The crowd-sourced Project 2025

Chapter 3, Central Personnel Agencies, by Lisa

The director of Project 2025, Paul Dans (Trump’s former chief of staff at the Office of Personnel Management), announced he was stepping down yesterday, to be replaced by Heritage’s president, Kevin Roberts.

What does this mean for Project 2025? Some news stories said the project was “effectively ending its policy operations,” but so long as the Project 2025 website is alive, so is our analysis.

If you are still working on your chapter, good on you. I will be running these about once a day. Now get busy!

So. Continuing with our project, where intrepid volunteers offered to read a chapter (or chapters) of the HeritageFoundationTrumpRepublican plan for our future, Project 2025:

Please note

●      Headings within the chapters are bolded and underlined

●      Project 2025 claims and assertions are in bold

●      My additions/interpretations are in italics.

This chapter is focused on the authors’ view of how to manage the layers of civil servants who work for the government. Civil service has long been understood as work that serves the government (the people) as a whole, NOT a political party.

The overall theme of the chapter is that allowing the President (or his loyalists) complete authority over all hiring, firing, implementation of policies, etc. is the only way the President’s agenda can be fulfilled.  There is no room for unions, hiring rules, retention policies, or promotion hierarchies since they will interfere with the President’s agenda implementation.

A REFORMED BUREAUCRACY (This is the last section of the piece used here to introduce the overall summary)

According to the authors of Project 2025,

●      The federal government's civil service plan is dysfunctional since the rules of the bureaucracy can interfere with the President’s agenda and policies.

●      A large reason for the dysfunction is that the old criteria using (discriminatory) IQ tests to assess knowledge, skills, and abilities to recruit and compensate federal government employees initially established in the 1930s have been abandoned.

●      Difficulties of the federal bureaucracy include size, levels of organization, inefficiency, expense, and lack of responsiveness to political leadership (italicized for my emphasis regarding Project 2025 bias).

●      The Constitution reserves only a few named powers for the federal government.

●      State, local, and private governance should dominate the rest of the bureaucracy - bureaucracy was not intended to exist within the federal government.

●      Modern progressive politics destroyed the original intent of the Constitution and gave the national government more to do than the Constitution allows.

***The only real solution is for the national government to remove the layers of the bureaucracy

●      Decentralize and privatize

●      Follow the tenets outline in the chapter

Background information to understand this chapter

“Personnel is Policy” - attributed to Scott Faulkner - Ronald Reagan’s Director of Personnel

Information from Democracy, A Journal of Ideas, February 6, 2020, by Jeff Hauser David Segal (Democratic Leaning Article) https://democracyjournal.org/magazine/personnel-is-policy/

●      Appointments to top positions in the Government matter greatly

●      The people in the positions and the interests they represent matter

●      Who controls the hiring gains control of the direction of the administration

●      “Good Personnel Means Good Policy -

●      1.) Proven Commitment to the Public Interest

●      2.) Ability to Creatively Apply the Tools of Government

●      3.) Reflectiveness of the Country as a Whole and Willingness to Engage Affected Communities

●      4.) Excited to Wield Structural Public Power against Extractive Corporations

●      Keeping Out the Bad - Keeping out those who will be…

●      1) Representing Interests at Odds with the Public Good

●      2) Having Compromising Ties to Industry

●      3) Taking Harmful Policy Positions

●      3) Taking Harmful Policy Positions

●      4) Using Public Service for Personal Gain”

●      Several examples from this article of personnel that are antithetical to the typical interests of the Federal Agencies compared to the Trump administration are described here (also from https://democracyjournal.org/magazine/personnel-is-policy/) colored text are embedded links taken directly from this article:

●      “The coal lobbyist President Trump put in charge of the EPA replaced the strong Clean Power Plan with the pro-fossil fuel “Dirty Power Plan.” The former Verizon lawyer leading the Trump FCC killed net neutrality—a priority for his former paymasters. And don’t forget the laughably unqualified Betsy DeVos, whose years bankrolling Republican campaigns brought her control of the Department of Education, where she installed for-profit college lobbyists and ended debt relief for most students scammed by exploitative for-profit schools.”

