The 'Loyalty Question' Is Disappearing From Federal Job Postings — and This Time the Administration Is Complying
The Trump administration's civil-service "loyalty question" — a short-answer essay asking federal job applicants how they would "help advance" President Trump's priorities and which of his executive orders they would "help implement" — is being quietly removed from federal job applications after Judge George A. O'Toole Jr. (D. Mass.) ruled earlier in September that it is likely unconstitutional. O'Toole sided with unions and issued a stay on Sept. 11, ordering the Office of Personnel Management not to use the question while the lawsuit proceeds, finding the unions "likely to succeed" on their argument that it imposed an "unconstitutional condition on employment."
In a status report filed to the court on Friday (Sept. 25/26), the Justice Department said OPM had notified all federal agencies that they cannot use the question in new job announcements — and, notably, the administration appears to be honoring the stay. A source involved in the litigation said the question has appeared in only five new postings since the stay. Roughly 6,000 already-posted listings were left alone because manually deleting the question risked disrupting ongoing hires; OPM "determined that the lower-risk course was to expressly and unequivocably direct agencies not to consider responses."
For new postings, OPM substituted a scrubbed version: "In this role, you will be expected to professionally and efficiently implement executive direction. Provide an example where you implemented leadership direction on a strategy or policy decision that differed from your own recommendation."
A Department of Education employee's court declaration captured the coercive dynamic the unions challenged: "Even if the question is supposed to be optional, I believe it would be used against me if I don't answer. After all, the question is there for a reason."
What it means
A rare instance of the administration swiftly complying with a court order it has every incentive to fight — the question is the hiring-side complement to Schedule F's removal-side politicization (see the Schedule Policy/Career watch), and the compliance report suggests OPM judged the legal exposure too high to defy. The fight isn't over: the administration may continue litigating to restore the original question, and the revised wording still probes "executive direction." But for now, the merit-based hiring principle has held.