Could President Trump purge the government of Obama appointees?

The Trump campaign has a list of Obama appointees it plans to fire if Donald Trump wins the presidency, according to New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie.

Chuck Burton/AP/File
Republican presidential candidate Donald Trump talks with New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie at a March rally in Hickory, N.C.

On the road to the Republican nomination, Donald Trump used the halo of authority conjured by his reality-TV catchphrase to project himself as a strong leader. If he’s elected president, the firings could get very real.

New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie, a Trump ally who leads the campaign’s White House transition team, told a room of Republican donors at a closed-door meeting that a Trump presidency could target Obama-administration appointees for firings, saying the campaign was already developing a list of names.

According to Reuters, which broke the news based on an audio recording of the meeting, Governor Christie said that if Mr. Trump were elected, he could push Congress to enact reforms stripping protections from federal civil-service workers, in order to root out Obama-era appointees who had taken career positions.

"It's called burrowing," Christie said. "You take them from the political appointee side into the civil service side, in order to try to set up … roadblocks for your successor."

"One of the things I have suggested to Donald is that we have to immediately ask the Republican Congress to change the civil service laws. Because if they do, it will make it a lot easier to fire those people."

Some experts say such a step could expose a bureaucratic class with relatively muted partisan tendencies to the rancor and inconstancy of power transitions, and reverse a centuries-long shift away from patronage politics.

"We've had these debates," said Sean Theriault, a professor at UT Austin who specializes in political partisanship in Congress, in an interview with The Christian Science Monitor. "You need professionals just like you need politically sensitive people."

The modern merit-based system for public service dates back to the 1883 Pendelton Act, which made entrance exams mandatory for civil-service posts and prohibited mandatory campaign contributions. Historians cite it as a landmark reform that helped turn national politics away from the spoils system, in which presidents and their parties would perform wholesale re-staffing of federal agencies. 

Appointees account for just more than 3,000 federal employees, with less than a thousand appointed by Obama and past presidents, according to Reuters. That's compared to more than 4 million people working as federal servants as of 2014, including some 2.6 million working in the executive branch, according to the Office of Personnel Management.

While civil servants have some protections, "functionally nothing" prevents political appointees from being fired when a new administration takes office, says John Hudak, senior fellow at the Brookings Institute and expert on bureaucratic processes. But they often bring significant expertise to their jobs. "They're not donors or the president's buddies. Probably they're people Trump and [vice presidential candidate Gov. Mike] Pence would love to have working under them," he told the Monitor.

In past years, few political appointees ended up "burrowing in" to careers in the federal government. 

In 2012, the Congressional Budget Office cited an Associated Press report saying that during the eight years of the Clinton administration, 158 presidential appointees moved into civil service jobs. Roughly the same number did so under the administration of George W. Bush.

Most appointees leave their posts when a new, rival administration arrives, noted Dr. Hudak. But the importance of their roles in governance – and the possibility of backlash – tends to make massive firings a difficult proposition.

"There's the risk of a real politicization of the federal workforce. While Gov. Christie and Donald Trump might like that now, they won't like it under a Democratic president. It's very short-sighted," said Hudak.

Such a proposal probably could not make it through Congress, says Dr. Theriault, but it could "open the door" for future attempts at similar legislation.

"This needs to be rebuked so we can preserve the professionalism of bureaucracy and not go back to the spoils system," he said.

You've read  of  free articles. Subscribe to continue.

Dear Reader,

About a year ago, I happened upon this statement about the Monitor in the Harvard Business Review – under the charming heading of “do things that don’t interest you”:

“Many things that end up” being meaningful, writes social scientist Joseph Grenny, “have come from conference workshops, articles, or online videos that began as a chore and ended with an insight. My work in Kenya, for example, was heavily influenced by a Christian Science Monitor article I had forced myself to read 10 years earlier. Sometimes, we call things ‘boring’ simply because they lie outside the box we are currently in.”

If you were to come up with a punchline to a joke about the Monitor, that would probably be it. We’re seen as being global, fair, insightful, and perhaps a bit too earnest. We’re the bran muffin of journalism.

But you know what? We change lives. And I’m going to argue that we change lives precisely because we force open that too-small box that most human beings think they live in.

The Monitor is a peculiar little publication that’s hard for the world to figure out. We’re run by a church, but we’re not only for church members and we’re not about converting people. We’re known as being fair even as the world becomes as polarized as at any time since the newspaper’s founding in 1908.

We have a mission beyond circulation, we want to bridge divides. We’re about kicking down the door of thought everywhere and saying, “You are bigger and more capable than you realize. And we can prove it.”

If you’re looking for bran muffin journalism, you can subscribe to the Monitor for $15. You’ll get the Monitor Weekly magazine, the Monitor Daily email, and unlimited access to CSMonitor.com.