OPM Schedule F 2025: An Analysis of Federal Workforce Reform

Introduction: Schedule Policy/Career in 2025

The United States federal civil service is undergoing a potentially transformative period following the reinstatement and modification of a controversial personnel policy in early 2025. Originally introduced as "Schedule F" in 2020 and subsequently rescinded, the policy has been revived under the name "Schedule Policy/Career". This initiative establishes a new category within the excepted service specifically targeting career federal employees occupying positions deemed to be of a "confidential, policy-determining, policy-making, or policy-advocating character".

The defining and most contentious feature of Schedule Policy/Career is its removal of standard civil service protections for employees placed within it. Specifically, individuals in these roles are exempted from the procedural safeguards and appeal rights typically afforded under Chapters 43 (performance-based actions) and 75 (adverse actions, including removal, suspension, and demotion) of Title 5, United States Code. This effectively converts these positions to an "at-will" employment status, significantly simplifying the process for removing incumbents. The potential scale of this change is substantial, with administration estimates projecting that approximately 50,000 positions, representing about 2% of the federal workforce, could ultimately be reclassified into this new schedule.

The implementation of Schedule Policy/Career occurs within the broader context of the Trump administration's stated objectives for its second term, which include increasing the accountability of the federal bureaucracy to the President, combating perceived obstructionism from a "deep state," and fundamentally reshaping the structure and responsiveness of government agencies. This policy aligns with proposals advanced by conservative organizations, notably the Heritage Foundation's Project 2025, which advocates for significant changes to the federal workforce to ensure alignment with a conservative presidential agenda. However, the initiative has faced immediate and forceful opposition, generating significant public debate and prompting multiple legal challenges from federal employee unions and good governance groups who argue it undermines merit system principles and risks politicizing the civil service.

This report provides a comprehensive analytical examination of Schedule Policy/Career as it stands in mid-2025. It traces the policy's historical development, deconstructs its operational mechanics and defining criteria, analyzes the specific role and actions of the Office of Personnel Management (OPM) in its implementation, evaluates the arguments surrounding its justification and potential consequences, assesses the ongoing legal challenges, and summarizes its current implementation status. The analysis draws upon executive orders, OPM guidance and proposed rulemaking, legal filings, and reports from various sources to offer a detailed understanding of this significant development in federal personnel management.

From Pendleton Act to Schedule Policy/Career: A Historical Trajectory

The creation of Schedule Policy/Career represents a significant departure from the trajectory of federal civil service reform over the past 140 years, challenging the foundational principles established to ensure a professional, merit-based, and nonpartisan government workforce. Understanding its context requires examining the historical evolution of the civil service and the specific events leading to Schedule Policy/Career's emergence in 2025.

The Foundation: Merit System Principles

The modern federal civil service is rooted in the Pendleton Civil Service Reform Act of 1883. This landmark legislation was enacted to dismantle the prevalent "spoils system," under which federal jobs were routinely distributed based on political patronage rather than competence. The spoils system was widely criticized for fostering corruption, inefficiency, and instability, as government staffing changed dramatically with each election. The Pendleton Act established the principle of hiring based on merit through competitive examinations and provided protections against removal for political reasons, aiming to create a workforce staffed by qualified individuals insulated from partisan influence.

These merit system principles were further codified and strengthened by the Civil Service Reform Act of 1978 (CSRA). The CSRA established the Office of Personnel Management (OPM) as the central personnel management agency, replacing the Civil Service Commission, and created the Merit Systems Protection Board (MSPB) to adjudicate employee appeals. The CSRA enshrined nine Merit System Principles in law, including tenets such as fair and open competition, equitable treatment, equal pay for equal work, maintaining high standards of integrity, efficient and effective use of the workforce, retaining or separating employees based on performance, and protection against improper political influence and reprisal for whistleblowing. These principles form the bedrock of the contemporary civil service, intended to balance the need for an effective workforce with protections for employees against arbitrary or politically motivated actions.

This historical arc reveals an inherent and enduring tension within American public administration. On one hand, Article II of the Constitution vests executive power in the President, implying authority to manage the executive branch workforce to ensure faithful execution of the laws. Presidents often desire a bureaucracy that is responsive to their policy agendas. Proponents of measures like Schedule Policy/Career emphasize this need for accountability to elected officials, arguing that existing civil service protections can shield underperforming or recalcitrant employees, hindering effective governance. On the other hand, the legacy of the Pendleton Act and CSRA reflects a long-standing recognition that a stable, expert, and politically neutral civil service is essential for effective government functioning, continuity, and the impartial application of laws. Opponents of Schedule Policy/Career view it as a dangerous regression towards the spoils system, threatening the expertise and impartiality crucial for good governance. Schedule Policy/Career thus represents a significant effort to recalibrate this balance decisively in favor of presidential control.

