01-30-2025

Reforming the Federal Hiring Process and Restoring Merit to Government Service

Executive OrderView the Original .pdf
View the Original .pdf

The 1-Minute Brief

What: Executive Order 14170, issued on January 20, 2025, directs a major overhaul of the federal government's hiring process. It aims to replace current practices with a system focused on "merit, practical skill, and dedication to our Constitution" while explicitly prohibiting consideration of factors like "equity" and "gender identity."

Money: The order does not appropriate new funds. However, implementing the required "Federal Hiring Plan," including new technical assessments and technology integration, will have administrative costs for federal agencies. The financial impact will depend on the specifics of the plan developed by the White House and the newly established Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE).

Your Impact: For those seeking federal employment, the application process will change, focusing more on skills tests rather than self-evaluations or educational credentials. For current federal employees, the order is part of a broader push that could alter job security, pay, and the nature of the civil service.

Status: Issued and effective as of January 20, 2025. Federal agencies are now tasked with developing and implementing the "Federal Hiring Plan" within 120 days of the order.

What's Actually in the Bill

Executive Order 14170 fundamentally restructures the federal government's approach to hiring. It mandates the creation of a new "Federal Hiring Plan" to streamline and refocus how candidates are recruited, assessed, and brought into the civil service. The order asserts that current practices are "broken, insular, and outdated" and shifts the basis of hiring away from traditional metrics and towards skills-based assessments and ideological alignment with the administration's goals.

Core Provisions:

  • Federal Hiring Plan: The order requires the Assistant to the President for Domestic Policy, in consultation with OMB, OPM, and the new Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE), to develop a new hiring plan within 120 days.
  • Hiring Criteria: The plan must prioritize recruiting individuals committed to government efficiency and the Constitution, while preventing hiring based on race, sex, or religion. It explicitly rejects considerations of "equity" and "gender identity."
  • Skills-Based Assessments: It mandates the implementation of technical and alternative assessments as required by the "Chance to Compete Act of 2024," moving away from traditional questionnaires.
  • Efficiency Goals: The order sets a target to decrease the government-wide time-to-hire to under 80 days.
  • Modernization: It calls for integrating modern technology and data analytics into the recruitment process to improve efficiency and communication with candidates.

Stated Purpose (from the Sponsors):

The order states its purpose is to create an "excellent and efficient Federal workforce" by attracting the "highest caliber of civil servants."

  1. To reform "broken, insular, and outdated" Federal hiring practices.
  2. To ensure hiring is based on "merit, practical skill, and dedication to our Constitution."
  3. To prevent hiring based on "impermissible factors" such as commitment to "equity" or "gender identity."
  4. To make recruitment and hiring more efficient to better serve the Nation.

Key Facts:

Affected Sectors: All sectors of the federal government.
Timeline: The Federal Hiring Plan must be delivered to agency heads within 120 days of January 20, 2025.
Scope: The order applies to the hiring process for the entire Executive Branch of the U.S. federal government.

The Backstory: How We Got Here

Timeline of Events:

The Spoils System and Early Reforms (19th Century):

For much of the 19th century, federal jobs were distributed through the "spoils system," where elected officials gave positions to their political supporters. This system was widely seen as corrupt and inefficient. The assassination of President James A. Garfield in 1881 by a disgruntled office seeker spurred major reform. The Pendleton Civil Service Reform Act of 1883 established a merit-based system, creating the Civil Service Commission and requiring competitive exams for many federal jobs.

Expansion and Modernization (20th-Early 21st Century):

The federal workforce expanded dramatically during the New Deal and World War II. The Civil Service Reform Act of 1978 further refined the system, creating the Office of Personnel Management (OPM), the Merit Systems Protection Board (MSPB), and the Federal Labor Relations Authority (FLRA) to oversee federal employment. Throughout this period, the focus remained on creating a professional, non-partisan civil service.

The Push for Skills-Based Hiring and Political Control (2020s):

In recent years, a debate has intensified over the efficiency and political neutrality of the federal bureaucracy. The Trump administration and conservative think tanks like the Heritage Foundation began developing proposals, known as "Project 2025," to gain more direct control over federal agencies. A key component of this was the "Schedule F" proposal, which would have reclassified tens of thousands of federal employees, making them easier to fire. Concurrently, a bipartisan consensus emerged that the hiring process itself was too slow and bureaucratic, leading to the passage of the "Chance to Compete Act of 2024," which promotes skills-based hiring over degree requirements.

Why Now? The Political Calculus:

  • Project 2025 Implementation: This executive order is a direct implementation of the goals outlined in Project 2025, which seeks to "dismantle the administrative state" and align the federal workforce with the administration's political agenda.
  • Control over Bureaucracy: The order is a mechanism to assert greater executive control over federal agencies, which the administration's supporters often view as a "deep state" hostile to their policy goals.
  • Bipartisan Cover: By linking the order to the bipartisan "Chance to Compete Act," the administration can frame a politically charged overhaul as a common-sense modernization effort. The act's focus on skills provides a rationale for discarding existing hiring criteria and introducing new ones.

Your Real-World Impact

The Direct Answer: This directly affects anyone applying for a federal job and will have significant indirect effects on all Americans who rely on federal government services.

What Could Change for You:

Potential Benefits:

  • Faster Hiring: If the 80-day time-to-hire goal is met, it could streamline the notoriously slow federal application process.
  • Focus on Skills: Applicants without traditional four-year degrees may find more opportunities as the government shifts to assessing practical skills and competencies.

