Federal Government: Remote Work and Executive Order

A lot has been said about remote and teleworkers in the media and by the current administration. They seem to use the two terms interchangeably. Yet none of them define or explain to the American people what remote and telework in federal government are and which law, and/or regulation govern their requirements. Yes, as it is with every government program, remote and telework too have their requirements. In this post, I will focus on the explanation of remote and telework and clarify the distinctions between the two. Finally, I will lay out their requirements and purpose then provide input on President Donald J. Trump's executive order's possible legality and/or illegality.

Remote and telework in federal government have been the center of the current administration’s initial reasoning for the deferred resignation proposal. The White House press secretary, Karoline Leavitt, stated,

 This is a suggestion to the federal workers that they have to return to work and if they don’t then they have the option to resign. And this administration is very generously offering to pay them 8 months.

Is the President of the United States basically making a suggestion to the federal workers in the following executive order or is he ordering agency heads to terminate remote and telework despite possibly being in conflict with a law?  She further argued,  

The order simply directs federal agencies to come up with a return to work plan.  

In the same interview, seconds later, the word suggestion turned into a direction. These are two very distinct words in the context of this executive order.

On the day of his inauguration, Jan 20, 2025, President Trump signed the following executive order directing agency heads to TERMINATE remote and telework:

Heads of all departments and agencies in the executive branch of Government shall, as soon as practicable, take all necessary steps to terminate remote work arrangements and require employees to return to work in-person at their respective duty stations on a full-time basis, provided that the department and agency heads shall make exemptions they deem necessary. 

Clearly, this is an order from the President to the agency heads to terminate the remote and telework programs to the maximum extent. 

Two days later, on Jan 22, 2025, Office of Personnel Management (OPM) issued a memorandum. After providing President Trump's reasons for the termination of this law while referring to the same law to justify this order's legality, OPM provided guidance on the steps for agencies to take in order to bring remote and teleworkers to in-person work. The agencies were ordered to take the outlined steps no later than Jan 24, 2025. The main given reason for return to in-person work order was focused on the empty buildings and their impact on the economy and government budget. The press secretary used this talking point as well. This talking point was derived from a report published on Jan 15, 2025 titled, The Lights Are on But Everyone is Home; Why The New Administration Will Enter Largely Vacant Federal Agency Offices. This report was published by the House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform Majority Staff.   

The OPM memorandum claimed the following statement and to support this claim referred to the Jan 15th report:

Virtually unrestricted telework has led to poorer government services and made it more difficult to supervise and train government workers.

However, the report did not provide any key findings about poor performance or quality of the remote and teleworkers' work. The report made following unfounded claim:

Federal employees were getting paychecks for sitting at home, while the American people showed up to work and struggled to pay for groceries and bills under the growing weight of inflation, 

However, the committee neither provided any evidence to support their very own claim of all federal employees drawing paychecks without working nor of any negative impact of remote and telework on the mission sets of any agencies across the federal government. These claims are also in conflict with OPM's Dec 2023 report to congress titled, Status of Telework in the Federal Government.

COVID-19 restrictions started in March 2020 and officially ended in May 2023. That is more than 3 years of Federal government operating under maximum telework. This is more than a sufficient time to have a meaningfully measurable outcome of the remote and teleworkers' work and their contributions or lack of it, to be used in this report. If not in official terms, then in practical terms; the impact would have been felt by the American people who are recipient of these services. Therefore the committee could have used these as examples if they existed.

What is remote work? According to Public Law No. 111-292, Telework Enhancement Act of 2010 which became a law on 9 Dec 2010:

The term 'telework' or 'teleworking' refers to a work flexibility arrangement under which an employee performs the duties and responsibilities of such employee's position, and other authorized activities, from an approved worksite other than the location from which the employee would otherwise work. 

Further Personnel Bulletin (PB) 20-06, Departmental Remote Work Policy, defines remote work as:

 An arrangement under which an employee is scheduled to perform work within or outside the local commuting area of an agency worksite and is not expected to report to the agency worksite on a regular, recurring basis. For a remote worker, the approved remote worksite is the employee’s official duty station for location-based pay entitlements, even if that location is their home.  

