Investigators at the Office of Special Counsel returning to their jobs earlier this month would likely have been greeted with multiple Hatch Act complaints after a wave of alleged partisan political messaging by federal agencies during the shutdown.

Throughout the 43-day shutdown, multiple agencies posted messages on their websites blaming the shutdown on the “radical left,” “Democrats” and other politically tinged phrases.

Those actions immediately drew multiple Hatch Act complaints. The 1939 law restricts political activities by federal employees and is intended to ensure the nonpartisan administration of government programs.

The Education Department also changed furloughed employees’ out-of-office email replies to blame the shutdown on “Democrat senators.” A federal judge earlier this month found that the agency had violated employees’ First Amendment rights. Education was forced to change the out-of-office reply shortly before the shutdown ended.

“In this compressed timeframe, we haven’t seen this level of potential Hatch Act violations with regards to just changing emails, publishing these notices on the government websites and engaging in this partisan messaging,” Michael Fallings, managing partner at law firm Tully Rinckey, told Federal News Network.

The use of federal agency websites for such messaging was also a novel development in the long-running evolution of the Hatch Act.

Kedric Payne, who helped represent Education Department employees as vice president, general counsel and senior director of ethics at the Campaign Legal Center, said the shutdown messaging “could have been a test run of what may happen during the election year.”

“You could imagine a situation where, during the election year, there may be similar banners, similar email statements and other communications coming from the agencies that are partisan,” Payne told Federal News Network. “If there are no consequences for what happened during the shutdown, there’s not a real threat for the agencies to limit themselves on violating the Hatch Act or First Amendment rights.”

Office of Special Counsel role

OSC is responsible for investigating Hatch Act complaints. But most OSC staff were furloughed through the shutdown. Out of the agency’s 122 employees, just 17 were kept onboard, according to the OSC shutdown plan. Those excepted staff were primarily focused on handling whistleblower disclosures “involving a substantial and serious risk to public health or safety or those requiring emergency action to protect property.”

Multiple nonprofit organizations publicized their Hatch Act complaints. The total number of Hatch Act complaints received by OSC isn’t public, and OSC didn’t respond to a request for comment.

But given OSC’s relatively small staff, the backlog of work due to the furlough, and the large number of known complaints, Fallings expects the Hatch Act cases will likely face delays. OSC typically takes 120 days to conduct preliminary reviews, but there isn’t a statutory deadline for completing Hatch Act investigations.

“I think what OSC would do is try to figure out which complaints may have the most proof of a violation, and pursue those,” Fallings said.

In his opinion siding with Education Department employees and their union, District Judge Christopher Cooper referenced the Hatch Act and pointed to the executive branch’s “multifront campaign to assign blame for the government shutdown.”

“It began by plastering politically-charged language on official public websites,” Cooper wrote. “Apparently, that wasn’t enough. The department waited until its furloughed employees lost access to their email, then gratuitously changed their out-of-office messages to include yet another partisan message, thereby turning its own workforce into political spokespeople through their official email accounts. The department may have added insult to injury, but it also overplayed its hand.”

While the case ultimately hinged on federal employees’ First Amendment rights, Payne said Cooper’s ruling “recognized the spirit of the Hatch Act and its role in making sure that you don’t have government employees saying something that would be considered partisan.”

With OSC having primary responsibility to enforce the Hatch Act, legal experts are closely watching what happens next with the shutdown complaints.

If OSC finds a Hatch Act violation occurs, it can bring the case before the Merit Systems Protection Board. The penalties for a Hatch Act violation can include removal from federal service, a reduction in grade, debarment from federal employment for up to five years, suspension, reprimand or a civil penalty of up to $1,000.

But OSC itself has also been at the center of the Trump administration’s efforts to rein in independent agencies. Trump earlier this year fired Special Counsel Hampton Dellinger with no explanation, drawing a short-lived legal battle.

And Trump’s nominee to replace Dellinger recently withdrew from consideration after offensive text messages came to light.

Jamieson Greer, the United States Trade Representative, is currently dual-hatted as acting Special Counsel.

“In the past, the Office of Special Counsel has been very thorough releasing opinions that give clear guidance on what activities are or are not violation of the Hatch Act,” Payne said. “But we’re not clear whether or not this agency will do that this time.”

The post What happens next with shutdown Hatch Act complaints? first appeared on Federal News Network.

