On April 17 President Trump extended the hiring freeze he implemented on January 20 for an additional three months to July 15, 2025. The hiring freeze prohibits filling vacant federal civilian positions or creating new ones. When the hiring freeze expires, agencies “will be able to hire no more than one employee for every four employees that depart from federal service,” according to the presidential memorandum. It is part of a larger effort to “drain the swamp and end ineffective government programs.”

More recently, on May 29, the Office of Personnel Management (OPM) issued a memo titled “Merit Hiring Plan” that outlines a major overhaul in federal hiring policy. The plan was issued pursuant to Trump’s directive that “brings to the federal workforce only highly capable Americans dedicated to the furtherance of American ideals, values, and interests.”

The memo lists four key elements of the hiring plan:

1. Reforming the federal recruitment process to ensure that only the most talented, capable and patriotic Americans are hired to the federal service;

2. Implementing skills-based hiring, eliminating unnecessary degree requirements, and requiring the use of rigorous, job-related assessments to ensure candidates are selected based on their merit and competence, not their skin color or academic pedigree;

3. Streamlining and improving the job application process; and

4. Reducing time-to-hire to under 80 days by emphasizing the use of talent pools and shared certificates and streamlining the background check process.

Much of the plan, including the goals of reducing time-to-hire and the emphasis on skills-based hiring, as included in the Chance to Compete Act, is bipartisan and non-controversial. One aspect of the plan – requiring all candidates seeking a position at or above the General Schedule 5 (GS-5) level to complete four essay questions – has drawn significant criticism. The questions are prescribed as follows:

1. How has your commitment to the Constitution and the founding principles of the United States inspired you to pursue this role within the federal government? Provide a concrete example from professional, academic, or personal experience.

2. In this role, how would you use your skills and experience to improve government efficiency and effectiveness? Provide specific examples where you improved processes, reduced costs, or improved outcomes.

3. 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.

4. How has a strong work ethic contributed to your professional, academic or personal achievements? Provide one or two specific examples, and explain how those qualities would enable you to serve effectively in this position.

Rep. Stephen Lynch (D-MA), acting Ranking Member of the House Oversight and Reform Committee, referred to the questions as “antithetical to the concept of an expert, nonpartisan civil service” and is seeking to remove the questions from any application materials. Lynch also asked for documentation on how the questions were formulated for the memo.

“Every federal worker is legally required to take an oath of office that they will ‘support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic,’” Lynch wrote. “The oath does not require federal workers to swear to protect and defend executive orders or policy initiatives. It does not require that workers have loyalty to a president or to a political party.”

During a recent FMA town hall meeting, members expressed concerns about how answers to these hiring questions would be graded or ranked, and by whom. One member suggested a better approach would be to ask applicants to write about what part of the agency’s mission is most significant to the job-seeker, rather than pledging allegiance to a specific executive order or policy initiative promoted by the current administration.