OPM Director Emulating President Kennedy?
When President John F. Kennedy took office in 1961, federal service was widely viewed as safe, respectable—and dull. Kennedy tried, with more success than most, to change that by framing government work as a mission worthy of the nation’s best young talent.
More than sixty years later, OPM Director Scott Kupor is pursuing a similar goal: modernizing federal employment, restoring its appeal, and convincing a new generation that public service can once again be meaningful, competitive, and consequential.
In a recent article for the federal workforce, OPM Director Scott Kupor wrote:
When I learned last December I would have the chance to interview with President Trump for the role of OPM Director, I told my three daughters that I wanted to pitch the president on making government cool again. They liked the idea – to champion the opportunities for meaningful government work among early career individuals – but hated the acronym: MGCA (pronounced “ma-ga-ka”) doesn’t really roll off the tongue! So, I reluctantly agreed to table the moniker until I could come up with something better. But alas I didn’t and today MGCA is resurrected.
President Obama also used the term “cool” to describe how he wanted to remake the federal government. Scott Kupor did not quote President Obama in his recent blog and, a Republican appointee citing Obama’s administration’s goals would probably not be a wise political move anyway.
The idea of remaking the federal bureaucracy into a motivated, dedicated workforce that focuses on the country’s success over bureaucratic advancement is an admirable goal, but hard to achieve.
Here is a suggestion for a phrase that captures the idea: “Ask not what your country can do for you, ask what you can do for your country.”
I wish I had written that. The credit goes back to Kennedy’s efforts to remake government. He first made this statement in his inaugural address. Kennedy, of course, was a Democrat, although his philosophy was probably more aligned with Republicans than “progressive” Democrats in today’s society who have moved far to the left of the political spectrum.
Adopting his approach would broaden OPM’s appeal. His inaugural address exceeds the style and panache of the vast majority of public speakers, and using his phrase (giving credit where it is due) would add to the appeal and, perhaps, overcome the automatic knee-jerk negative reaction by some Democrats and unions to a Trump administration initiative.
Various presidents have tried to emulate this by making government “cool” or more desirable and less bureaucratic by attracting the right kind of people. President George H.W. Bush made the pitch that “government service is a noble calling and a public trust,” and invited capable people to join public service as government employees.
It is not easy and Kennedy’s success has not been emulated. While Kennedy was successful, it did not last, and presidents after him have tried to revive what he sought to accomplish.
Presidents who sought to change government culture in one way or another included Kennedy, Bush, Carter, Obama, Biden, and Trump. Here are some examples of how this has played out in practice.
- Ask Not What Your Country Can Do For You” vs. Making Government “Cool”
- The President’s Kennedy Problem
- Political Division: Nazis and Hamas Terrorists in the Federal Workplace—What’s a Supervisor to Do?
- Feds on the Job–Do they Stay for Idealism, Money, or as an Employer of Last Resort?
What Did Kennedy Do To Implement His Ideas for Government?
President Kennedy’s administration focused on civic engagement and public service, encouraging citizens to take an active role in their communities. His establishment of the Peace Corps and initiatives such as the New Frontier aimed to inspire a generation to contribute to societal progress.
By fostering a spirit of volunteerism and public responsibility, rather than just making money or getting ahead for personal satisfaction, Kennedy sought to reshape the perception of government as a partner in achieving the greater good. These efforts reflected his belief in individuals’ potential to effect change through their actions.
Was he successful?
By the standards of the early 1960s, Kennedy was clearly successful. He didn’t make government prestigious, purposeful, and desirable for young Americans.
Here are some of the results that were achieved for government service.
- Young people responded in large numbers.
Applications for the Peace Corps exploded immediately. Thousands of college graduates actively sought federal jobs who previously would have gone straight into private industry or academia. - Government service gained status.
Working in Washington—or overseas for the U.S. government—became a mark of seriousness and idealism. For elite college graduates, especially, public service became a first-choice career, not a fallback. - The talent pool improved.
