Opinion - The ‘big, beautiful bill' would secretly dismantle the civil service
Buried in more than 1,000 pages of legislative text is Section 90002, a provision that strikes at the heart of the professional, nonpartisan civil service. It proposes a 9.4 percent salary surcharge on newly hired federal employees who wish to retain their civil service protections, ostensibly to pay for their retirement benefits.
Those who cannot afford this effective tax on the rights that federal employees currently enjoy would be forced into permanent at-will employment. Although they would then qualify for a lower retirement deduction of 4.4 percent, as purely at-will employees they could be fired at any time, for any reason — or for no reason at all — with no legal recourse.
This is not just bad policy — it is a direct attack on more than 140 years of bipartisan civil service tradition.
Our professional civil service was born out of the rampant corruption of the 19th-century 'spoils system,' in which federal jobs were handed out as political favors by victorious candidates. That system came to a halt with the Pendleton Act of 1883, passed after President James Garfield was assassinated by a disgruntled office-seeker who believed he had been improperly denied a patronage job. The Pendleton Act established a competitive, merit-based hiring system and laid the foundation for the modern professional civil service that serves the nation — not the party in power.
This commitment was reaffirmed and modernized by the Civil Service Reform Act of 1978, signed by President Jimmy Carter. That law improved efficiency and accountability and codified labor rights while protecting employees from arbitrary or politically motivated firings. It also created federal bodies — the Office of Personnel Management, the Federal Labor Relations Authority and the Merit Systems Protection Board — to safeguard merit principles and the integrity of public service.
Now, with a single provision rolled out with little debate and no hearing record, the House reconciliation bill threatens to undo all this hard-won progress. If enacted, it would create a two-tier federal workforce: one class protected by civil service laws, and another completely vulnerable to the whims of political appointees. Worse still, the measure is designed to coerce new hires into giving up their rights for the rest of their careers.
Faced with a 9.4 percent pay cut, most new federal employees — already earning salaries that are an estimated 25 percent lower than their private-sector counterparts — will feel they have no real choice. Many early-career workers live paycheck to paycheck; this surcharge would be an impossible burden. According to the Congressional Budget Office, three-quarters of new hires would likely be driven into at-will status. Among the 800,000 federal workers I represent as president of the American Federation of Government Employees, few if any could afford to pay the surcharge.
That inability to pay is one reason why the provision raises so little money — less than $500 million annually according to the CBO — or just 0.1 percent of the cost of the bill's accompanying tax cuts.
Clearly, revenue is not the point. The point is to erode labor rights and weaken the civil service.
This provision is also a political time bomb. If passed, it sets a precedent that could be exploited by any future administration. Imagine a newly inaugurated Democratic president firing every at-will federal employee hired during the previous Republican administration — no hearings, no cause, no appeal. If Republicans are willing to set this precedent, they must be prepared to live under it.
But the real danger is institutional. How can federal scientists, doctors, safety inspectors or law enforcement officers operate with independence and integrity if they can be dismissed on a whim? These protections are what enable civil servants to speak truth to power — even when that truth is inconvenient.
This proposal is also a direct attack on organized labor. Without civil service protections, unions are hamstrung in their ability to represent their members. Workers afraid of being summarily fired are unlikely to file grievances, assert their rights or even speak candidly in meetings. Only those who can afford the surcharge would retain access to effective representation. Section 90002 isn't just misguided — it's union-busting by design.
Imagine the outcry if a Democratic Congress imposed a 5 percent income tax on corporations to preserve their rights to challenge unions under the National Labor Relations Act. Republicans would rightly decry this as the weaponization of tax policy. Yet that's precisely what this bill does to federal workers — using financial coercion to undermine their legal protections.
The civil service exists to provide stability, expertise and continuity regardless of the party holding office. It is one of the bedrock institutions that has sustained American democracy through wars, crises and peaceful transitions of power. The Trump administration may not like the idea of a government that can resist political manipulation — but that is exactly what democracy requires.
Section 90002 is not reform. It is sabotage. Congress must reject it and reaffirm its commitment to the principles that have guided our civil service since 1883. Our institutions — and the American people they serve — deserve no less.
Dr. Everett B. Kelley is national president of the American Federation of Government Employees, AFL-CIO.
Copyright 2025 Nexstar Media, Inc. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.
