logo
Opinion - The ‘big, beautiful bill' would secretly dismantle the civil service

Opinion - The ‘big, beautiful bill' would secretly dismantle the civil service

Yahoo04-06-2025
The House-passed budget reconciliation bill contains a troubling provision so dangerous and corrosive to the integrity of the federal government that it demands immediate scrutiny and swift rejection by the Senate.
Buried in more than 1,000 pages of legislative text is Section 90002, a provision that strikes at the heart of the professional, nonpartisan civil service. It proposes a 9.4 percent salary surcharge on newly hired federal employees who wish to retain their civil service protections, ostensibly to pay for their retirement benefits.
Those who cannot afford this effective tax on the rights that federal employees currently enjoy would be forced into permanent at-will employment. Although they would then qualify for a lower retirement deduction of 4.4 percent, as purely at-will employees they could be fired at any time, for any reason — or for no reason at all — with no legal recourse.
This is not just bad policy — it is a direct attack on more than 140 years of bipartisan civil service tradition.
Our professional civil service was born out of the rampant corruption of the 19th-century 'spoils system,' in which federal jobs were handed out as political favors by victorious candidates. That system came to a halt with the Pendleton Act of 1883, passed after President James Garfield was assassinated by a disgruntled office-seeker who believed he had been improperly denied a patronage job. The Pendleton Act established a competitive, merit-based hiring system and laid the foundation for the modern professional civil service that serves the nation — not the party in power.
This commitment was reaffirmed and modernized by the Civil Service Reform Act of 1978, signed by President Jimmy Carter. That law improved efficiency and accountability and codified labor rights while protecting employees from arbitrary or politically motivated firings. It also created federal bodies — the Office of Personnel Management, the Federal Labor Relations Authority and the Merit Systems Protection Board — to safeguard merit principles and the integrity of public service.
Now, with a single provision rolled out with little debate and no hearing record, the House reconciliation bill threatens to undo all this hard-won progress. If enacted, it would create a two-tier federal workforce: one class protected by civil service laws, and another completely vulnerable to the whims of political appointees. Worse still, the measure is designed to coerce new hires into giving up their rights for the rest of their careers.
Faced with a 9.4 percent pay cut, most new federal employees — already earning salaries that are an estimated 25 percent lower than their private-sector counterparts — will feel they have no real choice. Many early-career workers live paycheck to paycheck; this surcharge would be an impossible burden. According to the Congressional Budget Office, three-quarters of new hires would likely be driven into at-will status. Among the 800,000 federal workers I represent as president of the American Federation of Government Employees, few if any could afford to pay the surcharge.
That inability to pay is one reason why the provision raises so little money — less than $500 million annually according to the CBO — or just 0.1 percent of the cost of the bill's accompanying tax cuts.
Clearly, revenue is not the point. The point is to erode labor rights and weaken the civil service.
This provision is also a political time bomb. If passed, it sets a precedent that could be exploited by any future administration. Imagine a newly inaugurated Democratic president firing every at-will federal employee hired during the previous Republican administration — no hearings, no cause, no appeal. If Republicans are willing to set this precedent, they must be prepared to live under it.
But the real danger is institutional. How can federal scientists, doctors, safety inspectors or law enforcement officers operate with independence and integrity if they can be dismissed on a whim? These protections are what enable civil servants to speak truth to power — even when that truth is inconvenient.
This proposal is also a direct attack on organized labor. Without civil service protections, unions are hamstrung in their ability to represent their members. Workers afraid of being summarily fired are unlikely to file grievances, assert their rights or even speak candidly in meetings. Only those who can afford the surcharge would retain access to effective representation. Section 90002 isn't just misguided — it's union-busting by design.
Imagine the outcry if a Democratic Congress imposed a 5 percent income tax on corporations to preserve their rights to challenge unions under the National Labor Relations Act. Republicans would rightly decry this as the weaponization of tax policy. Yet that's precisely what this bill does to federal workers — using financial coercion to undermine their legal protections.
The civil service exists to provide stability, expertise and continuity regardless of the party holding office. It is one of the bedrock institutions that has sustained American democracy through wars, crises and peaceful transitions of power. The Trump administration may not like the idea of a government that can resist political manipulation — but that is exactly what democracy requires.
Section 90002 is not reform. It is sabotage. Congress must reject it and reaffirm its commitment to the principles that have guided our civil service since 1883. Our institutions — and the American people they serve — deserve no less.
Dr. Everett B. Kelley is national president of the American Federation of Government Employees, AFL-CIO.
Copyright 2025 Nexstar Media, Inc. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.
Orange background

Try Our AI Features

Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:

Comments

No comments yet...

