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 The Fulcrum's cross partisan analysis of Project 2025 relies on unbiased critical thinking, reexamines outdated assumptions, and uses reason, scientific evidence, and data in analyzing and critiquing Project 2025.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 It was rescinded by President Joe Biden as soon as he took office in January 2021.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.

Sign up for The Fulcrum newsletter

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

    Notre Dame at night

    People gather to watch the reopening ceremony of the Notre Dame Cathedral on Dec. 7.

    Telmo Pinto/SOPA Images/LightRocket via Getty Images

    Cherishing our institutions: Notre Dame’s miraculous reopening

    We witnessed a marvel in Paris this weekend.

    When a devastating 2019 fire nearly brought Notre Dame Cathedral to the ground, President Emanuel Macron set the ostensibly impossible goal of restoring and reopening the 860-year-old Gothic masterpiece within five years. Restorations on that scale usually take decades. It took almost 200 years to complete the cathedral in the first place, starting in 1163 during the Middle Ages.

    Could Macron’s audacious challenge — made while the building was still smoldering — be met?

    Keep ReadingShow less
    Two men sitting on a couch

    Sen. Marco Rubio (left), President-elect Donald Trump's nominee to be the next secretary of state, meets with Sen. Lindsey Graham on Dec. 3, in advance of Senate confirmation hearings.

    Bill Clark/CQ-Roll Call, Inc via Getty Images

    Does it take six months on average for the Senate to confirm a president's nominees?

    This fact brief was originally published by Wisconsin Watch. Read the original here. Fact briefs are published by newsrooms in the Gigafact network, and republished by The Fulcrum. Visit Gigafact to learn more.

    Does it take six months on average for the US Senate to confirm a president's nominees?

    Yes.

    The average time the U.S. Senate takes to approve nominees to a president’s administration is more than six months.

    The nonprofit Center for Presidential Transition reported that as of Nov. 11, 2024, the average number of days has more than doubled under presidents elected since the 1980s:

    Keep ReadingShow less
    Closed pharmacy

    Pharmacies are closing all across the United States.

    J. Michael Jones/Getty Images

    28 miles to the nearest pharmacy? For many, that's the only option.

    Pharmacies in the United States are closing at an alarming rate. The ACT Pharmacy Collaborative, a partnership between community pharmacy networks and academia, reported that 244 pharmacies closed in just the first six weeks of 2024. Similarly, Rite-Aid has closed 500 stores, CVS will close another 300 stores by the end of the year and Walgreens will close 1,200 over the next three years.

    In my home state of Oregon, pharmacists are constantly facing untenable scenarios. At a recent hearing, a pharmacist from a rural community testified how a woman from a neighboring town called his pharmacy late in the day needing to urgently fill a prescription. Unfortunately, the only pharmacy in her town had permanently closed, so she was stuck frantically attempting to locate someone who took their insurance and had the medication in stock. His pharmacy had the medication, so while she drove 28 miles on rural roads, the pharmacy stayed open — 30 minutes after closing because that’s what pharmacists do. We take care of patients.

    Keep ReadingShow less
    Black and white photo of a man at a desk and on the phone

    Justice Robert H. Jackson's concurring opinion in a 1952 Supreme Court case provides necessary guidance for understanding the powers of the presidency.

    Presidents need some leeway, but they do not have absolute authority

    Robert H. Jackson was a towering figure in American jurisprudence. The only jurist to serve as solicitor general, attorney general and associate justice of the U.S. Supreme Court, Jackson was a fierce defender of the rule of law. He was also a noted empath. He felt duty-bound to pause his tenure on the high court to prosecute Nazi war criminals in Nuremberg. His impressive legacy on and off the bench is secure.

    Jackson’s long and distinguished legal career is probably best remembered for a single concurring opinion in a celebrated separation of powers case.

    Keep ReadingShow less