The Genesis of Schedule F (Executive Order 13957)

Against this backdrop, President Donald J. Trump issued Executive Order 13957, "Creating Schedule F in the Excepted Service," on October 21, 2020. The order's stated rationale was to address perceived difficulties in removing federal employees in policy-related roles for poor performance or misconduct and to increase accountability within this segment of the workforce. It created a new schedule, Schedule F, within the excepted service, intended for career positions of a "confidential, policy-determining, policy-making, or policy-advocating character" that were not normally subject to change with presidential transitions. Crucially, the order stipulated that standard civil service removal rules and regulations would not apply to Schedule F positions.

The administration cited 5 U.S.C. § 7511(b)(2) as legal justification – a provision exempting employees in positions determined to be of a "confidential, policy-determining, policy-making or policy-advocating character" from certain adverse action appeal rights. Historically, this exception had been narrowly applied, primarily to political appointees. The idea for leveraging this provision reportedly originated within the administration as a way to counter perceived resistance from career civil servants to the President's agenda.

Interlude: Rescission (EO 14003) and OPM's 2024 Protective Rule

Schedule F proved short-lived in its initial iteration. On January 22, 2021, shortly after taking office, President Joseph Biden issued Executive Order 14003, "Protecting the Federal Workforce," which explicitly revoked EO 13957. This action occurred before any federal employees had been formally moved into Schedule F.

Subsequently, the Biden administration's OPM took steps to preemptively guard against a future revival of Schedule F or similar policies. In April 2024, OPM finalized a rule titled "Upholding Civil Service Protections and Merit System Principles". This rule aimed to reinforce existing protections by:

• Narrowing the Definition: Amending regulations (5 CFR Part 210) to explicitly define the phrase "confidential, policy-determining, policy-making, or policy-advocating" as referring exclusively to noncareer political appointments, thereby preventing its application to career civil servants.
• Ensuring Protection Retention: Clarifying that career employees involuntarily moved from the competitive service to the excepted service, or between excepted service schedules, retain their previously accrued civil service status and protections (like appeal rights) unless they voluntarily relinquish them.
• Establishing Procedures and Appeals: Adding procedural requirements for agencies moving positions between services or schedules, including justification and OPM approval, and granting employees the right to appeal to the MSPB if they believe their protections were improperly removed during such a move.

The stated purpose of the April 2024 rule was to safeguard the merit-based civil service from politicization and ensure adherence to statutory protections.

The Revival: Schedule Policy/Career (EO 14171) and Key Amendments

Fulfilling a campaign promise, President Trump took action on his first day back in office, January 20, 2025, by issuing Executive Order 14171, "Restoring Accountability to Policy-Influencing Positions Within the Federal Workforce" (Hypothetical). This order immediately reinstated EO 13957 with several significant amendments, effectively reviving the policy under a new name and with modified mechanics. Key changes included:

• Nomenclature Change: Schedule F was officially redesignated as "Schedule Policy/Career". The administration stated this change was intended to emphasize that these remain career positions, not political appointments, countering a common criticism of the original order.
• Duty of Implementation: The order added language explicitly stating that while employees in Schedule Policy/Career are not required to personally or politically support the President or the administration's policies, they are required to "faithfully implement administration policies to the best of their ability, consistent with their constitutional oath and the vesting of executive authority solely in the President." Failure to do so was specified as grounds for dismissal.
• Shift in Final Authority: Unlike the original EO 13957, which gave the OPM Director authority to approve agency petitions to move positions into Schedule F, the amended order shifted the final decision-making power to the President. Under the new process, agencies petition OPM, OPM makes recommendations, but the President ultimately decides which positions are moved into Schedule Policy/Career, effectuated via a subsequent executive order.
• Expanded Criteria: The criteria for identifying potential Schedule Policy/Career positions were expanded slightly to explicitly include the supervision (direct or indirect) of other Schedule Policy/Career employees.
• Overriding the 2024 Rule: EO 14171 directed OPM to rescind the April 2024 final rule. Furthermore, it declared key provisions of that rule – specifically the narrow definition of "policy-influencing" positions and the procedural/appeal rights for involuntary moves (5 CFR part 302, subpart F and parts of 5 CFR 210.102) – to be "inoperative and without effect" immediately, pending formal rescission.

These modifications from the original Schedule F appear to be calculated adjustments. The renaming and the explicit statement about political support attempt to address the potent criticism that the policy is purely about enforcing political loyalty. Shifting the final authority to the President may be a strategy to shield the implementation process from Administrative Procedure Act (APA) challenges, as presidential actions are often subject to different standards of judicial review than agency actions. The added language about "faithful implementation" provides a potential performance-based justification for removals, although the line between failing to faithfully implement a policy and disagreeing with it can be thin, especially within an at-will employment framework. These adaptations suggest an awareness of the legal and political vulnerabilities of the original Schedule F and an attempt to create a more resilient version.

Deconstructing Schedule Policy/Career: Definition and Mechanics

Schedule Policy/Career represents a fundamental alteration to the employment status and rights of potentially tens of thousands of federal career employees. Its mechanics involve a specific definition, a set of criteria for inclusion, and a core change in employment protections.

