A three-judge panel ruled Friday that President Donald Trump’s firings without cause of Cathy Harris and Gwynne Wilcox, Democratic members on the Merit Systems Protection Board and the National Labor Relations Board, were lawful.
The split 2-to-1 panel decision of the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals has no immediate effect, since both Harris and Wilcox’s firings were finalized in May. But Friday’s ruling comes as the Supreme Court is expected to soon hear arguments on whether to overturn a 90-year-old ruling known as Humphrey’s Executor — a decision that could expand Trump’s power to shape independent agencies.
In the 1935 Supreme Court ruling on Humprey’s Executor, the justices unanimously found that commissioners can be removed only for misconduct or neglect of duty, effectively limiting when presidents can fire board members.
But when Judges Gregory Katsas and Justin Walker ruled Friday in favor of Trump’s firings of Harris and Wilcox, they argued that MSPB and NLRB fall outside the limitations stemming from Humphrey’s Executor, and that the president can still “remove principal officers who wield substantial executive power.”
“The NLRB and MSPB wield substantial powers that are both executive in nature and different from the powers that Humphrey’s Executor deemed to be merely quasi-legislative or quasi-judicial,” the judges wrote. “So, Congress cannot restrict the President’s ability to remove NLRB or MSPB members.”
Judge Florence Pan, the dissenting panel member and a Biden appointee, argued that the two agencies do fall under the scope of Humphrey’s Executor, and that maintaining the independence of MSPB and NLRB is critical. She wrote that the Trump administration’s “extreme view of executive power sharply departs from precedent.”
“We may soon be living in a world in which every hiring decision and action by any government agency will be influenced by politics, with little regard for subject-matter expertise, the public good, and merit-based decision-making,” she wrote.
The MSPB is an independent agency responsible for adjudicating appeals from federal employees who allege prohibited personnel practices by their agencies. The NLRB investigates unfair labor practices in the private sector and oversees union elections. Both boards are typically composed of members of both political parties.
Trump fired both Wilcox and Harris within his first few weeks in office, but did not point to a specific reason for the terminations. Wilcox and Harris, both of whom were Democratic board members, sued the president over their removals, arguing that they are protected by a federal law meant to ensure MSPB and NLRB’s independence from political considerations — and that the president can only remove them “for inefficiency, neglect of duty, or malfeasance in office.”
Though a federal judge initially ruled the two terminations were unlawful, the Supreme Court reversed that decision in May, effectively green-lighting the finalization of the board members’ firings earlier this year.
In its May decision, the Supreme Court indicated that it was likely “that both the NLRB and MSPB exercise considerable executive power,” which it said would make restrictions on the president’s ability to fire them unconstitutional. Friday’s panel ruling aligns with the Supreme Court’s initial arguments.
The Supreme Court is expected to hear arguments Monday on Trump’s firing of Rebecca Slaughter, a Democratic member of the Federal Trade Commission — a case that may further influence the outcome of both Harris and Wilcox’s terminations.
The Office of Personnel Management is trying to address what it says are concerns from some managers and supervisors who worry they may be held personally liable for disciplining federal employees deemed poor performers.
In response to those concerns, a Nov. 21 memo from OPM clarified that managers and supervisors are generally acting on behalf of an agency when they “manage employees’ job performance and address unacceptable performance.” There is an “extremely limited scope” where managers or supervisors would be held individually responsible for those actions, OPM said.
When a manager puts an employee on a performance improvement plan, demotes an employee or removes an employee from their job for poor performance, that’s technically considered the action of the agency, OPM said, and not the individual manager’s responsibility. If an employee challenges one of those actions, OPM said that the agency, not the manager, would be responsible for responding.
“In the unusual event that a manager or supervisor is sued personally for actions within the scope of their employment, the Department of Justice (DOJ) typically provides representation,” the memo reads.
But if a supervisor or manager misuses their authority — for example through discrimination, harassment or whistleblower-related prohibited personnel practices — OPM said the individual can then be held personally accountable for their actions.
In its memo, OPM also reminded supervisors and managers of the availability of professional liability insurance, which may help protect them in the rare cases where they may be held liable. Supervisors and managers are usually eligible for a government reimbursement amounting to up to half the cost of the insurance.
“But even in these situations Congress did not give employees the right to hold their managers or supervisors personally liable for any performance or conduct-related adverse action,” OPM said.
OPM’s clarification comes after the Trump administration earlier this year set new expectations for measuring federal employees’ job performance. In June, OPM told agencies they don’t have to use “progressive discipline” and that they should not substitute a suspension when a full removal of an employee from their job “would be appropriate.”
The administration’s new performance management standards also attempt to more strictly delineate between different levels of employee performance and encourage agencies to rate fewer employees as high performers.
OPM Director Scott Kupor has repeatedly argued that the government has inflated performance ratings, and has targeted the rating system as a key area for OPM to update.
“In the real world we are not all equally successful and differences in performance from one person to the next are in fact real,” Kupor wrote in a Sept. 15 blog post. “We simply can’t all get A’s because not everyone’s contributions to the success of the organization are the same. Some people simply perform better than others — whether by luck or skill.”
More recently, OPM also announced a new mandatory training program for all federal supervisors, intended to educate supervisors on how to better manage performance of federal employees. The one-hour online course will cover topics including recognition, awards, hiring, firing and discipline of federal employees, according to a memo OPM sent to agencies Wednesday.
“At the end of the training, supervisors will be ready to set clear expectations, deliver quality feedback, document fairly, reward excellence, and take timely action when needed—all while building an engaged, high-performing team through transparency, accountability, and collaboration,” the memo stated.
Federal supervisors are required to complete the training by Feb. 9, 2026, OPM said.
The required supervisor training comes shortly after OPM also launched two optional training programs, designed to educate senior executives in the federal workforce, while incorporating common themes from the Trump administration on “accountability,” performance management and adherence to the president’s priorities.
Human resources, corporate hierarchy concept and multilevel marketing - recruiter complete team represented by wooden cube by one leader person (CEO) and icon.
Former Environmental Protection Agency employees who were fired after signing a letter criticizing the Trump administration are now appealing their dismissals before the Merit Systems Protection Board.
The six former EPA employees, who were among roughly 140 workers who signed a “declaration of dissent” in June, argued their firings were not only an illegal response to exercising their First Amendment rights, but also a form of retaliation for “perceived political affiliation,” and executed without cause.
The former employees are represented by attorneys at several law firms in the MSPB case, including the Public Employees for Environmental Responsibility (PEER).
“Federal employees have the right to speak out on matters of public concern in their personal capacities, even when they do so in dissent,” Joanna Citron Day, general counsel for PEER, said Wednesday. “EPA is not only undermining the First Amendment’s free speech protections by trying to silence its own workforce, it is also placing U.S. citizens in peril by removing experienced employees who are tasked with carrying out EPA’s critical mission.”
An EPA spokesperson declined to comment, stating that the agency has a longstanding practice of not commenting on pending litigation.
The June dissent letter from EPA employees warned that the Trump administration and EPA Administrator Lee Zeldin were “recklessly undermining” the agency’s mission, and criticized the administration’s policies on public health and the environment. The letter led EPA to launch an investigation into employees who signed the letter, resulting in at least eight probationary employees and nine tenured career employees receiving termination notices. Dozens more who signed the declaration were suspended without pay for two weeks, according to the American Federation of Government Employees.
Justin Chen, president of AFGE Council 238, which represents EPA employees, said the firings of these employees added to a “brain drain” at EPA, on top of other workforce losses stemming from the deferred resignation program (DRP) and other actions from the Trump administration this year.
“These were subject matter experts — extremely talented people who were working on behalf of the American public to protect them,” Chen said in an interview. “The loss of these people will be felt for quite some time. And honestly, the intent of this action is to put a chilling effect on the rest of the civil service.”
A termination notice delivered to one of the EPA employees shows that in response to concerns of free speech and whistleblower protection violations, the agency’s general counsel office stated that it believed the issues raised “do not outweigh the seriousness of your offense.”
“The Agency is not required to tolerate actions from its employees that undermine the Agency’s decisions, interfere with the Agency’s operations and mission, and the efficient fulfillment of the Agency’s responsibilities to the public,” the termination letter reads. “You hold a trust-sensitive position that requires sound judgement and alignment with the Agency’s communication strategies.”
Despite the employee having a high performance rating and a lack of disciplinary history, the termination letter stated that “the serious nature of your misconduct outweighs all mitigating factors.”
“I also considered that you took no responsibility for your conduct, which reflects a lack of acknowledgment of the seriousness of your actions and raises concerns about your ability to exercise sound judgment and undermines your potential for rehabilitation,” the letter reads.
In August, EPA leadership also canceled all its collective bargaining agreements and told its unions it would no longer recognize them. The decision came after an appeals court allowed agencies to move forward with implementing President Donald Trump’s March executive order to terminate union contracts at a majority of federal agencies.
“If we still had our collective bargaining rights, none of this would have happened in the first place. We would have immediately filed grievances,” Chen said. “[With the MSPB appeal] our hope is that these employees get everything back — that they will have full reinstatement and full back pay.”
Lawmakers on the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee have advanced a slew of federal workforce bills, one of which aims to make some significant changes to the federal probationary period.
The GOP-led EQUALS Act was one of about a dozen bills that passed favorably out of the committee on Tuesday. If enacted, it would require new federal employees to serve a two-year probationary period, doubling the length that most newly hired or promoted currently face.
Under the bill, agencies also would have to actively certify that a probationary employee “advances the public interest” before the employee can become officially tenured, while those who are not certified would be removed from their jobs. The legislation advanced in a party line vote of 24-19.
Rep. Brandon Gill (R-Texas), who introduced the legislation, said the EQUALS Act builds on an April executive order from President Donald Trump, which similarly required agencies to review and actively sign off on probationary workers’ continued employment.
“President Trump could not be more right,” Gill said. “Probationary periods and trial periods are long-standing, essential tools to ensure newly hired federal employees are sufficiently performing before their appointments are finalized permanently.”
Democrats on the committee criticized the Republicans’ bill, arguing that extending the length of the probationary period would negatively impact federal recruitment, as well as open the doors to more terminations of new hires in the government.
“This bill would double the time during which federal employees have limited due process and appeal rights as probationary employees. During this time they could be fired within 30 days’ notice, they have limited rights to an attorney or representative and they generally cannot appeal their removal,” Oversight Committee Ranking Member Robert Garcia (R-Calif.) said Tuesday. “At a time when Donald Trump is attempting illegal mass firings and purging experts from agencies across our government, this bill is a dangerous step in the wrong direction.”
Rep. James Walkinshaw (D-Va.) added that the EQUALS Act would “give the Trump administration yet another tool to weaponize against federal employees who they perceive as ideological threats, and to continue efforts to destroy the non-partisan civil service.”
