Skip to content
Search

Latest Stories

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 The Fulcrum's cross partisan analysis of Project 2025 relies on unbiased critical thinking, reexamines outdated assumptions, and uses reason, scientific evidence, and data in analyzing and critiquing Project 2025.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 It was rescinded by President Joe Biden as soon as he took office in January 2021.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

    Pro-Trump protestors
    Trump supporters who attempted to overturn the 2020 election results are now seeking influential election oversight roles in battleground states.
    Andrew Lichtenstein/Getty Images

    Loving Someone Who Thinks the Election Was Stolen

    He’s the kind of man you’d want as a neighbor in a storm.

    Big guy. Strong hands. The person you’d call if your car slid into a ditch. He lives rural, works hard, supports a wife and young son, and helps care for his aging mom. Life has not been easy, but he shows up anyway.

    Keep ReadingShow less
    Project 2025 Drives Trump’s State Dept Overhaul

    U.S. President Donald Trump in the Oval Office of the White House on December 15, 2025 in Washington, DC.

    (Photo by Anna Moneymaker/Getty Images)

    Project 2025 Drives Trump’s State Dept Overhaul

    In May 2025, I wrote about the Trump administration’s early State Department reforms aligned with Project 2025, including calls for budget cuts, mission closures, and policy realignments. At the time, the most controversial move was an executive order targeting the U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID), shutting it down and freezing all federal foreign aid. This decision reflected Project 2025’s recommendation to scale back and "deradicalize" USAID by eliminating programs deemed overly politicized or inconsistent with conservative values. The report specifically criticized USAID for funding progressive initiatives, such as policies addressing systemic racism and central economic planning, arguing that U.S. foreign aid had become a "massive and open-ended global entitlement program" benefiting left-leaning organizations. The process connecting the report’s ideological critiques to this executive action involved a strategic alignment between key administration officials and Project 2025 architects, who lobbied for immediate policy adjustments. This coalition effectively linked the critique to policy by framing it as a necessary step toward realigning foreign aid with national interests and conservative principles.

    Back then, I predicted even more sweeping changes to the State Department. Since May, several major developments have indeed reshaped the department:

    Keep ReadingShow less
    SNAP Isn’t a Negotiating Tool. It’s a Lifeline.
    apples and bananas in brown cardboard box
    Photo by Maria Lin Kim on Unsplash

    SNAP Isn’t a Negotiating Tool. It’s a Lifeline.

    Millions of families just survived the longest shutdown in U.S. history. Now they’re bracing again as politicians turn food assistance into a bargaining chip.

    Food assistance should not be subject to politics, yet the Trump administration is now requiring over 20 Democratic-led states to share sensitive SNAP recipient data—including Social Security and immigration details—or risk losing funding. Officials call it "program integrity," but the effect is clear: millions of low-income families may once again have their access to food threatened by political disputes.

    Keep ReadingShow less
    Democrats’ Redistricting Gains Face New Court Battles Ahead of 2026 Elections
    us a flag on white concrete building

    Democrats’ Redistricting Gains Face New Court Battles Ahead of 2026 Elections

    Earlier this year, I reported on Democrats’ redistricting wins in 2025, highlighting gains in states like California and North Carolina. As of December 18, the landscape has shifted again, with new maps finalized, ongoing court battles, and looming implications for the 2026 midterms.

    Here are some key developments since mid‑2025:

    • California: Voters approved Proposition 50 in November, allowing legislature‑drawn maps that eliminated three safe Republican seats and made two more competitive. Democrats in vulnerable districts were redrawn into friendlier territory.
    • Virginia: On December 15, Democrats in the House of Delegates pushed a constitutional amendment on redistricting during a special session. Republicans denounced the move as unconstitutional, setting up a legal and political fight ahead of the 2026 elections.
    • Other states in play:
      • Ohio, Texas, Utah, Missouri, North Carolina: New maps are already in effect, reshaping battlegrounds.
      • Florida and Maryland: Legislatures have begun steps toward redistricting, though maps are not yet finalized.
      • New York: Court challenges may force changes to existing maps before 2026.
      • National picture: According to VoteHub’s tracker, the current district breakdown stands at 189 Democratic‑leaning, 205 Republican‑leaning, and 41 highly competitive seats.

    Implications for 2026

    • Democrats’ wins in California and North Carolina strengthen their position, but legal challenges in Virginia and New York could blunt momentum.
    • Republicans remain favored in Texas and Ohio, where maps were redrawn to secure GOP advantages.
    • The unusually high number of mid‑decade redistricting efforts — not seen at this scale since the 1800s — underscores how both parties are aggressively shaping the battlefield for 2026.
    So, here's the BIG PICTURE: The December snapshot shows Democrats still benefiting from redistricting in key states, but the fight is far from settled. With courts weighing in and legislatures maneuvering, the balance of power heading into the 2026 House elections remains fluid. What began as clear Democratic wins earlier in 2025 has evolved into a multi‑front contest over maps, legality, and political control.

    Hugo Balta is the executive editor of the Fulcrum and the publisher of the Latino News Network