Help us improve in just 2 minutes—share your thoughts in our reader survey.

Improving Performance, Accountability and Responsiveness in the Civil Service rule (2025)

From Ballotpedia
Jump to: navigation, search
New Administrative State Banner.png
What is a significant rule?

Significant regulatory action is a term used to describe an agency rule that has had or might have a large impact on the economy, environment, public health, or state or local governments. These actions may also conflict with other rules or presidential priorities. As part of its role in the regulatory review process, the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs (OIRA) determines which rules meet this definition.


Improving Performance, Accountability and Responsiveness in the Civil Service
Agency: Office of Personnel Management
Action: Proposed rule
Type: Other significant rule
Federal code: 5 CFR Parts 210, 212, 213, 302, 432, 451, and 752
Estimated cost:[1] $32.8 million
Estimated benefit:[1] $13.2 million
Policy topics: Workforce and employment

The Improving Performance, Accountability and Responsiveness in the Civil Service rule is a proposed significant rule issued by the Office of Personnel Management (OPM), that would create a new Schedule Policy/Career classification for some civil service positions.[2]

Timeline

The following timeline details key rulemaking activity:

Background

Administrative State
Administrative State Icon Gold.png
Five Pillars of the Administrative State
•Agency control
• Executive control
• Judicial control
•Legislative control
• Public Control
Click here for more coverage of the administrative state on Ballotpedia.
Click here to access Ballotpedia's administrative state legislation tracker.

Under the Civil Service Reform Act, civil servants in "competitive service" positions have procedural protections which make employees in this category harder to take adverse actions against (including termination) than employees serving in positions categorized as "excepted service". On October 21, 2020, President Donald Trump (R) issued Executive Order 13957, which created a new, excepted service "Schedule F" classification for some civil service positions previously classified as competitive service. This executive order was revoked on January 22, 2021 (before any employees had been formally reclassified) by President Joseph Biden's (D) Executive Order 14003, and was reinstated on January 20, 2025 by President Trump's Executive Order 14171. E.O. 14171 also renamed the "Schedule F" category to "Schedule Policy/Career." This proposed rule by the OPM is intended to enact the January 20, 2025 executive order by developing the "Schedule Policy/Career" category.

Summary of the rule

The following is a summary of the rule from the rule's entry in the Federal Register:[2]

“ The proposed rule lets policy-influencing positions be moved into Schedule Policy/Career. These positions will remain career jobs filled on a nonpartisan basis. Yet they will be at-will positions excepted from adverse action procedures or appeals. This will allow agencies to quickly remove employees from critical positions who engage in misconduct, perform poorly, or undermine the democratic process by intentionally subverting Presidential directives.[4] ”

Summary of provisions

The following is a summary of the provisions from the rule's entry in the Federal Register:[2]

“ OPM proposes amending its regulations in 5 CFR chapter I, subchapter B, as follows:

1. Amending 5 CFR part 213 (Excepted Service) to include Schedule Policy/Career as an excepted service schedule for policy-influencing career positions, while clarifying that Schedule C appointments are exclusively for noncareer (i.e., political) appointments with policy responsibilities. The proposed regulations further clarify that employees filling excepted service positions are in the excepted service, regardless of whether they retain competitive status, and lists increasing accountability to the President as grounds for excepting positions from the competitive service.

2. Amending 5 CFR part 212 (Competitive Service and Competitive Status) to provide that employees with competitive status whose positions are subsequently listed in the excepted service or who are involuntarily transferred into an excepted service position retain competitive status but do not remain in the competitive service while in the excepted position.