Gill, however, argued that the bill would not lead to mass terminations, but instead only make sure that new federal employees are carefully reviewed. He also pointed to a 2015 report from the Government Accountability Office, as well as a 2005 report from the Merit Systems Protection Board, both of which call for reforms to the probationary period.
“An employee can often work for the federal government for over 25 years,” Gill said. “Having an extra year of probationary status to ensure the right employee becomes tenured is a common sense, good government measure.”
During the committee meeting, Rep. Stephen Lynch (D-Mass.) motioned to strike the EQUALS Act and replace it with legislation to first require GAO to review effects of prior probationary period extensions before making any long-term changes. Lynch’s amendment was struck down by the committee’s Republican majority.
Legislation on official time advances
Committee Republicans also advanced a bill that would require agencies to report in greater detail the use of official time by federal employees governmentwide. The Official Time Reporting Act passed out of the committee in a vote of 24-19 along party lines.
If enacted, the bill would require all agencies to submit reports on how much official time is used in each fiscal year, and justify any potential increases in official time that may occur.
During the committee meeting, Republican lawmakers argued that official time takes away from employees’ job responsibilities. Rep. Virginia Foxx (R-N.C.), the lead co-sponsor on the bill, also criticized the lack of agencies’ reporting on official time over the last several years.
The bill “will let the American people know exactly how much of their hard-earned money is spent not providing valuable service, but on federal employee union activities,” Foxx said.
Some committee Democrats, however, described the legislation as an attack on union rights. The lawmakers emphasized that official time is used for activities that support federal employees, while raising concerns about the possibility that the bill could let the Trump administration further limit union rights.
“This year under the Trump administration, federal employees have faced job insecurity, financial strain and the loss of collective bargaining agreements. This bill will make matters worse,” Rep. Maxwell Frost (D-Fla.) said. “We all benefit when unions and their members are empowered to prevent and address retaliation, discrimination and sexual harassment.”
Generally, official time hours can go toward negotiating union contracts, meeting with management, filing grievances or representing employees dealing with management disputes. Under law, federal unions are allotted specific amounts of time and resources to conduct these activities.
Federal unions, including the American Federation of Government Employees, have pushed back against the Trump administration’s characterization of official time as “taxpayer-funded union time,” calling it a misrepresentation.
During Tuesday’s meeting, Garcia argued that official time leads to lower staff turnover and higher employee morale, while also preventing potential legal costs down the road.
“Official time is work time that employees are allowed to use for making the workplace safe and protecting workers from discrimination or harassment,” he said.
Committee approves some bills with bipartisan support
In contrast, some legislation that the committee approved on Tuesday gained strong bipartisan support from lawmakers. That includes bills on training for federal supervisors, skills-based hiring of federal contractors and amending the system for relocation payments for federal employees.
The Federal Supervisor Education Act, for instance, unanimously advanced out of the Oversight committee in a vote of 43-0. If enacted, the legislation would require agencies to work with OPM to create training programs for newly hired or promoted agency managers and supervisors.
Rep. William Timmons (R-S.C.), who introduced the legislation in October, argued during Tuesday’s meeting that many federal supervisors step into leadership roles without enough training, and with no clear expectations for how to adjust to a managerial role in government.
“Agencies promote strong technical employees into supervisory jobs, and then send them in blind,” Timmons said. “That leads to low productivity, uneven standards and a system where good employees feel unsupported and bad employees rarely face consequences.”
Timmons added that the legislation would result in “real, meaningful training,” rather than being “a slideshow or a checkbox exercise.”
Although he said he mostly agreed with the bill’s intentions, Walkinshaw proposed striking one provision of the legislation. The initial bill text included a requirement that supervisory training programs must include additional training on the probationary period — something that Walkinshaw argued was outside the bill’s scope.
Committee Republicans agreed to adopt Walkinshaw’s amendment, after saying that it would result in stronger bipartisan support for the bill. Ultimately, the legislation advanced unanimously, with the amendment included.
“I am a strong supporter of the goal of this legislation,” Walkinshaw said. “Almost all of the language will provide supervisors within the federal workforce the appropriate training and resources to ensure there are strong leaders within their respective agencies.”
The House Oversight and Government Reform Committee is convening Tuesday morning to mark up a slew of bills, many of which would impact the federal workforce in one way or another.
Tuesday’s meeting will be the first legislative markup session the committee has held in nearly two months, with the last being prior to the 43-day government shutdown. Any bills that the committee approves during the markup will advance to the full House for further consideration.
Several other legislative changes may be on the horizon as well. Here are three key bills up for the committee’s consideration that may bring significant changes for the federal workforce:
Probationary period, federal workforce changes
One Republican-led bill, introduced by Rep. Brandon Gill (R-Texas) in October, aims to cement many of the changes the Trump administration has made to the government’s rules for the probationary period in the federal workforce.
If enacted, the so-called EQUALS Act would require most new federal employees to serve a two-year probationary period — a time in which employees have limited appeal rights and are easier to remove, before their employment in the federal workforce can be solidified.
Part of the bill would compel agencies to evaluate their employees regularly throughout the federal probationary period. And in the last 30 days of that two-year period, agencies would have to certify — and get the Office of Personnel Management to approve — that the probationary employee “advances the public interest,” before the employee can become tenured.
Any probationary employees who are not actively certified by their agency would be terminated, according to the GOP-led legislation.
The bill also states that when making a decision on whether to keep a probationary employee, agencies can additionally consider performance and conduct; the “needs and interests” of the agency; and whether the employee would advance “organizational goals” or “efficiency.”
The EQUALS Act aligns with efforts from the Trump administration earlier this year to overhaul the rules for the government’s probationary period. In April, President Donald Trump called for the creation of “Civil Service Rule XI,” which similarly required agencies to review and actively sign off on probationary workers’ continued employment before they can be moved out of a probationary period.
Trump’s executive order also expanded the reasons that probationary period employees can be fired. In June, OPM further clarified that probationary employees can be terminated based on broader reasons than the previous limitations set only to performance or conduct.
The House bill also comes after the Trump administration fired tens of thousands of probationary employees earlier this year, stating that the removals were due to “poor performance.” But in September, a federal judge found that OPM unlawfully directed the mass probationary firings. The judge ordered agencies to update employees’ personnel files to reflect that their firings were not due to performance or misconduct.
An eye on official time
A separate bill teed up by Republicans would compel agencies to provide much more detail on federal union representatives’ use of official time to both Congress and the public on an annual basis.
The Official Time Reporting Act from Rep. Virginia Foxx (R-N.C.) would require all agencies to submit reports on how much official time is used in each fiscal year, and justify any potential increases in official time that may occur.
The legislation would then require OPM and the Office of Management and Budget to create and send a joint report to Congress, and make publicly available online, the details of official time governmentwide. Those reports would have to cover how much official time each federal employee used, as well as provide data on official time hours calculated against the total number of bargaining unit employees for an “official time rate.”
Under the GOP-led legislation, those annual reports would additionally have to detail the specific purpose of all official time, the amount of money withheld for union dues, the cost of pay and benefits for all employees while they are on official time, and the office space and resources union representatives use while on official time.
Generally, official time refers to on-the-clock hours that go toward work such as negotiating union contracts, meeting with management, filing complaints or grievances against an agency, or representing employees who are dealing with disciplinary actions or other management disputes. Federal unions are allotted, by law, specific and limited amounts of agency time and resources to conduct activities on official time.
Official time by union representatives has been a major target of the Trump administration this year. Some agencies have either reduced or fully removed official time options, in response to executive orders from Trump calling for the termination of collective bargaining at the majority of executive branch agencies.
The administration’s actions have received major pushback from federal unions such as the American Federation of Government Employees, which said OPM’s characterization of official time as “taxpayer-funded union time” is false and stigmatizing.
Mandatory executive training
During Tuesday’s markup, Oversight committee lawmakers also plan to consider legislation that would require a mandatory training program all managers and supervisors across the federal workforce would have to take.
Under the Federal Supervisor Education Act, which Rep. William Timmons (R-S.C.) introduced in October, agencies would have to work with OPM to create training programs for agency managers, with at least some modules focused on goals like performance management, employee engagement and productivity.
The bill would also require the training programs to cover how supervisors should manage employees who have “unacceptable performance,” as well as how to make use of the probationary period. The bill also mandates that managers and supervisors receive training on how to address reports of harassment, prohibited personnel practices, employee rights, and more.
The legislation emphasizes that agencies should use “instructor-based” training as much as practicable. If enacted, supervisors would have to complete the training within one year of being appointed to a supervisory role, and would have to retake the trainings at least once every three years following that.
The Republican-led effort comes after OPM launched two federal workforce training programs for senior executives in November, incorporating common themes from the Trump administration on “accountability,” performance management and adherence to the president’s priorities.
Although both new programs are optional, OPM still told agencies to “set the expectation” that all career Senior Executive Service members should at least complete training modules on “returning to founding principles” and “implementing administration priorities” within the next year.
In the Oversight committee meeting Tuesday, all three federal workforce bills, along with many others, will be up for consideration and potential advancement in the House.
Following the federal workforce reductions that have occurred this year, the Trump administration is now telling agencies to rethink how many senior executives they will need on staff as a result of those cuts.
A Nov. 24 memo from OPM encouraged agencies to consider reducing their staffing allocations for senior-level positions within their workforces.
No later than Dec. 19, OPM said agencies should submit a workforce assessment, detailing their current staffing allocations for various senior-level positions, and by how much they plan to reduce those allocations going forward — if at all. The memo includes a template that OPM expects agencies to fill out with more details on their projected allocations.
Agencies’ staffing assessments should reconsider allocations for Senior Executive Service (SES) members, as well as Senior Level (SL) and Scientific/Professional (ST) positions, OPM said.
“This review is especially important in light of headcount reductions and workforce restructuring, which may lead to a corresponding reduction in the need for SES, SL and ST allocations,” OPM wrote in its memo, addressed to agency chief human capital officers.
OPM said the senior-level staffing assessments should also take into account how agencies are reaching “optimal implementation of presidential priorities.”
“These assessments should also inform whether SES, SL and ST positions are appropriately classified and designated,” the memo reads.
OPM’s memo comes in response to an Oct. 15 executive order from President Donald Trump, which maintains limits for agencies on their recruitment efforts. Agencies have spent most of the year under a governmentwide hiring freeze, with a few exceptions carved out for positions in immigration enforcement, national security and public safety.
Trump’s executive order from October mandated that each agency create a “strategic hiring committee,” composed of senior officials and political appointees who will have to ensure that any hiring that does take place going forward is focused on “agency needs, the national interest and administration priorities.”
Already, the Trump administration has surpassed its goal of reducing the federal workforce by more than 300,000 employees during 2025. After reporting that approximately 317,000 federal employees have so far left the government this year, OPM is now pushing agencies toward their next steps for staffing plans.
