Politics
Column: Trump wants to turn the federal bureaucracy into an 'army of suck-ups.' Here's how that would be a disaster
If former President Trump wins the November election, he says one of his actions on “Day One,” right after he begins deporting millions of undocumented migrants, will be enacting a radical plan to force the federal bureaucracy to bow to his demands.
Like any president, Trump would undoubtedly stock the top levels of the government with loyal appointees. But he also intends to enforce his will by making it possible to fire lower-ranking federal employees for their political views.
“We will pass critical reforms making every executive branch employee fireable by the president,” Trump said early in his campaign. “The deep state must and will be brought to heel.”
The effects would be far-reaching.
If Trump gets his way, Justice Department prosecutors would immediately launch criminal investigations of President Biden, Vice President Kamala Harris, former President Obama and others who have incurred Trump’s wrath.
New appointees at the Internal Revenue Service would likely be ordered to audit prominent Democrats’ tax returns, an action Trump demanded during his first term.
Trump’s newest political ally, anti-vaccine crusader Robert F. Kennedy Jr., said last week that the nominee has asked him to oversee changes at the Food and Drug Administration, the National Institutes of Health and other public health agencies.
At the Pentagon, Trump has promised to fire senior military officers he considers “woke.” And he has vowed to purge the CIA and the FBI, accusing both agencies of “persecuting” conservatives and Christians in addition to investigating his 2016 presidential campaign.
Those jarring scenarios don’t spring from the imaginations of Trump’s critics. Trump has proposed them himself.
Underlying most of them is his promise to end civil service protections, a sweeping idea that has escaped public scrutiny because it is so wonky.
Trump said last year that he wants the authority to remove at will anyone he considers to be a “rogue bureaucrat.” “I will wield that power very aggressively,” he added.
Cabinet officials, agency chiefs and other political appointees are named to their jobs by the president and can already be fired at will.
But civil servants — officially nonpartisan officials who work under presidents of both parties — can be fired only for good cause, and they can appeal terminations to an independent review board.
The federal government’s civilian workforce of some 2.1 million includes only about 4,000 presidential appointees. Most of the others are civil servants, including FBI agents, NIH scientists, National Park rangers and IRS auditors — all of whom would be affected by the changes Trump has proposed.
‘An army of suck-ups’
Experts in federal administration say Trump’s proposal, known as “Schedule F” for the job category it would expand, is a bad idea.
“It would turn much of the civil service into an army of suck-ups,” said Robert Shea, a self-described conservative Republican who was a top official in the White House Office of Management and Budget under President George W. Bush.
Shea said he found civil servants’ untrammeled advice useful when he was a presidential appointee. “They told me when what I wanted to do was stupid. They advised me on whether it was legal or not,” he said. “But they also bent over backward to help me find better ways to do what we wanted to accomplish.”
The changes Trump has proposed, Shea said, “would mean that if you told your boss that what he or she was proposing was illegal, impractical [or] unwise, they could brand you as disloyal and terminate you.”
Donald F. Kettl, a retired professor of public administration at the University of Maryland, noted that if a new Trump administration fired just a few employees in each agency, the rest would quickly get the message.
“You could get transformation by intimidation,” he said.
Making civil servants fireable at will might sound at first as if it could make the bureaucracy more efficient. But in practice, it would open the way to more politically motivated decisions and abuses of power.
An IRS for auditing enemies
“The IRS is a perfectly good example,” Shea said. “If a political appointee asks someone to launch an audit without apparent cause, a civil servant could push back. But if Schedule F were in place, the civil servant could be fired.”
Retired Marine Gen. John F. Kelly, who served as Trump’s White House chief of staff in 2017 and 2018, said after Trump left office that the then-president had demanded that the IRS investigate several of his perceived enemies, including former FBI Director James B. Comey and Deputy Director Andrew G. McCabe.
The IRS, which was then headed by a Trump appointee, opened audits of both men’s tax returns after Kelly left the White House. A later investigation by the Treasury Department found no evidence that the audits were in response to Trump’s order.
Kelly told the New York Times in 2022 that Trump also wanted the IRS and the Justice Department to investigate former Secretary of State (and 2016 election rival) Hillary Clinton, former CIA Director John O. Brennan, Amazon founder Jeff Bezos and other people he saw as enemies.
