The treatment of probationary workers is a cautionary tale of how easily an administration bent on removing obstacles to its plans can undermine democracy.

On Mother’s Day weekend, many probationary employees at the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) who had been reinstated under court order, received an unwelcome surprise—a new notice of termination, effective immediately, because their employment “does not advance the public interest.” In the same envelope, they also received a letter, mandated by a different federal court, informing them that their first termination was not because of poor performance, but was part of a mass government firing. 

I received these letters; it is hard to describe what was more galling—to be told that my role as the Ombuds for Unaccompanied Children was not advancing the public interest or to be fired yet again with no justification, review or opportunity to challenge the decision. HHS appears to have conducted a bait and switch, substituting “public interest” for “performance,” but otherwise ignoring any rules—of law or civility—in its latest attempt to clean house.

This second round has been brutal, and even more emotional, because the court orders thus far have made it clear to the government that it may be free to fire employees, but it must follow the rules. This is an administration that makes up the rules as it goes along, it seems, and so what we thought was the protection of due process has been whisked away with six little words” “your employment does not advance the government’s interest.”

HHS appears to have conducted a bait and switch, substituting ‘public interest’ for ‘performance,’ but otherwise ignoring any rules—of law or civility—in its latest attempt to clean house.

Those words come from an executive order issued by President Trump on April 24, 2025.

“Strengthening Probationary Periods in the Federal Work Force,” which nullifies existing regulations governing the basis for terminating probationary employees. It creates a presumption of termination after the probationary period, unless an agency affirmatively certifies that continued employment is in the government’s interest. A designated agency official must certify that the employee has the requisite skills and knowledge to perform their job, and that their continued employment “advances the public interest, the organizational goals and mission of [the agency], and the efficiency of the service.”

The probationary employee also bears the burden of proof to show that their continued employment is in the public interest. Even after you have been hired, even if you are performing satisfactorily, and even if your supervisor wants you to continue, a designated agency official, most likely a political appointee, will have the power to decide whether you can keep your job. 

The Executive Order is rife with problems, including immediately doing away with existing protections for probationary workers, ambiguity over the treatment of current workers and eliminating Merit Systems Protection Board rights altogether. And while the Executive Order nullifies protections for probationary workers, it contemplates new mechanisms will be in place within 90 days. Office of Personnel Management guidance requires agencies to identify employees whose probationary period ends on or after July 23, 2025, who will be subject to the new procedures, and to submit training plans for supervisors and HR personnel for implementing the new rules. Those training plans are due May 16th.

Our termination notices are dated May 8th, suggesting that HHS jumped the gun. Many of us who started in the fall of 2024 or the winter of 2025 would appear to be subject to the new procedures. While this will certainly be subject to litigation, it also appears on the face of the Executive Order and subsequent guidance that HHS can’t simply declare our employment is not in the public interest. Even under the questionable standards laid out in the Executive Order, there is a process that involves meeting with the employee and assessing performance as part of the certification process. Nothing seems to prevent the designated agency official from ignoring those recommendations, but on paper, at least, there is a process.

Instead, our termination letters advise us to reach out to our supervisors with any questions. Unfortunately, many supervisors were also terminated under the probationary or RIF firings. Some who remain have shared with their employees that they were not notified about the new terminations until after the fact. Others were told the terminations promote government efficiency.

Which brings us to the heart of the matter. The Trump administration has been using the terms “government interest” and “public interest” interchangeably in its quest to scale back government and weaken the federal workforce. For most federal workers, those terms are interchangeable because they believe their government work by its nature is in the public’s interest.  

Nadia Ford, a presidential management fellow who worked on grant programs supporting parenting skills for fathers and healthy marriage skills for young people, has been puzzling over the mixed message of her termination.

She told Ms. that her team survived the RIFs, thus far, but the loss of the two probationary team members places more burdens on the remaining staff. “How is it in the public interest to put more burdens on the people who are supposed to monitor the use of taxpayer dollars?”

Without a full team, she predicted that grants will be delayed and meaningful projects that help the community will not be there to serve struggling young couples who need to learn how to communicate with each other or to support fathers learning how to parent after recovering from addiction.

The treatment of probationary workers is a cautionary tale of how easily an administration bent on removing obstacles to its plans can undermine democracy.

Another HHS employee, who supports medical research grants at the National Institutes of Health (NIH), is equally disturbed by the contradiction. This young woman, who is pregnant with her first child, and the sole provider of health insurance for her family, asked not to be identified, but freely shared her passion for public service.

She told Ms. that the public interest was the first thing emphasized in her job interviews and training. 

“Our job is to ensure that taxpayer dollars are spent  wisely. A lot of my job was doing due diligence, ensuring funds are spent appropriately, and that no one is getting paid twice. To say that my work is ‘not in the public interest’ is false.  I put a lot of weight on that responsibility.”

The random and erratic nature of her treatment has put additional stress on this NIH employee, as she and her husband, who runs a small company, plan for the future, including the impact of tariffs, without the stability she believed her federal job would provide. Her insurance coverage is now slated to expire three weeks before her due date.

She is even considering talking to her physician about inducing labor early to ensure she can afford the initial bills.

“I was waiting to have some job stability and financial security before starting a family. I did that—and now it has been ripped away.”

The treatment of probationary workers is a cautionary tale of how easily an administration bent on removing obstacles to its plans can undermine democracy. By manipulating the concept of the probationary work period, and then by flagrantly disregarding the rules for probationary termination, the administration started a chain of events that has demonized and demoralized thousands of decent, hard-working public servants. The latest round of terminations takes this one step further, redefining public service and the public interest as fungible terms for carrying out the will of President Trump.  

The interests of a presidential administration and the interests of the government—and therefore, the public—are not always the same. This is what Congress recognized decades ago in establishing a civil service that was protected from random firings at the whim of politicians. While the protections federal employees have enjoyed may be a benefit of public service, allowing thousands of families to build productive and stable lives, that is a by-product of their purpose. 

Civil service laws exist to protect the public. Job stability ensures that there are no disruptions of important services and no sudden dismantling of government offices every four years. The laws exist to ensure that in the ideological battles fought by our politicians, the public’s best interest is not lost. 

To fire civil servants because our work is not advancing the public interest is not just an insult to the worker, but a sign of disrespect to the public that we serve.