Thanks for writing about this. When I first heard of this loyalty oath, I immediately thought of another one from the past that did not work out so well:
"The Hitler Oath (German: Führereid or Führer Oath)—also referred in English as the Soldier's Oath[1]—refers to the oaths of allegiance sworn by officers and soldiers of the Wehrmacht and civil servants of Nazi Germany between the years 1934 and 1945. The oath pledged personal loyalty to Adolf Hitler rather than loyalty to the Weimar Constitution of the country. Historians view the personal oath of the Nazi Germany as an important psychological element to obey orders for committing war crimes, atrocities, and genocide.[2] During the Nuremberg trials, many German officers unsuccessfully attempted to use the oath as a defence against charges of war crimes and crimes against humanity.[3]"
Did you all read the actual article or just the headline? Where is the "loyalty oath"? Job applicants are asked to give their thoughts on some of Trump's policies in a short form essay. They aren't kneeling and kissing a ring and ledging their undying loyalty.
If I could wave my hand and erase it from the application, I would. I'm very much in favor of merit-based hiring, and [EDIT: removed, added nothing to the conversation] but you're right: an applicant shouldn't have to specifically support the current president's specific policies.
That being said, constantly referring to it as a loyalty oath, and saying that people are being forced to pledge allegiance to Trump is hyperbole and factually incorrect. If you're on the side of truth, you shouldn't need to make things up, truth should be able to stand on its own.
One of the goals of Project 2025 is to replace civil servants with those loyal to Trump. This is a way to implement that without specifically calling it a loyalty test. But that’s exactly what it is.
The civil service, since its inception, has been non-political. Applicants and employees alike were never asked where they stood on the political spectrum. Until now, that has always had bipartisan support.
When I worked for the feds, myself and my co-workers were hard working and dedicated to our jobs. Our loyalty was to the public we served—not to whoever the president was at the time.
And just for the record, I never knew or heard of anyone in the lower or higher ranks of my agency who “openly hated” this country. Quite the contrary.
By accusing some federal employees of that with no proof whatsoever, you are engaging in the very hyperbole you claim to be against.
Whether or not you personally met anyone that falls under that category is pure anecdote, and doesn't mean anything. However, it was an unnecessary comment on my part that was tangential to the actual conversation, so I'm happy to withdraw it.
As I've said here already, I would erase that section of the application if I could, and agree with you that federal employees shouldn't have to agree with specific policies of the current president. I wish more things were non-political and bipartisan.
The top Democrat on the House Oversight and Reform Committee on Monday urged the Trump administration to rescind the ‘merit hiring plan’ it published last week, calling a provision mandating new essay questions quizzing most federal job applicants about their favorite Trump policies a “blatant loyalty test.”...
“Every federal worker is legally required to take an oath of office that they will ‘support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic,’” Lynch wrote. “The oath does not require federal workers to swear to protect and defend executive orders or policy initiatives. It does not require that workers have loyalty to a president or to a political party.”
Jacque Simon, public policy director for the American Federation of Government Employees, also criticized the new essay questions in a statement last week.
“The requirement for candidates to answer how they’d advance President Trump’s EOs and policy priorities and to pick their favorite Trump EO is a glaring violation of merit principles and seems practically Maoist,” she said. “Glorification of a political leader cannot be a prerequisite for obtaining a federal job. Even at its most benign, requiring candidates to muse positively about Donald Trump’s EOs and policies is contrary to everything the apolitical civil service stands for.”
Like most jobs you write what they want to hear to get the job. It is a different set of skills than what the job requires.
All employers want to be smoked and made to feel that you have done your homework and would do a good job for them and be a person they would enjoy interacting with.
But I know this is Hitleresque and being at the mercy of Trump's whims and is wrong headed.
Make it simple. I pledge to only say nice things about Trump and live and appreciate him. Just sign it then go do the work that needs to be done.
Melanias job toove her husband not ours, but we are dealing with the clown posse for a few more years.😱
With all due respect, in today's hyper-polarized political landscape, I don't care what a Democratic representative called it. The lies, misinformation, and exaggeration coming out of both sides makes it meaningless.
I totally agree. I wish more people would stop watching Fox news, CNN, the View, or wherever else they get their information. Watch uncut footage of events, read information from multiple sources and understand that there's almost always a bias, etc. And it's always good to be able to talk without immediately assuming the other person is a monster. For what it's worth, I don't like these essay questions and I can see how it could be a concern that they might be used to only hire people who write positive things about Trump, but I just think we need to keep a level head and not make up things or exaggerate to make our side sound better. And I certainly don't think you can trust what a politician says about the opposing side.
This is exactly why my retired Naval Commander Husband left his job at FEMA. He pledged to uphold the Constitution, not pledge his loyalty to ANY President.
"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.”
