Trump's Hiring Plan Asked Federal Job Applicants Which of His Policies Mattered to Them

Trump's Reform Became a Political Inquiry

Thousands of federal job applications carried this question: "How would you help advance the President’s Executive Orders and policy priorities in this role? Identify one or two relevant Executive Orders or policy initiatives that are significant to you, and explain how you would help implement them if hired."¹ The Office of Personnel Management put it there while carrying out a hiring reform President Trump ordered.¹ The question "calls for the applicant’s personal views on a political topic," wrote U.S. District Judge George A. O'Toole Jr., in career hiring, where federal law prohibits employment decisions based on political affiliation.¹ On September 11, 2026, he blocked it, finding the unions challenging it likely to prove a First Amendment violation.¹

Trump ordered the hiring reform: he signed Executive Order 14170 on January 20, 2025.¹ Titled in part "Restoring Merit to Government Service," the order called for bringing in "only highly skilled Americans" and making hiring "more efficient and focused on serving the Nation."¹ OPM and the White House Domestic Policy Council issued the implementing plan on May 29, 2025; the question was the third of its four essays.¹ The plan also required agency leadership or its designees to be involved throughout hiring; the unions argued this meant political appointees would review applicants' answers before final hiring decisions.¹

The essays covered public competitive-service postings at GS-05 and above, except teaching, Wage Grade and seasonal jobs; agencies could exempt others.¹

The Pressure to Give the Right Answer

Federal Worker 4, a court-approved pseudonym, had worked at the Department of Veterans Affairs for more than two years and applied to at least ten similar jobs at other federal agencies.¹ Many of the postings included the question.¹ She said she prefers not "to talk about politics at work" and does not "agree with most of what President Trump is doing."¹ She answered anyway, afraid that silence or an answer "not favorable to President Trump" would hurt her applications.¹

O'Toole found her reading reasonable: the question linked her personal political views directly to the duties of the job she wanted.¹ He recognized that pressure as an injury in itself, even without a rejected application.¹ The cost to her was pressure to give up her political privacy, and the court found that without a stay the unions' members would likely suffer irreparable First Amendment harm.¹

The Defense and Its Limit

The government's strongest defense was its broad discretion to recruit effective employees who could carry out lawful policy.¹ OPM's guidance said answers were optional and unscored, though applicants were to be encouraged "to thoughtfully address each question," and barred using them to determine qualifications or "to impose an ideological litmus test."¹

As far as O'Toole could tell, the ban on an ideological test did not appear in the question applicants saw.¹ An optional answer did not remove the pressure Federal Worker 4 reasonably felt.¹ He recognized the government's hiring discretion but found that it had offered no legitimate reason to ask career applicants about their political beliefs.¹ The unions said the covered grades include air traffic control specialists, nuclear materials couriers and crane operators; he found the question likely was not limited to what the government's legitimate interest required.¹

The government won one point: O'Toole denied the unions' separate request to bar agencies from considering answers already submitted, because they lacked standing for that remedy: it would not have cured the injury they brought to court, the pressure to answer.¹ His order is a temporary stay, not a final judgment, and does not rule on any individual hiring decision.¹

Where It Stands on October 10, 2026

On September 18, OPM told agencies they could no longer consider answers to the old question for any open vacancy.² The replacement, used in new announcements from September 19, reads: "In this role, you will be expected to professionally and efficiently implement executive direction. Provide an example where you implemented leadership direction on a strategy or policy decision that differed from your own recommendation."² Agencies also had to replace the question in already-open announcements closing September 26 or later; announcements closing by September 25 did not have to be reposted.² The rest of the hiring plan stayed in effect.³ The government filed a status report about compliance on September 25, and the captured docket shows the case still pending through an October 8 order on a request for more time to answer the complaint.⁴

Neither the ruling nor OPM's replacement notices showed whether the question made hiring faster or produced better-qualified recruits, the order's stated goals.¹²³ The correction addressed future applications and open vacancies without undoing completed hiring actions: OPM told agencies they did not need to reopen them.²

This was one of several episodes of pressure on career staff: Judge William Alsup found OPM directed mass firings under a performance pretext,⁵ the Supreme Court stayed reinstatement in April 2025 because the nonprofit plaintiffs' allegations were insufficient to establish standing,⁶ and Alsup ruled on September 12, 2025 that the directive and resulting terminations violated the Administrative Procedure Act, ordering corrections without reinstatement.⁷

The abuse was making personal political disclosure part of applying for a career government job, backed by the pressure an applicant felt to answer favorably to Trump.¹ The charge is Trump's: he ordered the reform in the name of merit, his White House issued the plan with OPM, and its question asked career applicants about his own orders and priorities.¹ The judge found the government likely had no legitimate interest in asking about political beliefs.¹