Federal workers can kiss free speech goodbye in Trump’s America

The Trump administration is gearing up to fire Ellen Mei, a program specialist in the Department of Agriculture’s Food and Nutrition Service division.

Mei’s transgression? Giving an interview to MSNBC on Oct. 2, at the start of the government shutdown, and discussing the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program. Here are the terrible, indefensible things she said.

First, Mei shared that she and her co-workers were “anxious because we’re hearing about the risk potentials and office closures that are looming over USDA as this shutdown kind of drags on.”

Well, yes? That doesn’t really seem like a controversial statement from a furloughed worker. Mei also explained that SNAP would likely still be funded through October, but “things might get a little dicey if this drags on into November.”

These things were apparently so inflammatory that USDA officials told Mei the day after the interview aired that she would be fired 30 days after the end of the shutdown because she discussed USDA business “without prior approval.”

---

Related | The poor should starve, says Trump administration

---

Hey, guess what? That’s not a thing. There are certainly situations and topics where an agency employee would be required to talk with higher-ups before speaking publicly, but a random program specialist saying that coworkers are worried during the shutdown and that SNAP may run out after October does not fall under that category.

The first statement is entirely anodyne and reveals nothing specific about the agency or anyone in it. It’s a generic noncontroversial statement that employees are anxious thanks to the shutdown.

The second might have been out-of-pocket if it included some internal discussions not yet revealed, but the USDA already had a memo dated Sept. 30 on its own website that explained if SNAP funding lapsed during the shutdown, the Office of Management and Budget would tap contingency reserves if the shutdown dragged into November.

Sure, the administration later deleted it, hoping no one would notice they had said they would spend contingency money rather than withholding SNAP because, of course, they decided they didn’t want to do that. But that didn’t get pulled down until later in the month, which means that at the time Mei gave her interview, the information was available for everyone to see.

Of course, by now this is a depressing pattern. In July, roughly 160 Environmental Protection Agency employees who signed a “declaration of dissent” were placed on leave, and the administration later fired at least seven of them. Government officials didn’t even invent a pretext and instead just admitted the EPA employees were suspended for their speech.

In September, two lawyers at the Housing and Urban Development Department were fired for talking about how the administration’s policies made it difficult to enforce the Fair Housing Act.

And of course, federal employees can’t say anything less than flattering about Charlie Kirk if you want to keep your government job

So, the administration likes to suppress the free speech rights of government employees, even though they don’t leave their First Amendment rights at the office door. If their speech disrupts the workplace, such as impairing job performance or harming work relationships, then it might be possible to restrict that speech, but that’s not an easy bar to clear.

As much as the administration doesn’t like government employees speaking out, it is more than happy to speak for them, which is a different sort of First Amendment violation.

The government cannot make you convey a message you do not want to convey. That’s basically the idea behind every conservative Christian lawsuit that argues they shouldn’t have to bake a cake for a same-sex couple or build a website for a gay wedding, because that is the government forcing them to deliver a message they do not agree with.

---

Related | Trump administration slaps high cost on federal workers’ free speech

---

Nonetheless, the Trump administration slapped partisan out-of-office notices on Education Department employee emails, blaming Democrats for the shutdown.

A federal judge was not really on board with that.

“When government employees enter public service, they do not sign away their First Amendment rights, and they certainly do not sign up to be a billboard for any given administration’s partisan views,” wrote ​​U.S. District Judge Christopher Cooper.

All of these types of speech protections for public employees are longstanding, but the administration just doesn’t care. The Hatch Act? That’s for suckers. The First Amendment? Well, not for you, you plebe. As far as President Donald Trump and his lackeys are concerned, you’ll say what we want you to say—and like it.