Regulatory Topic: Improving Performance, Accountability and Responsiveness in the Civil Service

Regulatory Agency: Office of Personnel Management

Link to Regulation

Link to Comment Submission

Regulatory Comment Closed on 05/23/2025

Summary:

More than 2.4 million individuals serve as federal employees, excluding active-duty military and Postal Service workers. As the federal workforce has expanded, critics have increasingly raised concerns about the regulatory barriers that hinder efforts to hold employees accountable for poor performance, misconduct, and other issues. As the America First Policy Institute documented in its comment to the Biden rule discussed below (that increased protections for federal workers in policy-making positions), data gathered from over a decade of results from the Federal Employee Viewpoint Survey found that as few as 28 percent and as high as 42 percent of federal workers believed that their agency addressed poor performers effectively. According to the Office of Personnel Management (OPM) only 41% of civil service supervisors feel confident they can fire an employee for insubordination or serious misconduct. (NPRM at 17,188). Even fewer — just 26% — feel confident they can fire someone for poor performance. (Id.)

Article II of the Constitution clearly states that the President holds exclusive authority to manage the executive branch, including the federal workforce, to ensure the execution of federal law. All federal employees should answer to the President and the people he serves—but those in policy-making positions are key to implementing the agenda upon which he was elected, making their accountability especially critical.

On April 23, 2025, OPM proposed a new rule to improve accountability for federal career employees, especially those in policy roles. The rule implements President Trump’s Executive Order 14171, which he signed on his first day in office. Executive Order 14171 explicitly directed OPM to render civil service regulations implemented during the Biden administration inoperative, citing the President’s authority to manage the executive branch. Among other things, the rule would create a new job category called Schedule Policy/Career in the excepted service for policy-influencing positions, making them at-will employees and, therefore, meaningfully accountable for their performance and conduct. The rule uses “Schedule Policy/Career” instead of “Schedule F” to emphasize that these are still career positions, not political appointments, and to clarify that employees are not required to personally support the president’s policies but must implement them faithfully.

Key features of the newly proposed Trump Civil Service Reform Proposed Rule:

• Establishes a new Schedule Policy/Career category under the excepted service for policy-influencing career roles. The proposal distinguishes these employees from noncareer, political appointees, who transition out of their respective roles at the conclusion of an administration.
• Schedule Policy/Career employees would become “at-will” employees, like most private employees are. Adverse action procedures and appeals procedures under Chapters 43 and 75 of Title 5 would no longer apply to them. As a result, these employees would be easier to terminate for poor performance, misconduct, or failure to implement administration policies. Positions would continue to be hired through merit-based, nonpartisan processes. Employees would not be required to politically support the president but must faithfully implement administration policies. It is estimated that approximately 50,000 positions would be affected. (NPRM at 17,220).
• Grants agencies broad authority to reclassify eligible employees as Schedule Policy/Career employees.
• Clarifies competitive status rules so that if a federal employee is moved from a competitive job into a new policy-focused job in the excepted service, they keep their competitive status, but they lose the shield that comes with it (like strong protections against being fired).
• Excludes federal employees charged with directly enforcing the law, such as Border Patrol agents or wage and hour inspectors, focusing instead on those in policy-influencing roles.
• Agencies will recommend positions for inclusion, with the OPM Director consulting the Executive Office of the President to finalize designations.

Background

The proposed rule responds to longstanding concerns about the difficulty of holding federal employees accountable. According to OPM, agency supervisors report significant obstacles in removing employees for poor performance or misconduct, with only 41% of supervisors confident they could remove an employee for serious misconduct and 26% for poor performance. (NPRM at 17,188). These statistics, drawn from Merit Systems Protection Board (MSPB) research, underscore the perceived inefficiencies in the current civil service framework.

President Trump argues that employees in policy-influencing roles must be accountable to the President, who is directly elected by the American people. OPM cites instances of career employees allegedly resisting or undermining executive leadership, such as Department of Justice attorneys refusing to assist in litigation or Department of Education employees obstructing rulemaking processes. (NPRM 17,190- 192) and Tales from the Swamp.

Several states, including Georgia, Kansas, Arizona, Texas, Utah, and Florida, have transitioned many public workers to at-will employment, granting agencies greater discretion in hiring and firing, with bipartisan reforms reported to enhance accountability and flexibility without widespread political favoritism. (“Radical Service Reform Is Not Radical”). Surveys of HR professionals in these states indicate strong support for at-will systems, highlighting improved recruitment, hiring, promotion, and retention outcomes. Research finds little evidence of abuse, with some states noting better performance and fewer employee complaints. (Id.)

