When assessing the Forest Service reorganization, we must consider the bigger picture and broader changes occurring across the civil service. Doing so requires reading wonky government memos and regulations, but you can read straight through this analysis and skip the links to get the gist. The intent of this exercise is to project what the Forest Service may look like in a few years.
The Forest Service reorganization creates a new slate of upper leadership positions:
- 15 State Directors
- 6 Operational Service Center Directors
- 1 National Research Director
- 1 National Training Center Director
- 1 National Business Center Director
- Multiple new Headquarters leadership positions
Historically — except for a couple of Agriculture Department-Forest Service liaisons — all upper-level Forest Service positions were filled competitively on a merit basis by career professionals. Most — and possibly all — of the new positions listed above are being classified as Senior Executive Service (SES) General. SES General means the positions can be filled by career professionals or by non-career political appointees. The State Director positions were posted on the USAJOBS website on Monday, April 20, as SES General (literally the first line in the announcement).
On the Forest Service’s Setting the Record Straight on the Forest Service Reorganization webpage, the agency presents the following myth and fact:
Myth: State director roles will become political positions.
Fact: State directors will be filled exclusively by career federal employees.
The fact does not actually address the myth. The Forest Service notes that career federal employees will be appointed to these new positions. That may be true initially since doing such is good optics and makes the transition smoother. But the agency has not explained why the positions are being classified to allow for political appointees. If the agency is dedicated to filling the State Director roles with career federal employees, why not classify the positions as SES Career-Reserved and exclude the political appointee option?
We have the answer to that question, but it is not one the Forest Service wants to share: the President wants SES appointees loyal to him. On Day 1 of Term 2, President Trump issued a memo to all Executive Branch agency heads calling for an SES workforce aligned with his priorities:
As the Constitution makes clear, and as the Supreme Court of the United States has reaffirmed, “the ‘executive Power’ — all of it — is ‘vested in a President,’ who must ‘take Care that the Laws be faithfully executed.’… Because no single person could fulfill that responsibility alone, the Framers expected that the President would rely on subordinate officers for assistance.”… Because SES officials wield significant governmental authority, they must serve at the pleasure of the President.
Shortly thereafter, the Office of Personnel Management (OPM) directed federal agencies to review SES positions and to reclassify SES Career-Reserved positions as SES General unless special circumstances truly required a career person in the role. (See here, here and here for OPM direction.)
Additionally, the OPM revised SES performance standards to “ensure … that SES officials are properly accountable to the President and the American people by implementing new critical elements and performance requirements.” The first critical performance element for SES officials is now “Faithful Administration of the Law and the President’s Policies” — “the most critical element for reviewing the job performance of someone who serves under the elected President.”
There are some guardrails insulating the civil service against political partisanship. The Civil Service Reform Act of 1978 (CSRA) limits the total number of SES political appointees to no more than 10% of all SES positions across the federal government, and an agency may have at most 25% of their SES positions as political appointees. The CSRA and other laws dating back to 1883 also give federal employees securities such as the right to compete for jobs on a merit basis rather than political affiliation or favoritism, restricting adverse action (firing, suspension, or demotion) to performance-based cause rather than at-will employment, and the right to appeal any adverse actions.
These merit system principles have created a stable, professional, and proficient civil service that is widely regarded by international observers as a cornerstone of U.S. democratic success, providing the continuity and integrity necessary for a functional state. Then again, wouldn’t it be easier if the guardrails were torn down and the President appointed loyal agency leaders and civil servants who either faithfully implemented administration priorities or were fired?
The president and his administration believe in the Unitary Executive Theory — a legal argument that Article II of the Constitution grants the President absolute authority over all executive branch employees. Under this theory, any law that limits the President’s ability to fire an official — such as limits on political appointees and protections for civil servants — is an unconstitutional infringement on executive power. The Supreme Court has been receptive to this perspective, as described in this passage from the ruling in Selia Law LLC vs Consumer Finance Protection Bureau:
Article II vests the entire “executive Power” in the President alone, but the Constitution presumes that lesser executive officers will assist the President in discharging his duties. The President’s executive power generally includes the power to supervise — and, if necessary, remove — those who exercise the President’s authority on his behalf.