Related Articles

North Carolina Republicans are ready for Trump's school choice initiative
North Carolina Republicans are ready for Trump's school choice initiative

The Hill

time5 minutes ago

  • The Hill

North Carolina Republicans are ready for Trump's school choice initiative

North Carolina is on the brink of becoming the first state to opt in to President Donald Trump's signature school choice initiative. Both the Republican-led House and Senate approved the ' Educational Choice for Children Act ' last month. Democratic Gov. Josh Stein had the chance to stand up for parental freedom and school choice. Instead, he chose to join the ranks of other Democratic governors who sold out parents and students in favor of entrenched education bureaucrats. I look forward to leading the North Carolina Senate in overriding the governor's veto to provide families with another avenue to choose the education that best meets their child's needs. We in North Carolina have been working toward universal school choice for more than a decade. In 2023, when the legislature overrode then-Gov. Roy Cooper's veto and made taxpayer-funded school choice scholarships available to every family in the state, a key parental choice battle was won. Now, we're poised to expand on that win even further because of President Trump's leadership. The One Big Beautiful Bill Act of 2025 — a defining domestic policy achievement for President Trump's second term — allows states to opt in to a new federal tax credit of up to $1,700 for contributions to organizations offering scholarships to students who wish to attend a private school. This is a monumental shift enabling philanthropic giving aimed at student-centered investments in education. That means parents will have even more resources at their disposal to send their children to the school that's right for them. This major federal move toward educational freedom, ushered in by President Trump and delivered over the finish line by Senate Majority Leader John Thune (R-S.D.) and House Speaker Mike Johnson (R-La.), is a landmark moment in American education policy. When the idea of publicly funded education gained traction in the 19th century, it represented a shift from an exclusive luxury available only to the economically (and racially) privileged, to universally accessible public education. Free schools, funded by taxpayers, meant the children of sharecroppers and day laborers had the opportunity to escape their economic class and enjoy a life their parents couldn't. We no longer live in the 19th century. Today, class difference doesn't segregate who can go to school and who can't, but it does segregate who can go to the school that's best for them and who is stuck in a school that doesn't suit their God-given gifts. Today, parents have a multitude of schooling options for their kids. They ought to have the economic freedom and ability to choose among them. It does not make sense to impose a 19th-century framework on the 21th-century education landscape. It is outdated to assign students to single schools and force parents to fork over more money (in addition to what they already pay in taxes) if they want, and their child needs, something different. In other words, we should no longer fund systems and bureaucracies. We can, and should, fund students. That is why we fought for more than a decade in North Carolina to create a taxpayer-funded scholarship program available to all families who do not believe their assigned district school is the right place for their children. Now, North Carolina families aren't required to double-pay for their child's K-12 education — first in taxes, then for tuition. They can receive an Opportunity Scholarship, funded with their tax dollars, and use it to attend a private school. And in the near future, if the legislature successfully overrides Stein's veto and opts in to the 'One Big Beautiful Bill's' school choice tax credit, North Carolina parents will have yet more opportunity to choose a school that helps their children realize their full potential. North Carolina House Speaker Destin Hall (R) and I have made this a priority for the General Assembly. We both agree: President Trump's leadership presents an opportunity to improve the educational options available to North Carolina families, and it's incumbent on us to follow through on it.

Beto O'Rourke Defiant After Legal Blow in Texas Redistricting Standoff
Beto O'Rourke Defiant After Legal Blow in Texas Redistricting Standoff

