Schedule F And The Myth Of Apolitical Regulator Expertise

The Trump administration’s Schedule F executive order aimed at making it easier to hire and fire career civil servants in policy roles, but it sparked an intense backlash. Critics argued it would lead to a partisan purge of nonpartisan experts, and the Biden Administration is now responding by essentially banning similar efforts going forward. Yet the hysteria over Schedule F is overblown. It stems from a widely-believed myth that federal policymaking is guided by apolitical expertise. Once that myth is dispelled, the numerous benefits of Schedule F and similar reforms come to light.

In October of 2020, former President Trump signed an executive order to create a new employment category called “Schedule F” for federal civil service employees. The order would have moved tens of thousands of career civil servants into a new category without longstanding protections against firing without cause.

The order applied to employees in policy, public relations, some legal roles, and other positions of a “confidential, policy-determining, policy-making, or policy-advocating character.” Just as occurs in the private sector, employees in the new Schedule F category could be fired with little to no notice.

Critics, such as the Biden White House, characterized Schedule F as an attempt “to burrow political appointees into the civil service.” They worried it would essentially turn civil servants into political appointees that change with each administration. Meanwhile, supporters said it would make the federal workforce more efficient and responsive to the administration’s priorities.

This issue is especially important for Republicans, who worry a “deep state” actively undermines their agenda when they obtain power. The overwhelming majority of political donations from federal workers go to Democrats, and the obvious attempts to undermine Trump’s agenda while he was president have led many to worry that the current stock of federal workers are incapable of fulfilling their duties in good faith.

Trump’s executive order was rescinded by Biden shortly after he took office in 2021, such that Schedule F was never implemented. However, Trump is now reviving the idea on the campaign trail, and other Republican candidates support it as well, increasing the likelihood Schedule F will return in some form.

Everyone would like to believe that dispassionate experts are looking out for the public at federal regulatory agencies, but the reality is expertise is more often employed as a tool to advance a partisan agenda. Regulators frequently make decisions based on ideology, not thoughtful analysis—meanwhile, public policy suffers as a result.

For example, regulatory agencies only rarely conduct a thorough or complete cost-benefit analysis for their regulations, despite long-standing requirements that they analyze their policies using this method. Even when they do make attempts, the process tends to be manipulated to achieve forgone conclusions.

In fact, the Biden Administration recently changed regulatory cost-benefit guidelines to exaggerate benefits while ignoring costs, thereby making it easier for government analysts to tip the scales in favor of regulatory proposals. The guidance was criticized for not adhering to the best available science in a letter signed by fifteen past presidents of the Society for Benefit-Cost Analysis. Despite the criticisms, the administration ignored the advice, as well as the recommendations of numerous peer reviewers, and move forward with the guidance.

Some conservatives argue schedule F is dangerous and risks creating a patronage system like existed in the 19^th century. Other right-leaning commentators propose granting more discretion to civil servants, the opposite of accountability measures like Schedule F. They see empowering regulators as a way to accelerate some aspects of governance that are slow, such as permitting of infrastructure or energy projects.

In other words, there is an alignment in the interests of conservatives who want permitting deregulation and progressives who want a faster transition to renewable energy. Giving regulators free reign could lead to some outcomes everybody wants.

These criticisms of Schedule F are naïve, however. Arguably, granting individuals a job for life and enabling them to thwart the desires of an elected president is just as corrupt as any spoils system. Moreover, the federal bureaucracy is already highly politicized. Even the more supposedly “scientific” aspects of policymaking, like cost-benefit analysis, are routinely tainted by politics. Given the extent of the problem, there is little risk of making matters worse.

Granting the left-wing federal workforce even more discretion to approve permitting projects would also prove a long-run disaster for conservatives, even if it pays some dividends in the near term. Progressives in Washington are like a stopped clock. Sure, every so often their judgment is sound, but society can hardly expect this on a routine basis. Any Faustian bargain that cedes authority to regulators for short-term gains will surely lead to abuse of authorities down the road.

This is ultimately why process reforms like Schedule F must be a part of any efforts to modernize the federal workforce. This is not to say that Schedule F is the most ideal reform. Other options are available. Term limits for bureaucrats make far more sense than those for elected officials, who at least are accountable to voters. (Again, some worry about lost expertise, but this is hardly a concern when so little expertise is employed to begin with.) Sunset provisions for federal employees, which make tenure temporary and subject to renewal, would also instill some accountability.

Still, there is a lot to like about Schedule F. Its critics incorrectly assume nonpartisan excellence guides policy, but this glosses over the deep politicization that resides within the current system. Efforts to streamline hiring and firing are steps toward more responsive government. Conservatives who oppose these reforms in hopes of gaining favor with progressives are making a dangerous political miscalculation. They would do better to support long overdue process reforms like Schedule F.