Federal Unions Challenge OPM’s “Loyalty Question” in Hiring
Three of the largest federal-employee unions—AFGE, AFSCME, and NAGE—just filed a 54-page lawsuit that could reshape the foundation of federal hiring. Their target: a new “loyalty question” embedded in OPM’s Merit Hiring Plan, which asks applicants, “How would you help advance the President’s executive orders and policy priorities in this role?”
At first glance, the question appears optional. But according to the lawsuit, agencies are being trained to treat these essays as meaningful—and to share them with political leadership before a hiring decision is made. For career positions from GS-5 to GS-15, that shift could make political alignment a silent filter in what has always been a merit-based system.
A 140-Year Principle Under Fire
The lawsuit reaches back to the very origins of the modern civil service. After President Garfield’s assassination in 1881 by a man demanding a patronage job, Congress passed the Pendleton Act to ensure that federal employment would rest on competence, not connections. Every reform since—from the Civil Service Reform Act of 1978 to the merit principles codified in Title 5—has guarded that ideal.
The unions argue that OPM’s “loyalty question” reverses course, effectively making political loyalty a factor in who gets hired. They cite four constitutional violations:
-
Unconstitutional conditions – forcing applicants to trade political neutrality for employment.
-
Compelled speech – pressuring candidates to echo the President’s agenda.
-
Chilled speech – deterring people from applying or speaking freely.
-
Viewpoint discrimination – favoring one ideology over another in government service.
Beyond the Constitution: Statutory Breaches
The complaint also invokes the Administrative Procedure Act and the Privacy Act. OPM, it says, never justified why such essays are needed for non-political roles—making the rule arbitrary and capricious. And by collecting and storing applicants’ political opinions on USAJobs, the agency may be violating the Privacy Act’s prohibition on maintaining records of First Amendment activity unless necessary for the job.
Union affidavits describe the human impact: one former Education Department employee spent hours combing through executive orders to find a “safe” one to praise when reapplying after a RIF; others chose silence and stopped applying altogether.
What’s at Stake for Federal Workers
If the unions prevail, OPM could be ordered to strike the question from all postings and delete any stored responses—restoring the core principle that federal jobs must be filled based on ability, not ideology. If they lose, political loyalty could become an unofficial hiring metric across thousands of civil-service roles.
For now, applicants who encounter the “loyalty question” should screenshot the posting, note whether the answer is marked “optional” or “required,” and seek legal advice before responding.
This case isn’t just about hiring forms—it’s about who the federal government ultimately serves: the public or a party.
Legal Disclaimer: The information provided in this article is for informational purposes only and should not be construed as legal advice. While I am a federal employment attorney, this post does not create an attorney-client relationship. Every situation is unique, and legal outcomes depend on specific facts and circumstances.