What Schedule F’s Return Means for the 2 Million Americans Who Work for the Federal Government

Last updated 3 months ago. Our resources are updated regularly but please keep in mind that links, programs, policies, and contact information do change.

Schedule F is back. If you work for the federal government—or depend on services federal workers provide, you need to understand what’s about to happen. President Trump first attempted this employment classification in the final months of his first term. President Biden immediately rescinded it. Now it has been revived under a new name: Schedule Policy/Career. When fully implemented, it could strip job protections from roughly 50,000 federal employees—about 2 percent of the federal workforce—converting their positions from merit-based civil service jobs into jobs where they can be fired for any reason or no reason, without the rules that require documented reasons and a chance to respond before firing.

People who process your Social Security benefits, inspect your food, manage your veterans’ benefits, conduct scientific research on environmental threats, and administer the tax code could soon work under different rules. Rules that make their jobs contingent not on performance or expertise, but on whether their work aligns with administration preferences. Rules that could make experienced professionals think twice before delivering unwelcome news or recommending actions that conflict with political priorities.

This is about whether the government agencies Americans interact with every day will be staffed by people protected enough to tell the truth, or by people who understand their continued employment depends on political alignment.

The System That Came From an Assassination

The civil service system—the idea that government jobs should go to qualified people based on merit rather than political connections—didn’t emerge from careful policy planning. It came from tragedy.

On July 2, 1881, President James Garfield was shot by Charles Guiteau, a man enraged at being denied a government job despite having no qualifications. Guiteau believed he deserved a position because he’d supported Garfield’s campaign. When he didn’t get it, he killed the president. Garfield’s assassination galvanized public demand for an end to a system where government jobs went to political supporters as rewards.

Two years later, Congress passed the Pendleton Civil Service Reform Act. Signed into law by President Chester Arthur on January 16, 1883, it mandated that federal positions be awarded based on merit—measured through competitive exams—rather than political patronage. It made it illegal to fire federal employees for political reasons.

The Pendleton Act initially covered only about 10 percent of federal employees. But it allowed presidents to expand coverage by moving positions into the merit system. Over 140 years, that reach grew. Today, approximately 90 percent of the 2.9 million federal civilian employees work under some form of merit-based protection.

Merit-based protections prevent a supervisor from firing you because of your political affiliation. They require documented evidence of poor performance or misconduct before removal. They guarantee you’ll receive notice and a chance to respond before disciplinary action. They establish appeal rights through an independent body—the Merit Systems Protection Board—where employees can contest wrongful dismissals and potentially win reinstatement with back pay.

The Civil Service Reform Act of 1978, passed after Watergate and Nixon’s abuses of power, reinforced these protections. That law created rules requiring jobs be based on qualifications and performance and established whistleblower protections for federal employees who report wrongdoing. The logic was straightforward: if you want government agencies staffed by experts who provide honest advice and execute laws impartially, you cannot make those people live in fear of immediate termination based on political whim.

The Exception That’s About to Swallow the Rule

The Civil Service Reform Act of 1978 allowed certain positions to be designated as positions that involve setting policy direction or advising on policy—positions traditionally reserved for political appointees who change when a new president takes office. This exception was narrow and deliberate. It was meant to apply to the several thousand positions filled by the president or agency heads: people who set the broad direction of policy, the president’s closest advisers, the secretary’s inner circle.

Today, there are roughly 4,000 political appointees across the federal government, compared to 2.9 million career civil servants. These political appointees can be fired at will. That’s normal—voters elect a new president partly to put different people in charge, and those new leaders should be able to replace their own teams.

The question that now divides policymakers, legal experts, and federal employees is how broadly that exception should be interpreted. Should it cover a few thousand top officials? Or should it extend to tens of thousands of career employees who happen to work on policy-related issues?

What Schedule F Does

In October 2020, near the end of his first term, President Trump issued an executive order establishing a new employment classification called Schedule F. The order directed federal agencies to identify positions that involve “policy-making” or “policy-advocating” work and reclassify them from the regular hiring system based on qualifications into what would be at-will employment.

