View the Original .pdfThe 1-Minute Brief
What: This presidential memorandum, issued March 20, 2025, grants the Director of the Office of Personnel Management (OPM) new authority to fire career federal employees for conduct that occurs after they are hired. It directs OPM to create regulations that could allow for the removal of an employee deemed "unsuitable" within five working days of a final decision.
Money: The memorandum itself does not have a direct cost or savings estimate. However, its implementation could lead to increased costs from litigation by fired employees and potential expenses associated with higher employee turnover. Conversely, proponents might argue it could lead to savings by more easily removing inefficient employees.
Your Impact: While it doesn't directly affect most Americans, this policy could significantly change the stability and nature of the federal workforce, which administers everything from Social Security benefits and national park services to environmental protection and disaster relief. The change could lead to a civil service that is more responsive to the President's agenda but also potentially more politicized and less independent.
Status: The memorandum has been signed by the President and published in the Federal Register. However, its main provision—granting OPM final removal authority—is not effective until OPM completes a formal rulemaking process, which includes a public comment period.
What's Actually in the Bill
This memorandum significantly alters the job security of career federal employees by centralizing disciplinary power within the Office of Personnel Management (OPM). Historically, after a probationary period, only an employee's direct agency could fire them for misconduct or poor performance, a process governed by established civil service protections. This directive empowers the OPM Director to make final "suitability" determinations for employees based on their conduct after they've been hired and to order their removal.
Core Provisions:
- Delegation of Authority: The President delegates to the OPM Director the power to make final decisions on the "suitability" of current executive branch employees.
- Post-Appointment Conduct: This authority is specifically for conduct that occurs after an employee has been appointed, a significant shift from suitability reviews that traditionally happen at the time of hiring.
- Directive for Removal: A "suitability action" can include a direct order from OPM to an agency head to fire an employee.
- Expedited Firing: The memorandum requires OPM to propose a regulation mandating that agency heads comply with a removal instruction from the OPM Director within 5 work days of the final decision.
- Rulemaking Required: The new firing authority will not take effect until OPM proposes and finalizes new regulations for Part 731 of title 5, Code of Federal Regulations.
Stated Purpose (from the Sponsors):
The stated goal is to strengthen the suitability and fitness of the federal workforce. The administration argues this closes a "longstanding gap" by ensuring federal employees are held to high standards of conduct throughout their careers, not just at hiring. Supporters claim it will increase accountability and allow for the removal of employees who betray public trust, citing examples like the leaking of sensitive information.
Key Facts:
Affected Sectors: This memorandum applies to all civilian employees in the executive branch of the federal government.
Timeline: The memorandum was signed on March 20, 2025. The core authority is pending the completion of OPM's rulemaking process.
Scope: The policy has a government-wide reach, potentially affecting approximately 2.2 million civilian federal workers.
The Backstory: How We Got Here
Timeline of Events:
The Spoils System and Early Reforms (1800s - early 1900s):
For much of the 19th century, the U.S. government operated under the "spoils system," where federal jobs were rewards for political loyalty. This led to widespread corruption and inefficiency. The assassination of President James A. Garfield in 1881 by a disgruntled office-seeker created a public outcry for reform, leading to the Pendleton Civil Service Act of 1883. This law established a merit-based system for hiring and protected employees from political firings.
Expansion and Modernization (1930s - 1970s):
The federal workforce expanded dramatically during the New Deal and post-WWII eras. The Civil Service Reform Act of 1978 was a landmark bipartisan law that modernized the system, creating the Office of Personnel Management (OPM), the Merit Systems Protection Board (MSPB) to hear employee appeals, and the Federal Labor Relations Authority to oversee federal unions. These reforms were designed to balance management flexibility with robust protections for employees against arbitrary or politically motivated actions.
Renewed Push for Executive Control (2020 - Present):
In October 2020, President Donald Trump issued an executive order creating "Schedule F," a new job classification for federal employees in policy-related roles that would have stripped them of their civil service protections and made them at-will employees. The order was rescinded by the Biden administration before it was fully implemented. However, the idea has remained a key goal for some conservative groups and is a central plank of "Project 2025," a comprehensive plan to reshape the federal government. This March 2025 memorandum is seen as another, more targeted step toward achieving the same goal of increasing presidential control over the federal bureaucracy.
Why Now? The Political Calculus:
- Implementing a Campaign Promise: The memorandum is a direct follow-through on long-stated goals to "dismantle the administrative state" and increase accountability over what some call the "deep state." Proponents believe the permanent bureaucracy is unaccountable and often works to undermine the president's agenda.
- Bypassing Congress: After legislative attempts to reform the civil service stalled, this executive action provides a way to enact significant changes without needing new laws from Congress.
- Response to Perceived Obstruction: The move is framed as a necessary tool to remove federal employees deemed untrustworthy, disloyal, or obstructive to the administration's policies.
Your Real-World Impact
The Direct Answer: This directly affects career federal employees but indirectly impacts all Americans who rely on the services and stability of the federal government.
What Could Change for You:
Potential Benefits:
- More Responsive Government: Supporters argue this could make federal agencies more aligned with the policy goals of the elected administration, potentially leading to faster implementation of the President's agenda.
- Increased Accountability: The policy could make it easier to remove federal employees who are underperforming or engaged in misconduct, which proponents claim will improve government efficiency.
Possible Disruptions or Costs:
Short-term (1-2 years):
- Service Disruptions: An increase in employee removals or resignations could lead to instability and loss of institutional knowledge within federal agencies, potentially disrupting services like processing Social Security claims, managing national parks, or responding to emergencies.
