The Office of Personnel Management is seeking to bring a surge of technical expertise into the government’s ranks, as part of a new federal hiring initiative called the “U.S. Tech Force.”

The effort from OPM looks to hire 1,000 new federal employees for the initial class of the Tech Force. OPM plans to run recruitment as a “pooled hiring” effort, where agencies will be able to bring in employees for two-year stints to work on various modernization projects.

Agencies involved in OPM’s new program include the departments of State, Treasury, Defense, Interior, Agriculture and Labor, as well as the IRS, OPM and the General Services Administration, among many others.

“With almost no exception, we have basically every agency willing to participate in this program, and we’ve got grand ambition,” OPM Director Scott Kupor told reporters Monday. “Our hope is that as this works, we can grow that cohort, and also that we can use this as a model for how we can do more centralized, efficient hiring across government.”

Kupor said the Tech Force aims to help fill two workforce gaps simultaneously: technology expertise and early-career talent. The program will focus in particular on federal hiring for those with skills in AI, software engineering and data science.

Individuals who are recruited into government through the Tech Force will mostly be brought in as GS-13 or GS-14 level employees, according to Kupor, with salaries ranging from about $130,000 to $195,000. OPM has opened applications for the program and will assess candidates on a rolling basis. The agency is targeting 1,000 Tech Force hires by the end of March.

The new initiative comes after the loss of over 300,000 employees from government this year, due to the Trump administration’s efforts to overhaul the federal workforce. Tech Force hiring may also coincide with annual staffing plans, Kupor said, which all agencies are required to submit to OPM and the Office of Management and Budget this month.

It’s not the first time the government has sought to recruit technologists and early-career talent through a tailored federal hiring initiative. The Obama administration, for instance, launched the U.S. Digital Service, now called the “U.S. DOGE Service.” The effort similarly sought to bring in tech talent temporarily to work on specific agency modernization projects.

In 2021, the Biden administration also created the U.S. Digital Corps, an effort designed to recruit entry-level talent with software engineering, data science, design, cybersecurity and other critical IT skills into public service careers.

Programs including the Presidential Innovation Fellowship and 18F have additionally looked to recruit federal workforce expertise in specific sectors, and integrate digital services into agencies’ workflows. In March, however, GSA shuttered the 18F program.

Kupor said OPM’s new Tech Force effort is different than prior initiatives, since employees will be hired directly into agencies, and because it’s happening on a larger scale.

“A lot of what USDS does today is they get brought in on a project-by-project basis,” Kupor said. “But these will be full-time employees assigned to agencies, working on what the leadership believes are the most important priorities.”

Ushering more early-career employees into government has also been a common goal across several administrations. Currently, about 7% of the federal workforce is under age 30.

In an attempt to target early-career talent, recruitment for the Tech Force will include partnerships with universities, non-profits, professional associations and private sector companies.

“We’re less worried about where they’re coming from. We’re more concerned about, do they have the appropriate merit to be able to do the job, and are they excited about the prospect of working on these programs for the next two years?” Kupor said.

OPM is partnering with more than 20 private-sector tech companies to help recruit and manage Tech Force. The initial cohort will include hires from outside government, as well as early-career managers at private sector companies who will be pulled into public service temporarily for the program.

Kupor also expressed a desire to add flexibility for employees who may be interested in switching between the private sector and the federal sector over the course of their careers.

“I think both organizations benefit tremendously from that,” he said. “What we really want to do is get the benefit of really smart people working on some of the world’s most complex and difficult problems, and then also demonstrate to them that, if they so choose, they can take those skills and work in the private sector.”

OPM will lead federal hiring for the Tech Force as a pooled recruitment effort, by assessing applicants and creating a roster of qualified candidates. From there, agencies across government will be able to select and hire from a shared list of candidates that OPM has vetted. OPM’s goal is to repeat the pooled hiring effort once per year, for each new cohort of early-career technologists.

The strategies of pooling hiring and sharing certificates have been growing across agencies for the last several years. Many of the Biden administration’s federal hiring efforts under the Bipartisan Infrastructure Law, for instance, used pooled hiring.

“We’ve got to crawl before we run on this stuff, but I think is going to be, hopefully, a model for us to … increase the efficiency of hiring, both for the applicants and for the agency,” Kupor said. “You’ll see us do a bunch of stuff here at OPM, over the course of next several years, on figuring out, how do we attract people who are early career, to think about government?”