When Biden took office in January 2021, he immediately rescinded that order. Schedule F never went into effect. No federal employee was reclassified into it.

On his first day back in the White House in January 2025, President Trump reissued the executive order, this time calling it Schedule Policy/Career. The April 2025 proposed rule estimated that approximately 50,000 positions could be reclassified. Some experts warn the number could be higher if agencies interpret the criteria broadly.

Under current rules, an employee in a career civil service position cannot be fired without documented cause. They must receive advance written notice of proposed action. They have a right to respond, either in writing or in person, before a decision is made. A supervisor not involved in the original decision reviews the case. The entire process includes multiple procedural steps designed to prevent arbitrary action. An employee can appeal to the Merit Systems Protection Board if they believe they were treated unfairly, and that board can order reinstatement with back pay if they find the removal was improper.

A Schedule Policy/Career employee loses these procedural rights. They could be terminated immediately without cause. They would not have an independent review process. They would not have appeal rights to the Merit Systems Protection Board. The executive order makes clear that failure to “faithfully implement administration policies” is grounds for dismissal.

Schedule Policy/Career employees would retain certain protections. Federal law still forbids firing someone based on race, color, religion, sex, national origin, disability, or age. Whistleblower retaliation remains illegal. An employee cannot be fired for claiming discrimination or harassment. Veterans’ preference would still apply.

The broad language about implementing “administration policies to the best of their ability” creates considerable room for subjective judgment about whether an employee is trying hard enough. Whistleblower protections, discrimination protections, and veterans’ preference are important, but they don’t protect against the removal that proponents of Schedule F are most interested in: removing an employee who is competent, non-discriminatory, and doesn’t disagree with the president—but who works more slowly or lacks enthusiasm for new policy directions.

Who Gets Reclassified?

The executive order provides examples of what “policy-making” or “policy-advocating” work might include: positions where someone substantially participates in developing or formulating regulations; positions in agencies or components that primarily focus on policy; supervisors of attorneys; positions with substantial discretion to determine how agencies exercise legal functions; people working with non-public policy proposals or deliberations.

The criteria are broad enough to be interpreted in many ways. Early evidence suggests agencies are interpreting them broadly.

In 2020, during Trump’s first term, the Office of Management and Budget submitted a petition to reclassify 136 types of positions in that agency, potentially affecting 415 of OMB’s roughly 610 employees—about 68 percent of the entire workforce. The proposal included not only senior analysts and economists, but also administrative support positions and IT workers.

By April 2025, agencies began submitting their recommendations to the Office of Personnel Management for which positions to designate as Schedule Policy/Career. The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration notified employees they were on preliminary conversion lists, citing the policy-making nature of their work. Department of Commerce officials reviewing lists from component agencies found “thousands” of names, including most GS-15 employees (the highest level of career civil service) and many GS-14s.

One NOAA employee reported that administrative staff making purchases but not making policy decisions were included on the initial list, but that someone higher in the chain demanded the list be expanded. The distinction between positions with genuine policy-making authority and positions that support policy work appears to be collapsing in practice.

Where Federal Workers Are

Approximately 93 percent of federal civilian employees live and work outside Washington, D.C. California has 150,679 federal workers, Virginia has 147,358, and Maryland has 144,497. Federal employees work in every state and in many cases in your local community.

The largest occupational category is medical, hospital, dental, and public health work, with about 363,814 federal employees. This includes doctors and nurses at Veterans Affairs hospitals, public health experts at the CDC, and other healthcare workers. The second-largest category is general administrative, clerical, and office services, with about 339,930 employees. Third is investigation positions—including food and mine safety inspectors, customs officers, and others who conduct inspections and investigations.

Other major categories include engineers and architects, lawyers and legal specialists, accountants and budget analysts, and social scientists, psychologists, and welfare specialists. Many of these positions could potentially be designated as Schedule Policy/Career if the criteria are interpreted broadly. A scientist who writes reports on environmental compliance could be labeled policy-advocating. A lawyer who helps agencies interpret regulations could be called policy-determining. An analyst who prepares economic forecasts that inform policy could be designated policy-related.