An employee and her/his supervisor sign an official government form (DD 2946, Telework Agreement) to outline the expectations and conditions of the telework agreement. If the employee does not abide by the set expectations, the supervisor can terminate the agreement. Any eligible employee has a right to request remote and/or telework but it is ultimately the supervisors who approve or deny the requests. Supervisors are expected to make their decisions based on the operational needs of the organization. The supervisors also have the authority to terminate the remote work agreement if they are not satisfied with the produced work of the employee or the operational needs change. The lawful point is, this arrangement is strictly between the employee and her/his first line supervisor. 

Remote work allows an employee to work outside of the local commuting area of her/his government workstation which affords the federal agencies to hire talented workers across the United States without paying for their move, household goods, or travel. This is also a tool for the federal government to use to recruit talent around the country in a cost efficient way. Federal workers are public servants thus they do not receive pays that are comparable to the private sector compare to their workload. Particularly, for position which require higher level of education and professional work, it is harder to recruit people due to lower pay. Thus flexible schedule can attract talent.

Remote workers’ positions are coded in Federal Personnel and Payroll System (FPPS). The Telework Remote Worker options are as follows:

1 - No

2 – Duty Location is Employee’s Home

3 – Duty Location is a Govt. Facility 

Option 1 means the employee's position is not eligible for telework. The employee reports to her/his work everyday. Option 2, Duty location is employee's home meaning the employee is permitted remote work. Option 3 is for employees who report to work but can telework based on their positions' eligibility. As mentioned earlier, remote and telework are two distinct options. Telework is usually available to majority of federal workers whom work administrative- desk jobs and report to their office regularly. However, they have either an option of regular telework or ad hoc (situational) telework. Similar to remote work, the positions are coded by the human resource representatives based on their positions' eligibility for regular or situational telework. 

What is regular telework? Regular telework allows an employee to choose 1-3 days of a week to work regularly on an alternate work-site (usually home). It has to be the same days of the week every week. Ex. every Thursday employee X works from home or every Tuesday and Thursday employee works from home. 

Situational telework allows an employee to telework based on situation. Employee X asks her/his supervisor if she/he can telework on Monday and the supervisor approves it. In situational telework, an authorization is required by the supervisor each time the employee requests to telework. These options are not based on the needs of the employee but based on the needs of the positions and those positions' operational needs. Termination of a regular telework may have some impact on the employee's daily schedule. She/he may have to adjust the hours of childcare, doctor's appointment, etc. This is seen as a low risk adjustment. However, OPM advises the agencies that remote work should only be granted after careful consideration, especially if the employee lives out of the commuting area, due to possible bigger impacts of termination of remote work on the employee and the agency.

In its nature telework is designed to serve the government's interest and save money during the times of crisis by ensuring the federal employees still work during crisis whether be COVID-19 or something else. The employee has to have certain conditions established at home in order to have an approval for remote or telework. Employee is not authorized to provide childcare, or any other family care during work hours. Employee is required to work and be available for phone calls, meetings etc., during work hours (0730-1600). The duties and responsibility of a remote and/or teleworker does not end when she/he works from home. The work she/he is responsible for still has to be completed and completed satisfactorily to the agencies' needs. Remote workers are held to the same standards as their peers who work in the office. Their appraisals are reviewed and scored by their supervisors and second line supervisors bi-annually and annually similar to their co-workers'. There is a training every employee and supervisor have to complete prior to start of the telework agreement process. Individual agencies may have slightly different approaches to remote and telework based on their mission sets but general guidelines are applicable to all agencies.

That is not to say that the remote and telework are perfect and remote and teleworkers work efficiently. It can create hurdles for the people who are used to having people in an office to work together. It can impact the effective communication if some people are not willing to be available during work hours or do not take phone calls, etc. However, considering many of the federal agencies are large agencies with thousands of employees spread all over the United States, one way or the other, the employees have to work remotely with co-workers regardless of location of their worksite. According to OPM, majority of the teleworkers reported getting more work done while working remotely or teleworking.