At the same time that it’s encouraging a reduction of senior-level staffing, the administration has taken steps to give agencies more leeway in hiring politically appointed senior leaders instead. Over the summer, the White House created a new “Schedule G” employment classification, focused in particular on hiring non-career feds for roles in policy-making or policy-advocating work.
OPM’s new memo on senior executive allocations also comes after those in higher-level positions across government have seen a number of other changes from the Trump administration this year.
Most recently, OPM launched two new training series, in part focused on teaching senior leaders more in-depth about how they can best implement Trump’s workforce priorities, and to ensure they are adhering to “President Trump’s executive orders and other executive branch priorities.”
The Trump administration earlier this year also overhauled performance standards for senior executives, making adherence to the president’s priorities the “most critical element” of their reviews. Agencies are now being directed to set stricter limits on how many executives can be considered top performers.
The Trump administration’s deviation from some norms as it transitioned into the White House earlier this year is now raising questions about the future of presidential transition planning.
Reflecting on the most recent White House transition, the Partnership for Public Service’s Center for Presidential Transition argued in a new report that there is a need for bigger reforms in the transition process, particularly when it comes to transparency and security.
In its report, the Partnership, a non-profit organization that advocates for non-partisan improvements to the federal government, recommended adding more safeguards into the transition process — such as strengthening security protocols, further clarifying the transition rules, and streamlining paperwork to speed up transition planning. It also suggested amending the overarching Presidential Transition Act to incentivize transition teams to comply with standard practices.
Because transitions only occur once every four or eight years, the level of expertise around transition planning is already thin. But the Partnership said the losses to the federal workforce this year put the success of future presidential transitions at further risk.
“Such guardrails will be particularly essential to ensure a smooth transition in 2028 because of the vast amounts of expertise being lost from government as a result of this administration’s reductions of the federal workforce,” the Partnership wrote.
During the most recent presidential transition period, Trump’s approach was unlike any prior incoming administration — including his own transition into his first term in 2016.
Leading into his second term, Trump’s transition team skirted longstanding norms by refusing to sign a standard agreement with the General Services Administration, which outlines support services such as access to office space, IT equipment and federal staff. The GSA agreement also triggers reporting requirements and limits how much money transition teams can fundraise.
By subverting standard transition procedures and timelines, the Partnership said Trump’s team created security risks and caused significant planning delays.
“This inhibited the team’s ability to prepare essential staff and enabled them to avoid disclosing transition donors, agency review team members and the use of their transition funding,” the Partnership wrote in its report.
Jenny Mattingley, vice president of government affairs at the Partnership, said the Trump transition team’s divergence from the norms signals a larger shift for the future of presidential transition planning.
“The assumption had been that the candidate would want to follow these guidelines around security clearance, find their nominees for positions, bring in transition teams — but we didn’t see that as much during this transition,” Mattingley said in a recent interview with Federal News Network. “And during the course of the last 10 or 11 months, we’ve also seen some of the things that we thought were norms, and the ways of doing business, not play out.”
During the transition process, Trump’s team also delayed signing standard agreements to define how the incoming administration would access agencies after the election, and another agreement on security clearance requests for transition team members who needed to access classified information.
Mattingley said while the transparency in transition planning is critical, teams may want to use their own IT systems and office space, rather than accepting the government’s options. But because the GSA agreement is tied to other financial and reporting requirements, the public loses out on information about the transition process when it’s not signed, she explained.
“By not accepting those services, all of a sudden, those transparency mechanisms don’t happen,” Mattingley said. “We’re certainly seeing a changeover in those particular types of processes.”
A solution, according to the Partnership’s report, may involve changing the structure of the agency agreements, and adding updates to the Presidential Transition Act — the law that sets most standards for presidential transition planning.
Specifically, the Partnership recommended separating the agreements on office space, equipment and IT systems, splitting those from agreements on financial and ethical reporting requirements. The change would compel teams to provide transparency on their transition planning while not requiring their use of government resources or office space.
Technology modernization and the changing nature of the workplace are creating further questions around what types of resources transition teams truly need from agencies.
“Transition officials still say a physical location supports important collaboration, as well as communication with agency and congressional officials,” the Partnership wrote. “But as demonstrated by the significant transition work done virtually in 2020 and 2024, widespread embrace of hybrid work means that physical space matters less than it once did.”
The Partnership suggested eliminating the requirement for GSA-provided office space — which is funded by taxpayers, even if unused — and instead offering some level of funding for transition teams to use their preferred office space.
“Many things that we do in government were built up around norms, just ways of doing business that weren’t actually statutory,” Mattingley said. “But once norms are broken, my biggest concern is that it’s really hard to go back to adhering to a norm, unless we put a new statute, rule or some sort of guardrail in place.”
“I do think we’re going to have to watch out for how campaigns and candidates think about approaching the transition going forward,” she added.
People work during an effort to transition a replica of the White House Oval Office from the days of former President Joe Biden with President Donald Trump's decor, at the White House Historical Association in Washington, Wednesday, July 23, 2025. (AP Photo/Rod Lamkey, Jr.)
The Office of Personnel Management has launched a new training series, designed to educate senior executives in the federal workforce, while incorporating common themes from the Trump administration on “accountability,” performance management and adherence to the president’s priorities.
Two new training programs that OPM announced last week are targeted toward both career and political members of the Senior Executive Service, as well as GS-14 and GS-15 federal employees. The trainings largely reflect the Trump administration’s reshaping of the federal workforce this year, according to OPM Director Scott Kupor.
“We’re trying to move towards a performance-based culture in government. It’s only fair if we’re going to do that, that we give people the tools and the training necessary, so that they understand very clearly what they’re held accountable to,” Kupor said Friday in an interview with Federal News Network. “Now we have a mechanism ultimately to, as part of their performance review, make sure that [federal executives] are adhering to those principles.”
Through the new programs, OPM is aiming to inform senior leaders in more depth how the Trump administration has changed various federal workforce policies, and how senior leaders can best embed those changes at agencies.
As an example, Kupor pointed to the administration’s overhauls of the government’s performance management system. In February, OPM updated performance standards for the SES, to set much stricter limits on how many SES members can be rated as high performers, and make adherence to the president’s policies the “most critical element” of their performance reviews.
“For things that are within the bailiwick of what we expect managers to do, that are now represented in the form of executive orders, we want to make sure people really do understand both the derivation of those, as well as how we think about the appropriate implementation of those policies,” Kupor said.
In a memo last week, OPM called on agencies to encourage their senior leaders to sign up for the optional training programs, which are available governmentwide. Agencies have until Dec. 19 to inform executives that the trainings are open for registration on OPM’s website.
Details of OPM’s development programs
OPM’s two new programs for training federal executives differ in both content and cost. One of the new trainings, called the “Senior Executive Development Program,” uses a combination of video modules and “podcast-style discussions” among federal experts. It will train executives on topics like “constitutional governance,” budget, policy and strategic human capital management, according to OPM’s memo.
The SEDP is a fully online course that executives can complete at their own pace, for a tuition cost of $1,500.
OPM’s other new training program, called “Leadership for an Efficient and Accountable Government,” includes a combination of in-person and online trainings, costing $8,500 per registrant for the 80-hour course. OPM said the LEAG program is focused on “efficiency” and “accountability,” and includes modules centered on “President Trump’s executive orders and other executive branch priorities.”
“LEAG participants will gain essential skills to bridge policy and implementation, drive efficiency, uphold accountability, and expand their impact as senior leaders serving the American people,” OPM wrote in its memo.
Although both programs are optional, OPM still told agencies to “set the expectation” that all career SES members should at least complete training modules on “returning to founding principles” and “implementing administration priorities” within the next year.
Marcus Hill, president of the Senior Executives Association, said there is a continuous need for training among SES members, to “strengthen their ability to manage people, programs and resources responsibly.”
“Above all, these programs should reinforce what every federal leader swears to uphold: the obligation to ‘support and defend the Constitution of the United States’ and to ‘faithfully discharge the duties of the office’ to which they were appointed,” Hill said in a statement. “Understanding the legal and constitutional framework in which we operate is fundamental to maintaining public trust and carrying out our responsibilities with integrity.”
Next steps for federal workforce training
In part, OPM’s two new programs appear to replace prior opportunities from the Federal Executive Institute. The FEI was a long-time training program OPM ran for federal employees governmentwide — until President Donald Trump directed the dismantling of FEI in February.
When initially announcing plans to launch new trainings in August, OPM said the upcoming SES programs would be “radically different” from what existed previously through FEI.
Kupor told Federal News Network that FEI “was lacking in a couple areas,” and argued that the cost of the program surpassed its overall value to senior executives.
“It literally had a physical campus to it, so it required people to be away from office for several days in order to do it,” Kupor said. “Unfortunately, it was prohibitive both in terms of dollars, as well as just people’s time.”
Earlier this year, OPM eliminated its Center for Leadership Development through a reduction in force (RIF). The office was previously responsible for running various training and development programs for the federal workforce, but in the absence of CLD, the new training programs are being run through OPM’s Human Resources Solutions office, in partnership with the director’s office.
Some workforce experts, however, have previously questioned OPM’s internal capacity to manage new training programs. Since January, the agency has reduced its workforce by about one-third, as part of the Trump administration’s efforts to reduce headcount across government.
Jason Briefel, a federal workforce policy expert, said he generally considers the idea of a governmentwide SES training program from OPM to be a positive development. But he expressed reservations about what the trainings would actually entail — and what types of results the programs may deliver.
“With agencies shrinking their workforces, and with more demands being placed on executive leaders, how will they balance actually doing the training, and then applying what they’ve learned, while still trying to do their job?” Briefel said.
Briefel also questioned whether agencies would have the budget to afford the new OPM trainings, as most are still operating under a continuing resolution and uncertain of their long-term funding options.
Moving forward, Kupor said OPM plans to update the training modules over time, as well as expand the program to add more development opportunities for other sectors of the federal workforce.
“We will need help from external parties to do that — OPM doesn’t have this view that we need to own and develop everything,” Kupor said. “There are plenty of organizations external to OPM who, to the extent they have ways in which they can help us further develop the curriculum, we’re very open to that.”
Scott Kupor, left, President Donald Trump's pick to be Director of the Office of Personnel Management, speaks as Eric Ueland, right, Trump's pick to be Deputy Director for Management at the Office of Management and Budget, listens during a hearing of the Senate Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs on Capitol Hill, Thursday, April 3, 2025, in Washington. (AP Photo/Mark Schiefelbein)
A federal union representing over 30,000 Bureau of Prisons employees is suing the agency over its recent cancellation of the BOP’s collective bargaining agreement.
The lawsuit, filed last week by the American Federation of Government Employees’ Council of Prisons Locals 33, alleged that the agency’s decision to cancel the union contract violated First Amendment rights, as well as the Administrative Procedure Act.
The union argued that BOP Director William K. Marshall III’s Sept. 25 announcement ending the labor-management agreement “made clear” that the contract was not canceled due to President Donald Trump’s executive orders, or for “national security” purposes. Instead, the union alleged that it was a form of retaliation, and that the agency did not follow required procedures in its actions.