Kennedy attracted top-tier young lawyers, economists, scientists, and policy thinkers (the so-called “best and the brightest”). That shift was widely noticed at the time. - The cultural perception changed—briefly.
Government was seen as energetic, modern, and intellectually challenging rather than stodgy and bureaucratic. That image did not exist before Kennedy.
Government Problems Today
This is the observation by Mr. Kupor regarding the federal civil service today:
Our government has an early career problem. Roughly 7% of the federal workforce is under the age of 30, compared with about 22% in the non-government workforce. We also have an aging employee demographic on the other end of the spectrum – 44% of federal employees are over the age of 50, compared with about 33% in the non-government workforce.
The Peace Corps initiative was popular, receiving more than 11,000 completed applications in the first few months after its announcement.
John F. Kennedy’s charisma, charm, and energy attracted many young people into the ranks of federal employees, whose numbers grew by more than 85,000 during his presidency. In 1975, more than 20% of the federal workforce was under 30.
The “best and brightest” could see themselves saving democracy during the Cold War, putting a man on the moon working for NASA, or striving to be one of the lucky few selected to help the world’s most underprivileged by working in the Peace Corps–while living in harsh conditions and working for a pittance but “making a difference” in the lives of others or helping America to win the space race.
Kennedy’s approach hit a chord with the idealism of the ’60’s generation.
While I can speak from personal experience about the ideals of college students in the 60s generation, my experience and the time when those values were established are in the past. Would the same approach appeal to young people today?
The summary of what people may want from a government career, according to Scott Kupor, does not sound that different. The description of how government is perceived, what may have attracted many to government now, and what he thinks would inspire more young people to seek employment in government does not sound much different from the Kennedy appeal.
In my experience, all employees – and particularly early career – want to be inspired by a mission; they want to tackle important and challenging problems; they want to work for managers who care about their career development and will help them learn and grow in their skills; they want to be surrounded by smart, hardworking teammates; and they want to be held accountable and rewarded for their merit-based accomplishments.
While the government offers nearly all of that – and we are reforming our human resources priorities in areas we were lacking (e.g., initiatives around merit hiring and creating a high-performance culture) – we have failed to tell that narrative effectively. In its place, we have sold a narrative around job stability and permanency and created this false dichotomy that at the dawn of a career one must choose between being a lifetime civil servant or a permanent career in the private sector.
I do not know Scott Kupor. I have no idea if he is an eloquent speaker. But his background suggests he could succeed in making federal jobs appealing to young people, similar to Kennedy’s inspiration of public service through programs like the Peace Corps.
At Andreessen Horowitz, Kupor helped build a firm that attracted ambitious young entrepreneurs by backing bold, high-impact ventures (e.g., Facebook, Airbnb) and by demystifying venture capital through his book, Secrets of Sand Hill Road, and student engagements. As OPM Director, he has launched targeted initiatives to draw early-career talent:
- U.S. Tech Force (Dec 2025): Recruits 1,000 AI/tech fellows annually with $150K–$200K salaries, mentorship, and high-impact projects.
- Partnerships (e.g., NobleReach) and programs like Semester of Service, Project Management/Data Science Fellows, and Fostering the Future emphasize mentorship, cohorts, and tackling big challenges.
- Efforts to modernize hiring and highlight (scrapping the “rule of three” in hiring), touting the government’s “exciting and complex problems,” and aligning with a vision of excellence.
Though unproven in government, his success in creating a prestigious, youth-oriented tech ecosystem and these proactive reforms suggest there is strong potential for this program. His lack of government experience and being influenced by that environment may work to his advantage.
As OPM Director, he lacks the attention a president has when stating goals and aspirations. The reality is, if President Trump provides energetic public backing for this program, and states these goals in a widely publicized speech such as the State of the Union address, it would provide impetus for actual implementation of the project by OPM. That would give Mr. Kupor’s admirable goals a greater chance of succeeding.
