REPORT: 95% of Career Federal Employees Who Email about Politics at Work Express Liberal Views

The Federal Workforce

Almost all federal workers are career employees. Of the approximately 2.2 million civilian positions in the federal executive branch, fewer than 5,000 are filled by political appointees who serve at the pleasure of the President (U.S. Office of Personnel Management, 2023; Senate Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs and House Committee on Government Reform, 2020, p. 212). The rest are filled by career employees who keep their jobs no matter who wins the next election. This allows most federal employees to develop experience and institutional expertise—something that would be impossible if the federal employees were replaced en masse every time a new president took office.

This system operates on the premise that career employees will behave apolitically. Career employees may have and express their own political views, but they need to leave those attitudes at home. Their obligation is to execute the law faithfully and implement the president’s agenda—no matter their personal beliefs. To promote this, federal law requires filling career positions on a nonpartisan basis (5 U.S.C. § 2302(b)(1)(E)). Presidents cannot reward electoral support with career federal jobs.

Despite legal safeguards intended to ensure a nonpartisan career workforce, the career bureaucracy has pronounced partisan leanings. Surveys show Americans are nearly evenly divided between the Republican and Democratic parties (Gallup, n.d.). However, among career federal employees, registered Democrats outnumber registered Republicans by nearly two to one (Spenkuch, Teso & Xu, 2023, p. 1184).

Campaign finance data show a similar pattern. In the 2016 election cycle, 95 percent of presidential campaign donations made by federal employees went to Hillary Clinton; just 5 percent went to Donald Trump (Swan, 2016). Other researchers compared career employees’ campaign donations with those of agency heads. Their data revealed that by 2014—the last year of available data—in most cabinet agencies, the average career employee gave to candidates who were more liberal than President Obama’s politically appointed agency heads donated to (Feinstein & Wood, 2022; Sherk, 2023, pp. 29–30).[1]

The Napolitan Institute’s 2024 surveys of federal government managers further revealed significant political divides and resistance toward the Trump Administration following his November victory. While 29 percent of voters nationwide plan to resist, this figure rises to 42 percent among federal managers, with only 26 percent of managers strongly supporting the administration compared to 44 percent of the general public (Napolitan Institute, 2024, p. 5).

Partisan differences within the federal workforce are stark, as 73 percent of democratic managers intend to resist, compared to 89 percent of republican managers pledging support (Napolitan Institute, 2024, p. 7). Notably, 80 percent of managers who voted for former Vice President Harris are committed to resistance, and only 17 percent of democratic managers would comply with a legal order from the administration perceived as bad policy (Napolitan Institute, 2024, pp. 5-6).

Career federal employees are politically out of step with the broader American public. Furthermore, their willingness to allow their partisan views to influence the performance of their duties will present challenges for President Trump as he plants to implement his agenda.

Reviewing Career Employee Email Correspondence

This report presents new evidence on the partisan leanings of career federal employees. The America First Policy Institute (AFPI) submitted Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) requests to a dozen federal agencies regarding emails sent or received by senior career employees containing politically sensitive keywords like “Trump,” “Biden,” “election,” or “inauguration.” AFPI sought these records from the fall of 2020 and the winter of 2020–2021—the period of the 2020 presidential election and subsequent transition to the Biden Administration.[2] The goal was to capture digital “watercooler” style conversations between career employees expressing their political views.

The study was motivated by National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) emails that came to light in 2021. Shortly after taking office, President Biden fired NLRB General Counsel Peter Robb—an appointee of President Donald J. Trump—and designated Peter Ohr, a career regional director, as acting General Counsel. A subsequent FOIA request by the Freedom Foundation uncovered an email from a retired career NLRB regional director celebrating both Robb’s dismissal and Ohr’s “brave resistance” to Robb’s policies:

Congratulations on your appointment as Acting GC. For my money, I’d love to see you in that position permanently. It is such sweet justice to see Robb kicked out on his ass and you replace him. As low as I’ve felt these past few months, when I heard the news about your interim appointment, I got up and did a happy dance! Most of the retired RDs were opposed to Biden axing Robb, but not me. I know it sets a new precedent which the others were averse to seeing. But this situation was different in my mind because, as we both know, Robb did what he could to hollow out the Agency and ruin it. It was only because of the brave resistance of people like you that he did not do more damage. So I celebrated when Robb was shown the door. But now I’m elated that you are in charge of the GC’s office (Nelson, 2021) (emphasis added).