If promulgated, this rule would enhance federal employee accountability and bolster American democracy by tackling performance management issues and misconduct in the federal workforce, empowering agencies to swiftly remove employees who engage in misconduct, perform poorly, or intentionally subvert presidential directives.

Brief Civil Service Regulatory Timeline:

Laws and regulations governing federal employees have evolved multiple times throughout the history of the federal government, with more recent presidential administrations taking opposite approaches to the rules governing them. Here are some notable dates and actions:

1883: Pendleton Civil Service Reform Act is enacted, establishing a merit-based system for federal employment to reduce patronage and ensure a professional civil service. The Act also established the Civil Service Commission to help implement and enforce its requirements. https://www.archives.gov/milestone-documents/pendleton-act

1978: Civil Service Reform Act of 1978 overhauled the federal civil service system, creating the Senior Executive Service, as well as three new agencies — OPM, Merit Systems Protections Board (to manage employee appeals), and the Federal Labor Relations Authority (to manage labor-management relations). https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/USCODE-2011-title5/html/USCODE-2011-title5-partIII.htm

2020: Trump Executive Order 13957 creates “Schedule F” for career employees in policy-influencing positions. https://trumpwhitehouse.archives.gov/presidential-actions/executive-order-creating-schedule-f-excepted-service/

2021: Biden Executive Order 14003 revokes Executive Order 13957, that Rescinds Schedule F to, among other things, “rebuild the career Federal workforce.” https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/2021/01/27/2021-01924/protecting-the-federal-workforce

2024: Biden Administration finalizes civil service protection rule to make it harder to reclassify federal employees. https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/2024/04/09/2024-06815/upholding-civil-service-protections-and-merit-system-principles

2025: Trump issues Executive Order 14171 on January 20 and OPM proposed rule to implement it publishes in Federal Register on April 23.

Further Reading:

“New Trump civil-service reform rule nearer to going into effect,” Washington Times, Kerry Picket, (May 7, 2025), https://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2025/may/7/new-trump-civil-service-reform-rule-nearer-going-effect/ 

Op-ed: “President Trump is making government accountable again,” The Hill, Karen Harned and F. Vincent Vernuccio, (May 8, 2025), https://thehill.com/opinion/5289185-trump-federal-workforce-reform/

“‘Schedule Policy/Career’ Would Differ from ‘Schedule F,’ Proposed Rules Say,” FEDweek (April 27, 2025), https://www.fedweek.com/issue-briefs/schedule-policy-career-would-differ-from-schedule-f-proposed-rules-say/

Trump Executive Order, “Restoring Accountability to Policy-Influencing Positions Within the Federal Workforce,” The White House (January 20, 2025), https://www.whitehouse.gov/presidential-actions/2025/01/restoring-accountability-to-policy-influencing-positions-within-the-federal-workforce/

Fact Sheet: President Donald J. Trump Creates New Federal Employee Category to Enhance Accountability, The White House (April 18, 2025), https://www.whitehouse.gov/fact-sheets/2025/04/fact-sheet-president-donald-j-trump-creates-new-federal-employee-category-to-enhance-accountability/

“Tales from the Swamp: How Federal Bureaucrats Resisted President Trump,” America First Policy Institute, James Sherk, (January 8, 2025), https://americafirstpolicy.com/issues/20222702-federal-bureaucrats-resisted-president-trump

“Make the U.S. Civil Service Effective Again,” Opinion Editorial in Wall Street Journal by Judge Glock of Manhattan Institute (March 13, 2025), https://www.wsj.com/opinion/make-the-u-s-civil-service-effective-again-efficiency-flexibility-states-b71fe701

“Radical Civil Service Reform Is Not Radical: Lessons for the Federal Government from the States,” Judge Glock and Renu Mukherjee of Manhattan Institute (March 2025), https://manhattan.institute/article/radical-civil-service-reform-is-not-radical-lessons-for-the-federal-government-from-the-states.

“‘Schedule Policy/Career’ Would Differ from ‘Schedule F,’ Proposed Rules Say” (April 22, 2025) https://www.fedweek.com/issue-briefs/schedule-policy-career-would-differ-from-schedule-f-proposed-rules-say/

“Firing Line: It’s Too Hard to Discipline or Remove Poor-Performing Federal Employees, Critics Say. But Will the System Ever Change,” Eric Katz (no date). https://www.govexec.com/feature/firing-line/