The word “advance” means (among other things) “To move forward; to progress or promote to a higher level” (Oxford English Dictionary). This does not therefore mean passively sitting on the sidelines, it means active participation. There are orders from Trump which are outside any bounds of normal policy priorities (just one example is the weaponisation of the Justice Department to investigate Chris Krebs and maligning Chris’s reputation, simply because he said there was nothing wrong with the 2020 election: https://www.whitehouse.gov/presidential-actions/2025/04/addressing-risks-from-chris-krebs-and-government-censorship/ )
There just isn’t enough space here to list the outrageousness of Trump’s efforts to bypass the law since he took office. He has deported people to a ghastly prison in El Salvador, ignored the due process rights of every US resident to a hearing, enabled an army of masked bandits to snatch people off the streets, ignored directives of the Supreme Court, impounded funds appropriated by Congress, and so on…and on and on.
What part of “move forward; progress or promote” is not clear in this direction to job applicants? I wish people would stop trying to normalise this sort of behaviour and see it for what it is: a loyalty test to stop anyone with a liberal point of view from participating in government. Anyone who said “actually I want to stop some of these things, or I don’t support all of them” would never be hired. Public servants are there to implement the law and defend the constitution, not to say they endorse executive orders (which are NOT law). It mystifies me why anyone could see this type of loyalty test as normal. Each to their own opinion I guess, but please stop trying to sanewash these efforts as if we were still living in a society where norms and ethical standards still matter.
Good good question. Trump changed us permanently but his changes will be impermanent and I doubt any future president will hang a portrait of him in the White House
Also shocking on this turnaroud. Last year FL tried to sell off parts of one of one of its state parks for resorts. This precedent was to become statewide policy. Well the public was heard loud & clear (unanimous approval from the state legislature):
WTF???!!!!!! Shine bright light on this one! I work at a Park Service office and feel nauseous every time I walk in the door and see the Felons mug on the wall. Deplorable!
Thanks for writing about this. When I first heard of this loyalty oath, I immediately thought of another one from the past that did not work out so well:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hitler_Oath
"The Hitler Oath (German: Führereid or Führer Oath)—also referred in English as the Soldier's Oath[1]—refers to the oaths of allegiance sworn by officers and soldiers of the Wehrmacht and civil servants of Nazi Germany between the years 1934 and 1945. The oath pledged personal loyalty to Adolf Hitler rather than loyalty to the Weimar Constitution of the country. Historians view the personal oath of the Nazi Germany as an important psychological element to obey orders for committing war crimes, atrocities, and genocide.[2] During the Nuremberg trials, many German officers unsuccessfully attempted to use the oath as a defence against charges of war crimes and crimes against humanity.[3]"
Excellent history and comment. My mother lost her teaching job because she would not sign a loyalty oath back in the late sixties.
Did you all read the actual article or just the headline? Where is the "loyalty oath"? Job applicants are asked to give their thoughts on some of Trump's policies in a short form essay. They aren't kneeling and kissing a ring and ledging their undying loyalty.
But you can bet that if they oppose Trump, they won’t get hired.
Otherwise, why are they being asked to write that kind of essay? It’s completely irrelevant to the job.
I’ve worked for the feds, and I never once had to “give my thoughts” about a president’s policies in any application I filled out.
It’s clearly a loyalty test, and it’s there for a reason. Read Project 2025.
If I could wave my hand and erase it from the application, I would. I'm very much in favor of merit-based hiring, and [EDIT: removed, added nothing to the conversation] but you're right: an applicant shouldn't have to specifically support the current president's specific policies.
That being said, constantly referring to it as a loyalty oath, and saying that people are being forced to pledge allegiance to Trump is hyperbole and factually incorrect. If you're on the side of truth, you shouldn't need to make things up, truth should be able to stand on its own.
One of the goals of Project 2025 is to replace civil servants with those loyal to Trump. This is a way to implement that without specifically calling it a loyalty test. But that’s exactly what it is.
The civil service, since its inception, has been non-political. Applicants and employees alike were never asked where they stood on the political spectrum. Until now, that has always had bipartisan support.
When I worked for the feds, myself and my co-workers were hard working and dedicated to our jobs. Our loyalty was to the public we served—not to whoever the president was at the time.
And just for the record, I never knew or heard of anyone in the lower or higher ranks of my agency who “openly hated” this country. Quite the contrary.
By accusing some federal employees of that with no proof whatsoever, you are engaging in the very hyperbole you claim to be against.
Whether or not you personally met anyone that falls under that category is pure anecdote, and doesn't mean anything. However, it was an unnecessary comment on my part that was tangential to the actual conversation, so I'm happy to withdraw it.
As I've said here already, I would erase that section of the application if I could, and agree with you that federal employees shouldn't have to agree with specific policies of the current president. I wish more things were non-political and bipartisan.
Anecdote? It’s a fact.
Rep. Lynch calls it a "loyalty test."
https://www.govexec.com/workforce/2025/06/lynch-opms-hiring-plan-includes-blatant-loyalty-test/405740/
The top Democrat on the House Oversight and Reform Committee on Monday urged the Trump administration to rescind the ‘merit hiring plan’ it published last week, calling a provision mandating new essay questions quizzing most federal job applicants about their favorite Trump policies a “blatant loyalty test.”...
