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 The Fulcrum's cross partisan analysis of Project 2025 relies on unbiased critical thinking, reexamines outdated assumptions, and uses reason, scientific evidence, and data in analyzing and critiquing Project 2025.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 It was rescinded by President Joe Biden as soon as he took office in January 2021.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

    People wearing vests with "ICE" and "Police" on the back.
    The latest shutdown deal kept government open while exposing Congress’s reliance on procedural oversight rather than structural limits on ICE.
    Getty Images, Douglas Rissing

    Where Can Immigration Enforcement Take Place?

    This nonpartisan policy brief, written by an ACE fellow, is republished by The Fulcrum as part of our partnership with the Alliance for Civic Engagement and our NextGen initiative — elevating student voices, strengthening civic education, and helping readers better understand democracy and public policy.

    The Origins: The Clinton Administration

    Keep ReadingShow less
    The Iran war could shape American policy for decades

    U.S. forces patrol the Arabian Sea near M/V Touska on April 20, 2026, after firing upon the Iranian-flagged vessel that the U.S. accused of attempting to violate the U.S. naval blockade of Iranian ports near the Strait of Hormuz.

    (U.S. Navy/Getty Images/TNS)

    The Iran war could shape American policy for decades

    The war with Iran that never really ended is back on. Like everybody else, including the Trump administration and the Iranian regime, I have no idea how it will end. But it eventually will, and how it will be remembered will matter enormously.

    Politics is about many things, but whether you call it “spin,” “framing” or “narrative competition,” storytelling is never far from the heart of it. As the philosopher Richard Rorty observed, “Competition for political leadership is in part a competition between differing stories about a nation’s self-identity, and between differing symbols of its greatness.”

    Keep ReadingShow less
    Presidential powers: Corporate abuses big concern after SCOTUS move

    An oil production operation is shown in North Dakota. With the U.S. Supreme Court granting more presidential powers to the executive branch, environmental groups warned key agencies will have a harder time going after polluters.

    (Adobe Stock)

    Presidential powers: Corporate abuses big concern after SCOTUS move

    A U.S. Supreme Court opinion issued last month expands presidential power over independent federal agencies, prompting warnings from environmental advocates about potential implications for states such as North Dakota.

    The court’s conservative majority said President Donald Trump had the authority to fire a former Federal Trade Commission member without cause. Legal observers countered the opinion nullifies longstanding precedent involving the role of Congress in insulating certain federal agency officials from direct presidential control.

    Keep ReadingShow less
    6 US Cities that Show America What Independent Leadership Looks Like

    Image: Downtown Riverside, California. By Matt Gush on Alamy.

    Provided: Image license obtained and used exclusively by IVN Editor Shawn Griffiths.

    6 US Cities that Show America What Independent Leadership Looks Like

    Independent candidates face structural barriers at every level of American politics—ballot access restrictions, fundraising disadvantages, and the near-total dominance of two-party infrastructure. The problem is only getting more stark with recent rulings such as this week’s NRSC v. FEC, where the Supreme Court ruled that First Amendment considerations bar limits on how much money political parties can spend in support of their candidates.But the absence of independent officeholders is not absolute. At the local level, a number of mayors governing major American cities have been elected outside of party structures, winning competitive races and building governing records, showing American voters what independent leadership can mean.

    While some of these officeholders are more closely affiliated with major parties than others, they have all publicly spoken on their independence.

    Keep ReadingShow less