The Biden administration wants to make it hard to fire career bureaucrats
The Democrat party's strength exists primarily in its control over the federal workforce, most of whom are Democrat party loyalists. Trump promised in 2016 to pare down the Deep State but failed. Instead, it pared him down. Now Republican candidates are again promising to cut back on the federal workforce, with Vivek Ramaswamy believing that he can fire whole departments and agencies. Naturally, that mindset represents a huge threat to the Democrats, so it's being reported that the Biden administration is trying to create rules to prevent any future Republican from destroying the Deep State bureaucracy.
According to an article in Newsmax,
[t]he White House proposed a new rule Friday aimed at impeding Trump or a similarly minded Republican president's ability to replace the federal workforce with loyalists, strengthening protections for civil service employees.
It ensures that a move Trump tried to make in the last year of his presidency to broaden the number of federal employees not subject to political protections would have significant hurdles if tried again.
The fight is over the rule known as "Schedule F." At the end of his first term, Trump created this category in the federal workforce. He defined "Schedule F" employees as those people "in positions of a confidential, policy-determining, policy-making, or policy-advocating character." According to Trump, a new president should be able to fire that kind of employee rather than being saddled with holdovers from the last administration. He's right, of course, as a matter of principle.
Biden has a different idea. Again, from Newsmax:
Now, the rule proposed by the White House's Office of Personnel Management in its Federal Register filing allows workers to keep their existing job protections even if their position were reclassified.
The rule also tightens the definition of what positions can be exempted from civil service job protections, specifically limiting it to noncareer political appointees.
The big question, then, is how much control the president has over the people who work for him. Is he just a figurehead who must bow to the will of his employees, or is he the big boss, the man whom the people elected to effectuate his administration's policies (which, of course, include implementing the laws of the United States)?
In this regard, note that Biden has explicitly directed the border patrol to ignore the laws of the United States. The fact that he hasn't been impeached for this since the 2022 election tells you how deeply invested the Republican party is in illegal immigration — or rather, make that the Chamber of Commerce branch of the Republican party (or, as I also call them, the Vichy Republicans). The Republican party once owed its loyalty to Main Street America. The Vichy Republicans are now loyal to corporate America, which, if you look at who really owns these companies (BlackRock, Vanguard, Unilever, etc.), means the world's globalists, along with their Democrat party values.
But back to who has power over the federal workforce...
The permanent bureaucracy began under Woodrow Wilson, a racist progressive Democrat who believed that he and his cohorts had the "expertise" necessary to run the country without regard for the wants of the American people. Franklin Roosevelt, another racist progressive Democrat, used the Depression to create the modern administrative state. They effectively created a fourth branch of government that is not recognized under the Constitution.
After his election, John F. Kennedy signed Executive Order 10988, which unionized the federal workforce. This put the Wilson-Roosevelt bureaucracy on rocket fuel. Federal employees now had an unprecedented level of job security and, eventually, wealth. This permanently welded their loyalty to the Democrat party. Today, they earn more money and have better benefits than their peers in the private sector and, most importantly, have unmatched job security. It's almost impossible to fire a federal worker.
But as the past few years have shown, these federal workers are no longer non-partisan drones, quietly carrying out the will of the American people as reflected in legislation. Instead, with few exceptions, they are hardcore Democrat loyalists. In the DOJ, the FBI, the IRS, the Department of Education, the Pentagon, etc., they deliberately ignored Trump's authority and carried on as if there hadn't been a change in command in the White House.
So the big question is whether the federal bureaucracy, without the benefit of a constitutional amendment, exists as a completely independent branch of government over which the president has no control or whether the Constitution makes the president the big boss with plenary power over the people who work in the bureaucracy.
I believe that, as the nation's chief executive, the one charged with managing the government and implementing the laws of the United States, the president has complete power over the people and agencies that extend his reach so that he can engage in those managerial activities. If they're not following his orders, he can fire them...and no legislation or regulations can protect them. Neither Congress nor the unconstitutional branch of government called the administrative state can interfere in the Executive's realm.
Schedule F reflects that constitutional reality by saying that, at a minimum, the president can fire those bureaucrats who set the policy within a given agency. Any Democrat attempts to put rules in place blocking a president's plenary power over that policy-making segment of the federal workforce are unconstitutional.
Of course, that's the (correct) theory. In fact, what is constitutional and what isn't ultimately comes down to what the powers in Washington choose to do. If the bureaucrats refuse to go along with being fired and a Republican president backs down, then the Constitution doesn't matter. And if the Supreme Court, led by the noodle-spined Justice Roberts or the mysteriously cowed young conservative justices, declares that the Deep State has permanent rights...well, once again, there will have been a soft coup against the Constitution.