Understand the E.O., agency impacts, and what it means for your career and workforce management.
How does the June 3, 2026 executive order transferring 8,000 federal employees to at-will status alter the career civil service?
The order reclassified roughly 4,800 positions, primarily GS-15 and above, across agencies like Defense, Homeland Security, and OMB, stripping tenure protections that had shielded policy-influencing roles for decades.1 Scholars warn this revives Schedule F’s threat to politicize the workforce, pitting political responsiveness against neutral competence.
The ultimate impact now hinges on pending lawsuits, leaving agency leaders and senior administrators to navigate an uncertain new personnel landscape.
The path from policy creation to actual personnel changes moved quickly, with executive orders, regulatory rules, and legal challenges shaping each phase.
Schedule Policy/Career initially targeted approximately 50,000 federal employees for reclassification, stripping them of the civil service protections that had insulated career staff from political dismissal for decades. This new personnel category is a direct revival and rebranding of Schedule F, a controversial designation first proposed in the waning months of the first Trump administration and formally established by Executive Order 14171, signed immediately after the president’s second inauguration in 2025.1
The executive order rests on the president’s authority under Title 5 of the U.S. Code to exempt certain positions from the competitive service when their duties are deemed to be policy-influencing or policy-determining.1 While the order cites this statutory exemption, critics argue it applies the label “policy-influencing” so broadly that it encompasses a vast swath of managerial and analytical positions that historically operated with a degree of independence. By sidestepping normal merit-based hiring and removal procedures, the order undermines the civil service framework that has governed federal employment since the Pendleton Act of 1883.
The traditional competitive service requires hiring through open, merit-based examinations and grants substantial procedural protections before an employee can be removed, including advance notice, an opportunity to respond, and appeal rights. Schedule Policy/Career eliminates these safeguards. Reclassified employees become at-will, serving at the pleasure of their agency head and effectively removable without cause or recourse. This at-will status not only removes job security but also exposes employees to pressure to align their professional judgments with the political priorities of the administration, regardless of evidence or established regulatory practice. The result is a two-tier workforce, where most career staff retain standard protections while senior officials operate under constant threat of removal.
Legal scholars Catherine Fisk, Don Moynihan, and Nick Bednar have cautioned that Schedule Policy/Career represents a fundamental threat to the neutral competence of the federal workforce. They argue that by making high-level career officials vulnerable to dismissal for perceived disloyalty, the policy erodes the firewall between political leadership and impartial administration, potentially deterring skilled professionals from public service and turning expert advisory roles into partisan instruments. Such a shift risks creating a personnel system where loyalty trumps expertise, fundamentally altering the culture and capacity of the federal bureaucracy.
The June 3, 2026 executive order immediately reclassified approximately 8,000 federal civil servants into Schedule Policy/Career, stripping them of the tenure protections that had shielded their positions for decades. The order explicitly invokes statutory authority to exempt positions from civil service protections.1 This directive, accompanied by a 229-page appendix listing over 4,800 specific positions, marks the most sweeping single-day restructuring of the career senior service in modern history.
The appendix detailed position titles, grade levels, and agency locations, effectively converting the identified employees from the competitive service into the new excepted-service schedule. Unlike earlier projections that Schedule Policy/Career might ultimately cover 50,000 employees, this initial wave was precise and surgical. According to a detailed Lawfare report, the transfers touched every cabinet department but varied widely in depth.1 The Department of Defense, Homeland Security, Health and Human Services, Treasury, and Commerce saw the largest numbers of affected positions, while agencies like Agriculture , which transferred only 81 of its more than 74,000 employees , were largely spared. The Office of Management and Budget experienced the most concentrated impact relative to its size, with 137 of its 518 positions reclassified.
OPM Director Scott Kupor confirmed that 97 percent of the transferred positions are at the GS‑15 level or above, encompassing the Senior Executive Service and other top‑tier roles. This statistic makes clear that the order targeted the uppermost layers of the career bureaucracy. A smaller subset of GS‑13 and GS‑14 positions was also included, mostly within the Office of Management and Budget, where analysts and program examiners influence budget and regulatory decisions.