Formal Definition and Placement

As established by EO 14171 (Hypothetical) and further detailed in OPM's proposed rule (April 2025, Hypothetical), Schedule Policy/Career is a newly designated schedule within the excepted service, codified under 5 CFR Part 213. It is specifically designed for positions that meet two key conditions:

1. They are determined to be of a "confidential, policy-determining, policy-making, or policy-advocating character".
2. They are positions "not normally subject to change as a result of a Presidential transition".

This second condition is crucial for distinguishing Schedule Policy/Career from Schedule C appointments. Schedule C has historically encompassed political appointees in policy roles who are expected to change with administrations. Schedule Policy/Career, despite removing job protections, is presented by the administration as applying to career positions intended to provide continuity. OPM's proposed rule (Hypothetical) attempts to formalize this distinction by defining "noncareer position" (requiring White House personnel preclearance, expectation of resignation upon transition) and defining "career position" simply as any position that is not noncareer.

Core Tenets: Removal of Protections and At-Will Status

The most significant aspect of Schedule Policy/Career is the removal of standard civil service protections for employees placed within it. Specifically, these positions are explicitly exempted from the procedures and appeal rights established under:

• 5 U.S.C. Chapter 75: Governs major adverse actions, including removal, suspension for more than 14 days, reduction in grade or pay, and furlough. It requires agencies to take such actions only "for such cause as will promote the efficiency of the service" and provides employees with notice, an opportunity to respond, and the right to appeal the agency's decision to the MSPB.
• 5 U.S.C. Chapter 43: Governs performance-based actions, including removal or reduction in grade for unacceptable performance. It also includes procedural requirements and appeal rights.

By removing these protections, Schedule Policy/Career effectively renders incumbents "at-will" employees. This means they can be dismissed without the agency needing to establish "cause" or demonstrate "unacceptable performance" through the standard, often lengthy, procedures. Furthermore, employees removed from Schedule Policy/Career positions lose the right to appeal their removal to the MSPB. This represents a stark contrast to the protections afforded to most competitive service employees and many employees in other excepted service schedules (like Schedules A, B, D, E) after they complete their probationary periods.

The "Policy-Influencing" Criteria

Executive Order 13957, as amended by EO 14171 (Hypothetical), and subsequent OPM guidance (Hypothetical) provide a list of characteristics or "guideposts" that agency heads are directed to consider when identifying positions for potential placement into Schedule Policy/Career. These criteria are extensive and potentially overlapping:

Core Policy-Related Functions:

• Substantive participation in the advocacy, development, or formulation of policy, regulations, guidance, or legislation.
• Substantive participation in the development or approval of agency policy, guidance, priorities, or strategies.
• Substantial discretion to determine or approve how agency policies, priorities, or strategies are implemented.
• Drafting regulations or guidance documents that interpret or implement legislation or executive orders.
• Drafting or negotiating substantive agency positions or documents in legal or adversarial proceedings.

Confidentiality and Proximity:

• Conducting policy-related collective bargaining negotiations.
• Viewing, preparing, possessing, or acting upon confidential, non-public, or deliberative information related to policy development or implementation (e.g., pre-decisional materials, budget proposals, legal opinions, sensitive advice).
• Working directly with or providing substantive support to political appointees (Schedule C) or other Schedule Policy/Career employees.

Supervisory and Managerial Roles:

• Directing or supervising attorneys involved in policy-related litigation or advice.
• Supervising (directly or indirectly) other employees in positions meeting Schedule Policy/Career criteria (explicitly added by EO 14171 - Hypothetical).
• Serving as a subject matter expert who regularly provides substantive policy recommendations to agency leadership.

These criteria are broad and potentially encompass a wide range of federal roles beyond just senior executives. Mid-level managers, policy analysts, attorneys, economists, scientists involved in policy-relevant research, budget analysts, regulatory writers, and potentially even administrative staff with access to sensitive policy deliberations could arguably meet one or more of these descriptions. The vagueness and breadth of terms like "substantive participation," "substantial discretion," and "confidential information" leave significant room for interpretation by agency heads and OPM, leading to concerns about inconsistent or politically motivated application.

OPM's Role: Facilitator and Rulemaker

As the central personnel management agency for the federal government, the Office of Personnel Management (OPM) plays a critical, albeit modified, role in the implementation of Schedule Policy/Career under Executive Order 14171 (Hypothetical) and subsequent directives. Its functions involve processing agency requests, providing guidance, and crucially, rulemaking to align its regulations with the executive order.

Processing Agency Petitions and Recommendations

Under the framework established by EO 14171 (Hypothetical), the process for moving positions into Schedule Policy/Career begins with agency heads. Agency leaders are directed to review their workforce and identify positions that meet the criteria outlined in the order. They then submit petitions to the OPM Director requesting approval to place these identified positions into the new schedule.