© Getty Images/iStockphoto/gorodenkoff

The Education Department, in the latest step of the Trump administration’s plan to dismantle the agency, has begun transferring its employees to other federal agencies.

The department said Tuesday that it signed six new interagency agreements to transfer some of its programs and employees to the departments of Labor, Interior, State and Health and Human Services, in order “to break up the federal education bureaucracy.”

Education Secretary Linda McMahon told employees in an all-hands meeting that the department is soft-launching plans to reassign its work to other parts of the federal government, before calling on Congress to permanently shutter the agency.

McMahon, in a transcript obtained by Federal News Network, told employees that Education is currently transferring its employees out to other agencies “on a temporary basis.”

That temporary reorganization, she said, will give the Education Department a proof-of-concept to show lawmakers. At that point, the Trump administration will call on Congress to pass legislation that will officially shut down the department and codify the reorganization.

The department, she added, has already transferred 13 employees to the Labor Department, “so that we can be more efficient and economical,” and that more interagency agreements will soon be signed to transfer other staff.

McMahon said the Education Department’s budget still covers those 13 detailed employees, and that the Education and Labor Departments are currently “co-managing” them.

McMahon told employees that she has spoken to members of Congress about this reorganization plan, and is planning to move programs out of the Education Department “on a temporary basis” for now. But in the end, she said the Trump administration’s goal is to find enough votes in Congress “to close the Department of Education.”

“If it has worked, and we have proven that this is the best way to do it, then we’ll ask Congress to codify this and make it a permanent move out of the Department of Education into whatever agency that program has gone into,” McMahon told employees.

President Donald Trump signed an executive order in March, calling for the dismantling of the Education Department. McMahon told lawmakers during her confirmation hearing that the Education Department is set up by Congress, and “it clearly cannot be shut down without it.”

The department, so far this year, has lost about half of its employees through mass layoffs and voluntary separation incentives.

McMahon didn’t mention immediate layoffs or workforce reductions as part of this phase of the reorganization plans, but acknowledged shutdown-era layoffs could return in early 2026.

McMahon said the Education Department has cancelled reduction-in-force notices it sent to about 20% of its remaining workforce during the 43-day government shutdown.

The continuing resolution passed by Congress and signed by Trump put those RIF notices on hold at least through Jan. 30, 2026.

But beyond that point, McMahon acknowledged that RIFs may return.

“Moving forward, that creates unrest. It creates uncertainty for all of you, and I understand that,” she told employees. “I know how difficult it is to make decisions that, from my perspective, are going to affect people’s lives and their livelihood and their teams and what they’re working on. And it is not an easy decision.”

McMahon said a majority of the public didn’t support plans to close the Education Department, when the Trump administration first announced its plans. However, she said the majority of the public does support shifting these programs to other agencies to make them more efficient.

“When the goal will be to have congressional votes to close the Department of Education, we are not closing education. We’re lifting education up, and each of us in this room has a chance to be part of history, and that this is part of our legacy,” she said.

The six interagency agreements will move billions of dollars in grant programs to other agencies. The Labor Department, in particular, will oversee much of the federal funding that will go to K-12 schools, including grants for schools serving low-income communities.

The department says states and schools shouldn’t expect any disruptions to their funding, except that federal funds will now come from the Labor Department.

“The funding will not change. That may flow through a different account or a different building,” McMahon told employees.

The reorganization would move two of the Education Department’s largest programs, the Office of Elementary and Secondary Education and Office of Postsecondary Education, to the Labor Department.

However, the Education Department will still retain student loan oversight and accreditation of colleges to ensure they are eligible to receive students’ federal financial aid.

Critics of the reorganization say that the agencies taking on Education programs and personnel don’t have expertise in these policy areas, and that the transfer could disrupt some of its essential programs.

“That national mission is weakened when its core functions are scattered across other federal or state agencies that are not equipped or positioned to provide the same support and services as ED staff,” AFGE Local 252 President Rachel Gittleman said.

The Associated Press contributed to this story

The post Education Dept soft-launches employee reassignments to other agencies, in latest step of closure plans first appeared on Federal News Network.

© AP Photo/Ben Curtis

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 post Post-shutdown, here’s how soon federal employees can expect back pay first appeared on Federal News Network.

© AP Photo/Mark Schiefelbein

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.

© The Associated Press