OVERVIEW

●      Major separate personnel agencies in the federal government are:

●      The Office of Personnel Management (OPM)

●      The Merit Systems Protection Board (MSPB)

●      The Federal Labor Relations Authority (FLRA)

●      The Office of Special Counsel (OSC)

●      There are many smaller agencies and units under these major headings.

OPM - Office of Personnel Management (my description - general Human Resources Department)

●      Responsible for:

●      Retirement

●      Pay

●      Health

●      Suitability

●      Training

●      Federal Unionization

●      Classification functions (not granted to other agencies)

●      Director responsible for:

●      Aiding the president to prepare civil service rules

●      Actions to promote efficient civil service

●      Application of merit system principles

●      Recommending policies relating to the selection, promotion, transfer, performance, pay, conditions of service, tenure, and separation of employees

MSPB - Merit Systems Protection Board (my description - Grievance Management Unit - likely for nonunion or salaried employees)

Adjudicator for deciding how disagreements are settled fairly and neutrally - The goal is to take action to improve the workforce; 

Provides regulatory reviews

●      Investigate and listen to appeals regarding furloughs, suspensions, demotions, terminations

●      Appealable to the U.S. Court of Appeals

FLRA - Federal Labor Relations Authority (my description - personnel grievance system involving labor unions)

●      Provides judicial review with binding decisions that can be appealed in appeals courts.

●      Interprets rights & duties of agencies along with employee labor organizations (unions) under the assumption of “bargaining in good faith”

●      Management rights

●      OPM interpretations

●      Recognition of Labor Organizations

●      Unfair labor practice

OSC - Office of Special Counsel (my description - nonpartisan investigation and mediation of issues; If prosecution of issues is needed, the prosecutor represents the administration’s side of the employee issues)

Duties include:

●      Investigating, Mediating, Publishing, and Prosecuting before the MSPB regarding

●      Prohibited personnel practices

●      Hatch Act Politicization (in footnotes (5) 1939 Act to Prevent Pernicious Political Activities)

●      Uniformed Services Employment

●      Reemployment Rights Act Issues (in footnotes (6) 1994 Uniformed Services Employment and Reemployment Rights Act of 1994)

●      Whistleblower Complaints

EEOC - Equal Opportunity Employment Commission - reviews charges of employee civil rights discrimination within the government - also administers investigations and adjudications regarding federal employee complaints concerning equal employment violations in the private sector

GSA - General Services Administration - in charge of general supervision of contracting. Contractors in government outnumber civil service employees and, though not an “agency” of the government must be included in personnel management discussions.

Constitutional Statement - IMPORTANT EMPHASIS OF PROJECT 2025

***U.S. Constitution Article II, section 2 “makes clear that the President’s appointment, direction, and removal authorities are central elements of his executive power. (in Footnotes (1))  To fulfill the President’s mandate by voters, personnel management is one of the most important points of leverage. 

The President must prioritize and control who will carry out the mandated agenda and policies. Yet, with layers of bureaucracy, the President is farther from direct control than Project 2025 desires.

Analysis and Recommendations

OPM: Managing the Federal Bureaucracy

U.S. system of civil service

●      Created by the Pendelton Act of 1883

●      Fortified as an institution with the 1930s New Deal

●      Ensured testing that would find employee experts who would be hired by merit (scores on a Civil Service Exam)

●      Replaced amateurism and corruption/nonprofessional loyal partisans with a merit system to reward professional experts shielded from partisan political pressure

●      Rather than employees placed due to partisan favors or personal favoritism

●      According to Project 2025, the practices over the years had serious unintended consequences

●      Complains that most employees are rated as “successful” in their evaluations       

●      Complains that it is difficult to fire anyone, even the poorest performers

[My research showed that during the Nixon era, the Civil Service Test, which was used to hire and place employees since the 1930s, was thrown out because a lawsuit was settled that found that Black and Latino applicants did not score well, even with revamped tests. After another discrimination suit, the Carter Administration abolished the Civil Service Testing altogether.]

