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.

The post OPM attempts to ease manager concerns in addressing federal employees’ performance first appeared on Federal News Network.

Approximately 317,000 federal employees left the government this year, while 68,000 joined, according to a recent blog post from Office of Personnel Management Director Scott Kupor. 

The volume of separations is beyond Kupor’s previously shared targets for workforce reduction. In August, Kupor told WTOP News that he expected the government to shed 300,000 employees by the end of 2025 — down to a total of 2.1 million employees.

Kupor’s post didn’t include specific targets for reduction or hiring in 2026.

Along with sharing the workforce levels, Kupor’s blog post provided further implementation details of President Donald Trump’s executive order from Oct. 15, which outlined new federal hiring expectations. 

The goals he outlined reflect the current Trump administration’s emphasis on “maximum efficiency” and adherence to administration priorities within the federal workforce.

“We want to make sure the government has the right talent focused on the key priorities of the administration and that we are eliminating wasteful taxpayer expenses in areas that are inefficient, no longer required, or in direct contradiction of administration priorities,” Kupor wrote. 

Trump’s executive order last month instructed agencies to create an annual staffing plan for fiscal year 2026 and submit it to OPM and the Office of Management and Budget by Dec. 14. 

“In addition to all the things we care about in terms of where are [agencies] investing their resources, there are administration priorities that we’ve asked them to focus on and make sure that they talk to us about, one of which certainly is the merit hiring plan and how they’ll incorporate that in their hiring,” Kupor said Friday in an interview with Federal News Network. 

The headcount plans align with the Trump administration’s target that for each person hired into the federal government, four people leave, Kupor wrote. He said the government exceeded that ratio this year with the amounts of new hires and departures. 

An OPM spokesperson declined to comment on whether the Trump administration would seek to further reduce headcount in 2026 after already surpassing its goal of 300,000 departures.

Kupor emphasized that OPM will not prescribe headcounts to agencies under the new hiring guidelines. He said the headcount plans will instead give OPM a “pan-government view” of hiring needs, allowing OPM to centralize recruitment efforts and shared certification plans. 

In a memo to agencies on Nov. 5, Kupor and OMB Director Russell Vought said the staffing plans should also cover agencies’ current workforce and staffing needs, gaps in skills areas and strategies for recruitment. The plans should also factor in opportunities for reorganization or reductions. 

Kupor also acknowledged the lack of early career employees hired into the federal government.

“We do have a challenging demographic problem in government where we’re not replenishing the pipeline of new hires of people starting their career at the same rate as we have people who will be retiring over the next five to 10 years,” Kupor told Federal News Network.

The federal government has faced an imbalance of early career employees for several years, and prioritized early career recruitment and development programs to address it. But earlier this year, the Trump administration cut several of those programs, like the Presidential Management Fellows program and U.S. Digital Corps, and fired tens of thousands of probationary employees, many of whom were young staff members.

After submitting initial hiring plans, agencies must submit updates to OPM and OMB on the progress of their plans each quarter, beginning with the second quarter of fiscal 2026. Agencies can also coordinate with OPM and OMB to update their staffing plans.

Kupor called on agencies in his post to change “default” patterns in hiring plans by basing them off of historical levels or budget allowances. 

In creating the annual headcount plans without these “default” behaviors, Kupor wrote that agency leaders should ask themselves, “[W]hat are the functions my agency performs that are in line with presidential priorities or statutory obligations, how many people do I need to provide that service level, and how does that staffing level compare to our current headcount?”

Kupor and Vought directed agency heads to promptly notify OPM of approved new hires. 

Other key elements within the new hiring expectations include the establishment of strategic hiring committees, adaptation of the merit hiring plan and reduction of reliance on contractors. Trump’s executive order directed agencies to form the strategic hiring committees — made up of senior agency leadership — by Nov. 17. 

The committees must approve the creation and filling of vacancies within agencies, and overall ensure that agency hiring aligns with the merit hiring plan, agencies’ annual headcount plans, and “national interest, agency needs, and administration priorities.” 

Kupor wrote that the hiring committees must ask the “right” questions of candidates to “[make] sure that highly skilled people are being hired into the agency and [ensure] that they are thinking about a broad set of solutions with efficiency in mind.”