The union is asking for an injunction to reverse the collective bargaining agreement’s cancellation at BOP.
An AFGE official, speaking anonymously for fear of professional retaliation, said the intention of the new lawsuit “is to protect our members and advocate for them the way we always have.”
“Our agency was status quo for months — then just decided out of nowhere that this union is a roadblock,” the official said. “Especially in law enforcement, you need protections in place. You need a union to be able to help these staff through these situations. That, to me, is our biggest driving force. We just want to be there to protect our people.”
A spokesperson for the BOP declined Federal News Network’s request for comment, stating that the agency does not comment on pending litigation or ongoing legal proceedings. The spokesperson instead directed to Marshall’s initial September announcement for information.
In the September announcement, Marshall said the decision to cancel the contract was “to make [employees’] lives better,” while adding that AFGE had become “an obstacle to progress instead of a partner in it.”
“[The union contract] didn’t give you your protections, the law did, and Bureau policy continues them,” Marshall said in September. “This isn’t about taking things away, it’s about giving you more.”
Earlier this year, President Donald Trump issued two executive orders, calling on most agencies to cancel their union contracts and terminate collective bargaining for broad swaths of federal employees.
Although Trump’s orders made use of a narrow legal provision that lets a president suspend collective bargaining for “national security” purposes, BOP’s announcement in September made no direct mention of national security.
The union said in its new lawsuit that there was no “reasoned explanation” for ending the BOP contract, in effect a violation of the Administrative Procedure Act. Additionally, the union alleged that BOP failed to consider alternatives to the contract’s cancellation, as well as the interests of union members by “suddenly pulling the plug on union protections.”
The lawsuit also argued that the contract termination violated the First Amendment, which prohibits agency officials from retaliating against either individuals or organizations based on their protected speech.
As a result of the contract’s termination, BOP employees “have become even more hesitant than they were already to engage in activity that is or could be perceived as being contrary to policies of the Trump administration,” the union wrote.
More broadly, AFGE is suing the Trump administration over the president’s pair of executive orders and several agencies’ subsequent actions ending collective bargaining. The BOP lawsuit, in comparison, is more narrowly focused on the timing and manner of BOP’s specific decision to cancel the contract covering bargaining unit employees.
AFGE National President Everett Kelley expressed support for the new and separate lawsuit at BOP.
“Their union contract has provided employees a voice at work to ensure critical protections, including safeguards against unsafe working conditions, unfair discipline and staffing shortages that put both workers and the public at risk,” Kelley said, adding that ending the contract “is a dangerous action that should alarm everyone.”
The legal action also comes as the Protect America’s Workforce Act, a bill to reverse the Trump administration’s efforts to remove union protections, heads toward a House floor vote. If enacted, the legislation would restore collective bargaining for tens of thousands of federal employees.
Many agencies have proceeded with “de-recognizing” their unions, after an appeals court in August granted a stay on a preliminary injunction that had previously been preventing agencies from implementing Trump’s anti-union orders.
But in comparison with other agencies’ contract terminations, BOP’s decision was delayed. It took nearly two months following the court decision before the agency moved forward with ending the agreement. Originally, the contract was set to expire May 28, 2029.
The contract laid out policies for employees on overtime, shift work, sick leave and safety requirements, as well as procedural protections for employees during reduction-in-force proceedings. The agreement also secured limitations on disciplinary actions, and set standards around official time, and grievance and arbitration procedures.
“The [collective bargaining agreement] was the product of years of negotiations to safeguard essential rights for bargaining unit members,” the union’s lawsuit stated.
During the two months prior to the contract’s cancellation, the union said the agency appeared to be upholding the contract’s policies, for example by holding labor-management relations meetings, and maintaining space for union officials on-site — but then moved to terminate the contract “effective immediately,” with little notice to union officials.
In his September announcement, Marshall stated that canceling the contract would not have any impact on job security, pay, benefits or safety for correctional officers.
But union officials said there were issues “almost immediately” after the collective bargaining agreement was ended. For instance, the union is now no longer able to represent employees when there are workplace issues, such as an instance of alleged harassment on the job. Prior to the contract’s cancellation, union officials would speak with BOP leaders and work to conduct an assessment or investigation into any issues that arose.
“The union typically walks you through the process, helps you respond, helps you through the investigation,” a union official said. “But we’re not there — and these staff don’t know what they can and can’t do, because we’ve always been there.”
FILE - In this July 6, 2020, photo, a sign for the Department of Justice Federal Bureau of Prisons is displayed at the Metropolitan Detention Center in the Brooklyn borough of New York. The Justice Department on Tuesday named Colette Peters, the director of Oregon’s prison system, to run the federal Bureau of Prisons, turning to a reform-minded outsider as it seeks to rebuild the beleaguered agenc (AP Photo/Mark Lennihan, File)
The National Treasury Employees Union is suing the Trump administration in an attempt to gain records of career federal employee positions that may be targeted for removal of job protections.
NTEU’s lawsuit, filed last week against the Office of Personnel Management, alleged that OPM violated the Freedom of Information Act by not responding to the union’s FOIA request from August. The union had requested documentation of employees who will be potentially impacted by the Trump administration’s “Schedule Policy/Career” order, which seeks to make tens of thousands of career federal employees at-will workers and easier for agencies to fire.
“The government cannot hide information that is critical to safeguarding workplace rights and protections for frontline federal employees in multiple agencies across the country,” NTEU National President Doreen Greenwald said in a statement. “We expect OPM and the administration to identify as soon as possible which federal jobs are being targeted so we can do everything we can to stop the reclassifications.”
Under federal statute, agencies are required to respond to FOIA requests within 20 days. In “unusual circumstances,” that timeframe can be extended for an additional 10 days.
But NTEU said in its lawsuit that OPM has not responded to the FOIA request at all, and that the time period for responding has lapsed. NTEU submitted its initial FOIA request on Aug. 20.
“There is no legal basis for OPM’s failure to respond to NTEU’s request or for its failure to produce the requested records within the statutory time period,” NTEU wrote.
The federal union is arguing that OPM’s failure to respond to the FOIA request is unlawful, and calling for a release of the requested records.
An OPM spokesperson did not immediately respond to Federal News Network’s request for comment.
NTEU’s push for information comes after President Donald Trump in January signed an executive order to revive the federal employment classification previously known as “Schedule F.” Though it is now called “Schedule Policy/Career,” the effort mirrors a former executive order from Trump’s first term that sought to remove job protections from broad swaths of the career federal workforce.
OPM proposed regulations for implementing the new employment classification in April. Although the regulations are not yet finalized, they have been moved into the “final rule stage,” and are slated for possible publication by the end of November, according to the White House’s regulatory agenda.
The White House website states that the final rule will impact “policy-influencing positions” and that the rule’s implementation will “increase career employee accountability.”
All federal positions that are reclassified as “Schedule Policy/Career” will become at-will, and employees will no longer be able to appeal adverse actions against them.
“This will allow agencies to quickly remove employees from critical positions who engage in misconduct, perform poorly, or obstruct the democratic process by intentionally subverting Presidential directives,” OPM states in the regulatory agenda item.
The Trump administration has generally argued that the reclassifications will hold federal employees more accountable and provide more flexibility to agencies. But federal unions, as well as many lawmakers and workforce experts, have said reclassifying employees in this way will lead to politically motivated firings, and an erosion of the apolitical nature of the career civil service.
Earlier this year, OPM also published guidance to set initial expectations for agencies to implement the Schedule Policy/Career employment classification. The guidance targets a wide range of federal positions that may be subject to reclassification.
OPM has estimated that about 50,000 career federal employees in “confidential, policy-determining, policy-making, and policy-advocating” positions will be reclassified as a result of Trump’s order. But OPM’s latest estimate is on the lower end of the scale: Documents from Trump’s first term showed that around 200,000 career federal positions could have their job protections stripped.
NTEU previously sued the Trump administration in January after the initial Schedule Policy/Career executive order was released. The first lawsuit alleges that Trump’s order violates established federal hiring principles and the due process rights of federal employees.
Combined, Greenwald said the two lawsuits from NTEU “are about making sure that the American people have their government services delivered by federal employees who were hired based on merit and skill, not partisan affiliation.”
Alexis Goldstein, a member of the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau’s chapter of the National Treasury Employees Union, speaks at a press conference outside the Supreme Court on Monday. Goldstein, in her personal capacity, joined several federal colleagues in urging Democrats to “say no to the bully.” The event, organized by the Civil Servants Coalition, criticized the Trump administration’s federal workforce overhauls this year.
Participants in both the Federal Employees Health Benefits and Postal Service Health Benefits programs may have more incentive than usual to take advantage of Open Season, as premium costs continue to surge in yet another year of double-digit percentage increases.
For 2026, FEHB premiums are rising by an average of 12.3% for enrollees, while those in PSHB will see their premium costs rise by an average of 11.3%. It comes after premiums increased by about 13.5% and 11.1% for FEHB and PSHB respectively in 2025.
Shane Stevens, associate director of healthcare and insurance at the Office of Personnel Management, acknowledged what he said was a “frustrating environment” for insurance enrollees who are facing continually rising premium costs.
“Health care costs have become somewhat unsustainable,” Stevens said during Federal News Network’s 2026 Open Season Exchange. “I’ve watched employees have to get second jobs to get insurance and cover it. I’ve watched where they’ve reduced the amount of coverage in order to afford it. In some cases, they’ve gone completely without insurance.”
Combating federal health insurance premium cost increases
To try to combat rising premiums costs, Stevens said OPM’s strategy will revolve around reducing “fraud, waste and abuse” in the government’s insurance programs.
“We have a fiduciary responsibility to the taxpayers, to our plan participants, the retirees, the current federal workers. Yet we have very little insight into what we’re actually spending this coming year,” he said. “We’re working very hard to try and get all of this information, all of this data, to be able to make good decisions, which will help us to detect fraud, waste, abuse and overpayments.”
OPM is also on a one-year deadline to implement recently added requirements from the One Big, Beautiful Bill Act. One provision of the reconciliation bill, called the FEHB Protection Act, requires OPM to create a system for verifying the eligibility of FEHB enrollees. The bill also directs OPM to include eligibility audits in any fraud risk assessments of the program.
The push in Congress came after the Government Accountability Office in 2022 found that OPM may be spending up to $1 billion annually on ineligible FEHB enrollees. Removing ineligible members, however, would reduce costs to thegovernment but not necessarily lower premiums for beneficiaries directly.
“If we get the data and the information we need, I’m convinced that we could save approximately 7% to 8% per year,” Stevens estimated.
Addressing staff needs, other challenges within OPM
OPM’s insurance programs are facing other major challenges as well. The platform for the PSHB program in particular is at risk of an operational failure, according to OPM’s inspector general office. An OIG report over the summer found that staffing shortages at OPM this year, coupled with funding issues, may negatively impact enrollees’ experience or ability to change enrollments during Open Season.