The Case for Schedule F

Proponents make several arguments for why the classification should be implemented. The first is efficiency and accountability. They argue that the current system makes it difficult for agency leaders to manage their workforce. They cite survey data suggesting that only 26 percent of federal supervisors are confident they can remove an employee for poor performance. Proponents contend that the lengthy processes required before removal—the documentation, the performance improvement plans, the investigation, the ability to appeal—create delays that prevent poor-performing employees from being quickly removed.

Second, supporters argue it would increase presidential accountability. They contend that in a democracy, voters elect a president to pursue a particular agenda, and that agenda is undermined when career federal employees passively resist or drag their feet implementing presidential priorities. From this perspective, the president should have the ability to ensure people directly involved in policy implementation are committed to executing his policies.

Third, proponents argue there is substantial legal precedent for this. They note that the Civil Service Reform Act of 1978 carved out an exception for positions of a “confidential, policy-determining, policy-making, or policy-advocating character,” and they argue that Congress would not have included that language if it didn’t intend for presidents to use it. They suggest that previous administrations chose not to use this authority broadly, but that choice does not eliminate the authority.

The Case Against Schedule F

Critics offer a different interpretation of both facts and law.

They argue that the system works well and that the surveys cited by proponents are misleading. Federal employees have the lowest turnover rate of any major industry, suggesting they are satisfied and stable. Research shows that governments with merit-based civil services perform better than those with politicized workforces, deliver services more efficiently, are less corrupt, and are more responsive to both the public and Congress.

Most supervisors could remove poor performers under current law—they need to document the performance issues and follow procedures. The procedures exist not to protect mediocrity but to prevent political punishment disguised as performance-based removal.

Second, critics argue that Schedule F goes beyond what Congress clearly authorized the president to do. A legal principle that says major policy changes need clear approval from Congress requires that executive actions of vast importance and economic impact have clear congressional authorization. Converting 50,000 career employees to at-will status would be an enormous change to the structure of federal employment—arguably the largest change to civil service law since 1883. Congress would not hide such an important delegation in a brief phrase that had been understood one way for nearly 50 years.

Third, critics argue that Schedule F would harm government performance. Research shows that politicization of the workforce is associated with lower performance, higher corruption, slower decision-making, and reduced institutional knowledge. When people fear they might be fired for giving bad news, they stop giving honest assessments. When the workforce becomes unstable, experienced people leave, and agencies lose institutional memory. When positions become prizes for political loyalty rather than merit, you get less qualified people in important jobs.

Fourth, critics worry about impacts on whistleblowing and protected speech. Federal employees who report wrongdoing currently have legal protection against retaliation. But if an employee fears that being reassigned to Schedule Policy/Career means at-will status, they might hesitate to report problems to their supervisor. The concern is that Schedule F would discourage people from reporting problems.

What Federal Workers Are Saying

The National Treasury Employees Union, which represents roughly 150,000 federal workers, filed a lawsuit in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia challenging Schedule Policy/Career. NTEU National President Doreen Greenwald stated: “Reclassifying large numbers of employees with the intent of making them at-will employees is contrary to Congress’s intent in establishing broad protections for most federal employees.” The union argues that Schedule F violates the Civil Service Reform Act and the Constitution.

The American Federation of Government Employees and other federal unions have similarly opposed the measure. In testimony and public comments, union representatives warned that Schedule Policy/Career would blur the line between temporary political staff and permanent professional employees, would enable political retaliation against employees whose work doesn’t align with administration preferences, and would weaken the system Congress set up to hire based on qualifications.

More than 30,000 public comments were submitted on the OPM proposed rule. The vast majority—more than 94 percent—opposed the Schedule Policy/Career proposal. Comments came from 100-plus nonprofit and advocacy organizations, from environmental organizations warning about impacts on scientists, from federal employees, and from good-government groups arguing that Schedule F would undermine democratic accountability.