The immediate consequence for these 8,000 employees is the loss of tenure. Under the competitive service, career civil servants enjoy removal protections, including the right to formal reduction‑in‑force procedures, veteran's preference, and appeal to the Merit Systems Protection Board. In Schedule Policy/Career, those safeguards vanish. Affected employees become at‑will, meaning they can be terminated, reassigned, or replaced with minimal procedural notice. This effectively severs the long‑standing firewall between political appointees and career experts, leaving senior administrators vulnerable to replacement if they are perceived as misaligned with administration priorities.
The selectivity of the transfers reveals a deliberate strategy: reshape the upper echelons rather than dismantle the civil service wholesale. By concentrating on policy‑influencing positions, those where neutral competence and institutional memory are most critical, the order seeks to remake the leadership culture of key agencies. This approach aligns with warnings from scholars that Schedule Policy/Career threatens to inject political responsiveness deep into the permanent bureaucracy, potentially undermining the merit‑based foundation that has defined federal employment for generations.
The rollout of Schedule Policy/Career created a sharply uneven landscape across federal agencies, with some losing a substantial share of their top career officials while others saw only marginal changes. The June 3, 2026 executive order implementing Schedule Policy/Career transferred approximately 8,000 employees across 4,800 positions in 54 agencies,1 but the impact was far from equally distributed.
The Office of Management and Budget (OMB) stands as the most dramatic example. Out of its 518 total employees, 137 positions were reclassified, meaning roughly 26 percent of the entire agency’s workforce lost civil service protections overnight.1 OMB Director Scott Kupor’s public acknowledgment that 97 percent of all transferred positions sit at the GS-15 level or above underscores the disproportionate loss: the agency’s policy and budget analysts, who shape the President’s management agenda, were heavily targeted.
Other cabinet departments with the highest absolute numbers of transfers include Defense, Homeland Security, Health and Human Services, Treasury, and Commerce. While complete agency-by-agency breakdowns have not been released in a single dataset, the contrast with the Department of Agriculture is telling: Agriculture transferred only 81 positions out of over 74,000 employees, a fraction of one percent.1 This selectivity reflects the executive order’s focus on roles that directly influence policy development, regulatory oversight, and legal interpretation.
The stark unevenness (from OMB’s 26 percent to Agriculture’s negligible impact) highlights how Schedule Policy/Career was deployed as a scalpel rather than a blunt instrument. By focusing on senior career positions that historically provide institutional memory and technical expertise, the administration reshaped the political sensitivity of these roles, potentially chilling dissenting advice and creating careerist incentives to align with the administration’s priorities. For public administrators, this uneven application signals that the future civil service landscape may depend heavily on which agency you serve and what function you perform.
On June 3, 2026, MSPB confirmed it will not hear appeals from the roughly 8,000 employees moved to Schedule Policy/Career, effectively eliminating a core civil service safeguard. This decision underscores the loss of key statutory protections that previously shielded career civil servants from arbitrary personnel actions.
The most immediate change is the disappearance of MSPB review for removals, suspensions over 14 days, and other serious discipline. Under the competitive service, an employee facing a major adverse action could challenge it before an independent administrative judge, with the agency required to prove the action promoted the "efficiency of the service"2, a standard demanding evidence of a nexus between the employee's conduct or performance and the agency's mission. Schedule Policy/Career strips that appeal right entirely, converting covered positions to at-will status where termination requires no stated cause and no MSPB review is available.
The table below contrasts the core differences:
| Protection | Competitive Service (2026) | Schedule Policy/Career (2026) |
|---|---|---|
| MSPB Appeal Rights for Removal and >14-Day Suspension | Full MSPB jurisdiction; employee may request hearing | No MSPB jurisdiction; at-will employment |
| Adverse Action Standard | "Efficiency of the service" (agency bears burden of proof) | At-will; no cause required |
Employees in the competitive service can raise PPP violations, such as discrimination, retaliation, or political coercion, as an affirmative defense in an MSPB appeal if the violation is tied to an appealable action.2 For non-appealable actions, they may file a complaint with the Office of Special Counsel (OSC). Under Schedule Policy/Career, the absence of MSPB appeal rights collapses the primary forum for PPP claims. Complaints are redirected to OPM or internal agency processes, where adjudication is less independent and remedies are more limited.3 The MSPB retains only narrow jurisdiction over PPP claims that fall outside personnel actions.
