The Senior Executive Service (SES) was established in 1978 under President Jimmy Carter through the Civil Service Reform Act. The intent behind creating the SES was to have a class of highly skilled civil servants who would ensure effective management of federal agencies and strengthen the government’s responsiveness to national needs and policies. However, the expectation of optimal performance from SES employees has largely contrasted with the reality of their operations. Today, the SES members serve in crucial positions that function below presidential appointees and oversee about 75 federal agencies. This elite cadre of bureaucrats has become a central player in government, often acting as intermediaries between political appointees and the broader civil service, and they enjoy substantial job security, making it difficult to remove them from their positions.
The SES was not simply a bureaucratic enhancement; it effectively contributed to an environment that some have described as fostering a “deep state” – a term used to characterize entrenched interests within government that resist political changes from elected leaders. The stability and longevity of SES positions allow members to hold up or alter the implementation of presidential directives, thus gaining significant power over the running of federal agencies. This has led to widespread criticism that the SES serves not the elected representatives of the people but rather the entrenched interests that perpetuate a continuity of governance that can diverge from democratic mandates.
The Obama administration attempted to expand the SES’s influence further through Executive Order 13714, which emphasized diversity and inclusion within federal recruitment and hiring processes. This directive led to an increased focus on demographic considerations over qualifications and merit-based appointments. Critics argue that this approach, alongside other measures aimed at loyalty within the SES ranks, has led to an environment where political fidelity supersedes effectiveness, effectively making the SES a guard against changes brought by incoming administrations. The enduring presence of SES members post-Trump is indicative of their consolidated power, as they have remained in key positions to influence governance despite shifts in political leadership.
Despite these challenges, there have been attempts to reclassify federal employment under a new Schedule F, which would have allowed agencies more flexibility in hiring and firing personnel based on performance and loyalty rather than the protective framework established by the SES. Although President Trump initiated this reform shortly before leaving office, the Biden administration swiftly repealed the Schedule F executive order on his first day in office and began enacting restrictions that would complicate any future attempts to implement similar reforms. This ongoing back-and-forth reflects deeper tensions in federal governance and highlights the struggle to balance bureaucratic stability with political accountability.
The recent overturning of the Chevron deference principle by the U.S. Supreme Court has introduced a potential obstacle for the SES. Previously, Chevron deference allowed federal agencies to operate with considerable interpretative power over ambiguous statutes, effectively curtailing judicial oversight of agency actions. With this deference no longer applicable, the Office of Personnel Management (OPM) may face challenges in justifying its policies surrounding the SES and Schedule F, thereby opening the door to increased scrutiny of agency legal interpretations. As the Biden administration progresses with its new regulations, any attempts to reimplement Schedule F could face considerable legal hurdles from vested interests, including litigation from the Senior Executives Association.
Legislatively, there have been efforts to restrict the revival of Schedule F or similar measures. While a provision aimed at preventing this was initially adopted by the House, it was excluded from the final version of the National Defense Authorization Act for 2023. This maneuver underscores the ongoing political debate surrounding the role and power of federal employees within the SES and how future administrations might approach civil service reforms. The effective resolution of these issues may ultimately rest on Congress amending the Civil Service Reform Act of 1978 to refine the SES’s role within federal governance, potentially establishing clearer boundaries and responsibilities for federal employees. Such legislative action could provide a more substantial and permanent framework for managing the complexities of government employment than the temporary measures currently under discussion.