One employee at NOAA’s National Ocean Service described the experience of having her position added to a Schedule Policy/Career list: “The list doesn’t make sense. It’s the staff doing the paperwork.” For federal employees accustomed to predictable career paths and job security based on performance, the uncertainty of potential at-will reclassification creates real anxiety.

What This Could Mean for the Services You Use

Consider Social Security. The Social Security Administration employs thousands of federal workers who process applications, manage claims databases, respond to inquiries, and oversee the disability determination process. Some of these positions could potentially be designated as policy-related—particularly those involved in interpreting benefit rules or making determinations about eligibility. If employees in these roles fear their jobs are suddenly at-will, and if experienced people choose to leave, the processing of Social Security claims could slow.

Veterans’ Affairs faces similar dynamics. The VA employs nearly 500,000 people, many of them processing veterans’ benefits and providing healthcare. Any upheaval in this workforce could affect the timeline for benefits processing and healthcare availability to veterans.

Food safety depends on federal inspectors. The Food and Drug Administration and the Department of Agriculture employ thousands of inspectors who check food production facilities, test products, and respond to contamination problems. If the positions of senior inspectors or those setting safety policies are designated as Schedule Policy/Career, and if there is high turnover, the consistency and rigor of inspections could suffer. An inspector who fears being fired for recommending closure of a politically connected facility might hesitate to be thorough.

Environmental protection works similarly. The Environmental Protection Agency employs thousands of scientists, engineers, and policy specialists who conduct research, set pollution standards, enforce environmental laws, and respond to environmental crises. Some of these positions are inherently policy-related—people do write regulations and make determinations about acceptable pollution levels. Experts worry that if these positions become at-will, and if scientists feel pressure to downplay environmental problems or to prioritize industry concerns, the scientific integrity of environmental protection suffers.

The IRS processes taxes, administers the tax code, and investigates tax fraud. IRS positions involved in interpreting tax law or setting policies about how to pursue enforcement could be designated as policy-related. Research has found that more politicized agencies are less responsive to Congress and the public. If IRS employees in key positions fear political retaliation, the agency might process returns less efficiently or could face pressure to apply different standards based on political considerations.

Agencies that perform complex technical work and make determinations affecting millions of Americans often have some employees who are involved in policy-making or policy interpretation. If those positions become at-will, and if employees fear firing for delivering unwelcome news or pursuing regulations that conflict with administration preferences, the quality, consistency, and rigor of government service could suffer.

The Timeline: How We Got Here

In October 2020, near the end of his first term, President Trump issued Executive Order 13957, creating Schedule F. The order directed agencies to identify positions that met the criteria and prepare to reclassify them. The Government Accountability Office later found that two agencies—the Office of Management and Budget and the U.S. International Boundary and Water Commission—submitted formal petitions to reclassify positions before the election. OMB’s petition would have affected 415 employees out of its 610-person workforce. No employees were moved before the election.

When President Biden took office on January 22, 2021, his administration issued Executive Order 14003, revoking Schedule F. Biden’s Office of Personnel Management also issued regulations in May 2024 designed to prevent any future reincarnation of Schedule F, clarifying that the “confidential, policy-determining, policy-making, or policy-advocating” exception could not be applied to career civil servants.

When President Trump took office again on January 20, 2025, his first act was to sign Executive Order 14171, immediately reinstating the original order with amendments and renaming it Schedule Policy/Career. The amended order directed the OPM to issue guidance about which positions should be considered for the new classification. In April 2025, the OPM issued proposed rules implementing Schedule Policy/Career, which entered a public comment period. By June 2025, the comment period was ending, with more than 30,000 comments received—over 94 percent opposing the proposal.

During the first week of April 2025, agencies began notifying some employees that their positions were on preliminary lists for conversion to Schedule Policy/Career. By late April, OPM had set a deadline of April 20 for agencies to submit their recommendations about which positions should be designated. In November 2025, leaked excerpts of the draft final rule suggested the regulations would describe current civil service protections as “unconstitutional overcorrections” to fears of a return to the spoils system.