This exchange suggests that nonpartisan norms have eroded in the NLRB. Senior career employees clearly brought strong political views to their jobs. The reference to “brave resistance” also suggests that Ohr actively sought to undermine Trump Administration policies. Other reports show he indeed did so, in some cases flatly refusing to implement policies with which he disagreed (Sherk, 2022). Career employees who inject partisanship into their official duties in this manner erode the foundations of the career civil service.

AFPI submitted FOIA requests to nearly a dozen federal agencies to determine if this exchange was an isolated incident or representative of broader trends in the federal bureaucracy. These requests aimed to capture informal conversations that disclosed personal political views or views on agency policy.[3] AFPI then examined whether the views expressed could be considered “liberal” or “conservative.”

Such a study cannot, of course, comprehensively examine the views of every career employee. Many employees likely had political conversations that did not use the relevant keywords, fell outside the search period, or were conducted through other channels, such as texting or chat applications. These conversations were not captured in the requests. Conversely, the vast majority of agency emails that used the search terms were routine conversations about official business or transition preparations.

Instead, this study sought to obtain a representative sampling of career employee political conversations. This enables the assessment of the degree of political balance in the federal bureaucracy and whether employees are leaving their personal politics at home.

AFPI sought records from components of the Departments of Agriculture (USDA), Commerce, the Interior (DOI), Justice, Labor, State, and Treasury, as well as the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC), Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), Federal Communications Commission (FCC), NLRB, and Office of Special Counsel.

As of the drafting of this report, AFPI received complete responses from DOI, EEOC, EPA, NLRB, FCC, and two components of USDA.[4] The other agencies had either not yet produced records or provided minimal production.

Findings

The table below summarizes the results across all responsive agencies. The FOIA requests captured 102 career employees engaging in politically salient conservations across components of six federal agencies.[5] Of those career employees, 97 expressed liberal views, and only five expressed conservative views. This means 95 percent of career employees in the sample expressed left-wing views, while only five percent expressed right-of-center views.

The results varied noticeably among agencies. The requests uncovered relatively few political conversations in some agencies. For example, only three political conversations were captured in the FCC request. The two USDA components that responded collectively reported only two political conversations, with none at all coming from the USDA Office of Budget and Program Analysis. At these agencies, FOIA requests show little evidence of the erosion of nonpartisan norms.

Conversely, the EPA and EEOC searches produced many politically salient conversations. Almost all the conversations in the EEOC, and all of them at the EPA, expressed left-wing views—in some cases, strongly disparaging Trump and his appointees. Some EEOC career employees described each other as activists in a long-term movement or as the officials who actually wielded power despite political appointees being nominally in charge. In these agencies, nonpartisan norms appear badly frayed.

These findings do not necessarily show that 95 percent of career employees are liberal. Moderate or conservative employees may self-censor rather than express their views at work. The fact that they feel the need to keep quiet, however, suggests a sufficiently liberal slant that conservatives do not feel comfortable expressing their views.

Appendix A presents the relevant portions of each email sent by career employees who expressed political views. Appendix B presents the emails in their entirety.[6]

Career Employees Have Strong Policy Views

In theory, civil servants are impartial experts who use their “neutral competence” to advance the agenda of the administration of the day. In practice, federal employees typically have strong views on policy. As one recent study explained, “[m]ost civil servants intrinsically care about the content of the public policy their agency will create … [they] are generally policy-motivated.” That study reported that three-quarters of civil servants consider being able to influence government policy “important” or “very important” to them (Richardson, 2019). The FOIA releases confirm that many agency employees have strong policy views. Far from demonstrating neutrality, they show agency employees expressing widespread opposition to Trump Administration policies and support for Biden Administration policies. Some examples are provided below.

“We’re Part of a Movement”

In February 2021, two career attorneys in the EEOC General Counsel’s office discussed a case one of them recently argued in federal court. The attorney expected to lose the case because a Trump-appointed judge was unsympathetic to his arguments. In the exchange, both attorneys spoke as though they were political activists pursuing an ideological cause, encouraging each other to stay in the fight and hoping Biden would appoint more liberal judges. The first wrote:

Apologies if I was negative when I talked. The argument I had Friday was so negative it made me wonder if I should be doing something else given the state of the courts. But I didn't mean to be so gloomy. Hopefully Biden will get busy putting good judges in ASAP.

The second career attorney responded:

No worries at all! We are on the side of goodness and light. As [NAME REDACTED] reminds me constantly, God is in control. We may lose now, but justice will prevail eventually.

To which the first attorney replied:

I really hope so! I had a mentor at the EEOC who would give me a pep talk after a hard loss: we’re part of a movement, we have to play the long game, and someone else will use the argument from my brief and win in a different case or court. Not sure it’s true but it always made me feel better.

