politicizing the apolitical civil service: OPM's new 'Merit' Hiring Plan

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:They're too ignorant to realize that this is DEI.

I love that.

I know right? I’m pretty liberal, and absolutely believe that state college, community college, even religious college grads should get an equal shot, as long as they have the qualifications to get the job done. And a degree from an elite college, without more, should give you an edge. But, dude. That’s DEI.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Umm, what's wrong with any of this?

Asking how you are going to advance the “Presidents Agenda” and being asked to cite EOs (many of which are being ruled illegal) is wrong for civil servants, who are by definition non-political and may serve under 3+ presidents. The correct question is how you can further your agencies mission.

The litmus test for “patriotic Americans” is BS, because it’s code for MAGA. All federal employees are American citizens with some form of background check. If they are actually anti-American, have anti-American views, social media, actions, etc, they won’t pass. This question is unnecessary. Because of you aren’t engaging in or formenting insurrection, there are many different ways to interpret patriotism (except 1/6 folks who beat police are patriotic Americans in the Administration— you see the issue?).

I’ve been a fed for 18 years. I’ve never met an “unamerican” fed— just feds who differ from me on abortion or gun ownership or what programs we should spend money on. But even for these, I only know this if we anre friends outside the office. The Hatch Act deals well with keeping political opinions out of the workplace. Also, almost all feds I know are very mission driven, whatever their political party. This is a solution desperately seeking a problem.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:The unelected swamp runs things. The elected executives come and go.

Trump is ending the unconstitutional horror

I process SSA benefits. Enormously complex programs. It takes two year to come off review. 5 to really be good. You want my unelected a** doing this, if you want your benefits (I am mission critical and could not DRP. But, I just took another job. The agency is no longer able to function after Elons chainsaw, and I can’t be there serving the public badly as things fall apart).

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Reviewing four essays that are unrelated to the actual skills and knowledge of the position will not speed up hiring or make the process more efficient.

Though I agree with a push to bring in more young employees, I no longer recommend government service to new grads based on what this admin has done to the workforce.

Yes, I highly discourage any young people from going into government service early in their career. If they want to support the mission, they should build a professional network and portfolio and join in their late 40’s or early 50’s.

Both my kids wanted to join the government, one in science and one the foreign service. I’m strongly encouraging them not to.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Umm, what's wrong with any of this?

The part where it says “How would you help advance the President’s Executive Orders and policy priorities in this role” is the last thing any of us should want for federal hires. This is asking explicitly for people who have a partisan leaning. Why would it be good for the country if we hire only people who have a political bent? That’s exactly what the current administration has been trying (incompetently and ill-advisedly) to find and weed out.

Umm, you work for the President. If you can't work with his priorities and orders, then you shouldn't work for the Government.

If they are legally implanted and funded by Congress, absolutely. A half a## EO that is immediately enjoined? Not so much. You follow the statutes and regulations applicable to your position. Not Trumps tweets. And he can break the law. The rest of us cannot.

I’m a lawyer. You can’t make a false representation to a Court, or sign a brief that does so without risking your law license. But now Trump political are asking attorneys to lie, obfuscate, mislead, etc. At which point you resign, like a lot of DOJ has.

Trump isn’t a king.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Umm, what's wrong with any of this?

The part where it says “How would you help advance the President’s Executive Orders and policy priorities in this role” is the last thing any of us should want for federal hires. This is asking explicitly for people who have a partisan leaning. Why would it be good for the country if we hire only people who have a political bent? That’s exactly what the current administration has been trying (incompetently and ill-advisedly) to find and weed out.

Umm, you work for the President. If you can't work with his priorities and orders, then you shouldn't work for the Government.

The priorities will change every 4 to 8 years and you won’t be happy once a Trump isn’t in power. Federal jobs are not political.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Umm, what's wrong with any of this?

Not all federal jobs are political. Without a test how would we know if these places have a criteria for being better than current hiring? Why isn't this just DEI?