On top of that, GAO recently reported that the staffing shortages at OPM are hindering the agency’s ability to address risks of fraud in the FEHB program.
When asked how OPM has responded to the watchdog’s concerns, “We do believe our staff can work effectively through everything,” Stevens said, adding, “In the short run, we’ve improved our systems and our processes to where we’re not concerned about delays or challenges.”
Stevens added that he plans to roll out more artificial intelligence tools for participants to use in the enrollment process for future years of Open Season.
Emulating the ‘Make America Healthy Again’ agenda
In addition to addressing fraud and saving costs, Stevens also described his goal of shifting the government’s insurance programs toward what he described as a “well care model,” as opposed to what he describes currently as a “sick care model.”
“We want to move more toward a holistic approach and something to where we’re not doing a pharmaceutical-first type of intervention, or where we have faith-based behavioral health care to where they can give true solutions,” he said.
“If we get healthier and we start making better health decisions, then we’re going to be able to reduce the costs, the premiums,” Stevens added.
It’s not yet entirely clear what OPM may change in the FEHB or PSHB programs based on the big-picture priorities Stevens outlined during the interview.
But for 2026, OPM already made one distinct change: Carriers were required to end coverage of all gender-affirming care, in line with an executive order from President Donald Trump earlier this year.
Enrollees who are mid-treatment for gender-affirming care can still continue receiving coverage, according to OPM’s new requirements, but the definition of “mid-treatment” is determined individually by each health carrier. Federal health plan experts have recommended that those impacted by OPM’s change check their carrier’s plan brochure for more details.
Going forward though, Stevens also expressed interest in reconsidering coverage of GLP-1 medications, a class of drugs that are prescribed to treat diabetes and obesity.
“We want to look at utilizing these as a tool for weight loss or for treatment of diabetes,” Stevens said. “However, we don’t want it to be viewed as the end-all be-all of, ‘this is going to save me.’”
Currently, OPM requires all carriers to cover at least one type of GLP-1 for enrollees, prescribed for weight loss. It’s a requirement that health care experts have said is a positive development and ahead of the curve compared with the private sector.
But Stevens said he wants to encourage physical exercise and nutrition over GLP-1s, through the government’s insurance programs. That type of change, he said, may also lead to some cost savings.
“I want to try and move away from that, move more to incentivizing providers to have good health outcomes for their patients versus prescribed medications,” he said.
Stevens’ approach for what he sees for the future of FEHB and PSHB mirrors goals of the Trump administration’s larger push toward the “Make America Healthy Again” agenda.
Stevens, for instance, discussed what he views as a “broken” health care system that focuses on prescriptions first — emulating a sentiment that Health and Human Services Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. has expressed and that has influenced some of the Trump administration’s major health initiatives.
RFK’s MAHA report from May outlined contentious views on vaccines, the nation’s food supply, pesticides and prescription drugs. The HHS report, parts of which have received strong criticism, additionally includes increased scrutiny of childhood vaccines and “fear-based” views on farming chemicals, while also blaming ultra-processed foods for unhealthy Americans.
“We truly have a secretary of health that’s fighting for the real overall well-being of health. We have a president that truly cares about it, and then we have a lot of appointees that are trying to make a big difference,” Stevens said. “It’s a massive shift in the paradigm of how we look at health care — really looking at outcomes versus prescriptions and a lot of the things that have made us an unhealthy population.”
Encouraging Open Season action
In the immediate term, Stevens encouraged participants in FEHB and PSHB over the next several weeks to take advantage of Open Season. Participants have until the enrollment window closes on Dec. 10 to spend time looking at plan brochures and comparing various insurance options that are available to them.
The push to take action during Open Season comes as relatively few insurance enrollees end up selecting a different plan each year.
“Change is tough, change is scary, and a lot of times I think people would just rather stick with their current plan and do the same, regardless of how much it could cost them more,” Stevens said. “It will surprise a lot of people in seeing that if they were to shift over to a different type of plan that they could save a substantial amount of money.”
For measuring this year’s Open Season success, Stevens said he will be looking for any potential shifts in the statistic that just 5% of enrollees change their plans each year.
“We encourage everybody to take the time — I’m talking maybe an hour of your time — to jump in and look at the different tools that we’ve created and make sure that you’re picking the plan that’s best for you,” he said. “We’ll take all of that in and see what we can do to improve our systems and processes to make it even better next year.”
It’s commonly cited that just about 5% of participants in the Federal Employees Health Benefits program change their plan during Open Season each year — so it may not be surprising to learn that many FEHB participants who take advantage of Open Season also tend to wait until the last minute to do so.
But during Federal News Network’s 2026 Open Season Exchange, Holly Schumann, principal deputy associate director for health care and insurance at the Office of Personnel Management, urged participants to get started on their research sooner rather than later.
“We do typically see a big surge of traffic on the last few days of Open Season, but I really encourage folks to take action earlier,” Schumann said. “Take the time to study all of the information. And that’s much easier to do if you’re not waiting until the last minute and feeling pressure to make a decision.”
Tips on how to research federal health insurance options
Schumann also gave some advice for where participants can get started on their studying. She recommended going first to OPM’s website. There, participants can find a plan comparison tool, as well as deeply detailed plan information across all health insurance carriers.
The plan brochures from FEHB carriers — as well as those in the Postal Service Health Benefits program — cover benefits changes for 2026, details on Medicare for each plan option, what the premium rates will look like beginning in January and much more.
“We don’t want anybody to be caught surprised by a change in their plan that they weren’t aware of,” Schumann said. “If you have a specific health care need, I really encourage you to take the time find the link on our website, download the brochure and take a few minutes to leaf through it.”
Beyond FEHB and PSHB information, enrollees can also see more details on OPM’s website about the Federal Employees Dental and Vision Insurance Program, as well as FSAFEDS — the government’s program for flexible spending accounts. FSAFEDS allows current federal employees each year to set aside pre-tax dollars to go toward eligible out-of-pocket medical expenses.
Schumann strongly encouraged participants to consider enrolling in an FSA, to help save on out-of-pocket costs.
“It allows you to save essentially 20% or 30% on what you would pay for those things, when you consider the tax savings,” Schumann explained. “There is a ‘use or lose’ rule with a flexible spending account generally, but there are mechanisms where, on the health care side for example, you can roll over any excess funds up to a certain limit — assuming you enroll in a flexible spending account the next year.”
While benefits inevitably change year-to-year in FEHB and PSHB, there are also a handful of coverage updates coming from carriers in FEDVIP as well, Schumann said. That makes it all the more prudent for participants to take a look at what’s out there this Open Season.
“Among dental plans, there are some who are offering additional enhanced benefits for additional cleanings during pregnancy, for example,” she said. “On the vision side, there are some plans that are offering additional benefits for folks with diabetes, since we know that they require some enhanced vision services. Folks who might be interested in those benefits should take the time to look at OPM’s website and find out more information about those.”
OPM’s year-round work on health insurance
Although Open Season is the most public-facing time of year for OPM’s health insurance office, the work for the agency truly takes place year-round when it comes to the government’s various insurance programs.
Throughout the year, OPM issues call letters to collaborate with carriers on any changes to benefits or coverage for the following plan year, as well as to discuss priorities on premium rates and costs within the insurance programs.
The premiums are, in part, driven by costs of care from prior years, while also incorporating predictions of what health care costs will look like in the year ahead, Schumann explained. Based on the estimations, OPM’s actuarial team then negotiates the rates with carriers to reach the final values.
“Really what we’re seeking to do is to find the right balance of comprehensive medical coverage with affordability — we’re always trying to strike that balance,” she said.
In the weeks leading up to Open Season’s start date, OPM works to update all information on its website — including the plan comparison tool, as well as all carriers’ health plan brochures for the following plan year.
“We can add information, if needed, to make sure that people get what they need to make informed decisions,” Schumann said. “We also monitor the web traffic to our site to see where people are coming from and what information sources they are most interested in, so that we can adapt during Open Season.”
Then once Open Season ends, OPM works closely with FEHB and PSHB carriers to make sure any participants who changed plans during the open enrollment period are able to get their new insurance cards and all the information they need, ahead of the actual start of the new plan year in January.
Medicare Part D — and the final word
During Open Season, Schumann also stressed the importance of considering some key differences within Medicare Part D and how that will operate for participants depending on whether they are in the FEHB or the PSHB program.
“Many FEHB plans, though not all, provide a Part D prescription drug plan that works in conjunction with their plan. And if you’re eligible and Medicare-enrolled, you’ll be opted into that plan,” Schumann said. “But you can opt out, and you will still have coverage under the underlying FEHB plan, if you choose not to enroll in Part D.”
But for Medicare-eligible PSHB participants, there is an important caveat: PSHB enrollees can only access prescription drug coverage through the program if they have Medicare Part D.
All Medicare-eligible participants will be automatically enrolled, but there is no underlying prescription drug coverage for PSHB participants if they choose to opt out of Part D.
“Every PSHB plan offers a Part D plan that works in conjunction with the PSHB plan,” Schumann said. “Enrollees still have the option to go out on the retail market, if they prefer to choose a different plan than the one offered by their carrier, and purchase a Part D plan. But they just need to know that they have to have Part D if they want to have any sort of prescription drug coverage at all” through PSHB.
Ultimately, Schumann doubled down on her recommendation for studying up and getting an early start on Open Season to ensure participants find the best plan option for them.
“I know it can be daunting to make your way through all of this information about all of the benefit choices available to you, but it’s really time well spent to make sure that you get the coverage that’s right for you and for your family,” she said. “We welcome the opportunity to serve you, and we always welcome feedback on how we can make things better in the future. So take the time, make those decisions carefully, and we’ll look forward to a successful Open Season.”
Participants will see yet another year of large premium increases for 2026, with increasing costs that will impact virtually all enrollees in both the Federal Employees Health Benefits and Postal Service Health Benefits programs.
But Kevin Moss, director of marketing and fundraising at Consumers’ Checkbook and our Fed With Benefitscolumnist, said that’s not the full story this Open Season.
“The premiums don’t all move in the same direction,” Moss said during Federal News Network’s 2026 Open Season Exchange. “There are 23 plans next year where the premium is going down in FEHB. … About half of all the other plans are either moving below that average or above that average. So you’ll have to do the research this Open Season.”
Overall, premiums are going up substantially for plan year 2026. FEHB participants will pay an average of 12.3% more toward their premiums. Out of all FEHB plans, 57 are increasing at a rate lower than the average, and 49 plans are increasing at a rate higher than the average.
For PSHB participants, premium costs are rising by an average of 11.3%, with 35 increasing at a rate below the average and 26 increasing more than the average. Thirteen plan premiums are decreasing, and one is staying the same.
