On a date in February 2025, President Donald Trump issued an executive order reclassifying approximately 8,000 senior federal employees into a new "at-will" status, enabling their dismissal without cause.
The order affects workers at the GS-15 pay grade, the highest level of the civil service, including policy office leaders, regional office heads, program managers, senior public affairs officers, and grant overseers. These employees are placed under a new category called Schedule Policy/Career, a successor to the previously proposed Schedule F from President Trump's first term.
The number of positions initially affected is smaller than an earlier estimate of 50,000, which the Office of Personnel Management (OPM) had projected as a potential maximum. The administration has indicated it may expand the pool of reclassified positions in the future.
Background on Civil Service Protections
Federal civil service protections were enacted in the late 19th century, following the 1881 assassination of President James A. Garfield by a disgruntled jobseeker. These laws were designed to insulate government work from political interference and corruption.
Before this order, the federal government employed roughly 2 million workers. Of those, approximately 4,000 were political appointees serving at the president's pleasure, while the remaining employees could only be dismissed for performance or misconduct, with appeal rights.
Key Provisions of the Rule
The final rule, titled "Improving Performance, Accountability and Responsiveness in the Civil Service," was issued by OPM and took effect on March 9, 2025. It enables the president to reclassify federal employees in "policy-influencing" roles—including supervisors of such roles—into the Schedule Policy/Career category.
While federal agencies will suggest positions for reclassification, the president will make the final determination on which jobs are affected. Multiple lawsuits have been filed challenging the rule.
Conflicting Viewpoints on the Order
Administration Position
OPM Director Scott Kupor stated that the move is about accountability and restoring the democratic process. He said no loyalty tests or loss of whistleblower protections would occur, and that firings based on political affiliation remain illegal.
Kupor argued that government employees must be willing to implement the president's directives.
He compared the change to private sector practices, where CEOs set priorities and hold employees accountable. The administration has cited the difficulty of dismissing poor performers and instances of federal employees obstructing directives as reasons for the rule.
Criticisms
Critics argue that the rule could politicize the civil service by allowing the president to replace expert career employees with political supporters.
Skye Perryman, president and CEO of Democracy Forward (a plaintiff in lawsuits against the administration), stated that public health, safety, and other essential services rely on these experts, and that firing without cause harms both workers and the public. She described the rule as a deliberate attempt to circumvent legal restrictions.
Don Moynihan, a University of Michigan professor, stated that politicization creates "bubbles around policymakers" where career civil servants may withhold unfavorable information for fear of retaliation.
He pointed to past firings of political appointees who shared unfavorable reports.
Max Stier, president of the nonpartisan Partnership for Public Service, stated that while government improvements are needed, politicizing the civil service by removing employees who prioritize law and public service for blind loyalty is not an appropriate approach. He noted that the U.S. already has a higher number of political appointees (around 4,000) than other democracies.
Michael Martinez, former OPM deputy general counsel and an attorney with Democracy Forward, called the private sector comparison flawed, stating that government work is mission-driven for the American people.
Public Comment
OPM received over 40,000 public comments during the rule's comment period, with 94% opposing the rule. The administration attributed much of this opposition to what it described as misunderstandings of existing laws and the rule's intentions.
Employee Protections Under the Rule
OPM has stated that most employees appointed under Schedule Policy/Career will retain protection from prohibited personnel practices, including retaliation for whistleblowing. However, they will lose the ability to file complaints with the Merit Systems Protection Board.
While reclassified employees could theoretically file discrimination complaints with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, the rule notes that the president is not subject to federal employment anti-discrimination laws.
Legal Context
The case is expected to reach the Supreme Court, which has previously shown openness to arguments that Article II of the Constitution grants the president full control over the executive branch. Such a ruling could potentially overturn precedent on presidential firing power.