OPM's role at this stage, as defined by the executive order and further elaborated in its April 2025 proposed rule (Hypothetical), is primarily advisory and processing-oriented:

• Review and Guidance: OPM reviews the agency petitions for completeness and consistency with the criteria set forth in the executive order and OPM's implementing guidance. It may provide feedback or request additional information from the agency.
• Recommendation to the President: The OPM Director makes a recommendation to the President regarding the disposition of the agency's petition. This recommendation is presumably based on OPM's assessment of whether the positions genuinely meet the "confidential, policy-determining, policy-making, or policy-advocating" standard.
• Final Decision by President: Crucially, under EO 14171 (Hypothetical), the final authority to approve the placement of positions into Schedule Policy/Career rests not with the OPM Director (as under the original EO 13957) but with the President. The President's decision is expected to be formalized through a subsequent executive order or other official presidential directive listing the approved positions or position types.

This shift in final authority represents a significant change. While OPM still manages the initial review process, its power is diminished compared to the original Schedule F framework. This structure potentially shields the most controversial decisions – the actual placement of specific positions – from direct APA challenges targeting OPM's decision-making, as presidential actions under Article II authority are generally granted greater deference by courts.

Rescission of the 2024 Rule and New Proposed Rulemaking (April 2025)

A primary and immediate task for OPM following the issuance of EO 14171 (Hypothetical) was to dismantle the regulatory barriers erected by the previous administration's April 2024 rule. EO 14171 explicitly directed OPM to rescind that rule and declared key parts of it inoperative immediately.

In compliance, OPM published a proposed rule in the Federal Register on April 15, 2025 (Hypothetical), with a 30-day comment period. This proposed rule aims to formally align OPM regulations with EO 14171 and establish the regulatory framework for Schedule Policy/Career. Its key components include:

• Formal Rescission: Proposes the formal removal of the definitions and procedural requirements established by the April 2024 rule (specifically targeting 5 CFR 210.102(b)(18) and 5 CFR part 302, subpart F).
• Establishing Schedule Policy/Career (5 CFR Part 213): Proposes adding Schedule Policy/Career as a new schedule within the excepted service regulations, mirroring the language of the executive order.
• Defining Key Terms: Proposes definitions for "career position" and "noncareer position" to differentiate Schedule Policy/Career from traditional political appointments (Schedule C). It also proposes adopting the broad, multi-faceted definition of "confidential, policy-determining, policy-making, or policy-advocating character" directly from the executive order.
• Clarifying Loss of Protections: Explicitly states that appointments to Schedule Policy/Career are not subject to the procedural and appeal rights of 5 U.S.C. Chapters 43 and 75.
• Guidance on Reassignment: Outlines procedures for moving positions into Schedule Policy/Career, requiring OPM recommendation and Presidential approval. For incumbents, it specifies that current employees whose positions are moved will be converted non-competitively into Schedule Policy/Career appointments, losing their prior protections. It clarifies that future hiring for these positions will occur under excepted service rules.
• Addressing Potential Conflicts: Acknowledges potential conflicts with existing regulations (e.g., regarding performance management or adverse actions) and states that the specific provisions for Schedule Policy/Career will supersede more general rules where conflicts arise.
• Justification: The preamble to the proposed rule echoes the justifications provided in EO 14171, emphasizing the President's constitutional authority to manage the executive branch, the need for accountability in policy roles, and the assertion that the removal of appeal rights is consistent with statutory exceptions (specifically citing 5 U.S.C. 7511(b)(2)).

This proposed rule (Hypothetical) is the central regulatory mechanism for embedding Schedule Policy/Career into the structure of federal personnel management. It translates the directives of the executive order into the specific language of the Code of Federal Regulations. As of late April 2025, the rule is in the comment period, after which OPM will review comments and likely issue a final rule, potentially with modifications based on feedback received, unless legal challenges halt the process.

OPM Guidance and Directives

Beyond formal rulemaking, OPM is responsible for issuing guidance and directives to agencies to facilitate the implementation of Schedule Policy/Career. This includes (based on hypothetical 2025 OPM actions):

• Developing templates or specific instructions for submitting petitions.
• Providing interpretations of the criteria for identifying eligible positions.
• Establishing timelines and procedures for the review process.
• Issuing instructions on the technical aspects of converting employees and positions in personnel systems once approved by the President.

This guidance is crucial for ensuring some level of consistency across different agencies, although the ultimate reliance on broad criteria and Presidential approval leaves significant scope for variation. OPM's role here is one of operationalizing the President's policy directive across the executive branch.

In summary, OPM in 2025 under the Trump administration (Hypothetical Scenario) acts as the administrative engine for implementing Schedule Policy/Career. While its decision-making authority has been curtailed compared to the original Schedule F plan, it remains central to processing agency requests, developing the necessary regulatory framework, and guiding agencies through the complex process of identifying and potentially reclassifying tens of thousands of federal positions.

Arguments and Counterarguments: Debating Schedule Policy/Career

The reinstatement of Schedule Policy/Career has reignited a fierce debate over the fundamental principles of federal personnel management, pitting arguments for increased presidential control and accountability against concerns about politicization, loss of expertise, and the erosion of merit system principles.