The post OPM seeks early-career talent for ‘Tech Force’ federal hiring initiative first appeared on Federal News Network.

© Getty Images

For Jay B., the decision to opt into the Trump administration’s deferred resignation program (DRP) earlier this year was not an easy one.

Like many federal employees, Jay, who requested using an initialism of his name for fear of retaliation, spent decades in public service. But after working remotely for over 10 years, the administration’s return-to-office requirements meant he’d have to commute over 100 miles a day — a change that became a major factor in his decision to take the DRP in April and end his Forest Service career.

Governmentwide, the DRP let eligible employees sign a contract earlier this year, agreeing to quit their jobs in exchange for months of paid leave, until Sept. 30 for most. Over 154,000 employees took the offer, accounting for about half of this year’s federal workforce reductions.

But with 30 years of service, Jay, along with thousands of other DRP-takers, also qualified for the government’s Voluntary Early Retirement Authority (VERA). So in April, he applied for retirement.

“Thirty years of my life has been in the federal government,” he said. “So relying on VERA, along with the deferred resignation program, has been a little bit scary.”

Jay’s decision, however, would lead to months of uncertainty: After submitting his retirement application, HR lost some of his paperwork, causing him to be incorrectly marked as “ineligible” for VERA and delaying his application.

Jay emailed his agency’s HR office over 30 times in search of assistance. But because he lost access to his government computer after taking the DRP, emails from his personal account were marked as spam.

“It just felt like I was out on an island,” he said.

At the Forest Service, HR has processed 2,253 retirements, and 508 applications remain pending, according to an agency spokesperson.

HR staff are “committed to providing prompt, accurate and courteous service,” the spokesperson told Federal News Network.

Jay eventually managed to reach an HR specialist and have the error corrected, but only after weeks of stress and exhaustion. As his application began processing in the months that followed, he said he had limited communication with his assigned HR specialist. But knowing that the specialist was juggling more retirement applications than usual due to the DRP, he maintained that she “did a great job,” given a difficult situation.

“I believe that if I had not been in the DRP, that issue would have been resolved well before my retirement date,” he said. “Things are looking a little better now, but the process has just been really, really difficult.”

As one of tens of thousands of federal employees leaving their jobs, Jay’s experience is all too common. Though the government’s retirement process has been a pain point for years, 2025 is a particularly difficult time to retire, according to many benefits experts and former employees.

Federal News Network interviewed more than a dozen retiring employees at various points in the process, most of whom spoke on the condition of anonymity out of fear of retaliation. The individuals come from agencies including the IRS, Social Security Administration (SSA) and departments of Health and Human Services (HHS), Defense, Commerce and Justice.

Amid the application influx, the Office of Personnel Management has also rolled out a major effort this year to modernize the legacy federal retirement system, which has long been paper-based. Many experts see the launch of OPM’s online retirement application (ORA) as a long-awaited improvement, but some remain wary of the timing, as agencies face application volumes not seen in at least a decade.

Thiago Glieger, a federal retirement planning expert at RMG Advisors, described the converging changes as “uncharted waters” for OPM.

“OPM has not really handled this new [ORA] system before, and this many federal employees retiring all at the same time,” he told Federal News Network.

But Kimya Lee, OPM’s deputy associate director for Retirement Services, said having the ORA platform available this year has been crucial for managing both current and upcoming waves of retirement applications.

“A surge like this would be extremely difficult for our legacy processing to work — it just wasn’t built for something like this,” Lee said during a Dec. 9 Chief Human Capital Officers (CHCO) Council meeting. “Despite record high retirement volumes this year, ORA is performing well. This gives us confidence as we prepare for retirement activities in 2025 and into 2026.”

At the Forest Service, a spokesperson said ORA “streamlines submissions, reduces errors and shortens processing times,” and added that the agency’s HR specialists work directly with OPM to resolve processing issues.

Still, the surge of applications meant that Jay, like many others, waited months after his salary payments ended, before he received a payout of his lump-sum annual leave. The financial boost is usually delivered within a few pay periods, and often tides over retiring employees while they wait for their annuities.

“I’m still worried about how all this will go,” he said.

At the time of publication, Jay’s retirement application had still not made it to OPM.

