What executive orders or memos about employee loyalty or nondisclosure did Presidents Trump, Biden, or recent administrations issue?
Executive summary
President Trump has repeatedly issued and revived executive orders and OPM memoranda aimed at reclassifying and screening federal employees — most prominently the Schedule F / “Schedule Policy/Career” initiative that would strip civil-service protections from thousands of career workers and inserted loyalty-style hiring questions into applications (see EO creation and revival [1] [2] and OPM hiring memo with essay question [3]). The Biden administration countered Schedule F with rules and rescissions that restored protections; Biden’s ethics orders extended revolving‑door prohibitions compared with earlier Trump policies [1] [4]. Sources document legal challenges and union opposition to Trump’s actions and to OPM’s “loyalty” question [5] [6] [7].
1. Trump’s Schedule F revival: a structural move to make loyalty actionable
The signature action reported across outlets was Trump’s effort to recreate or rebrand his first‑term Schedule F — now called Schedule Policy/Career — an executive order and follow‑on OPM guidance aimed at reclassifying “policy‑influencing” career posts so they could be removed more easily, which critics call a mechanism for political loyalty tests (White House fact sheet and OPM implementation language [1] [8]; contemporaneous reporting on the January order and impact [2] [9]). Supporters frame it as “accountability”; opponents and unions call it a power grab that would let managers fire employees perceived as insufficiently loyal [1] [5] [10].
2. OPM’s “Merit Hiring Plan” and the contested essay question
A 30‑page OPM memorandum implementing the administration’s hiring plan required short essays in federal job applications — including one asking applicants how they would “help advance the President’s Executive Orders and policy priorities” — language that critics characterized as a loyalty test and that prompted lawsuits and agency pushback (memo and reporting [3] [11]). OPM later circulated guidance warning hiring managers against using responses as an “ideological litmus test,” and some agencies de‑emphasized or made the question optional amid legal challenges (OPM memos and follow‑ups [12] [6]).
3. Legal fights and union responses: immediate pushback
Unions and advocacy groups filed lawsuits challenging both the Schedule F reclassification and the use of the loyalty question, arguing the moves violate civil‑service principles, the Administrative Procedure Act and chill free speech; unions have framed the strategy as part of a Project 2025 blueprint to replace career experts with political loyalists (lawsuits over Schedule F and hiring question [5] [6] [7]; union statements [13]). Courts and oversight offices may be the key arbiter; sources show litigation escalated quickly after the orders and memos [5] [6].
4. What Biden did: rescissions and expanded ethics prohibitions
In contrast, Biden’s early actions included rescinding Schedule F and issuing rules and memos to strengthen civil‑service protections; the Biden ethics orders also extended revolving‑door prohibitions relative to Trump’s prior ethics commitments, according to legal analyses (Biden rescission and rulemaking referenced in White House fact sheet and analysis [1] [4]). Employee groups praised Biden’s anti‑Schedule F regulations as preserving due‑process protections in the federal workforce [14].
5. NDAs and nondisclosure: established rules, new uses, and limits
Separate from loyalty reclassification, nondisclosure agreements (NDAs) are widely used around government for classified access and sometimes for internal deliberations, but courts and statutes limit NDAs’ reach — for example, whistleblower protections and the Speak Out Act constrain NDAs over sexual‑harassment disclosures (GAO, HHS guidance, Speak Out Act references [15] [16] [17]). Reporting shows the Trump administration has used NDAs in novel ways (e.g., White House and agency staff NDAs and later reporting of NDAs at Education under Trump) and critics warn this can shield deliberations; PBS and Reuters note that NDAs are rare for unclassified government business and their misuse is controversial (history and reporting [18] [19]).
6. Conflicting narratives and hidden agendas
Administration materials frame reclassification and hiring changes as restoring presidential control and accountability over policy positions (White House fact sheet language claiming 50,000 positions could be affected) while opponents frame the same measures as an attempt to purge non‑aligned career officials and to replace them with loyalists — an outcome unions and watchdogs say is the explicit goal of Project 2025 allies (estimates and framing [1] [20] [13]). OPM officials told critics the questions are legal and within presidential authority; critics respond that the practical effect will be ideological screening (OPM defense and critics’ statements [3] [21]).
7. What reporting does not settle
Available sources do not mention whether any finalized, broad federal statutory change has yet been enacted to permanently authorize reclassification of career employees without congressional action; litigation outcomes and any final rule implementations remain in flux in the reporting offered here (not found in current reporting). Sources also do not provide a final judicial ruling on the recent lawsuits as of these reports (not found in current reporting).
Bottom line: reporting shows a sustained, multi‑front fight — executive orders and memos to make it easier to remove or screen career employees, OPM hiring directives that critics call loyalty tests, and a countervailing Biden‑era regulatory and legal response — with unions, watchdogs and the courts poised to decide how far a president may go in remaking the civil service (overview of actions and pushback [1] [3] [5]).