New Federal Employees Must Now Write Essays Praising Trump's Policies
Newsweek AI is in beta. Translations may contain inaccuracies—please refer to the original content.
Those seeking a job in the federal government will now have to write an essay in support of President Donald Trump's executive orders, according to a memo from the Office of Personnel Management.
Vince Haley, the White House's head of domestic policy, wrote in the May 29 memorandum that all civil service applicants must answer a series of essays as part of the job recruitment process, including one about how they would "help advance" Trump's policy priorities.
Newsweek has contacted the Office of Personnel Management for comment via email outside normal working hours.
Why It Matters
Since assuming office in January, Trump has overseen a shake-up of the federal workforce, implementing hiring freezes and mass layoffs to downsize the government in the name of efficiency. The president's actions have sparked criticism and legal challenges.
With the federal hiring freeze scheduled to end on July 15, the government has begun to consider how it will recruit workers moving forward.
President Donald Trump walking on the South Lawn of the White House in Washington, D.C., on May 30.
President Donald Trump walking on the South Lawn of the White House in Washington, D.C., on May 30.
AP Photo/Jacquelyn Martin
What To Know
According to the memo, the feral government's strategy to hire people to the civil service, dubbed the "Merit Hiring Plan," will require certain applicants to write four 200-word essays about their work ethic, skills and experience, commitment to the Constitution, and plans to "advance the President's Executive Orders and policy priorities."
The essay questions are as follows:
1. How has your commitment to the Constitution and the founding principles of the United States inspired you to pursue this role within the Federal government? Provide a concrete example from professional, academic, or personal experience.
2. In this role, how would you use your skills and experience to improve government efficiency and effectiveness? Provide specific examples where you improved processes, reduced costs, or improved outcomes.
3. 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.
4. How has a strong work ethic contributed to your professional, academic or personal achievements? Provide one or two specific examples, and explain how those qualities would enable you to serve effectively in this position.
The plan, as outlined in the memo, would also decrease hiring time for new candidates to under 80 days; implement a skills-based hiring approach that would reduce the need for "unnecessary degree requirements"; and end the use of diversity, equity and inclusion programs in hiring and recruitment, which the memo described as "racial discrimination."
What People Are Saying
Scott Lucas, a professor in international politics at University College Dublin, told Newsweek that Project 2025 "set this out" with government cuts and other Trump initiatives, so the news was not surprising. "This is an authoritarian regime," he said.
Adam Bonica, a political scientist at Stanford University, wrote in a Substack post: "A merit-based civil service that took generations to build is being dismantled via memo."
Max Stier, the president of the nonprofit Partnership for Public Service, told Axios: "They're emptying the shelves of the existing nonpartisan expert civil servants, and they're restocking with the loyalists."
Paul Light, a professor emeritus of public service at New York University, told Politico: "I think it's foolish. It's hard enough to get talent these days."
The Office of Personnel Management said in the memorandum: "The American people deserve a federal workforce dedicated to American values and efficient service."
What Happens Next
More cuts to the federal government are planned. The White House has said that when the hiring freeze ends, it will allow agencies to hire no more than one employee for every four employees that have left the federal service.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
23 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Investors see risks for market as Powell walks tightrope at Jackson Hole