Retirement processing times on the rise

OPM itself is already well above its typical retirement workload due to the DRP, and seeing slower processing times as a result. Later this month, the agency is anticipating a second wave of retirement applications, which will further flood the system.

In November, OPM took in nearly 23,400 retirement applications from agencies to begin processing them. And in October, OPM had a similarly high intake of over 20,300 applications. That’s more than triple OPM’s volumes from October and November 2024, when just about 13,700 applications entered the system.

All told, OPM’s inventory of retirement applications is now over 48,300, nearing four times the 13,000 applications the agency aims to have on hand at once, as it both manages incoming applications and processes existing ones.

In April, OPM estimated the entire process — from the day an employee submits an application, to the day the employee’s annuity is finalized — took between three to five months. OPM’s part of the process alone, at that time, took about a month and a half.

But the rising application volume has slowed the pace of processing. The average time it takes OPM to review an application, calculate benefits and finalize an annuity has continually increased for most of 2025. After peaking in October at an average of 79 days, nearly three months, OPM’s average processing time decreased to 73 days in November.

Processing times for digital retirement applications, however, are notably faster. OPM has been completing those applications in about 38 days, or just over a month. In November, OPM reported that about one-third of incoming applications were digital, and two-thirds were paper-based.

“Digital cases are moving more than twice as fast as paper cases, but we are expecting these numbers to decrease,” Lee said. “We have a surge of applications going on right now, but as the surge decreases, we also expect our digital case [processing times] to decrease substantially.”

At many agencies, the retirement process is relatively similar. Once an employee applies for retirement, the employee’s home agency first prepares the application and sends it to a payroll provider for processing.

After initial agency and payroll processing is complete, the retiring employee receives a lump-sum payout of their unused annual leave.

From there, the application goes to OPM for review and the calculation of a temporary “interim” annuity payment, usually between 60% and 80% of a retiree’s final annuity.

Lastly, retirees begin receiving their final annuity once OPM fully adjudicates their applications — a process that, under usual circumstances, takes several months.

Some outlier cases can take much longer. OPM has said court orders, special annuities, part-time or intermittent federal service, or even working at multiple different agencies, can all slow the process.

One federal employee who spoke to Federal News Network retired in June 2024 and is still waiting for her application to be fully adjudicated, despite receiving interim payments in the meantime.

But with this year’s massive wave of retirements, the retiree feared further delays in the finalization of her application.

“I just don’t want it to get lost in the system,” she said. “I feel like I have no control.”

OPM has received nearly 139,000 retirement applications so far this calendar year, and processed about 103,000. But the workload is expected to grow in the next few months. OPM is anticipating thousands more applications to enter its systems by the end of December.

With applications on track to surpass 140,000 this calendar year, OPM is facing the highest retirement volume in at least the last quarter-century — and possibly ever.

Back to top

DRP has swamped the federal retirement process

The flood of DRP retirees has added substantially to the government’s retirement application volume. Of the 35,000 total applications in ORA with a September retirement date, DRP employees represent about half — more than 17,500 applications.

In other words, September’s digital retirement volume is likely double what it would have been without the DRP.

Of all DRP applications currently pending, close to three-quarters, or about 12,650, have reached OPM, according to numbers OPM provided to Federal News Network.

Other retirement applications, however, are still with either agency HR offices or payroll providers, awaiting initial processing before they can be delivered to OPM.

Applications not yet with OPM may face longer wait times. The National Finance Center, for instance, estimates a current processing time between 60 and 90 days once receiving an application, according to emails viewed by Federal News Network.

Rob Shriver, a former acting director of OPM during the Biden administration, summed up the current experience as one of “incredible frustration” from DRP employees and others trying to separate from government service.

“HR was already understaffed — now lots have left, and they have an ever-increasing workload. It’s all going to create backlogs,” Shriver, currently managing director of the Civil Service Strong initiative at Democracy Forward, told Federal News Network.

As those thousands of retirees wait, the typical end-of-year retirement flood OPM is expecting will add to the workload, and as a result, likely delay the timeline for finalizing annuities.

“There’s no question — we have a very busy time now, and we’ll get another big surge in December,” OPM Director Scott Kupor said in an interview with Federal News Network. “We’re certainly cognizant and doing everything we can to anticipate and deal with the larger volume.”