Every federal worker who is not a political appointee is apolitical. That has been the law for a hundred years and was designed in the wake of scandals that made the federal government dysfunctional.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Umm, what's wrong with any of this?

The part where it says “How would you help advance the President’s Executive Orders and policy priorities in this role” is the last thing any of us should want for federal hires. This is asking explicitly for people who have a partisan leaning. Why would it be good for the country if we hire only people who have a political bent? That’s exactly what the current administration has been trying (incompetently and ill-advisedly) to find and weed out.

Umm, you work for the President. If you can't work with his priorities and orders, then you shouldn't work for the Government.

Federal workers work for the American people, not the President.

[Anonymous]

So Trump is creating the deep state that he claims to be fighting?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:So Trump is creating the deep state that he claims to be fighting?

Yes.

Every accusation is a projection with Republicans for a number of years now.

Only the most desperate are going to be actively applying for federal jobs now. Once conservatives young adults find out how much you get paid, and how much work they actually have to do, they will drop out of the process.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:So Trump is creating the deep state that he claims to be fighting?

Exactly. And sadly the delusional, misinformed MAGAs have no problem with this because they've been operating under the false belief that this is already how America operates, but now it's somehow "good" because Trump is in charge of it.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Umm, what's wrong with any of this?

The part where it says “How would you help advance the President’s Executive Orders and policy priorities in this role” is the last thing any of us should want for federal hires. This is asking explicitly for people who have a partisan leaning. Why would it be good for the country if we hire only people who have a political bent? That’s exactly what the current administration has been trying (incompetently and ill-advisedly) to find and weed out.

Umm, you work for the President. If you can't work with his priorities and orders, then you shouldn't work for the Government.

That's not true in any sense. Is your post satire...or are you genuinely this ignorant?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:OPM's new hiring plan calls for flag pins and few intellectuals. Or more specifically, according the Federal News Network
>
Federal hiring too often focuses on elite universities and credentials, instead of merit, practical skill, and commitment to American ideals,” the strategy states.

OPM and the White House are calling on agencies to focus their recruitment efforts on state universities, religious colleges and universities, and community colleges — and reach out to students at high schools, trade and technical schools, homeschooling groups, faith-based groups and 4-H youth programs about careers in the federal workforce.
<


Applicants for federal jobs will also be required to answer four essay questions, of which one is “How would you help advance the President’s Executive Orders and policy priorities in this role? Identify one or two relevant Executive Orders or policy initiatives that are significant to you, and explain how you would help implement them if hired.”


https://federalnewsnetwork.com/workforce/2025/05/governmentwide-hiring-plan-calls-on-agencies-to-recruit-patriotic-americans-into-federal-workforce/

In other words, due to massive attrition and failing recruitment due to 20 years of failed wars and morally repugnant US Gov't policy, the recruiters at CIA, Dept of State, NSA are in a panic because recruitment is WAY DOWN so they are out there on Community College campuses saying, " don't worry your drunk driving and parent's felony convictions won't doom your back ground check to work at Dept of State, CIA or NSA- " we are taking any warm body we can get..."

" What we need is a Stazi like employee , loyal to the Police state , willing to ignore the US Constitution in return for a steady pay check.....yes, Dept of Homeland Security is looking to hire YOU ..."

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I dislike taking an oath “to uphold the Constitution OR intact policies of the executive branch” There should not be an “or”; it should be an “and”!

"Intact" to me really only means those policies that are actually lawful and constitutional, in which case "uphold the Constitution" should suffice and none of this horsecrap fealty pledge to the Executive. Presidents come and go but the law is the law. The President is not the law.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I dislike taking an oath “to uphold the Constitution OR intact policies of the executive branch” There should not be an “or”; it should be an “and”!

"Intact" to me really only means those policies that are actually lawful and constitutional, in which case "uphold the Constitution" should suffice and none of this horsecrap fealty pledge to the Executive. Presidents come and go but the law is the law. The President is not the law.

that’s a typo it should be “enact policies”. Federal employees take an oath to uphold the constitution. Presidential policies should be constitutional.