The introduction to this section is informational, iterating the major separate personnel agencies of the federal government and their duties – The Office of Personnel Management (OPM), the Merit Systems Protection Board (MSPB), the Federal Labor Relations Authority Board (FLRA), and the Office of Special Counsel (OSC.)

Then, the authors get into their specific recommendations.

“Since the turn of the 20th century, progressives have sought a system that could effectively select, train, reward, and guard from partisan influence the neutral scientific experts they believe are required to staff the national government and run the administrative state. Their U.S. system was initiated by the Pendleton Act of 188310 and institutionalized by the 1930s New Deal to set principles and practices that were meant to ensure that expert merit rather than partisan favors or personal favoritism ruled within the federal bureaucracy. Yet, as public frustration with the civil service has grown, generating calls to “drain the swamp,” it has become clear that their project has had serious unintended consequences.” (Project 2025, Section 1.3: Central Personnel Agencies: Managing the Bureaucracy, Donald Devine, Dennis Dean Kirk, and Paul Dans, pages 102 and 103.)

They apparently have an issue with staffing the government with nonpartisan experts. It follows logically that the alternative must be partisan bootlickers. While I can agree that the federal government is bloated in places and has its share of issues, I do not agree that the problem is “too many politically neutral experts.”

The authors go on to claim that government employee evaluations are back to pre-Carter/Reagan reform levels, “…with almost all (employees) rated successful or above, frustrating any relation between pay and performance.” (Project 2025, Section 1.3: Central Personnel Agencies: Managing the Bureaucracy, Donald Devine, Dennis Dean Kirk, and Paul Dans, pages 103 and 104.)

The authors appear to be referring to this article from the Government Accountability Office¹, which supports their claim that most government employees receive satisfactory performance reviews. In point of fact, however, “successful or above” means 3+ on a scale of 1-5. One would HOPE that the majority of one’s staff hit “average.” And in fact, this is normal for any corporation – consistently poor performers get fired (eventually), and most others, if they exceed expectations at all, are given average or above average ratings because their pay is tied to it. There is nothing unusual about any of this, either in the public or private sector.

Here’s where we take a turn: “Yet for the past 34 years, the U.S. civil service has been unable to distinguish consistently between strong and unqualified applicants for employment.” (Project 2025, Section 1.3: Central Personnel Agencies: Managing the Bureaucracy, Donald Devine, Dennis Dean Kirk, and Paul Dans, pages 103, paragraph 2.)

That’s an interesting claim. I’m not saying that every government employee is “strong”, but to suggest that nobody who is currently in a position to hire government workers can tell the difference between “strong” and “unqualified” is fairly ludicrous. There’s a broad chasm between “strong” and “unqualified”, and it’s rather easy to tell the difference, even as I suspect that they’re about to argue that the government hiring managers are somehow bureaucratically handicapped from “knowing” this information.

“As the Carter presidency was winding down, the U.S. Department of Justice and top lawyers at the OPM contrived with plaintiffs to end civil service IQ examinations because of concern about their possible impact on minorities.” (Project 2025, Section 1.3: Central Personnel Agencies: Managing the Bureaucracy, Donald Devine, Dennis Dean Kirk, and Paul Dans, page 103, paragraph 3.)

This is deliberately misleading. Civil Servants were subjected to a civil service exam, not an IQ test. And the exams were brought back starting in 2012. It is true that the Carter administration agreed to abolish it in 1981 after several discrimination cases. Under the Obama Administration, the OPM began to introduce an improved merit exam called USAHire (this is the one that was in test beginning in 2012.)

It’s interesting and telling that the authors would deliberately call it an IQ test when it isn’t, then point out that minorities were failing it. This is thinly veiled racism. They made a false statement about what kind of test it was, so that they could make an argument that minorities (must) have lower IQs, for no other reason but to be racist.

In truth, there were many reasons that minorities had lower pass rates on civil service exams at the time. These included unequal access to quality education, resource gaps, cultural bias in exam content, linguistic challenges, socioeconomic challenges, discriminatory practices, and more. In fact, there is a lot of proof that civil service examinations are intentionally discriminatory towards minorities². See also Guardians Assn. v. Civil Svc. Comm’n, 463 U.S. 582 (1983).³

Their recommendation, in a nutshell, is to bring back civil service exams across the board for the hiring of government employees. On its face, this is not an offensive recommendation, provided it can be accomplished without the discriminatory practices; a point the authors fail to make, likely because they’re not concerned about whether or not they discriminate against minority applicants.

