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.

Lawmakers are expected to consider bills covering everything from whistleblower protections and skills-based hiring for federal contractors, to relocation incentives for federal employees.

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.

The post 3 federal workforce bills to watch in House Oversight Committee markup first appeared on Federal News Network.

In the wake of the federal government’s push to bring employees back to the office, agencies like FEMA are facing a critical crossroads. While the intent behind return-to-office policies may be rooted in tradition, optics or perceived productivity, the reality is far more complex — and far more costly.

For employees with disabilities, these mandates are not just inconvenient. They are exclusionary, legally questionable and operationally unsound.

The law is clear — even if agency practices aren’t

The Jan. 20, 2025, presidential mandate directing federal employees to return to in-person work includes a crucial caveat: It must be implemented consistent with applicable law. That includes the Rehabilitation Act of 1973 and the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), which require agencies to provide effective accommodations to qualified employees with disabilities unless doing so would cause undue hardship.

Yet, across the federal landscape, many agency leaders are misinterpreting this mandate as a blanket prohibition against remote work, even in cases where virtual accommodations are medically necessary and legally protected. This misapplication is not only harmful to employees, it exposes agencies to legal liability, reputational damage and operational risk.

FEMA’s case study: A broken system with real consequences

At FEMA, the consequences of this misinterpretation are playing out in real time. In fiscal year 2025 alone, FEMA employees submitted over 4,600 reasonable accommodation requests, up more than three times from the previous year. Despite this surge, the agency’s accommodation infrastructure remains underresourced and reactive.

Supervisors, often untrained in disability law, are making high-stakes decisions without adequate support. The result? Delays, denials and errors that leave employees feeling unseen, unsupported and in some cases, forced out of the workforce entirely.

One FEMA reservist with a service-connected disability shared:

“After months of silence and no support, I gave up. I stopped applying for deployments. I felt like FEMA had no place for me anymore.”

Another permanent employee wrote:

“I wasn’t asking for anything fancy — just to do my job from home so I didn’t collapse from pain after 20 minutes in the building. Instead, I was treated like a problem.”

These stories are not isolated. They reflect a systemic failure that is both preventable and fixable.

The cost of dysfunction

When agencies deny effective accommodations, they don’t just violate the law, they lose talent, morale and money.

Consider the cost of FEMA forcing an employee to deploy in person to a disaster event when they could be performing the same job virtually instead. Tens of thousands of dollars in airfare, lodging and meals — all paid from the Disaster Relief Fund — become unnecessarily incurred expenses. Worse, the employee may underperform due to physical hardship or burn out entirely. In contrast, virtual deployment may be a zero-cost, high-return accommodation that results in better stewardship of taxpayer dollars.

Reasonable accommodations, when applied correctly, do not remove essential job functions or lower performance standards. They enable employees to meet those standards in a way that aligns with their health and abilities. They are not a problem; they are a solution.

Return-to-office mandates are not one-size-fits-all

Federal agencies must recognize that return-to-office policies and reasonable accommodations are not mutually exclusive. Virtual work can, and should, coexist with in-person mandates when it enables qualified individuals with disabilities to perform their essential functions.

This is not just a legal imperative. It’s a strategic one.

A supported, well-equipped workforce is more productive, more mission-focused, and less likely to file complaints and grievances. Accommodations foster a positive workplace culture, which is critical for retaining skilled staff. They also align with the administration’s stated goals of rooting out inefficiency and ensuring high performance among public servants.

A smarter path forward

To modernize federal accommodation practices and align them with both legal obligations and operational goals, agencies should consider the following steps:

1. Strategic messaging campaign
   The highest levels of leadership must publicly affirm that supporting reasonable accommodations is a legal requirement and a mission enabler — not a discretionary gesture.
2. Training and certification for deciding officials
   Supervisors must be equipped with the knowledge and tools to make informed, lawful decisions about accommodation requests.
3. Portability review of roles
   Agencies should classify roles based on their viability for virtual or in-person work to promote consistency, fairness, and transparency in decision-making. This classification should be grounded in the actual essential functions of each role — not tradition or “the way it’s always been done.” For FEMA and similar agencies, defining disaster-related roles by their portability (i.e., whether they can be performed remotely or require physical presence) would provide a clear, functional framework for evaluating reasonable accommodation requests. This approach enables faster, more equitable adjudication and ensures that decisions are aligned with both operational needs and employee rights.
4. Enhanced support infrastructure
   Create interactive tool kits, office hours and just-in-time training to support supervisors and employees navigating the accommodation process.
5. Contractor resource optimization
   Utilize existing contracts and skilled personnel to accelerate processing of virtual work-related requests, reducing backlog, and swiftly complying with strict processing time frames.
6. Streamlined implementation
   Improve procurement and delivery of approved accommodations — such as assistive technology, sign language interpretation and ergonomic equipment.
7. Employee feedback integration
   Use post-decision surveys to monitor effectiveness, identify barriers and improve transparency.

Accommodations are not a burden — they’re a blueprint for better governance

Federal agencies must stop treating reasonable accommodations as a bureaucratic hurdle and start recognizing them as a strategic asset. A fully optimized accommodation program enhances legal compliance, protects against risk, retains mission-critical personnel and improves operational excellence.

Return-to-office mandates may be politically popular, but they must be implemented with nuance, compassion and legal integrity. For employees with disabilities, flexibility is not a perk — it’s a lifeline. And for agencies like FEMA, it’s the key to building a workforce that’s not just present, but prepared.

Jodi Hershey is a former FEMA reasonable accommodation specialist and is now the founder of EASE, LLC.

The post Return-to-office mandates are undermining federal workforce readiness — especially for employees with disabilities first appeared on Federal News Network.