Back to top

Retiring federal employees “in the dark”

Along with OPM, agency HR offices are also seeing slowdowns in retirement processing work, as they review employees’ applications before forwarding them to OPM. Challenges in HR have led to many retiring employees saying they are confused or frustrated, as they face delays, limited information and, for some, application errors.

Some fear the issues will only get worse as more retiring employees enter the process.

One former employee from HHS, for instance, described having to submit her retirement paperwork three separate times earlier this year. The employee opted to retire after being told she was one of 10,000 that HHS laid off in April as part of a reduction in force (RIF).

Despite being subject to the RIF, the HHS employee said her personnel file was incorrectly marked as a “voluntary retirement.” As she attempted to work with the agency to correct the error, she said she received conflicting and limited information from different parts of HHS, as well as OPM.

“I’ve been yanked around — the left hand didn’t know what the right was doing,” she said.

By now, the HHS employee has managed to receive her interim annuity payment, nearly five months after her official separation date, but is still waiting for her final annuity from OPM.

“I’m pretty happy that worked out, but getting there really required several months of working with my HR specialist,” the employee said. “I think there were some points that she was ready to pull her hair out.”

An HHS spokesperson declined to comment and referred all questions on retirement processing to OPM.

One employee retiring from a career at SSA also experienced delays in the retirement process. On multiple occasions, when he reached out to HR to request updates, he received auto-replies saying SSA’s HR department was “experiencing an unprecedented volume of requests,” according to emails viewed by Federal News Network.

Still, the SSA employee expressed a level of understanding for the delays he experienced.

“All the people in my agency did the best they could,” the employee said. “I’ve been in the dark a good bit, but that’s through no fault of anybody’s.”

In response to questions from Federal News Network on retirement processing, an SSA spokesperson said the agency “has the right level of benefit specialists dedicated to processing employee retirement applications in a timely manner.”

“Processing times vary based on when an employee submits their application, the completeness of the application, and the review process,” the spokesperson added.

For some, the retirement challenges go back to the beginning of the year, prior to the DRP flood. One IRS retiree who retired in January described limited information from HR throughout the process. Though his application eventually made it to OPM and was finalized, he questioned how IRS would handle much higher volumes later in the year from the DRP.

“If you’re months behind from 1,400 people, what are you going to do when 22,000 people go at once?” the retiree said.

The situation at IRS has changed considerably since January. Some currently retiring IRS employees described the agency’s HR office being far behind schedule. Several told Federal News Network they have not received their lump-sum annual leave payouts, nor their interim annuities.

“It’s crazy, and we all feel very, very unsettled,” one said.

“We are in administrative limbo,” another said. “We’re just all at a standstill.”

Over the last few months, retiring IRS employees have received multiple mass emails from the agency’s HR office, asking for patience as the office worked to process an “unusually high” workload. The office has asked employees not to call with questions, as that could lengthen the delays, according to emails viewed by Federal News Network.

“Even with this increased volume, our team remains fully committed to ensuring each retiree receives the support they deserve during this important transition,” one email reads.

An IRS spokesperson did not respond to multiple requests for comment from Federal News Network.

Governmentwide, the processing delays were also exacerbated by the 43-day government shutdown. OPM’s Retirement Services (RS) division continued to operate throughout the shutdown, since it is funded through a trust fund rather than appropriations. But slowdowns still occurred, as some agencies opted to furlough their HR staff during the funding lapse.

“When HR offices close down, finance offices close down, there’s nobody there to process cases and send them to OPM,” Kenneth Zawodny, a former associate director for RS at OPM, explained. “There’s still work coming in, but that big surge continues to be delayed and delayed and delayed.”

Back to top

For HR, it’s “the biggest test they’ve ever faced”

As retirement applications flooded into agencies this year, many HR offices quickly became swamped. Some HR employees themselves took the opportunity to exit their jobs, leaving larger workloads for those who were left.

Glieger, the retirement planning advisor, described many HR departments as “simply overwhelmed.”

“We have bottlenecking of a lot people that are leaving on DRP, and so [HR] just can’t provide the kind of support that they used to before,” Glieger said.

The challenges for HR have left some retiring employees in the dark. One described his experience in the retirement process as “not normal.”

“Because of their caseload, I was just one in a huge stack of people,” the employee said.

