Unions File Lawsuit Against Trump Administration Over “Loyalty” Hiring Question

(No Ratings Yet)

Loading...

Three of the largest U.S. government employee unions have filed a federal lawsuit challenging a new hiring practice implemented under the Trump administration, which they claim politicizes the civil service by requiring job applicants to demonstrate loyalty to the President’s policies. The lawsuit—filed in Boston federal court—targets the Office of Personnel Management’s (OPM) new application questionnaire, alleging that it violates constitutional rights and long-standing civil service laws designed to ensure a nonpartisan government workforce.

The Controversial Hiring Questionnaire

At the center of the lawsuit is a new set of questions introduced by the OPM earlier this year as part of a hiring overhaul announced in May 2025. Among four open-ended essay questions now required for some federal job applicants, one specifically asks candidates to reflect on the President’s policy agenda. The question reads:

“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.”

  

What

Where

Search Jobs

While the administration has defended this question as a way to gauge an applicant’s understanding of policy goals and ability to carry out executive directives, unions argue that it crosses a constitutional line. They contend that this requirement effectively forces applicants to pledge political loyalty to the sitting president and his administration’s agenda, violating both free speech protections and the principles of merit-based hiring that have guided the U.S. civil service for more than a century.

Unions Push Back

The lawsuit was jointly filed by the American Federation of Government Employees (AFGE), the American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees (AFSCME), and the National Association of Government Employees (NAGE). Collectively, these unions represent hundreds of thousands of federal workers across multiple agencies.

AFGE President Everett Kelley condemned the new hiring system, calling it “not only unlawful but harmful to the integrity of public service.” He argued that conditioning federal employment on agreement with any political agenda undermines the professionalism and neutrality that Americans expect from government employees.

“Our members take an oath to serve the Constitution—not any political figure,” Kelley said. “Requiring job seekers to demonstrate ideological alignment with the President’s policies is a betrayal of that oath and a dangerous precedent for our democracy.”

The unions assert that OPM’s hiring question compels political expression in violation of the First Amendment, which protects individuals from being forced to endorse political viewpoints. They further claim that the questionnaire breaches the Privacy Act, which prohibits the collection of personal information not directly relevant to an individual’s fitness for employment.

A Broader Civil Service Overhaul

The new questionnaire stems from a broader executive order signed by President Trump in January 2025, which his administration said was aimed at “restoring merit” to the federal workforce. The OPM followed with new hiring guidance in May that sought to “modernize” recruitment and emphasize applicants’ understanding of administration priorities.

Critics, however, see it as part of a broader effort to politicize the federal workforce. Civil service experts note that the federal employment system was designed to shield government operations from partisan influence after decades of “spoils system” abuses in the 19th century. The Pendleton Act of 1883 established merit-based hiring to ensure that government employees were selected for their qualifications rather than political affiliations.

By asking applicants to express support for current executive orders or policies, the unions argue, the Trump administration risks undoing decades of reforms meant to prevent political favoritism.

Legal and Constitutional Implications

The lawsuit contends that the new hiring process violates multiple constitutional and statutory protections:

• First Amendment: The loyalty question allegedly conditions employment on an applicant’s willingness to express political agreement with the President’s agenda, an act of compelled speech.
• Civil Service Reform Act: This act prohibits discrimination in hiring based on political affiliation or beliefs, which unions argue the new process directly contravenes.
• Privacy Act: The collection of ideological responses from applicants may exceed the legal scope of information the government can require during the hiring process.

Legal experts believe this case could set a significant precedent. If courts find the question unconstitutional, it may reaffirm limits on political influence in federal employment. Conversely, if the administration prevails, it could embolden future presidents to more directly shape the political orientation of the civil service.

The Stakes for Federal Workers

For federal employees and applicants, the outcome of this lawsuit carries high stakes. A ruling against the unions could lead to broader use of politically framed hiring criteria across federal agencies, potentially discouraging qualified candidates who wish to serve impartially.

On the other hand, if the unions succeed, the decision could strengthen existing civil service protections and reaffirm the independence of the federal workforce. The ruling may also serve as a warning to future administrations that attempts to test political loyalty in public-sector hiring will not withstand constitutional scrutiny.

Looking Ahead

The lawsuit marks the latest flashpoint in the ongoing debate over the balance between executive authority and civil service independence. Courts will now have to decide whether the Trump administration’s hiring reforms are a legitimate tool for ensuring efficiency—or an unconstitutional intrusion into workers’ rights.

Observers expect the case to move quickly, given the broad implications for federal employment policy. Regardless of the outcome, the controversy underscores how deeply the issue of partisanship in government hiring continues to divide the nation.

Stay informed about the latest developments in employment and administrative law. Visit LawCrossing.com to explore legal job opportunities and insights into federal hiring trends.