The Politics of Meritocracy
If President Trump is serious about restoring merit-based hiring, then a comprehensive review of hiring and firing is warranted.
AI Generated Images
The debate over meritocracy in federal hiring has become a central issue in the current administration’s policies, particularly regarding eliminating diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) initiatives. President Trump’s executive order to restore merit-based hiring asserts that previous practices prioritized identity over qualifications. However, recent administration actions have not led to a consistent application of meritocratic principles.
In the first two months of President Trump’s term, his administration’s commitment to meritocracy has quickly unraveled. The Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE) 's reduction-in-force (RIF) efforts along with the abrupt removal of senior military officers without cause highlight this contradiction. These decisions, often made without regard for skill or necessity, expose the administration’s true motivations.
While DEI programs are dismantled under the pretext of eliminating identity-based hiring advantages, veterans’ preference policies — long enshrined in federal law — remain untouched, despite similarly prioritizing identity over qualifications. This selective application of meritocracy raises a fundamental question: is the goal truly to ensure the most qualified candidates are hired, or is the administration leveraging cultural grievances for political advantage?
A comprehensive review of all hiring preferences, rather than the targeted elimination of DEI, is necessary to determine whether federal hiring is genuinely merit-based.
DEI and Meritocracy
A major flashpoint during the 2024 election, DEI was an easy applause line for the President at campaign events. Keeping his campaign promise to restore merit-based hiring, President Trump issued a flurry of executive orders soon after his inauguration. However, these efforts now face significant legal challenges. Multiple lawsuits argue that these orders violate constitutional protections and negatively affect workplace diversity efforts. A federal judge has already issued an injunction blocking key provisions, signaling that the administration’s legal battle is far from over.
Despite its rhetoric about restoring meritocracy, the administration failed to apply these principles consistently. For example, while ostensibly tasked with streamlining government information systems technology and operations, DOGE initiated mass firings by the administration that targeted specific employees without regard to merit or skills. Often relying on employees’ probationary status or vague claims of poor performance, DOGE justified terminations without fully understanding the impact of their action. Many of these firings were later reversed when agencies realized that the dismissed employees had been performing critical functions and that no equally qualified replacements were available. Countering this are multiple lawsuits and recent judicial and administrative rulings, which have slowed the firing process and, in some cases, ordered jobs to be restored. Ironically, the individual leading DOGE’s firings had no federal management experience and was hired solely due to his financial support and loyalty to the administration.
Further exemplifying the administration’s hypocrisy on meritocracy, the President fired Air Force General C.Q. Brown and Navy Admiral Lisa Franchetti from their top Pentagon roles in February — leaders selected for their expertise, experience, and demonstrated performance. These removals were without cause, yet they notably affected the highest-ranking African American and woman officer in the U.S. military. If meritocracy was the administration’s priority, why were these proven leaders dismissed while unqualified political appointees remained in key roles? This contradiction underscores that merit was not the guiding factor — political considerations were.
Amid the heated rhetoric about merit-based hiring, a critical yet overlooked aspect of the meritocracy debate is the longstanding preferential hiring of veterans. Codified in the 1944 Veterans’ Preference Act and embedded in Title 5 of the U.S. Code, veterans’ preference policies provide explicit hiring advantages based solely on identity — military service — even when a veteran is less qualified than a non-veteran candidate. Despite its clear parallels to DEI initiatives, this policy remains politically untouchable.
While the administration decries DEI for allegedly prioritizing identity over qualifications, its selective outrage and recent actions suggest that their opposition has less to do with merit and more with leveraging cultural biases for political advantage.
From the Veterans Affairs Website
Special Hiring Authority for Veterans
Contrary to Republican claims, DEI programs never overrode Title 5’s Prohibited Personnel Practices, prohibiting discrimination. Federal DEI initiatives encouraged broader applicant pools but required candidates to meet minimum qualifications. President Biden’s Executive Order 14035 reinforced that DEI aimed to expand access, not dictate hiring decisions based on identity.
Veterans’ preference, by contrast, operates under a special hiring authority that explicitly prioritizes a desired outcome. Under Title 5, Section 3309, veterans receive bonus points on hiring applications, regardless of whether their military experience is relevant. This means a veteran with lower qualifications can rank higher than a more qualified non-veteran applicant. Under the “Rule of Three,” hiring managers must select from the top three candidates. If a veteran ranks within those three due to preference points, the agency is legally required to consider the veteran first, sidelining better-qualified candidates.
Viewed through a DEI lens, the scale of veterans’ preferences is striking. The Office of Personnel Management (OPM) reports that veterans make up 30% of the federal workforce (637,000 employees), despite comprising only 6% of the U.S. population. Of these hires, 87% (553,000) qualified through veterans’ preference — far surpassing the impact of any DEI initiative.
Acknowledging the Differences Between Veterans’ Preference and DEI
Veterans’ preferences and DEI differ in justification: DEI aims to counter systemic discrimination, while veterans’ preferences reward service and aid military-to-civilian transition. Yet, both prioritize identity in hiring.