The second attorney responded:

What your mentor said is definitely true. The argument that basically won Bostock was something Lambda Legal had been arguing for years, but it never took hold... Keep the faith! (Appendix B, p. 114).

These career attorneys spoke of themselves as activists pursuing a moral cause and trying to shift policy, not experts neutrally following the law and taking directions from democratically accountable superiors. Notably, at the time these emails were sent, both attorneys reported to General Counsel Sharon Gustafson—a Trump appointee President Biden did not fire until March 2021. So, these employees had no formal directive to pursue left-wing activism.

Dismay Over Schedule F

President Trump signed Executive Order 13957 in October 2020, creating “Schedule F” in the excepted service. This order would have made policy-influencing career employees functionally at-will, enabling the president to dismiss career employees with policy responsibilities who tried to undermine his agenda quickly. Employees at multiple agencies expressed widespread dismay at this prospect.

Shortly after President Trump created Schedule F, a career NLRB attorney[7] emailed a colleague an article about Schedule F, noting: “This issue got so little coverage that I hadn’t really registered its potential to affect us directly and strip us of our rights.” The colleague responded: “Schedule F. How appropriate.” To which the career attorney replied: “Indeed.” Another career NLRB attorney told a colleague: “Don’t even get me started” about Schedule F (Appendix B, pp. 2–3, 5–6).

Career EPA employees reacted similarly. In December 2020, the career director of the EPA Office of Resource Conservation and Recovery emailed a colleague:

ORCR had our weekly meeting with our Branch Chiefs and Division Directors this morning, and they raised to me that several staff members have mentioned that they read this Op-ed piece in the Post from Monday and it has them scared for the security of their jobs. Peter, you were kind enough to check in on Schedule F in the past to see if we could get any insights into the Agency’s plans for implementation, but at the time there was nothing we could share with staff. Do any of you have any insights at this point that we could share? People are genuinely afraid, and any reassurance that they’re not about to lost [sic] their jobs would be wonderful (Appendix B, p. 83).

The emails captured several other examples of career opposition to Schedule F (Appendix B, pp. 38–39, 68–70).

Conversely, career employees rejoiced when President Biden revoked Schedule F shortly after taking office. For example, in January, the principal deputy assistant administrator for the Office of Enforcement and Compliance Assurance in EPA Region 8 updated career employees on recent actions taken by President Biden:

During Thursday’s All Hands meeting, I was asked about the status of the former President’s Executive Order 13957, which called for the creation of a new Schedule F excepted service category for certain positions that are normally civil service positions. I am pleased to report that President Biden signed a new Executive Order on Protecting the Federal Workforce yesterday that revoked the plan to create Schedule F (Appendix B, p. 67).

Several other emails captured career employees celebrating Schedule F’s rescission (Appendix B, pp. 32, 53, 55, 64, 90, 95).

Critical Race Theory Proponents

In September 2020, President Trump signed Executive Order 13950, which broadly prohibited agencies from training federal employees to embrace critical race theory (CRT). CRT teaches that society is divided into interlocking circles of oppressors and oppressed based on immutable characteristics like race and sex. President Trump issued the order after news reports surfaced of agencies teaching employees that “virtually all White people, regardless of how ‘woke’ they are, contribute to racism” and that they should reject the concept of “color blindness” (Exec. Order 13950).

President Biden revoked Executive Order 13950 on his first day in office. As with Schedule F, emails reveal many career employees celebrated Biden’s new policy. A career geophysicist in DOI’s Bureau of Safety and Environmental Enforcement responded to the news with, “Happy dance!! Yes, we are very excited to be able to provide DCA training virtually again! We have some on the schedule already and seats available.” (Appendix B, p. 19). An associate director in EPA Region 9 similarly told a colleague, “Hooray! Rico and I saw this in the news last night and were absolutely thrilled” (Appendix B, p. 26). A career EPA region scientist asked a colleague, “Does this mean we get to have those awesome trainers come back? Is there budget for that?” (Appendix B, p. 50).

Other emails showed career staff either opposing the Trump order or celebrating its repeal (Appendix B, pp. 42, 44, 49–50, 54, 61, 63, 81–82, 92). No emails expressed contrary sentiments.