The ultimate focus in agency hiring, he wrote, should be on delivering to the American people at the lowest cost — not simply reducing headcount levels.

The post OPM says cuts to federal workforce surpassed 2025 goals first appeared on Federal News Network.

The Department of Government Efficiency, the driving force behind the Trump administration’s cuts to the federal workforce and executive branch spending, isn’t wrapping up operations sooner than expected, according to several administration officials.

Reuters published a story on Sunday claiming that DOGE no longer exists, about eight months ahead of the deadline set by President Donald Trump. The story drew strong reactions from Trump administration officials, who rejected claims that DOGE is ending before its final day on July 4, 2026.

A DOGE spokesperson told Federal News Network on Tuesday that DOGE and its longer-term, tech-aligned counterpart, the U.S. DOGE Service, both remain — and that the latter organization is moving forward with a full slate of modernization projects.

The spokesperson, in response to written questions, confirmed DOGE still exists as a temporary organization within the U.S. DOGE Service, and that Amy Gleason remains the acting administrator of USDS.

In addition, the spokesperson said the U.S. DOGE Service — a Trump-era rebranding of the U.S. Digital Service — is working on several cross-agency projects. The spokesperson said USDS is actively involved in these projects, but the agencies in charge of these projects oversee staffing and hiring. The list of projects shared with Federal News Network closely resembles the type of work that USDS was involved in before the Trump administration.

“The U.S. DOGE Service remains deeply engaged across government-modernizing critical systems, improving public services, and delivering fast, practical solutions where the country needs them most,” the spokesperson said.

Office of Personnel Management Director Scott Kupor wrote on X that “DOGE may not have centralized leadership under USDS,” but the “principles of DOGE remain alive and well.”

Those principles, he added, include deregulation; eliminating fraud, waste and abuse; and reshaping the federal workforce.

Kupor wrote that DOGE “catalyzed these changes,” and that OPM and the Office of Management and Budget “will institutionalize them.”

It’s not clear that DOGE leadership ever set exact demands for its representatives scattered across multiple federal agencies. Current and former DOGE representatives publicly stated that DOGE leadership played a hands-off role in their day-to-day work, and that they identified primarily as employees of their agencies. Former DOGE employees said they rarely heard from Elon Musk, DOGE’s former de facto leader, once they completed their onboarding to join the Trump administration.

DOGE wrote on X that “President Trump was given a mandate by the American people to modernize the federal government and reduce waste, fraud and abuse,” and that it terminated 78 contracts worth $335 million last week.

The DOGE spokesperson said the U.S. DOGE Service is working on a project to use AI to process over 600,000 pieces of federal correspondence each month, and is working with the General Services Administration to advance “responsible AI governmentwide.”

Current U.S. DOGE Service projects include:

• Supporting 18 million students by modernizing the FAFSA system and implementing major student loan and Pell Grant changes.
• Improving access to benefits with a streamlined, public-option verification tool that helps states accelerate community engagement requirements for Medicaid and SNAP approvals.
• Transforming the non-immigrant visa process to support Olympic and World Cup travel with a more reliable, adaptable digital platform.
• Reducing delays for over 600,000 veterans each month through a modernized VA disability compensation application.
• Building a modern National Provider Directory to speed Medicare provider enrollment and enable nationwide interoperability.
• Launching new patient-facing apps and data access tools, first announced at the White House and rolling out beginning January 2026.
• Digitizing the National Firearms Act process, replacing outdated paper systems.
• Using AI responsibly to process over 600,000 pieces of federal correspondence monthly.
• Strengthening Medicare’s digital experience with better security, fraud reporting, caregiver access and reduced paper burden.
•  Improving VA appointment management with integrated scheduling, check-ins, notifications and after-visit support.
• Advancing responsible AI government-wide through partnership with GSA.
• Rapid-response deployments for Customs and Border Protection, FEMA, Medicare claims modernization, FDA data consolidation.

Gleason said in September that agencies don’t have enough tech talent to deliver on the administration’s policy goals, and they would need to boost hiring

“We need to hire and empower great talent in government,” Gleason said on Sept. 4. “There’s not enough tech talent here. We need more of it.”

Under the Trump administration, federal employees have faced mass layoffs and incentives to leave government service. The Partnership for Public Service estimates that, as of October, more than 211,000 employees left the federal workforce this year — either voluntarily or involuntarily.

