, ,

5 Ways a Trump Administration Could Affect Government Employees

America is a different country today. With the presidential election come and gone, and only 71 days until Donald Trump begins his first term as Commander-in-Chief, many across the country are bracing themselves for an inevitable change. Politics aside, there are several proposed initiatives stated by Trump during his campaign that will affect government employees across the board.

Federal Hiring

Throughout Trump’s campaign, and even in his 100-day action plan for his term in office, Trump has emphasized that one of his first orders of business will be implementing a hiring freeze “on all federal employees to reduce the federal workforce through attrition.” There would be an exemption for those in the military, public safety and public health, according to the action plan.

According to Trump, the goal is to “reduce the size of the federal bureaucracy through responsible workforce attrition — that is, when employees retire, they can be replaced by a smaller number of new employees,” he said.

Cybersecurity

Trump’s cybersecurity plan involves creating a “team of the best military, civilian and private sector cybersecurity experts to comprehensively review all of our cybersecurity systems and technology.”

As part of Trump’s efforts to restore national security, one of his priorities includes “protect[ing] our vital infrastructure from cyber-attack,” according to his action plan. However, he did not provide specifics on how that issue would be addressed.

Military and Funding

Trump has pledged many times to reverse the Budget Control Act and “increase the size of the U.S. Army to 540,000 active duty soldiers, rebuild the U.S. Navy toward a goal of 350 ships, provide the U.S. Air Force with the 1,200 fighter aircraft they need, and grow the U.S. Marine Corps to 36 battalions,” as stated on his website.

According to a Trump campaign staff member, “Mr. Trump will ask Congress to fully eliminate the defense sequester and will submit a new budget to rebuild our military,” CNN reported.

While the Budget Control Act of 2011 ensures a decrease in military operations and spending, Trump is determined to stop the defense sequester and bolster the military budget.

Federal Spending

Every agency must “provide a list of wasteful spending projects that we can eliminate in my first 100 days,” Trump said in his RNC speech.

Trump’s stance on cutting federal spending can be seen as an extension of cutting federal employees he sees as unfit for the position. It’s unclear what exactly his plan would mean for government agencies, other than a general downsizing across the board.

Lobbying Rules

As part of his contract to the American people, Trump said he plans to place “a five-year ban on White House and congressional officials becoming lobbyists after they leave government service.”

In 2009, President Obama tightened restrictions on post-congressional lobbying, enforcing that “all appointees who are senior officials subject to the statutory one-year cooling off period on lobbying and advocacy communications to their former agencies must now abide by such cooling off period for two years.”

Under Trump, any congressional or White House employee who leaves their position cannot find work in a lobbying position for five years. The change is meant to “clean up the corruption and special interest collusion in Washington, D.C.,” according to his plan, and will surely affect many federal employees looking to change careers after this election.

Leave a Comment

16 Comments

Leave a Reply

Allen

Stock market reaction shows McDonald Douglass, Raytheon, GE all gaining – a sign of building military strength and contracts.
Ruger, American gun manufacture, stock dropped signaling a *possible* drop in gun sales.
No word on construction contracts.
Tip: Wishing the president’s failure is like wishing the pilot of the plane or captain of the ship to crash and burn. This never goes well for the passengers and crew – a.k.a us.

Reply
Nena

With all political administrative changes, from the local government on up to the federal level this is common place. Those of us who work in government must realize on a daily basis that our jobs are not secure due to politics and life goes on whether we agree with new policies or not.

Reply
Laurie

The stock market is generally up – good news! Our jobs, unless we are redundant, are secure so take heart! This is how our great country works; change is good so embrace it and work with what we have. If we do our jobs well we will survive.

Reply
Paul Harmon

This whole article has a course tone about President Elect Donald J. Trump. I am sure you did not use the tone Obamas plan or say Obamas unclear about…. I hope he looks at you as unfit and replaces you with someone who would be more objective or sees your work as useless and terminates your job, not wasting my tax money. Get ready for the change!

Reply
Liz

Please see the comment under like-minded Queeney .
Why are you so nasty to this writer? Is this the new normal for GovLoop? Your comments are far from constructive nor do they contribute to any real conversation on the matter.

Reply
Jo Ann Queeney

Liz, please see my comment (“like-minded Queeney’s”) under the comments you entered under “Like-Minded Queeney” I believe both, both Paul Harmon and my comments are very constructive. We even gave examples to help with how what she wrote about Trump would most likely not have been written about another person of a high position such as his.

Reply
Cynthia Dabney

As a victim of the Federal sequestration of 2013 – wherein I lost my job and almost everything else – I don’t see federal downsizing, again, in a positive light. The agency I work for cuts the contract force and eliminates support programs first – generally this is not “redundancy” because then either Federal Personnel have to assume those roles or the tasks go unperformed.

Reply
Jo Ann Queeney

I am sorry to read the negative connotations throughout this article. I am regularly pleased when reading the articles posted on this site, however, the author most definitely has a negative opinion of our new leader and had indicated so in the additional “opinionated” thought of what is believed to be meant by the President-Elect. Unless, she has spoken directly with President-elect Trump or has heard him specifically say the things this author has added as her interpretation, it should not be included in this article. Very disappointed!! Why don’t we start working together as a nation again to support our President and do all we can to make our nation a truly UNITED States of America! BTW: He is the highest ranking Military official…would you still write your opinionated interpretation if you were writing publicly about a 4-Star General’s plan for his command? Shame on you!

Reply
Liz

I’m not seeing the negative connotations you or anyone else is referring to here. It appears very neutral to me. Is it the new normal for Americans to be hot-headed consider ourselves always under attack?
Rather than spewing equal amounts of ugly at the other side, could you consider being specific in your examples and offering constructive criticism? Or better yet, become a blogger and handle the coverage yourself.