The authors suggest that the threat of discrimination has discouraged honest employee reviews: “It is human nature that no one appreciates being told that he or she is less than outstanding in every way. Informing subordinates in a closely knit bureaucracy that they are not performing well is difficult. Rating compatriots is even considered rude and unprofessional. Moreover, managers can be and often are accused of racial or sexual discrimination for a poor rating, and this discourages honesty.” (Project 2025, Section 1.3: Central Personnel Agencies: Managing the Bureaucracy, Donald Devine, Dennis Dean Kirk, and Paul Dans, page 105, paragraph 4.)

Since when is “rating compatriots” – i.e., doing performance reviews in a professional setting – considered to be “rude and unprofessional”? Fact Check: “In a large number of these cases, it is common for an original discrimination allegation (on a basis other than retaliation) fail to establish a violation of the law, but the subsequent retaliation allegation results in a discrimination finding.” Source: EEOC.gov.⁴

Logically, a manager who isn’t afraid to retaliate in a discriminatory fashion isn’t going to be afraid to be honest in a performance review, and in fact, would likely rate the person lower than they deserved as part of that retaliation campaign. So I’m not buying the assertion that government personnel managers are afraid to be honest with people for fear of discrimination claims. Moreover, let’s say that they were. How does one resolve that problem that bureaucratic middle-managers are handcuffed by discrimination laws?

BY MAKING DISCRIMINATION LEGAL.

We’ve already seen that happen. The previous Trump administration rolled back protections for Muslims⁵, consumer protection laws⁶, supported “stop and frisk”⁷ (which involves racial profiling), rescinded Title IX guidance clarifying protections for transgender students⁸, enacted travel bans, and more. Here’s a comprehensive list.⁹

Trump opposed the Equality Act¹⁰, appointed anti-LGBTQ judges¹¹, and submitted amicus briefs to the Supreme Court¹² supporting discrimination against LGBTQ people. He banned transgender people from serving in the military¹³, against the advice of military leadership. Trump’s DOJ upended previous DOJ interpretations of the Civil Rights Act that protect transgender and nonbinary people from employment discrimination. Trump’s Department of Labor issued a regulation designed to allow federal contractors to claim a religious exemption to fire LGBTQ workers¹⁴ because of their sexual orientation or identity. The list goes on, and on, and on.¹⁵

The 2024 Trump campaign (as well as Project 2025) promise to roll back public and private diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) practices and training, and censor discussions of any concepts deemed “divisive” from our nation’s classrooms (by which it means any discussions about race, gender, and systemic oppression with which it disagrees.) Trump has even promised to cut funding to schools that touch on these “disfavored” subjects, and rescusitate the discredited 1776 commission.¹⁶ One needs only to read this website to understand what Trump and Project 2025 are planning in terms of legalizing discrimination.

“These policies would, of course, trample on students’ and educators’ constitutional rights. They would also cause palpable harm to educational outcomes and the basic civil liberties of both students and teachers. Research has shown that an inclusive K-12 and college curriculum and environment is a significant contributor to the retention and academic success of not just students of color, but all students. Policies eradicating DEI programming and curricula are not only unlawful; they also actively undermine students’ ability to thrive.” Source: The ACLU, Trump on DEI and Anti-Discrimination Law, July 2, 2024.¹⁷

It gets worse and weirder – Trump’s allies are planning, upon his would-be return to office, to change the government’s interpretation of Civil Rights-era laws to focus on “anti-white racism”¹⁸ rather than discrimination against people of color. “Trump campaign spokesperson Steven Cheung told Axios: “As President Trump has said, all staff, offices, and initiatives connected to Biden’s un-American policy will be immediately terminated.”

It’s no surprise that Trump caters to white grievance politics. Studies show that those who believe that white people in the United States experience racial discrimination are more likely to believe that our elections are corrupt.¹⁹ Put succinctly, racially aggrieved white people are more inclined to buy his “big lie.” That’s his audience. Here’s another source on that.²⁰

Whew! Bit of a digression there. Back to Project 2025.

“Both safety and justice demand that managers learn to act strategically to hire good and fire poor performers legally. The initial paperwork required to separate poor or abusive performers (when they are infrequently identified) is not overwhelming, and managers might be motivated to act if it were not for the appeals and enforcement processes.” (Project 2025, Section 1.3: Central Personnel Agencies: Managing the Bureaucracy, Donald Devine, Dennis Dean Kirk, and Paul Dans, page 107, paragraph 1.)

They’re arguing here for removing protections for federal workers to appeal unfair dismissals. “Poor performers” here is code for “people who disagree with our agenda.” “This (meaning these regulations and protections) keeps even the best managers from bringing cases in all but the most egregious cases of poor performance or misconduct.” (Project 2025, Section 1.3: Central Personnel Agencies: Managing the Bureaucracy, Donald Devine, Dennis Dean Kirk, and Paul Dans, page 107, paragraph 5.)

