Applicants for jobs in the Trump administration will no longer have to write essays that critics have blasted as loyalty oaths, according to a watchdog group that filed a formal complaint challenging the White House policy.
In a quick turnaround following complaints by Public Employees for Environmental Responsibility, the Office of Personnel Management has softened a requirement imposed in late May that federal job-seekers write four short essays, including an explanation of how they would “help implement” President Donald Trump’s agenda.
The essay requirement covering applicants for government jobs graded GS-05 and above specifically demanded an answer to the question “How would you help advance the President’s Executive Orders and policy priorities” in the job being sought.
“Asking federal job applicants how they feel about Trump has no place in the merit system. Such questions are highly inappropriate,” said PEER General Counsel Joanna Citron Day said in a statement Wednesday.
OPM’s original essay requirements were part of a May 29 “merit hiring plan” that declared a priority of hiring employees “passionate about the ideals of our American republic” while preventing the “hiring of individuals who are unwilling to defend the Constitution or to faithfully serve the Executive Branch.”
Formerly an attorney with the Interior and Justice departments as well as with EPA, Day helped prepare the complaint filed by PEER Executive Director Tim Whitehouse on June 11 with the Office of Special Counsel. On June 23, the OPM issued what it called “additional guidance” effectively backing off the earlier essay requirement.
The “additional guidance” still allows for the job application essays but states that essay answers “must not be used as a means of determining whether the candidate fulfills the qualifications of a position.” Instead, the OPM now likens the essay answers as something akin to a cover letter.
OPM also stated that the questions “must not be used to impose an ideological litmus test on candidates. If an applicant does not answer the questions along with their application, they will not be disqualified or screened out.”
The “additional guidance” was not publicly announced by the Office of Personnel Management but was brought to light following the PEER complaint.
“These changes may transform OPM’s use of the essays from an illegal screening tactic to a silly waste of time,” Citron Day said.
In a Monday letter to PEER, an Office of Special Counsel attorney advised that “OSC has concluded that OPM’s Additional Guidance resolves the concerns raised” in the whistleblower organization’s complaint.
“These clarifications should help prevent agencies from misusing the four questions in a manner as you describe, and OSC stands ready to help prevent such misuse,” wrote Senior Counsel Charles Baldis.
The Office of Special Counsel is an independent federal investigative agency that is designed to protect government workers and applicants from an array of “prohibited personnel practices.”
Federal law, for instance, states that agency officials who make hiring decisions shall not discriminate due to conduct that does not adversely affect job performance.
Citing jobs ranging from National Park Service rangers and Forest Service technicians to veterans’ claim adjustors, the PEER complaint stated that the essay requirement placed at a disadvantage those “job applicants who do not know about or support President Trump’s welter of Executive Orders and almost daily policy pronouncements.”
The complaint also asserted that the essay requirement “clearly appears designed to advantage Trump loyalists and disadvantage, or even disqualify, federal job applicants who are indifferent to or do not care for President Trump.”
“While OSC cannot conclude that the original Merit Hiring Plan constituted or directly encouraged a [prohibited personnel practice], we understand the concern that the four essay questions may be used by agencies in an improper way that could constitute such a violation,” Baldis wrote.
The Office of Personnel Management could not immediately be reached for comment Wednesday.
Earlier this year, the Office of Special Counsel reported receiving more than 2,000 complaints from former federal employees fired during their probationary period by the Trump administration.
The OSC rejected all of those claims, contending in a legal brief that “OPM’s efforts to encourage greater use by agencies of the probationary period is a welcome development.”
Trump has nominated Paul Ingrassia, a 30-year-old Cornell Law School graduate and former conservative podcaster, to serve as OSC director, in a move opposed by PEER and congressional Democrats.