Gleason, who also serves as a strategic advisor for the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services, said tech hiring is essential to help CMS “build modern services for the American people.” She said the agency, at the beginning of this year, had about 13 engineers managing thousands of contractors.

“If we could hire great talent for tech in the government, I think in five years, we can really transform a lot of these systems to be much more modern and user-friendly, and easy for citizens to engage with what they need,” Gleason said. “But we have to take advantage of hiring.”

The post DOGE and its long-term counterpart remain, with a full slate of modernization projects underway first appeared on Federal News Network.

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.”

The post OPM touts new training programs, aligned with Trump administration’s federal workforce reshaping first appeared on Federal News Network.

The federal government’s ability to deliver results for the American people hinges on the effectiveness of its leadership. At the core of this leadership is the Senior Executive Service, a cadre of high-level officials entrusted with the responsibility of translating presidential priorities into operational outcomes. The stakes are high: Senior executive leadership affects whether the president’s agenda is properly implemented and whether agencies deliver on their missions. SES officials are the president’s senior-most career executives, and their leadership affects the lives of millions of Americans every day.

Given the gravity of their responsibilities, SES members must be equipped with the right knowledge and tools. Statutory mandates require both the Office of Personnel Management and federal agencies to provide ongoing executive development. And for good reason. Just as private-sector CEOs may benefit from executive development programs, our senior executives need the same level of preparation tailored to the constitutional role they hold and the scale of the missions they lead.

Historically, federal leadership programs have imitated academic or private-sector programs — many of which are expensive, time-consuming and not designed to meet the unique needs of government executives. With the closure of the Federal Executive Institute, OPM is refocusing and reimagining executive development, building on the best leadership development theories and practices with a renewed focus on the specific job knowledge, skills and tools SES officials need to be successful in their jobs.

Thus, to ensure the successful implementation of the president’s agenda by equipping SES through high-quality, targeted training programs, OPM has launched the Senior Executive Development Program (SEDP) — a targeted, administration-driven training initiative designed to ensure SES officials have the knowledge, context and clarity necessary to carry out the president’s agenda and best serve the American people.

The SEDP reflects a significant shift in how we approach executive development. More than just generic leadership training, the program will equip senior executives with the practical knowledge and skills to thrive as government leaders, covering topics such as constitutional governance, budget and policymaking, executive core qualifications, and strategic human capital management. Rather than relying on just generalized management theory one could get from academic or private-sector programs, this program provides high-impact, directly relevant training that speaks to the needs of today’s federal executives. The curriculum is designed around the constitutional role of the executive, the rule of law, merit system principles, and the operational realities of modern governance and leading responsive and efficient bureaucratic organizations. Participants will hear from seasoned career executive colleagues and administration officials on topics directly applicable to the complex missions and organizations they lead.

The SEDP is not a one-size-fits-all program. It’s designed to be flexible and scalable, leveraging high-quality recorded video modules delivered through OPM’s centralized learning management system. This approach allows executives to learn on demand, at their own pace, while maintaining full access to their day-to-day responsibilities. It also allows OPM to track participation and outcomes — ensuring transparency, accountability and a strong return on investment.

The goal is clear: to strengthen our federal leadership by ensuring every SES member has technical expertise and a true understanding of their constitutional responsibilities and the president’s vision. The success of any administration depends on its ability to act. And acting depends on leadership.

Through the Senior Executive Development Program, OPM is reaffirming its commitment to preparing that leadership – ensuring that America’s senior executives are ready, responsive and capable of delivering for the American people.

Scott Kupor is director of the Office of Personnel Management.

The post Strengthening executive leadership to serve our nation first appeared on Federal News Network.

Three unions representing federal employees are suing the Trump administration for including a new essay question on thousands of federal job applications, asking candidates how they plan to advance the Trump administration’s policies.

The lawsuit, filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts, is led by the American Federation of Government Employees, American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees, and National Association of Government Employees.

One of several essay questions, outlined under the administration’s Merit Hiring Plan, asks candidates how they would “advance the president’s executive orders and policy priorities,” and to name “one or two executive orders or policy initiatives that are significant to you,” and how they would help implement them if hired.