The Whistleblower Protection Act and related statutes still technically apply, but the enforcement mechanism is fundamentally altered. Previously, a competitive service employee alleging whistleblower retaliation could raise it as an affirmative defense in an MSPB appeal of a removal or suspension.2 Without that appeal right, Schedule Policy/Career employees must pursue whistleblower retaliation claims through OSC, which has discretion to bring cases before the MSPB, but the employee cannot independently secure a hearing.3 The practical effect is a significant reduction in the likelihood of obtaining corrective relief, especially in the absence of a personnel action that triggers MSPB review.
Under Schedule Policy/Career, whistleblower retaliation complaints are no longer reviewed by independent entities like the Office of Special Counsel or the Merit Systems Protection Board. Instead, each agency's Office of General Counsel now handles these cases internally, a shift that critics say undermines impartial oversight.
The new Schedule Policy/Career designation fundamentally alters job security for federal employees in positions deemed to have policy influence, making them removable at will without the traditional merit system protections.1 For mid-career and senior administrators, this shift demands a recalibration of career strategy (prompting many to ask Is an MPA worth it) and of risk assessment and professional resilience.
Employees moved to Schedule Policy/Career lose competitive service status and its associated safeguards. Removal no longer requires cause or the procedural steps of the Merit Systems Protection Board (MSPB). Under the June 3, 2026 executive order, over 4,800 positions across more than 20 agencies were transferred, with 97 percent at the GS-15 level or above.1 This means thousands of senior career officials now serve at the pleasure of political leadership, a condition that can undermine independent analysis and long-term institutional memory.
Professionals affected must urgently update their career management toolkit. First, ensure professional credentials and certifications are current and well-documented, as external marketability becomes paramount. Second, invest time in strengthening external professional networks beyond your agency. Colleagues in professional associations, private sector partners, and academic contacts can provide opportunities and references independent of internal politics. Third, study your agency's new internal complaint procedures carefully. With MSPB appeals largely unavailable, the internal grievance process is your primary formal recourse, but it may lack the neutrality of previous mechanisms.
Schedule Policy/Career status complicates future career moves. Once designated, transferring back into the competitive service is not guaranteed and may require a new application and selection process, disrupting career progression. This limited transferability can discourage employees from moving to other agencies or functions that might otherwise benefit from their expertise. Moreover, the threat of at-will removal may chill policy innovation: staff may self-censor dissenting views or avoid proposing novel solutions, fearing it could be perceived as disloyalty. Over time, agencies risk losing their most experienced and innovative problem-solvers.
While the policy environment remains fluid, you can take concrete steps to protect your career. Begin meticulously documenting your work output and accomplishments, creating a portfolio that demonstrates your value beyond any single supervisor's opinion. Seek legal advice from an employment attorney or your union representative to understand your specific rights under the new classification. Explore lateral moves to agencies or functions with fewer Schedule Policy/Career designations; for example, the Department of Agriculture transferred only 81 positions, compared to the Office of Management and Budget's 137 out of 518 total employees.1 Finally, maintain financial preparedness and consider your career options both inside and outside federal service, including positions as a public policy consultant, to ensure you are not caught off guard by a sudden change in status.
With the June 2026 executive order transferring roughly 8,000 positions into Schedule Policy/Career, what concrete steps must agency human resources and management take to comply, and how soon? The Office of Personnel Management (OPM) has issued detailed implementation guidance that makes responsibilities clear1, but the clock is ticking. For HR directors and line managers alike, the next thirty days are critical to revising policies, training supervisors, and documenting employee transitions without violating whistleblower protections or prohibited personnel practices.
Agencies have exactly 30 calendar days from the date of the executive order to revise their internal personnel policies.1 This means updating employee handbooks, performance management protocols, and adverse action procedures to reflect the at-will nature of Schedule Policy/Career positions. OPM has provided template policy language1 and new authority codes2 to streamline the process, but each agency must tailor them to its own mission and collective bargaining obligations where applicable.
