Opinion - Trump's crony meritocracy could shatter US civil service
Think about this: The next time you take a road trip with your family, do you want the person in charge of highway safety to have gone to school and passed a test, or do you want them to have the job because they helped President Trump sell his famous Trump Steaks?
What about the air traffic controller who's supposed to make sure your family arrives safely at grandma's house? Would you feel assured knowing they hold the position because they dutifully breached the Capitol on Jan. 6 at Trump's behest?
That could be the future we're facing, because of the president's blistering hostility toward the federal workforce and determination to upend the civil service. On his first day, he moved to reinstate a plan he originally issued in October 2020 , Schedule F, to end job protections for thousands of federal workers.
Schedule F wouldn't just make it easier to fire these workers — it would also make it easier to hire new ones, because it would 'exempt some positions across the federal workforce from competitive hiring procedures.'
That's head-spinning, coming from the people who claim they want a 'meritocracy' in government.
If you've ever applied for a federal government job, you know that these jobs aren't easy to get. Many require you to pass a civil service exam. There are intricate questionnaires asking for detailed examples of your relevant experience. Federal employee resumes can be 10 pages long.
In other words, what the Trump folks want is to replace an existing meritocracy with the kind of spoils system that turns civil service into a sewer.
We will not only end up with unqualified people in charge of highways and airways but a whole host of other patronage appointments, too: Justice Department attorneys picked because they can't wait to prosecute Trump's enemies, Defense Department employees who won't blow the whistle if the secretary is drunk at work.
Those aren't even the most sinister possibilities. Civil service protection against politically motivated firings is a defense against the kind of terrifying oppression that exists right now in too many autocratic regimes.
Do we really want to be a nation where a federal employee can be fired if someone at the White House reviews a tape of Trump's last speech and notices you didn't clap hard enough?
We must not turn into North Korea, where officials keep track of who cheers at Kim Jong Un's events, and where — as one defector put it — you 'clap because you don't want to die.'
Yes, that's an extreme example of the devaluation of human life in an authoritarian regime.
But let's not forget that our current president reportedly said former Vice President Mike Pence deserved to be hanged by an angry mob for refusing to overturn the 2020 election.
And that Russell Vought, Trump's pick to head the Office of Management and Budget and a mastermind of the federal employee purge, openly talked about wanting workers to be 'in trauma.'
Seriously, what kind of person thinks that way? I fear that anyone who makes a suggestion like this might carry personal trauma so deeply wounding and unresolved that they should seek therapy, not high government office.
And if you don't really believe mass firings could happen across the government, remember this: Trump's first purges of federal workers have already come with lightning speed.
Last Tuesday, Donald Trump's Office of Personnel Management issued an order: All federal government staff in Diversity, Equity and Inclusion (DEI) roles had to be placed on leave and their email accounts suspended, by 5 pm the next day. At the same time, all web content related to DEI had to be scrubbed. It happened so fast that State Department IT folks apparently had trouble figuring out how to delete an entire page.
For a while, their page with the header 'Leadership — Office of Diversity and Inclusion' stayed up, but its content was replaced with a list of State Department staff killed in the line of duty. (It now displays 'archived content.')
The effect was surreal. It was a chilling demonstration of just how quickly and completely the official erasure of personae non grata can happen under an autocratic regime.
The (sort of) good news is that there will be a strong and swift legal response to Schedule F. One union sued immediately. Other legal actions may follow. Hopefully, this will become one of many rash moves by Trump that will be endlessly tied up in court.
Ultimately, I hope that we, as a nation, won't stand for these attacks on our friends and neighbors. The overwhelming majority of our federal workers are hardworking, middle-class Americans trying to serve their country. They deserve to have our compassion and support, not to be abused and discarded by thugs who despise them.
It's on us to say so.
Svante Myrick is the president of People For the American Way.