Hashtags

Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles

Miami Herald
28 minutes ago
- Miami Herald
There's hope again for Pennsylvanians who want recreational marijuana legalized in the state. Maybe
HARRISBURG - Recreational marijuana is back on the table for state lawmakers. But it's still a long way away from being legally sold in Pennsylvania. Adult-use cannabis came the closest it's ever gotten to being legalized in Pennsylvania in May, after the state House passed a proposal to allow state-owned stores to run a burgeoning legal marijuana market that nearby states have said has brought in tens of millions of dollars in additional revenue each year. But a state Senate committee quickly killed the bill, citing opposition from both Democrats and Republicans to the state-store model. Now, lawmakers are trying a different approach. State Sens. Dan Laughlin, R-Erie, and Sharif Street, D-Philadelphia, introduced their own proposal Thursday to legalize recreational marijuana by relying on current medical marijuana retailers to kick off the expansion of the market, while setting aside 15 licenses for small businesses to try to get a piece. The two lawmakers have worked on adult-use cannabis legislation in the past, the culmination of which came together in the bill introduced this week that Laughlin said was "years in the making." Under their bill, anyone in Pennsylvania who is 21 or older would be allowed to possess, consume, purchase, or transport adult-use cannabis. Senate Republicans have broadly opposed legalizing recreational marijuana, though Laughlin has remained a supporter for years. And support appears to be growing, Street said, noting that the bill has bipartisan support in the House and Senate. A similar bill will be introduced in the state House in the coming weeks, said Street, who last week launched his campaign for Congress. "There is legitimate representation and input from all four caucuses in the construction of this bill, and I think that's important to ultimately getting a bill that can get to the governor's desk," Street said. Under the bill, legalization of recreational marijuana would be monitored by a new, seven-member oversight panel of political appointees, titled the Cannabis Control Board, to be led by an executive director and chief medical officer. It would also move the Department of Health's current purview of the state's medical marijuana program to the new board. Senate Bill 120 also would allow nonviolent marijuana offenses to be expunged from a person's record, as well as try to target the benefits of the new industry to "disproportionately impacted areas" by the criminalization of marijuana. Among the other proposals in the 181-page bill introduced Thursday: -Edible forms of marijuana would be allowed to be sold in retail stores, which are currently unregulated in Pennsylvania. -Residents could have two mature marijuana plants at their homes. -Marijuana usage would be banned from all public places, including sidewalks and alleys. -Possession would be limited to 30 grams of cannabis flower, 1,000 milligrams of edible THC, or 5 grams of cannabis concentrate. -The proposal also suggests additional fixes to the state's medical marijuana law, including how employers should handle medical marijuana users in the workplace. Under the legislation, employers cannot fire or refuse to hire someone because they have a medical marijuana card, but can fire them if they are not doing their job properly due to their marijuana usage. They can also drug test if it is seen as necessary for "safety-sensitive positions." Laughlin said in an email that there is "no timetable" on when he will call up the bill for a vote. As the chair of the Law and Justice Committee, he previously fast-tracked the House recreational marijuana bill for a vote, where it ultimately failed to pass the committee and will not be reconsidered. Senate Majority Leader Joe Pittman, R-Indiana, threw cold water on any hopes that recreational marijuana could be legalized as part of this year's budget, which Gov. Josh Shapiro has repeatedly proposed as a new source of state revenue. Pennsylvania's state budget was due by the start of this fiscal year, and is now nearly two weeks late, with no budget deal in sight. In a statement, Pittman said he does not "see a prevailing view for legalization of recreational marijuana within our caucus as part of the current budget." Still, Street said he remains optimistic it could be part of this year's budget, or next year's. He pointed out that the state would receive approximately 25% of the funds generated by the licensing and sale of marijuana, which he said could help fund Pennsylvania's mass transit systems, as SEPTA and other agencies face a fiscal crisis. "Realistically, we need more revenue, and this is a good alternative," Street added, in reference to the state's $5.5 billion budget gap. Even boxing champion Mike Tyson, who in April was named CEO of a Las Vegas-based cannabis company, chimed in to voice his support of the bipartisan effort to legalize recreational marijuana. "Encouraging to see the PA GOP introduce a rec bill today," Tyson wrote on X Thursday. "This bill would ensure that PA residents have access to safe, tested cannabis as opposed to the unsafe, untaxed pesticide laden stuff the illicit cartel operators are selling." The Laughlin-Street proposal would also allow the behemoth multistate operators that control much of Pennsylvania's medical marijuana market to continue to do so, though the legislation would limit the number of storefronts a single company can have to 24. The medical marijuana industry broadly praised the bill on Thursday as one "poised to create thousands of jobs" that "ensures equitable access," according to a news release from the Pennsylvania Cannabis Coalition. Meanwhile, opponents of adult-use cannabis quickly rejected it. "Lawmakers should prioritize the public health and safety of Pennsylvania families, not hand over our children and neighborhoods to the marijuana lobby," said Dan Bartkowiak, chief strategy officer at the ultraconservative Pennsylvania Family Council, in a news release. Laughlin can call up the bill for a vote in his committee at any time, though sweeping policy changes or new revenue generators are usually negotiated as part of a final budget deal, Street said. _____ Copyright (C) 2025, Tribune Content Agency, LLC. Portions copyrighted by the respective providers.