“In a second term, there would no longer be a buffer of principled appointees who would stop him,” said Donald Moynihan, a University of Michigan professor.
Kettl noted that Project 2025, a policy blueprint prepared largely by former Trump aides, proposes making the IRS deputy commissioner in charge of enforcement, now a civil servant, into a presidential appointee. Trump has claimed he knows nothing about the report, although its lead author says he briefed the former president on its contents.
An anti-vax agenda at the FDA?
Even specialized agencies like the Food and Drug Administration would be vulnerable to the pressures created by Schedule F, Kettl warned.
What happens to scientists and policymakers at the FDA and other health agencies if Trump installs Kennedy and the anti-vaccine crusader pushes his lifelong agenda?
“Anyone who touches policy, or whose behavior seems to conflict with RFK [Jr.]’s policy positions, could be replaced. That certainly would apply to FDA’s role in approving vaccines,” Kettl said. “The potential for a massive shift is enormous. Will I be able to get a flu shot?”
Kennedy has said he’d like to change the focus of NIH, the world’s largest public funder of medical research, toward his favorite cause of chronic diseases like obesity and diabetes. “We’re going to give infectious disease a break for about eight years,” he said last year.
Justice Department
The Justice Department’s prosecutors have long prized a high degree of independence from political pressures. But Trump has said he wants the department to be “completely overhauled” and purged of anyone who participated in investigations of his past conduct.
“Since the Nixon administration, the department has made a commitment to pursue justice in a fair and evenhanded way, without political interference,” said Donald B. Ayer, who was the department’s second-ranking official under President George H.W. Bush. “But that commitment is a norm, not a law.”
“If you have a bad actor who wants to violate the rules, he can violate the rules,” he said.
Stripping career lawyers of civil service protections, he added, “could have a chilling effect on their willingness to give candid legal advice.” If those lawyers resign or are fired, he added, there may be no one left to object to Trump’s campaign of legal retribution. “Who’s going to stop him?” Ayer asked.
In Trump’s previous term, several of his top aides believed it was their duty to slow the president down when he proposed actions they considered illegal or unwise — such as his demand that the IRS audit his enemies, his suggestion that Army troops shoot unarmed demonstrators, or his frequent demands to pull the United States out of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization.
Trump later denounced those aides as “RINOs,” Republicans in name only, and promised to appoint true loyalists in a second term. There will be no moderating influences this time.
Combine that with Trump’s plan to end civil service protections, making internal dissent a firing offense, and you have a recipe for unrestrained one-man rule.
new video loaded: Jan. 6 Rioter Hired by Pentagon
transcript
transcript
Jan. 6 Rioter Hired by Pentagon
Elias Irizarry, who pleaded guilty to climbing through a broken window at the Capitol on Jan. 6, 2021, now works for an office responsible for uncovering and defending against terrorism plots at the Pentagon.
-
“Full pardon or commutation?” “Full pardon.”
By Alisa Shodiyev Kaff
June 4, 2026
NEWYou can now listen to Fox News articles!
Democrats splintered over a resolution seeking to block the U.S. from assisting Israel’s war against Hezbollah, an Iranian-backed terrorist group, on Thursday.
The measure, offered by progressive Rep. Rashida Tlaib, D-Mich., would require President Donald Trump to withdraw U.S. forces from Lebanon. For months, Israel and Hezbollah, a U.S.-designated terrorist group and Iranian proxy, have been at war in southern Lebanon, but the United States has not joined the conflict.
A bipartisan coalition of lawmakers, including House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries, D-N.Y., rejected the measure. Critics argued the resolution could aid Hezbollah and potentially hamstring U.S. military operations in the country.
Tlaib’s resolution failed 92-324, with more than half of House Democrats joining nearly all Republicans to vote it down.
The Lebanon war powers resolution divided Democrats, with House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries, D-N.Y., joining Republicans in rejecting the measure. (Aaron Schwartz/Bloomberg)
REP RASHIDA TLAIB MOVES TO BLOCK US OPERATIONS IN LEBANON BUT IGNORES HEZBOLLAH
Rep. Thomas Massie, R-Ky., an Israel critic, was the lone Republican to support Tlaib’s measure. Meanwhile, Reps. Derek Tran, D-Calif., and Betty McCollum, D-Minn., voted present.