The Project 2025 authors complain that big bonuses happen for employees who have unsubstantiated ratings of “outstanding.” They state that the Government Accountability Office reports show that pay raises for civil servants are automatic, rather than based on actual performance ratings. (No source)

OPM: Merit Hiring in a Merit System

Project 2025 authors claim that for 34 years (since (discriminatory) IQ tests were stopped as a screening for hiring) there has been no way to discern between qualified and unqualified applicants in the government.  They claim difficulty in selecting people based on their knowledge, skills, and abilities (KSA) without the IQ tests. 

The implied preference for Project 2025 authors is that the practice of favoring people who are white through IQ testing will allow for more highly qualified employees.)

At the end of Carter’s presidency DOJ and top lawyers at OPM “contrived” (no source) to end civil service IQ exams because civil rights petitioners claimed it was discriminatory.

Other research regarding this:

A U.S. Government Accountability Office (GAO) published a report on 5-15-1979 that influenced the decision to end IQ-related assessments in government agencies.  The report DEMONSTRATED THAT IQ TESTS WERE DISCRIMINATORY:

“The Impact and Validity of PACE (Professional and Administrative Career Examination): [PACE] A Federal Employment Examination. This report states that 99% of people who are black and 84% of people who are white were screened out of applying for jobs because they did not score a 90 or above. The GAO concluded it could not determine the adverse impact on occupations because it has not maintained records that show the race or ethnic group of applicants.  In 1979, the exam was used to screen entries for 118 occupations, but analysis was performed for only 17 of the 118 occupations.”

Project 2025 mentions that President Obama changed the format of testing introducing an improved merit examination called USAHire.  It had multiple choice questions with one answer that would change regularly to interfere with possible cheating on tests.  (According to a 2015 article in the Washington Post by Lisa Rein the testing was more of a job-related problem-solving aptitude test, rather than an IQ test.) The Project 2025 authors continue that President Donald Trump's administration was hampered from implementing such merit examinations for hiring and evaluation because of legal concerns regarding discrimination (No source).

Project 2025 claims that the PACE assessment was used “successfully to assess broad intellectual qualities” of applicants. Yet, they complain that courts ruled the assessment suggests discrimination.

Project 2025 authors want PACE reinstated legislatively because they believe “the federal government has been “denied the use of a rigorous entry exam for 30 years (that favored people who were white over minorities). 

They claim that the evaluation system used for applicant entry is now a “self-evaluation” that forces managers to preselect friends or associates to obtain qualified applicants. (No source)

The Centrality of Performance Appraisal

Project 2025 claims that the federal evaluation system for workers is too loose and causes shoddy work to be evaluated as strong performance.  They support the President taking the reins to allow a shorter timeline to discipline workers and a better system of rewards for good employees. They claim that “federal workers who are performing inadequately get neither the benefit of an honest appraisal no clear guidance on how to improve.” (No source)

This is blamed on unions and the drawn-out appeals afforded employees to exercise their rights.

Merit Pay

Project 2025 wants to make U.S. private companies and the U.S. federal government equivalent.  It wants the government to devise a profit-and-loss evaluation system of merit pay like in the private sector.  It discusses that, despite efforts to institute merit pay in the federal government, employee pay is based on seniority rather than merit.

This removes the union’s collective bargaining power to negotiate for their pay and benefits.

Carter and Reagan implemented Merit Pay but in 1983, Congressional allies of the employee unions blocked OPMs pay reforms. Performance appraisals became so inflated and widely distributed there was little relationship between performance and pay (No Source).

The original merit pay system for managers expired in 1993 and Project 2025 authors complain there has been no movement since 1993 to reward managers or employees.  Project 2025 suggests that political executives should use fiscal rewards for good performance to the degree “allowed by law.”

Making the Appeals Process Work

According to Project 2025 authors, the nonmilitary dismissal rate in government is below 1 percent. Private sector employees do not enjoy that kind of job security. (No source) Project 2025 wants managers to be free to hire good and fire inadequate performers ‘legally’, (which is undefined).

Again, this takes away power from unions to protect workers from dismissal without cause and frivolous dismissals based on partisan beliefs.