“With the proper limitation of labor union actions, the FLRA should have limited reason for appeals. The EEOC’s federal employee section should be transferred to the MSPB, and many of the OCS’s investigatory functions should be returned to the OPM. The MSPB could then become the main reviewer of adverse actions, greatly simplifying the burdensome appeal process.” (Project 2025, Section 1.3: Central Personnel Agencies: Managing the Bureaucracy, Donald Devine, Dennis Dean Kirk, and Paul Dans, page 108, paragraph 1.)

Here, they’re arguing for limiting the ability for labor unions to protect workers’ rights, particularly in the areas of discrimination and fair labor practices. They’re also proposing consolidating the EEOC (Equal Employment Opportunity Commission) into the MSPB (Merit Systems Protection Board), which would dilute the specialized focus that the EEOC has on discrimination issues in the federal workforce. Returning investigatory functions to the OPM (Office of Personnel Management) could create conflicts of interest, as the OPM would be responsible for both managing personnel policies and investigating violations, potentially leading to less rigorous oversight.

In short, a disastrous, discriminatory, and union-busting series of policy proposals.

The authors go on to argue for reducing pay and compensation packages for government employees, citing a “study” they did themselves which found that government employees were overpaid compared to similar private-sector jobs by 30-40%. (Project 2025, Section 1.3: Central Personnel Agencies: Managing the Bureaucracy, Donald Devine, Dennis Dean Kirk, and Paul Dans, page 108, paragraph 3.) Fact Check: According to the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics, government workers earn about 27.54% less²¹ than private sector workers in similar jobs.

Side Note: As a whole, Project 2025 tends towards twisting the facts to their ends – most of what they claim has some factual basis upon which they base their premises. In this case, however, the facts do not support their desired supposition, so they (The Heritage Foundation) “conducted a study”, then used the specious study to support their premise, proving that they are not above the wholesale manufacture of “facts.”

In effect, this is an argument to reduce the federal budget by cutting pay for its workers. The authors go on in the following pages to propose cutting retirement benefits for government employees as well.

“…the Trump Administration issued Executive Order 1395724 to make career professionals in positions that are not normally subject to change as a result of a presidential transition but who discharge significant duties and exercise significant discretion in formulating and implementing executive branch policy and programs an exception to the competitive hiring rules and examinations for career positions under a new Schedule F.” (Project 2025, Section 1.3: Central Personnel Agencies: Managing the Bureaucracy, Donald Devine, Dennis Dean Kirk, and Paul Dans, page 112, paragraph 5.)

I wouldn’t blame you if your eyes crossed trying to make sense of that. This executive order was reversed by Biden. It is another mechanism for completely staffing the government with loyalists to the President and his agenda, not to the country.

The authors argue more for limiting union representation in the government. They point out that Trump’s three executive orders doing this (#13836, #13837, #13839) were reversed by Biden and “should be reinstated by the next Administration.” (Project 2025, Section 1.3: Central Personnel Agencies: Managing the Bureaucracy, Donald Devine, Dennis Dean Kirk, and Paul Dans, page 114, paragraph 1.)

“Congress should also consider whether public-sector unions are appropriate in the first place. The bipartisan consensus up until the middle of the 20th century held that these unions were not compatible with constitutional government. After more than half a century of experience with public-sector union frustrations of good government management, it is hard to avoid reaching the same conclusion.” (Project 2025, Section 1.3: Central Personnel Agencies: Managing the Bureaucracy, Donald Devine, Dennis Dean Kirk, and Paul Dans, page 114, paragraph 2.)

Public-sector unions are a well-established and legally supported part of the labor landscape in the United States, and have been since 1962 when Kennedy signed EO #10988, granting federal employees the right to unionize. The authors are arguing for reversing this order.

“The specific deficiencies of the federal bureaucracy – size, levels of organization, inefficiency, expense, and lack of responsiveness to political leadership – are rooted in the progressive ideology that unelected experts can and should be trusted to promote the general welfare in just about every area of social life.” (Project 2025, Section 1.3: Central Personnel Agencies: Managing the Bureaucracy, Donald Devine, Dennis Dean Kirk, and Paul Dans, page 115, paragraph 3.)

They’ve brought it back full-circle here to the idea that the government contains far too many experts in their fields and not nearly enough partisan loyalists. They’re attributing this to “progressive ideology” rather than simply common sense.

They conclude: “…the only real solution is for the national government to do less: to decentralize and privatize as much as possible and then ensure that the remaining bureaucracy is managed effectively along the lines of the enduring principles set out in detail here.” (Project 2025, Section 1.3: Central Personnel Agencies: Managing the Bureaucracy, Donald Devine, Dennis Dean Kirk, and Paul Dans, page 115, paragraph 5.)