Newsweek

time2 hours ago

  • Newsweek

Beto O'Rourke Defiant After Legal Blow in Texas Redistricting Standoff

Based on facts, either observed and verified firsthand by the reporter, or reported and verified from knowledgeable sources. Newsweek AI is in beta. Translations may contain inaccuracies—please refer to the original content. Beto O'Rourke was defiant after a judge temporarily barred him and his political group from helping fund Texas Democratic lawmakers who left their home state to block redrawn congressional maps, which President Donald Trump has backed. The ruling marks a victory for Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton, who alleged O'Rourke's group Powered by People engaged in bribery and deceptive fundraising. Paxton "wants to silence me and stop me from leading this organization," O'Rourke, a former Texas congressman who ran unsuccessfully for governor and Senate, wrote on X after the ruling on Friday. "He wants to stop us from fighting Trump's attempt to steal the five congressional seats he needs to hang on to power. But I'm not going anywhere." Newsweek has contacted Paxton's office and O'Rourke through Powered by People for comment via emails sent outside regular business hours. Former U.S. Rep. Beto O'Rourke speaks to attendees during a "Our Fight, Our Future" rally at The Millennium bowling alley on October 02, 2024 in Austin, Texas. Former U.S. Rep. Beto O'Rourke speaks to attendees during a "Our Fight, Our Future" rally at The Millennium bowling alley on October 02, 2024 in Austin, It Matters The Democratic lawmakers who left Texas have denied their Republican colleagues the quorum needed for a vote on the redrawn maps that could net the GOP five additional seats in the 2026 midterm elections. They face thousands of dollars in out-of-state lodging and dining costs. They also face fines of $500 for each day they are absent and these cannot be paid from their office budgets or political contributions under Texas House rules. Those who left have declined to say how long they'll hold out. What To Know Powered by People gave money to the Texas House Democratic Caucus to help cover their up-front costs, a spokesperson for the group told The Associated Press earlier this week. Tarrant County District Judge Megan Fahey, a Republican who was appointed by Texas Governor Greg Abbott in 2019 and has since won reelection, granted Paxton's request for a temporary injunction. "Defendants have and will continue to engage in unlawful fundraising practices and utilization of political funds in a manner that either directly violates or causes Texas Democratic Legislators to violate" state law and House procedures, she wrote in her ruling. Her order bars Powered by People from using political funds to pay for travel, hotel or dining costs for the Texas Democrats who left the state or fundraising on their behalf. Powered by People filed a responding lawsuit against Paxton on Friday, alleging his investigation violates the group's right to association, free speech and equal protection, the Houston Chronicle reported. "The true motivation behind defendant's action thus appears to be an unlawful desire to retaliate against Mr. O'Rourke," it said. What People Are Saying Paxton celebrated the judge's ruling, saying in a statement on Friday: "Today, I stopped his deceptive financial influence scheme that attempted to deceive donors and subvert our constitutional process. They told me to 'come and take it,' so I did.'" O'Rourke responded to Paxton on X, saying: "Actually, you didn't. Still here, still raising and rallying to stop the steal of 5 congressional seats in Texas. Ironic that you'd accuse someone of bribery when you were impeached in Texas for taking bribes from Nate Paul." (Paxton was acquitted of bribery and corruption charges by the Republican-led Texas Senate in 2023 after the GOP-controlled House voted to impeach him). In another post, he wrote: "They want to make examples out of those who fight so that others won't. Paxton is trying to shut down Powered by People, one of the largest voter registration organizations in the country, because our volunteers fight for voting rights and free elections... the kind of work that threatens the hold that Paxton, Trump and Abbott have on power in Texas." What's Next O'Rourke is set to speak at a rally—dubbed "The People vs. The Power Grab"— in Fort Worth on Saturday afternoon. Fahey's order is to remain in effect for two weeks. She has scheduled a hearing for August 19.

