On February 6, 2026, the Office of Personnel Management released a rule authorizing the reclassification of tens of thousands of “policy-influencing” positions within the executive bureaucracy, effectively stripping vital civil service protections from these employees. This rule, resulting from an executive order initially introduced in 2020, seeks to achieve “improved accountability of government bureaucrats” by allowing the at-will firing of these Schedule Policy/Career employees. 

Throughout the Trump administration, bureaucratic reform has remained an important pillar in the government agenda. Since Trump took office in 2025, approximately 271,000 government jobs have been eliminated by the Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE)! This OPM rule represents the latest attempt to reduce bureaucratic power.

Although these reforms are often framed as remedies to government inefficiency, corruption, and overreach, the rhetoric and policy employed to achieve these goals pose a grave threat to American democracy. The administration’s reclassification of bureaucratic employees works to delegitimize the bureaucracy and opponents therewithin, remove institutional barriers that prevent executive abuse of power, including politicization and retaliation against opponents, and reduce the bureaucracy’s ability to check presidential power, resulting in a dangerous erosion of U.S. democracy. 

The Policy

Effective March 9th, 2026, an estimated 50,000 government employees will be reclassified under the new Schedule Policy/Career positions. The positions remain merit-based; however, this classification removes protections under the Civil Service Reform Act that establish the right of civil servants in “competitive service” to appeal adverse actions taken against them, including termination. 

On top of this, changes to the means of reporting misconduct and abuse have stripped whistleblower protections. Schedule Policy/Career employees must lodge complaints within their agency rather than reporting to the independent Office of Special Counsel. The complaints are then reviewed by the politically appointed general counsel of the agency, who has the power to decide who investigates the case.

Threats to Democracy 

The changes in rules and procedures for many civil servants represent an intrusion on the independence of the bureaucracy. Civil service protections are designed to insulate bureaucrats from political retaliation in order to establish long-standing, apolitical experts that can efficiently execute the functions of government. The removal of these protections makes it far easier for the president to silence opposition and reduce the bureaucracy’s ability to challenge presidential power. Trump has made many attempts to fire civil service workers who he perceives as a political threat, such as the Justice Department lawyers involved in the January 6th prosecution. Under the new rules, these terminations will be far easier, increasing the president’s power to unjustly eliminate political opposition.

The reduction of the institution’s independent ability to check presidential power also aligns with one of the primary tools of democratic erosion identified by Nancy Bermeo: executive aggrandizement. Challenges to executive preferences and attempts to report abuses of power by Schedule Policy/Career employees may now result in repercussions or termination, increasing the risk of dissension and attempts to uphold democracy. In addition, the institutional barriers preventing the politicization of these positions have been degraded greatly, increasing the risk that the bureaucracy will become inundated with Trump loyalists that further bolster his power. In this way, the bureaucracy’s ability to hold the president accountable is greatly reduced.

Trump has also worked to undermine democracy through his use of populist rhetoric. As described by Jan-Werner Müller in What is Populism?, populism requires anti-elitism and anti-pluralism. Throughout his presidency, Trump has presented the bureaucracy as an elite institution staffed with corrupt, inefficient employees that seek to undermine the president’s, and thus the people’s, agenda. In fact, the state of the bureaucracy is often framed as a “crisis,” sparking fear and unrest in the public. This, in combination with anti-elitism, sows distrust in democratic institutions, priming the people to look toward the president rather than “corrupt,” “elite” officials.

Further undermining democracy, Trump presents himself as the sole purveyor of the public will. Although civil servants have years of expertise and statutory authority to execute law, the administration implies that the president alone is able to convey the public will and have final say on interpretation of policy. Trump’s portrayal effectively delegitimizes opposition within the bureaucracy by depicting bureaucrats as enemies to the people and downplaying the independent role the bureaucracy plays in implementing policy. Also, positioning the bureaucracy as a Democrat-dominated institution allows the administration to deny the legitimacy of partisan opposition, contributing to Trump’s populist image as the only legitimate representation.

Fighting Democratic Backsliding

While the OPM rule is framed as a means to “strengthen employee accountability and the democratic responsiveness of American Government”, it is important to recognize the harms posed to democracy. As Ozan Varol explains in “Stealth Authoritarianism.” it is not only explicit authoritarian measures that may lead to democratic erosion. Oftentimes, political actors, operating under the guise of improving democracy, use legal measures, such as Trump’s executive orders, to actively undermine democratic institutions.

The reclassification of these crucial government jobs and the consequent erosion of civil service protections pose a huge threat to democracy. The attempts to delegitimize the bureaucracy within the public eye, in addition to the breakdown of institutional barriers, simultaneously expand the power of the executive and limit the ability of the bureaucracy to check that power.

Although federal worker unions have declared their intentions of pursuing lawsuits, the timelines, outcomes, and government reactions to these suits are currently unclear. It is important now more than ever that citizens work to actively reject harmful rhetoric put forth by populist demagogues and fight for the preservation of our democratic institutions.