Copyright 2025 Nexstar Media, Inc. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
CBS News
29 minutes ago
- CBS News
Israel says 21 people wounded as Iran fires dozens of missiles following U.S. strikes on nuclear facilities
Tel Aviv, Israel — Iran launched a wave of missiles at Israel on Sunday morning, wounding at least 21 people — four of them seriously, paramedics said — after the U.S. joined Israel's week-long attacks on the Islamic Republic's nuclear sites. Iranian missiles made impacts in four sites across Israel: in Haifa, Tel Aviv, Be'er Yaakov and Nes Ziona, according to Israel's Magen David Adom emergency response service. Searches were underway for people believed to be trapped under the rubble of a collapsed building in Tel Aviv, local media reported. The Israel Defense Forces told CBS News that Iran had launched about 30 missiles at Israel. Israeli security forces and first responders gather at the site of an Iranian strike that hit a residential building in the Ramat Aviv area in Tel Aviv, June 22, 2025. JACK GUEZ/AFP/Getty Images circulating on both Israeli television and social media platforms showed serious damage to buildings, as well as injured people being rescued by first responders. The IDF said in a statement that during the missile barrage, no alert sirens had gone off in Haifa, despite there having been an impact from a missile there. "The possibility that there was an issue with the interceptor is being looked into," the IDF said, referring to its missile defense systems. "There was no malfunction in the alert system and a previous warning had been issued to the area." The Iranian assault took place hours after President Trump announced that the U.S. military had carried out strikes on three of Iran's nuclear sites: Isfahan and Natanz, and the well-fortified Fordo enrichment facility. In a briefing in Washington on Sunday, Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Gen. Dan Caine said the U.S. operation, called "Midnight Hammer," used seven B2 bombers carrying bunker-busting bombs to attack Fordo and Natanz. It struck Isfahan, which had already been heavily bombed by Israel in previous days, with Tomahawk missiles launched by submarines. Since the beginning of Israel's "Operation Rising Lion" against Iran, its National Public Diplomacy Directorate says Iran has fired over 450 missiles at Israel and 400 drones. 24 people in Israel have been killed in Israel, all of them in the early days of Iran's retaliatory attacks last week. As of Friday, the Washington-based group Human Rights Activists in Iran, which relies on a network of contacts in the country, said 722 people had been killed in the country by Israel's strikes, with the attacks hitting 25 of the Islamic Republic's 31 provinces.
Politico
29 minutes ago
- Politico
Israel is not dragging America into war with Iran, its president says
Israeli President Isaac Herzog said Sunday Israel is 'not dragging America' into a war with Iran after President Donald Trump announced he bombed three Iranian nuclear sites. 'We are leaving it to the decision of the head of, the president of the United States and his team,' he said on CNN's State of the Union, 'because it had to do with America's national security interest, period. We are not intending and we don't ask for America now to go to war because the Iranians are threatening Israel. The decision was taken because the Iranian nuclear program was a clear and present danger to the security interests of all of the free world.' Despite Trump claiming in an address to the nation Saturday night that Iran's nuclear sites had been 'completely and totally obliterated,' Herzog told host Kasie Hunt he could not say whether this was the case, instead claiming that the sites had been 'hit very hard, both by the Israeli attacks and absolutely by the American attack overnight.' Herzog also said that while Israel was not actively working toward a regime change in Iran, it would be a 'very blessed' outcome. 'After all, this regime is a very oppressive regime,' he said. Herzog reminded Hunt that he is the head of state in Israel, but noted that his authority was limited; it is the Israeli Security Cabinet led by Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu that oversees war planning. He said he did not know the 'exact details' of communication between Trump and Netanyahu, but that there was 'a very close and intimate dialogue' between the two. Israel and Iran have exchanged strikes for over a week, with Iran firing dozens of missiles at Israel on Sunday. Iran threatened to retaliate against the U.S. for its airstrikes, with Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi warning of 'everlasting consequences' and saying he does not know 'how much room there is left for diplomacy.'
Bloomberg
36 minutes ago
- Bloomberg
The US Has Two Paths in Iran. Its Clerics Will Decide Both.
