The Fragility of Merit: Erosion of the Foundation of Public Service Under Trump

• Published date: 01 March 2025
• DOI: http://doi.org/10.1177/0734371X231214973
• Author: J. Edward Kellough
• Date: 01 March 2025
• Subject Matter: Articles

https://doi.org/10.1177/0734371X231214973

Review of Public Personnel Administration

2025, Vol. 45(1) 3 –28

© The Author(s) 2023

Article reuse guidelines:

sagepub.com/journals-permissions

DOI: 10.1177/0734371X231214973

journals.sagepub.com/home/rop

Article

The Fragility of Merit: Erosion

of the Foundation of Public

Service Under Trump

J. Edward Kellough1

Abstract

A professional civil service resting on principles of merit is widely considered an

essential and well-established feature of modern government. Nevertheless, the

foundation of merit upon which the U.S. federal service is erected is not secure.

Indeed, the system is quite fragile. It presumes the presence of a President who

understands and is committed to the concept of merit and who has the political will

to secure its preservation. This fact was made abundantly clear during the Presidency

of Donald J. Trump from January of 2017 to January of 2021. This article describes

events during the Trump Presidency that illustrate the fragility of the merit system in

the U.S. federal government.

Keywords

Civil Service Reform, Schedule F, Trump Administration, Office of Personnel

Management, Merit Systems Protection Board

The concept of merit in public employment means, fundamentally, that civil servants

get their jobs based on demonstrated ability to perform those jobs rather than on politi-

cal affiliation. The roots of this approach to public employment at the federal level in

the United States (U.S.) go back to the late 19th century civil service reform move-

ment and the Pendleton Act of 1883 (22 Stat. 403, Chapter 27). The Pendleton Act

established the merit system in response to rampant corruption associated with the

political patronage/spoils structure that predated it. The merit system rests on princi-

ples that require: 1) selection of employees based on the results of open and competi-

tive examinations designed to measure knowledge, skills, and abilities needed for job

1University of Georgia, Athens, USA

Corresponding Author:

J. Edward Kellough, Department of Public Administration and Policy, University of Georgia, 204 Baldwin

Hall, Athens, GA 30602-1615, USA.

Email: kellough@uga.edu

1214973ROPXXX10.1177/0734371X231214973Review of Public Personnel AdministrationKellough

research-article2023

4 Review of Public Personnel Administration 45(1)

performance; 2) political neutrality on the part of employees, and 3) relative security

of tenure (Van Riper, 1958). The goal is to ensure politically neutral competence

within the federal workforce.1 In short, the system is intended to limit the reach of

partisanship into public management and to ensure the existence of a professionally

competent public service.2

Because the U.S federal merit system has been in place for 140 years, and because

merit principles have covered most of the federal workforce for decades, and similar

systems are implemented in state and local governments, the basic features and funda-

mental principles associated with merit are often accepted today as the “given” basis

for public employment in the United States.3 In short, a professional civil service rest-

ing on principles of merit is seen as an established governmental institution. There

have been occasional efforts at reform intended to change administrative structures

and increase managerial flexibility, but the idea that the U.S. should have a public

service selected on the basis of demonstrated competence and that people with actual

expertise within government should assist in shaping and implementing policy has

been widely assumed to be unassailable.4

Unfortunately, this level of confidence in the security of fundamental principles of

the merit system is unwarranted. The foundation of merit is not as strong as we may

wish to assume. Indeed, the system erected for the federal service over the past

140 years is quite fragile. Among other weaknesses, it presumes the presence of a

President who understands and is committed to the concept of merit and who has the

political will to secure its preservation.5 This fact was never made clearer than during

the 4 years (January 20, 2017 to January 20, 2021) of the Presidency of Donald J.

Trump.6

Personnel Is Power

Paul P. Van Riper titled the final chapter in his classic History of the United States Civil

Service, “Personnel is Power—A Theory of Governmental Reform” (Van Riper, 1958,

Chapter 17). In this conclusion to his sweeping review of the development and evolu-

tion of the federal civil service, Van Riper declared 65 years ago, “the many and acri-

monious quarrels over public office during the course of American history only

underline the fact that he who administers the law is often more important that the law

itself” (p. 533). In effect, the power to appoint and direct public employees is the

power to direct government action and public policy. It is no wonder, then, that there

continues to be debate over the operation and control of the civil service.

The Constitution provides only minimal guidance for staffing the federal work-

force, but in doing so, it places broad authority in the hands of the President. Article II,

Section 1 of the Constitution gives the President “executive power,” which can be

interpreted as a grant of expansive control. Article II, Section 2 further specifies the

President’s appointment authority by stating:

he shall nominate, and by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, shall appoint

Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, Judges of the Supreme Court, and all