- Legal Chaos: Widespread use of this new authority would likely trigger numerous lawsuits from fired employees and unions, leading to legal battles over the policy's constitutionality.
Long-term:
- Politicized Services: Critics fear that replacing a merit-based civil service with one based on perceived political loyalty could lead to government decisions—from environmental regulations to law enforcement—being made for political reasons rather than based on expertise and law.
- Brain Drain: The loss of job security could make it difficult to recruit and retain top talent in the federal government, as skilled professionals may seek more stable employment elsewhere.
Who's Most Affected:
Primary Groups: The approximately 2.2 million career civil servants in the federal executive branch.
Secondary Groups: All Americans who interact with or depend on federal government agencies for services, benefits, and regulations.
Regional Impact: The impact will be felt nationwide but will be particularly acute in the Washington, D.C. metropolitan area and other regions with a high concentration of federal employees.
Bottom Line: This memorandum could fundamentally change the American civil service from a stable, independent workforce to one that is more directly controlled by the White House, with potential impacts on the quality and impartiality of government services you receive.
Where the Parties Stand
Republican Position: "Accountability for the Bureaucracy"
Core Stance: The federal bureaucracy is inefficient, bloated, and unaccountable, and the President needs more authority to remove employees who are not performing or are politically obstructive.
Their Arguments:
- ✓ Empowers the President, as the head of the executive branch, to faithfully execute the laws by managing the workforce.
- ✓ Provides a necessary tool to remove underperforming or misbehaving employees more quickly than the current system allows.
- ✓ Reins in the power of an unelected "deep state" that they argue can undermine the will of the voters.
- ⚠️ Some Republicans have expressed concern about changing pension and benefit rules for current employees, suggesting reforms should apply only to new hires.
Legislative Strategy: Complementing executive actions like this memorandum with legislation to codify reduced civil service protections, make more employees "at-will," and limit federal employee union powers. This is a key component of plans like Project 2025.
Democratic Position: "Protecting Our Non-Partisan Civil Service"
Core Stance: This is a dangerous move to politicize the federal workforce, destroy civil service protections, and enable a return to a corrupt spoils system.
Their Arguments:
- ✓ Praises the current merit-based system for ensuring the government is staffed by experts committed to the public good, not political loyalty.
- ⚠️ Express concern that stripping job protections will make it impossible for civil servants to provide candid, expert advice without fear of political reprisal.
- ✗ Actively oppose this memorandum and related "Schedule F" proposals, arguing they are unconstitutional and a threat to democracy.
Legislative Strategy: Pushing legislation like the "Saving the Civil Service Act" to prevent the reclassification of federal employees and protect them from at-will firing. They are also coordinating with unions and advocacy groups to legally challenge the administration's actions.
Constitutional Check
The Verdict: ⚠️ Questionable
Basis of Authority:
The President is exercising authority claimed under Article II of the Constitution, specifically the clause stating the President "shall take Care that the Laws be faithfully executed." Proponents argue this implies the power to remove executive branch officials to ensure the government functions effectively and in line with the administration's policies.
Article II, Section 3: "[The President] shall take Care that the Laws be faithfully executed..."
Constitutional Implications:
[Executive Power]: The memorandum advances a theory of a strong "unitary executive," where the President has broad control over the entire executive branch. However, this clashes with over a century of laws passed by Congress to create an independent, merit-based civil service.
[Precedent]: While presidents have broad removal power over high-level political appointees, the Supreme Court has upheld congressional limits on the removal of other federal officials. The Civil Service Reform Act of 1978, passed by Congress, explicitly established procedures and protections against arbitrary firing.
[Federalism]: This action does not directly implicate federalism as it deals with the structure of the federal government itself, not the balance of power with the states.
Potential Legal Challenges:
Legal challenges are almost certain and will likely come from federal employee unions and good government groups. The core arguments will be:
- The President is unlawfully attempting to bypass Congress, which has the constitutional authority to establish and regulate the civil service.
- The directive violates the due process rights of federal employees guaranteed by the Fifth Amendment by allowing for their removal without the established, congressionally mandated procedures.
- The vague definition of "suitability" could be used to fire employees for unconstitutional reasons, such as their political speech or associations, violating the First Amendment.
Your Action Options
TO SUPPORT THIS BILL
5-Minute Actions:
- Call The White House & OPM: White House Comment Line: (202) 456-1111; OPM: (202) 606-1800. "I'm calling to express my support for the President's memorandum to strengthen the suitability of the federal workforce. We need more accountability in government."
30-Minute Deep Dive:
- Submit a Public Comment: Once OPM proposes its new rule, it will be open for public comment at Regulations.gov. Writing a detailed comment explaining why you support enhanced accountability can influence the final rule.
- Join an Organization: Groups like the Heritage Foundation and other conservative think tanks have been central to developing these policies.
TO OPPOSE THIS BILL
5-Minute Actions:
- Call Your Rep/Senators: Capitol Switchboard: (202) 224-3121 "I'm a constituent from [Your City/Town] and I urge [Rep./Sen. Name] to oppose the President's memorandum on federal employee suitability and to support legislation like the Saving the Civil Service Act to protect our non-partisan workforce."
30-Minute Deep Dive:
- Write to OPM: Contact the Office of Personnel Management directly to oppose the forthcoming regulations.
- Join an Organization: Numerous organizations are fighting this policy. Consider joining or donating to groups such as:
- American Federation of Government Employees (AFGE)
- National Treasury Employees Union (NTEU)
- Protect Democracy
- Partnership for Public Service
- Democracy Forward
- Government Accountability Project