The US has bombed Iran's nuclear facilities, and nobody, inside or outside the White House, can be sure how it will play out. That now depends entirely on the Iranian response and on what was destroyed at the deeply buried nuclear site at Fordow. For there are two possible paths to American success in the war that Israel cornered President Donald Trump — a man who claimed near-magical powers for ending and preventing wars — into joining. Both will test assumptions about the Islamic Republic's strength and messianic nature, because both are for Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei and his generals to decide. The clearest path to success is that Iran's nuclear program has indeed been 'obliterated' and would require years and fortunes to rebuild, neutralizing that toxic issue for the foreseeable future. In this scenario, Iran's leaders may talk Armageddon and 'everlasting' consequences for 'The Great Satan,' but they choose any retaliation against US targets very carefully. Their goal would be to avoid a direct military escalation with the US that they might survive, but at enormous risk and cost. US Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth made clear on Sunday, during a press conference, that was the hope. He said there were "both public and private messages being directly delivered to the Iranians in multiple channels, giving them every opportunity to come to the table.' Trump's fiercest critics would have to concede that this would be a good outcome, and that his options in any case had become quite limited the day Israel's Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu ordered his air force to take out Iran's nuclear program. With Fordow still intact, Iran would remain in possession of the feedstocks and enrichment cascades needed to create weapons-grade fuel. A nuclear breakout would have been far more likely, for never would the case for owning a nuclear deterrent have been clearer. A second path to victory — at least in the eyes of Netanyahu — would be through a bombing campaign so devastating and targeted in scope that it destabilizes Khamenei and results in a change of regime friendly to the Jewish state and the West. The assumption is that the country would be taken over by the urban opposition, which despises the clerical elite that's run Iran since the 1979 revolution, and has no interest in their country's continued isolation. With scenarios like these, no wonder so many opponents of American involvement are reaching back to the 2003 US invasion of Iraq for parallels. That, too, was justified by claims of an urgent nuclear threat and the promise of replacing an oppressive regime. The outcome was horrendous. But for one important aspect, which I'll come to, this isn't like Iraq. Trump wasn't itching for war with Iran, but was dragged into one by Israel. The likelihood of an Iraq-style ground invasion and occupation is approximately zero. The Iranian threat, including possession of an advanced nuclear program, wasn't fabricated. Iran has enriched enough uranium to 60%, a level that has no conceivable civilian use, to make nine warheads. Not even Iran disputes this. The only question is what they intend to do with it and how quickly. Also, unlike Saddam Hussein's Iraq, Iran does pose an active threat — above all to Israel — through the active organization, funding and arming of mainly proxy assaults, especially since the Hamas terrorist attack of Oct. 7, 2023. Iran isn't only publicly committed to the eradication of the Jewish state, but has persistently taken action to further that goal. I'll leave it to others to parse whether all that justifies Israel's self-defense claims in terms of international law. Here's what concerns me more: First, the Iranian state has far more power to bring the region and global economy down in flames than Iraq ever did. Second, we don't yet know whether Fordow's bunkered enrichment cascades were, in fact, destroyed. Trump said they were; the Iranians said they remain untouched and that, in any case, vital equipment and people had been removed. Both have ample cause to lie, but if the cascades weren't destroyed, this is not yet over. There will be more airstrikes, more pressure for retaliation, more casualties and unintended consequences. Indeed, in terms of preventing an Iranian bomb, the outcome could well prove worse than if the US and Israel had done nothing at all. Nor does the UN's International Atomic Energy Agency know where Iran's stockpiles of enriched uranium are, because these were removed by Iran to avoid their being blown into the atmosphere by US and Israeli munitions. That's good; there has to date been no radioactive contamination reported beyond immediate-impact areas. But it also means that the key feedstock for attempting to dash out a bomb is no longer under IAEA surveillance. If the prospects for ensuring a non-nuclear Iran are far from certain, those for forcing a positive change of regime are still less so. What we know of this phenomenon is, first, that it works best when the authority under attack has lost the will to kill, or lacks control over the security services needed to carry out its orders. Second, that it's best done organically, from within, and not through foreign military intervention. And finally, that success rests on the pre-existence of organized democratic opposition. None of these apply in Iran. Far more likely is that any change would come from within the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps, where a decision might be taken to remove the 86-year-old supreme leader for having insisted on a policy that proved disastrous. Maintaining Iran as a threshold nuclear power provoked Israel, the US and their Gulf allies by developing a nuclear program so clearly angled toward an eventual military purpose, but without producing the arsenal that might have provided the country with a North Korea-style immunity from attack. Would these be modernizing pragmatists who want to deescalate with the West? Or hard-liners determined to fix Khamenei's error? Would they liberalize the economy that, under international sanctions, the IRGC came to dominate? Would they liberalize politically, in a country that is, in reality, one of the last land empires, with large and sometimes restive Turkic, Kurdish, Arab and Baluchi minorities? The potential for an Iraq, Libya or Syria-style chaos is real. More likely is that the Islamic Republic survives, with or without new leadership, and that the question of Iran's nuclear proliferation remains unresolved. That leaves what happens next primarily up to clerics and generals in Tehran. Trump could yet emerge the hero he so badly wants to be. And yet, perhaps ironically, he and Netanyahu now need to hope Khamenei and the younger IRGC commanders replacing those killed by Israeli strikes are more rational, and less messianically driven than they've been portrayed.
