Swamp Drained: Trump Targets 50,000 Unelected Officials Resisting Change

The federal government has ballooned into a labyrinth of inefficiency, where unaccountable bureaucrats wield outsized influence over policy while dodging consequences for poor performance or outright misconduct. President Trump’s latest executive action, announced on April 18, 2025, through the Office of Personnel Management, confronts this crisis head-on. By proposing a rule to reclassify approximately 50,000 policy-influencing federal employees as at-will workers under the new Schedule Policy/Career framework, the administration is taking a decisive step to restore accountability and align the workforce with the will of the American people.

For too long, federal agencies have operated as fiefdoms, shielded by cumbersome regulations that make it nearly impossible to discipline or remove underperformers. Surveys paint a grim picture: less than a quarter of federal employees believe their agencies effectively address poor performance. The most common outcome for subpar workers? They stay in their roles, dragging down morale and productivity. This isn’t just a workplace issue; it’s a betrayal of the taxpayers who fund these positions and expect results.

Trump’s plan isn’t about punishing hardworking civil servants like Border Patrol agents or wage inspectors, who will largely remain unaffected. Instead, it targets those in policy-determining, policy-making, or confidential roles—positions that shape the direction of government. These employees, roughly 2% of the federal workforce, hold immense power to influence or obstruct the agenda of an elected president. The new rule ensures they can be swiftly removed for incompetence, corruption, or defiance, without the bureaucratic red tape that has long protected the unfit.

This move revives the spirit of Trump’s first-term Schedule F initiative, which President Biden hastily dismantled in 2021 to shield entrenched interests. The reinstatement of this policy, now refined and expanded, signals a renewed commitment to draining the swamp—a promise that resonates with Americans fed up with a government that seems to answer to itself rather than the electorate.

The case for reform is undeniable. A recent Merit Principles Survey revealed that federal employees themselves admit their agencies rarely hold poor performers accountable. The Government Accountability Office reports that removing an underperforming employee can take six months to a year, even before appeals. Only two-fifths of federal managers feel confident they can fire someone for serious misconduct, and just one-quarter believe they can remove an employee for failing at critical job duties. This paralysis breeds inefficiency and erodes public trust.

Worse, unaccountability fosters corruption. A 2023 audit of the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation exposed a toxic culture where senior leaders engaged in egregious misconduct, including male supervisors pressuring female subordinates for sexual favors in exchange for career advancement. Shockingly, not a single complaint to the agency’s Anti-Harassment program led to a removal or demotion. The auditors pinned the blame on a removal process so convoluted it deterred meaningful discipline. If this is what passes for oversight in our federal agencies, the system isn’t just broken—it’s complicit.

Then there’s the issue of bureaucratic sabotage. During Trump’s first term, career attorneys in the Department of Justice’s Civil Rights Division refused to assist in litigation against Yale University for discriminatory admissions practices. Employees at the Department of Education dragged their feet on drafting critical Title IX rules. In one brazen case, an Equal Employment Opportunity Commission judge publicly declared Trump’s appointee unfit and vowed to ignore his executive orders. Polling of senior federal employees in Washington, D.C., found that many would simply ignore a lawful presidential directive they deemed bad policy. This isn’t public service; it’s insubordination dressed up as principle.

Advocates for the status quo, including labor unions and career bureaucrats, argue that stripping protections from policy-influencing employees risks politicizing the civil service and undermining due process. They claim it could lead to mass firings based on political loyalty rather than performance. But this argument ignores the reality: the current system already politicizes the bureaucracy by empowering unelected officials to thwart the will of the president, who is directly accountable to voters. The new rule doesn’t demand personal loyalty to Trump; it requires employees to faithfully implement the law and the administration’s policies—hardly an unreasonable expectation for public servants.

Critics also warn of a brain drain, suggesting that talented professionals will flee if job security is reduced. Yet the data tells a different story. The federal workforce has long retained underperformers, not just experts, because of overly protective regulations. By targeting only 2% of the workforce—those in high-impact, policy-shaping roles—the rule preserves stability for the vast majority while ensuring that critical positions are filled by competent, responsive individuals. The merit-based, nonpartisan hiring process remains intact, debunking claims of cronyism.

The real threat isn’t reform; it’s the entrenched system that allows misconduct and resistance to fester. Those defending it often benefit from the very inefficiencies they claim to oppose. Their objections ring hollow when you consider the public’s growing frustration with a bureaucracy perceived as aloof and self-serving. Americans want a government that works, not one that hides behind red tape to avoid accountability.

At its core, Trump’s executive action is about restoring the chain of accountability that democracy demands. Elected officials, chosen by the American people, must have the authority to ensure their policies are carried out. When career employees can obstruct or ignore directives without consequence, they undermine the democratic process. The Schedule Policy/Career framework empowers agencies to act decisively, ensuring that policy-influencing roles are filled by those who respect the rule of law and the president’s mandate.

This isn’t a power grab; it’s a correction of a system that has drifted too far from its purpose. Historical reforms, likeціон1 like Kennedy’s 1962 order granting collective bargaining rights, show that protections can coexist with accountability. But those protections were never meant to shield corruption or defiance. By reviving and refining the Schedule F concept, Trump is building on a legacy of executive leadership that prioritizes results over bureaucracy. The American people deserve a government that reflects their values, not the preferences of an insulated elite.