According to the Hill, Dennis D. Kirk has described himself as “the ‘neutral moderate’ nominee” for a position as chair on the Merit Systems Protection Board. The board is tasked with handling appeals of personnel decisions. But as a post on the Indivisible Ventura site points out, Kirk serves as “Associate Director of Personnel Policy with the Heritage Fund’s Project 2025,” and thus is “already completely within the club.”
Kirk has a significant track record as an attorney. For example, in a biographical summary provided in a press release from the Trump administration, Kirk is lauded for his years of service. The release states: “During his civil service in the Department of the Army, he was recognized with the Meritorious Civilian Service Award, the Exceptional Civilian Service Award, and a Special Act or Service Award for saving the Army millions of dollars.”
Kirk’s appointment to the board was marked by a stalled Senate confirmation. As an article from the Federal News Network observes: “Kirk’s…nomination is controversial, at least for the federal employee unions who raised questions about his past experiences and business dealings.” The article goes on to say that “The American Federation of Government Employees…has vocally opposed Kirk’s MSPB nomination.”
The American Federation of Government Employees, the International Association of Fire Fighters, the International Association of Machinists and Aerospace Workers, the International Brotherhood of Teamsters, the International Federation of Professional and Technical Engineers, the Marine Engineers’ Beneficial Association, the Metal Trades Department, AFL-CIO, the National Association of Government Employees–SEIU, the National Federation of Federal Employees, the National Weather Service Employees Organization, and the Patent Office Professional Association signed a letter to the Senate committee tasked with reviewing his appointment that opposed Kirk’s confirmation. The letter listed several concerns. One was Kirk’s lack of “significant experience with labor/employment/or personnel law.” Another complaint was Kirk’s tenure at a small law firm that had as a client “a Russian aircraft manufacturing company with a long history of producing aircraft for the Soviet and now Russian Air Force.” Furthermore, the unions took issue with the activities of a partner at the firm, “Joseph Schmitz,” who “served as General Counsel to Erik Prince’s organization, the Prince Group…and claimed…to be in possession of the missing 30,000 Hillary Clinton emails from a client, presumably of Kirk’s law firm, known as ‘patriot.’” Unsurprisingly, those emails, which were a matter of much speculation among Clinton’s political enemies, were considered fake. While Kirk may have been a “neutral moderate” previously, his association with the paranoid, Russia-friendly far right and participation with the Heritage Foundation’s Project 2025 casts doubt on whether he is still a moderate.
The Heritage Foundation seems intent on restoring an employment test (called the PACE exam) that was deemed discriminatory by the Carter administration, among other changes in personnel policy. Among those changes: a challenge to the legitimacy of federal employee unions. Kirk has denied that he is anti-union. The Hill article quotes him as saying “that he has been a member of multiple unions including the Fraternal Order of Police and remains a member of the American Federation of Musicians.” Kirk said: “I don’t understand how they have any idea that I oppose unions, because that just flabbergasted me.” Kirk may be unaware of the plans of the company he keeps. For example, there is the Mandate for Leadership’s recommendation that the TSA “should be deunionized immediately.” Or of the plan to “implement any end to unionization of DHS components.” Or the recommendation to “decertify” the union of the administrative law judges covering immigration cases at the DHS. Or the document’s disparagement of “radical” teachers’ unions. Or of how “union bosses” supposedly work “against the interest of American workers.” Or how the Mandate for Leadership proposes “non-union worker…representation.” Or how the document cites union malfeasance, for example “$30,000 spent on a private party, $37,500 spent on a Montblanc pen, condominiums for those in power, golf outings, and a Ferrari” but ignores the many spending scandals of Trump administration officials. Or the recommendation of “removing all unions” from the DHS by claiming national security needs. Or how the “union should be decertified” at the U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services via the same national security pretext. In sum, Kirk’s claim of being a “neutral moderate” is subject to doubt, given the “club” he belongs to.