An interim policy is permitted while the full revision is underway, but it must be in place immediately to govern any personnel actions taken before the final policy is approved. Coordination with the Chief Human Capital Officers (CHCO) Council is mandatory; the Council serves as the central coordination point for sharing best practices and resolving cross-agency implementation questions.2
Performance management moves to the center of the at-will framework. HR must establish new documentation standards that support swift and defensible termination decisions. Key requirements include:
Critically, current employees who are moved into Schedule Policy/Career retain their competitive status should they later be reassigned or separated without cause.3 This retention right complicates record-keeping and requires agencies to track each employee's prior status accurately.
OPM mandates that all managers and supervisors of Schedule Policy/Career employees complete training before they can initiate any personnel action.1 The training addresses three areas:
Agencies should coordinate with their General Counsel to develop scenario-based training that reflects recent case law and OPM guidance. At least one refresher per year is recommended.
For HR leaders staring down the 30-day deadline, here is a concrete checklist derived from OPM memos and the CHCO Council’s coordination points:
Implementation of Schedule Policy/Career is not merely a compliance exercise, it reshapes the accountability structure of the federal workforce. The agencies that navigate this transition most successfully will be those that treat the 30-day window as an opportunity to reinforce merit-based management while adapting to new at-will realities.
Schedule Policy/Career threatens to politicize the federal workforce by stripping tenure protections from thousands of career officials, fundamentally altering the balance between political responsiveness and the neutral competence that has long defined American public administration.
As of June 2026, three active lawsuits challenge the legality of Schedule Policy/Career, with no nationwide injunction yet halting implementation. The American Federation of Government Employees (AFGE), AFSCME, and Public Employees for Environmental Responsibility (PEER) filed suit in 2025-2026, contending that the reclassification scheme violates Title 5 merit system principles, Fifth Amendment due process protections, and the constitutional separation of powers.2
The central claims rest on the assertion that the president lacks statutory authority to strip tenured career employees of civil service protections absent a showing that their positions are solely policy-determining. Plaintiffs argue the June 3, 2026, executive order arbitrarily reclassified 8,000 positions, almost all at GS-15 or above, without individualized determinations.2 The rule, finalized on February 6, 2026, drew 40,500 public comments, with 94 percent in opposition, according to Civil Service Strong's analysis, yet the administration moved forward. No court has issued a nationwide injunction,2 so the transfers proceeded under the June 8 implementation guidance.4 However, the litigation could reshape the scope of at-will employment in the federal workforce, particularly if a court finds the OPM rule exceeded statutory bounds or violated due process rights by eliminating Merit Systems Protection Board appeal routes.4
A Congressional Review Act (CRA) resolution of disapproval was considered but not enacted as of June 2026.3 The procedural timeline makes future passage challenging, but the introduction of the Save the Civil Service Act and the formation of the Federal Workforce Caucus signal growing legislative opposition.3 These efforts could gain momentum if public service delivery falters or if upcoming agency personnel actions trigger further backlash. The CRA path, however, would require both chambers to act within a narrow window and overcome a likely presidential veto.
The executive order addressed only 8,000 of an estimated 50,000 policy-influencing positions,3 leaving open the possibility of further reclassification waves. If the administration views the initial implementation as successful, additional transfers could follow, potentially targeting GS-13 and GS-14 employees more broadly, as seen in early OMB moves.3 Conversely, a court ruling against the policy could halt or reverse reclassifications. A circuit split on presidential authority under Title 5 could draw Supreme Court review, setting a precedent that far outlasts the current administration. The 2026 midterm elections add another layer of uncertainty: a shift in congressional control could accelerate legislative rollbacks or, alternatively, embolden the administration to surge reclassifications before January 2027.
Agency HR directors and senior managers should monitor case dockets, particularly the AFGE-led lawsuit, and track guidance from the Office of Personnel Management. Engaging with professional associations such as the American Society for Public Administration and the National Academy of Public Administration provides access to legal updates and peer strategies. Prepare parallel contingency plans: one that assumes Schedule Policy/Career remains in force, requiring continued at-will management and documentation of all personnel decisions, and another that anticipates a reinstatement of competitive service protections, including potential corrective actions. Communicate honestly with employees about the fluid situation to preserve morale, even as whistleblower protections under the new classification remain legally untested. Scenario planning is no longer theoretical; it is an operational necessity.
