Keker Files Lawsuit Against Federal OPM Over Trump ‘Loyalty’ Question in Civil Service Job Applications
By Mark Smith
A San Francisco powerhouse law firm just fired a legal salvo at the heart of Trump’s federal hiring machine, accusing the Office of Personnel Management of turning job apps into a partisan litmus test. Keker, Van Nest & Peters LLP, alongside advocacy groups, slammed OPM with a federal lawsuit on November 6, charging that a sneaky “loyalty question” poisons the nonpartisan civil service well and tramples First Amendment rights nationwide.
The explosive filing, lodged in U.S. District Court in Massachusetts, spotlights how over 5,800 federal job postings— from meat cutters at the Pentagon to laundry workers at VA hospitals—now probe applicants on their favorite Trump executive orders or policy wins. The essay prompt demands candidates name one or two Trump initiatives that “are significant to you” and spell out how they’d push them forward if hired, a move plaintiffs dub a blatant loyalty pledge straight out of Project 2025’s playbook. Unions like the American Federation of Government Employees (AFGE), American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees (AFSCME), and National Association of Government Employees (NAGE) lead the charge, repped by Keker, Democracy Forward, and Protect Democracy.
This Trump loyalty question in civil service apps isn’t some footnote—it’s a direct assault on the 1883 Pendleton Act’s merit-based bedrock, which axed the spoils system after President Garfield’s assassination by a disgruntled office-seeker. OPM’s May “Merit Hiring Plan,” born from a January executive order, rolled out four essay queries for GS-5+ roles to gauge “commitment to public service.” But the Trump-specific one exploded in controversy, drawing immediate fire from Democrats and watchdogs for coercing praise and chilling dissent. Post-backlash, OPM tweaked it to “optional” in June, insisting it’s no litmus test and won’t sway scores—yet the suit blasts that as smoke and mirrors, since hiring bosses and political appointees still eyeball responses for an “unknown role” in decisions.
The complaint piles on violations: First Amendment free speech curbs by forcing political fealty; arbitrary rulemaking sans notice under the Administrative Procedure Act; and Privacy Act breaches by hoovering up ideological intel without safeguards. “This isn’t merit—it’s MAGA allegiance on steroids,” the filing argues, noting the question’s debut on 1,700+ posts since October 1 alone, amid mass layoffs at spots like the Education Department, which axed half its staff via buyouts and pink slips.
Legal titans are all in. Warren Braunig, a Keker partner, thundered that the ploy “would corrupt the federal government and destroy public trust,” vowing to shield the Constitution over any agenda. Democracy Forward’s Faiza Patel called it a “chilling threat to impartial governance,” while AFGE’s Everett Kelley warned of a “patronage revival” gutting expertise. OPM’s Scott Kupor fired back, touting the plan as a nonpartisan booster focused on skills, not ideology—echoing White House lines that it’s all about “restoring merit.” Critics like UCLA’s Jon Michaels counter that even “encouraged” optics breed self-censorship, deterring diverse talent in a workforce already 40% under Trump’s first-term turnover churn.
X is a powder keg. #OPMLawsuit rocketed to 15K posts in days, with AFGE’s viral thread—”Suing over the loyalty question: Merit, not MAGA!”—snagging 20K likes and shares slamming it as “Orwellian hiring.” MAGA voices pushed back, dubbing it “union whining” over accountability, while one quip from @FedWatchdog—”From Garfield’s grave: Pendleton weeps”—drew 5K chuckles. Law.com’s coverage lit up legal feeds, amplifying Keker’s pro bono cred in civil rights scraps.
For everyday Americans—from D.C. desk jockeys to rural vets banking on VA jobs—this Trump loyalty question lawsuit strikes at government’s guts. It risks politicizing 2.1 million civil servants, spiking turnover costs by $500 million yearly and hobbling responses to everything from Social Security backlogs to FEMA floods. In a 3.2% inflation squeeze, biased hiring could inflate agency bloat or stall economic perks like Trump’s tax tweaks, eroding trust where polls show just 28% faith in feds. Politically, victory for plaintiffs could neuter Schedule F revival bids, preserving expertise amid 2026 midterms; loss? It greenlights loyalty oaths, chilling whistleblowers and tilting tech regs toward cronies.
As the Massachusetts court weighs injunctions to yank the question, this Keker-led clash tests Trump’s grip on the bureaucracy. Will it fortify merit or fracture it into fealty factions? With discovery looming, the stakes couldn’t be higher—hanging in the balance is whether Uncle Sam’s workforce serves the people or the president.
Follow and subscribe to us for push notifications—stay ahead of the curve on federal lawsuits and civil service shakeups.