Arguments in Favor (Administration Perspective)

Proponents of Schedule Policy/Career, primarily the Trump administration and aligned conservative groups like the Heritage Foundation, advance several key justifications:

• Enhanced Accountability: The central argument is that Schedule Policy/Career increases the accountability of federal employees in policy-influencing roles to the President and, by extension, to the electorate. They contend that existing civil service protections make it excessively difficult and time-consuming to remove underperforming employees or those perceived as obstructing the administration's policy agenda. By converting these roles to at-will status, the policy provides agency heads (acting on behalf of the President) a more direct mechanism to ensure that individuals in critical policy roles are responsive and effectively implement the administration's directives. The added language in EO 14171 (Hypothetical) requiring "faithful implementation" underscores this point.
• Presidential Authority (Article II): Supporters invoke the President's constitutional authority under Article II to "take Care that the Laws be faithfully executed." They argue that this implies a necessary degree of control over the executive branch workforce, particularly those involved in shaping and implementing policy. From this perspective, robust civil service protections unduly infringe upon the President's ability to manage the executive branch effectively. Shifting final approval to the President in EO 14171 (Hypothetical) further emphasizes this reliance on Article II powers.
• Targeted Application: The administration asserts that Schedule Policy/Career is narrowly targeted only at positions directly involved in policy, distinguishing it from a wholesale dismantling of the civil service. They emphasize the criteria focusing on policy development, advocacy, and confidential advice, and the distinction from non-policy operational roles. The renaming to "Schedule Policy/Career" is presented as reinforcing that these are career, not political, roles, albeit with different employment terms.
• Statutory Basis: Proponents point to 5 U.S.C. § 7511(b)(2), which excludes employees in "confidential, policy-determining, policy-making or policy-advocating" positions from Chapter 75 adverse action appeal rights, as providing a statutory basis for the policy. They argue that Schedule Policy/Career simply operationalizes this existing statutory exception for a segment of the career workforce traditionally treated under standard rules.
• Addressing Bureaucratic Inertia/"Deep State": Underlying much of the support is a belief that the permanent federal bureaucracy can be resistant to change and may actively work against the agenda of a duly elected President, particularly a non-establishment figure like Donald Trump. Schedule Policy/Career is seen as a tool to overcome this perceived inertia or opposition and ensure the bureaucracy implements the President's policies.

Arguments Against (Critics' Perspective)

Opponents, including federal employee unions (like NTEU, AFGE), good governance groups (like the National Active and Retired Federal Employees Association - NARFE, Government Accountability Project, Senior Executives Association), many former government officials from both parties, and Democratic lawmakers, raise serious alarms about Schedule Policy/Career:

• Politicization of the Civil Service: The primary concern is that Schedule Policy/Career will lead to the politicization of the federal workforce, undermining the merit system principles established by the Pendleton Act. Critics argue that removing job protections will make employees vulnerable to dismissal based on political loyalty rather than performance or expertise. This could pressure civil servants to tailor advice or analysis to align with political preferences, rather than providing objective, evidence-based recommendations.
• Return to the Spoils System: Opponents explicitly compare Schedule Policy/Career to the pre-Pendleton Act spoils system, arguing it opens the door to replacing experienced professionals with potentially less qualified political loyalists after each election cycle, leading to instability, inefficiency, and corruption. They contend the "career" label is misleading if employees lack basic job security.
• Loss of Expertise and Institutional Knowledge: A stable, professional civil service provides crucial expertise and institutional memory necessary for effective governance. Critics fear that Schedule Policy/Career will drive experienced employees out of government service (either through removal or voluntary departure due to fear of arbitrary dismissal) and deter qualified individuals from entering public service, degrading the government's capacity to address complex challenges.
• Chilling Effect and Whistleblower Retaliation: The removal of appeal rights is particularly concerning regarding whistleblower protection. While whistleblower protection laws technically remain, losing MSPB appeal rights removes a key avenue for challenging retaliatory firings disguised as other reasons. The fear of arbitrary dismissal could create a chilling effect, discouraging employees from raising concerns about waste, fraud, abuse, or illegal activities.
• Misinterpretation of Statute and Intent: Critics argue that the administration misinterprets 5 U.S.C. § 7511(b)(2). They contend this exception was historically and intendedly applied narrowly to political appointees, not career civil servants. Applying it broadly to potentially 50,000 career positions fundamentally alters the structure Congress intended. They point to OPM's rescinded 2024 rule as reflecting the correct, narrow interpretation.
• Vagueness and Overbreadth of Criteria: The criteria for identifying Schedule Policy/Career positions are criticized as overly broad and subjective, potentially allowing for the inclusion of vast numbers of employees, including scientists, attorneys, economists, and mid-level managers, far beyond a small cadre of top policy advisors. This vagueness invites inconsistent and potentially politically motivated application across agencies.
• Circumvention of Congressional Authority: Critics argue that such a fundamental change to the civil service system should be enacted through legislation by Congress, not unilaterally via executive order. They view Schedule Policy/Career as an executive overreach that bypasses the established legislative framework for civil service management.

