Young people who aspired to government service dismayed by Trump ending the federal fellows program
For decades, the Presidential Management Fellows program was seen as a building block for the civil service with the expectation that the few who earned the position would one day become leaders in the federal workforce. Now the road ahead is uncertain. Hundreds of the fellows have been terminated or placed on administrative leave amid a nationwide slashing of the federal workforce.
One of President Donald Trump's executive orders ended the program, which was created in 1978 to entice highly qualified workers with advanced degrees to join the federal government.
Trump's Republican administration had ordered agencies to lay off nearly all probationary employees, potentially affecting hundreds of thousands of workers in one fell swoop. That included recent classes of the fellows program, which has a two-year probationary period.
Fellows had persevered through an intense selection process that included multiple tests and evaluations as well as a blind interview. The agency website said about 10% of applicants are accepted, although that number has been recently as low as just 3%.
Charles Conyers, an Office of Personnel Management retiree who was a fellow in the class of 2003, said he was saddened and puzzled about the administration eliminating a program that brought to the government some of the 'brightest minds in America.' He said losing their skills and ending a program that attracted and groomed exceptional future leaders was tragic.
While many fellows affected by the job cuts were reluctant to speak on the record, several did. As a group, they said they loved their jobs and see federal civil service as a way to serve their country. All would welcome, if given a chance, the opportunity to get back to work and use their expertise.
'An incredible brain drain'
Jenn Kauffman, who has a background in public health and labor studies, was a semifinalist for the fellows program this year and had been waiting to hear if she would be accepted. As layoffs were announced, she began to worry if it would continue.
'I worked really hard and wanted that satisfaction to see it through,' she said.
On Feb. 19, during the week finalists would have been named, the Trump administration announced an executive order cutting the program.
Kauffman, 45, said she was crushed by the decision and worries that the mass layoffs and dissolution of the fellows program will forever change public service.
'It's so easy to decimate something but so much harder to rebuild,' she said. 'And I worry that the incredibly talented people who may have been my cohort or colleagues are going to go elsewhere, and there will be an incredible brain drain. It's such a loss for the American people.'
At the Forest Service, a perfect fit
Sydney Smith, 28, said many of the fellows were shocked at being let go because they came in to the government with ideas on how to make it more efficient.
Smith studied chemistry as an undergraduate student at Willamette University in Oregon before going on to study accounting at George Washington University. She heard about the presidential fellows program but was skeptical she would get in because of the low acceptance rate.
After she made it as a finalist in 2023, she started working for the U.S. Forest Service as an accountant. She's a backpacker who loves the outdoors and is passionate about making public lands accessible. It was a perfect fit.
Now Smith's goal is to finish the CPA exams, something she was doing to make herself even more qualified for federal service.
'I'm hopeful that in the future that there will be room for me in the government,' she said. 'I don't know what that would look like, but I am hopeful that it still exists.'
A high school dream derailed
McKenzie Hartman, 26, was an economist for the IRS research division in Ogden, Utah, when she received an email Feb. 19 that she should return to the office with all her equipment.
The next day, a manager collected her equipment and walked her out. On the way home, Hartman took a wrong turn because her mind was elsewhere.
'It felt surreal,' she said. 'I had planned on working for the federal government since high school.'
Hartman lost access to her office's video conferencing software and couldn't join her colleagues for her own goodbye gathering. She had to call in instead. Her termination letter came the following weekend.
'It's crazy to get a letter terminating you for performance when everyone around you is saying incredible things about your performance,' Hartman said.
Since then, she has been applying for jobs and embarked on a road trip with her partner through several national parks, where she's seen protests against the Trump administration's cuts.
'For a lot of us, there is a question on whether we'll return to federal service,' she said. 'Many of us would like to, and this was what we wanted for our careers, but it's demoralizing.'
A surprise, 'gut-wrenching' termination
Bianca Nelson, 31, had been working for the Department of Housing and Urban Development in the unit she calls the 'front door of HUD.' She never planned to leave. On Feb. 14, she got an email that she was terminated, effective immediately.
Nelson and her partner were planning to buy their first home that month — their 'dream apartment.' Now, they've had to lean on savings to keep them afloat. She called it 'gut-wrenching.'
She had to forward the termination email to her boss, who had not been told she or others would be fired. Days later, she picked up her belongings, including a bell given to her at a New York City Housing Authority groundbreaking ceremony — a memento representing her love for her work.
