costs. However, implementing these changes would have administrative costs. Proponents argue it could lead to long-term savings through increased efficiency, while opponents suggest it could lead to costs from loss of expertise and potential legal challenges.

Your Impact: While not affecting most citizens directly, this policy could change how federal agencies operate. It could make agencies more responsive to the President's policies, but critics fear it could also lead to government services being influenced by political loyalty rather than non-partisan expertise.

Status: This memorandum was issued by the Executive Branch on January 20, 2025, and is considered an active directive to federal agencies.

What's Actually in the Bill

This memorandum is an executive action, not a congressional bill, that fundamentally alters the employment status of the Senior Executive Service (SES), a corps of roughly 8,000 senior federal managers who serve as the link between political appointees and the career workforce. The memo's goal is to increase accountability by asserting greater presidential authority over these officials.

Core Provisions:

  • Within 30 days, the Office of Personnel Management (OPM) and the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) must issue new, mandatory SES Performance Plans for all agencies.
  • Agency heads are directed to use all available authorities to "reinvigorate" and prioritize accountability within the SES.
  • Agency heads must reassign SES members as needed to ensure their skills align with implementing the President's agenda.
  • Agencies must dissolve their current Executive Resources Boards (ERBs) and Performance Review Boards (PRBs), which manage and review senior executives.
  • New boards must be established with a majority of senior noncareer (i.e., political) officials.
  • Agency heads must immediately take all appropriate actions, including removal, against any SES official whose performance is deemed inconsistent with the administration's principles or their duties.

Stated Purpose (from the Sponsors):

The memorandum's stated purpose is to ensure the executive branch is responsive to the President and the American people.

  1. To ensure the "faithful execution" of the laws by aligning the actions of senior career officials with the President's policy agenda.
  2. To hold career officials accountable for inefficiency, negligence, unauthorized disclosures, or refusal to implement policy.
  3. To affirm the President's constitutional authority to remove subordinate officers, based on Article II of the Constitution and the Supreme Court's ruling in Seila Law LLC v. Consumer Financial Protection Bureau.

Key Facts:

Affected Sectors: All executive departments and agencies of the federal government.
Timeline: OPM and OMB must issue new performance plans by February 19, 2025. Other directives, such as reconstituting review boards and taking action against certain officials, are to be implemented immediately.
Scope: The policy applies to all career members of the Senior Executive Service.

The Backstory: How We Got Here

Timeline of Events:

The Merit-Based Civil Service (1883-1978):

For much of American history, government jobs were distributed through a "spoils system," where political loyalty was the primary qualification. The assassination of President James Garfield in 1881 by a disgruntled office-seeker led to the Pendleton Civil Service Reform Act of 1883. This act established a merit-based system, intending to create a professional, non-partisan workforce hired for its competence, not political connections.

The Senior Executive Service (1978-2020):

The Civil Service Reform Act of 1978, signed by President Jimmy Carter, created the Senior Executive Service (SES). The goal was to create a corps of elite, mobile executives who could provide leadership and ensure government efficiency, acting as a bridge between political appointees and the career workforce. While members of the SES have fewer job protections than lower-ranking civil servants, they can still only be dismissed for specific reasons like misconduct or poor performance, a process that can be appealed.

The "Schedule F" Controversy (2020-2025):

In October 2020, President Donald Trump issued Executive Order 13957, creating a new "Schedule F" job classification for employees in "confidential, policy-determining, policy-making, or policy-advocating" roles. This would have stripped them of their merit system protections, making them at-will employees who could be fired without cause, similar to political appointees. Proponents argued this was necessary to remove "rogue bureaucrats" and hold the "deep state" accountable. The order was rescinded by President Joe Biden in January 2021 before it was fully implemented. The memorandum of January 20, 2025, effectively revives and begins the implementation of the core principles behind Schedule F.

Why Now? The Political Calculus:

  • Day-One Action: Issued on Inauguration Day, this memorandum signals a top priority for the new administration: asserting immediate control over the federal bureaucracy.
  • Fulfilling a Promise: The action follows years of promises to supporters to "drain the swamp" and dismantle the so-called "deep state," which proponents argue consists of career federal employees who obstruct the president's agenda.
  • Bypassing Congress: This is an executive action that does not require congressional approval. This allows the administration to act quickly on a key policy objective without legislative debate or compromise.

Your Real-World Impact

The Direct Answer: This directly affects thousands of senior federal managers, but its indirect impact on how government agencies enforce laws, deliver services, and regulate industries could eventually affect all Americans.

What Could Change for You:

Potential Benefits:

  • Faster Policy Implementation: Proponents argue that with senior officials more closely aligned with the President's agenda, the government could act more quickly and decisively to implement the policies voters elected them to enact.
  • Increased Accountability: Supporters believe this makes unelected bureaucrats more accountable to the elected President, and by extension, to the public.
  • More Government Efficiency: The administration claims that removing underperforming or obstructionist executives will lead to a more efficient and effective government.

Possible Disruptions or Costs:

Short-term (First 1-2 Years):

  • Loss of Expertise: A potential exodus of experienced senior managers could lead to a loss of institutional knowledge, slowing down agency operations and creating a skills gap.
  • Recruitment Challenges: The government may find it harder to recruit top talent for senior positions if those jobs lack traditional civil service protections.
  • Political Instability: The focus on political loyalty over merit could lead to instability and disruption within federal agencies, particularly during transitions between presidential administrations.

