Critics argue new federal workforce rules increase the risk of politicization, not accountability

On March 5, 2026, Government Executive published an op-ed by Ronald Sanders titled “The ‘new’ Policy/Career Schedule does not (necessarily) politicize the federal workforce.” Sanders urges readers to “take a deep breath,” arguing that the new Policy/Career Schedule (Schedule P/C) does not mean the “end of democracy as we know it” and does not automatically politicize the civil service. But framing the issue in terms of what Schedule P/C does “necessarily” or “automatically” misses the point and tacitly concedes the risk. The better question is whether Schedule P/C materially increases the likelihood of politicization of the federal workforce, and we believe the answer to that question is undoubtedly yes.

Sanders says that, if properly implemented, these rules are all about more accountability. That claim is hard to square with a regulatory approach that removes the very mechanisms that make accountability meaningful. Ordinarily, when a position is reclassified into an excepted-service category, an employee may appeal that reclassification to the Merit Systems Protection Board (MSPB). However, shortly after OPM finalized the Schedule P/C rules and without notice and the opportunity for public comment, the MSPB amended its regulations to eliminate appeals challenging reclassification into an excepted-service category.

According to Pew, when President Trump won the 2024 election there were about 2.4 million federal workers (nearly 3 million including U.S. Postal Service employees). Roughly two-thirds (about 1.5 million) were in the competitive service and, after a one-year probationary period, had due process protections, meaning agencies generally must provide written notice and an opportunity to respond before imposing serious adverse actions. Most of those employees also have the right to appeal the ultimate decision to the MSPB. The remaining third (about 735,000) served in the excepted service. While some excepted-service employees — VA medical professionals, those in the intelligence community, non-appropriated fund employees — have fewer civil-service protections, many excepted-service civilian employees, such as most general attorneys, have due process rights. The purpose of due process is to protect covered employees from removal from their positions based on arbitrary, political, discriminatory or retaliatory reasons. The conversion of competitive service employees to Schedule P/C inherently makes the federal workforce more susceptible to politicization if an agency’s decision to convert a particular position is not reviewable by a third party. Indeed, an agency could ultimately determine that all of its positions are Schedule P/C and would not have to justify its decision.

Sanders points to OPM’s January 2025 guidance, which says career civil servants need not personally support the president so long as they carry out the president’s policy agenda faithfully and to the best of their ability. This framing undercuts the rationale for Schedule P/C, which is to make it easier for agencies to terminate federal employees in policy-influencing positions if the agency unilaterally determines that any such employee is not performing adequately (i.e., hindering the president’s policy agenda). If policy-influencing career employees can remain in their roles without personal political loyalty so long as they competently execute their duties to the best of their abilities, then why convert their positions to the excepted service and strip away due process protections? If an employee fails to perform, agencies already have tools: performance improvement plans, followed by proposing removals for failure to meet performance expectations and sustain the removal based on documented poor performance. Due process is not the opposite of accountability; it is what makes accountability legitimate, especially for career employees who often accept lower pay than private-sector counterparts to serve the public.

Accountability matters, and opponents of Schedule P/C are not asking for less of it. A significant accountability concern is that Schedule P/C employees will lose the ability to file complaints with the Office of Special Counsel (OSC). Most executive-branch employees can bring prohibited personnel practice (PPP) complaints to OSC, including claims of whistleblower retaliation. Schedule P/C employees will not. “Taking a deep breath” does not answer the practical problem this creates: employees would be forced to raise allegations of merit-system violations within the same agency it alleges engaged in those actions. Because OSC sits outside the agency, it provides a measure of independence and protection against retaliation. For these employees, that backstop will be eliminated. Of course, Mr. Sanders rightfully points out that employees do have the option of resigning based on their conscience. Employee resignation under these circumstances affirmatively reinforces a lack of accountability, leaving PPPs unchecked, insulating agencies from OSC’s impartial investigation.

Call us naïve, but we do not believe the public objects to removing employees who fail to do their jobs. And on that point, nothing has changed: executive-branch agencies have long had authority to discipline and remove poor performers. What has changed is the creation of a civil service category that, overnight, changed large swaths of career civil servants to at-will employees for the purpose of assuring the executive branch the ability to quickly terminate those employees.

The civil servants whose positions were and are to be reclassified are supposed to hold positions that help shape or carry out presidential policies or involve a high level of policy influence. Nearly 50,000 executive-branch employees are being reclassified into excepted-service positions. While some of the positions being reclassified are inherently policy and/or legislative in nature, many individuals have been told that they are at risk for reclassification who hold positions having little to no level of policy influence. A deep breath will not resolve the lack of accountability in the reclassification process as there is now no opportunity to hold agencies accountable to ensure they are appropriately reclassifying these positions. Mr. Sanders seems to agree that reasonable statutory guardrails are necessary to mitigate risk. Civil service rules may be imperfect, but they are guardrails that protect both the workforce and the public’s interest in a professional civil service rather than a system of political spoils. Schedule P/C weakens those guardrails and increases the risk of politicization of the federal workforce.

The fact that Schedule P/C may not spell the end of democracy does not mean that deep breaths are more appropriate than sounding the alarm.

Courtney Mickman and Nekeisha Campbell are shareholders at Alan Lescht & Associates, P.C. in Washington, D.C., where they represent federal employees in claims of discrimination and adverse appeals. Prior to their roles as shareholders, Mickman was an administrative judge at the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission and Campbell was an attorney for the Health and Human Services Department.