When Expertise Becomes the Obstacle

How a personnel policy became part of a larger debate about expertise, accountability, and the guardrails of democratic government.

On June 3, 2026, President Trump signed Executive Order 14312, “Implementing Schedule Policy/Career in the Excepted Service.” The order reclassifies roughly 8,000 federal employees into a category with fewer civil-service protections, making them easier to remove from government service.

The administration describes the move as a long-overdue effort to make government more accountable and more responsive to elected leadership. Critics see another step in a broader effort to bring the federal workforce under tighter political control.

Viewed in isolation, the executive order is relatively straightforward. Viewed in context, it raises a much larger question about the role of expertise in government and the guardrails that help keep political power connected to law, evidence, and reality.

Support independent media that follows the power.

The Coffman Chronicle is built to track who holds power, who abuses it, who profits from it, and who pays the price.

Paid supporters get full Tony Michaels Podcast episodes, deeper transcript analysis, paid columns, archives, and the reporting framework behind the show.

If you believe independent media has to survive outside billionaire platforms, corporate media, and party-approved gatekeepers, become a paid supporter today.

What the Order Actually Does

Executive Order 14312 implements Schedule Policy/Career, a new personnel classification created earlier this year through Office of Personnel Management rulemaking and widely viewed as the successor to Schedule F, a similar proposal introduced near the end of Trump’s first term.

Under the new framework, thousands of federal employees whose positions are deemed “policy-influencing” or “policy-determining” will move into a category with fewer civil-service protections. These employees remain career civil servants rather than political appointees, but they become easier to remove than employees in the traditional competitive service.

The administration says that this is necessary because some career officials exercise significant influence over public policy while remaining largely insulated from accountability. In the White House’s view, elected leaders should have greater authority over employees who help determine how policies are interpreted, implemented, and enforced.

To be clear, the executive order does not convert the entire federal workforce into at-will employment. The administration’s initial implementation applies to approximately 8,000 positions, though many outlets suggest this could change as agencies identify additional jobs that meet the established criteria.

The employees affected by the order are not entry-level staff or rank-and-file workers. They are senior career officials whose responsibilities place them close to the policymaking process.

That raises the question: Who exactly are these employees?

The People Behind the Bureaucratic Labels

The phrase “policy-influencing employee” sounds more political than it often is.

Many hear that description and imagine White House advisers, campaign operatives, or senior political appointees whose job is advancing a president’s agenda. In reality, many of the employees covered by this framework are career civil servants who have spent years, and often decades, developing expertise in highly specialized fields.

Some are attorneys responsible for interpreting federal statutes and regulations. Others are economists, scientists, engineers, auditors, or program managers tasked with overseeing complex government functions. Their influence comes not from political authority but from knowledge and experience.

None of these individuals is setting policy, but rather informing it. That speaks directly to the purpose of a professional civil service.

These employees are not elected, and their role is not to decide what government should do. Their role is to help elected leaders understand what is possible, what is lawful, what the evidence supports, and what risks may accompany a decision.

In other words, they help policymakers understand reality. They are, to put it bluntly, the adults in the room.

---

Why Democracies Need Expertise

One of the recurring tensions in democratic government is the relationship between political leadership and professional expertise. On one hand, elected officials are chosen by voters and are ultimately responsible for setting priorities and making decisions. On the other hand, modern government is far too large and complex for any administration to operate on political instinct alone.

No president can simultaneously be an economist, a scientist, an attorney, an engineer, a public-health expert, and a national-security specialist. No administration can possibly contain all of the knowledge necessary to govern a nation of more than 300 million people, even if he often claims to be the smartest person in the room.

That is why governments have experts in the first place. The purpose of expertise is not to replace democratic decision-making. Experts do not decide what the country’s goals should be. They help answer a different set of questions. Is a proposal legal? Is it technically feasible? What are the likely consequences? What risks are being overlooked? What tradeoffs should be considered?

Those questions do not determine policy. Instead, they provide the information necessary to make informed policy.

A society may decide that a particular goal is worth a high cost or that a policy objective outweighs certain risks. Those are political judgments, and those judgments are only as good as the information used to make them.

Policy ultimately reflects values. Effective policy, however, requires facts.

