Restoring Accountability for Career Senior Executives: A New Presidential Directive

What is the presidential action?

On January 20, 2025, the President issued a memorandum aimed at ensuring that Career Senior Executive Service (SES) officials are held accountable for their performance, efficiency, and alignment with administration priorities. The order allows agency heads to reassign, review, and if necessary, remove SES officials who fail to meet these standards. It also mandates new SES Performance Plans and Executive Review Boards to oversee accountability.

What is the historical context for this presidential action?

The SES, created by the Civil Service Reform Act of 1978, was designed to ensure a high-quality executive management system within the U.S. government. However, concerns over bureaucratic inefficiency, lack of accountability, and resistance to policy implementation have prompted calls for reform.

• Over 7,000 SES officials are currently employed in the federal workforce. (Source: Office of Personnel Management, OPM)
• Federal workforce efficiency ratings have stagnated over the past decade, with performance issues frequently cited as a problem. (Source: Government Accountability Office, GAO)
• Only 1.5% of SES officials are removed annually, compared to 6% in the private sector for senior management roles. (Source: OPM, Bureau of Labor Statistics)

Why this presidential action has been taken (intent)?

This action seeks to:

1. Improve Government Efficiency – Reduce bureaucratic inefficiencies by holding SES officials accountable for their performance.
2. Align Policy Execution with Administration Goals – Ensure SES members faithfully execute presidential directives.
3. Combat Inefficiency and Resistance – Prevent SES officials from obstructing or delaying policy implementation.
4. Increase Oversight & Performance Standards – Strengthen review processes to identify and address poor performance.

What is the impact on people (short term and long term)?

Short-Term Impact:

• Increased Accountability in Federal Agencies: SES officials may face reassignment or removal if their performance is unsatisfactory.
• Faster Implementation of Policies: Government agencies may see quicker execution of new initiatives.
• Potential Workforce Uncertainty: SES officials may fear arbitrary dismissals, leading to possible resignations or legal disputes.

Long-Term Impact:

• Greater Efficiency in Government Operations: Over time, more responsive and effective leadership in federal agencies could emerge.
• Stronger Political Control Over Bureaucracy: Future administrations may have greater leverage in shaping agency leadership.
• Potential Decline in SES Recruitment: If the job becomes perceived as politically vulnerable, fewer high-caliber professionals may seek SES roles.

What are the performance and impact parameters?

1. SES Performance Evaluations – Monitoring changes in SES efficiency ratings before and after implementation. (Source: OPM Annual Reports)
2. Policy Implementation Speed – Tracking the time taken for agencies to implement directives compared to prior years. (Source: GAO Reports)
3. SES Turnover Rates – Evaluating if resignations or dismissals increase post-policy. (Source: Bureau of Labor Statistics, OPM)
4. Public Trust in Government Efficiency – Measuring public satisfaction with government responsiveness. (Source: Pew Research Center)

How is this executive order perceived across ideologies?

While major media outlets focus on SES job security and executive power, a crucial aspect often ignored is the impact on federal workforce morale. A stricter performance review system may lead to higher expectations but also increased job uncertainty. This could foster a culture of short-term compliance rather than long-term strategic thinking within federal leadership.

• Conservatives (Right): Support the action as a necessary step to reduce bureaucratic inefficiencies and ensure SES officials align with national policies.
• Moderates (Center): Mixed reactions—some favor increased accountability, but others worry about undermining the civil service system.
• Progressives: Oppose the directive, arguing it threatens the independence of career officials and enables political purges.
• Leftists: Strongly oppose, seeing it as an attempt to weaken government institutions and replace experienced professionals with political loyalists.

(Sources: Gallup Political Polls, Pew Research Center Government Trust Reports)

Is this executive order legal according to the Constitution?

• The President has authority under Title 5, U.S. Code, to set performance standards for SES officials.
• However, removal protections for career SES members under civil service laws could trigger legal challenges. (Source: Congressional Research Service, Civil Service Laws Review)
• Past efforts to reshape the federal workforce through similar executive orders have faced court battles over due process rights. (Source: Federal Employee Union Lawsuits, 2020-2024)

The restoration of accountability in SES leadership is a significant shift in how federal executives are managed. While it aims to improve efficiency and responsiveness, it also raises legal and ethical questions about political influence over career professionals. The ultimate test will be whether this directive enhances government performance without compromising the integrity of public service.