Since then, she has spent her days organizing paperwork for unemployment and insurance, taking networking calls, volunteering with her union, organizing a resource fair for other fired federal workers in her area and volunteering with housing advocacy organizations.
Ending the program, she said, is 'closing a pipeline to future leaders.'
Worrying about those who need help
Madeleine Parker's fellowship began in September 2023, one month after she finished her doctorate degree in city and regional planning from the University of California, Berkeley.
Parker, 32, chose to work in housing because of its importance in offering families stability. She said she had hoped to continue working for the federal government.
'It's been hard to step back from that,' she said.
She is trying to strategize on what comes next while worrying about the people who need the help.
'There's the personal impact of my own job, but I have this immense concern about the impacts on the people we serve, from the programs I worked on and that my colleagues worked on, from affordable housing development to disaster recovery,' she said.
'We made a difference'
Juliane Alfen, 25, left her workplace at the U.S. Agency for International Development in tears, exiting to cheers from supporters who protested the abrupt way one of the world's preeminent aid organizations had been decimated.
A 2023 fellow, her goal was to build a life and career around federal service.
Alfen learned of the fellowship through her graduate school program in international affairs at the University of California, San Diego. The day she learned she'd made it to finalist, she said, 'I literally screamed and called my mom on the phone.' There had been more than 10,000 initial applicants.
Now, when she looks at her LinkedIn account, everyone is job hunting. She said she would love the opportunity to return to USAID, though the prospects for that are uncertain given the Trump administration's gutting of the agency through his adviser Elon Musk's Department of Government Efficiency and halting its humanitarian work.
'I feel,' Alfen said, 'like we made a difference.'
Hashtags

Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles

Yahoo
10 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Fed minutes: Most officials worried about inflation moving higher
WASHINGTON (AP) — Most Federal Reserve officials said last month that the threat of higher inflation was a greater concern than the potential for job losses, leading the central bank to keep its key rate unchanged. According to the minutes of the July 29-30 meeting, released Wednesday, members of the Fed's interest-rate setting committee 'assessed that the effects of higher tariffs had become more apparent in the prices of some goods but that their overall effects on economic activity and inflation remained to be seen.' The minutes underscored the reluctance among the majority of the Fed's 19 policymakers to reduce the central bank's short-term interest rate until they get a clearer sense of the impact of President Donald Trump's sweeping tariffs on inflation. So far inflation has crept up in the past couple of months but hasn't risen as much as many economists feared when Trump unveiled some of his duties. The Fed left its key interest rate unchanged last month at about 4.3%, though two members of its governing board dissented in favor of a rate cut. Both dissenters — Christopher Waller and Michelle Bowman — were appointed to the board during Trump's first term. At a news conference after the meeting, Chair Jerome Powell signaled that it might take significant additional time for the Fed to determine whether Trump's sweeping tariffs are boosting inflation. When the Fed changes its rate, it often — though not always — affects borrowing costs for mortgages, auto loans, and credit cards. The Fed typically keeps its rate high, or raises it, to cool borrowing and spending and combat inflation. It often cuts its rate to bolster the economy and hiring when growth is cooling. Christopher Rugaber, The Associated Press Error in retrieving data Sign in to access your portfolio Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data
Yahoo
10 minutes ago
- Yahoo
People Are Calling Trump's Latest Truth Social Rant "Outrageous" After He Slammed American Museums For Discussing "How Bad Slavery Was"
It's been 159 years since slavery was legally abolished in the U.S, and yet, in 2025, discussing the history of slavery has seemingly become too "woke" for the MAGA crowd. During a recent CNN panel discussion, MAGA-supporting celebrity Jillian Michaels shocked her colleagues after she argued that slavery shouldn't be blamed on "just one race," — meaning white Americans. CNN / Twitter: @Acyn Related: Well, President Donald Trump recently took to Truth Social to argue a similar point, criticizing American museums that discuss "how bad slavery was," calling them "woke" and "out of control." He wrote that he's instructed his attorneys to "go through the museums" and make changes to reflect "success" and "brightness." Here's the full post. Related: The now-viral post has been seen by over 10.2 million people and received thousands of comments criticizing Trump for his rhetoric. One person called Trump "out of his damn mind," and advocated for the history of slavery to be taught "again and again." Related: Another person described Trump's post as "pro slavery rhetoric." While this person called the president "fragile" for feeling attacked by teaching slavery. Representative Jim McGovern advised Trump to "spend more time in a museum." Related: And Gov. Gavin Newsom accused Trump of trying to "erase" slavery... And finally, this person asked: "Why do the same people who want to erase the history of slavery insist on preserving the Confederate flag and generals?" What are your thoughts? Let us know in the comments below. Also in In the News: Also in In the News: Also in In the News:
