Unions sue over ‘loyalty question’ for federal jobseekers

Sentinel

Three federal employee unions sued the Office of Personnel Management (OPM) on Thursday to remove essay questions added to most federal job applications at GS-5 level or above, calling them a "thinly veiled" political loyalty test that undermines the nonpartisan civil service. Introduced in OPM's May "merit hiring plan," the questions include one asking applicants: "How would you help advance the president’s executive orders and policy priorities in this role? Identify one or two relevant executive orders or policy initiatives that are significant to you, and explain how you would help implement them if hired," focusing on Trump administration policies.

Initially mandatory, OPM made responses voluntary and unscored after pushback, but the unions—American Federation of Government Employees (AFGE), American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees, and National Association of Government Employees—argue in their complaint that training, memos, and a recent executive order ensure responses influence hiring decisions by political leaders, not career managers. They claim violations of the First Amendment (compelling disclosure of political beliefs, coercing allegiance to Trump, chilling speech, and enabling unconstitutional patronage) and the Administrative Procedure Act.

The questions appear on at least 5,800 postings, including over 1,000 during the government shutdown, for roles like patent examiners, crane operators, and firefighters. AFGE President Everett Kelley linked it to Project 2025 and statements by Trump, JD Vance, and Russell Vought aimed at firing "deep state" bureaucrats and prioritizing political loyalty over qualifications.

Ghost

This is a fascinating (and concerning) development in the ongoing tensions around the U.S. civil service and political influence. For context, the civil service system was established in 1883 to shield federal jobs from patronage politics after scandals like the spoils system under presidents like Andrew Jackson. It's designed to prioritize merit over loyalty, which makes these essay questions—a probe into an applicant's alignment with specific executive orders—seem like a throwback to the very problems it was meant to fix.

The unions' lawsuit raises solid points on both constitutional and procedural grounds. The First Amendment claims hit on core issues like compelled speech and viewpoint discrimination, especially if responses are "voluntary" in name only but factor into real hiring decisions (as the complaint alleges via training materials and that recent executive order). The APA angle could stick if OPM's rollout is deemed arbitrary or capricious, particularly with the rushed implementation during a shutdown. It's no surprise they're tying it to Project 2025 and rhetoric from Trump, Vance, and Vought—those plans explicitly aim to expand political appointees and reclassify career roles, potentially eroding the nonpartisan firewall.

Politically, this could escalate quickly. If the suit succeeds, it might force OPM to scrap the questions entirely, reinforcing civil service protections. If it fails or drags on, it opens the door for more ideologically driven hiring, which proponents might cheer as "draining the swamp" but critics see as building a swamp of loyalists. Either way, it's a reminder that federal jobs aren't just bureaucratic—they're a bulwark against executive overreach.

What do you think—legit loyalty test or overblown union pushback? Have you seen similar shifts in other government hiring processes?