Is remote work new? Actually, remote work’s history in the United States goes as far back as 1934. According to Wendell Joice in 1934:

 When the National Credit Union Administration (NCUA) was the Federal Credit Union Bureau, credit union examiners conducted their examinations at credit union sites and then completed their reports at home. Neither the NCUA nor its predecessor provided office space for credit union examiners. Without much fanfare, the NCUA implemented a work-at-home program for its auditors that is still operating successfully.  

The progress of telework continued into 70s, 80s, 90s, 2000s but it wasn’t until after 9/11, precisely, in 2010 that it was turned into a law with the Telework Enhancement Act of 2010. 

COVID-19 caused the biggest jump in remote work. According to OPM, before March 2020 only about 3% of federal workforce was teleworking. It is not clear if any of the 3% workers were actual remote workers. However, considering, only 39% of all federal employees was eligible for telework in 2019, it is  doubtful that remote workers were a big part of the 3%. In July 2021, the percentage of teleworkers reached 60. Although the exact percentage of remote workers among the 60% teleworkers in July 2021 is unknown, some of them were definitely remote workers. OPM collected data from agencies on the amount and productivity of the remote workers:

Among the 69 agencies able to provide remote work data for fiscal year 2023, 186,397 workers, or approximately 7% of the Federal workforce, were remote in fiscal year 2023. 

The provided reviews and data on productivity from agencies for remote and telework showed no signs of performance issues and/or lack of productivity. Thus 40% percent of federal workers reported to work everyday and 53% of federal workforce was reporting to the office at least 2 days of a week during peak of the COVID 19. It can be concluded regardless of the location of the workstations of the workers the work was getting done.

Due to Telework Enhancement Act of 2010, during COVID 19, the federal government agencies ran as smoothly as before COVID 19. There was a little stumble initially for those agencies which didn't utilize the telework before COVID -19 but after a little getting used to, the telework worked. No one missed her/his social security check, no one missed her/his doctor's appointments due to medicare/medicaid issues, and/or missed their veterans' benefits. Despite the negative feelings about the withdrawal from Afghanistan, this was done relatively successfully during COVID-19, invasion of Ukraine, etc., The federal government stood still and did the required work. This was all because of remote and telework opportunities.This saved government billions of dollars during the closure of the offices due to COVID-19. The very purpose of telework was achieved during COVID-19. 

It is important to state that the uniformed services are also federal employees and they too have used the remote and telework options under the same law. Were there any inefficiencies connected to military members including guard and reserves who were brought on active duty orders and received all of their pay and entitlements while on active duty? Will there be any conversation about service members drawing paychecks while sitting at home?

Although they provide direct services to Federal government, the contractors are private sector employees, and are not covered under the Telework Enhancement Act of 2010, yet they remote and teleworked during COVID-19 and still continue to remote and telework for government contracts. Contractors are hired to provide a certain service and many of them provide administrative desk jobs as well. Usually, contractors make twice and sometimes three times as much as a civilian and/or military member for the same or less amount of duties and responsibilities. Will there be any conversation about contractors drawing paychecks while sitting at home?

The OPM memo referred the Telework Enhancement Act of 2010 to justify President Trump's directive for termination of remote and telework agreements. It is hard to clearly put a finger on which part of the Telework Enhancement Act of 2010 allows a sitting president to order the termination of all telework agreements in all agencies except in the case of some exemptions.

Did President Trump overstep his authority and try to override an existing law?  Was his executive order within the confines of law as his press secretary claimed?  Are we going through a constitutional crisis as the media claims?  These are serious legal issues and can only be answered by the legal professionals and the system. However, for private citizens, it is not impossible to draw parallels and conclude that there may be a significant conflict between the executive order and the existing law. Existing law was designed to enhance, encourage and make the remote and telework more main stream so that to save money during crisis by creating an alternative work space. On the contrary, the executive order terminates them all. Existing law gives the agencies freedom to make their decisions over a period of time based on operational needs whereas the executive order abruptly orders the termination of remote work without any meaningful research, study or findings for all agencies indiscriminately. The existing law places the decision making authority to the agency heads and individual supervisors; the executive order takes away the agencies ability to make the decisions about their own employees and as an extension the success of their missions.There is a significant indication that the order is not in compliant with the law but as stated before legal review is needed.