The governmentwide HR workforce had been steadily growing over the last few years. Overall, HR staffing increased by about 8,000 employees between fiscal 2020 to 2025, according to OPM data.

But due to the Trump administration’s efforts to reduce the federal workforce, HR staffing has decreased by about 5% so far in 2025, with agencies losing a cumulative total of about 2,600 employees. The numbers are only accurate through September, however, and do not include HR employees who left their jobs through the DRP.

A former agency chief human capital officer (CHCO), who requested anonymity to be able to speak candidly about the situation, said federal HR has long been “chronically understaffed.”

“My heart is with the HR offices,” the former CHCO said. “They are overworked, underappreciated and this is really the biggest test they’ve ever faced.”

In 2022, OPM named HR as one of the government’s three ongoing mission-critical skills gaps. And during a 2023 CHCO Council forum, one participant noted difficulties in retaining HR specialists, due to a broader skills shortage in the HR profession.

“The agency is effectively competing with the private sector and the whole of the federal government,” the participant said.

The former agency CHCO also expressed concerns about the future of the HR profession in government, especially considering the higher workloads HR employees have faced this year.

“They didn’t create this mess,” the former CHCO said. “They’re the ones that were trying to implement what was never done before, with very little direction, very little support, and a lot of people yelling at them to move faster, without any understanding of what the consequences would be.”

Back to top

A second retirement flood lies in wait

As DRP applications inundate the government’s retirement process, agencies are also bracing for a second retirement wave at the end of this month.

Many federal employees choose to retire each December, since it can maximize their lump-sum annual leave payouts. That leads to a yearly, and expected, surge in retirement applications entering OPM’s system.

The DRP wave and the December wave make up a significant part of this year’s retirements: Employees with retirement dates in September and December, combined, account for 72% of all 2025 retirements, according to OPM.

In anticipation of the annual application surge each year, OPM temporarily adds more staffing to its Retirement Services division. That can mean anywhere between 30 and 50 additional full-time equivalents (FTEs) to assist with processing new applications. The agency also addresses the annual surge by increasing overtime hours for RS employees.

Kupor said those usual accommodations will be “a little bit higher this year because of the DRP-related retirements.”

But at the same time, OPM lost a significant chunk of its own workforce this year. The agency’s staffing has declined by more than one-third — about 1,000 employees — due to the DRP, as well as some RIFs and probationary firings.

In OPM’s RS division, the staffing losses have been relatively smaller. Since January, more than 100 RS employees have left their jobs either due to the DRP or regular retirement — a reduction of about 16% of that division’s workforce, according to OPM.

Currently, the RS division has about 300 employees who process incoming applications. Another 200 or so employees work in the call center to answer retirees’ questions, and several hundred more handle other types of cases, like survivor benefits and post-retirement adjustments.

In November, OPM’s Office of Inspector General (OIG) warned that “operating with a reduced workforce” will be a top management challenge for OPM in the coming year.

“The effective loss of this large number of employees represents a challenge facing OPM in building and sustaining an optimal workforce to support the agency’s mission,” a Nov. 24 OIG report states. “This reduction occurred rapidly and has created immediate gaps in operational capacity.”

Kupor, however, pushed back against some of the concerns from the OIG report.

“More headcount is not the answer to the currently long application processing and call center wait times,” Kupor wrote in Dec. 8 comments addressed to the OIG. “We have a comprehensive approach to address this … Nonetheless, given we are dealing with both paper-based and electronic-based applications and the sheer volume of applications we are receiving, we recognize that processing times are likely to increase in the short term.”

OPM looks to interim annuities. But some are waiting on that too.

In the short term, Kupor said OPM is trying to be “as transparent as possible,” while also asking RS staff to focus on delivering interim annuities to retirees as quickly as possible.

“We recognize that this is a very, very significant number of applications we’re seeing,” Kupor said. “We’re trying to get ahead of that and make sure that we can be responsive.”

The standard approach to retirement processing, in the past, has been for HR to work on a retirement application, and then send it to OPM, usually within 30 to 45 days, according to a former agency CHCO. An employee will also typically see a lump-sum payout of their annual leave within about two pay periods.

“A lot of people would live off that lump sum while their retirement annuity is being calculated by OPM to get an interim payment,” the former CHCO said. “But now they’re at a point where they’re not even able to do that.”