Sydney Sweeney and fixing the Senate
Sydney Sweeney and fixing the Senate

Politico

time2 hours ago

  • Politico

Sydney Sweeney and fixing the Senate

Last week, Senate Majority Leader John Thune delivered a less than celebratory message on the floor: 'You want to know how many civilian nominees President Trump has had confirmed by unanimous consent or voice vote?' he asked. 'None. Zero. Zero percent.' This was just before the Senate headed home for the summer — with over 100 nominees still unconfirmed. It was yet another chapter in the ever-expanding saga that is Congressional dysfunction. But according to Jim Secreto, who was a special assistant to the president for legislative affairs and director of confirmations under President Joe Biden, there is a way out of this — only sometimes, it requires you to send someone up in a helicopter to shoot a few feral cows. No, that's not a garbled euphemism. One Senate nomination hang-up occurred when Democratic Sen. Ben Ray Luján of New Mexico delayed the confirmation of a Department of Agriculture nominee until they'd agree to a briefing on feral cows roaming the Gila National Forest. Once the Forest Service signed off on mowing them down, the nominee was soon confirmed. 'Sadly, as the events of the Senate last week show, this kind of transactional dealmaking has all but vanished,' Secreto writes in this week's Friday Read, 'and for us to get back to fixing government and the broken state of U.S. politics in general, it needs to be revived.' Read the story. 'This show hasn't been relevant for over 20 years and is hanging on by a thread with uninspired ideas in a desperate attempt for attention.' Can you guess who said this about South Park after it satirized the Trump administration? Scroll to the bottom for the answer.** The Real Sydney Sweeney Problem ... The online uproar over Sydney Sweeney's American Eagle ad quickly turned into fodder for conservatives to use against Democrats — even though elected Democrats had nothing to do with it. For Rob Flaherty, who served as former Vice President Kamala Harris' deputy campaign manager in 2024, that reveals a troubling truth about the asymmetrical information ecosystems on the left and the right. 'The fact that this moment became a thing at all ... says something real about the media ecosystem we're all trapped in,' he writes. 'And it says even more about why Democrats keep losing the culture war, and with it, the narrative war that inevitably shapes who wins elections.' Did the group of Democrats leaving Texas to break quorum and prevent a vote on Republicans' redistricting plan leave you behind in the Austin dust? When it comes up this weekend, just tip your Stetson and stick to these talking points. (From Associate Editor Dylon Jones) — The obvious tension is between Republicans and Democrats, but as a keen observer of Texas politics, you can point out other points of friction: 'The governor and the state attorney general seem to be competing over which one of them should get to kick the Democrats out of office. Abbott asked the Supreme Court to remove them, but AG Ken Paxton filed his own separate action and wrote a letter saying he's the one that has the authority to boot them. Sen. John Cornyn got involved too, taking Abbott's side — after all, the senator is running a primary campaign against Paxton.' — Point out just how dangerous the political climate has gotten to show you've been following the situation: 'There have already been multiple bomb threats at the hotel where Democrats are staying in Chicago. Thankfully, the St. Charles police sweep didn't turn up any bombs, and no one was hurt.' — Mention some of the GOP's tactics to pressure the Democrats into returning: 'Did you see the House Speaker, Dustin Burrows, announced that the Democrats would have to pick up their paychecks and per diems in person? He said the Constitution prevents him from withholding their money — but 'it does not dictate how we issue the pay.'' — Point out how this state battle is becoming a proxy for a national showdown between Democrats and Trump: 'It was notable that Texas Democrats appeared in California with Gov. Gavin Newsom. He's pushing for a counter-redistricting to undercut the Republicans' goals in Texas.' Trump Comes for the Fortune 500 ... Trump has taken on academia, government, the legal system and the media. Next on the list? It might just be the Fortune 500. Intel's shares plummeted after the president called on it's CEO to resign over past business dealings in China. 'The public demand for a Fortune 500 CEO to resign, delivered via social media, tells us something important about what Trump has learned in the seven months since he returned to the White House,' writes Charlie Mahtesian, 'and how that is leading to a creeping encroachment into every institution and corner of American life.' Metrinko's Bitter 'I Told You So Moment' ... In the leadup to the Iranian Revolution and the 1979-81 hostage crisis that tanked Jimmy Carter's presidency, Washington got rosy reports about what was going on in the country under its ally, the shah. But one diplomat had a different picture. He saw the trouble brewing on the horizon — but the government ignored his warnings, and he ended up being taken hostage himself. With tensions once again rising in the Middle East, 'the lesson for the current administration is the same as it was for its predecessors,' writes veteran war correspondent Scott Anderson. 'Government bureaucracy has a way of ignoring dissenting voices — and it does so at its own peril.' Conor Lamb Is Unfettered ... Conor Lamb got creamed in the 2022 Democratic Senate primary against now-Sen. John Fetterman, dismissed as a centrist stooge by the left. 'Progressives want you to know they're sorry about that,' writes Ben Jacobs. 'In light of Fetterman's seeming estrangement from the Democratic Party and his evolution into 'Trump's favorite Democrat,' the left has reconciled with Lamb, wondering if maybe they were a little too tough on the once up-and-coming lawmaker who had shot to national attention by winning a deep red district in a 2018 special election.' The Plan Netanyahu Doesn't Want You to Know About ... Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu 'wants us to believe, or at least wants the Trump administration to, that Israel has no alternative than to intensify the war,' writes Bernard Avishai. 'But this is not the case and hasn't been for the past 18 months. Hamas was never the necessary negotiating partner, or even the counterparty, to any deal that promised to succeed.' What might be, he says, is the Palestinian Authority — if it involves a range of Palestinian business leaders and their plans for the future. 'Indeed, the business community portends a new Palestinian leadership that can provide the know-how for economic rebuilding.' From the drafting table of editorial cartoonist Matt Wuerker. **Who Dissed? answer: It was White House spokesperson Taylor Rogers, in a statement to CNN. politicoweekend@

DOWNLOAD THE APP

Get Started Now: Download the App

Ready to dive into a world of global content with local flavor? Download Daily8 app today from your preferred app store and start exploring.
app-storeplay-store