Will a remote and/or teleworker(s) have a case against the administration?

What are your thoughts? Please provide questions, concerns or comments below and please like and subscribe.  

WBNS 10TV. (January 29, 2025). Federal employee buyouts: White House pushes back on suggestion that buyouts are 'a purge.' Youtube.  https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=714gl-FS7W4

Further Personnel Bulletin (PB) 20-06, Departmental Remote Work Policy, (2023, September 20) U.S. Department of the Interior. https://edit.doi.gov/document-library/human-resources-policy/pb-20-06-departmental-remote-work-policy 

Guidance on Presidential Memorandum Return to In-Person Work.(2025, January 22) Office of Personnel Management (OPM) https://www.opm.gov/media/q0tbu2eq/guidance-on-presidential-memorandum-return-to-in-person-work.pdf

How To Code A Remote Worker in The Federal Personnel and Payroll System (FPPS); U.S Department of The Interior. https://www.doi.gov/sites/doi.gov/files/coding-remote-work-in-fpps-final.pdf  

Joice, W. (2000) The Evalution of Telework in the Federal Government; Office of Governmentwide Policy U.S. General Services Administration.  https://rosap.ntl.bts.gov/view/dot/14140

Public Law No 111-292, Telework Enhancement Act of 2010 (2010, December 9) 111th Congress. https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/PLAW-111publ292/pdf/PLAW-111publ292.pdf

Return to In-Person Work (2025, January 20). The White House,  https://www.whitehouse.gov/presidential-actions/2025/01/return-to-in-person-work/

Status of Telework in the Federal Government Report to Congress (Dec 2023), Office of Personnel Management (OPM) https://www.opm.gov/telework/documents-for-telework/2023-report-to-congress.pdf

The Lights Are on But Everyone is Home; Why The New Administration Will Enter Largely Vacant Federal Agency Offices (2025, January 15) The House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform Majority Staff.  https://oversight.house.gov/wp-content/uploads/2025/01/011525_Telework-Staff-Report_FINAL.pdf

Poetry: Tell Me Why

Why can’t you look into my eyes?

Why can’t you see through my heart?

Why can’t you love me?

Love me the way I love you,

Love me the way I love you.

    

It’s been years I’ve been just waiting,

Waiting for that honest love,

Waiting for you to tell me that you love me,

Love me without any other lies.

My heart is broken down to pieces, 

Tears rushing through my eyes,

I feel the unbearable pain breezing through my veins.

 

Why can’t you look into my eyes?

Why can’t you see through my heart?

Why can’t you honestly love me?

Love me the way I love you,

Love me the way I love you.

   

Nothing much left to say,

You are heartless in every way,

I’ll live with the pain and another day,

I’ll never get over you that I’ll say.

 

Why can’t you love me?

Why can’t you love me?

Love me the way I love you,

Love me the way I love you,

Love me!

Williams, C. (2013, August 7) Tell me Why

Poetry: Ode on Solitude

Alexander Pope (1688-1744)

 

Happy the man, whose wish and care 

A few paternal acres bound, 

Content to breathe his native air,

In his own ground. 

Whose herds with milk, whose fields with bread,

Whose flocks supply him with attire,

Whose trees in summer yield him shade,

In winter fire. 

 

 

Blest, who can unconcernedly find 

Hours, days, and years slide soft away,

In health of body, peace of mind,

Quiet by day, 

 

 

Sound sleep by night; study and ease,

Together mixed; sweet recreation;

And innocence, which most does please,

With meditation. 

Thus let me live, unseen, unknown;

Thus unlamented let me die;

Steal from the world, and not a stone

Tell where I lie.

Pope, A. (1717) Essay On Man. Ode on Solitude.

Job Search: Sample Cover Resume

A good cover resume can make or break your chances of being considered for a position. A cover resume is the first impression of your qualifications and it is your way of telling the company that why it is worth their time to read your resume. 

What is a cover resume? 

