Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This is going to be known as the lawsuit administration. Most of these people will file wrongful termination suits, and a lot will go to court, as there is clear political motivation for transfers/terminations. That is prohibited by laws that can't be overturned by EO.

Which laws?

The Civil Service Reform Act

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:National Treasury Employees Unions files suit against the Schedule F EO:

https://www.msn.com/en-us/politics/government/trump-sued-over-schedule-f-order-targeting-federal-employees/ar-AA1xBFwb?ocid=BingNewsSerp

And the judge assigned to the case is a Biden appointee.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This is going to be known as the lawsuit administration. Most of these people will file wrongful termination suits, and a lot will go to court, as there is clear political motivation for transfers/terminations. That is prohibited by laws that can't be overturned by EO.

Which laws?

Anonymous wrote:This is going to be known as the lawsuit administration. Most of these people will file wrongful termination suits, and a lot will go to court, as there is clear political motivation for transfers/terminations. That is prohibited by laws that can't be overturned by EO.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I’m SES. I read the EO and I don’t see the big deal. I mean sure, we are getting some unwanted attention. There are a couple aspects that are eyebrow raising, but noting that I feel alarmed about.

+1

for you SES saying it's all fine, what happens when you provide an opinion or news that is counter to what the administration would like to hear? Even if what you are saying is true and based on statistics/research? If you won't regurgitate the message, it appears they can fire you for that.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I’m SES. I read the EO and I don’t see the big deal. I mean sure, we are getting some unwanted attention. There are a couple aspects that are eyebrow raising, but noting that I feel alarmed about.

+1

Anonymous wrote:I’m SES. I read the EO and I don’t see the big deal. I mean sure, we are getting some unwanted attention. There are a couple aspects that are eyebrow raising, but noting that I feel alarmed about.

Anonymous wrote:Are they firing all SES?

Anonymous wrote:National Treasury Employees Unions files suit against the Schedule F EO:

https://www.msn.com/en-us/politics/government/trump-sued-over-schedule-f-order-targeting-federal-employees/ar-AA1xBFwb?ocid=BingNewsSerp

Anonymous wrote:National Treasury Employees Unions files suit against the Schedule F EO:

https://www.msn.com/en-us/politics/government/trump-sued-over-schedule-f-order-targeting-federal-employees/ar-AA1xBFwb?ocid=BingNewsSerp

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Most of the agencies I have worked at the SES have been highly professional. But at one agency some of them were mini-Democrat party apparatchiks. One of them told me back in 2018, "We won't do a single thing Trump orders." SES like that give all of them a bad name.

Yes, because they take an oath not to violate the law and constitution. Also, if what you describe is so awful, why is it acceptable for Trump to appoint actual apparatchiks in their place? I thought politicization was bad.

DP. Political appointees are gone at the end of any administration so big difference versus career folks taking sides

Read the EO. They are reforming the bodies that help select career SES to now require a majority of members be political appointees. This allows politicals to select whomever they want for every career slot. The boards that handle SES performance evals will also be majority staffed by politicals.

A politically savvy SESer should be able to navigate these waters just fine.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Most of the agencies I have worked at the SES have been highly professional. But at one agency some of them were mini-Democrat party apparatchiks. One of them told me back in 2018, "We won't do a single thing Trump orders." SES like that give all of them a bad name.

Yes, because they take an oath not to violate the law and constitution. Also, if what you describe is so awful, why is it acceptable for Trump to appoint actual apparatchiks in their place? I thought politicization was bad.

DP. Political appointees are gone at the end of any administration so big difference versus career folks taking sides

Read the EO. They are reforming the bodies that help select career SES to now require a majority of members be political appointees. This allows politicals to select whomever they want for every career slot. The boards that handle SES performance evals will also be majority staffed by politicals.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Yes; it’s back.

Schedule F: https://www.whitehouse.gov/presidential-actions/2025/01/restoring-accountability-to-policy-influencing-positions-within-the-federal-workforce/

New EO on career SES:
https://www.whitehouse.gov/presidential-actions/2025/01/restoring-accountability-for-career-senior-executives/

F does not seem problematic, what am I missing?
Employees in or applicants for Schedule Policy/Career positions are not required to personally or politically support the current President or the policies of the current administration. They are required to faithfully implement administration policies to the best of their ability, consistent with their constitutional oath and the vesting of executive authority solely in the President. Failure to do so is grounds for dismissal.”

It removes the appeal rights that would allow a person to challenge their firing on the basis of it being politically motivated. The line you quoted offers zero protection from that.