Federal workers’ unions argued before a Massachusetts federal judge that the Trump administration’s hiring practices pressure applicants to pledge loyalty to the president’s political agenda, and urged the court to block a controversial question appearing in federal job applications, reports Law360.
Unions say the prompt, which asks candidates how they would advance President Trump’s priorities, violates constitutional protections and undercuts the impartial nature of the civil service.
Appearing in court on behalf of the unions, Keker, Van Nest & Peters partner Warren Braunig said the loyalty question present a "pick your poison" choice for job applicants. They would have to "make a compelled statement, perhaps one they don't agree with, or choose not to answer and risk their employment, or choose not to apply at all," he said.
The question is one among four essay prompts recommended by the Office of Personnel Management as part of a “merit hiring plan” introduced in 2025. Applicants are asked to identify Trump administration policies or executive orders that are meaningful and explain how they would help implement those goals if hired.
The unions are asking U.S. District Judge George A. O’Toole Jr. to issue a preliminary injunction blocking the use of the question in federal job postings.
The lawsuit, filed by the American Federation of Government Employees, the American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees, and the National Association of Government Employees, argues that inserting politically charged questions into hiring for roles, ranging from firefighters to air traffic controllers to Treasury Department attorneys, creates a patronage model in which loyalists are rewarded with jobs for their political support.
Braunig said the constitutional harm occurs the moment applicants are compelled to confront the question. “If this is not addressed by this court, many more people will be compelled to speak or chilled from speaking,” he told the judge.
The Keker team includes Braunig, Charlotte Kamai, Sara Fitzpatrick, and Sana Singh.
Read the Law360 article here. (subscription required)