The June 15 editorial on the Trump administration’s civil-service reform effort called a new “Schedule Policy/Career” classification “surprisingly modest.” I am a former vice chairman and acting chairman of the U.S. Merit Systems Protection Board, which is the agency that, until this order, heard these employees’ appeals. I read the order differently.
The editorial is right that 8,000 positions is smaller than the 50,000 once floated. But these are the nonpartisan professionals who implement policy and ensure government action complies with law and professional standards. A merit-based civil service is a safeguard for the citizens who depend on a government that functions consistently no matter who wins the next election.
The new schedule is no modest coda. It removes the final institutional safeguard that distinguishes a career civil servant from a political appointee: the ability to challenge a politically motivated removal before an independent adjudicator. The editorial framed the order as a reasonable accountability measure. But every president already has ample tools to install a loyal, responsive team.
The dispute is not whether employees can be removed; it is whether an independent body reviews whether the stated reason is genuine. The editorial cited MSPB research showing that about 4 in 10 supervisors doubt they can remove employees for misconduct or poor performance. But the study points to management challenges: inadequate training, weak documentation and underuse of the tools that Chapters 43 and 75 of Title 5 already provide. The answer is to equip managers to use those authorities, not to gut the due-process protections that guard against arbitrary or retaliatory firings.
Raymond A. Limon, University Park
The writer is founder and principal of Merit Service Advocates.
President Donald Trump signed an executive order this month that would give his administration the ability to fire at least 8,000 federal civil servants in supervisory and policymaking roles without affording them due process protections that for decades have helped preserve a merit-based, professional and nonpartisan civil service.
Accountability matters and removing poor performers when warranted is an important goal. But it’s just one piece of a much larger talent management puzzle that includes strong hiring practices, well-resourced HR offices and effective leadership.
This shift in policy is part of the administration’s wholesale attack on the federal workforce that has resulted in a net loss of nearly 280,000 civil servants from the federal workforce through voluntary and involuntary mechanisms since Inauguration Day. In addition, the administration has taken steps to weaken the due process rights of federal employees, and last year required job applicants to write essays on how they would help implement Trump policies.
The American public needs experienced, independent public servants who follow the law, speak truth to power and do their jobs regardless of who is in the White House. The administration’s latest policy on firing employees, along with the other workforce moves, undermines all of that, and the consequences for the American people will be felt far beyond this administration.
Max Stier, Washington
The writer is president and CEO of the Partnership for Public Service.
Telework is here to stay
The June 2 editorial “California state employees are running out of excuses to work from home” framed remote and hybrid work as a departure from normalcy, implying that employees are resisting established workplace expectations. But the workplace of 2026 cannot be evaluated as though it were 1996 — or even 2019.
Concerns about telework are dismissed as an attempt to preserve a “special privilege.” That characterization ignores a critical fact: California’s government has continued to function effectively throughout the era of widespread telework.
Public benefits have been administered, health care programs have served millions of people, consumer protections have been enforced and critical infrastructure projects have advanced. In fact, many of the accomplishments touted by California’s elected leaders over the past six years were achieved by a workforce operating under telework and hybrid-work arrangements.
The question is not whether telework works for California. It’s whether requiring employees to commute to state offices four days per week will meaningfully improve outcomes for taxpayers, public services or government effectiveness.
According to a report by California’s state auditor, the answer is no. The data shows the new mandate would cost taxpayers as much as $225 million annually, and it would result in more than 181,380 metric tons of CO2 emissions each year as 90,000 state employees are forced back onto already overcrowded highways.
California state workers are not arguing that work should disappear. We are arguing that work has changed.
Talene Ghazarian, Sacramento
The writer is president of CASE, the union of California attorneys, administrative law judges and hearing officers in state employment.
Letter submissions
Send letters to [email protected].
Submissions must be exclusive to The Post and should include the writer’s address and day and evening telephone numbers. Letters are subject to editing and abridgment. Please do not send letters as attachments. Because of the volume of material we receive, we are unable to acknowledge submissions; writers whose letters are under consideration for publication will be contacted.
As the semiquincentennial approaches, Post Opinions wants to know: Where do you first take visitors to the D.C. area? What makes that spot special to you? Send us your response, and it might be published as a letter to the editor. wapo.st/washington_welcome
The post Removing civil servants can’t be as easy as Trump wants it to be appeared first on Washington Post.
