By John Q. Hosedrinker 
Federal labor unions have filed a lawsuit against the Trump administration, alleging that its new “merit hiring plan” violates applicants’ First Amendment rights. The plan includes an essay question asking how applicants would advance the president’s agenda, which the unions argue creates an unconstitutional, politically-driven hiring system. Currently, the “loyalty question” is part of over 6,000 federal job postings, leading the unions to request a preliminary injunction to prevent its use. Federal employees have submitted anonymous declarations expressing concerns that the question infringes on their rights and could lead to retaliation.
Read the original article here
Federal Workers Refuse To Profess ‘Loyalty’ To Trump On Job Applications
It seems there’s a pretty strong consensus brewing, and it’s all about federal job applications. The heart of the issue is this: Would-be federal employees are not exactly thrilled about being asked to declare their undying loyalty to a single individual, particularly when that individual is the former President, Donald Trump. The very idea of having to swear allegiance to a specific person, as a condition of employment in a government job, has rubbed a lot of people the wrong way.
The historical parallels being drawn here are pretty stark, and that’s why the situation feels so charged. People are mentioning how Hitler, in his rise to power, demanded such personal loyalty from government workers. This comparison isn’t being made lightly. It highlights the concern that this kind of demand is a direct attack on the principles of a democratic system, where allegiance is supposed to be to the Constitution and the law, not to a single person’s whims. This isn’t just about a job application; it’s about the very nature of government itself.
The concerns about this demand extend further. The question on applications, which asks how a potential employee would help advance the President’s Executive Orders and policy priorities, is viewed with suspicion. Critics are pointing out that this approach inadvertently encourages the development of a “deep state” – the very thing that certain political factions have been railing against. If government workers are hired based on their commitment to a specific president’s agenda, what happens when that president is gone? The employees, loyal to those old objectives, could undermine the new administration’s goals, creating an environment that contradicts the principles of fair governance.
There’s a sense that the whole process is fundamentally corrupt. Asking for unwavering personal loyalty is seen as a move straight out of a mob boss playbook, where personal fealty trumps all else. Many feel that this is a departure from the norms of a democratic republic. The emphasis should be on upholding the law, serving the public, and following the Constitution, not on showing a specific person blind allegiance. It is even more concerning when you consider that the application is not asking for an oath to the office of the President, but to the person Donald Trump.
Many people express deep disdain for the idea of Trump’s return, and their concerns reach far beyond the application process. There’s a sentiment that demanding such declarations is a sign that he doesn’t intend to leave office willingly, and the request is seen as a dictatorial move. They emphasize that the government belongs to the people, not to any single individual. The historical context also becomes more pronounced: it’s not simply an issue of job applications, but rather a dangerous step towards undermining the very foundations of American democracy.
Some commenters are pointing out the practical implications of such requirements. Many would-be federal employees are, for various reasons, likely to say whatever they need to in order to secure employment, including lying. This means that the entire exercise becomes a charade, where loyalty is merely performed to achieve an end, not genuinely felt. This is where the whole thing becomes absurd and counterproductive. If the goal is to build a competent and ethical workforce, forcing people to lie on applications does just the opposite.
There are also concerns about what this reveals about the broader political landscape and its ambitions. The Project 2025 Manifesto and the Heritage Foundation’s influence are often mentioned. Some see this as a calculated attempt to seize control of the government, where Trump is simply a means to an end. It’s not just about one president; it’s about a wider effort to reshape the government to one’s own vision, no matter what it takes.
Many people think it is against the core principles of a democratic government. The emphasis, they insist, must be on serving the Constitution and the law. This is where the emphasis is placed. They are expressing their commitment to the idea that no one, not even a president, is above the law.
And there’s this underlying sense of irony here. Those who often decry the “deep state” are, in this instance, creating the perfect conditions for its existence. By prioritizing personal loyalty over qualifications and adherence to the Constitution, they’re paving the way for a government that serves individuals, not the public good.
In short, there’s a strong rejection of the idea that federal employees should profess their loyalty to a specific individual on job applications. This is considered a fundamental betrayal of democratic values, a dangerous historical echo, and a recipe for corruption. The sentiment is clear: allegiance belongs to the republic, to the Constitution, and to the rule of law – not to any single person.