Lee, from OPM’s RS division, said having to wait months to receive an interim annuity payment is “the first thing retirees worry about” once separating from government.

Historically, about 40% to 50% of all retirement applications have been able to receive an interim payment almost immediately.

But more recently, OPM said it has made “system changes” that now allow for about 70% to automatically get an “instant” interim payment.

“This is a major improvement in financial security for retirees,” Lee said.

Some retiring DRP-takers, however, still expressed frustrations as they remain waiting on their interim annuities, as well as their lump-sum annual leave payouts, with little communication and few answers.

“This whole process has been a nightmare — employees are still showing up on rolls as active employees, and a large amount of employees have still not heard from HR,” one employee wrote in an email to Federal News Network. “We are literally stuck in limbo — no payments, no more checks. This is causing financial hardship for so many people.”

In another email viewed by Federal News Network, one HR representative told a retiring federal employee: “The events of this year and the large amount of employees leaving the federal government has put a strain on the normal processes.”

“Things are moving forward,” the email reads. “Just at a slower pace than normal.”

Back to top

A major step toward retirement modernization

The challenges in federal retirement this year come as OPM attempts to make longer-term improvements to the process overall.

After several years in the making, OPM fast-tracked its modernization initiative, the ORA platform. Over the summer, the agency launched ORA and began asking all incoming applications to be entered through the new platform.

For decades prior, OPM’s Lee said the retirement process was highly fragmented, with many agencies and payroll providers operating under different systems. She lauded the ORA as a “unified retirement ecosystem” that removes some manual processing steps that had been creating delays and bottlenecks. She said new automation features have reduced application errors.

“Now by the time the package reaches HR, it is far more accurate — it’s more complete than anything we have ever seen in a paper environment,” Lee said.

Lee added that OPM has continued to ask for feedback from HR specialists using the new platform, which she said has been critical in shaping ORA.

“That collaboration is one of the big reasons ORA is working as well as it is today,” Lee said. “They test new features before they were released. They told us immediately when there were glitches.”

Since its launch over the summer, more than 91,000 retirement applications have been initiated through ORA. Kupor said that generally, the rollout so far is “going very well.”

“It really enhances the front-end of the process,” Kupor said. “Instead of people literally printing out paper documents and sending those documents to our team in Pennsylvania to handle manually, [employees and HR offices] now can just go onto the [ORA] system and they can begin their application electronically.”

John Hatton, staff vice president of policy and programs at the National Active and Retired Federal Employees Association (NARFE) said that generally, adding more visibility through ORA and being able to see where a claim is in the process, is a significant improvement.

“We’re not out of the woods with the whole system being improved,” Hatton said. “But I think it’s a step in the right direction.”

Back to top

Some cite issues in new retirement platform

While many experts see OPM’s retirement modernization project as a positive development in the long run, some have expressed reservations about the timing of the rollout — coming at the same time as a major surge in applications.

“Retirement is already a pretty stressful process for people, so then on top of that, not having a clear process or information about a new system only adds to the anxiety,” said Glieger, the federal retirement advisor. “[OPM is] very hopeful that over time this is going to be a good system, but right now there are a lot of moving parts that have to come together for all of that efficiency to really start showing up.”

OPM has rolled out three versions of ORA since the platform first launched in June. OPM’s Lee said a “big re-platforming” in August went “extremely well,” something that she credited to the feedback of HR specialists who pointed out development issues early on.

The initial rollout of ORA over the summer, however, also hit some bumps in the road. The update caused many retiring employees to resubmit their paperwork at the request of their agency HR offices, according to multiple retirees.

The new ORA platform, notably, also contains an auto-population feature, which fills in employees’ service history, annuity estimates, high-3 calculations and more.

Some employees who have used ORA described seeing errors appear on their applications, after being auto-populated. One DOJ employee who resubmitted her application on ORA said an auto-populated error led to further delays. Her experience was “confusing,” she said, adding that some parts of the ORA platform were “too limited.”

A DOJ spokesperson told Federal News Network that the agency “continues to look for ways to improve the offboarding process to ensure employees are processed out in an efficient and timely manner.”

In November, the IRS’s HR office also acknowledged that ORA had been auto-populating incorrect data for retiring employees. The errors were apparent in calculations for service history, “high-3s” and sick leave, according to emails viewed by Federal News Network.