Environmental Activists

EPA emails show that many career employees appear to view themselves as environmental activists pursuing a mission, not employees neutrally administering the law under the president’s direction. Career employees repeatedly expressed opposition to Trump EPA policies and support for the Biden agenda. For example, on Inauguration Day, a career project officer in EPA Region 3 told a colleague:

I am so happy to be back to protecting all of our environment and the human health of all, too. I was here for the Reagan administration - Ann Gorsuch as Administrator (and I have a great tee shirt saying I survived the Ice Queen's Acid Reign and all the EPA personnel listed on the back that were brought in back then) I don’t know if you were here then but this past administration now takes over the worst in EPA history in terms of dismantling the agency and our mission (Appendix B, p. 44).

On Inauguration Day, a senior career EPA attorney expressed similar sentiments to colleagues, celebrating anticipated Biden Administration actions on climate change and a federal court decision striking down a Trump Administration deregulatory policy:

Today is a good day on climate change! A lot of you have been asking me about the transition. So after 4 long years of being pretty quiet on climate change at EPA, I’m excited to finally pass along positive news which you might have already seen. Now that the inauguration is over, President Biden will be taking the following actions today related to the climate crisis …

Finally, as you might have seen yesterday, the D.C. Circuit vacated and remanded the Trump Administration’s “Affordable Clean Energy Rule (ACE)” which repealed and replaced the Obama-era Clean Power Plan. The decision includes some very good language on EPA’s ability to regulate the power sector in a way that achieves far greater emission reduction through generation shifting (as we did in the Clean Power Plan) rather than being constrained to the minimal emission reductions achievable at individual facilities (advanced in the ACE rule). This paves the way for a new Biden power plant rule (Appendix B, pp. 57–58).

A career EPA director and colleagues similarly celebrated new Biden environmental policies the day after Biden’s inauguration. The director told colleagues that he would “try not to flood your inboxes, but there’s a lot of transition-related news that may be of general interest.” Career colleagues responded: “These are the kinds of memo floods many of us have been yearning for over the last few years. Keep ‘em coming!” “Flood away [NAME REDACTED], it’s all good,” “I agree … Lay this good stuff on us,” to which the director responded, “Will do. Never had so much fun reading executive orders” and “I keep reading and smiling!” (Appendix B, pp. 47–48).

Many other emails showed EPA employees supporting Biden or opposing Trump Administration environmental policies (Appendix B, pp. 46, 52, 56, 59, 68–70, 72, 91). No EPA employees expressed contrary views in these email records.

One Conservative

The email releases across these agencies showed a single career employee expressing specifically conservative views on policy issues.[8] The employee is a marine mammal studies coordinator in the DOI’s Bureau of Ocean Energy Management. Democratic Rep. Gerry Connolly, who represents Virginia’s 11th House district, sent the employee’s work email account a constituent survey about policy priorities. The employee responded with a list of conservative policy priorities that had little to do with DOI business. These included “Stopping illegal immigration to keep gun runners, drug dealers, weapons smugglers out of our country,” “Preserving the American system of government by NOT stacking the Supreme Court,” and “Preserving private healthcare by rejecting socialized medicine.” The employee concluded by saying, “[i]n other words, I want what you and other Democrats don’t want” (Appendix B, p. 15). This was the only employee who expressed conservative policy views.

FOIA-ed emails show that many career federal employees have strong policy views and freely express them at work. Virtually all career employees who did so expressed liberal policy preferences.

Views on the Election and Presidential Transition

Many career employees also expressed views on the 2020 election and the change in power from the Trump to Biden Administration. As with employee policy views, these views were overwhelmingly left-wing. Many career employees expressed—often in deeply emotional terms—a desire to see Trump lose or joy at his leaving office. The next sections provide representative examples.

Strong Preference for Democrats to Win in 2020

Before and shortly after the 2020 election, several career employees expressed a strong preference for a Democratic victory and relief at President Trump’s loss. For example, in June 2020, a regional forester in the Forest Service had a conversation with an employee in the Bureau of Land Management. During the conversation, the forester speculated about the potential outcome of the upcoming election, noting, “If Dems lose in November, will probably have to join the board of CBD to help them cause trouble!” (Appendix B, p. 20)

On November 7, 2020, the director of the Office of Indian Gaming at DOI’s Bureau of Indian Affairs sent messages reflecting excitement at the end of the Trump Administration. In response to a post-election email titled “Go Biden!” that read, “Congrats [NAME REDACTED], your life just got a lot better! Look forward to working with you,” the director expressed relief, saying, “It feels like I can breathe again!!! Thank you.” (Appendix B, p. 7)

On November 19, 2020—a week before Thanksgiving Day—a life scientist from EPA Region 4 expressed relief and gratitude following the 2020 election results. In an email sent to numerous coworkers without a subject line, the life scientist wrote simply, “I’m thankful Trump lost the election. A welcome change.” (Appendix B, p. 60)

On December 8, 2020, a career attorney in the EEOC Office of General Counsel said to a correspondent, “So relieved that Biden won! (Think I can say that!).” (Appendix B, p. 125). Other emails showed career staff similarly demonstrating a preference for Democrats to win the 2020 election https://americafirstpolicy.com...