A cover resume is one page summary of your skills and qualifications for a specific position you are applying for. A strongly written cover resume will carry you to the next step in an application process while creating a strong first impression of you. Some private companies require cover resumes to be the part of their application process while others may not require it. In the end having a cover resume will never hurt you in an application.

Below is a template you can use to build your cover resume:

{Month Day, Year} 
{Name of Hiring Manager}
{Title}
{Company Name}
{Street Address}
{City, State Zip Code}

Dear {Mr./Ms. Last Name} , 

This letter is to express my interest in the {Position Listed in Posting} position listed on xxxx.com. Based on my skills in {Skill Listed in Posting} and {Skill Listed in Posting}, I am confident that I would be a great addition to your team.

My resume that highlights my ability/knowledge/expertise in {A Specific Subject Matter} and {A Specific Area or Industry} is enclosed. During my time at {Your Past Company}, I was able to {succeed/save money/save time/increase sales/increase productivity} in {A Specific Area}. {List a specific example relevant to this position, focusing on how you can help the company}

I am excited about the {Position Listed in Posting} position and the ability to help your company succeed. Thank you in advance for your time. Please do not hesitate to contact me if you have any questions. I would appreciate the opportunity to review my qualifications in more detail and will contact you next {Day of Week}.

Sincerely,

{Name}

Explanation: Purpose of Federalist 2

John Jay (1745-1829)

John Jay wrote Federalist 2 four days after the first Federalist paper was published. Jay started his paper with an emphasis on the importance of the occasion and the expected decision, which strongly connected the Federalist 2 to the Federalist 1. His focus was on the necessity of a federal government and its more effective and better ways of handling of variety of issues including the security of the thirteen colonies in comparison to each individual state's abilities. He rendered them two choices and in each choice one option was inevitable; they would have to give up some of their rights to a government whether to be a federal government or a state government. The question was, which one would be in their best interest? Jay, as a privileged, educated and wealthy man, had even a better approach and better understanding of his audiences than Hamilton.

Jay knew his audiences well, and had a stronger bond with them. Jay appealed to their commonalities; their cultural, religious, linguistics and original similarities. He described their over a century of existence on the American land, their struggles against the natives, as well as the other Europeans who were on the mainland. Not to mention the terrain and how it seemed to be created for them. He focused on the fortunes and the delights this land provided to them all. He portrayed a strong bond between these men and the land they occupied.  "This country and this people seem to have been made for each other" he said. This can also be seen as Jay's declaration that Anglo-Saxons belonged in this new land. It can also be seen as self reflection due to separation from the mainland, Europe. Up to this point, these Anglo-Saxon-European migrants were settlers/colonizers in this new land in which they had ties to the mainland. After the revolutionary war, those ties were cut and they became a new people. Also, it can be interpreted that Jay was reassuring them that this land was made for them and they fitted in this land perfectly. Thus they didn't need the mainland.

Map of Thirteen Colonies in 1775

It is safe to say Jay's talking points about the necessity of unity based on the common elements of the people vs.  their differences  have been widely used by politicians for the last couple of centuries. These talking points are still valid for a nation of a people who do not share one common ethnic, religious or cultural root.  Jay continued with emphasizing their strong ties together as one people and it would be a shame for them to split into many confederacies, which will make them to be in competition with each other and go against each other for the resources. In a way, this reference is another swing at their European roots, he was inferring here that these colonies should be different than Europeans whom had been at each other's throats for centuries in the mainland; going against each other, being jealous and not sharing the land and resources. He reiterated that they were now one people despite their differences.

Jay called his audiences as "wise men". They weren't only wise but also elite, Anglo-Saxon, wealthy landowners. At least six of the states, which sent their "wise men," were slave owners.  Jay was very skillful in his essay, and stayed focused on the things they achieved together during their wars against, American tribes, British Empire, etc. Jay, contrary to Hamilton, used a language of unity that was welcoming to all wealthy Anglo-Saxon landowners from all colonies. His language was deep and heart warming.

Jay pointed out, the new constitution wasn't an accident or force, It was a product of understanding, self reflection and necessity by the very people who had been leading them with patriotism. After pointing out the similarities between all of them, he explained how the new constitution came about. According to Jay, after independence the elites, who established the original states, had a chance to digest what had happened and drafted an intelligent constitution. He reminded everyone that “Our best and wisest citizens" drafted this constitution after a thorough research, care and compassion as it was required for an independent state and its independent statesmen.