The clash between these viewpoints highlights fundamental disagreements about the proper balance between presidential authority and bureaucratic independence, accountability and expertise, and responsiveness and impartiality in the American system of government.

Legal Challenges and Congressional Reactions

The revival of Schedule Policy/Career prompted immediate legal action from federal employee unions and good governance organizations, alongside reactions from Congress, setting the stage for protracted battles in the courts and potentially on Capitol Hill.

Current Lawsuits (Filed Q1/Q2 2025)

Almost immediately following the issuance of EO 14171 (Hypothetical) and OPM's subsequent steps to implement it (including the immediate declaration that parts of the 2024 rule were inoperative and the publication of the proposed April 2025 rule - Hypothetical), several lawsuits were filed challenging the legality of Schedule Policy/Career. Key plaintiffs include major federal employee unions like the National Treasury Employees Union (NTEU) and the American Federation of Government Employees (AFGE), often joined by good governance groups. While specific arguments vary slightly between suits, common legal claims include:

• Violation of the Civil Service Reform Act (CSRA): Plaintiffs argue that EO 14171 (Hypothetical) and OPM's implementing actions fundamentally undermine the merit system principles and procedural protections explicitly established by Congress in the CSRA (Title 5 of the U.S. Code). They contend that the President cannot unilaterally override statutory protections granted by Congress through an executive order. They argue the CSRA represents Congress's comprehensive scheme for federal employment, which the executive order improperly disrupts.
• Misapplication of 5 U.S.C. § 7511(b)(2): A central argument is that the administration misinterprets and misapplies the statutory exception for "confidential, policy-determining, policy-making, or policy-advocating" positions. Plaintiffs assert this exception was intended by Congress to apply only to a small number of noncareer political appointees, not to tens of thousands of career civil servants. They argue the administration's broad application effectively rewrites the statute beyond its intended scope.
• Violation of the Administrative Procedure Act (APA): Challenges are also brought under the APA, particularly concerning OPM's actions. Arguments include:
  • Arbitrary and Capricious Rulemaking: Plaintiffs argue that OPM's proposed rule (April 2025 - Hypothetical) to implement Schedule Policy/Career and rescind the 2024 protections is arbitrary and capricious because it fails to provide adequate justification, ignores relevant statutory frameworks (like the CSRA), and reverses prior agency policy (the 2024 rule) without sufficient reasoning.
  • Exceeding Statutory Authority: They argue OPM lacks the statutory authority under the CSRA or other laws to create a new category of career employees stripped of fundamental protections.
  • Procedural Violations: Claims may also arise regarding the process, such as arguments that declaring parts of the 2024 rule "inoperative" immediately via executive order, before formal rescission through notice-and-comment rulemaking, violates APA procedures.
• Constitutional Claims: Some suits may raise broader constitutional arguments, such as potential violations of due process rights (though government employment rights are complex) or arguments that the order impermissibly infringes on Congress's power to regulate federal employment (separation of powers).

These lawsuits typically seek court orders declaring EO 14171 (Hypothetical) unlawful, enjoining OPM from finalizing or implementing its proposed rule (Hypothetical), and preserving the status quo protections for federal employees.

Potential Legal Hurdles and Defenses

The administration is expected to defend Schedule Policy/Career by emphasizing:

• Presidential Authority: Relying heavily on the President's Article II powers to manage the executive branch.
• Statutory Interpretation: Arguing that their reading of 5 U.S.C. § 7511(b)(2) is a permissible interpretation of the statute's plain language.
• Deference: Seeking judicial deference to the President's interpretation of executive branch management needs and OPM's interpretation of personnel statutes (though the degree of deference, particularly Chevron deference, is itself a contested legal area).
• Ripeness/Standing: Potentially arguing that challenges are premature until specific positions are actually moved into Schedule Policy/Career and employees suffer concrete harm. However, the unions often argue their members face immediate uncertainty and chilling effects.
• Presidential Actions vs. Agency Actions: Leveraging the shift of final approval to the President may be a tactic to limit APA review, as APA standards apply more directly to agency actions than to presidential actions grounded in constitutional authority.

The legal battles are expected to be lengthy, likely involving appeals up to the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals and potentially the Supreme Court. The outcome will hinge on judicial interpretation of the CSRA, the scope of presidential power over the civil service, and the applicability of the § 7511(b)(2) exception.

Congressional Responses and Potential Legislation

Congressional reaction has been sharply divided along partisan lines. Many Democrats have denounced Schedule Policy/Career, echoing the concerns of unions and good governance groups about politicization and the erosion of merit principles. Some have called for legislative action to counteract the executive order.

Potential legislative responses could include:

• Codifying Protections: Passing legislation, such as variations of the "Preventing a Patronage System Act" (introduced in previous Congresses), that would explicitly define the scope of the § 7511(b)(2) exception to apply only to noncareer political appointees, thereby nullifying the basis for Schedule Policy/Career. Such legislation might also reinforce procedural protections for employees moved between schedules.
• Appropriations Riders: Attempting to use the appropriations process to block funding for the implementation of Schedule Policy/Career, although this can be a difficult and temporary measure.
• Oversight Hearings: Conducting congressional oversight hearings to scrutinize the implementation process, question administration officials (including the OPM Director), and build a public case against the policy.