Joy Over the End of The Trump Administration

Career employees in the EPA and DOI expressed overt joy and relief at the end of the Trump Administration and the transition to Biden. For example, on Inauguration Day, a career scientist in DOI’s Bureau of Ocean Energy Management expressed relief at President Biden’s inauguration. In an email with the subject “my happy day,” the employee told a colleague:

Just wanted to say, am spending some time celebrating. I had to listen to Biden’s speech on the radio driving back from an appointment, but I heard it all. What a relief. Thank Gol [sic] I thought … I couldn’t help but think back to Georgia and how a bunch of Black women dragged us all across the finish line. Someone said the sun came out just when he stepped up to speak.” (Appendix B, p. 19)

Career EPA employees reacted similarly shortly after the inauguration. On January 21, 2021, the chief of staff for the EPA Office of International and Tribal Affairs emailed another career employee to explain:

Hi [NAME REDACTED] - sorry I couldn't talk with you called [sic]. Was driving out to WV with the family. We came back yesterday afternoon, after watching the inauguration. Was a relief to know the orange guy is gone, and the speeches and the poem were wonderful! (Appendix B, p. 40)

On January 25, 2021, the Mission Support Division director for an EPA region reflected joyfully on the events surrounding Biden's inauguration. Speaking with a deputy director of mitigation at the Federal Emergency Management Agency, the EPA director recounted:

I was so busy trying to off board our RA [Regional Administrator] that I never responded! After he left, I took down the pictures of Trump, Pence, and [EPA Administrator] Andrew Wheeler in the lobby—perk of being MSDD [Mission Support Division Director]. It was a different mood from 2017 for sure-solo celebration in my office-thanks Covid. I didn't get to watch the inauguration festivities live but I got to watch later—I cried of course! It was a great day. (Appendix B, p. 94)

The day before the 2021 inauguration, a deputy regional administrator for another EPA region similarly celebrated removing photos of President Trump, Vice President Mike Pence, and Administrator Andrew Wheeler from the office:

I love your invoking the new President and his thought that we must remember so that we can heal. Kerry and I remembered the past four years as we removed the photos of the current administration's principals from the wall on the 19th floor today, after the three political appointees departed. Then we healed a bit. (Appendix B, p. 29)

At the EEOC, a career attorney in the General Counsel’s office complained in a series of email exchanges about having to argue a case on January 20, 2021—Joe Biden’s inauguration. The career attorney explained it was “a day I’ve been excited about for some time! … I wanted to go. And see Biden. And Harris. And show T what a real crowd looks like” (Appendix B, p. 128) (emphasis in original).

A colleague commiserated, “Bummer! … I had an oral argument during trumps inauguration but did not mind a bit! A little different.” (Appendix B, p. 122). Another colleague reassured the attorney, explaining there was “good news – the ordeal will at least be over!!”[9] The attorney responded “I actually am warming up to the idea that I can do my argument and then crack open some champagne at lunch to celebrate Joe Biden’s inauguration!” To which the colleague replied “I’ll drink to that” (Appendix B, p. 123).

Other emails showed career staff experiencing joy or expressing relief over the end of the Trump administration (Appendix B, pp. 4, 9, 37, 51, 57, 66, 88, 99, 109, 126). No emails expressed contrary sentiments.

Sole Conservative Reflects on Past Elections and Condemns President Trump

One employee in DOI’s Bureau of Ocean Energy Management expressed electoral views that were generally sympathetic to Republicans. However, this employee was also hostile to Trump. In a discussion with a colleague the day after January 6, he stated:

I agree with Liz Cheney yesterday saying that the President bears some responsibility for his language. That’s what happens when you whip people up into a big enough frenzy that they feel that they are being disenfranchised. Don’t get me wrong - I watched stuff going on in several states that (at least to ME) was questionable, and I WOULDN’T be opposed to vetting the election to ensure that all legal votes were counted (again, legally), but to say that the election results should be overturned is another matter. (Appendix B, pp. 12–14)

In another email that day, this employee expressed support for previous Republican leaders and lamented Trump’s 2016 election victory, stating:

I supported Rubio back in 2016 in the primaries. He had conservative principles (like Reagan) and he sounded the MOST like Ronald Reagan of ANYONE I have heard in the past 20 + years. Of course, IF the country would have done the SMART thing and elected Romney back in 2012, then Trump would have NEVER been President, and THAT would have been a saving grace for us....". (Appendix B, p. 14)

FOIA requests show numerous federal employees expressing views on the 2020 election results and the subsequent transition of power. All but one of the employees whose views were captured in these exchanges showed a strong preference for Democrats and Biden over Republicans and Trump. Even that conservative employee expressed the wish that Trump had never taken office.