House Democratic leaders said shortly before the vote they would oppose Tlaib’s resolution and work with the progressive lawmaker on a narrower measure exempting some U.S. military operations in the country. Their statement also denounced Hezbollah as a “violent terrorist organization” and a “sworn enemy of the United States.”
Tlaib, who has accused Israel of committing “ethnic cleansing” in Lebanon, did not mention Hezbollah in her resolution. She and other proponents of the measure also avoided discussing the Iranian proxy force during heated floor debate over the measure.
Republicans highlighted the omission and accused the legislation’s supporters of serving as “proxies for Hezbollah.”
“Apparently they don’t want to see Israel killing Hezbollah, even though it’s Hezbollah that is killing Israeli children, Israeli adults, Israeli elders,” House Foreign Affairs Committee Chairman Brian Mast, R-Fla., said Wednesday, referring to his Democratic colleagues.
Tlaib asserted that her resolution would only affect U.S. forces actively engaged in hostilities. Republicans, however, disputed that claim and suggested it would hurt U.S. efforts to counter Hezbollah.
“It doesn’t say anything about [whether] you can keep the Marines that are in the embassy,” Mast said, referring to the U.S. embassy in Beirut. “That’s a pretty big oversight. It doesn’t say anything about whether we can keep United States armed forces that are training missions with the LAF [Lebanese Armed Forces]. Again, pretty big oversight.”
Rep. Rashida Tlaib, a Democrat from Michigan, attempted to bar U.S. forces from joining Israel’s war in Lebanon. (Tierney L. Cross/Bloomberg)
RASHIDA TLAIB HIT WITH HOUSE CENSURE THREAT, ACCUSED OF ‘CELEBRATING TERRORISM’ IN PRO-PALESTINIAN SPEECH
The debate turned personal when Rep. Max Miller, R-Ohio, a member of the House Foreign Affairs Committee, linked Tlaib to Hezbollah.
“Hezbollah is a terrorist organization … and its members are butchers that you like to hang out with to a certain extent,” the Ohio lawmaker said, referring to Tlaib.
A shouting match between the two then broke out, with Tlaib demanding that Miller’s remarks be stricken from the record.
The presiding chair ultimately complied with her request, but Miller doubled down on his remarks.
CLICK HERE TO DOWNLOAD THE FOX NEWS APP
“Yes, I said it. I own it, and I stand by it,” Mast said on behalf of Miller on the floor.
Tlaib’s failed war powers resolution comes as Iran has sought to tie Israel’s invasion of Lebanon to its ceasefire negotiations with the United States.
Hezbollah, which has long helped Iran project power in the region, rejected a ceasefire agreement between Israel and Lebanon’s government Thursday.
WASHINGTON — Initial efforts in the Senate failed Thursday to block the $1.8-billion fund that the Trump administration has sought to establish to pay people who claim the government wronged them, though further attempts were likely to come Thursday afternoon.
Republicans narrowly voted down a Democratic amendment to ban the payout fund and then Democrats killed a Republican amendment, which would have prohibited the use of federal money for the fund but would have sent $1.7 billion to the Justice Department’s fraud division.
It was the second effort in Congress to rebuke President Trump in two days, following the House vote Wednesday to rein in Trump’s war powers in Iran.
The dueling amendments were proposed by Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.) and Sen. Thom Tillis (R-N.C.). They were attached to the reconciliation bill that would fund Immigration and Customs Enforcement and the Border Patrol, a high priority for Republicans.
The votes came as the Senate began a “vote-a-rama,” during which lawmakers were expected to propose a stream of amendments to the immigration bill on various topics.
The Trump administration’s plan for the payment fund — widely seen as a way for Trump to compensate his political allies, including those who participated in the Jan. 6, 2021, attack on the Capitol — set off particular ire from some GOP lawmakers.
The plan has fueled growing unrest within parts of Trump’s party over his governance, compounded by the president’s endorsement of primary challengers to Sens. John Cornyn (R-Texas) and Bill Cassidy (R-La.), as well as Rep. Thomas Massie (R-Ky.), which angered some Republican senators.
Cassidy, who lost his primary and has since voiced strong opposition to Trump’s $1.8-billion fund, became a key player in the Thursday votes, voting down Schumer’s amendment but supporting Tillis’.
