Trump administration wants fed job applicants to disclose political affiliations

• Key Insight: Learn how optional political essays could shift federal hiring from merit to ideology.
• What's at Stake: Risk of reduced talent pool and legal exposure across federal agencies.
• Supporting Data: Appeared on ~33,000 listings — about 25% of competitive federal applications.
  Source: Bullets generated by AI with editorial review

Should federal job applicants be required to disclose their political affiliations in order to be hired? That question is now at the center of a growing legal dispute in federal court.

Under the Trump administration, the Office of Personnel Management (OPM) recently announced its Merit Hiring Plan, a reform of U.S. federal hiring practices aimed at prioritizing skills-based assessments over formal degrees. As part of the initiative, federal job applications now include "optional" open-ended politically inclined essay prompts, which the administration has suggested could eventually become mandatory — though many regulatory and employment agencies argue they neither can nor should be required.

"Most positions in the federal government are supposed to be politically neutral positions," said Stephanie Rapp-Tully, a partner at employment law firm Tully Rinckey. "It's supposed to be a protected source of employment, desired by people for its stability and protections of employees' rights. This [new plan] is potentially an attempt to circumvent that."  

Read more: How to build a nationwide hiring process for remote roles

The four major questions posed to applicants include: two related to their views on specific executive orders; one on how they would uphold the current administration's values; and another on their perspectives on the current political climate. According to Rapp-Tully, questions of this nature are not only unprecedented, but could also carry significant legal risks. For example, they may violate the Privacy Act of 1974, which protects federal employees and applicants by regulating how agencies collect and use personal information. They could also potentially infringe on an applicant's First Amendment rights if individuals feel pressured to respond in a particular way in order to be hired.

Despite not being mandatory yet, as of April 2026, the essay questions have appeared on approximately 33,000 federal job postings, according to the Justice Department and Energy Department, representing about one-quarter of competitive federal applications since the new hiring plan was introduced. 

"There's even a question over whether these questions should be allowed to be optional," Rapp-Tully said. "But if they are allowed to move forward and become mandatory it would accomplish the goal of only hiring from a certain political viewpoint — which is not the purpose of the federal government."

Losing qualified talent

Politically charged application questions could discourage or exclude highly qualified candidates who either choose not to respond or feel pressured to disclose their political views, Rapp-Tully said. As a result, less qualified individuals could be hired instead, potentially affecting the long-term quality of the workforce, especially given that federal positions are relatively difficult to vacate once filled. In addition, agencies risk the rejection of otherwise qualified applicants because of their political beliefs. In such cases, applicants may have grounds to file complaints, and managers who believe these questions are improperly influencing hiring decisions could also choose to come forward as whistleblowers.

Read more: Trump's immigration crackdown fails to deliver jobs for US-born workers

"From what I understand, there's only one possible outcome," Rapp-Tully said. "Based on the questions that I've seen and the way they're worded and for the positions that I've seen them on, I don't think that they can be mandatory. I don't think that it's appropriate and I don't think it's legal."

While the outcome of this debate remains uncertain, applicants, employees and managers in federally appointed fields should ensure they understand their rights and that they're keeping up with updates to the case as they come, according to Rapp-Tully. 

"Ultimately it's up to a judge," she said. "But I do think this issue is going to go the distance for a while until there's a final decision."