Skip to content
Search

Latest Stories

Top Stories

Project 2025: The Schedule F threat to democracy

President Trump

Former President Donald Trump's platform includes reinstating Schedule F on "day one" of his second term.

Alex Wong/Getty Images

Barker is a program officer at the Charles F. Kettering Foundation and the lead editor of the foundation’s blog series “From Many, We.”

This is part of a series offering a nonpartisan counter to Project 2025, a conservative guideline to reforming government and policymaking during the first 180 days of a second Trump administration. The Fulcrum's cross partisan analysis of Project 2025 relies on unbiased critical thinking, reexamines outdated assumptions, and uses reason, scientific evidence, and data in analyzing and critiquing Project 2025.

One small change to the rules classifying federal employees could significantly advance the U.S. toward authoritarianism. Project 2025, the Heritage Foundation’s plan to staff the government with far-right movement activists, hinges on an executive order that could be implemented with surprising ease.

While much attention has been paid to the initiative’s extremist policy agenda, a rules change called Schedule F would massively expand presidential power and fundamentally change the character of the federal government. Understanding the Schedule F threat is critical to stopping it.


What is Schedule F?

Schedule F is an executive order that former President Donald Trump issued in October 2020 to remove the employment protections that prevent career government employees from being replaced for partisan reasons. It was rescinded by President Joe Biden as soon as he took office in January 2021. If Schedule F were to be reinstated, the president would be virtually free to fire dedicated civil servants and replace them with loyalists and ideologues.

Although the Project 2025 website does not specifically refer to Schedule F, this obscure rule change is essentially synonymous with the Heritage Foundation’s initiative to install as many as 50,000 conservative movement activists in the government. The reinstatement of Schedule F on “day one” is also the first step of Trump’s campaign platform, Agenda47, under which he plans to “dismantle the deep state.

How does Schedule F threaten democracy?

By politicizing the civil service, Schedule F could have numerous, far-reaching implications for American democracy.

  • Abuse of power. Under Schedule F, presidents would be free to reward cronies and even family members with jobs or use law enforcement agencies to punish enemies and shut down protests, creating endless opportunities for corruption. Independent agencies that currently provide oversight and accountability, such as the Department of Justice, would be rendered useless.
  • Expansion of executive power. Schedule F, which was itself issued by executive order rather than legislation, would enable the president to effectively make policy without Congress. By invoking Schedule F, a president could also refuse to enforce existing legislation. The plan to expand executive power is informed by the “unitary executive theory,” which essentially removes any limits to presidential authority and is championed by conservative legal scholars.
  • A chilling effect. In a climate where any expression contrary to the president’s ideology could result in termination, government employees would be strongly discouraged from speaking out. Agencies obligated to tell the truth to the American people could be incentivized to suppress the truth and spread misinformation.
  • Trust in government. Trust in government is already historically low. By further politicizing the government and creating chaos within it, Schedule F could contribute to further polarization and mistrust, both of which could lead to further democratic backsliding.

According to scholar Don Moynihan, “ Schedule F would be the most profound change to the civil service system since its creation in 1883.” Schedule F demands urgent attention from every pro-democracy citizen and organization. Now is the time to raise awareness of this critical threat to American democracy.

Schedule F Resources

This article was initially published by the Charles F. Kettering Foundation.

More in The Fulcrum about Project 2025

    Read More

    Congress Bill Spotlight: Remove the Stain Act

    A deep look at the fight over rescinding Medals of Honor from U.S. soldiers at Wounded Knee, the political clash surrounding the Remove the Stain Act, and what’s at stake for historical justice.

    Getty Images, Stocktrek Images

    Congress Bill Spotlight: Remove the Stain Act

    Should the U.S. soldiers at 1890’s Wounded Knee keep the Medal of Honor?

    Context: history

    Keep ReadingShow less
    The Recipe for a Humanitarian Crisis: 600,000 Venezuelans Set to Be Returned to the “Mouth of the Shark”

    Migrant families from Honduras, Guatemala, Venezuela and Haiti live in a migrant camp set up by a charity organization in a former hospital, in the border town of Matamoros, Mexico.

    (Photo by Andrew Lichtenstein/Corbis via Getty Images)

    The Recipe for a Humanitarian Crisis: 600,000 Venezuelans Set to Be Returned to the “Mouth of the Shark”

    On October 3, 2025, the U.S. Supreme Court cleared the way for Department of Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem to end Temporary Protected Status for roughly 600,000 Venezuelans living in the United States, effective November 7, 2025. Although the exact mechanisms and details are unclear at this time, the message from DHS is: “Venezuelans, leave.”

    Proponents of the Administration’s position (there is no official Opinion from SCOTUS, as the ruling was part of its shadow docket) argue that (1) the Secretary of DHS has discretion to determine designate whether a country is safe enough for individuals to return from the US, (2) “Temporary Protected Status” was always meant to be temporary, and (3) the situation in Venezuela has improved enough that Venezuelans in the U.S. may now safely return to Venezuela. As a lawyer who volunteers with immigrants, I admit that the two legal bases—Secretary’s broad discretion and the temporary nature of TPS—carry some weight, and I will not address them here.

    Keep ReadingShow less
    For the Sake of Our Humanity: Humane Theology and America’s Crisis of Civility

    Praying outdoors

    ImagineGolf/Getty Images

    For the Sake of Our Humanity: Humane Theology and America’s Crisis of Civility

    The American experiment has been sustained not by flawless execution of its founding ideals but by the moral imagination of people who refused to surrender hope. From abolitionists to suffragists to the foot soldiers of the civil-rights movement, generations have insisted that the Republic live up to its creed. Yet today that hope feels imperiled. Coarsened public discourse, the normalization of cruelty in policy, and the corrosion of democratic trust signal more than political dysfunction—they expose a crisis of meaning.

    Naming that crisis is not enough. What we need, I argue, is a recovered ethic of humaneness—a civic imagination rooted in empathy, dignity, and shared responsibility. Eric Liu, through Citizens University and his "Civic Saturday" fellows and gatherings, proposes that democracy requires a "civic religion," a shared set of stories and rituals that remind us who we are and what we owe one another. I find deep resonance between that vision and what I call humane theology. That is, a belief and moral framework that insists public life cannot flourish when empathy is starved.

    Keep ReadingShow less
    The Myth of Colorblind Fairness

    U.S. Supreme Court

    Photo by mana5280 on Unsplash

    The Myth of Colorblind Fairness

    Two years after the Supreme Court banned race-conscious college admissions in Students for Fair Admissions, universities are scrambling to maintain diversity through “race-neutral” alternatives they believe will be inherently fair. New economic research reveals that colorblind policies may systematically create inequality in ways more pervasive than even the notorious “old boy” network.

    The “old boy” network, as its name suggests, is nothing new—evoking smoky cigar lounges or golf courses where business ties are formed, careers are launched, and those not invited are left behind. Opportunity reproduces itself, passed down like an inheritance if you belong to the “right” group. The old boy network is not the only example of how a social network can discriminate. In fact, my research shows it may not even be the best one. And how social networks discriminate completely changes the debate about diversity.

    Keep ReadingShow less