Jay articulated it clearly that people of thirteen states will be successful as a "one nation under one federal government" rather than multiple small states.  He too promised more essays to elaborate his points. Lastly, he declared without any doubt that America's greatness depended on the unity of the thirteen states.

Jay, J. (1787, October 31) Federalist 2. The Independent Journal. https://historicalmenwomenplaces.blogspot.com/2023/08/federalist-no-2-author-john-jay.html

Political Article: Federalist 2

Concerning Dangers from Foreign Force and Influence

To the People of the State of New York:

WHEN the people of America reflect that they are now called upon to decide a question, which, in its consequences, must prove one of the most important that ever engaged their attention, the propriety of their taking a very comprehensive, as well as a very serious, view of it, will be evident.

John Jay (1745-1829)

Nothing is more certain than the indispensable necessity of government, and it is equally undeniable, that whenever and however it is instituted, the people must cede to it some of their natural rights in order to vest it with requisite powers. It is well worthy of consideration therefore, whether it would conduce more to the interest of the people of America that they should, to all general purposes, be one nation, under one federal government, or that they should divide themselves into separate confederacies, and give to the head of each the same kind of powers which they are advised to place in one national government.

It has until lately been a received and uncontradicted opinion that the prosperity of the people of America depended on their continuing firmly united, and the wishes, prayers, and efforts of our best and wisest citizens have been constantly directed to that object. But politicians now appear, who insist that this opinion is erroneous, and that instead of looking for safety and happiness in union, we ought to seek it in a division of the States into distinct confederacies or sovereignties. However extraordinary this new doctrine may appear, it nevertheless has its advocates; and certain characters who were much opposed to it formerly, are at present of the number. Whatever may be the arguments or inducements which have wrought this change in the sentiments and declarations of these gentlemen, it certainly would not be wise in the people at large to adopt these new political tenets without being fully convinced that they are founded in truth and sound policy.

It has often given me pleasure to observe that independent America was not composed of detached and distant territories, but that one connected, fertile, widespreading country was the portion of our western sons of liberty. Providence has in a particular manner blessed it with a variety of soils and productions, and watered it with innumerable streams, for the delight and accommodation of its inhabitants. A succession of navigable waters forms a kind of chain round its borders, as if to bind it together; while the most noble rivers in the world, running at convenient distances, present them with highways for the easy communication of friendly aids, and the mutual transportation and exchange of their various commodities.

With equal pleasure I have as often taken notice that Providence has been pleased to give this one connected country to one united people--a people descended from the same ancestors, speaking the same language, professing the same religion, attached to the same principles of government, very similar in their manners and customs, and who, by their joint counsels, arms, and efforts, fighting side by side throughout a long and bloody war, have nobly established general liberty and independence.

This country and this people seem to have been made for each other, and it appears as if it was the design of Providence, that an inheritance so proper and convenient for a band of brethren, united to each other by the strongest ties, should never be split into a number of unsocial, jealous, and alien sovereignties.

Similar sentiments have hitherto prevailed among all orders and denominations of men among us. To all general purposes we have uniformly been one people each individual citizen everywhere enjoying the same national rights, privileges, and protection. As a nation we have made peace and war; as a nation we have vanquished our common enemies; as a nation we have formed alliances, and made treaties, and entered into various compacts and conventions with foreign states.

A strong sense of the value and blessings of union induced the people, at a very early period, to institute a federal government to preserve and perpetuate it. They formed it almost as soon as they had a political existence; nay, at a time when their habitations were in flames, when many of their citizens were bleeding, and when the progress of hostility and desolation left little room for those calm and mature inquiries and reflections which must ever precede the formation of a wise and wellbalanced government for a free people. It is not to be wondered at, that a government instituted in times so inauspicious, should on experiment be found greatly deficient and inadequate to the purpose it was intended to answer.