Possible Disruptions or Costs:

Short-term (1-2 years):

  • Hiring Delays and Confusion: The transition to a new system, managed by a new Department of Government Efficiency, could initially cause confusion and delays, potentially leading to hiring freezes as agencies adapt.
  • Subjective Assessments: New essay questions and assessments of an applicant's commitment to certain ideals could introduce subjectivity into the hiring process.

Long-term:

  • Politicized Workforce: Critics argue the order could lead to a less independent and more politically partisan civil service, where loyalty is valued over neutral expertise. This could impact the quality and impartiality of government services, from environmental protection to consumer safety.
  • Reduced Protections for Employees: This order is seen as a companion to efforts to strip job protections from federal workers, potentially leading to instability and loss of institutional knowledge within agencies.

Who's Most Affected:

Primary Groups: Federal job applicants, current federal employees, and federal employee unions.
Secondary Groups: All citizens who interact with or rely on federal agencies (e.g., for Social Security, veterans' benefits, environmental protection, food safety).
Regional Impact: While applying to federal jobs everywhere, the concentration of federal workers in the Washington, D.C. area means that region will feel the changes most acutely. However, about 85% of the federal workforce is located outside the D.C. metro area.

Bottom Line: While the order promises a more efficient hiring process, it also introduces criteria that could politicize the federal workforce, potentially affecting the delivery and quality of government services for all Americans.

Where the Parties Stand

Republican Position: "Dismantle the Administrative State"

Core Stance: Republicans generally support measures to increase executive control over the federal bureaucracy, which they often view as inefficient, bloated, and politically liberal.

Their Arguments:

  • ✓ The current hiring system is broken and needs modernization.
  • ✓ Hiring should be based on merit and skills, not just degrees.
  • ✓ The federal workforce should be more responsive to the President's policy agenda.
  • ⚠️ Concerns may arise from some about the potential for cronyism if "merit" is defined too politically.
  • ✗ They oppose what they term "woke" initiatives like diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) in hiring.

Legislative Strategy: To support the executive order with legislation that codifies its principles, such as making it easier to fire federal employees and freezing federal salaries. They plan to use budget reconciliation to fund priorities like hiring more immigration enforcement agents.

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

Core Stance: Democrats largely defend the concept of a professional, non-partisan civil service and oppose what they see as attempts to politicize it.

Their Arguments:

  • ✓ They support skills-based hiring in principle, as evidenced by their co-sponsorship of the "Chance to Compete Act."
  • ⚠️ They are concerned that the executive order's language about "equity" and "gender identity" is discriminatory and will harm diversity efforts.
  • ✗ They strongly oppose dismantling civil service protections and view the order as a move toward a new spoils system.

Legislative Strategy: To oppose the executive order through oversight and potentially legal challenges. They have previously introduced legislation to prevent the reclassification of federal employees (like the Schedule F proposal) and are likely to do so again.

Constitutional Check

The Verdict: ⚠️ Questionable

Basis of Authority:

The executive order cites the President's authority under the Constitution and federal law, specifically 5 U.S.C. §§ 3301, 3302, and 7511.

  • 5 U.S.C. § 3301: Grants the President authority to "prescribe such regulations for the admission of individuals into the civil service... as will best promote the efficiency of that service."
  • 5 U.S.C. § 3302: Allows the President to prescribe rules for the competitive service.

Relevant Portion of the Constitution (Article II, Section 2): The President "shall appoint Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, Judges of the supreme Court, and all other Officers of the United States, whose Appointments are not herein otherwise provided for... but the Congress may by Law vest the Appointment of such inferior Officers, as they think proper, in the President alone, in the Courts of Law, or in the Heads of Departments."

Constitutional Implications:

Separation of Powers: The core legal question is whether the President is executing the law or creating it. While the President has broad authority over federal personnel, courts have historically reviewed executive orders to ensure they do not overstep into the legislative power granted to Congress.
Precedent: The Supreme Court has, in cases like the 1952 steel seizure case, ruled that presidential authority is at its peak when acting with congressional authorization and at its lowest when acting against the will of Congress. Here, the order's connection to the bipartisan "Chance to Compete Act" strengthens its legal standing, but its provisions against "equity" may conflict with other federal anti-discrimination laws.
Federalism: This order primarily affects the federal government and does not directly overstep into powers reserved for the states.

Potential Legal Challenges:

Legal challenges are highly likely and have already begun in response to related administrative actions.

  • Federal employee unions are expected to sue, arguing the order violates the Civil Service Reform Act and the First Amendment rights of employees.
  • Civil rights and advocacy groups will likely challenge the provisions targeting "equity" and "gender identity" as discriminatory and in violation of equal protection principles.
  • The primary legal battle will focus on whether the President's implementation of hiring reforms constitutes a reasonable execution of his authority or an unconstitutional attempt to rewrite civil service law and impose ideological tests for employment.

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 support Executive Order 14170 to reform federal hiring. I urge [Rep./Sen. Name] to support legislation that modernizes the civil service and focuses on merit."

30-Minute Deep Dive:

  • Write a Detailed Email: Contact your representatives and members of the House Oversight and Senate Homeland Security committees to express support for a more efficient, skills-based federal hiring process.
  • Join an Organization: Groups like The Heritage Foundation are the intellectual drivers behind this policy.

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 Executive Order 14170 and any effort to politicize the federal civil service. Please protect our non-partisan government workforce."

30-Minute Deep Dive:

  • Write a Letter to the Editor: Submit a letter to your local newspaper arguing that a professional, non-partisan civil service is essential for effective government and democracy.
  • Join an Organization: Coalitions like Civil Service Strong, the Partnership for Public Service, and federal employee unions (AFGE, NTEU) are actively working to oppose these changes.