The Impact of a New Trump Administration’s Policy on Agencies

By Mike Copperman

President Biden and former President Donald Trump have secured the necessary number of delegates to clinch their party’s presidential nomination, paving the way for the inevitable rematch between the 2020 rivals. The consequences of the potential return of former President Trump to the White House has stirred significant discussion around the structure and operation of the federal government. Trump’s outlined intentions, focusing on the dissolution of certain government agencies and the displacement of a vast number of federal employees, underscores what would be a transformative vision for the federal bureaucracy. 

Amidst this backdrop, the Office of Personnel Management (OPM) has proposed a rule to hinder the reclassification of federal employees, a move seen as a bulwark against the potential impact of a future administration’s personnel decisions. This rule, anticipated to be finalized in April, represents a strategic effort to solidify the stability and integrity of the federal workforce by preventing mass terminations and the subsequent insertion of political loyalists.

The discourse surrounding these developments illuminates the profound ideological divide between the Biden Administration’s supporters and those aligned with Trump. The former group emphasizes the importance of a resilient, impartial civil service as the bedrock of democratic governance and public trust. In contrast, critics, including some aligned with Trump’s vision, argue that the existing protections for federal workers obstruct the implementation of conservative policies, suggesting that the federal workforce has become ideologically skewed.

This contention extends beyond personnel policies to encompass broader strategies aimed at reshaping the government’s structure and its approach to policy implementation. Examples include relocating certain agency headquarters under the Trump administration, a move critics say was designed to disrupt operations and diminish regulatory oversight.

The dynamic interplay of these perspectives reveals a fundamental debate over the nature and direction of federal governance in the United States. Advocates for limiting presidential power and safeguarding employee protections argue that these measures are essential for ensuring that the government remains a servant to the public, capable of executing its duties irrespective of the prevailing political climate.

Conversely, those advocating for a more streamlined approach to governance, characterized by enhanced executive flexibility and a reduced bureaucratic footprint, view these protections as impediments to effective administration and policy innovation.

Legal frameworks and congressional actions have also emerged as critical tools in this debate. The crafting of new rules, the potential for litigation, and legislative amendments responding to the challenges encountered during the Trump presidency reflect a concerted effort to fortify the structural foundations of the U.S. government against perceived threats to its functionality and integrity.

This complex narrative underscores a pivotal moment in American politics, where the contours of federal governance, the balance of power, and the role of the civil service are being contested with renewed vigor. As these debates unfold, the outcome may well redefine the relationship between the executive branch and the broader federal bureaucracy, with lasting implications for the formulating and implementing  public policy in the United States.