Climate Change Statements Could Cost Government Scientists Their Jobs Under New Rule
The Trump administration has finalized a controversial rule that could make stating scientific facts about climate change a fireable offense for tens of thousands of federal employees. The regulation creates a new employment category called "Schedule Policy/Career" that strips traditional job protections from approximately 50,000 government workers whose roles are deemed "policy-influencing."
What the New Rule Means for Federal Workers
Under the finalized regulation, government employees in positions considered "confidential, policy-determining, policy-making, or policy-advocating" would lose their ability to appeal to the Merit Systems Protection Board. This independent body has historically served as a crucial safeguard for federal workers who believe they've been unfairly disciplined or terminated.
The new category affects a broad range of professionals including:
- Scientists conducting environmental research
- Policy analysts developing government programs
- Attorneys providing legal guidance
- Bank examiners overseeing financial institutions
- IT professionals managing government systems
The rule becomes effective 30 days after its official publication in the federal register, at which point the president gains authority to designate which positions fall under the new classification.
Climate Science Specifically Targeted
The 250-page final rule contains numerous references to what it terms "policy resistance" to the president's agenda. Among the examples cited is scientific reporting during Trump's first term that acknowledged the reality of climate change.
A footnote in the document specifically references a Bloomberg News article that documented instances where government agencies continued work that contradicted administration policies. The article highlighted how National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration employees persisted in publishing reports stating that "climate change is real, serious and man-made" despite administration positions.
"As the case of NOAA illustrates, the most radical example of bureaucratic resistance may also be the simplest: continuing to issue information or reports that are factually accurate, even when they clash with the administration's policies," the Bloomberg analysis noted.
Return of the Spoils System?
Critics argue the rule essentially revives the 19th-century spoils system, where government employment depended on political loyalty rather than professional merit. Max Stier, president of the Partnership for Public Service, condemned the change in strong terms.
"No matter what the administration says, today's action has nothing to do with restoring merit in federal employment. This new designation can be used to remove expert career federal employees who place the law and service to the public ahead of blind loyalty," Stier stated.
His organization recently reviewed similar policies at the state level and found they consistently led to:
- Increased employee turnover
- Greater risk of politically motivated firings
- Reduced willingness to report workplace wrongdoing
"There is a reason our nation abandoned the spoils system that handed out government jobs to political lackeys nearly 150 years ago," Stier added. "That system inevitably led to corruption, incompetence, waste and ineffective government. This one will be no different."
Administration Defense and Legal Challenges
The Trump administration maintains the rule won't create a patronage system and that reclassified positions will still be protected against discrimination based on political affiliation. The final rule states that "so long as Schedule Policy/Career employees work effectively to carry out the President's agenda, their jobs will be safe, no matter their personal political views."
However, multiple organizations have vowed to challenge the regulation in court. The American Federation of Government Employees called it "a direct assault on a professional, nonpartisan, merit-based civil service."
Everett Kelley, AFGE National President, argued that "when people see turmoil and controversy in Washington, they don't ask for more politics in government, they ask for competence and professionalism."
Democracy Forward, another frequent legal challenger to administration policies, also pledged continued opposition. President and CEO Skye Perryman stated that "this proposal was wrong when it was outlined in Project 2025, wrong when the President issued an executive order, and it remains wrong now."
Historical Context and Future Implications
This rule represents the culmination of efforts that began during Trump's first term but were never fully implemented and were subsequently reversed under the Biden administration. The current push gained momentum through Project 2025, the conservative blueprint for a potential second Trump term, which specifically called for reinstating what was originally termed "Schedule F."
The regulation's implementation could fundamentally alter how scientific research and policy analysis are conducted within federal agencies, potentially creating an environment where factual reporting takes second place to political alignment.