3. Amending 5 CFR part 752 (Adverse Actions) to remove the amendments made by the April 2024 final rule and provide that individuals whose positions are reclassified into or who are otherwise transferred into Schedule Policy/Career are not covered by chapter 75 procedural requirements or adverse actions appeals. Additionally, OPM proposes to amend 5 CFR part 752 to remove language pertaining to 10 U.S.C. 1599e, which provided for a 2-year probationary period in the Department of Defense. This language has become obsolete as section 1599e was repealed, effective December 31, 2022, by Public Law 117-81, Sec. 1106(a)(1). The proposed rule further amends 5 CFR part 432 (Performance Based Reduction in Grade and Removal Actions) to remove the amendments made by the April 2024 final rule and to exclude all policy-influencing positions in the excepted service from chapter 43 procedural requirements for performance-based removals.

4. Amending 5 CFR part 210 (Basic Concepts and Definitions (General)) to remove the amendments made by the April 2024 final rule stating that policy-influencing positions are exclusively associated with noncareer political appointments. The proposed rule also amends 5 CFR 213.3301 and 451.302 to conform to the rescission of these definitions.

5. Amending 5 CFR part 302 to remove the amendments made by the April 2024 final rule imposing procedural requirements on movements of positions or employees into policy-influencing excepted service positions (including subsequent MSPB appeals). The proposed regulations also provide that moving or transferring positions into Schedule Policy/Career will not change how appointments to those positions are made. Positions moved from the competitive service will be filled using competitive hiring procedures and employees so appointed may acquire competitive status. Positions moved from the excepted service will continue to be filled using the procedures that applied to their prior excepted service schedule.[4]

”

Responses or commentary on the rule

Supporting the rule

President Trump (R) has defended the rule on the social media site Truth Social, arguing that ""if these government workers refuse to advance the policy interests of the President, or are engaging in corrupt behavior, they should no longer have a job.”[5]

Opposing the rule

Senator Tim Kaine (D), Senator Mark Warner (D), and Representative Gerry Connolly (D) opposed the rule, issuing a joint statement on the social media site X that argued “President Trump has made it clear that he wants the power to hire and fire these workers based on their politics, not their qualifications—and that makes all of us less safe.”[6]

Significant impact

See also: Significant regulatory action

Executive Order 12866, issued by President Bill Clinton (D) in 1993, directed the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) to determine which agency rules qualify as significant rules and thus are subject to OMB review.

Significant rules have had or might have a large impact on the economy, environment, public health, or state or local governments. These actions may also conflict with other rules or presidential priorities. Executive Order 12866 further defined an economically significant rule as a significant rule with an associated economic impact of $100 million or more. E.O. 14215, issued on February 18, 2025, by President Donald Trump (R), required independent agencies to comply with all aspects of OMB review, including review by the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs (OIRA).[2]

The text of the proposed rule states that this rule has been deemed significant, but not economically significant:

“ A regulatory impact analysis must be prepared for major rules with effects of $100 million or more in any one year. This rulemaking does not reach that threshold but has otherwise been designated as a “significant regulatory action” under section 3(f) of Executive Order 12866, as supplemented by Executive Order 13563.[4] ”

Text of the rule

The full text of the rule is available below:[2]

