Chris Piper

1/ The federal government now has the largest political workforce in 40 years and the smallest career senior leadership in 25 years — simultaneously. In a new report I authored at @publicservice: ourpublicservice.org/publications/t…

@jb_greenberg Thanks, Jack! Worth noting the 10% cap applies to allocated positions, not filled ones. So the administration avoids a technical violation of the law by leaving seats unfilled. No previous administration had approached current levels even under that more permissive standard.

Notable finding (per usual) by @chris_piper. Civil Service Reform Act of 1978 stipulated that no more than 10% of the SES could comprise political appointees. Previous presidents *approached* this threshold, but Pres. Trump is first to clear it.

4/ New categories like Schedule Policy/Career could push this further — reclassifying the very senior career staff whose expertise and institutional knowledge are hardest to replace. The report proposes reforms to restore the guardrails Congress originally intended.

3/ On the career side: the Senior Executive Service dropped nearly 30% to a record low. Political appointees now constitute 11.7% of filled SES positions — a threshold never previously breached.

1/ The federal government now has the largest political workforce in 40 years and the smallest career senior leadership in 25 years — simultaneously. In a new report I authored at @publicservice: ourpublicservice.org/publications/t…

Staffing is one of the president’s most powerful tools, shaping how government works. @chris_piper and @kdtenpas argue that Trump’s second-term staffing reflects tighter planning and loyalty demands, while eroding long-standing guardrails. brookings.edu/articles/asses…

What can we learn from comparing Trump’s presidential appointments in 2017 and 2025? Join @BrookingsGov and @publicservice today at 2:00 p.m. ET for a discussion featuring @kdtenpas, Russell Wheeler, @chris_piper, and @jon_rauch. RSVP: brookings.edu/events/staffin…

Instead, the president may increase his reliance on acting officials as he moved into his second year, and officials begin to turnover.

These trends suggest that President Trump is nearing the end of his first year back in office with a significant loss of steam. With a high level of turnover in the Presidential Personnel Office, it might be difficult for the administration to gain back momentum.

Excited to share two new posts of mine at @BrookingsGov that were posted today. Together, they tell complimentary stories about President Trump's personnel track record nearing the end of his first year back in office. Links below.

New post by me out today at @publicservice highlights how Inspectors General have come under fire during the second Trump administration. Trump’s extensive purges and the resulting vacancies weaken accountability and independent oversight of numerous federal agencies.

New @BrookingsGov post out by @kdtenpas and I examines the Senate’s rules change to allow en bloc consideration of nominees. While it is unlikely to dramatically speed up the overall process, it could make a noticeable difference in the time the Senate spends voting on the floor.

In early September, Majority Leader Thune and fellow Republicans triggered the nuclear option to speed up the Senate confirmation process. Will it work? Read this work by myself and @chris_piper : brookings.edu/articles/will-…

Senate expected to move its second post-rules-change batch of nominees at the end of this week after confirming the initial batch of 48 nominees on Thursday. Exact timing depends on CR Will be fairly large batch of noms as R’s look to clear backlog of ~150 on the exec calendar

53-45, Senate votes to lower threshold from 60 to majority for resolutions setting up en bloc confirmations. Straight party-line vote Those batch confirmations will start next week

The Hitchhiker’s Guide To How the Senate Will Expedite Confirmation of Non-Controversial Nominees Late Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-NV) detonated the first Senate “nuclear option” in 2013, curbing the filibuster to confirm executive branch nominees - except the Supreme Court. Former Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-KY) ignited the second “nuclear option” in 2017 to confirm Supreme Court Justice Neil Gorsuch, and lower the filibuster bar for nominations to the High Court. Now, Senate Majority Leader John Thune (R-SD) is likely to detonate the parliamentary equivalent of a “suitcase nuke” later this week. Thune will follow the playbook established by Reid and McConnell to alter the Senate precedent (not a rules change) to expedite the confirmation of lower-level nominees in groups. This plan will not include judges nor cabinet secretaries. Thune sets his gambit into motion tonight by introducing a resolution to speed up a slate of about 40 nominees. By rule, the Senate will take a procedural vote to break a filibuster on his resolution to confirm the batch of nominees on Thursday. That needs 60 yeas. The Senate won’t get 60 yeas. But this is EXACTLY the scenario that Thune wants. The coin of the realm in the Senate is unlimited debate. But the only time it CAN’T DEBATE SOMETHING is when an issue fails. So a FAILED vote to break the filibuster backs the Senate into the exact parliamentary cul-de-sac which Thune wants. At the end of the roll call vote, Thune will likely switch his vote from yes to no on breaking the filibuster. That’s because Senate rules allow a senator to demand a re-vote if they are on the prevailing side of the issue. In this case, Thune is suddenly with the “noes,” even though he initially voted yes to break the filibuster. By doing so, Thune can then order a revote on the failed vote. And since the Senate is in this unique posture of not allowing any debate, Democrats are paralyzed. They can’t do anything to stop Thune from what he plans next. Thune will then make of a point of order. Thune will assert that on resolution like the one he drafted, a bloc of lower-level nominees (e.g. - the ones now before the Senate) does not need 60 votes to break a filibuster. The chair – potentially Senate President Pro Tempore Chuck Grassley (R-IA) or even Vice President Vance, who is the President of the Senate – will rule that Thune is wrong. Senate rules and precedent DO require 60 votes to break a filibuster on this type of resolution. Thune will then demand a vote OVERTURNING what the the chair ruled. He will assert that that a simple majority is necessary for this type of resolution – even though that’s never been the case before. The Senate will vote. And if 51 senators vote in favor of ruling against the chair, the Senate will have established a new precedent for lowering the threshold from 60 to 51 on this type of resolution – quickly moving a batch of nominees all at once. Once the Senate does that, Thune will need to set up ANOTHER procedural vote under the NEW provisions to break a filibuster on Monday, September 15. That would enable the Senate to confirm all of the nominees in question – in one fell swoop – on Wednesday, September 17.