Schedule F. The Trump administration gambit to make policy-connected career federal employees easier to let go and replace. No one knows whether it will return. But my next guest thinks schedule F would have a negative impact on rural America. The Federal Drive with Tom Temin speaks with the policy counsel at the Project on Government Oversight, Joe Spielberger.

Interview transcript: 

Joe Spielberger
So when we’re talking about urging the federal civil service of tens of thousands or up to a hundred thousand or more. We’re talking about workers who serve in agencies across the federal government. Of course, there’s so many critical agencies that provide really important services for rural Americans to make sure that they have the tools and the resources that they need in order to be successful. Most people tend to associate rural America with the Department of Agriculture focusing on farming and agricultural policies. But of course, USDA does so much more than just that. They’re responsible for food and nutrition programs like SNAP and the school lunch program, they play critical roles in supporting access to rural housing, jobs, infrastructure and economic development, and again, really providing those tools and assistance to hard working people and families so that they have the resources that they need to be successful. And going back to the Trump administration, one really critical move that they made, which I think really paints a picture of what one outcome that we might see under a future Schedule F, was back in 2019 and the administration very hastily decided to relocate these two agencies that are under USDA, the Economic Research Service, and the National Institute of Food and Agriculture.

Tom Temin
Right. That was quite a disruptive operation, as I recall.

        Learn how DLA, GSA’s Federal Acquisition Service and the State Department are modernizing their contract and acquisition processes to make procurement an all-around better experience for everyone involved.

Joe Spielberger
Exactly. And what’s critically important is that this hasty relocation effort came amidst a lot of economists, scientists and researchers who were alleging that they were experiencing retaliation and that their work was really being undermined because they had published objective research and analysis that the administration felt hurt them politically. And even then, Chief of Staff Mick Mulvaney, alluded to the fact that this relocation was done at least partly to get rid of a lot of agency personnel, because people would not be able and willing to just uproot them, themselves, their families and everything to move across the country on a whim. And the impact that we saw, it certainly led to a further exodus of scientists and researchers in these agencies, really decimated their staff and really prevented them from doing the type of work that they are responsible for doing.

Tom Temin
Sure. But not to draw too fine a point here, but that event that movel, and I think it was reversed since then, disruptive as it was though, it happened before Schedule F was implemented, because Schedule F didn’t come till, I think, the final months of the Trump administration, and never really got implemented.

Joe Spielberger
Exactly. And it’s only because the executive order was signed so late in the administration that it was not able to become fully implemented. What’s important about this example is that it really stands to show the willingness that a pro Schedule F administration will basically play politics with agencies, certainly the lives and careers of civil servants, but most importantly, without a lot of regard for the impact that would have on the communities that they serve. And again, we’re talking about these two agencies that provide really critical research and analysis about everything from the economic well being of farm households, local communities, global hunger and food safety. And so I think these issues are just way too important, and the impacts that could be had on rural Americans and their families are too important to just be playing politics with these types of policies, especially if, to the extent that it is in retaliation for publishing objective fact that based research and analysis.

Tom Temin
We’re speaking with Joe Spielberger, policy counsel at the Project on Government Oversight. Well, there’s a lot of possibilities there as to why that happened. But what about the bigger question of if there are so many people that could be in Schedule F, should there be that many people making public policy? That’s one question in the first place, that our career, since career are not supposed to make policy. They’re supposed to carry it out in the most effective, efficient way. So could the Schedule F be getting at something that should be fixed?

Joe Spielberger
You’re right that Schedule F is likely to impact really large numbers of civil servants, but it’s also debatable about to what extent these people who would be impacted are really what we consider to be policy making and policy advocating employees. And what we saw as Schedule F was only beginning to be implemented, the Office of Management and Budget was one of two agencies that went furthest in trying to reclassify their workforce, and they were trying to classify an entire 88% of their agency staff as Schedule F. And when you look at the types of positions that they were trying to include in that 88% you’re really seeing a wide range and people with only the barest of connection to anything in the policy making realm. And I think that’s a critical point, because the proponents of Schedule F are trying to say that this will only be limited to a small number and everything like that. But I think what OMB attempted to do is really indicative that agencies would likely be really creative and really extreme in how they’re doing these reclassifications.

Tom Temin
And the other question is the programs you mentioned, in particular, we were focusing on agriculture programs for different aspects of rural life and rural farming and so on. Those are all statutory programs. That is, they’re enacted under law. And so therefore, could Schedule F really have the potential to undo what is statutorily required?

Joe Spielberger
What’s most important about this is that Schedule F was basically designed to recreate the federal government in the image of a president. And so under Schedule F, it would allow a president or administration to really purge federal agencies of non partisan experts, people who are hired because of their expertise, people who believe in the mission of these agencies and people who are committed to serving in the best interests of the public, and it would allow an administration to replace those people with people who are not necessarily qualified, who are chosen first and foremost because of their commitment to an ideological agenda, regardless of the consequences that may have. And so when we’re talking about these agencies and this critical work that they are responsible for, we can only imagine the impact that it would have when you purge them of people who really believe in this work and who are committed to serving in the best interest of the people, and replace them with partisan lackeys who are only in there because of ideological concerns. And so it can really hold up this critical work. It can reroute funding to different states or communities for political or partisan reasons. There are a number of different ways that this could lead to really direct arms against people in communities that these agencies are tasked with serving, and this work is too important to risk by playing politics in this way.

Copyright © 2024 Federal News Network. All rights reserved. This website is not intended for users located within the European Economic Area.