The authors claim the overreliance on job security that federal employees enjoy is because there should NOT be multiple levels of appeals employees have when being dismissed.

They complain that, especially in cases involving race, gender, religion, age, pregnancy, disability, or national origin, appeals can be sought through multiple layers of agencies and opportunities.

To further frustrate the Project 2025 authors, employees who use the layers of the appeal process suffer no consequence for “frivolous complaints.” Therefore, the backlog of pending dismissals allows poor performers to continue to hang onto their jobs. Project 2025 wants the dismissal process streamlined under the next conservative president.

In other words, civil rights violations will be less appealable once a conservative president gets into office.

Making Civil Service Benefits Economically and Administratively Rationale

Project 2025 claims that the extravagance of employing 2 million employees, plus 20 million contractors (who indirectly receive benefits that are admittedly less than government employees receive) yet are not “officially” hired as direct employees, needs higher scrutiny. They imply that the hidden costs of hiring contractors are underhanded and opaque.

Market-Based Pay and Benefits

According to the Heritage Foundation, there is a disparity between what their study along with an American Enterprise Institute study states as truth about federal employee wages in opposition to what the “official (government) studies” demonstrate is true.

The Heritage Foundation study found that wages that federal employee wages were 22 percent higher than wages for similar private-sector workers. If the value of benefits is included, federal employees receive 30 to 40 percent more in compensation than private sector employees. (Footnote 18- Source is Heritage Foundation 2016).

According to a 2011 report by the American Enterprise Institute (Google considers this a center-right-leaning institute), federal government employees enjoy a 14% pay premium and a 61% total compensation advantage. (Footnote 19 - 2011)

The authors state that the Project 2025 figures are out of sync with the “official studies” that demonstrate federal employees are paid 20% less than private sector employees. (No source)

 This implies Project 2025’s data are correct and the “official studies” are incorrect, with no evidence.

The authors of Project 2025 complain of excessive benefits to federal employees that employees in the private sector cannot access.  They say private companies offer less vacation time and lower health benefit contributions, and half of private firms do not offer any employer contribution for health benefits. (No source)

The above statement is unproven.

Project 2025 authors admit that any reforms will likely require legislation, but say OPM needs to demand “true” (my quotations) equality of benefits and compensation between the public and private sectors -

Of course, that means providing equality of pay and benefits according to THEIR data.

Any legislation creating reforms regarding pay and benefits again disarms unions and the right to bargain for wages and benefits.

Reforming Federal Retirement Benefits

In the federal government, retired employees enjoy the benefit of Cost of Living Adjustments (COLA) that are automatically adjusted for inflation. The authors of 2025 claim that the private sector does not have benefits that include any type of COLA (no data tables, researched arguments; no source).

During the Reagan era, the administration saved 28.5% in retirement pension funds by shifting most of the cost to the employee. It also distributed pensions more fairly to 40% more workers. (No source) By 1999, the federal pension system became more like a private pension system, but Project 2025 authors complain the federal government retirement system is still too generous and believe this must change to reduce costs.

GSA (General Services Administration): Landlord and Contractor Management - a focus on Presidential Transitions

Project 2025 explains that the General Services Administration (GSA) is responsible for designing, constructing, managing, and preserving government buildings. It is also responsible for leasing and managing commercial real estate, contracting about 380 million square feet of space.

It was difficult to connect why this is in this chapter but, there is a brief explanation that the GSA ‘however” also connects commercial products and services in the private sector and their personnel management functions (italicized for my emphasis). The Project 2025 authors believe that the GSA and OPM leadership must hold regular meetings to moderate personnel restrictions as noted in the PTA (Presidential Transition Act) and the relationships between civil service and contracted employees.

***In other words, the applicability of how the GSA might be allowed to disrupt the usual Presidential transition is likely related to interfering in the typical management of the Presidential Transition Act (PTA), including favoring partisan actors to intercede during the transition of power.

This is not explicitly mentioned in the text of Project 2025, but because the GSA has a heavy hand in the transition of presidents moving in and out of office, it is likely the reason this agency gets a brief mention in this paper.