That principle applies regardless of ideology. Different political actors may disagree about what the government should do, but all benefit from understanding what is actually happening before decisions are made.

This is where the role of the career civil service becomes easier to understand. Its purpose is not to govern, but rather to help the government understand reality.

How the Administration Defines the Problem

The executive order itself is written in relatively restrained language. Unlike many previous orders, this one sounds like a human resources handbook. Readers looking for references to employees “slow-walking” presidential priorities will not find them in the text. That phrase comes from elsewhere.

Earlier this year, as the Office of Personnel Management finalized the broader Schedule Policy/Career framework, OPM Director Scott Kupor argued that some federal employees “resist or slow-walk” presidential initiatives. Supporters of the policy contend that elected leaders cannot effectively govern if career officials can delay, dilute, or frustrate the implementation of policies voters elected them to pursue.

The challenge is that the issue becomes more complicated when the employees in question are attorneys, economists, scientists, and other specialists whose job is to identify problems before decisions are made.

A government lawyer who warns that a proposal is likely to lose in court may delay immediate implementation. An economist who concludes that the data does not support a desired action may create a temporary policy roadblock. A scientist who identifies flaws in a proposal may resist completion until concerns are addressed.

Are those delays obstacles, or experts functioning exactly as intended?

Expertise as a Guardrail

When most people hear the word “guardrail,” they think of courts, elections, or constitutional checks and balances. While those are important guardrails, they are far from the only ones.

Society also depends on less visible guardrails. Professional standards, institutional knowledge, scientific integrity, independent analysis, and expert advice all help decision-makers avoid preventable mistakes.

Experts often function as informational guardrails. They do not usually have the authority to stop a president from acting. Experts provide friction against error.

They are often the people in the room whose job is to say that the evidence does not support a conclusion, that a timeline is unrealistic, or that a proposal carries risks that have not been fully considered.

Those warnings are not always welcome, nor are they always correct. However, their value lies in forcing decision-makers to confront reality before consequences arrive. A warning light on a dashboard can be annoying, but that does not make it unnecessary. The purpose of a guardrail is not always to stop movement, but to reduce the likelihood of avoidable mistakes.

Viewed through that lens, many of the positions affected by this executive order occupy a unique role within government. They are not policymakers or political actors in the traditional sense at all. Instead, they are often the people who help policymakers understand the facts. Most serve for decades across administrations.

---

The Pattern

At this point, the executive order can be viewed in one of two ways.

The first is as a relatively narrow personnel reform aimed at improving accountability within the federal workforce. If that is the frame, the debate is largely about management. How much authority should elected leaders have over the senior officials who help implement policy?

The second view requires stepping back and looking beyond the order itself.

One of the recurring themes in our coverage is that individual events rarely tell the whole story. A single personnel change can be explained, and a single executive order can be debated on its own merits. The more revealing question is often whether a pattern emerges when seemingly separate events are viewed together.

The June executive order did not appear out of nowhere. It followed years of criticism directed at what Trump and his supporters describe as an unaccountable administrative state, or, more colorfully, “the swamp”. During his first term, the administration introduced Schedule F, an effort to make it easier to remove certain policy-related federal employees. Although that proposal was later rescinded, the underlying argument never disappeared.

The administration’s broader efforts during Trump’s second term have followed a similar theme. Workforce reductions, buyouts, early retirement incentives, and the work of the Department of Government Efficiency have all been presented as efforts to reduce bureaucracy and make government more responsive to elected leadership.

Viewed individually, each action can be defended on its own terms. Together, they point toward something larger. The common thread is not simply frustration with bureaucracy. It is, instead, annoyance with institutions, processes, and people perceived as standing between political leadership and desired outcomes.

That does not automatically make the concern illegitimate. Bureaucracies can become inefficient, and institutions resistant to change. Governments should not be immune from reform simply because they have existed for a long time.

At the same time, the pattern raises an important question. When experts, career officials, and institutional processes repeatedly become the focus of reform efforts, are they being targeted because they are obstacles to effective government, or because they are obstacles to unfettered political control?

We Have Already Seen the Costs

Over the last 18 months, the federal government has already experienced the consequences of removing expertise faster than it could be replaced.