The unions claim the inclusion of a “loyalty question” on federal job applications runs counter to the nonpartisan nature of the civil service, because it allows the “Trump Administration to weed out those who do not voice sufficient support for President Trump and reward those who do.”

“Potential federal job applicants who want to serve the United States but do not personally support the president’s executive orders and policy initiatives — or simply prefer not to share their political beliefs and views when applying for a career federal job — will be compelled to speak in the form of a written essay praising the president’s orders and policies (in order to better their chances of employment), risk being punished for answering honestly, or be chilled from speaking at all,” the complaint states.

The lawsuit seeks to bar the Trump administration from using the “loyalty question” in federal hiring decisions or “relying on answers to the loyalty question in any manner.”

The unions claim the essay question violates the free speech rights of job candidates, because it “compels applicants to voice certain viewpoints and opinions, to self-censor, or to decline to apply for positions they are otherwise interested in.”

“That is by design. The current administration has a stated goal of removing civil servants it deems to be disloyal and replacing them with loyalists,” the complaint states. “By directing the use of the loyalty question in job applications for most career positions and instructing politically appointed agency leaders to review applicant responses, the administration appears to be trying to fill nearly every level of the civil service with political loyalists.”

The unions also claim the question violates the Privacy Act, because it “collects unnecessary and irrelevant information about the exercise of applicants’ First Amendment rights.”

The Office of Special Counsel, in its response to a complaint filed this summer, determined that the Merit Hiring Plan’s optional hiring questions did not amount to a prohibited personnel practice, and that guidance from the Office of Personnel Management ensured the questions do not constitute a loyalty test.

The lawsuit states that the Education Department has included the essay question on job applications, after shedding about half of its employees through layoffs and voluntary separation incentives this year. The Education Department is also one of several agencies that sent additional layoff notices to employees on Oct. 10.

“In other words, after firing hundreds of Department of Education employees, the agency simply re-posted the same jobs, now with the requirement to answer the loyalty question. In order to even attempt to recover their old jobs, civil servants must subject themselves to the loyalty question, regardless of their political beliefs, or remain out of work,” the complaint states.

The Trump administration released its Merit Hiring Plan in May to ensure that “only the most talented, capable and patriotic Americans are hired to the federal service.”

In follow-up guidance, however, the Office of Personnel Management downplayed the importance of the essays as just one piece of a candidate’s overall application. The HR agency said it’s optional for job candidates to answer the essays, and that candidates won’t be disqualified from consideration if they skip them.

OPM Director Scott Kupor said in a statement Friday that the Merit Hiring Plan “reinforces the nonpartisan character of the federal workforce,” and that “we have been very clear that hiring decisions cannot consider political or ideological beliefs.”

“The Merit Hiring Plan strengthens the career civil service by ensuring agencies evaluate applicants based on skills, experience, and commitment to public service. As part of the plan, we have recommended agencies use four optional, free-response essay questions that give candidates an opportunity to provide additional information about themselves, their background, and dedication to public service,” Kupor said.

OPM’s guidance states the essay question is non-mandatory, but “encouraged.” OPM’s guidance states that the question should not be used as a “political litmus test,” and that answers will not be scored or ranked. The unions, however, say there’s evidence that candidates’ responses will determine whether they advance to the next stage of the hiring process.

OPM’s guidance says that responses will be reviewed by hiring managers and political appointees. The lawsuit says that suggests “the answers will play some unknown and unspecified role in the hiring process.”

“Of course the loyalty question will play some role in hiring: otherwise, why include it at all?” the complaint states.

An OPM official told federal human resources officials in August that it is “mandatory” for agencies to include the essay question on job applications, but optional for candidates to answer.

The complaint states the essay question has appeared on over 5,800 federal job applications so far — and that 1,700 of those job posts have been posted since the start of the government shutdown, now the longest funding lapse in U.S. history.

The essay question appears on a wide range of job applications — from a meatcutting worker at the Defense Department, to a research biologist at the Agriculture Department, to a laundry worker at the Department of Veterans Affairs.

The complaint states that “an applicant’s ability to perform these and other career civil service roles competently is entirely unrelated to the applicant’s personal political views.”

The post Unions sue Trump administration over ‘loyalty question’ added to federal job applications first appeared on Federal News Network.