[공익이 이끄는 데이터 과학] How will the second Trump administration change U.S. data policy?

Jaeyeon Kim, American public domain data scientist

Republican candidate Trump was elected in the US presidential election on November 5, 2024. Trump won all the battlegrounds where it was predicted that there would be close competition between the two parties’ candidates. Trump’s vote margin was higher than in the 2020 election in all fifty U.S. states except Utah and the independent administrative district of Washington, DC.

How will America’s data-based government policies change under the second Trump administration? First, it is expected that the US data policy stance will not be shaken. The ‘Evidence-Based Policy Establishment Act (hereinafter referred to as the ‘Evidence-Based Policy Act’)’ enacted by the U.S. Congress in 2018 recommends that the U.S. government collect evidence through data and then establish and evaluate policies based on that evidence. The Evidence-Based Policy Act requires federal agencies to report annually to the U.S. Congress and the Office of the President’s Budget (OBM) on how they establish and evaluate policies based on evidence.

Additionally, this bill changed the U.S. government’s talent selection standards. Thanks to this bill, the United States is now able to formally employ data scientists in public positions from the federal government to local governments. As of November 2024, there are more than 1,200 job postings for data scientists on the U.S. government’s recruitment site. This Evidence-Based Policy Act was passed by the U.S. Congress during the first Trump administration. Furthermore, this bill is a bill jointly sponsored by both parties. The main sponsors of the bill are Republican Rep. Paul Ryan, who served as Speaker of the House, and Democratic Rep. Patty Murray, who is currently serving as President Pro Tempore of the Senate. As the Evidence-Based Policy Act was passed by Congress with bipartisan support, this trend will likely remain similar in the second Trump administration.

In the second Trump administration, the US government’s data policy will be maintained, but the pillar that supports this policy, that is, the US government’s administrative organization, is likely to be shaken. There is a presidential executive order called ‘Schedule F’ that was attempted at the end of the first Trump administration. Trump and his supporters have consistently raised the ‘deep state’ conspiracy theory that the American bureaucracy secretly cooperates with the business community to control American society. As a way to eliminate this deep state, the first Trump administration introduced ‘Schedule F’.

According to this executive order, the US president can change 50,000 of the US federal civil servants to political positions and dismiss them if they do not fit his ‘national philosophy’ or ‘taste’. The purpose of the executive order is to replace disloyal professional civil servants with easy-to-move close associates. There are already signs that ‘Schedule F’ will reappear in the second Trump administration.

In April 2024, the Heritage Foundation, an American conservative think tank, announced Project 2025, which summarizes the policy agenda of the second Trump administration. Here too, Schedule F is mentioned as playing an important role in concentrating the authority of the next US government on the President (Trump).

It is difficult for ‘evidence-based policies’ to work properly when federal government officials work while watching the president. In the United States, according to the principle of checks and balances, the selection and evaluation of public officials is the responsibility of Congress. Congress, representing the American people, makes laws, and the executive branch enforces the laws. According to the United States’ Government Performance Act (GRPA), it is Congress, not the president, that judges whether professional civil servants are effectively performing their duties.

However, Schedule F deviates from this principle and grants the President the authority to independently evaluate the performance of public officials and decide on dispositions without going through Congress. If this happens, it will be difficult for federal officials not to pay attention to the president. Establishing and evaluating policies based on evidence in accordance with the Evidence-Based Policy Act is an important principle and part of our work. However, as long as Schedule F exists, you cannot preserve your position if you go against the president’s wishes.

The history of the development of an independent administration in the United States is the history of the development of American government capabilities. In the United States, the industrial revolution at the end of the 19th century led to a rapid population increase and the emergence of large cities such as New York, Chicago, and Boston. However, the U.S. government lacked the administrative capacity to deal with these cities. At the time, civil servants were recruited through politicians’ personal connections rather than through an objective selection process. The selection criteria for civil servants was not ability, but loyalty to a specific political party and politician. It was natural that unprofessional civil servants were unable to properly handle complex administrative tasks. Furthermore, as unchecked power took root within government organizations, public officials soon became the cause of corruption.

From the late 19th century to the early 20th century, a major political reform movement (Progressive Era) arose in American society in response to these social contradictions. One of the main agendas raised at this time was to replace these political officials with professional civil servants. A representative example is the Pendleton Civil Service Reform Act passed in 1883. According to data submitted to the U.S. House of Representatives in 1976, by 1904, more than half of federal government employees were selected based on merit rather than political connections.

Even if the evidence-based policy is maintained in the second Trump administration, if ‘Schedule F’ is revived, the US data policy will be in crisis. It is difficult to establish proper evidence-based policies in a situation where federal officials are watching the president. Evidence has no higher priority than job security. Even if the evidence-based policy trend is maintained, the future of U.S. data policy is also bleak if the independence and expertise of the bureaucratic organization that supports it becomes weak.

Jaeyeon Kim, American public domain data scientist