“Every federal worker is legally required to take an oath of office that they will ‘support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic,’” Lynch wrote. “The oath does not require federal workers to swear to protect and defend executive orders or policy initiatives. It does not require that workers have loyalty to a president or to a political party.”
Jacque Simon, public policy director for the American Federation of Government Employees, also criticized the new essay questions in a statement last week.
“The requirement for candidates to answer how they’d advance President Trump’s EOs and policy priorities and to pick their favorite Trump EO is a glaring violation of merit principles and seems practically Maoist,” she said. “Glorification of a political leader cannot be a prerequisite for obtaining a federal job. Even at its most benign, requiring candidates to muse positively about Donald Trump’s EOs and policies is contrary to everything the apolitical civil service stands for.”
Like most jobs you write what they want to hear to get the job. It is a different set of skills than what the job requires.
All employers want to be smoked and made to feel that you have done your homework and would do a good job for them and be a person they would enjoy interacting with.
But I know this is Hitleresque and being at the mercy of Trump's whims and is wrong headed.
Make it simple. I pledge to only say nice things about Trump and live and appreciate him. Just sign it then go do the work that needs to be done.
Melanias job toove her husband not ours, but we are dealing with the clown posse for a few more years.😱
With all due respect, in today's hyper-polarized political landscape, I don't care what a Democratic representative called it. The lies, misinformation, and exaggeration coming out of both sides makes it meaningless.
With all due respect, I am happy to let people make up their own minds based on what they see. I appreciate the discussion.
I totally agree. I wish more people would stop watching Fox news, CNN, the View, or wherever else they get their information. Watch uncut footage of events, read information from multiple sources and understand that there's almost always a bias, etc. And it's always good to be able to talk without immediately assuming the other person is a monster. For what it's worth, I don't like these essay questions and I can see how it could be a concern that they might be used to only hire people who write positive things about Trump, but I just think we need to keep a level head and not make up things or exaggerate to make our side sound better. And I certainly don't think you can trust what a politician says about the opposing side.
This is exactly why my retired Naval Commander Husband left his job at FEMA. He pledged to uphold the Constitution, not pledge his loyalty to ANY President.
So - parsing the actual text you posted:
"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.”
The word “advance” means (among other things) “To move forward; to progress or promote to a higher level” (Oxford English Dictionary). This does not therefore mean passively sitting on the sidelines, it means active participation. There are orders from Trump which are outside any bounds of normal policy priorities (just one example is the weaponisation of the Justice Department to investigate Chris Krebs and maligning Chris’s reputation, simply because he said there was nothing wrong with the 2020 election: https://www.whitehouse.gov/presidential-actions/2025/04/addressing-risks-from-chris-krebs-and-government-censorship/ )
There just isn’t enough space here to list the outrageousness of Trump’s efforts to bypass the law since he took office. He has deported people to a ghastly prison in El Salvador, ignored the due process rights of every US resident to a hearing, enabled an army of masked bandits to snatch people off the streets, ignored directives of the Supreme Court, impounded funds appropriated by Congress, and so on…and on and on.
What part of “move forward; progress or promote” is not clear in this direction to job applicants? I wish people would stop trying to normalise this sort of behaviour and see it for what it is: a loyalty test to stop anyone with a liberal point of view from participating in government. Anyone who said “actually I want to stop some of these things, or I don’t support all of them” would never be hired. Public servants are there to implement the law and defend the constitution, not to say they endorse executive orders (which are NOT law). It mystifies me why anyone could see this type of loyalty test as normal. Each to their own opinion I guess, but please stop trying to sanewash these efforts as if we were still living in a society where norms and ethical standards still matter.
I predict a lot of lying will ensue. They’ll probably break out the polygraph machines again
They already have at the DOJ
Are we even America anymore????
Depends on who you ask. Recommended viewing: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vGAqYNFQdZ4
Good good question. Trump changed us permanently but his changes will be impermanent and I doubt any future president will hang a portrait of him in the White House
I hope and pray that you're right!
As a federal employee this makes me sick. I will never submit to one person's will. I defend the Constitution, not a cult. It's time to fight back.
Also shocking on this turnaroud. Last year FL tried to sell off parts of one of one of its state parks for resorts. This precedent was to become statewide policy. Well the public was heard loud & clear (unanimous approval from the state legislature):
https://www.wfla.com/news/floridas-state-parks-are-now-protected-from-developments-after-gov-desantis-signs-new-law/
I would love to see this on an application form.... Truly seems too far out there.......
I agree that it's un-American but not that it's missing from mainstream media. I heard a story about this on NPR on Sun 1 Jun.
Good! I'm not surprised NPR reported on it, one of the last independent sources of news we have.
WTF???!!!!!! Shine bright light on this one! I work at a Park Service office and feel nauseous every time I walk in the door and see the Felons mug on the wall. Deplorable!
Can you remove it?
Vomit
I’ve read about loyalty tests before in the novel “Catch 22”!
Yup. Executive over reach with a straight face.
How the hell did a fascist get elected?
How is this legal?
This has got to be unconstitutional.
A subsidiary of what?