Views on Trump, Biden, and Harris

In addition to expressing views about the election and change of administration, many career employees expressed personal opinions about Presidents Trump and Biden and Vice President Harris. One career employee expressed support for Trump. Every other career employee who expressed sentiments about these officials expressed either admiration for Biden or Harris or disgust with President Trump.

Overt Disdain for President Trump

Several emails show career employees expressing personal disdain for President Trump. For example, in response to a colleague discussing a Trump tweet about an “election delay” because of COVID-19, a career regional forester stated, “Desperate measure for a desperate man.... [NAME REDACTED] wants me to rethink working for the govt if he’s re-elected....I can’t help but think about it too.” (Appendix B, p. 21).

On November 15, 2020, a recently retired career EPA employee discussed a news article about how the Trump Administration effectively cleaned up Superfund toxic waste sites with a current EPA career employee. The former EPA employee wrote:

I figured you were the one responsible for this happening. Something the ‘Loser’ actually could claim was a good thing … I hope the EPA survives the damage from the past 4 years … Have you been getting in as much golf as the “Loser” has been? Ha. (Appendix B, p. 80)

In an apparent discussion about agency expenditures, a career attorney in the EEOC General Counsel’s Office told colleagues that:

I think about this stuff much like all of our other expenses (including the ones I incur using PACER to track instead of the useless Lexis product): any money spent doing our jobs is money that can’t go to Trump’s family or his various toadies. Win-win!” (Appendix B, p. 127).

Other emails also showed career staff expressing disdain for President Trump (Appendix B, pp. 10, 25, 75–76, 89).

Adoration of Vice President Harris

Conversely, several career employees expressed deep admiration for Vice President Kamala Harris. For example, in December 2020, an EPA career deputy regional administrator had an email exchange with a colleague:

I wore the blouse Kamala wore at her appearance after the election was
called. No one knew, but I enjoyed it. 😊

The career associate director of federal climate change policy in that region responded:

Kamala blouse: I LOVE THAT!!!! I was wondering... It also reminded me of
RBG [former Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg]. love both RBG and Kamala. My girls absolutely love both RBG and Kamala.

The deputy regional administrator then responded with the following:

I'm so glad your girls love Kamala and RBG. They’re no doubt powerful young women themselves. I'm looking forward to wearing my Kamala blouse again on Inauguration Day. (Appendix B, p. 27)

On Inauguration Day 2021, the deputy director of mitigation for a Federal Emergency Management Agency region expressed similar admiration for Kamala Harris, telling the Mission Support Division director in an EPA region, “Wearing my pearls today and so super excited for Madame Vice President. Happy Inauguration Day!” (Appendix B, p. 93)

One Conservative Supported Trump and Disparaged Biden

The FOIA releases revealed a single career employee supporting President Trump and disparaging President Biden. In December 2020, a career FCC management analyst exchanged emails with a colleague asking for help getting tickets for a White House tour:

How are you doing, [NAME REDACTED]? Do you know how we can tour the WH? The website says to reach out to local representative. Well, they’re all for sleepy joe.

After the analyst’s colleague said four tickets could likely be obtained, the analyst replied:

Omg! Are you serious?? 4 tickets would be amazing!! We love Trump! And you!! (Appendix B, p. 23)

When career employees expressed their personal views on national figures, they almost always expressed admiration for Democratic party leaders and disgust with Republican leaders.

Views on Presidential Appointees

In addition to expressing their views about national political figures, career staff also expressed views about officials that President Trump appointed to lead their agencies or to the federal judiciary. These views were largely, but not exclusively, negative. Conversely, the record did not show a single instance of career employees expressing a negative opinion of Biden nominees or appointees.

Career EPA officials uniformly expressed delight at seeing Administrator Andrew Wheeler leave office with President Trump. Many career EEOC officials celebrated when President Biden fired General Counsel Sharon Gustafson in March 2021. Gustafson served in a term appointment that would have otherwise lasted until 2023. Conversely, a pair of career EEOC employees expressed sadness at seeing Gustafson leave. Several career EEOC attorneys also denigrated—in harshly personal terms—Judge Stuart Kyle Duncan, a former religious liberty litigator that President Trump appointed to the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals. These emails show career employees with strongly held views on who holds public office—largely, but not exclusively, preferring liberal appointees.

