04-29-2025

Strengthening Probationary Periods in the Federal Service

Executive OrderView the Original .pdf
View the Original .pdf

The 1-Minute Brief

What: Executive Order 14284 fundamentally changes the hiring process for the federal government. Previously, new employees automatically gained permanent status after a probationary period unless fired. Now, agencies must proactively review and affirmatively certify in writing that each new hire is an asset to the government before their appointment can be finalized. Without this certification, the employee's service automatically terminates.

Money: The executive order does not appropriate new funds. Its stated purpose is to increase government efficiency, which proponents argue could lead to long-term savings by making it easier to remove underperforming employees before they gain full civil service protections.

Your Impact: For the average American, the intended impact is a more efficient and accountable federal government. For anyone considering or starting a federal job, this order increases job insecurity during the initial 1-to-2 year probationary or trial period and places the burden on the employee to prove their employment is in the public interest.

Status: The Executive Order was signed and effective as of April 24, 2025. Key provisions requiring agency review and certification of employees became effective 90 days from that date, on July 23, 2025.

What's Actually in the Bill

This executive order overhauls the probationary and trial periods for new federal employees, transforming them from a passive observation period into an active evaluation gate. Instead of tenure being the default outcome, it now requires a deliberate, documented decision from management.

Core Provisions:

  • Ends Automatic Conversion: An employee’s appointment is no longer automatically finalized at the end of their probationary (competitive service) or trial (excepted service) period.
  • Requires Affirmative Certification: Within the 30 days before the probationary period ends, an agency must certify in writing that keeping the employee "advances the public interest." If no certification is made, employment "automatically terminates."
  • Shifts the Burden: The order states that a probationary employee "bears the burden of demonstrating why their continuation in employment...is in the public interest."
  • Broad Discretion for Managers: Agency heads can base their certification decision on the employee's performance and conduct, the agency's needs and goals, and overall government efficiency.
  • Standardized Probationary Periods: The order sets the probationary period at 1 year for most new competitive service appointments and the trial period at 2 years for most new excepted service appointments (or 1 year for preference-eligible veterans).
  • Repeals Prior Regulations: The order explicitly makes prior regulations governing probationary periods (specifically, subpart H of 5 C.F.R. part 315) "inoperative and without effect."

Stated Purpose (from the Sponsors):

The order's stated purpose is to ensure the American people are served by a "high-quality, efficient, dedicated" federal workforce. It cites reports from the Government Accountability Office (GAO) and the Merit Systems Protection Board (MSPB) documenting that agencies have not effectively used probationary periods to screen out employees whose "continued employment is not in the public interest."

  1. Fulfill the original intent of the probationary period as a final step in the hiring and evaluation process.
  2. Prevent underperforming employees from gaining permanent tenure by default.
  3. Increase accountability within the federal workforce.

Key Facts:

Affected Sectors: All executive departments and agencies in the U.S. Federal Government.
Timeline: The order took effect on April 24, 2025. The requirement for managers to meet with employees and issue certifications began on July 23, 2025.
Scope: The order applies to all newly hired federal employees in the competitive and excepted services, as well as some employees assigned to their first supervisory roles.

The Backstory: How We Got Here

Timeline of Events:

The Longstanding "Probation Problem" (2005-2020):

For years, government watchdogs have argued that federal agencies fail to use the initial probationary period as an effective screening tool. A 2005 report from the Merit Systems Protection Board (MSPB) titled "The Probationary Period: A Critical Assessment Opportunity" concluded that supervisors often treat probation as a "mere formality" and that the culture assumes new hires will automatically become permanent. The report recommended that an employee's appointment should terminate automatically without an affirmative certification from the agency—the core idea in this executive order. Subsequent reports from the Government Accountability Office (GAO) echoed these findings, noting that it can take six months to a year to dismiss a poor-performing permanent employee, making the probationary period a critical, and underused, opportunity.

The "Schedule F" Precedent (2020-2025):

In October 2020, the Trump administration issued Executive Order 13957, creating "Schedule F," a new category for federal employees in "policy-determining, policy-making, or policy-advocating" roles. This would have stripped them of most civil service protections, effectively making them at-will employees. Critics argued it was an attempt to purge the civil service of perceived opponents and install loyalists. The Biden administration rescinded Schedule F in January 2021 before it was fully implemented. The debate, however, cemented the idea of increasing presidential control over the federal workforce as a key political goal for Republicans.

Why Now? The Political Calculus:

  • Fulfilling a Campaign Promise: This executive order directly addresses a long-standing conservative argument that the federal civil service is inefficient and unaccountable. It is seen as a way to take on the "deep state" and ensure the bureaucracy is responsive to the President's agenda.
  • "Schedule F" by Another Name? Opponents view this order as a more subtle, but equally potent, way to achieve the goals of Schedule F. By making it easier to terminate employees before they gain full protections, it weakens the independence of the civil service without creating a separate, controversial employment category.
  • Use of Executive Power: Like Schedule F, this is an executive order, meaning it was enacted directly by the President without congressional approval. This allows an administration to implement its agenda quickly, though such orders can be challenged in court or rescinded by a future president.

Your Real-World Impact

The Direct Answer: This order directly affects new federal employees, their supervisors, and federal agencies as a whole, with the stated, indirect goal of improving government services for all Americans.

What Could Change for You:

Potential Benefits:

  • More Effective Government (Proponent View): If the order works as intended, it could lead to a higher-performing federal workforce, resulting in better and more efficient government services for taxpayers.
  • Empowered Managers: Proponents argue this gives managers the necessary tools to build effective teams and remove individuals who are not a good fit, without the lengthy process required for permanent employees.

