BOSTON—Shades of the “loyalty oaths” of the Joe McCarthy-era witch-hunts through the federal government in the 1950s. The Trump regime is demanding such loyalty essays—to Trump, not the Constitution—for all aspiring civil servants.
In addition to the obvious loyalty he wants to his resurrected anti-communist campaign, he is demanding much more. Essentially, anyone who applies for a civil service job will be pledging loyalty to the administration’s policy of disappearing people with green cards, which have long protected their status as legal residents of the United States. They must pledge loyalty to all his actions, including targeting of U.S. citizens in its immigration raids and sending ICE to conduct raids inside that nation’s churches as they celebrate the seasons of Advent and Christmas.
Those essays will require civil service job applicants to identify Trump policies they endorse and would enforce, no matter whether they’re legal or not. No matter whether they’re constitutional or not. No matter if they trash treaties the U.S. has signed—such as the pact covering asylum-seekers—or not.
Deport green card holders? Yessir, Mr. Trump, sir. Start an illegal war on the high seas, including rampant killings of survivors of sunken ships? Aye, aye, chief. Flying anyone who looks non-white, including a U.S. citizen, to a hellhole prison or to a prison in a “shithole” country-Trump’s term – without due process? Of course, sir, anything you say, sir.
I’ll perform all those policies for you if your political appointees award me that government job.
But unlike the 1950s, when the government cowered before Wisconsin Republican Senator McCarthy’s lies and non-existent lists of “traitors,” and when federal workers had few ways to defend themselves and were blacklisted if they did, the Government Employees, AFSCME, and the National Association of Government Employees (NAGE), a Service Employees sector, are striking back—in U.S. District Court in Boston.
In a 46-page affidavit filed with the judges there in mid-November, the three unions bluntly say that requiring such loyalty essays to Trump and his agenda violates both federal law and the free speech rights guaranteed to all—even to federal workers—by the U.S. Constitution.
The unions want federal district judges to stop this with a permanent injunction.
In essence, Trump forces anyone seeking a civil service job, or seeking a transfer or promotion from one job to another, to write an essay pledging the worker to carry out the Trump agenda, without questioning, and in detail.
The lawsuit by the three unions is the latest, but certainly not the last, of the legal challenges facing the tyrannical actions of the GOP Trump regime. That same federal court in Boston is also handling a case by a group of religious denominations trying to stop ICE raids into churches with high numbers of Spanish-speakers during the holiday season. ICE’s justification, of course, is that anyone who looks non-white is likely illegally in the U.S.
While the Trump loyalty essay applies to aspiring civil servants, it’s in line with his attempts to enforce ideological conformity on both federal agencies and on institutions—including universities, law firms, and private contractors—who do business with the government. In those cases, Trump uses an even bigger bludgeon to enforce his will than denial of individual jobs or the creation of a spoils system. He withholds or yanks federal money unless they submit to his dictates.
The corporate backers of Trump are silent about such threats—or support them–because the crusade he’s carrying out harms or emasculates institutions that get in the way not just of their ideological agenda, but of corporate profits. Institutions he targets are often critical of corporations.
The “loyalty essay requirement is an unprecedented addition to federal job applications that unions say forces applicants to express political allegiance to the president’s policies,” Quincy, Mass.-based NAGE said on its website explaining the case. Trump’s essay “violates the 1st Amendment” to the Constitution and its freedom of speech mandate, and the Administrative Procedure Act, transforming merit-based hiring into a political litmus test.
“Under the new Merit Hiring Plan, job seekers are asked to identify and discuss their favorite Trump administration executive order or policy and explain how they would help advance it if hired.”
And the lawsuit makes clear that bosses, in evaluating applicants, would pay attention to this essay question on the federal employment entrance application. The pro-Trump essay “imposes an unconstitutional condition on employment” and creates a system of political patronage, NAGE said.
“For over a century, the merit-based civil service has been a cornerstone of our democracy, safeguarding it from corruption and political interference,” said NAGE President David Holway. “The loyalty essay requirement is a direct assault on that legacy and on every public servant’s oath to uphold the Constitution.
“NAGE stands in defense of a professional, nonpartisan workforce. The strength of our democracy depends on competence, integrity, and service to the American people—not political allegiance.”
The loyalty essay requirement is yet another move by the GOP Trump regime to downgrade and subjugate the non-partisanship of the civil service, thus taking the U.S. back to the days of the Robber Barons and before, where whether you got a federal job depended on who you voted for—and, often, how much you gave.
“A cornerstone of American democracy is a nonpartisan, career civil service system based on merit, not political loyalty,” the unions declare. But Trump’s “Merit Hiring Plan” from his Office of Personnel Management—which is now run by venture capital executive Scott Kupor–“is anything but merit-based. It inserts into the job applications the essay question ordering applicants ‘to express and detail their support for President Trump and his policies.
“Specifically, the essay question—the Loyalty Question—asks candidates to explain how they would ‘help advance the president’s executive orders and policy priorities,’ and tells them to identify whichof the president’s EOs and policies ‘are significant to you.’
“OPM instructed hiring managers and political appointees to review applicants’ responses to these questions before making decisions. There is no purpose to the Loyalty Question other than to try to enforce employee allegiance to President Donald Trump.
“None of this is surprising. The Trump Administration has been clear about its desire to upend the merit-based civil service and instead fill the federal workforce with” Trump loyalists.
All of this violates the Constitutional right to free speech, not only by forcing applicants to openly state their political beliefs in order to win what has—until Trump—been a non-partisan job, but it also chills future speech, the lawsuit says. It’ll force potential applicants to think twice, or walk away, from federal employment if it depends on whose agenda they support, legal or not, the suit says.
“The First Amendment problems” with the loyalty essay are manifold. “It both compels and chills protected speech. The Loyalty Question compels speech by prompting applicants to share their political beliefs in response to a question that has no bearing on their job, and to answer this question in a way that applicants believe will be appealing to the administration.
“The Loyalty Question chills speech by deterring applicants from speaking their truthful opinions or from applying to federal jobs altogether…The Loyalty Question therefore, violates Plaintiffs’ First Amendment rights.’”
Trump’s Office of Personnel Management did not give any reason for inserting the Loyalty Question into the civil service exam, thus violating the federal Administrative Procedure Act, which mandates public notice and comment on major rules. OPM later issued “guidance” to agencies, where it claimed applicants’ answers to the Loyalty Question would not be “a litmus test” for winning a federal job.
But in the next breath, the “guidance” says “responses will be reviewed by the agency’s political leadership as part of the hiring process.”
“So, how will agency political leadership evaluate and utilize responses to the Loyalty Question, and what possible purpose does it serve if it is not a test of allegiance to President Trump?” the unions’ lawsuit asks. “Unsurprisingly, OPM never says. That is the embodiment of an arbitrary and capricious rule.”
No hearing date has been set yet for the case.
We hope you appreciated this article. At People’s World, we believe news and information should be free and accessible to all, but we need your help. Our journalism is free of corporate influence and paywalls because we are totally reader-supported. Only you, our readers and supporters, make this possible. If you enjoy reading People’s World and the stories we bring you, please support our work by donating or becoming a monthly sustainer today.
CONTRIBUTOR