Reply
Jo Ann Queeney

I am not sure why you are so upset and I don’t see “ugly” in my remarks at all. I expressed my disappointment in the added opinions of what the President-elect meant by his plans and added “shame on you” because she should realize that when writing a “Factual” article you should never add your own opinion as fact. I was not hot-headed in anyway, but instead was noting that we need to become United as our countries name indicates. I am still very calm in my response to you and am sorry that you have felt the need to get upset or offended by my clear expression of my “opinion”, which by the way is “my” opinion to give and was not cited as anyone else’s thoughts. Examples, if needed, of where there is negative connotations are: (1) “However, he did not provide specifics on how that issue would be addressed” – This comment is not needed if you are just stating as the article indicates “5 Ways the Trump Administration could Affect Government Employees” Instead, it comes across with a very course tone, as stated by another person who you found offensive. (2) “WHILE the Budget Control Act of 2011 ensures a decrease in military operations and spending, Trump is DETERMINED TO STOP the defense sequester and bolster the military budget.”- She is making her opinionated stance that she disagrees with him doing so by saying “WHILE” which is used when you are making an argumentative statement with a comparison and “DETERMINED TO” once again making it sound like she thinks he is without reason. (3) “It’s unclear what exactly his plan would mean for government agencies, other than a general downsizing across the board. (once again, it is an opinionated statement, with negative connotations.”- There is no need for her to add her opinion of what it must mean. By saying “It is unclear…, OTHER THAN…,” that is saying that the OTHER THAN part is “clear”. Unless she knows for a fact that he meant or said that he will do “generalized downsizing across the board” she should not add that to her article. It is her opinion of what she thinks he REALLY means. (4) “Under Trump, any congressional or White House employee who leaves their position cannot find work in a lobbying position for five years. The change is MEANT TO “clean up the corruption and special interest collusion in Washington, D.C.,” according to his plan, and WILL SURELY AFFECT MANY federal employees looking to change careers after this election.” – Once again, negative connotation in stating “IS MEANT TO…ACCORDING TO HIS PLAN,” giving a negative opinionated feeling as if she doesn’t agree with him or feel it will be successful, and “WILL SURELY” instead of “could possibly affect” in a less negative connotation. She more of less is saying his plan is meant to do this great thing, but instead will do this bad thing. Do you see where maybe we are getting the “negative” in her article. If she would have written it from a non-bias, factual standpoint, it would have been an exceptional article. By adding her own, biased opinionated wording (which by the way, most writers know what words ignite what feelings or thoughts), she changed the whole feel of the article to a more negative approach to how our new President-Elect’s “Administration will affect government employees”

Reply
sophia

In fact, I thought the author sounded positive. All lot more positive than I’m feeling right now.

Reply
Dale

Gee, another freeze on federal hiring…only to result in more contractors and higher costs. Contracting out should be frozen and emphasis put on growing our own qualified federal force to save money. Check the stats…the majority of “federal workers” these days are contractors. And in the meanwhile, services deteriorate, tasks go undone, and the best minds and most talented feds facing burn out often jump ship out of self-preservation (after all the contractor working next to them is getting paid more, isn’t getting vilified by the public, and doesn’t get stuck with doing all the required “inherently governmental “work that somehow is disregarded when someone decided a position could be contracted out). Despite all the hype to the contrary, most jobs in Government, except those that are already the lowest paid groups in civilian jobs (usually involves some kind of menial labor and is already often contracted out), require people with knowledge that can only be gained through on the job experience, intelligence, skills, talent, “corporate knowledge”, and education. The whole contracting approach tends to assume that most jobs are a lot like plug and play modules in todays equipment. The assumption is that as long as one P&P module has basically the same specifications as the original, it can easily replace the original. It is NOT that easy with people, and as many have found out to their dismay, even “new equipment P&P modules” that are touted as being equal to the original modules don’t always work well in the original equipment because of some “minor” difference. I find it ironic when people claim government is too big, and in the next breath, complain that it takes so long for [enter Agency name here] to get something they want done. Services are NOT free, and people can only do so much. Automation helps, but in many cases, elements of humanity (empathy, compassion, sense of urgency, etc.) are required to make a real difference in the services that Government provides. If you insist on cutting back on the Humans that do the work, the remaining ones either burn out, or opt for the “get it off the desk” approach versus actually taking the time to do the job right. You want services, then pay your taxes, or better yet, also tell your congressmen to quit kowtowing to corporations and the tea party (to include ensuring they do have to start paying for the services they also enjoy but avoid paying the taxes that support those services, stop supporting non essential products (bridges to nowhere, weapons the military never wanted or needed that are stock piled in the desert, factories for goods no one wants or needs, etc.) and insisting on meddling in peoples religious and personal love lives, etc., destroying our long term future by not protecting the environment, putting profit above people, etc. ( the “Health” industry for example.) I know, too late, the “American people” once again supposedly voted for “change”, but they just kept the majority of the” road blocks to change” in place.

Reply
ken

Well said, what a refreshing thought. Many don’t realize what happens when you lose the “indians” and keep all the “chiefs”

Reply
Profile Photo richard regan

How appropriate a thread. A post that honors a commander and chief with a checkered past when it comes to diversity and inclusion and replies that throw American Indians under the bus during American Indian Heritage Month.

Your remarks are trying to explain a situation where there are too many bosses but no one doing any work.

The historical context of how you used these offensive terms is incorrect. It inaccurately reflects the dictatorial style of an American Indian Chief who gives orders to his or her followers. It runs counter to the core principle of democratic decision making that serves as the foundation of Tribal Governments. It is inconsistent with Indian country leadership where everyone is a leader and has a communal voice which puts the larger Tribal interests ahead of individual concerns.

Reply