The key difference is scope — veterans receive a legally mandated advantage, whereas DEI sets aspirational goals without compelling agencies to prioritize any group. If critics of DEI were genuinely concerned about merit-based hiring, they would scrutinize both policies, not just DEI. Their targeted opposition suggests political motives.
Some argue that veterans’ preference is distinct from DEI because it is based on service rather than immutable characteristics. While military experience often fosters leadership, discipline, and mission-focused skills, its relevance varies by role. This raises an important question: should hiring decisions prioritize past service, even when unrelated to the job, or should the most qualified candidate always take precedence?
At the same time, it is fair to contend that military service represents a voluntary contribution to national security, whereas DEI policies address systemic barriers beyond individual control. Yet, both systems ultimately grant identity-based hiring advantages over merit-based selection. If merit is the standard, all hiring preferences — including veterans’ preference — deserve scrutiny.
The Hypocrisy of Targeting DEI While Preserving Veterans’ Hiring Preferences
As a veteran, I support hiring preferences for veterans and recognize the value their experience brings to the federal government. At the same time, I also see the value of diversity, equity, and inclusion. While veterans’ preference can sometimes elevate a less formally qualified candidate over a more experienced civilian, it is also true that many federal jobs — especially in national security, defense procurement, law enforcement, and emergency management — benefit significantly from military experience. The real question is not whether veterans or DEI initiatives contribute value, but whether the hiring system prioritizes the most qualified candidates while still addressing workforce diversity and national service.
A balanced approach is needed — one that refines hiring preferences for both veterans and DEI to ensure fairness without undermining qualified candidates. Rather than eliminating veterans’ preference, it could be reformed to align more closely with job relevance — for example, weighting preference points based on whether military experience directly applies to the role. Additionally, agencies could be given greater flexibility under the ‘Rule of Three’ to select the best candidate, even if a veteran is among the top-ranked applicants.
Similarly, if DEI programs are to be reinstated, the focus should be on expanding applicant pools and not necessarily setting aspirational hiring goals. This could mean investing in outreach programs, mentorship, and career development initiatives to ensure a diverse workforce without diminishing merit as a core hiring principle. Instead of framing DEI as an obstacle to meritocracy, policymakers should view it as a tool for increasing access and opportunity, ensuring that all candidates — regardless of background — compete on a level playing field.
With the ongoing effort to reduce the federal workforce, these questions deserve thoughtful, solutions-oriented discourse — not politically motivated backlash that targets some hiring preferences while ignoring others. If the administration is genuinely committed to meritocracy, it should advocate for reforms that ensure both fairness and effectiveness across all hiring systems, rather than using DEI as a political scapegoat.
The Hollow Defense of Meritocracy
In defending President Trump’s executive orders eliminating DEI, White House Press Secretary Karoline Leavitt declared, “President Trump campaigned on ending the scourge of DEI from our federal government and returning America to a merit-based society where people are hired based on their skill.” If meritocracy were indeed the goal, she could have stopped there. Instead, she added, “not for the color of their skin.” This qualifier reveals a striking paradox: rather than advocating fairness, President Trump and his allies have weaponized DEI as a racialized issue, reinforcing cultural grievances instead of enforcing a genuine commitment to merit-based hiring.
If meritocracy is the Trump administration’s guiding principle for federal hiring, then all preferential hiring systems — including veterans’ preference — should be scrutinized, not just those associated with DEI. While veterans’ preference serves a historical purpose in assisting service members’ transition into civilian life, it still functions as an identity-based hiring advantage. Unlike DEI, however, veterans’ preference remains politically favorable. Support for veterans is a widely accepted, bipartisan stance, making any effort to reform or reevaluate these hiring preferences politically difficult, even when they conflict with merit-based principles.
Yet, the administration’s handling of federal hiring reveals that meritocracy is merely a convenient talking point. While claiming to eliminate identity-based hiring advantages in the name of fairness, the administration applied these standards selectively, using DEI as a politically opportunistic target. The DOGE led mass firings under the guise of efficiency and cost reduction. Still, many dismissals were made under the pretense of poor performance or reversed when agencies realized these employees were critical to operations. This was not a merit-based process but a purge to achieve a political objective.
Similarly, removing highly qualified military leaders, including General C.Q. Brown, and Admiral Lisa Franchetti, exposes the contradictions in the administration’s rhetoric. These officers, chosen for their expertise and leadership, were dismissed without cause, proving that political considerations rather than qualifications often shape the merit-based decisions in the Trump administration.
The administration’s selective targeting of DEI while avoiding scrutiny of veterans’ hiring preferences underscores a larger truth: This is not about restoring meritocracy — it is about leveraging cultural grievances for political gain. By attacking DEI while protecting other identity-based hiring advantages, the administration reinforces that preferential hiring is acceptable, but only when it benefits politically favorable groups.
An honest commitment to meritocracy requires consistency. If hiring preferences for one group are to be scrutinized, so too should others — including veterans’ preference. Rather than dismantling DEI outright, policymakers should engage in a broader, solutions-oriented discussion about federal hiring practices, ensuring that the most qualified individuals — regardless of background — can serve in the government. Without this balanced approach, the President’s claims of meritocracy ring hollow, exposing political opportunism rather than a genuine commitment to fairness.
This was originally published on Medium.