How the GSA manages Presidential transitions is listed below:

Timeline of Requirements taken from https://presidentialtransition.org/reports-publications/presidential-transition-act-summary/

“Ongoing

●     GSA designates a Federal Transition Coordinator(generally done roughly two years before the election)

●     GSA develops a transition directory with information on federal agencies (generally updated with the report described below)

●     Agency Transition Directors Council meets (Not less than one meeting per year in off-election years)

●     Training for appointees (throughout a president’s term)

12 months before election

●     GSA produces report summarizing modern transition activities and relevant resources

6 months before election

●     President establishes a White House Transition Coordinating Council

●     Agency Transition Directors Council begins to meet on a regular basis

●     Each agency designates a senior career employee to oversee transition activities

●     The Federal Transition Coordinator reports to the Senate Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs and the House Committee on Oversight and Accountability on transition preparations

Post-Conventions through Election

●     GSA begins providing pre-election office space and support to the major candidates on one of the first 3 business days following the last nominating convention for the major parties

●     3 months before the election, the Federal Transition Coordinator reports to the Senate Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs and the House Committee on Oversight and Accountability on transition preparations

●     Not later than September 1, GSA enters memorandums of understanding with eligible candidates regarding support services

●     Not later than September 15, heads of agencies ensure succession plans are in place for non-career positions

●     Not later than October 1, GSA negotiates memorandums of understanding with transition teams regarding conditions of access to agencies, including agreement by transition teams to implement and make public their ethics plans

●     Not later than November 1, the Agency Transition Directors Council ensures that transition briefing materials are prepared

Post-Election (if there is a change in administration)

●     On the day following the election, GSA begins to provide office space and support services to the president-elect and Vice President-elect, with support continuing up to 60 days after inauguration

●     A classified summary regarding national security is given to the president-elect as soon as possible after the election

●     30 days before the expiration of the term, GSA begins support to outgoing president and vice president, with support continuing for 7 months total

Post-Election (if results are unclear)

●     Pre-election support continues until GSA ascertains the winner

●     If a winner is not ascertained within 5 days of the election, post-election transition assistance is provided on an equitable basis to candidates until GSA ascertains the winner.”

Reductions in Force

Reducing the number of federal employees would reduce expenses. Efforts to freeze hiring during transitions of multiple presidencies (Clinton, Obama, Reagan, Trump) did not lead to permanent reductions in the number of employees.

Because other government functions contain high costs, cutting the functions, levels, funds, and grants is more important than maintaining a particular size workforce.

To prevent the “burrowing in” of ineffective (or nonpartisan) employees, performance evaluations should be first and reductions in the use of tenure, veterans’ preference, and seniority need to be weighted less in the retention of employees.

In other words, the removal of long-negotiated labor union rights would dissolve.  It would allow the President and his loyalists to create a team of “yes” people to enact desired administration policies, regardless of long-standing rules that protect workers (and possibly) the Constitution. 

Impenetrable Bureaucracy

Project 2025 describes the achievement of the goal of creating a small government by decreasing duplications across Cabinet departments and multiple agencies. In 1993, Congress passed the Government Performance and Results Act. Federal agencies were required to define their missions, establish goals, and report measurable performance to Congress. However, only larger bureaucratic growth occurred over the past three decades.

The Trump Administration proposed consolidations. Congress did not approve them.  

Project 2025 wants a smaller government created through “proper” personnel management. This is to be led by OPM. It is unclear what is meant by “proper” but reading between the lines and based on Trump’s prior acts as President and the text throughout this document, “proper” can be assumed to mean broad cuts that allow the President’s agenda to be unstoppable by constitutionally-based bureaucratic loyalists who are faithful to the Constitution, not the President.

Creating a Responsible Career Management Service

Trump Executive Order 13957 allowed for the removal of career Civil Service workers during and following a presidential transition. It allowed the new President’s administration to bypass the regular hiring practices of the government protecting career civil service employees, allowing the administration to hire partisan actors who could more easily control the President’s agenda.

Project 2025 is frustrated that President Biden overturned the executive order. The authors want it reinstated. 