Legal Challenges and Constitutional Questions

Multiple lawsuits challenging Schedule Policy/Career are already pending or expected. The National Treasury Employees Union’s lawsuit argues that Schedule F exceeds presidential authority, violates the Civil Service Reform Act, and runs afoul of constitutional protections for due process and freedom of speech. The American Federation of Government Employees also filed suit.

A legal principle that says major policy changes need clear approval from Congress requires that executive actions of vast economic and political importance have clear congressional authorization. Converting 50,000 career employees to at-will status arguably qualifies as a major question—it would be the largest change to civil service law since 1883.

Converting positions that Congress understood to be career positions into at-will positions could violate due process protections. Due process protections apply once Congress gives someone a right to keep their job. The Constitution protects government workers from being fired for their political views or to punish their exercise of protected speech. An employee fired for “resistance to policy” or for providing scientific data that contradicts administration policy preferences might have First Amendment claims.

Congress has never indicated, through legislative history, regulation, or practice, that this exception applies to broad swaths of career employees.

Courts have not yet ruled on the merits of these challenges. But the legal terrain is contested, and Schedule Policy/Career implementation will almost certainly face judicial review.

Congressional and Political Response

Congress has the power to prevent Schedule F. The Saving the Civil Service Act, introduced in both the House and Senate as H.R. 1002 and S. 399, would prohibit the establishment of Schedule F or any similar classification that removes career civil service protections. The bill has not yet passed, but it enjoys bipartisan concern in both chambers, particularly among members focused on good government and federal workforce issues.

Once OPM finalizes the rule, Congress could pass a Congressional Review Act resolution rejecting it. The Congressional Review Act lets Congress reject new agency rules. If both chambers pass such a resolution unless the president rejects it (or Congress votes to override that rejection), the rule would be rescinded and the agency would be prohibited from issuing substantially the same rule without congressional authorization.

With Republicans controlling both chambers, Schedule Policy/Career faces no immediate congressional obstacle. However, the bipartisan nature of concerns about civil service protection suggests that political dynamics could shift.

What Happens to Affected Employees

For a federal employee whose position is designated as Schedule Policy/Career, the practical changes would be significant. They would lose the right to notice, a hearing, and an appeal.

Discrimination based on protected characteristics would still be illegal. Whistleblower retaliation would still be forbidden. An employee could not be fired for making a whistleblower disclosure, even if that disclosure portrayed the agency or the administration in a negative light. The question is whether these remaining protections would be meaningful if the employee is at-will and subject to immediate termination.

Federal employees in affected positions could try to negotiate with their union (if their position is unionized) before the conversion, potentially seeking contractual protections or compensation. They could consider early retirement if they are eligible. They could seek other jobs. Some federal employees have indicated they would leave if their positions are converted, which would trigger a wave of attrition in some agencies.

The Bigger Picture

Schedule F sits within a much larger set of changes to federal hiring initiated by the Trump administration. In early 2025, the administration offered a “deferred resignation” program to federal employees, a buyout with incentives to leave government. More than 75,000 employees accepted the offer. The administration issued directives to fire probationary employees and to implement layoffs across agencies. Multiple federal agencies saw significant layoffs, with the Department of Energy laying off roughly 2,000 people, the EPA firing 388 probationary employees, and other agencies making substantial cuts.

According to tracking by the Partnership for Public Service and news outlets, about 300,000 federal civil service layoffs have been announced or implemented, with close to 200,000 already having left their jobs as of August 2025. Schedule Policy/Career is a different way to achieve the same result: rather than laying off workers en masse, it removes the protections that make it difficult to fire people, enabling selective removals based on perceived political alignment or willingness to execute administration policies.

The combined effect of these various initiatives—buyouts, RIFs, probationary employee terminations, and now Schedule Policy/Career—suggests a systematic effort to reshape the federal workforce toward more control by political leaders and less stability from experienced staff.

