Comment Opposing Opm Proposed Rule

[The below comment was formally submitted by the Steady State in response to a proposed rule, now in the public comment phase, which will create a “Schedule F” in the US Civil Service. Although ostensibly to improve “performance, accountability and responsiveness,” the actual intent is clear — to ensure that civil servants are loyal to a person, not to the country, and to create a government that furthers the interest of the President, his family, cronies and those who pay him in cash or services. We strongly encourage others to comment, as is provided by the Administrative Procedures Act — go to this link to submit a comment, or read the regulation and the comments other have made]

April 30, 2025

The Steady State is an organization of over 270 former senior national security professionals, including alumni of the Central Intelligence Agency, Department of State, Department of Defense, Federal Bureau of Investigation, and other agencies within the Intelligence Community. We write to express our strong opposition to the Office of Personnel Management’s proposed rule that would facilitate political reclassification of career civil servants—such as through a revived or expanded Schedule F authority—and thereby erode the core merit-based, nonpartisan character of the federal workforce.

Our concern is not academic. This proposed rule strikes at the heart of what makes our national security system work: the integrity, continuity, and political independence of career professionals who serve administrations of both parties, guided by law, fact, and mission—not political loyalty.

1. The Rule Would Create a De Facto Spoils System

Despite being framed as a matter of administrative efficiency or accountability, this rule would, in practice, enable political appointees to convert large swaths of the civil service into at-will employees, dismissible for any reason or none at all. This mechanism undermines over a century of bipartisan consensus about the importance of an apolitical civil service—particularly in agencies charged with defending the nation.

The civil servants who populate our national security agencies—analysts, diplomats, cybersecurity professionals, military strategists, intelligence collectors—would become vulnerable to dismissal based on ideological conformity or perceived disloyalty. The message would be unmistakable: fidelity to political leadership, not expertise or service to the Constitution, determines job security.

2. Politicizing National Security Functions Endangers the Country

Career professionals in the intelligence and national security fields are often tasked with bringing uncomfortable truths to power. The ability to deliver unvarnished, nonpartisan analysis is essential to effective national defense. When these professionals must fear retribution for failing to echo the political preferences of their superiors, the result is distorted intelligence, self-censorship, and dangerous groupthink.

In short, the proposed rule would pollute the stream of intelligence by incentivizing career officials to shape their findings to suit the expectations of political appointees. Policy would no longer be informed by intelligence; intelligence would be pressured to justify policy—a reversal that has historically led to strategic failure and loss of life.

3. Appearance and Reality of Independence Must Be Preserved

The United States relies on the credibility of its civil service—not just to ensure competent governance, but also to reassure allies, deter adversaries, and inspire public trust. The perception that key agencies are beholden to partisan agendas undermines global confidence in American resolve and reliability. It weakens morale within the ranks. It compromises our democratic values.

By creating a legal framework that allows a future administration to demand political loyalty from career civil servants, this rule invites precisely the kind of corrosive politicization the civil service system was designed to prevent.

Conclusion

The Steady State urges OPM in the strongest possible terms to withdraw the proposed rule and reaffirm the enduring principle that career civil servants, particularly those in national security roles, must be free to serve the public interest without fear or favor.

Nonpartisanship is not a bureaucratic nicety—it is a national security imperative.