By Davide Barbuscia NEW YORK (Reuters) -Investors are bracing for volatility as Federal Reserve Chair Jerome Powell walks a fine line between curbing inflation and supporting the labor market, with thin August trading poised to magnify any market moves from his Jackson Hole speech on Friday. Wall Street largely expects Powell will signal an imminent easing in monetary policy, but concerns that U.S. President Donald Trump's tariffs could reignite price pressures may force him to tread carefully. Meanwhile, Powell faces relentless pressure from the Trump administration to cut interest rates, turning his final address as Fed boss at the Jackson Hole economic symposium into a test of Fed independence. "There is a market tightrope here from a macroeconomic perspective between the inflation data and what's happening in the employment market," said Tony Rodriguez, head of fixed income strategy at Nuveen. "And now you combine that with the political tightrope that's not usually there that he has to navigate. It makes for an incredibly difficult, tricky situation," he said. Adding to the drama, Trump on Wednesday urged Fed Governor Lisa Cook to resign over mortgage allegations raised by one of his political allies, intensifying his effort to gain influence over the U.S. central bank. Cook said she had "no intention of being bullied" out of her post. "This (Jackson Hole) would be a good opportunity for Powell to speak about the importance of independence," said Idanna Appio, portfolio manager at First Eagle Investments, noting that the pressure could eventually lead to a more dovish rate-setting Fed board. A soft July jobs report and hefty downward revisions to earlier job figures fueled bets the U.S. central bank would cut interest rates from the current 4.25%-4.5% range later this year. But a surge in wholesale prices in July dimmed investor hopes for a half-point move at the Fed's next rate-setting meeting in September, leaving markets braced for about two 25 basis point cuts for the rest of the year. So far, consumers have been spared a sharp jump in prices despite Trump's escalating import tariffs, but doubts linger over how much of those duties will filter through to households in the months ahead. "I expect that Powell will signal a change in monetary policy that suggests that we'll resume the rate-cutting cycle on September 17, and markets will welcome that news," said Michael Arone, chief investment strategist at State Street Investment Management. "But I think he'll be reluctant to give too much transparency on the future path of rate cuts, because he knows what he doesn't know," Arone said, referring to the inflationary impact of tariffs. 'EXPECT VOLATILITY' Investors see any pushback from Powell against an imminent shift to monetary policy easing as the biggest risk heading into the Jackson Hole, Wyoming, event, with poor liquidity in summer trading expected to exacerbate the market reaction. "It's next to the last week of August, it's Friday, markets might be a little more susceptible to some volatility as a result of a little bit less liquidity ... (this) might lead to something of an unexpected move," said Rodriguez at Nuveen. Powell's speech comes amid market concerns of stagflation, a dreaded mix of sluggish growth and sticky inflation that could limit the Fed's ability to ride to Wall Street's rescue, just as a tech stock selloff this week highlighted long-standing worries over steep stock valuations. "Stagflation is a risk," said James Ragan, co-chief investment officer and director of investment management research at D.A. Davidson. "If Powell pulls back on the expectation for a rate cut in September, I think stocks would fall in that scenario and you obviously would see probably bond yields rise at least at the short end," he said. To be sure, Powell's address may ultimately be underwhelming for markets. Hot producer prices data in July removed the possibility that the Fed could deliver a jumbo-sized cut in September, limiting the scope for resistance from an inflation-focused Powell against those expectations. At the Jackson Hole conference in 2022, Powell echoed late Fed chair Paul Volcker with a hardline vow to crush inflation. This time, with inflation about 1 percentage point above the Fed's 2% target and a softening but still healthy job market, a subtler balance could be in the cards. Still, a balanced message could be perceived as hawkish, sparking price fluctuations in stocks and bonds over the next few weeks, said Shannon Saccocia, chief investment officer for wealth management at Neuberger Berman. "Our advice to clients has been to expect volatility," she said.
Yahoo
23 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Canada's Carney spoke to Trump and discussed trade, Ottawa says
OTTAWA (Reuters) -Canadian Prime Minister Mark Carney spoke to U.S. President Donald Trump on Thursday and had "a productive and wide-ranging conversation" on trade challenges and other issues, Carney's office said in a statement. The leaders agreed to reconvene shortly, the statement added, but did not give details.