Why premiums are on the rise
Some of the major driving factors behind the premium increases are GLP-1 medications, something that the Office of Personnel Management requires carriers to cover, as well as the rising age of enrollees in FEHB and PSHB.
Premiums are also rising in the Federal Employees Dental and Vision Insurance Program (FEDVIP), but to a much smaller extent. For 2026, the average dental premium increase is 3.35%, while vision premiums will rise by an average of 0.47%.
Still, there are several ways that enrollees can hedge against the rising costs next year, Moss said. For current federal employees, he recommended contributing to a Flexible Spending Account through the FSAFEDS program. It’s an option that’s available to all active federal employees, but right now, just 20% of the federal workforce takes advantage of the program.
The FSA option allows federal employees to set aside pre-tax dollars for eligible medical, dental and vision costs — and feds may be able to save about 30% on those costs by using an FSA. For 2026, federal employees can contribute about $100 more toward an FSA, for a total contribution limit of $3,400.
“Every federal employee has some out-of-pocket health care costs that they can budget and predict,” Moss said. “When we think about medical expenses and when we also consider vision expenses and dental expenses, I think most federal employees can at least find a few hundred dollars that they predict that they’re going to spend out of pocket.”
Changes to plans and coverage for 2026
At the same time that most health plan premiums are on the rise, it’s inevitable that each year some plans will exit the FEHB marketplace, while some new ones pop up.
For 2026, there will be a total of 47 carriers and 132 plan options available in the FEHB program, according to OPM. For PSHB, there will be 75 total plan options participants can choose from, across 17 different carriers.
A number of smaller and regional plans are leaving the FEHB marketplace next year: Health Alliance’s HMO Standard; AvMed Health Plan’s HDHP and Standard plans; Independent Health’s High plan; Blue Care Network of Michigan’s High plan; and Priority Health’s High plan.
GEHA Elevate and GEHA Elevate Plus are the only two plan options leaving PSHB next year.
But Moss said the most significant change for 2026 are the two plans from the National Association of Letter Carriers that are leaving the FEHB program. NALC’s exit from FEHB will impact about 29,000 enrollees who will have to either select a new plan during Open Season or be auto-enrolled into GEHA High.
That auto-enrollment option might be the right choice for individuals, Moss said, but it also might not.
“You’ll want to find out how it works before getting auto-enrolled in that plan,” Moss said.
There are also several important benefit updates that enrollees should be aware of, Moss explained. There have been some recent changes, for instance, in the coverage of in vitro fertilization through FEHB and PSHB. BlueCross BlueShield Standard and GEHA High both offer a similar benefit of up to $25,000 to cover IVF treatments.
“If you’re thinking about IVF, just make sure that you’re also thinking the other aspects of plan choice before making that plan decision,” Moss said. “What are the premium differences? What about provider network? What about the other benefits that those plans offer? Make sure that you’re really comparing on more than just the IVF.”
OPM additionally requires all carriers in both FEHB and PSHB to cover at least one GLP-1 medication prescribed for weight loss — something that Moss said is ahead of the curve in comparison to the commercial market.
“You’re going to want to go to the prescription drug resource information on the carrier websites to find out about cost coverage, whether there’s pre-authorization requirements and get some pricing information,” he said.
One other notable change for 2026 is that OPM is requiring all carriers to drop coverage of gender-affirming care for participants. OPM’s requirements earlier this year initially told carriers only to stop providing pediatric coverage of gender-affirming care, but OPM later expanded the requirement to block coverage for all enrollees in both FEHB and PSHB.
An important caveat to OPM’s changes, however, is that FEHB or PSHB enrollees who are mid-treatment for gender-affirming care will still be able to continue getting their treatment covered next year.
“The definition of ‘mid-treatment’ is left to the carriers, so anyone who’s using gender-affirming care services will really want to find out from their carrier, either through the plan brochure or the carrier website itself,” Moss said.
Taking advantage of Open Season
Even if enrollees feel satisfied with their plan option, they’d still be wise to do some research during Open Season, Moss said. Usually, just about 5% of FEHB enrollees change their plan options during each year’s open enrollment window.
“There’s homework that every federal employee has, and it all starts with looking at what’s different with your plan that you currently have,” Moss said. “The premium is probably different. The benefits can change.”
Taking a look at section two of a carrier’s plan brochure will detail any changes in benefits and costs that will occur next plan year. Because OPM mandates that all carriers’ plan brochures have the same formatting, it’s relatively easy to compare costs and benefits across different plan options, Moss said.
OPM also has a plan comparison tool, and Consumer’s Checkbook offers a “Guide to Health Plans” for federal employees, which is accessible for free through many federal agencies. The comprehensive guide includes estimated yearly costs and which plans may have the best value.
“All these resources are there for you to help people better understand both their plan and different plan options this Open Season,” Moss said.
In spite of the sharply rising premiums, Moss said, “There could be a positive here: It may spur folks to actually look to see, ‘Are there other plans that maybe can offer greater value, where I can still keep the providers that I’ve grown accustomed to but then save quite a bit of money by switching plans?’ ”
More than 30,000 federal insurance enrollees may be in for some sticker shock next year, if they choose to do nothing during Open Season.
With eight plan options being discontinued in the Federal Employees Health Benefits (FEHB) program, participants currently enrolled with those carriers — most of whom are enrolled in plans from the National Association of Letter Carriers — will, in some cases, face more than a 200% spike in premium costs, if they accept the auto-enrollment plan option for 2026.
Typically, participants whose plans leave the FEHB program are automatically enrolled in the lowest-cost nationwide plan the following year. But for 2026, the Office of Personnel Management chose a different path forward.
The specifics behind OPM’s decision remain unclear, but an OPM spokesperson told Federal News Network the agency chose a plan that’s not the lowest-cost nationwide plan “because we determined it was in the best interest of the program to do so.”
“The default plan designation ensures enrollees who do not choose a plan during Open Season continue to have health insurance coverage, but OPM strongly encourages enrollees in terminating plans or plan options to review the plans available to them for 2026 and choose the one that best meets their needs,” the spokesperson said.
Under federal regulations, FEHB participants whose plans are discontinued — and who do not take action during Open Season — will be automatically enrolled in the lowest-cost nationwide plan that is not a high-deductible health plan (HDHP), and that does not include membership fees. But the regulations additionally state, “OPM reserves the right to designate an alternate plan for automatic enrollments if OPM determines circumstances dictate this.”
For 2026, the lowest cost nationwide plan that fits the statutory requirements is GEHA Elevate. But OPM made the decision to “exercise its authority” to make GEHA High the auto-enrollment plan instead.
A spokesperson for GEHA declined to comment for this story.
All enrollees have the opportunity to make a different plan selection during Open Season, if they choose to. Open Season began Nov. 10 and will run until Dec. 8, for changes that will take effect starting in January. More information on FEHB premium rates is available on OPM’s website and in carriers’ plan brochures. Participants can also use OPM’s plan comparison tool to weigh various options for 2026.
Comparing FEHB premiums, benefits
In total, eight plan options across six plans are leaving FEHB in 2026, which will impact roughly 32,000 participants. The vast majority of affected participants were enrolled in a health plan from the National Association of Letter Carriers. NALC had two plans — NALC High and NALC CDHP (Consumer Driven Health Plan) — in the FEHB marketplace. Neither will be available in FEHB for plan year 2026, although NALC will remain a carrier in the Postal Service Health Benefits (PSHB) program.
Between those two plans, about 29,000 total participants were enrolled in NALC for 2025. Nearly 26,700 were enrolled in NALC High. A smaller portion, just over 2,300 FEHB participants, were enrolled in NALC CDHP.
Regardless of which NALC plan they were in, all of those enrollees will have to either pick a new plan during Open Season, or be auto-enrolled by OPM. NALC did not immediately respond to a request for comment.
Outside of the two NALC options that will account for the vast majority of impacted enrollees, others from various smaller plans leaving FEHB will also be automatically enrolled in GEHA High, if they do not select a different plan during Open Season this fall.
The other plans leaving the FEHB program in 2026 are:
Health Alliance’s HMO Standard
AvMed Health Plan’s HDHP and Standard plans
Independent Health’s High plan
Blue Care Network of Michigan’s High plan
Priority Health’s High plan
In terms of premiums, the exact cost increase depends on a participant’s plan option.
For instance, an enrollee in the “self and family” plan option of NALC High has been paying $283.94 per biweekly pay period for their insurance in 2025. If that enrollee takes no action, and gets auto-enrolled in the “self and family” plan for GEHA High next year, the biweekly cost will increase to $525.18, beginning in January 2026 — an increase of nearly 85% in premium cost to the enrollee.
In a more striking example, an enrollee in the “self and family” plan option of NALC CDHP, who has been paying $146.26 per biweekly pay period this year, will see their premium cost surge by nearly 260% next year — paying a premium of $525.18 per biweekly pay period, if they are auto-enrolled into GEHA High.
By comparison, the average premium increase across all FEHB plans for 2026 is 12.3%, when taking into account the 47 carriers offering a total of 132 total plan options for next year. Not all plan options are available to all FEHB enrollees, as some are specific to certain agencies or geographic regions.
Premium costs, however, are far from the only factor that enrollees should be considering when making a plan selection, according to federal health plan experts.
“FEHB enrollees losing their NALC health plan should carefully consider which health plan will be the best fit for them,” said Kevin Moss, director of marketing and fundraising at Consumers’ Checkbook. “Besides reviewing the plan premium and out-of-pocket costs for benefits, make sure to check the website of the new plan you’re considering to see if your current providers will be in-network, and how any prescription drugs you may take will be covered.”
Notably, the lowest-cost nationwide plan, GEHA Elevate, has lower premiums, but also much lower coverage than GEHA High. NALC High — which the vast majority of those impacted by OPM’s decision are coming from — is more similar to GEHA High than it is to GEHA Elevate, but still with some differences in benefits.
For instance, an enrollee in NALC High who had a $300 deductible for a “self only” plan in 2025 would move to a $500 deductible in 2026 under GEHA High. By comparison, the enrollee’s deductible would increase to $750 under GEHA Elevate.
As another example, an enrollee in NALC High with a catastrophic out-of-pocket maximum of $3,500 for a “self only” plan would see that limit increase to $7,500 under GEHA High. The out-of-pocket maximum for GEHA Elevate, in contrast, is $10,600.
John Hatton, senior vice president of policy and programs at the National Active and Retired Federal Employees Association (NARFE), said a higher-premium plan with more coverage may be the best plan for some enrollees, but not necessarily others.
“Maybe the high premium plan with more coverage is the right choice for you, but you may want to look at some other alternative plans that might be cheaper. Because there are options, even with really low deductible plans, that have lower premiums than the main big dogs in the program,” Hatton said in a recent interview on The Federal Drive. “So it’s really critical that you look and choose what’s best for you.”