The Forest Service reorganization is taking place within a broader legal effort to assert the “entire executive power” over the federal workforce. In addition to the aforementioned memo on reclassifying SES positions, on Day 1 of Term 2, President Trump also issued Executive Order 14171 Restoring Accountability to Policy-Influencing Positions Within the Federal Workforce, in which he asserted:
Article II of the United States Constitution vests the President with the sole and exclusive authority over the executive branch, including the authority to manage the Federal workforce to ensure effective execution of Federal law. A critical aspect of this executive function is the responsibility to maintain professionalism and accountability within the civil service. This accountability is sorely lacking today. …
Accountability is essential for all Federal employees, but it is especially important for those who are in policy-influencing positions…. Any power they have is delegated by the President, and they must be accountable to the President…. In recent years, however, there have been numerous and well-documented cases of career Federal employees resisting and undermining the policies and directives of their executive leadership. Principles of good administration, therefore, necessitate action to restore accountability to the career civil service….
Trump then ordered the OPM to create a new Schedule (a civil service category) called Schedule Policy/Career. The OPM issued a memo to all Executive Branch Agency Heads a week later (January 27, 2025) directing agencies to identify “policy-influencing positions” and to petition the OPM to recommend that the President re-schedule these positions under the new Schedule Policy/Career.
The OPM memo notes that policy-influencing positions include those with duties such as:
- Directing the work of an organizational unit.
- Being held accountable for the success of one or more specific programs or projects.
- Monitoring progress toward organizational goals and periodically evaluating and making appropriate adjustments to such goals.
- Having delegated authority to make decisions committed by law.
- Substantive participation and discretionary authority in agency grantmaking, including drafting of funding opportunity. announcements, evaluating grant applications, or recommending/selecting grant recipients.
- Performing functions typically undertaken by an agency office of legislative affairs.
- Publicly advocating for the policies of the agency or the administration before media.
- And more.
The OPM memo notes that “Positions classified at or below grade 15 of the General Schedule” that perform policy-related duties are “appropriate for consideration for inclusion in Schedule Policy/Career.” In other words, we are talking about District Rangers, Forest Supervisors and Deputy Supervisors, Regional Program Managers, Grants & Agreements Managers, Legislative and Public Affairs staff, upper level specialists, researchers, planners and supervisory staff, and others.
The OPM finalized the rule establishing the Schedule Policy/Career on February 6, 2026. By now, the agencies have submitted their lists for re-scheduling to the OPM. The OPM will review the lists and the President will issue an Executive Order placing the listed employees into the Schedule Policy/Career — likely within the next few months.
The biggest change for employees under Schedule P/C is that they become at-will employees — they can be fired without cause — with no right to appeal any adverse action. Per the new rule, Schedule Policy/Career employees:
are not required to personally or politically support the current President or the policies of the current administration. Employees in Schedule Policy/Career positions must faithfully implement administration policies to the best of their ability, consistent with their constitutional oath and the vesting of executive authority solely in the President. Failure to do so is grounds for dismissal.
To recap where things stand:
- The Forest Service reorganization is creating new leadership positions that are being classified as fillable by either career employees or political appointees.
- The agency has pledged to fill leadership positions with career professionals; however, the administration has made it clear that agency leaders “must serve at the pleasure of the President” and faithfully administer his policies.
- There are guardrails against politicizing the civil service; however, the administration is trying to kick them down – and the Supreme Court has been receptive to this.
- OPM has directed agencies to reclassify federal positions that are broadly defined as “policy-influencing” under a new Schedule Policy/Career that converts the employees to at-will employment, with failure to faithfully implement the President’s priorities constituting grounds for dismissal.
Project forward a couple of years, and it is not hard to envision a future scenario where:
1) Forest Service upper leadership consists of political appointees, and
2) The employees who work for them must implement administration priorities or be fired. Career scientists, senior analysts, program managers and forest supervisors who ask questions about, raise concerns about, or fail to expediently implement the “Immediate Expansion of American Timber Production” Executive Order, the “Unleashing American Energy” Executive Order, the Chief’s direction to suppress small fires, the “Promoting the National Defense by Ensuring an Adequate Supply of Elemental Phosphorous and Glyphosate-based Herbicides” Executive Order, — or a bevy of other orders — could be fired.
And this scenario applies to all federal agencies, not just the Forest Service.
So — will this actually come to pass?
What is lined out here remains within the realm of possibility and appears to be the desired outcome for this administration. That said, there are opportunities for the people, Congress, courts, federal employee unions and principled executive branch leaders to stand for a merit-based civil service where practiced competence supersedes political loyalty. We must voice our support for civil service protections and professionalism in the press, to our congressional representatives and with our votes. We must hold accountable those who are trying to return us to the spoils and patronage system of the 19th century and its mass corruption, gross incompetence and high government turnover every election. In short, what will come to be will largely depend on how we respond to the Forest Service reorganization and the changes to the civil service. Democracy is not a spectator sport – it is a participatory event – and now, more than ever, we need to participate.