What You Should Know If You Work for the Federal Government

If you are a federal employee, there are several steps you can take to protect yourself and understand your situation.

First, find out whether your position is on a preliminary list for conversion. This information may not be widely publicized by your agency, but you can check with your human resources office or your union representative. Some agencies have notified employees; others have not.

Second, understand your current rights and protections. If your position has not been converted, you currently have due process rights, appeal rights to the Merit Systems Protection Board, and whistleblower protections. Know what these mean for you.

Third, consult with your union representative if you are unionized, or with an attorney experienced in federal employee law if you are not. Federal law in this area is specialized, and how Schedule Policy/Career affects you depends on your specific job and situation.

Fourth, consider your personal circumstances. Are you close to retirement eligibility? Are you willing to relocate to pursue private-sector jobs? Do you have dependents relying on your federal benefits? These factors affect whether you might consider accepting buyout programs or seeking other jobs before Schedule Policy/Career takes effect.

Fifth, understand that whistleblower protections remain, even for Schedule Policy/Career employees. If you observe illegal activity, gross mismanagement, gross waste of funds, or substantial danger to public health or safety, you can report this, and you have some legal protection against retaliation. The protections have limits, but they do provide some safeguards.

What You Should Know If You’re a Member of the Public

If you are not a federal employee but use federal government services, changes to federal hiring could affect you. The speed of changes depends on how quickly Schedule Policy/Career is implemented and how employees respond. Federal agencies change slowly because they have established missions and procedures.

However, over time, if high-turnover positions see experienced employees leave and are replaced by less experienced personnel, or if the culture of the workplace shifts toward greater caution and political sensitivity, service delivery could be affected. The impacts would likely first become apparent in specialized areas like scientific research, environmental enforcement, and tax administration, where institutional knowledge and expertise matter most.

You can track implementation by following news coverage and by checking agency websites for reports on workforce changes. The Office of Personnel Management website and individual agency websites should post information about implementation. The Partnership for Public Service and federal employee unions will likely issue reports and analyses as implementation proceeds.

If you believe implementation is affecting a service you depend on—for example, if Social Security benefit processing slows dramatically, or if passport issuance times increase—you can contact your elected representatives in Congress and express your concerns.

The Precedent and the Stakes

Throughout American history, debates about civil service have tracked closely with anxieties about power and democracy. The Pendleton Act was passed because Americans saw the spoils system as corruption. The Civil Service Reform Act of 1978 was passed because Americans had witnessed the Nixon administration’s abuse of executive power to punish political enemies. The merit system is about preventing tyranny—about ensuring that government power is exercised according to law and professional judgment, not personal whim.

Schedule F represents the most direct challenge to this system in decades. If it is fully implemented, if courts do not strike it down, and if no congressional action reverses it, the basic rules for federal jobs will change. Tens of thousands of positions currently protected by 140 years of civil service law would become at-will. The 140-year trend of stronger worker protections would be reversed.

What comes next depends on multiple actors: courts, Congress, the executive branch’s implementation decisions, and federal employees themselves. Litigation will take years. Congressional action would require either a shift in political dynamics or an urgent crisis that focuses attention on civil service protection. Implementation will be shaped by which agencies are aggressive in converting positions and which are cautious. Employee response will matter—if widespread departures occur, agencies will face pressure to moderate the scope of conversions.

The outcome of this moment will shape not only the immediate experience of federal employees but the long-term structure of American governance and whether politicians or professional experts have more control over government decisions. Schedule F is not primarily a story about 50,000 federal workers or even about whether government operates efficiently. It is a story about who decides how government behaves, and whether that decision-making is constrained by law, expertise, and institutional protections or driven primarily by political loyalty.

What happens over the next months and years will help determine the answer. That answer will affect every American who depends on federal services, every American who values honest government, and every American who believes that expertise and evidence should matter in how the country is run.

Our articles make government information more accessible. Please consult a qualified professional for financial, legal, or health advice specific to your circumstances.