American Press
25 minutes ago
- American Press
Appeals court throws out massive civil fraud penalty against President Donald Trump
A New York appeals court on Thursday threw out the massive financial penalty a state judge imposed on President Donald Trump, while narrowly upholding a finding he engaged in fraud by exaggerating his wealth for decades. The ruling spares Trump from a potential half-billion-dollar fine but bans him and his two eldest sons from serving in corporate leadership for a few years. Trump, in a social media post, claimed 'total victory.' 'I greatly respect the fact that the Court had the Courage to throw out this unlawful and disgraceful Decision that was hurting Business all throughout New York State,' he wrote. The decision came seven months after the Republican returned to the White House. A sharply divided panel of five judges in New York's mid-level Appellate Division couldn't agree on many issues raised in Trump's appeal, but a majority said the monetary penalty was 'excessive.' After finding Trump flagrantly padded financial statements that went to lenders and insurers, Judge Arthur Engoron ordered him last year to pay $355 million in penalties. With interest, the sum has topped $515 million. Additional penalties levied on some other Trump Organization executives, including Trump's sons Eric and Donald Jr. — bring the total to $527 million, with interest. An 'excessive' fine 'While the injunctive relief ordered by the court is well crafted to curb defendants' business culture, the court's disgorgement order, which directs that defendants pay nearly half a billion dollars to the State of New York, is an excessive fine that violates the Eighth Amendment of the United States Constitution,' Judges Dianne T. Renwick and Peter H. Moulton wrote in one of three opinions shaping the appeals court's ruling. Engoron's other punishments, upheld by the appeals court, have been on pause during Trump's appeal, and the president was able to hold off collection of the money by posting a $175 million bond. The court, which split on the merits of the lawsuit and Engoron's fraud finding, dismissed the penalty in its entirety while also leaving a pathway for an appeal to the state's highest court, the Court of Appeals. Trump and his co-defendants, the judges wrote, can seek to extend the pause on any punishments taking effect. The panel was sharply divided, issuing 323 pages of concurring and dissenting opinions with no majority. Rather, some judges endorsed parts of their colleagues' findings while denouncing others, enabling the court to rule. Two judges wrote that they felt New York Attorney General Letitia James' lawsuit against Trump and his companies was justifiable and that she had proven her case but the penalty was too severe. One wrote that James exceeded her legal authority in bringing the suit, saying that if any of Trump's lenders felt cheated, they could have sued him themselves, and none did. One judge wrote that Engoron erred by ruling before the trial began that the attorney general had proved Trump engaged in fraud. In his portion of the ruling, Judge David Friedman, who was appointed to the court by Republican Gov. George Pataki, was scathing in his criticism of James for bringing the lawsuit. 'Plainly, her ultimate goal was not 'market hygiene' … but political hygiene, ending with the derailment of President Trump's political career and the destruction of his real estate business,' Friedman wrote. 'The voters have obviously rendered a verdict on his political career. This bench today unanimously derails the effort to destroy his business.' In a statement, James focused on the part of the case that went her way, saying the court had 'affirmed the well-supported finding of the trial court: Donald Trump, his company, and two of his children are liable for fraud.' 'It should not be lost to history: yet another court has ruled that the president violated the law, and that our case has merit,' James said. The appeals court, the Appellate Division of the state's trial court, took an unusually long time to rule, weighing Trump's appeal for nearly 11 months after oral arguments last fall. Normally, appeals are decided in a matter of weeks or a few months. Claims of politics at play Trump and his co-defendants denied wrongdoing. At the conclusion of the civil trial in January 2024, Trump said he was 'an innocent man' and the case was a 'fraud on me.' The Republican has repeatedly maintained the case and the verdict were political moves by James and Engoron, both Democrats. Trump's Justice Department has subpoenaed James for records related to the lawsuit, among other documents, as part of an investigation into whether she violated the president's civil rights. James' personal attorney Abbe D. Lowell has said investigating the fraud case is 'the most blatant and desperate example of this administration carrying out the president's political retribution campaign.' Trump and his lawyers said his financial statements weren't deceptive, since they came with disclaimers noting they weren't audited. The defense also noted bankers and insurers independently evaluated the numbers, and the loans were repaid. Despite such discrepancies as tripling the size of his Trump Tower penthouse, he said the financial statements were, if anything, lowball estimates of his fortune. During an appellate court hearing last September, Trump's lawyers argued that many of the case's allegations were too old and that James had misused a consumer protection law to sue Trump over private business transactions that were satisfactory to those involved. State attorneys said that while Trump insists no one was harmed by the financial statements, his exaggerations led lenders to make riskier loans and that honest borrowers lose out when others game their net worth numbers. Legal obstacles The civil fraud case was just one of several legal obstacles for Trump as he campaigned, won and segued to a second term as president. On Jan. 10, he was sentenced in his criminal hush money case to what's known as an unconditional discharge, leaving his conviction on the books but sparing him jail, probation, a fine or other punishment. He is appealing the conviction. And in December, a federal appeals court upheld a jury's finding that Trump sexually abused writer E. Jean Carroll in the mid-1990s and later defamed her, affirming a $5 million judgment against him. The appeals court declined in June to reconsider. Trump still can try to get the Supreme Court to hear his appeal. Trump also is appealing a subsequent verdict that requires him to pay Carroll $83.3 million for additional defamation claims.