EPA Union Executive Board Loathed Agency Administrator

On January 12, 2021, the executive board of AFGE Local 3607—which represents employees in EPA Region 8—expressed their disdain for the outgoing Trump-appointed EPA administrator, Andrew Wheeler. In a lengthy and vitriolic email to Wheeler, the executive board members argued:

[Y]ou have methodically eliminated protections of human health and the environment through rulemakings and policies while misleading the American public about your actions. While you have had the right as the EPA Administrator to gut environmental and public health protections to provide financial benefits to the regulated community, your repeated statements that the gutting of human health and environmental protections have actually provided benefits to human health and the environment are appalling. The least you could have done was told [sic] the truth about your actions and preferred policies …

We have looked forward to your departure since the day your actions made clear your disdain for the work that EPA has been charged by Congress with carrying out. Knowing that you will be gone in less than two weeks and that we can get back to working toward the goal of protecting human health and the environment gives those of us that are left hope that has been absent for the last four years. (Appendix B, pp. 68–70)

Many EEOC Employees Celebrated General Counsel’s Dismissal

Many career EEOC employees celebrated when President Biden fired General Counsel Sharon Gustafson, a Trump appointee serving in a term appointment. On March 5, 2021—the day of the dismissal—a career employee described the reaction to the news: “We were on a SharePoint training with [NAME REDACTED] when Sharon’s e-mail came in. I almost fell off my chair. There was much screaming and celebrating.” (Appendix B, p. 106)

Sharon Gustafson emailed General Counsel employees announcing her dismissal, telling them she was honored to work with them and expressing her respect for their expertise and dedication. One career employee forwarded the message to a colleague with a note: “The beer is on me next time we see each other,” to which the response came, “Sounds good. And the whiskey is on me!” Another career employee forwarded the dismissal letter to a colleague with the statement, “There is a God.” Yet another employee responded to the news with “Oh happy day!” (Appendix B, pp. 102–104).

Conversely, EEOC career employees celebrated Deputy General Counsel Gwendolyn Reams’ promotion to acting General Counsel. While personal congratulations would naturally be in order following a new appointment, several emails suggested underlying pleasure at the change in leadership. One career attorney emailed Reams to congratulate her on her appointment, adding, “After so many challenging months, it was so great to see all smiling faces during the RA [Regional Attorney] Conference Call” (Appendix B, p. 111). Another career employee emailed Reams to tell her, “Thank you for doing this. I really appreciate your willingness to take this on. We are coming out of a dark time and your leadership is so needed for us to see there is light again after all the darkness.” (Appendix B, p. 109).

On the other hand, two career EEOC employees expressed condolences to Gustafson following her dismissal. One stated, “I am saddened to read this. I very much enjoyed working with you and under your leadership,” while the other said, “I’m so sorry to hear about this and you are going to be missed.” (Appendix B, pp. 96, 100)

Career Deputy Actually in Charge?

Shortly after Gustafson’s dismissal, Reams emailed a colleague to explain that “I will be taking the helm in OGC in terms of running the office.” Her career colleague replied, “Also, quietly as it is kept, you were always at the helm!lol [sic] Congrats and well deserved.” (Appendix B, p. 101). This email seems to suggest that this career employee believed that Reams was actually running the General Counsel’s office while Gustafson was formally in charge.

Denigrating a Trump-Appointed Judge

In February 2021, an EEOC career attorney discussed pending litigation with a colleague. In the course of their discussion, the employee harshly denigrated a judge President Trump appointed to the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals, Stuart Kyle Duncan:

Yes, filed a brief on the EPA case and have a 5C [Fifth Circuit] argument Monday on my trash truck driver case. Lots of messy issues we did not brief so will be a challenge to stay the course. We have Dennis and Weiner {86!} and an absolutely horrible Trump judge named Stuart Kyle Duncan. He looks to be morally bankrupt:

https://slate.com/news-and-politics/2020/01/the-trump-bench-kyle-duncan-the-fifth-circuit.html (Appendix B, p. 118)

Other emails showed career EEOC attorneys expressing disdain for Judge Duncan and appearing to mock him with vulgarities, although the EEOC redacted the precise terms used in these exchanges (Appendix B, pp. 114–117). No emails expressed contrary sentiments.

Many career employees have—and express in the workplace—strong opinions on presidential appointees and agency leadership. Those views lean heavily to the left.

