Courtesy of Shutterstock

President Trump’s recent dismissal of federal employees is unconstitutional.

President Trump’s dismissal of federal employees has sparked widespread national debate. While supporters defend his actions as a legitimate exercise of executive authority, critics argue that they constitute an abuse of power and violation of civil service. Given the politicization of the issue, it is crucial to examine the affair under a legal lens. Upon doing so, several factors intersect to illustrate the glaringly evident unconstitutionality of Trump’s firings.

“Beaurocrat” is often touted as a politically charged term. While on the surface the word connotes corruption, tyranny and power, that is not what a bureaucracy truly is. Put simply, a bureaucracy in modern American government is a complex and organized system run by officials of the government to perform the duties of an administration. A bureaucracy is in no way a tyrannical or evil aspect of government that lurks in the shadows. It is effectively every federal government agency and their employees. This includes workers such as USPS mail carriers, Amtrak conductors and executives and even some public high school teachers who are considered members of the bureaucracy. The majority of these employees are not working for an agenda or to advance the political supremacy of one party, but rather working these jobs to supply for themselves and their families. In short, there are more than 2.3 million federal employees who are part of the demonized “bureaucracy.” Nonetheless, their work is essential to the flow of America’s government, economy and everyday functions. 

An important distinction to make is the one between political appointees and civil servants. A political appointee as defined by the U.S. Office of Government Ethics is, “any employee who is appointed by the President, the Vice President, or agency head.” In short, these employees are cabinet members (Sec. of Defense, Sec. of State, etc.), members of the Executive Office of the President (Chief of Staff, Deputy Chief of Communications, etc.) and heads of federal agencies (Director of FBI, Federal Reserve executives, etc.). Political appointees are employees who are tied to a specific agenda or ticket and are appointed by executives in the executive branch. On the other hand, civil servants are public employees such as the ones listed in the prior section that do not serve a political agenda. They are workers such as air traffic control officials, mail carriers, public lawyers, judges and more. The reason why highlighting the distinction between these two federal workers is important is because of the original power abuses of presidents in the bureaucracy. 

Prior to 1978, presidential power within a bureaucracy was unlimited. There was no distinction between civil servants and political appointees, except for the seniority of their roles, and they had no job security from the administration in charge of the executive branch. For example, if one were an Amtrak CFO and a registered or known Republican appointed under a Republican president’s administration, the incoming Democrat president could fire them without any justifiable reason, solely because they do not serve the same agenda as the administration. The systematic laying off of thousands of government employees for frankly no reason, prompted the creation of the Civil Service Reform Act of 1978. 

As described by the Government Accountability Office (GAO), the Civil Service Reform Act (CSRA) “is intended to provide federal managers with the flexibility to improve Government operations and productivity while, at the same time, protect employees from unfair or unwarranted practices.”  To simplify, the CSRA is intended to allow non-political appointed government employees to execute their jobs more efficiently and effectively by protecting them from getting fired simply because of their political affiliation. A key reason why this act was passed was to disable the “spoils system,” where workers were hired based on loyalty to a party rather than actual merit or talent. The CSRA disables this system by preventing the unjust firing of employees disengaged with political roles, and ensures that qualified and capable individuals are hired to build a skilled-base workforce. 

With the establishment of the CSRA and federal workers’ protections against political hirings and firings for the bureaucracy, the current subject of debate regarding these laws fall in President Donald Trump’s recent actions regarding his handling of DOJ officials related to his prosecution. Many former politicians and officials have described Trump’s termination of these lawyers involved with his case as unethical and even illegal. Prosecutors involved in the trials of Trump are classified as civil servants. They are not aligned to a political party, and therefore they are employees who enjoy civil service protection from the CSRA. Trump’s firing is considered by many lawyers as a violation of the CSRA, as these lawyers should not have been fired for simply doing their jobs. However, the Trump administration claimed that the goals and motives of the lawyers didn’t match those of the Trump agenda, and therefore it was a justifiable termination. Another key principle in which Trump’s lawyers have used to back him up in these firings is a constitutional interpretation of the 2nd article called “unitary executive theory.”

Unitary executive theory, as defined by the Legal Information Institutes, denotes that “the President of the United States possesses sole authority over the Executive Branch.” This theory draws on the vesting clause from Article II, Section I, Clause 1 of the U.S. Constitution, which states, “The executive Power shall be vested in a President of the United States of America. He shall hold his Office during the Term of four Years, and, together with the Vice President, chosen for the same Term, be elected, as follows.” The vesting clause is essential to Trump’s justification, specifically “the executive power” aspect is interpreted as absolute power given to the president of the executive branch. Trump is using this ideology to justify his complete control and ability to fire employees under the executive branch without justification.

Therefore, the distinction between the interpretation of the constitution under unitary executive theory, and the civil service protection established for civil servants as a result of the Civil Service Reform Act demonstrates the split legality of Trump’s terminations. From a non-partisan standpoint, I view Trump’s firings as illegal and unethical, as they are not within his bounds as president. Civil service protection is meant to prevent non-political employees from being influenced by current administrations, helping to eliminate corruption and fraud. 

By firing lawyers involved in your case, you disrupt the fundamental backbone of the justice system, and make a mockery out of fair and due process. Trump was not within his right to unjustifiably fire innocent civil servants, who serve the country to uphold truth, fairness and freedom.