The Trump Administration announced on March 6, 2025 that they want Chief Human Capital Officer roles to be political appointments. Acting OPM Director Charles Ezell’s memo says they believe HR policy has become more politicized in recent years, and that having career executives in the jobs can interfere with the Administration implementing policy.
The memo says “Agency CHCOs determine policy when they choose which policies, including DEI policies, their departments should prioritize and fund—and which should be deemphasized or defunded. These policies determine who gets to serve the country as an agency employee, and who might not even get an interview. The same policies may dictate who will be promoted within the agency, and who will be passed over. HR policies and priorities can siphon funds and manpower that would otherwise be dedicated to different policy objectives, with tangible effects on everyday Americans. The public rightly expects that government officials who make these policy choices should be democratically accountable.
To be sure, like many policy-determining and policy-advocating jobs throughout the federal government, CHCO positions require a baseline of specialized knowledge necessary to understand broader issues and make decisions for the agency. But the CHCO’s authority goes beyond mere technical matters. Instead, the modern CHCO makes, implements, and advocates for some of the most controversial policies in modern American politics on behalf of their Agency Head and the Administration.“
Director Ezell continues “Career reserved SES roles are meant for “impartial” or “technical” positions, not policy advocates. Congress was clear that “a position shall be designated as a career reserved position only if the filling of the position by a career appointee is necessary to ensure impartiality, or the public’s confidence in the impartiality, of the Government.” The CHCO role is not the sort of “impartial” or “technical” position that is fit for career reserved SES positions, a fact reflected in the decision by many agencies to historically classify CHCO positions as SES General.“
So – is that accurate? And is it a good idea to make CHCO position political appointees? I was CHCO at the Department of Homeland Security as a political appointee. When I left, I convinced the Secretary to fill the job with a career appointee.
Having a political appointee as CHCO is not unusual. In DHS, every CHCO was political until I left the job. In fact, the Homeland Security Act initially required the job to be a political appointment. In the Department of Defense (DoD), the role has been political in some administrations and career in others. Veterans Affairs has had a political CHCO for years. Here are the arguments for and against having a political CHCO:
CHCOs should be political. The CHCO role is clearly a policy-making role that is essential for carrying out an administration’s policy objectives. HR policies are often discussed in political campaigns. As Director Ezell stated, Presidents Biden and Trump had clear policy preferences with respect to Diversity, Equity and Inclusion (DEI). President Obama made collective bargaining for Transportation Security Officers part of his campaign. How an agency hires, fires and trains its workforce is an in integral and essential aspect of carrying out an administration’s objectives. In addition, a CHCO who is a political appointee has far greater access to the agency leadership, because s/he is a trusted part of that leadership team from day one. When I served at DHS, I was included in meetings with the Secretary, Deputy Secretary and other departmental leaders, simply because I was part of their team. They had no doubt that I was there to help carry out their policy objectives. That access was essential to being successful in the role.
CHCOs should be career executives. Career SES members are, by definition, policy-making officials. They know that their role is to advise and assist the political leaders in carrying out their policies. Because they are career executives, they must meet qualifications requirements, including extensive knowledge of the federal laws and regulations that govern Human Resources management. Without that knowledge, they would be unable to give timely advice to the agency head and other senuior officials, and must constantly go to others for technical advice and assistance. When I was DHS CHCO, one of the first meetings I had with my policy team was to give them a decision on a relatively simple policy question. They spent hours preparing a 30+ page presentation explaining the law and what they wanted to do. I gave them a decision on the spot and asked why they would waste so much time preparing a briefing on a simple HR question. The policy chief explained that “this is how we have been working – the previous CHCOs knew either very little or nothing about federal HR law and regulations, so everything had to be spoon-fed to them.”
My belief is that the ideal CHCO is someone who has extensive knowledge of federal HR law and regulations and has the ability to work effectively with appointees from either party. Such a person is well equipped to advise the agency head on how to carry out their objectives. As long as the CHCO remembers that s/he is accountable to the agency head and advises him/her in good faith, the agency can get more done, legally and consistent with regulations, than a political appointee without that technical knowledge. That does not mean the CHCO role has to be career reserved and limited only to career SES members. An SES General position can be filled with either career or political appointees, as the administration sees fit.
Typically, when an agency has a political appointee in a management ‘Chief’ such as the CHCO, Chief Information Officer, Chief Financial Officer and similar roles, they have career deputy who can provide the technical expertise that is needed.
Would I make all CHCOs political? No. I think there is far more to be gained by having federal HR expertise than there is in having a political appointee in the role. Is it a huge problem to make the SES General rather than Career Reserved? No. That change does not require a job to be political – it simply provides the option. If it results in making all CHCOs political, having a bunch of political appointee CHCOs is not ideal, but it is workable and worked effectively for years in the biggest departments in government. The bottom line is that regardless of whether CHCOs are political or career, the administration still gets to make policy.
ChiefHRO.com 