Insurance costs are rising sharply once again for 2026 — and that is certainly an important factor for enrollees in the Federal Employees Health Benefits program to consider when making any changes during this fall’s Open Season.
But David Yoder, senior vice president of BlueCross BlueShield’s Federal Employee Program, said looking at health insurance premiums alone, and not seeing the bigger cost picture, could put FEHB participants at a disadvantage when deciding on a health plan.
Out-of-pocket costs can come from a number of health care needs — such as doctor’s office visits, co-pays for prescription drugs, emergency room visits or telemedicine appointments. And those are all health care options that many enrollees may use on a frequent basis.
“By the time you incur all those costs, plus the premium, you may have been able to go into a different product that may have had a slightly higher premium, but a little bit lower out-of-pocket cost,” Yoder explained.
At the same time, since BCBS is a nonprofit, Yoder noted that the carrier has a slightly different method for calculating costs — something may be especially important to consider in a year where participants are facing another major spike in health premiums.
But according to Yoder, 95 cents of every dollar from BCBS enrollees goes back toward paying for medical costs.
“We try to be very judicious about how we set those rates because we want to make sure we have affordable products,” Yoder said. “We want to make sure that our members are able to access the products we have.”
Looking beyond health care costs
Going beyond cost, Yoder encouraged participants to weigh other key factors when deciding on their health care options — most notably, by comparing provider networks, as well as looking at the drug benefits that are included in various plan options.
“You want to make sure that you understand, if you’re taking a product, that your product is covered,” Yoder said. “There may be alternatives that are covered that may be just as efficacious for you … And they may be covered at a lower cost share overall.”
Despite a year of major uncertainty for federal employees, Yoder said he hopes that health care can remain an area where federal insurance enrollees will feel steadier and will have one less thing to have to worry about.
“In the midst of all these changes, the one thing that they really need and depend on is their health care. That’s the one constant they may have,” Yoder said. “We continue to provide those services no matter what happens moving forward. We try to make sure members are reassured that we’re going to be here for them.”
BlueCross BlueShield offers various health plan options in the federal insurance space. The choices range from coverage for those with minimal health needs, to those seeking broader benefits or better provider flexibility.
“It is our mission to be able to bring the best benefits we possibly can to federal employees, and to make sure that they can get the coverage they need at an affordable price point,” Yoder said. “We offer multiple price point benefits. We’ve really got something for everybody.”
BCBS additionally offers tools and resources to its members, so they can better understand and track changes to their health care costs year to year, as well as consider the key differences between various plan options and what may be most pragmatic for each individual employee.
As federal employees and annuitants consider making changes to their health insurance options during this fall’s Open Season, it’s also a prudent time to consider the bigger picture too — by looking at options across the entire insurance landscape.
Although Open Season is an important opportunity for feds in any year, M. Shane Canfield, CEO of WAEPA, said the unpredictability of this year for many federal employees makes it all that much more critical for plan year 2026.
“With the uncertainty with federal jobs — the layoffs, the forks in the road — we highly encourage you now, as you’re looking at your whole budget and considering whether your health plan is appropriate for you, to loop in other insurance — and that would include life insurance,” Canfield said during Federal News Network’s 2026 Open Season Exchange.
Take stock across your financial landscape during Open Season
Since many federal insurance enrollees do use Open Season as an opportunity to take a broader look at their overall financial health options, it becomes a busy time of year for WAEPA, Canfield said. But unlike the sharply rising premium rates enrollees will face in 2026 for their health insurance costs, the price tag for life insurance is much smaller in comparison.
And beyond that, WAEPA also provides a return of 10% of insurance premiums back to the individuals who are enrolled in the program.
“We take that very seriously,” Canfield said. “The implications flow all through our business. We take a long-term view. We invest in the organization. We do earn revenue to run the program, but all of it inures back to the members.”
And looking beyond a federal career, Canfield emphasized that participants can take their insurance coverage with them, even if they ultimately exit the government’s rolls due to all the workforce changes from the last several months. Canfield said that’s relatively uncommon in the life insurance marketplace — and that it may be more important of a factor this year than ever before.
“If you leave federal service for any reason — retirement, RIFs, layoffs, or it’s just time for you to leave because you’ve had 30-plus years of service and you’re ready to do something new — you can take WAEPA with you,” Canfield said.
Added opportunities through WAEPA
Federal insurance participants also have the alternative option of enrolling in the federal government’s life insurance program, called the Federal Employees’ Group Life Insurance. But Canfield noted that there are some key differences between WAEPA and FEGLI to keep in mind this Open Season.
Through WAEPA, for instance, Canfield said that on top of the costs being generally lower, there are also some riders added onto the benefits. That includes an automatic benefit increase rider, as well as a chronic illness rider. The rider gives an early death benefit payout — of up to $125,000 per year — to people whose medical conditions would also trigger long-term care insurance benefits.
“This is what prudent financial management is all about with an insurance plan,” Canfield said. “We exist for one reason, and that is to provide life insurance for civilian federal employees.”
Additionally, federal enrollees can get access to a scholarship program through WAEPA, as well as a financial wellness program. The financial wellness program lets individuals establish a confidential relationship with a certified financial planner, at no additional cost.
“We encourage people, even if you don’t want to buy the life insurance, join WAEPA,” Canfield said. “You don’t have to buy the life insurance to join and take advantage of this. And now is a great time, with all the uncertainty in the markets and the work environment.”
Amid a lot of change and uncertainty for the federal workforce this year, taking advantage of this fall’s Open Season may be especially important for participants in the government’s health insurance programs.
Raj Vavilala, chief sales, marketing and product officer for G.E.H.A, the Government Employees Health Association, said he has been hearing frequently from federal employees this year about the need for reassurance — and strong continuity of care — within the Federal Employees Health Benefits (FEHB) program.
“When there’s a lot of change, we pride ourselves in being that trusted advisor, aspire to that status wherein we can actually share what all of this change means to a specific member or their family,” Vavilala said during Federal News Network’s 2026 Open Season Exchange. “Because health care, even though it’s a broad term, it’s very personalized to everybody’s specific needs.”
Individualized health care plans
Vavilala said health care shouldn’t be one-size-fits-all. He noted that G.E.H.A offers a range of both health and dental options for enrollees, depending on their individual situation. That may be critical in a year that has been particularly challenging for the federal workforce.
Generally, the plan choices from G.E.H.A range from those with low premiums, to those with maximum coverage. For Vavilala, the end goal is to find the right fit for each federal employee as they navigate changes to both their careers and their health over time.
“The most important thing for every federal employee right now … is to engage in their health care,” he said. “This is the year of all years to actually take a look at what’s happening underneath the surface of your health care.”
Adjusting health care across your federal career
As any federal employee continues through, and beyond, their career in government, it’s practically inevitable that health care needs will change over time — and that means coverage needs will change over time as well.
Younger federal employees with few health needs or any federal employee that’s looking to save money with a health savings account for health needs in the future, for instance, may find value in a high-deductible health plan, Vavilala explained.
Whereas standard or high plan options may be better suited at later points in a federal employee’s career or for those looking for deeper benefits. There are also Medicare Advantage options, which may appeal more to federal retirees.
But on top of the various options, Vavilala said enrollees can access added benefits from G.E.H.A, in addition to those outlined by the respective federal program. These include vision, fitness and hearing aid discounts — as well as telehealth options. Ultimately, he said the goal is to help enrollees navigate various situations and find the right benefits for them, including through managing any unpredictable changes that may come.
“We care for the health and well-being of our members more than anything else, and that sets a clear guide path on what matters to us, in terms of the decisions we make — whether it’s a product, whether it’s how we talk to members, how we educate them,” Vavilala said. “That’s really our secret sauce.”
Don’t be afraid to ask for Open Season help
And when seeking out different options during Open Season, participants aren’t alone in their search. Vavilala said G.E.H.A offers various ways for enrollees to get answers to their questions. That includes through digital comparison tools, as well as a customer service phone line.
There are also plan brochures available from each FEHB carrier and detailed information on the Office of Personnel Management’s website.
“You’ll have an opportunity to look at the brochure. You’ll have an opportunity to look at the material that all carriers provide to you,” Vavilala said. “But there is really no substitute for a conversation. Have a conversation with us — ask the questions and demand good answers. It’s our responsibility to help, to provide detailed information.”
G.E.H.A, the Government Employees Health Association, is a nonprofit member association that provides health and dental benefits that millions of federal employees and retirees, military retirees and their families have counted on since 1937.
“It’s an amazing honor to be part of this space serving federal employees and their families,” Vavilala said. “Every time we have a conversation with a federal employee, we realize this is not a job — this is a calling and a mission.”
Following the longest shutdown in U.S. history, the federal workforce is now trying to get back to at least some sense of normalcy.
While federal employees who have been furloughed for the last 43 days return to work Thursday, the Office of Personnel Management is setting expectations for agencies as they begin to update pay, leave and benefits for those impacted by the lapse in appropriations.
In new guidance, OPM said it is “is committed to ensuring that retroactive pay is provided as soon as possible.” Compensation will be provided for both furloughed and excepted federal employees, as the spending agreement that was enacted Wednesday evening reaffirmed. A 2019 law previously called for retroactive compensation for all federal employees impacted by a shutdown.
A senior Trump administration official said the White House “has urged agencies to get employee paychecks out expeditiously and accurately to not leave anyone waiting longer than necessary.”
But the timing of employees receiving their back pay varies, depending on what payroll provider an agency uses, and the different pay schedules across the federal workforce.
Sending out retroactive payments to employees involves working across agency HR offices, federal payroll providers and shared service centers. Agency HR offices, for instance, have to submit timecards for federal employees, which are then processed by the government’s various payroll providers.
According to the senior administration official, employees from the General Services Administration and OPM will be among the first to receive their retroactive paychecks, with an expected deposit date set for Saturday.
Employees at the departments of Veterans Affairs, Energy, and Health and Human Services, as well as civilian employees from the Defense Department, will receive their deposits shortly after that — this Sunday.
On Monday, affected employees from the departments of Education, State, Interior and Transportation, as well as the Environmental Protection Agency, National Science Foundation, Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Social Security Administration and NASA, are all expected to receive their back pay.
Then on Wednesday, employees from the departments of Agriculture, Commerce, Treasury, Labor and Justice, along with the Department of Homeland Security, the Department of Housing and Urban Development and the Small Business Administration, are projected to get their paychecks. The timing of the retroactive payments for feds was first reported by Semafor.
The National Finance Center, a payroll provider housed under the Agriculture Department, confirmed that employees at agencies using NFC’s services should expect a payroll deposit by the middle of next week.
“In order to provide backpay for employees as quickly as possible, the National Finance Center will be expediting pay processing for pay period 22 and backpay for pay periods 19 (October 1-4), 20 (October 5-18), and 21 (October 19-November 1),” USDA wrote in an all-staff email Wednesday evening, obtained by Federal News Network.