Long-term:

  • Politicized Services: Critics fear that decisions on everything from environmental regulations and consumer protections to health guidelines and law enforcement could become based on political allegiance rather than objective expertise.
  • Erosion of Non-Partisan Governance: The move away from a merit-based system could undermine the 140-year-old principle of a non-partisan civil service that serves the public regardless of which party is in power.

Who's Most Affected:

Primary Groups: The approximately 8,000 members of the Senior Executive Service and their families.
Secondary Groups: All federal civil servants, political appointees, and industries heavily regulated by the federal government (e.g., finance, healthcare, energy).
Regional Impact: The impact will be most heavily concentrated in the Washington, D.C. metropolitan area, but will affect federal offices nationwide.

Bottom Line: This memorandum could make the government more responsive to the President's agenda but at the potential cost of the expertise and political neutrality that has defined the civil service for over a century.

Where the Parties Stand

Republican Position: "Holding the Bureaucracy Accountable"

Core Stance: The federal bureaucracy is inefficient, bloated, and often works to undermine the agenda of conservative presidents; therefore, greater presidential control is needed to make it accountable to the American people.

Their Arguments:

  • ✓ Empowers a duly elected president to implement the policies they were elected to carry out.
  • ✓ Weeds out underperforming or politically motivated career staff who obstruct the president's agenda.
  • ✓ Reasserts the President's constitutional authority over the executive branch.

Legislative Strategy: To support the executive action and potentially introduce legislation, like the DOGE Acts, to codify it, making it harder for a future administration to reverse. The House Committee on Oversight and Accountability has stated its intent to support efforts to rein in the bureaucracy.

Democratic Position: "Protecting Our Non-Partisan Civil Service"

Core Stance: This is a dangerous attempt to purge the government of non-partisan experts and replace them with political loyalists, threatening the rule of law and the effective functioning of government.

Their Arguments:

  • ✓ It defends the merit-based system that ensures federal workers are hired for their expertise, not their political affiliation.
  • ✓ Protects against a "brain drain" of institutional knowledge and expertise from the federal government.
  • ✗ It rejects the idea that federal employees should be loyal to a president rather than to the Constitution and the law.

Legislative Strategy: To oppose the executive action and introduce legislation to block it, such as versions of the "Saving the Civil Service Act," which would prevent the reclassification of career employees to at-will positions. They will also likely use congressional oversight hearings to scrutinize the implementation of the memo.

Constitutional Check

The Verdict: ⚠️ Questionable

Basis of Authority:

The memorandum explicitly claims its authority from Article II of the U.S. Constitution, which vests "the executive Power" in the President and includes the responsibility to "take Care that the Laws be faithfully executed." It also leans heavily on the Supreme Court's 2020 decision in Seila Law LLC v. Consumer Financial Protection Bureau.

Article II, Section 1, Clause 1: "The executive Power shall be vested in a President of the United States of America."
Article II, Section 3: "[The President] shall take Care that the Laws be faithfully executed..."

Constitutional Implications:

Unitary Executive Theory: The memo's legal reasoning is rooted in this theory, which posits that the President has broad control over the entire executive branch. The reference to Seila Law supports this, as the Supreme Court found that restrictions on the President's ability to remove the single director of the CFPB were unconstitutional. The Court argued that the President's removal power is central to ensuring accountability.

Congressional Authority & Precedent: However, the Constitution also grants Congress the power to establish government departments and offices. For over a century, the Supreme Court has allowed Congress to create rules, including some removal protections for certain officials, to promote a professional and effective government. This memorandum's broad application to thousands of career executives—rather than just the head of a single agency—is largely untested in court.

Federalism: This issue does not directly involve federalism, as it concerns the internal structure of the federal government, not the division of power between the federal government and the states.

Potential Legal Challenges:

Legal challenges are highly likely. They would likely be filed by federal employee unions (like the National Federation of Federal Employees or the American Federation of Government Employees) and good government organizations (such as Democracy Forward and Protect Democracy). Their arguments would likely be:

  1. The action exceeds the President's authority by attempting to rewrite civil service laws passed by Congress (like the Civil Service Reform Act of 1978).
  2. The Seila Law precedent applies narrowly to the unique structure of the CFPB director and does not grant the President unlimited power to fire all senior career staff.

Your Action Options

TO SUPPORT THIS BILL

5-Minute Actions:

  • Call Your Rep/Senators: Capitol Switchboard: (202) 224-3121. "I'm a constituent from [Your City/Town] and I urge [Rep./Sen. Name] to support the President's executive action to increase accountability for federal executives."

30-Minute Deep Dive:

  • Write a Detailed Email: Contact members of the House Committee on Oversight and Accountability and the Senate Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs, who have jurisdiction over the civil service.
  • Join an Organization: Organizations like the Heritage Foundation have promoted similar policies as part of their Project 2025 initiative.

TO OPPOSE THIS BILL

5-Minute Actions:

  • Call Your Rep/Senators: Capitol Switchboard: (202) 224-3121. "I'm a constituent from [Your City/Town] and I urge [Rep./Sen. Name] to oppose this politicization of the civil service and to support legislation like the Saving the Civil Service Act to protect non-partisan federal workers."

30-Minute Deep Dive:

  • Write a Letter to the Editor: Submit a letter to your local newspaper explaining your concerns about the potential impacts on government services and the principle of a non-partisan civil service.
  • Join an Organization: Groups like the Partnership for Public Service, Protect Democracy, Democracy Forward, and the American Federation of Government Employees (AFGE) are actively working to oppose this policy.