Changes to Federal Employee Policies Under Trump Administration

The Trump administration is rolling out a complex strategy aimed at streamlining the process for dismissing federal employees.

A new “scheduling policy/career” designation for those in policy-influencing roles is being introduced, a move that follows an executive order from President Donald Trump on his first day in office.

This approach closely resembles the earlier “Schedule F” initiative from the previous Trump tenure, which facilitated the removal of civil service protections, making it easier to terminate employees.

Moreover, a budget adjustment bill recently passed by the House will require new federal employees to decide whether they want to opt out of civil servant protections in exchange for lower retirement benefits.

Although the current administration has encountered challenges in establishing these new classifications for federal workers, the proposed language in the “One big, beautiful bill” could solidify these policies into law if it passes the Senate. This would create hurdles for any future lawmakers or administrations wishing to revert these changes.

The budget bill passed last month stipulates that new employees will have the choice to either maintain civil service protections with higher contributions or accept lower retirement benefits with “at-will” employment after their probationary period.

Under this plan, new hires would keep paying a 4.4% contribution to the Federal Employee Retirement Plan (FERS), while those retaining civil servant protections would have a 9.4% contribution. Everett Kelly, president of the US Federation of Government Employees, expressed concern, stating that the choices presented to federal employees are misleading.

In his recent op-ed, he noted that those who can’t afford the effective tax on their current rights might be pushed towards “will” employment, which opens them up to termination without cause or legal recourse.

The House bill emphasizes that new federal hires must irrevocably choose to be “at-will” employees by the end of their probationary period.

It also outlines that such employees may face removal without notice or the right to appeal, for any reason—valid, invalid, or otherwise—set by the agency head.

The Human Resources Administration has received over 30,000 comments regarding the proposed policies for this new designation, with the comment period having wrapped up on June 7.

Former officials from the Social Security Administration (SSA) have voiced concerns that these changes disproportionately affect their workforce.

Marianna Laconfora, who previously served as deputy vice-chairman of the SSA, argued that these legislative changes would institutionalize new scheduling policies into law, effectively distorting what constitutes a real choice for employees.

She feared that these policies would make it tough for the SSA to recruit staff, especially since the workforce has already seen its smallest numbers in decades. Laconfora remarked that this shift could undermine public services as it hinders the agency’s ability to maintain expertise.

Bonnie Doyle, another former SSA official, criticized the labeling of positions under this new schedule, stating that staff in these roles aren’t true policymakers and should not be subjected to significant policy changes.

Alongside these new policies, the Office of Personnel Management (OPM) has introduced a Merit Employment Plan promoting the hiring of “patriotic Americans,” which aligns with the administration’s broader goals. Additionally, revised rules would facilitate the termination of federal employees in five business days.

Critics, including various employee unions, claim that the Schedule P/C would exacerbate the loss of valuable expertise in the federal workforce, leading to recruitment and retention challenges. The unions have voiced alarm that these regulations act as tools enabling political appointees to dismantle non-political civil service roles.

Furthermore, the National Federation of Federal Employees emphasized that the changes blur the distinctions between temporary political appointees and career civil servants, stripping public employees of essential due process rights. Max Steer, CEO of the Partnership for Public Service, highlighted concerns about morale among employees, who now face the constant threat of being fired at a political whim.

Estimates suggest that around 121,000 federal employees could be laid off or affected by these changes, with an additional 76,000 leaving the government after opting into new hire offers.