Miami Herald
30 minutes ago
- Miami Herald
Democrat Ro Khanna Demands Vote To Release Full Jeffrey Epstein Files
Representative Ro Khanna (D‑CA) has announced plans to force a vote in the House of Representatives demanding the full, unredacted release of all documents related to disgraced financier and convicted sex offender Jeffrey Epstein. In a post on X, formerly Twitter, Khanna said he will introduce an amendment this week that would require the House Speaker to bring the measure to a roll-call vote, putting every member of Congress on the record. Newsweek contacted Khanna's team via email and House Speaker Mike Johnson via online form for comment outside of usual working hours on Sunday. As reported by Newsweek, Epstein, who died in prison six years ago while facing sex trafficking charges, had maintained close ties with numerous high-profile figures around the world. Though his death was officially ruled a suicide, speculation has persisted for years that he may have been murdered to prevent the release of a so-called "client list," a roster some believe could implicate prominent political figures, including President Donald Trump, former President Bill Clinton, and the U.K.'s Prince Andrew. After being accused of sexual abuse connected to the Epstein scandal, Prince Andrew denied all accusations against him and resigned from royal duties in 2020. Clinton maintains that he did not have any contact with Epstein after the financier was accused of sex crimes, and never visited his now-infamous private island of Little St. James in the U.S. Virgin Islands. The controversy was reignited last month when billionaire Elon Musk alleged, in a since-deleted social media post, that the government had withheld Epstein-related records because "Trump is in the Epstein files." The president dismissed the claim, saying he "had nothing to do with it," but it sparked further interest in the government's records. Trump has denied any wrongdoing in connection with Epstein, although they were known to have interacted in social and professional circles in the early 2000s. The former president distanced himself from Epstein after the financier admitted soliciting prostitution from a minor in Florida and was sentenced to 18 months in prison in June, 2008. During his 2024 presidential campaign, Trump pledged to make Epstein-related files public. A partial release occurred in February, overseen by Attorney General Pam Bondi. But earlier this week, both Trump and Bondi announced that their investigation had turned up "no incriminating 'client list,'" prompting sharp criticism from Democrats, and even backlash from some of Trump's own MAGA supporters who had anticipated deeper revelations. A memo, first reported by Axios, said investigators found "no incriminating 'client list'" and "no credible evidence ... that Epstein blackmailed prominent individuals." It also said video footage from the Manhattan jail where Epstein was being held when he died supported a medical examiner's finding that he had died by suicide. In a TruthSocial post on Saturday, Trump urged others to "not waste Time and Energy on Jeffrey Epstein, somebody that nobody cares about." Late Saturday, Khanna posted to his X account: "Why are the Epstein files still hidden? Who are the rich & powerful being protected? On Tuesday, I'm introducing an amendment to force a vote demanding the FULL Epstein files be released to the public. The Speaker must call a vote & put every Congress member on record." The post has since had over 432k views. Khanna's initiative is seen as a way to hold both Congress and the Justice Department accountable, especially as the Department of Justice (DOJ), led by Trump-appointed officials, including Bondi, recently reversed its previous commitment to release more documents. The move is also politically strategic. If Khanna's proposal is accepted, it would force a House vote on releasing the full Epstein files, allowing the public to see how each representative stands on the matter, with many praising it as a savvy political move that puts pressure on those trying to avoid scrutiny. This comes after months of mounting bipartisan frustration. Though Democrats have led the charge, some Republican voices have also joined the call for full transparency. However, the Justice Department's decision to halt further disclosures has renewed criticism that the agency is protecting politically sensitive figures. Earlier this month, congressional Democrats, led by Rep. Jamie Raskin, called for the release of any documents mentioning Trump. In response to criticism of his proposal on X, Khanna said: "This is about transparency and restoring trust, not partisan politics. The public outcry is apparent. The files should be fully released and can be done so consistent with DOJ principles of protecting victims and the innocent." Even if the measure fails, Khanna's supporters argue it will create a clear public record—either the files will be released, or voters will know exactly who stood in the way. With trust in government transparency at stake, the coming vote could mark a pivotal moment in the long-running Epstein saga. Related Articles Republican Backs Push to Repeal Part of Trump Bill Days After Voting For ItExclusive: Ro Khanna on War Powers and Avoiding Another 'Endless' ConflictSenator Says War Powers Resolution Against Trump Will Have GOP SupportWar Powers Act Explained as Thomas Massie, Ro Khanna Push House Resolution 2025 NEWSWEEK DIGITAL LLC.
Yahoo
an hour ago
- Yahoo
Historic 135-year-old Little Rock home damaged by fire
LITTLE ROCK, ARK. – Little Rock fire crews responded to a blaze Saturday night that damaged a 135-year-old historic home. According to fire officials, the fire broke out at the Fee House in the 1900 block of Broadway shortly after 10:30 p.m. KARK Crew stays overnight in Fee House for paranormal experience The 3,900 square foot home had been vacant and had significant damage to the upper floors due to the fire. Neighbors said that people had recently been breaking into the property, which was built in 1890. No injuries were reported. The Fire Marshal is investigating to determine the exact cause of the blaze. Copyright 2025 Nexstar Media, Inc. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.