However, OPM offered a final ruling on this matter on April 4, 2024, defining protections that protect future administrations from reinstating this Trump executive order, and offering broad protections to the civil service workforce:  https://www.govexec.com/workforce/2024/04/opm-issues-final-rule-schedule-f-protections/395463/

Managing Personnel in a Union Environment

Project 2025 complains about labor unions in government believing that government working with labor unions causes never-ending rising costs for public government. Bargaining by labor unions expanded over time as management rights narrowed. Management rights are still in statute and should be reinstated and not be intimidated by union power. 

Trump put forth three executive orders to this end, which the Biden administration revoked, reinstating all labor rights for civil service employees.

EO 13836 - to renegotiate all existing union agreements to align with management rights instead

EO 13837 - to prevent union representatives from using official time to engage in union activities

EO 13839 - to limit labor grievances when employees are removed from service, or choose to challenge performance appraisals, and eliminate the requirement that uses seniority as a factor in retentions or reductions in force.

Project 2025 clearly states that unions are not compatible with constitutional government.  Labor unions should be eliminated.

Fully Staffing the Ranks of Political Appointees

Based on an argument that the Acting Attorney General under Trump, Sally Yates (a carryover from the Obama Administration), refused to obey President Trump’s direct order to implement a ban on immigrants from seven Muslim countries. The order was supposedly based on a law that allowed the President to suspend the entry of all or a class of immigrants from entering the country. Because she defied the order, she was fired.

However, during a post-firing hearing in front of Congress, Sally Yates also quoted the Immigration and Nationality Act’s rule that indicated Trump’s rule was an unconstitutional discriminatory practice because immigrants’ entry to the U.S. could not be prevented due to “race, nationality, or place of birth…” https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2017/05/29/why-sally-yates-stood-up-to-trump

Project 2025 wants the President to have “direct supervision of the bureaucracy” and not allow presidential naysayers to defend the Constitution, even if based on evidence of their legal interpretation of what the U.S. Constitution demands. This would cause all Presidential orders and policies to be enacted regardless of constitutionality.

Project 2025 wants only people who say “yes” to the President based on the President’s own beliefs and desires, rather than what is grounded in the U.S. Constitution and the rule of law.

Conclusion

The toxic desires of the Project 2025 authors turn the personnel agencies of the federal government into a partisan strong arm of the President.  Giving the President the ability to replace career professionals loyal to the Constitution with those who would be “responsive to the President’s political leadership” is dangerous to our democracy. 

As evidenced by the cabinet Trump first formed, which, for example, included Betsy DeVos, a private school and school voucher advocate who would prefer to destroy the public school system supported by the government, was put in charge of the Education Department. Scott Pruitt who, since 2010 strongly opposed the Environmental Protection Agency’s environmental regulations was put in charge of the EPA.  Andrew Wheeler was a coal lobbyist and was put into the number 2 position at the EPA. Pruitt came under investigation by the Government Accountability Office and resigned, leaving the coal lobbyist Andrew Wheeler in charge of EPA.  

If permitted by this Project 2025 personnel playbook, Trump or another president will follow this model of leaving the fox in charge of the henhouse with open permission.  The only thing that stopped Trump and his cronies from inflicting worse damage on personnel operations and the rule of law was those civil servants who swore a faithful oath to the Constitution of the United States rather than reciting it with fingers crossed behind their backs. 

If the Project 2025 authors enact their twisted personnel policies, partisan actors will no longer file investigations and due process to eliminate bad actors. Investigations would only be held against those defying the President’s partisan will. Trump and other authoritarians wanting to gain absolute power (not aspiring to serve the people) could quickly dismantle the agency structures now used to improve the lives of the common people. 

More gravely, if partisan actors have authority over the Presidential Transition Act (PTA) timelines, the “peaceful transfer of power” will be in perilous danger. Trump tried interfering with this once and, with just a very slight mention of the PTA in this paper, those who are the authors of Project 2025 could now design a system that creates possible structures that can easily disrupt the process. A system designed to inhibit the smooth transfer of power could certainly end the ability of the common people to hold future elections, which would be the end of our nearly 250-year democracy altogether.