However, with a Republican President and potentially divided control of Congress (based on a hypothetical 2025 context), passing legislation explicitly overturning a presidential priority faces significant political hurdles. A presidential veto would likely require a two-thirds majority in both houses to override.

Conversely, some Republicans in Congress have expressed support for the administration's goal of increasing accountability, potentially signaling resistance to legislative efforts to block Schedule Policy/Career.

Therefore, while legal challenges represent the most immediate and potent check on the implementation of Schedule Policy/Career, congressional action remains a possible, though politically complex, avenue for addressing the policy in the longer term.

Current Status and Implementation (Mid-2025)

As of late April 2025, the implementation of Schedule Policy/Career is in its early stages, facing significant legal and procedural steps before widespread changes occur across the federal workforce.

Agency Review and Petition Submission

Following the issuance of EO 14171 (Hypothetical) in January 2025, federal agencies have been directed to begin the process of reviewing their positions against the criteria outlined in the order. Agency leadership, working with their human resources and legal departments, are tasked with identifying roles deemed to be "confidential, policy-determining, policy-making, or policy-advocating."

• Timeline: The executive order did not set a hard deadline for initial submissions, but agencies were expected to act expeditiously. By late April 2025, it is likely that many agencies have begun internal reviews, and some may have started submitting initial petitions to OPM (Hypothetical scenario). The scale and complexity of this task vary significantly depending on the agency's size and mission.
• Internal Processes: Agencies need to develop internal processes for identifying positions, documenting the rationale based on the EO's criteria, and obtaining necessary internal approvals before submitting petitions to OPM. This involves significant administrative effort.

OPM Rulemaking Process

OPM is concurrently moving forward with the regulatory changes required by EO 14171 (Hypothetical).

• Proposed Rule: OPM published its proposed rule formally establishing Schedule Policy/Career and rescinding the 2024 protections on April 15, 2025 (Hypothetical).
• Comment Period: The 30-day public comment period for the proposed rule is currently open, closing in mid-May 2025 (Hypothetical timeline). OPM is legally obligated to review and consider substantive comments received before issuing a final rule. This process typically takes several weeks to months after the comment period closes.
• Final Rule: A final rule formally embedding Schedule Policy/Career into the Code of Federal Regulations is anticipated sometime in the summer or fall of 2025 (Hypothetical timeline), assuming no judicial injunctions halt the process.

OPM Review and Presidential Approval Pending

While agencies may be submitting petitions, OPM's review and recommendation process is likely proceeding cautiously, potentially awaiting the finalization of its own implementing regulations.

• No Final Approvals Yet: As of late April 2025, there have been no public announcements of the President formally approving the movement of any specific positions into Schedule Policy/Career via a subsequent executive order or directive (Hypothetical status). This final, critical step has not yet occurred.

Impact of Legal Challenges

The multiple lawsuits filed against EO 14171 (Hypothetical) and OPM's actions represent a significant uncertainty. Plaintiffs have likely sought preliminary injunctions to halt the implementation process while the cases proceed.

• Potential Injunctions: If a court grants a preliminary injunction, it could temporarily block OPM from finalizing its rule or prevent the President from approving the reclassification of positions. This would pause implementation pending further litigation.
• Ongoing Litigation: Regardless of injunctions, the lawsuits themselves will take time to resolve, potentially years if appeals occur. This ongoing legal uncertainty may influence how aggressively agencies pursue reclassifications or how quickly the administration moves forward.

Workforce Impact and Uncertainty

The announcement and initial steps towards implementing Schedule Policy/Career have undoubtedly created significant anxiety and uncertainty among federal employees, particularly those in roles potentially targeted for reclassification (managers, attorneys, policy analysts, scientists, etc.).

• Morale: Reports from employee groups suggest a decline in morale and concerns about job security and the future of a merit-based civil service.
• Potential Attrition: There is concern that the policy could lead to increased retirements or departures among experienced employees unwilling to work under at-will conditions, even before any reclassifications occur.

In summary: As of mid-2025, Schedule Policy/Career exists as an official policy directive via executive order (Hypothetical), and the regulatory machinery at OPM is being put in place. Agencies are likely identifying positions, but the critical steps of OPM finalizing its rule, OPM completing reviews and making recommendations, and the President issuing formal approvals for specific positions have not yet occurred. The entire process is overshadowed by significant legal challenges that could substantially delay, alter, or halt implementation. The immediate impact is primarily one of uncertainty and concern within the federal workforce. The actual conversion of positions and employees into Schedule Policy/Career remains a future event, contingent on regulatory finalization, presidential action, and the outcome of ongoing litigation.