Federal News Network has reached out to several other federal payroll providers requesting details on the timeline for processing retroactive payments.
The National Treasury Employees Union urged immediate back pay for all federal employees who have been going without compensation for the last six weeks.
“This is an emergency for federal employees across the country, and they should not have to wait another minute longer for the paychecks they lost during the longest government shutdown in history,” NTEU National President Doreen Greenwald said. “We call on all federal agencies to process the back pay immediately.”
In its new guidance, OPM also noted that to make payments as quickly as possible, payroll providers may need to “make some adjustments.” That could mean, for instance, that the initial retroactive payments employees receive might not reflect the exact calculations of their pay and leave hours.
“Payroll providers will work with agencies to make any necessary adjustments as soon as practicable,” OPM said.
Who receives back pay, and how much?
Furloughed employees will receive their “standard rate of pay” for the hours they would have worked if the government shutdown hadn’t occurred, OPM said in its guidance Wednesday evening.
But there are some exceptions to that. If a furloughed employee, for example, had been scheduled for overtime hours that would have occurred during the shutdown, OPM said they should be paid their premium rate for those hours.
Additionally, OPM said that allowances, differentials and other types of payments, like administratively uncontrollable overtime pay or law enforcement availability pay, should be paid as if the furloughed employee continued to work.
Although most employees impacted by the shutdown are ensured back pay, there are some smaller exceptions carved out where employees may not receive retroactive pay, OPM added.
If a furloughed employee was in a non-pay status before the shutdown began, for instance, then they are not entitled to receive back pay.
Excepted employees who were considered “absent without leave” (AWOL) — or in other words, took unapproved time off — will also not receive back pay for that time.
Guidance on leave, post-shutdown
Although excepted employees are not required to use paid leave for taking time off during the shutdown — and can instead enter a “furlough” period — there may still have been some instances where excepted employees took leave during the funding lapse, OPM wrote in its guidance.
In those cases, excepted employees who were approved to take paid leave during the shutdown will be charged for the hours from their leave bank, OPM said.
Agencies are also expected to begin adjusting leave accrual for furloughed employees. Now that the shutdown is over, furloughed employees should be placed in a “pay status” for the time they would have otherwise spent working during the funding lapse. That means accrual of annual and sick leave will be retroactively adjusted as if the employees were in a pay status, OPM said.
Excepted employees continued to accrue leave during the shutdown, which should be reflected in their leave banks, OPM said.
What happens to RIFs of federal employees?
On top of reaffirming back pay, the spending bill that was enacted Wednesday evening also rescinds the roughly 4,000 reductions in force that have occurred since Oct. 1. Federal employees will be temporarily protected from additional RIFs, at least until the end of January.
Agencies have five days to inform federal employees who received RIF notices in October that those actions are rescinded.
“Agencies should issue those notices and confirm to OPM the rescissions have been issued,” OPM’s guidance states.
At least 670,000 federal employees have been furloughed, and 730,000 employees have been working without pay during the shutdown. Agencies have been putting plans in the works to return all furloughed federal employees to their duties as of Thursday.
OPM also said agencies “may consider” providing flexibility for employees who might not be able to return to work immediately, such as by approving personal leave or adjusting individual work schedules.
The Theodore Roosevelt Building, location of the U.S. Office of Personnel Management, on Tuesday, Feb. 13, 2024, in Washington. Former President Donald Trump has plans to radically reshape the federal government if he returns to the White House, from promising to deport millions of immigrants in the U.S. illegally to firing tens of thousands of government workers. (AP Photo/Mark Schiefelbein)
The Senate’s initial agreement toward ending the longest-ever government shutdown includes provisions that would secure back pay for all federal employees, as well as reverse the Trump administration’s recent reductions in force.
Though much is still up in the air and subject to possible changes, the early steps in the process indicate that, if the Senate bill’s current language is maintained, both excepted and furloughed federal employees would receive back pay dating to Oct. 1, the day the shutdown began.
Federal employees, regardless of whether they are furloughed or excepted, have always received back pay following every past shutdown, due to one-time actions from Congress. It wasn’t until 2019 that Congress passed — and President Donald Trump signed — a law meant to ensure federal employees are compensated retroactively for all shutdowns going forward.
Questions over back pay arose once again, however, after the Office of Management and Budget released a draft legal opinion in October, suggesting that furloughed employees are not automatically ensured back pay after all.
Many lawmakers, attorneys and unions harshly criticized the White House’s opinion, calling it a clear misinterpretation of the 2019 Government Employees Fair Treatment Act.
Throughout the funding lapse, the Trump administration has shuffled funding to compensate select groups of the federal workforce, as well as military members, while hundreds of thousands of others have missed two paychecks since the shutdown began.
The Senate took the first step toward ending the shutdown on Sunday, clearing a procedural hurdle that required 60 votes to move the spending legislation forward in the appropriations process. All but eight Democrats voted against the spending measure. But an actual end to the shutdown may still be at least several days away.
The current agreement includes bipartisan bills worked out by the Senate Appropriations Committee to fund parts of government, including food aid, veterans’ programs and the legislative branch. A continuing resolution would fund most other agency appropriations until the end of January, giving lawmakers more than two months to finish the additional spending bills.
The Senate’s legislation over the weekend would also compel agencies to reverse all reduction-in-force actions that have taken place since the shutdown began. About 4,200 federal employees across government received RIF notices in mid-October, following guidance from the White House that encouraged agencies to move forward with layoffs in the event of a funding lapse.
Most, but not all, of those RIF actions are currently on hold due to a preliminary injunction granted by a district court judge last month. Federal unions are suing the Trump administration over the layoffs, alleging that they violate the Administrative Procedure Act.
The Senate’s tentative agreement would also temporarily bar the Trump administration from conducting further RIFs until late January.
Federal employee organizations and unions expressed strong support for the provisions to secure back pay for federal employees and protect against RIFs.
“These protections provide for fundamental fairness,” Marcus Hill, president of the Senior Executives Association, said Monday. “They also safeguard continuity of government operations, preserve critical talent, and stabilize and extend funding for missions and services that millions of Americans rely on daily.”
“Millions of federal employees have missed paychecks, forcing them to assume significant financial cost, risk and uncertainty,” William Shackelford, national president of the National Active and Retired Federal Employees Association (NARFE), said. “Government shutdowns — partial as they are — harm dedicated public servants and the missions and people they serve.”
The American Federation of Government Employees threw in additional support for the passage of the Shutdown Fairness Act, a Republican-led bill to pay federal employees immediately during the current government shutdown, as well as any future ones.
“While we are glad that the shutdown is coming to an end for now, we remain concerned about the growing use of government shutdowns as leverage for political gain,” AFGE National President Everett Kelley said. “That’s why AFGE strongly supports the bipartisan Shutdown Fairness Act, which would pay federal workers during government shutdowns, ensuring that federal employees will never be used as political pawns again.”
The Shutdown Fairness Act failed to advance in the Senate on Friday. Democrats largely voted down the legislation on the grounds that it did not include guardrails to prevent the Trump administration from paying some federal employees and not others.
After the bill initially failed to move forward two weeks ago, Sen. Ron Johnson (R-Wis.) expanded his legislation to include furloughed employees and federal contractors. The bill initially only provided immediate pay for excepted employees who continue to work during a shutdown.
As the federal workforce continues to evolve, the government’s employee benefits landscape is simultaneously adapting to the changing needs and expectations of this diverse workforce.
For health carriers, adapting to the evolving federal workforce means reevaluating and refining the benefits offered through government insurance programs to better align with their changing needs.
“A lot of long-time federal employees are retiring or leaving and being replaced by younger people, so what is important today is different than what was important 20 years ago,” Missy Plohr-Memming, MetLife’s senior vice president for U.S. Group Benefits, said during Federal News Network’s 2026 Open Season Exchange. “So when we think about the program benefits for 2026, we think about flexibility and expanding that program.”
Delivering benefits through FEDVIP and more
MetLife Federal Benefits offers a range of coverage options within the government’s marketplace, including comprehensive dental and vision coverage as part of the Federal Employee Dental and Vision Insurance Program (FEDVIP), as well as various supplemental health benefits separate from the program. In total, MetLife offers benefits to about 50,000 employers, spanning roughly 40 million employees and their dependents.
“We have the privilege of caring for those folks every day, and we take that privilege quite seriously,” Plohr-Memming said.
Part of MetLife’s current focus, she said, is to look at what is most important to federal employees in the current moment, especially as it pertains to a more holistic approach to health and wellness.
“Certainly, people need medical benefits. … But then there are all the other ancillary benefits. Think of that as dental and vision, of course, but it’s also things like legal insurance and pet insurance,” Plohr-Memming said. “And then you bring in those elements of financial health and mental health, and you can really craft a bespoke set of benefits for your unique circumstances, from the offerings available through the Office of Personnel Management and as a federal employee and a member of the federal family.”
Expanding benefits to meet changing needs
There are some specific ways that MetLife is changing its options to meet the evolving needs of federal employees. Some of those key changes are focused on expanding options for dental benefits.
“We worked to craft some plan design changes that make sense in the context of the modern workforce, including offering three cleanings for people who are pregnant or have diabetes,” Plohr-Memming said.
But the changes for MetLife go beyond updates to the benefits themselves, she said. For instance, dental and vision enrollees can also access identity and fraud protection from the health carrier — at no additional cost.
“We’re also thinking about things like the network: How do we make sure we have the most expansive network, both for dental and vision?” Plohr-Memming said. “We want to meet people where they are in their time of need, and in the place that they believe they can get the best care.”
Taking advantage of Open Season
An annual study conducted by MetLife, the Employee Benefit Trends Study, found that 35% of federal employees feel “holistically healthy.” That’s lower than the 39% of U.S. employees overall who say the same. And within the federal workforce, 27% of federal managers say they feel “holistically healthy,” compared with 40% of nonmanagers in government who say the same.
Part of the reason for that divide may stem from an incomplete understanding of the benefits and coverage that federal employees can access, according to MetLife’s analysis of the study’s findings.
Open Season is the best time for participants to conduct research and learn more about the options that are out there, Plohr-Memming said.
She recommended three specific steps federal employees should take before the enrollment window closes Dec. 10:
First, really take time to consider the different options at participants’ disposal.
Second, focus on family circumstances and what may be necessary there.
Third, look “holistically” at the options — and beyond just the premium cost.
“What’s really important is, what does that premium get you?” Plohr-Memming said. “When you estimate your out-of-pocket expenses plus the premium that comes out of your paycheck, you can get the true cost or the true value of the program.”
She recommended visiting carriers’ benefits websites and checking pricing — say, for example, the cost of a root canal or having a cavity filled and comparing pricing. People should look at their possible needs over the coming year, Plohr-Memming said.
“Our philosophy is always focused on you building a more confident future. That philosophy guides everything we do, from the capabilities we establish to the plan designs we work with employers on and actually how we execute and deliver service.”
Login