Yahoo
10 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Trump's D.C. Goon Squads Are Un-American
When President Donald Trump first declared a crime emergency in the nation's capital and sent hundreds of federal law enforcement agents to patrol its streets, this district resident had a hard time taking it too seriously. The initial images of bored Drug Enforcement Administration agents strolling past perplexed joggers on the National Mall were more clownish than carceral. Local street resistance to the occupation was limited to a drunk guy throwing a sandwich at a federal agent. But inevitably, as this operation has dragged on, things have taken a darker turn. The sandwich-thrower was overcharged and rearrested in a needless, publicized show of force. Masked federal agents have set up an unconstitutional checkpoint, violently arrested at least one delivery driver, and filmed themselves tearing down a banner protesting their presence in the city. Each day, more and more National Guard members pour into the capital. The conversation about Trump's declared crime emergency has understandably, albeit unhelpfully, provoked a lot of discourse about how safe D.C. is, whether a federalized local police department will make it safer, whether federal agents are being deployed in the right places and going after the right crimes, and on and on. This incessant crime conversation has distracted from just how un-American Trump's show of force in the nation's capital is. Uniformed troops and masked federal agents doing routine law enforcement at the command of the president is just not how we do things in the United States. The entire point of the U.S. Constitution is to prevent the federal government from becoming a despotism, and one of the primary ways it does this is by limiting how many men with guns it has at its disposal. This is why the Constitution places strict constraints on maintaining a standing army. It's why there are only three crimes mentioned in the Constitution, none of which would plausibly require federal agents to patrol U Street. It's why questions of what to criminalize and who to prosecute were largely left up to the states. The Third Amendment is mostly treated as an anachronistic joke today. In fact, it is a load-bearing part of the Constitution that makes clear that the military and the police are different things and that Americans should not have to tolerate the presence of armed agents of the states as a routine part of daily life. Obviously we've deviated considerably from this ideal since the founding generation. The federal criminal code is now extensive. The feds' wars on drugs, terror, and immigration have grown the number of militarized federal agents doing law enforcement activities. Federal money has subsidized a similar trend of militarization of state and local police forces. Reason has been decrying this trend for decades. In his book Rise of the Warrior Cop, Radley Balko writes about how the trend of increased police militarization has eroded the "Symbolic Third Amendment" and the free society it protects. It's darkly ironic then that, after decades of politicians of both parties in D.C. gifting the federal government vast powers to police the rest of the country, a militarized federal police force is now being deployed on the streets of America's capital against its residents. This is why arguments about whether federal agents could be more effectively deployed in less visible, higher crime areas of the city are completely beside the point. The federal government acting as a beat cop is inimical to our constitutional design, regardless of how effective its efforts are. That D.C. is a federal district might seem to complicate this point. In fact, it reinforces it. Despite being a constitutionally peculiar special district, a lot of effort has been put into giving D.C. a local police force that does not practically function as an arm of the federal government. Even in the seat of federal power, it's understood that a force of federal agents policing everyday life is not something ordinary citizens should have to put up with. That Trump has the power to federalize the D.C. police or deploy the D.C. National Guard doesn't stop his actions from being authoritarian and offensive to the spirit of the Constitution, even if it doesn't violate the letter of it. It's also cold comfort that Trump's declared crime emergency is clearly mostly a performative act to rile up the libs and not a serious effort at combating crime. While the president is staging the performance, it's disconcerting that he's opted to cast himself as the villain in the play. Moreover, the longer federal agents are deployed on D.C. streets, the greater the odds that more serious abuses do happen. It's true that D.C. today is not as locked down as it has been in recent years. The police-enforced curfews during the George Floyd protests or the security cordons that sprang up after the January 6 riots were a lot more visible and heavy-handed. Excessive as those police actions were (particularly the latter), they were at least being done as an emergency response to widespread breakdowns in public order. Trump is rolling out the feds in D.C. to do routine law enforcement. That's un-American. The post Trump's D.C. Goon Squads Are Un-American appeared first on Solve the daily Crossword