Partisan Career Workforce Undermines Democracy

The overwhelming majority of career staff who share their personal political opinions at work via email express left-wing views. Only a small minority share conservative sentiments. This finding reinforces the conclusions of other studies examining voter registration and campaign finance data: Although career federal employees are nominally hired on a nonpartisan basis, most career federal employees are Democrats and liberals.

This leaves the civil service in a challenging position. Career employees are called upon to exercise neutral competence to advance the agenda of the president of the day. A heavily Democratic career workforce will have little problem implementing a Democratic president’s agenda. However, a Republican administration must advance its policies through a bureaucracy that strongly opposes them. In theory, this would not be a problem if liberal career staff simply left their personal politics at home. Many career employees do indeed do this. But a significant number instead pursue their personal policy preferences. In some cases, career staff have been documented moving policy in the opposite direction agency leadership sought (Wood, 1988).

During the first Trump Administration, career staff often obstructed or ignored directives from political appointees (Eilperin, Rein, & Fisher, 2017; Flavelle & Bain, 2017). Former political appointees reported hostile career staff used various tactics to impede policies they opposed. These tactics included withholding information, refusing to implement policies, delaying priorities, leaking to Congress and the media, and outright insubordination (Sherk, 2022, pp. 7–17). Several political appointees reported greater career staff resistance when they served under President Trump than under President George W. Bush (Sherk, 2022, p. 6).

These reports go beyond anecdotes. Researchers have documented that agency productivity systematically falls if career employees’ political views differ significantly from agency leadership’s. Researchers attribute this to a “morale effect,” whereby bureaucrats become less motivated to pursue agency missions when they disagree with them (Spenkuch, Teso & Xu, 2023). Other researchers find that agencies with liberal career staff take measurably longer to issue new policies when led by conservative appointees than when led by progressives (Feinstein & Wood, 2022, pp. 764–765).

Consequently, the career federal workforce’s strong left-wing views present a challenge to democratic self-government. Voters should get the policies that they voted for. But those policies must be implemented by a partisan career workforce. To the extent that career employees systematically shift policies toward their own ideological preferences, the government becomes less accountable to the American people.

Conclusion

The career workforce is only nominally nonpartisan. Internal email correspondence shows that the career federal workforce leans strongly to the left. A representative sampling of email records across multiple agencies shows that 95 percent of career employees express liberal views when they discuss politics at work. Very few career employees express conservative views. A partisan bureaucracy can make it challenging for a conservative administration to implement policy directives that liberal career employees oppose.

[1] Feinstein and Wood (2022) did not break out their data by election cycle for most agencies. Sherk (2023) presents results using their data across election cycles, showing that the career workforce grew steadily more liberal between the mid-1990s and mid-2020s.

[2] AFPI also separately FOIA-ed emails sent to Deputy EEOC General Counsel Gwendolyn Reams the week before and after President Biden dismissed General Counsel Sharon Gustafson and appointed her as acting general counsel, as well as emails from career EEOC General Counsel employees that discuss Gustafson’s dismissal or Reams’ appointment. Results from those releases are included along with those with political search terms like “Trump” or “Biden.”

[3] AFPI took a focused approach in this review and excluded from consideration emails that expressed views on novel and politically significant events like January 6 unless those conversations also expressed views on political figures or agency policies.

[4] AFPI requested records from the Office of Budget and Program Analysis (OBPA), the Forest Service, the Food and Nutrition Service, and the Office of General Counsel within the U.S. Department of Agriculture. As of the drafting of this report, only the Forest Service and OBPA have produced records.

[5] Note that more than 102 politically salient emails were sent, as some individuals sent multiple emails.

[6] Except in the EEOC, agencies provided career employees’ full names and work email addresses in the FOIA responses. AFPI has redacted the employees’ names and email addresses to prevent them from being subject to potential online harassment. While the emails show career employees expressing strong political views, they do not reveal illegal behavior. 5 U.S.C. § 7323(c) authorizes federal employees to express their opinions on political subjects and candidates.

[7] In many cases, the agency emails did not disclose an individual’s title, but an internet search for the person’s name and agency readily revealed it. In those cases, this report uses publicly available information about an employee’s job title.

[8] Of the other four emails assessed to express conservative views, one showed an employee’s personal support for Trump, two expressed sorrow at Biden’s dismissing a Trump appointee, and one showed an employee expressing Republican but anti-Trump sympathies. None of these other emails expressed specific policy views.

[9] This email response came in a different email exchange but appears to be a response to the same attorney who had oral argument before the Tenth Circuit scheduled on January 20, 2021.