See also

External links

Footnotes

  1. ↑ 1.0 1.1 Note: Estimated costs and estimated benefits here refer to estimated quantitative costs represented by dollar amounts. The estimates are a required part of the rulemaking process and are provided in the rule text. For qualitative costs or benefits, see the summaries of rule purpose and provisions.
  2. ↑ 2.0 2.1 2.2 2.3 2.4 2.5 Federal Register, "Improving Performance, Accountability and Responsiveness in the Civil Service ," accessed May 29, 2025
  3. ↑ Federal Register, "Improving Performance, Accountability and Responsiveness in the Civil Service," accessed May 29, 2025
  4. ↑ 4.0 4.1 4.2 Note: This text is quoted verbatim from the original source. Any inconsistencies are attributable to the original source.
  5. ↑ [1]
  6. ↑ [2]
v • e
The Administrative State
MainThe Administrative State Project Badge.png
Pillars
Reporting
Laws
Administrative Procedure Act • Antiquities Act • Civil Service Reform Act • Clayton Antitrust Act • Communications Act of 1934 • Congressional Review Act • Electronic Freedom of Information Act • Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act of 1938 • Federal Housekeeping Statute • Federal Reserve Act • Federal Trade Commission Act of 1914 • Freedom of Information Act • Government in the Sunshine Act • Independent Offices Appropriations Act of 1952 • Information Quality Act • Interstate Commerce Act • National Labor Relations Act • Paperwork Reduction Act • Pendleton Act • Privacy Act of 1974 • Regulatory Flexibility Act • REINS Act • REINS Act (Wisconsin) • Securities Act of 1933 • Securities Exchange Act of 1934 • Sherman Antitrust Act • Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act • Truth in Regulating Act • Unfunded Mandates Reform Act
Cases
Abbott Laboratories v. Gardner • A.L.A. Schechter Poultry Corp. v. United States • Association of Data Processing Service Organizations v. Camp • Auer v. Robbins • Chevron v. Natural Resources Defense Council • Citizens to Preserve Overton Park v. Volpe • Federal Trade Commission (FTC) v. Standard Oil Company of California • Field v. Clark • Food and Drug Administration v. Brown and Williamson Tobacco Corporation • Humphrey's Executor v. United States • Immigration and Naturalization Service (INS) v. Chadha • J.W. Hampton Jr. & Company v. United States • Lucia v. SEC • Marshall v. Barlow's • Massachusetts v. Environmental Protection Agency • Mistretta v. United States • National Federation of Independent Business (NFIB) v. Sebelius • National Labor Relations Board v. Noel Canning Company • National Labor Relations Board v. Sears, Roebuck & Co. • Panama Refining Co. v. Ryan • Securities and Exchange Commission v. Chenery Corporation • Skidmore v. Swift & Co. • United States v. Lopez • United States v. Western Pacific Railroad Co. • Universal Camera Corporation v. National Labor Relations Board • Vermont Yankee Nuclear Power Corp. v. Natural Resources Defense Council • Wayman v. Southard • Weyerhaeuser Company v. United States Fish and Wildlife Service • Whitman v. American Trucking Associations • Wickard v. Filburn • Wiener v. United States
Terms
Adjudication (administrative state) • Administrative judge • Administrative law • Administrative law judge • Administrative state • Arbitrary-or-capricious test • Auer deference • Barrier to entry • Bootleggers and Baptists • Chevron deference (doctrine) • Civil servant • Civil service • Code of Federal Regulations • Codify (administrative state) • Comment period • Compliance costs • Congressional Record • Coordination (administrative state) • Deference (administrative state) • Direct and indirect costs (administrative state) • Enabling statute • Ex parte communication (administrative state) • Executive agency • Federal law • Federal Register • Federalism • Final rule • Formal rulemaking • Formalism (law) • Functionalism (law) • Guidance (administrative state) • Hybrid rulemaking • Incorporation by reference • Independent federal agency • Informal rulemaking • Joint resolution of disapproval (administrative state) • Major rule • Negotiated rulemaking • Nondelegation doctrine • OIRA prompt letter • Organic statute • Pragmatism (law) • Precautionary principle • Promulgate • Proposed rule • Publication rulemaking • Regulatory budget • Regulatory capture • Regulatory dark matter • Regulatory impact analysis • Regulatory policy officer • Regulatory reform officer • Regulatory review • Rent seeking • Retrospective regulatory review • Risk assessment (administrative state) • Rulemaking • Separation of powers • Significant regulatory action • Skidmore deference • Statutory authority • Substantive law and procedural law • Sue and settle • Sunset provision • Unified Agenda of Federal Regulatory and Deregulatory Actions • United States Code • United States Statutes at Large
Bibliography
Agencies
Retrieved from "https://ballotpedia.org/wiki/index.php?title=Improving_Performance,_Accountability_and_Responsiveness_in_the_Civil_Service_rule_(2025)&oldid=10400660"