Like any job, applying to work for the federal government usually means explaining past accomplishments and what you can do in the position you’re applying for. But under the Trump Administration, a new question asked some applicants something more personal: Which of the President’s policies matter to you, and how would you help carry them out?
Job applicants sued the federal government for asking that question. Now, a federal judge in Massachusetts has temporarily blocked the question, finding that it could reasonably be understood as asking career civil-service applicants to reveal their political views. The case is still unfolding, but it raises a larger question about where job qualifications end, and political loyalty begins.
Trump’s Executive Order
In January of 2025, President Donald Trump signed Executive Order 14170, calling for changes to the federal hiring process. The order, titled “Reforming the Federal Hiring Process and Restoring Merit to Government Service,” set the events in this case in motion. The order portrayed the federal hiring system as “broken, insular, and outdated.” Its stated aim was to make government recruitment more efficient and more focused on serving the nation.
The order instructed the Office of Personnel Management (OPM) and other officials to create a federal hiring plan designed to bring into government work what it called “highly skilled Americans,” defined as those “dedicated to the furtherance of American ideals, values, and interests.”
A few months later, OPM’s then-acting director and the White House Domestic Policy Council issued the resulting Merit Hiring Plan. The plan covered many federal civil-service jobs, including entry-level professional positions. It applied to job announcements classified at “GS-5” and above — positions for which a bachelor’s degree may be enough to qualify.
Hiring on ‘Merits’
The Plan said that federal job announcements at the GS-5 level and above would include four short, free-response essay questions. The third question, which will later become relevant in the litigation, was:
How would you help advance the President’s Executive Orders and policy priorities in this role? Identify one or two relevant Executive Orders or policy initiatives that are significant to you, and explain how you would help implement them if hired.
OPM later instructed agencies that they could not use answers to decide whether an applicant was qualified for a job or as an ideological litmus test. Applicants were to be told that the answers were optional and would not be scored, although OPM encouraged them to respond thoughtfully.
OPM said the four questions had to be included in public competitive-service job announcements at the GS-5 level and above, with exceptions for teachers, Wage Grade, and seasonal positions. Agencies could also exempt other positions when appropriate and document the reason. The questions were not required for competitive merit-promotion hiring, though OPM encouraged agencies to use them.
What the Unions Allege
Three unions (the American Federation of Government Employees, the American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees, and the National Association of Government Employees) brought a lawsuit against the federal government in a federal district court in Massachusetts. The unions challenged Question Three after it appeared in thousands of federal civil-service job applications. Union members testified to encountering the question while applying for federal jobs.
The Merit Hiring Plan requires agency leadership, or leadership’s designees, to be involved throughout the hiring process. The unions maintained that this means political appointees will review applicants’ responses before final hiring decisions are made. The unions also claimed that Question Three and OPM’s related guidance “unconstitutionally politicize the career employee hiring process,” in violation of the Administrative Procedure Act (APA) and the First Amendment.
The unions asked for two forms of temporary relief. First, they sought a stay under Section 705 of the APA that would temporarily halt the use and implementation of Question Three in federal civil-service applications while the case proceeded. Second, they sought an injunction barring the government from considering any applicant’s answer (or decision not to answer) when making federal civil-service hiring decisions.
The Court’s Ruling
Judge George A. O’Toole Jr. granted the unions’ request in part, temporarily suspending Question Three under Section 705 of the Administrative Procedure Act.
The court found the unions were likely to succeed on their claim that Question Three violated the APA because it was likely contrary to applicants’ First Amendment rights. The question asked applicants to identify executive orders or policy initiatives “significant to you” and explain how they would help carry them out if hired. The court concluded that an applicant could reasonably understand this as a request for their personal political views.
The court pointed to “Federal Worker 4,” a Department of Veterans Affairs employee who encountered Question Three while applying for similar jobs at other agencies. She said she answered despite not wanting to discuss politics at work because she feared that declining to answer (or answering in a way unfavorable to President Trump) could hurt her applications. The court found that concern reasonable. Although OPM’s guidance said the question could not be used as an ideological litmus test, the court noted that this limitation did not appear in the question as applicants saw it.
The court denied the unions’ separate request to bar the government from considering applicants’ answers in individual hiring decisions. Because the unions framed their case as challenging the speech-related harm of being asked the question (not a particular hiring, promotion, or rejection decision) the court held that an order regulating the use of individual answers would not remedy the claimed harm. The unions therefore lacked standing to seek that injunction.
The Court’s Reasoning
Before reaching the First Amendment issue, the court rejected the government’s argument that the unions had to pursue their claims through the administrative process for federal personnel disputes. The court reasoned that the lawsuit challenged OPM’s policy itself, rather than a specific decision to hire, reject, promote, or fire someone. It also concluded that the Merit Hiring Plan and OPM’s related guidance were final agency actions that could be reviewed under the APA.
On the constitutional question, the court did not make a final ruling that Question Three was unconstitutional. Instead, it found that the unions were likely to succeed at this early stage. The court did not decide whether strict scrutiny or exacting scrutiny was the correct First Amendment standard, concluding that the question likely failed under either test.
The government relied on its general discretion to manage federal hiring. But the court said it had not explained why political allegiance was an appropriate qualification for the broad range of civil-service jobs covered by the question. That was especially significant because federal law prohibits employment decisions based on political affiliation.
The court also emphasized the policy’s sweep. Question Three applied to public competitive-service postings at GS-5 and above. This category includes jobs such as air traffic control specialist, nuclear materials courier, and crane operator. The court found that the government had not shown why asking about an applicant’s political views was necessary for those positions or narrowly tailored to a sufficiently important government interest.
What Happens Now
The case is not over. The court’s order decides only whether Question Three should be paused while the lawsuit continues; it is not a final judgment on the legality of the Merit Hiring Plan or the question itself.
The ruling nevertheless puts a developing issue in federal employment law into unusually sharp focus: how far an administration may go in asking career civil-service applicants to connect themselves to a president’s agenda. The eventual outcome could help define the boundary between evaluating an applicant’s ability to carry out the work of government and testing the applicant’s political alignment with the administration in power.
