What’s at stake for business with Trump’s civil service plan
What does business need from the federal government? When we ask executives that question, a few answers dominate: a level playing field; the rule of law; predictable behavior. Former President Donald Trump’s plan for our government’s civil service would ensure the opposite. Trump has called for the arbitrary firing of tens of thousands of career professionals, to replace them with political appointees loyal to the White House. This radical proposal would permanently destabilize our government, devalue critical expertise, and return our most important public institution to the 19th century spoils system that fostered rampant corruption and incompetence. Overnight, our government’s fundamental goals would shift. Instead of basing its daily decisions on objective evidence and subject matter expertise, it would pursue a subjective, personal agenda driven by cronyism. Ultimately, our government would serve the interests of whomever is in charge over the public good. For American taxpayers, and especially for businesses, this shift would constitute a rug-pull of historic proportions. The potential for presidential vendettas If this civil service agenda became a reality, regulations could shift to better serve the coterie of administration supporters. Complex, essential services like patenting and export licensing could be overseen not by subject matter experts, but by political loyalists whose only priority is to please the current president. Vital data could become irreparably skewed toward whichever party happens to hold the White House. Perhaps most worryingly of all, law enforcement at the IRS, the Securities and Exchange Commission, and the Department of Justice’s Antitrust Division could become politicized, raising the specter of audits and office raids motivated by presidential vendetta. This is not the way to manage one of our most vital institutions. It’s time for corporate America to ring the alarm before it’s too late. It did happen here It may be tempting to dismiss this agenda as campaign rhetoric. But the previous administration already tried it. In 2020, Trump signed an executive order with the potential to politicize tens of thousands of career civil servants. The only reason we aren’t feeling its effects today is that the Trump administration started too late to make the changes stick. This proposal was included in the Heritage Foundation’s Project 2025—a detailed agenda for a second Trump administration. Although Trump has publicly said the Heritage Foundation does not speak for him, he has repeatedly reaffirmed his intention to reinstate the civil service executive order should he win the election. He also has expressly contemplated pursuing his opponents by “weaponizing” the Justice Department. To be clear, the problem here is not the pursuit of the president’s policy agenda. The elected president has the right to implement campaign promises, to the extent that the law, the Constitution, and the separation of powers allow. The problem is the widespread damage that would be caused by installing loyalists in positions that require impartiality and subject matter expertise. Officials selected for loyalty over competence are unlikely to do the best job. In fact, aggressive implementation of Trump’s civil service plan would bring politicization on steroids. A better route to reform The federal government is long overdue for reform. Among other things, its HR procedures are broken; it runs on woefully outdated tech; and it is much too slow to respond to new challenges. But there is a difference between refitting a building and burning it down. We already have roughly 4,000 political appointees in government—vastly more than any other democracy. Multiplying their ranks by an order of magnitude would be a colossal step in the wrong direction. What we need are bold but constructive reforms. Among other things, we need to streamline the hiring and firing of federal employees; recruit young, diverse talent; overhaul the technology stack; and make federal services more accessible and easier to use. These changes would make our government more responsive while preserving the stability that businesses—and the public—need to thrive. This is not a partisan issue. Something more fundamental is at stake: The stable, even-handed governance that has helped free enterprise thrive in this country. For that reason, the business community has an essential role to play in pointing out the flaws in Trump’s proposal and arguing in favor of more constructive reform. Business leaders have influence and credibility. For our democracy and their bottom line, it’s time for the business community to raise its voice. Max Stier is the president and CEO of the nonpartisan, nonprofit Partnership for Public Service. Daniella Ballou-Aares is the CEO and co-founder of the Leadership Now Project.
Business Economic Syndicated News 
What does business need from the federal government? When we ask executives that question, a few answers dominate: a level playing field; the rule of law; predictable behavior. Former President Donald Trump’s plan for our government’s civil service would ensure the opposite.
Trump has called for the arbitrary firing of tens of thousands of career professionals, to replace them with political appointees loyal to the White House. This radical proposal would permanently destabilize our government, devalue critical expertise, and return our most important public institution to the 19th century spoils system that fostered rampant corruption and incompetence.
Overnight, our government’s fundamental goals would shift. Instead of basing its daily decisions on objective evidence and subject matter expertise, it would pursue a subjective, personal agenda driven by cronyism. Ultimately, our government would serve the interests of whomever is in charge over the public good. For American taxpayers, and especially for businesses, this shift would constitute a rug-pull of historic proportions.
The potential for presidential vendettas
If this civil service agenda became a reality, regulations could shift to better serve the coterie of administration supporters. Complex, essential services like patenting and export licensing could be overseen not by subject matter experts, but by political loyalists whose only priority is to please the current president. Vital data could become irreparably skewed toward whichever party happens to hold the White House.
Perhaps most worryingly of all, law enforcement at the IRS, the Securities and Exchange Commission, and the Department of Justice’s Antitrust Division could become politicized, raising the specter of audits and office raids motivated by presidential vendetta.
This is not the way to manage one of our most vital institutions. It’s time for corporate America to ring the alarm before it’s too late.
It did happen here
It may be tempting to dismiss this agenda as campaign rhetoric. But the previous administration already tried it. In 2020, Trump signed an executive order with the potential to politicize tens of thousands of career civil servants. The only reason we aren’t feeling its effects today is that the Trump administration started too late to make the changes stick.
This proposal was included in the Heritage Foundation’s Project 2025—a detailed agenda for a second Trump administration. Although Trump has publicly said the Heritage Foundation does not speak for him, he has repeatedly reaffirmed his intention to reinstate the civil service executive order should he win the election. He also has expressly contemplated pursuing his opponents by “weaponizing” the Justice Department.
To be clear, the problem here is not the pursuit of the president’s policy agenda. The elected president has the right to implement campaign promises, to the extent that the law, the Constitution, and the separation of powers allow. The problem is the widespread damage that would be caused by installing loyalists in positions that require impartiality and subject matter expertise.
Officials selected for loyalty over competence are unlikely to do the best job. In fact, aggressive implementation of Trump’s civil service plan would bring politicization on steroids.
A better route to reform
The federal government is long overdue for reform. Among other things, its HR procedures are broken; it runs on woefully outdated tech; and it is much too slow to respond to new challenges. But there is a difference between refitting a building and burning it down. We already have roughly 4,000 political appointees in government—vastly more than any other democracy. Multiplying their ranks by an order of magnitude would be a colossal step in the wrong direction.
What we need are bold but constructive reforms. Among other things, we need to streamline the hiring and firing of federal employees; recruit young, diverse talent; overhaul the technology stack; and make federal services more accessible and easier to use. These changes would make our government more responsive while preserving the stability that businesses—and the public—need to thrive.
This is not a partisan issue. Something more fundamental is at stake: The stable, even-handed governance that has helped free enterprise thrive in this country. For that reason, the business community has an essential role to play in pointing out the flaws in Trump’s proposal and arguing in favor of more constructive reform.
Business leaders have influence and credibility. For our democracy and their bottom line, it’s time for the business community to raise its voice.
Max Stier is the president and CEO of the nonpartisan, nonprofit Partnership for Public Service.
Daniella Ballou-Aares is the CEO and co-founder of the Leadership Now Project.
