The Trump administration is pushing forward with efforts to make it easier to fire federal employees. A newly proposed “Schedule Policy/Career” category aims to strip current federal employees in policy-influencing positions of their civil service protections, making them more susceptible to dismissal. A budget reconciliation bill passed by the House last month places new federal employees in a predicament.
Upon completing their probationary period, they must choose between continuing to pay a higher contribution to their Federal Employees Retirement System (FERS) to maintain their civil service protections or opting for a lower contribution rate while agreeing to at-will employment status. At-will federal employees will contribute 4.4% to their FERS benefits, compared to the 9.4% contribution required from those keeping their civil service protections. Everett Kelley, national president of the American Federation of Government Employees, criticized the policy in The Hill, arguing it forces employees into “permanent at-will employment” unless they can afford the higher pension contribution.
The Office of Personnel Management (OPM) received over 30,000 comments on its proposed rule to create a “Policy/Career” designation. Former officials, including Marianna LaCanfora and Bonnie Doyle from the Social Security Administration (SSA), warned that these changes would disproportionately impact the SSA’s workforce. Several unions cautioned that Schedule Policy/Career would accelerate the loss of expertise and institutional knowledge within the federal workforce, potentially leading to a recruitment and retention crisis.
Max Stier, president & CEO of the Partnership for Public Service, argued the policy would devastate the government’s ability to retain and attract talent. The Partnership estimates that 121,000 federal employees have been laid off or are targeted for layoffs, with an additional 76,000 expected to leave through buyouts. This new legislation marks a significant shift in federal employment policy, underscoring the administration’s aim to overhaul the civil service system.
As part of former President Donald Trump’s “Big, Beautiful Bill,” the House voted to end a retirement supplement aimed at helping federal employees who retire before the age of 62. This legislative change could potentially impact the retirement plans of numerous federal workers, including Michele Santa Maria, who served the American public for 35 years. Santa Maria began working at the Social Security Administration’s field office in Chula Vista, California, in May 1990, at the age of 18.
Over the years, she advanced from answering phones and sorting mail to becoming a claims technical expert. The promise of a secure retirement package drove her dedication to her work. The new legislation proposes eliminating the special retirement supplement for federal employees younger than 57 as of January 1, 2028.
Changes to federal employment policies
Santa Maria, who opted for early retirement amid fears of layoffs during the Trump administration, stands to lose approximately $110,000 over five years if the Senate agrees to the cut. John Hatton, staff vice president for policy and programs at the National Active and Retired Federal Employees Association (NARFE), estimates that tens of thousands could lose significant retirement income.
NARFE has strongly opposed these cuts, describing them as a “clawback of benefits earned from past work.
Despite removing some proposed cuts to federal benefits, the Senate Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee (HSGAC) remains committed to eliminating civil service job protections for federal employees as part of the GOP reconciliation process. The “One Big, Beautiful Bill,” released Thursday by the Senate committee, retains three of the four key sections impacting the federal workforce that House lawmakers had proposed. In total, the committee estimates its legislative text could yield $24 billion in savings.
One major provision retained from the House’s final version would require newly hired federal employees to choose between losing their civil service protections or facing a higher contribution rate to the Federal Employees Retirement System (FERS). In the Senate’s version, new federal hires who choose to become “at-will” employees would incur a 5% increase in their FERS contribution rate, resulting in a 9.4% rate. If they opt to retain their civil service protections, they would incur a 10% increase, resulting in a contribution rate of 14.4%.
HSGAC leadership claims the change could generate $20 billion in cost savings over the next decade and “yield a more productive and accountable federal workforce.” In contrast, Rep. Stephen Lynch (D-Mass.), acting ranking member of the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee, criticized the proposal as a “backdoor” for replacing nonpartisan public servants with partisan loyalists. The Senate bill also introduces a $350 fee for filing an appeal with the Merit Systems Protection Board (MSPB), impacting both current and former federal employees, as well as job applicants.
Republicans argue the fee aligns federal employees with the private sector. Those who win their appeals would be refunded the fee. Additionally, the Senate proposal requires agencies to audit the eligibility of family members enrolled in the Federal Employees Health Benefits (FEHB) program, a measure that has not seen significant opposition.
The Government Accountability Office estimates that nearly $1 billion per year is spent on ineligible enrollees. Two new provisions would impact federal unions: a 10% fee on paycheck deductions for union dues and charges for official time used for union activities. The American Federation of Government Employees strongly opposed these provisions, stating they would make it harder for federal agencies to recruit and retain qualified employees.
As the Senate continues its deliberations, additional changes to the reconciliation bill may emerge, necessitating further compromises before it can become law.