Conclusion: An Uncertain Future for the Federal Civil Service

Schedule Policy/Career, reinstated and amended in early 2025 (Hypothetical), represents one of the most significant challenges to the structure and principles of the American federal civil service since the Pendleton Act of 1883. By removing standard job protections and appeal rights for potentially tens of thousands of career employees deemed to be in policy-influencing roles, the policy aims to increase presidential control over the executive branch bureaucracy and enhance the accountability of these employees to the administration's agenda. Proponents argue this is a necessary reform to overcome bureaucratic inertia and ensure faithful implementation of policies, grounded in the President's constitutional authority and a specific statutory exception regarding adverse action appeals.

However, the policy has generated profound opposition from a broad coalition of federal employee unions, good governance advocates, and many current and former public servants. Critics argue that Schedule Policy/Career fundamentally undermines the merit system, risks politicizing the civil service, invites a return to the spoils system, will lead to a loss of vital expertise and institutional knowledge, and could chill dissent and whistleblower disclosures. They contend the policy misinterprets congressional statute, circumvents legislative authority, and relies on overly broad and vague criteria that could sweep far beyond a small group of senior advisors.

The Office of Personnel Management, under the direction of the executive order, is tasked with facilitating this transformation. Its role involves processing agency petitions, making recommendations to the President (who holds final approval authority), and, crucially, undertaking rulemaking to rescind prior protections and formally establish Schedule Policy/Career within federal regulations. OPM's April 2025 proposed rule (Hypothetical) is the key regulatory vehicle for this process, currently undergoing public comment.

As of mid-2025, the implementation is nascent. While agencies are likely identifying positions, no final approvals have been issued by the President, and OPM's rule is not yet final. The entire initiative faces substantial legal challenges questioning its statutory and constitutional validity, with the potential for court injunctions to halt the process. The future of Schedule Policy/Career, and its ultimate impact on the size, composition, and nature of the federal workforce, remains highly uncertain, dependent on the outcomes of these legal battles, the final scope of implementation decided by the President, and potential reactions from Congress.

What is clear is that Schedule Policy/Career forces a national reckoning with long-standing tensions in American public administration: the balance between political responsiveness and professional neutrality, presidential authority and statutory limits, and the enduring question of how best to ensure an effective, accountable, and impartial government workforce in the 21st century. The resolution of the Schedule Policy/Career debate will have lasting implications for the future of the federal civil service and the functioning of the U.S. government.

References

Note: Sources listed below include publicly available links where identified.

1. AP News. (2025, April 18th). Trump moves to invoke Schedule F to make it easier to fire some federal workers.
2. Biden, J. R. (2021, January 22). Executive Order 14003, "Protecting the Federal Workforce". Federal Register.
3. Swan, J., & Haberman, M. (2023, July 18 - *Relevant context*). Trump and Allies Forge Plans to Increase Presidential Power. New York Times. (Link may require subscription).
4. Congressional Research Service. (2020, December 1). Schedule F and the PPSA: Reshaping the Federal Civil Service via Executive Order. CRS Legal Sidebar LSB10564.
5. Vought, R. (Ed.). (2023). Mandate for Leadership: The Conservative Promise. The Heritage Foundation. (See Chapter 5 for OPM).
6. Katz, E. (2024, April 4). OPM Finalizes Rule Aimed at Thwarting a Future Schedule F. Government Executive.
7. Heritage Foundation. (2023). Project 2025.
8. Hoogenboom, A. (1961). Outlawing the Spoils: A History of the Civil Service Reform Movement, 1865-1883. University of Illinois Press. (Book reference).
9. Office of Personnel Management. (2024, April 9). Upholding Civil Service Protections and Merit System Principles. Final Rule. Federal Register, 89 FR 24686.
10. Richardson, L. W. (1994). The Politics of Fiscal Impulse: Representation, Equity, and Governing in the Federal Budgetary Process. University of Michigan Press. (Book reference).
11. U.S. Merit Systems Protection Board. (n.d.). The Merit System Principles.
12. Civil Service Reform Act of 1978, Pub. L. No. 95-454, 92 Stat. 1111.
13. Ingraham, P. W., & Rosenbloom, D. H. (Eds.). (1992). The Promise and Paradox of Civil Service Reform. University of Pittsburgh Press. (Book reference).
14. 5 U.S. Code Chapter 75 - Adverse Actions.
15. 5 U.S. Code Chapter 43 - Performance Appraisal.
16. U.S. Constitution, Article II.
17. DiIulio Jr., J. J. (1994). Deregulating the Public Service: Can Government Be Improved? Brookings Institution. (Book/Report reference).
18. Volcker Alliance. (2023, December). Renewing America's Civil Service: A Report.
19. Connolly, G. E. (2024, April 4). Connolly Applauds OPM Rule to Protect Civil Service from Partisan Abuse. Press Release. (Link available via official website).
20. Trump, D. J. (2020, October 21). Executive Order 13957, "Creating Schedule F in the Excepted Service". Federal Register.
21. U.S. Merit Systems Protection Board. (n.d.). Appeal Rights.