On Wednesday, Cassidy joined with Sen. Cory Booker (D-N.J.) to argue in a court filing that the $1.8-billion fund circumvents Congress’ authority and violates the Constitution’s spending and appropriations clauses.
“It is an unconstitutional attempt to spend the People’s money without Congressional approval,” Cassidy and Booker wrote in an amicus brief filed in the federal court case challenging the fund.
The fund was created by the Justice Department to settle a lawsuit brought by Trump against the Internal Revenue Service over the leak of his tax returns. Trump and his sons agreed to drop their personal lawsuit against the government in exchange for the creation of the $1.776-billion fund. Critics immediately questioned the plan, and it drew a rare backlash from Republicans.
In late May, GOP senators derailed plans to vote on the immigration bill over their displeasure with the payout fund and with Trump’s desire to use taxpayer funds for his planned White House ballroom. Senate Republicans removed the ballroom funding from the immigration package Wednesday, another setback for Trump.
The Trump administration sought to back away from its plans for the fund this week, following bipartisan outcry and a federal court ruling that temporarily blocked any payouts from the fund. Acting Atty. Gen. Todd Blanche said Tuesday the administration would end its plans to move ahead with the concept.
But Trump on Wednesday told reporters he didn’t know whether the fund was dead, calling it “a beautiful thing.”
After Schumer proposed the first amendment to ban the fund Thursday morning, the Senate came to a standstill as three key Republican senators deliberated. Schumer framed his effort to ban the fund Thursday as a way to force a referendum on Trump’s plan.
The amendment “offers Republicans a choice: Do you support Donald Trump’s $2 billion taxpayer-funded slush fund, or do you want to protect the American people and their paychecks?” Schumer said on the Senate floor before the vote.
Sen. Bernie Moreno (R-Ohio) urged Republicans to reject the amendment, saying Democrats were planning to “play so many games” on Thursday during the marathon session.
“We are going to fund immigration enforcement and border patrol, and I urge my Republican colleagues to stay united on that singular mission,” Moreno said.
The amendment failed after Cassidy voted against it. Republican Sens. Susan Collins of Maine, Jon Husted of Ohio and Dan Sullivan of Alaska voted in favor.
Schumer’s amendment was uniformly supported by Democrats, including California Sens. Adam Schiff and Alex Padilla.
Tillis, who also voted against Schumer’s amendment, immediately proposed his amendment. Sen. Jeff Merkley (D-Oregon) urged Democrats to oppose it, saying that the proposal would create “a new slush fund” by giving the money to the Justice Department.
“We heard over the last 48 hours that the acting attorney general said that this fund’s not moving forward. All this amendment does is codify what I believe the policy of the DOJ is,” Tillis said on the floor before voting began on his amendment. “This [fund] is unpopular, this administration has said they’re not moving forward with it; this is an opportunity for us to put it to bed.”
Responded Merkley: “Taking one slush fund and eliminating it and then creating a new slush fund still under control of the attorney general is not the way to go. The way to go is to get rid of these slush funds altogether.”
Trump has faced a recent string of failures, including the House vote Wednesday, a court ruling to remove his name from the Kennedy Center and a record-low approval rating among Americans as concern rises about economic issues, gas prices and Trump’s war with Iran.
On Wednesday, Trump lashed out against the four Republicans who backed the House war powers resolution, calling it “an unpatriotic thing” to do and calling the vote “meaningless.”
“They’re GRANDSTANDERS! They should be ashamed of themselves. MAGA!!! President DJT,” Trump wrote.
Times staff writer Ana Ceballos, in Washington, contributed to this report.
-
Oregon2 minutes agoOregon resumes SNAP renewal interviews as advocates warn more could lose benefits
-
Pennsylvania5 minutes agoPennsylvania hunting licenses to soon go on sale
-
Rhode Island10 minutes agoRhode Island DCYF discloses fatality of 18-year-old
-
South-Carolina17 minutes agoDECISION 2026: What to know about primary elections in South Carolina
-
South Dakota20 minutes agoUSF becomes South Dakota’s first ‘cardiac ready’ campus
-
Tennessee25 minutes ago2026 Tennessee football preview: Grady Dangerfield
-
Texas32 minutes agoFort Worth police launch drone program to speed response times
-
Utah35 minutes agoGot cargo? Utah Highway Patrol, DPS want you to secure your load before you drive