Possible Disruptions or Costs:

For New Federal Employees:

  • Increased Job Insecurity: The first one to two years of federal employment now involve a high-stakes evaluation where your job is not guaranteed.
  • Pressure to Conform: Critics worry the subjective criteria (e.g., advancing "organizational goals") could be used to terminate employees for political or personal reasons, rather than purely on merit, creating pressure to align with the administration's politics.

For the Public:

  • Risk of Politicization: Opponents argue that weakening job protections could lead to a less expert and more partisan civil service, where employees are chosen for loyalty over competence, potentially harming the quality and neutrality of government work.
  • Chilling Effect: The new standard could discourage whistleblowing or the reporting of problems, as probationary employees may fear being terminated without recourse.

Who's Most Affected:

Primary Groups: New federal job applicants and hires; federal managers and supervisors.
Secondary Groups: Federal employee unions; government contractors who work alongside federal employees.
Regional Impact: Areas with a high concentration of federal jobs, such as the Washington, D.C. metropolitan area, will see the most direct impact.

Bottom Line: This order makes the start of a federal career more uncertain and places significant power in the hands of agency managers to decide who stays and who goes.

Where the Parties Stand

Republican Position: "Restoring Accountability"

Core Stance: The federal workforce needs more accountability, and presidents need the ability to ensure the government is staffed with efficient employees who will carry out their agenda.

Their Arguments:

  • ✓ This order empowers managers to remove poor performers and makes the government more efficient.
  • ✓ It reverses the "default" of automatic tenure, forcing a conscious decision about an employee's fitness.
  • ✓ It addresses long-standing problems identified by non-partisan watchdogs like the GAO and MSPB.

Legislative Strategy: Support and defend the executive order. Promote it as a common-sense reform to improve government. This aligns with broader conservative goals like those outlined in "Project 2025" to increase presidential control over the executive branch.

Democratic Position: "Protecting the Merit System"

Core Stance: This order is an attack on the non-partisan, merit-based civil service that opens the door to politicization and cronyism.

Their Arguments:

  • ✓ They support an effective government but believe this approach is flawed.
  • ⚠️ The criteria for retention are vague and subjective, which could allow for terminations based on political loyalty rather than performance.
  • ✗ This weakens due process and job protections that are essential to shield public servants from political pressure, ensuring they work for the American people, not a particular president.

Legislative Strategy: Oppose the executive order and support legislation to counteract it, such as the Saving the Civil Service Act, which would codify employee protections into law to prevent this or future administrations from weakening them via executive action. Federal employee unions are expected to challenge the order in court.

Constitutional Check

The Verdict: ✓ Constitutional, but ⚠️ Questionable in its potential application.

Basis of Authority:

The Executive Order cites the President's authority under Article II of the Constitution and federal statutes, primarily Title 5 of the U.S. Code, sections 3301 and 3302.

5 U.S.C. § 3301: The President may "prescribe such regulations for the admission of individuals into the civil service in the executive branch as will best promote the efficiency of that service".
5 U.S.C. § 3302: The President may "prescribe rules governing the competitive service."

Constitutional Implications:

Executive Power: The President has broad, constitutionally derived authority to oversee the executive branch. The courts have generally given the President significant leeway in managing the federal workforce.
Precedent: While courts have reviewed executive orders related to federal employment, they often focus on whether the President is acting within authority granted by Congress. Here, the cited statutes appear to grant that authority on their face.
Federalism: This order concerns the federal executive branch and does not raise federalism issues regarding states' rights.

Potential Legal Challenges:

Legal challenges are highly likely, primarily from federal employee unions. The arguments will likely center on:

  • Statutory Conflict: Arguing the order conflicts with the intent and framework of the Civil Service Reform Act of 1978, which established merit system principles and protections against political influence.
  • Abuse of Discretion: Claiming that while the President can set rules, this specific rule is an arbitrary and capricious change that undermines the entire civil service system.
  • Prohibited Personnel Practices: Lawsuits could arise if employees believe they were terminated during their probation for discriminatory or political reasons, which are still prohibited by law.

Your Action Options

TO SUPPORT THIS EXECUTIVE ORDER

5-Minute Actions:

  • Contact the White House: Use the White House comment line or website to express your support for Executive Order 14284 as a necessary step for government accountability.
  • Call Your Rep/Senators: Capitol Switchboard: (202) 224-3121. "I'm a constituent from [Your City/Town] and I support Executive Order 14284. I urge [Rep./Sen. Name] to oppose any attempts to block this reform."

30-Minute Deep Dive:

  • Write a Letter to the Editor: Submit a letter to your local newspaper arguing that holding new federal employees accountable during their probationary period is a common-sense measure to improve government.
  • Join an Organization: Follow and support conservative think tanks and advocacy groups that promote government efficiency and accountability.

TO OPPOSE THIS EXECUTIVE ORDER

5-Minute Actions:

  • Contact the White House: Use the White House comment line or website to voice your opposition, stating that the order undermines the non-partisan civil service.
  • Call Your Rep/Senators: Capitol Switchboard: (202) 224-3121. "I'm a constituent from [Your City/Town] and I urge [Rep./Sen. Name] to vote YES on legislation like the Saving the Civil Service Act to block Executive Order 14284 and protect our merit-based federal workforce."

30-Minute Deep Dive:

  • Write a Detailed Email: Contact members of the House Committee on Oversight and Accountability and the Senate Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs, urging them to conduct oversight on the implementation of this order.
  • Join an Organization: Support federal employee unions like the American Federation of Government Employees (AFGE) or the National Treasury Employees Union (NTEU), or good government groups that advocate for a non-partisan civil service.