Several highly publicized DOGE-related workforce reductions produced immediate complications. In some cases, agencies found themselves scrambling to restore functions after losing employees whose responsibilities proved essential. The administration later reinstated or attempted to rehire certain personnel after discovering that institutional knowledge is often easier to eliminate than to replace.

One of the clearest lessons from those episodes is that expertise does not exist on an organizational chart but in people. When those people leave, their job title may remain, but their knowledge does not.

We do not have to imagine what happens when institutions treat expertise as excess. We have already seen the scramble that follows when the people who knew how the system worked are suddenly gone.

Accountability and Expertise

Supporters of the executive order often frame the issue as one of accountability. Is accountability limited or absent from the current civil service?

Career civil servants are not immune from discipline. They can be terminated for misconduct, poor performance, negligence, insubordination, or failure to perform their duties. The existence of civil-service protections has never meant permanent employment regardless of conduct. Therefore, it does not seem that debate is really about whether accountability should exist. Instead, it is about what counts as doing the job.

If the role of a government attorney is to provide legal analysis, then concluding that a proposal may violate federal law is part of the job. If the role of an economist is to provide economic analysis, then concluding that the data do not support a preferred policy is a matter of professional ethics. If the role of a scientist is to evaluate evidence, then identifying weaknesses in a proposal is a core function.

Those conclusions may be frustrating, delay implementation, or force policymakers to revisit assumptions. However, that does not necessarily mean they are acts of resistance. In many cases, they are examples of experts fulfilling the responsibilities for which they were hired. Inconvenient is not the same as insubordinate.

There is no reason to hire specialists if their role is simply to confirm what leadership already believes. The value of expertise lies in its ability to identify risks, challenge assumptions, and reveal facts that may be inconvenient but nonetheless true.

That is not a flaw in the system. It is one of the reasons the system exists, and for someone who surrounds themself with yes-men, that’s a problem.

---

The Real Question

One of the themes we return to often is that politics is ultimately about solving problems. Solving problems requires goals, but it also requires facts.

The people affected by this order are often the individuals responsible for providing expertise, institutional knowledge, and professional judgment that no administration can possess on its own. While that does not make them infallible, it does make them valuable.

Viewed in isolation, Executive Order 14312 is a personnel policy. However, viewed as part of a broader pattern, it raises a larger question about the role expertise should play in public life. A healthy democracy needs people willing to say when the evidence does not support a conclusion, when a timeline is unrealistic, or when a proposal carries risks that have not been fully considered.

Those voices do not exist to frustrate the government. They exist to help it make better decisions. Dictators control information. Democracies examine the facts.

Politics moves fast. Good analysis takes time.

If you appreciate reporting and commentary that values evidence over tribalism, principles over personalities, and patterns over isolated headlines, we’d love to have you join our community.

Subscribe for thoughtful analysis, honest conversations, and a commitment to following the facts wherever they lead.

Sources:

• “Implementing Schedule Policy/Career in the Excepted Service,” The White House, June 3, 2026.

• “Trump signs order to make it easier to fire 8,000 federal workers,” Reuters, June 3, 2026.

• “Trump moves about 8,000 federal positions to Schedule Policy/Career,” Federal News Network, June 3, 2026.

• “Nearly 8,000 federal positions lose workforce protections under Trump order,” FedScoop, June 3, 2026.

• “‘I am a Stalwart, and I want my reward,’” U.S. Office of Personnel Management, February 5, 2026.

• “Initial Implementing Guidance for Schedule Policy/Career Final Rule,” U.S. Office of Personnel Management, February 5, 2026.

• “Roughly 50,000 could lose federal workforce protections under new OPM rule,” FedScoop, February 5, 2026.

• “Tracking turnover in the Trump administration,” Brookings Institution, January 20, 2021.

• “Tracking turnover in the second Trump administration,” Brookings Institution, updated May 4, 2026.

• “Trump administration rehires hundreds of federal employees laid off by DOGE,” Associated Press, September 23, 2025.

• “US health secretary Kennedy says he brought back 722 CDC employees, 220 at NIH,” Reuters, June 24, 2025.

• “Inside U.S. health agencies, workers confront chaos and questions as operations come unglued,” STAT, April 11, 2025.