This intelligent people perceived and regretted these defects. Still continuing no less attached to union than enamored of liberty, they observed the danger which immediately threatened the former and more remotely the latter; and being pursuaded that ample security for both could only be found in a national government more wisely framed, they as with one voice, convened the late convention at Philadelphia, to take that important subject under consideration.

This convention composed of men who possessed the confidence of the people, and many of whom had become highly distinguished by their patriotism, virtue and wisdom, in times which tried the minds and hearts of men, undertook the arduous task. In the mild season of peace, with minds unoccupied by other subjects, they passed many months in cool, uninterrupted, and daily consultation; and finally, without having been awed by power, or influenced by any passions except love for their country, they presented and recommended to the people the plan produced by their joint and very unanimous councils.

Admit, for so is the fact, that this plan is only RECOMMENDED, not imposed, yet let it be remembered that it is neither recommended to BLIND approbation, nor to BLIND reprobation; but to that sedate and candid consideration which the magnitude and importance of the subject demand, and which it certainly ought to receive. But this (as was remarked in the foregoing number of this paper) is more to be wished than expected, that it may be so considered and examined. Experience on a former occasion teaches us not to be too sanguine in such hopes. It is not yet forgotten that well-grounded apprehensions of imminent danger induced the people of America to form the memorable Congress of 1774. That body recommended certain measures to their constituents, and the event proved their wisdom; yet it is fresh in our memories how soon the press began to teem with pamphlets and weekly papers against those very measures. Not only many of the officers of government, who obeyed the dictates of personal interest, but others, from a mistaken estimate of consequences, or the undue influence of former attachments, or whose ambition aimed at objects which did not correspond with the public good, were indefatigable in their efforts to pursuade the people to reject the advice of that patriotic Congress. Many, indeed, were deceived and deluded, but the great majority of the people reasoned and decided judiciously; and happy they are in reflecting that they did so.

They considered that the Congress was composed of many wise and experienced men. That, being convened from different parts of the country, they brought with them and communicated to each other a variety of useful information. That, in the course of the time they passed together in inquiring into and discussing the true interests of their country, they must have acquired very accurate knowledge on that head. That they were individually interested in the public liberty and prosperity, and therefore that it was not less their inclination than their duty to recommend only such measures as, after the most mature deliberation, they really thought prudent and advisable.

These and similar considerations then induced the people to rely greatly on the judgment and integrity of the Congress; and they took their advice, notwithstanding the various arts and endeavors used to deter them from it. But if the people at large had reason to confide in the men of that Congress, few of whom had been fully tried or generally known, still greater reason have they now to respect the judgment and advice of the convention, for it is well known that some of the most distinguished members of that Congress, who have been since tried and justly approved for patriotism and abilities, and who have grown old in acquiring political information, were also members of this convention, and carried into it their accumulated knowledge and experience.

It is worthy of remark that not only the first, but every succeeding Congress, as well as the late convention, have invariably joined with the people in thinking that the prosperity of America depended on its Union. To preserve and perpetuate it was the great object of the people in forming that convention, and it is also the great object of the plan which the convention has advised them to adopt. With what propriety, therefore, or for what good purposes, are attempts at this particular period made by some men to depreciate the importance of the Union? Or why is it suggested that three or four confederacies would be better than one? I am persuaded in my own mind that the people have always thought right on this subject, and that their universal and uniform attachment to the cause of the Union rests on great and weighty reasons, which I shall endeavor to develop and explain in some ensuing papers. They who promote the idea of substituting a number of distinct confederacies in the room of the plan of the convention, seem clearly to foresee that the rejection of it would put the continuance of the Union in the utmost jeopardy. That certainly would be the case, and I sincerely wish that it may be as clearly foreseen by every good citizen, that whenever the dissolution of the Union arrives, America will have reason to exclaim, in the words of the poet: "FAREWELL! A LONG FAREWELL TO ALL MY GREATNESS."

  PUBLIUS.

Jay, J. (1787, October  31) Federalist 2. The Independent Journal. 

Hamilton, A. (1787, October 27) Federalist 1. The Independent Journal. https://historicalmenwomenplaces.blogspot.com/2023/08/federalist-no-1-author-alexander.html?spref=tw