“Please rest assured that your HR specialist will include accurate documentation with your retirement package,” the message said. “These documents will ensure that [OPM] receives the correct information needed to process your retirement accurately.”

Lee said the auto-population feature of ORA is intended to give retiring employees an opportunity to identify and correct errors earlier on, and to “reduce preventable issues” before they further slow the process down the road.

“Instead of relying on guesswork or waiting weeks for an answer, ORA shows employees exactly what’s finished and what needs attention,” she said. “It took a complicated, technical process, but it made it straightforward and manageable for an employee.”

But some employees said they are continuing to experience technical difficulties with OPM’s platform. In one example, when a retiree struggled to get a temporary password from OPM to access ORA, her inquiries to OPM’s customer service went unanswered. She instead received automatic email replies, saying it would take two weeks to generate the password.

“I have still not received any money — interim annuity or even annual leave payment,” the employee told Federal News Network. “It has been a mess!”

Kupor said OPM will continue rolling out new versions of ORA as more features or adjustments are needed. At the same time, though, he acknowledged the frustrations from retiring employees who are experiencing long wait times, and who had to resubmit their applications.

“We’ll never just kind of clap our hands, declare ourselves done,” Kupor said. “This is a major modernization project, and it’s going as well as we could have expected. We obviously appreciate that this is an incredibly important thing for us to get right and to get timely. And we totally respect the fact that after a long career in federal service, people expect that they should be able to retire with dignity, and in an efficient way.”

OPM’s long-time efforts to modernize federal retirement

The ORA platform was an initiative that began under the Biden administration as part of a multi-year strategy to modernize the government’s entire retirement process. The Trump administration has since taken up the mantle and continued the initiative this year.

“I really do believe it’s an improvement. It’s something I’ve been waiting for — for a long time,” said Tammy Flanagan, a federal retirement expert and advisor with Retire Federal. “I can’t understand why it took this long, and I was concerned that OPM implemented it this year, but maybe it’s a good thing because of the volume. Maybe it will help ease that burden.”

By now, OPM has onboarded major payroll providers, including the Interior Business Center (IBC), National Finance Center (NFC) and Defense Finance and Accounting Service (DFAS), to the new ORA platform. OPM said it is still working with some smaller providers to bring them into ORA.

Shriver, the former OPM acting director under the previous administration, said he was “glad to see” the modernization efforts continuing.

“But an online retirement application is only step one,” Shriver said. “If you have a bunch of digital applications coming in, but you still have a paper process on the back end, you need people to take those applications [and] turn them into actual annuity payments.”

For decades, OPM has been trying to update its retirement systems, with some efforts dating back to the 1980s. But time and again, the agency’s attempts at modernization have fallen short of expectations.

In 2006, for instance, the agency awarded a contract aimed at digitizing the retirement process, but the effort ultimately failed to deliver.

Then in 2010, OPM tried taking smaller steps toward updating the retirement process, an initiative that made some progress, until the agency changed course again a year later.

In a report from 2011, the Government Accountability Office wrote: “For over two decades, OPM has been attempting to modernize its federal employee retirement process by automating paper-based processes and replacing antiquated information systems. However, these efforts have been unsuccessful, and OPM canceled its most recent retirement modernization effort in February 2011.”

After a major data breach hit OPM in 2015, the agency had to scrap many of its IT modernization plans, including the ongoing efforts to modernize the retirement system.

Then during the Biden administration, the retirement modernization effort took on yet another new shape. In 2023, OPM’s Office of the Chief Information Officer (OCIO) issued a multi-year IT strategy, which became the basis for many of the retirement updates OPM is still continuing now.

What a past surge indicates for those retiring now

The current surge in retirements across government is uncommon, but not entirely unprecedented. In 2013, OPM faced another massive retirement wave.

During fiscal 2013, OPM processed 138,039 total retirement claims from federal employees. It’s the highest volume OPM has had in at least the last 25 years — until now, with OPM on track to surpass 140,000.

In 2013, OPM attributed the delays in part to sequestration, which at the time forced the agency to curtail call-center hours and to suspend overtime hours for Retirement Services employees. The large volume also went hand in hand with longer processing times.

For Zawodny, the former OPM associate director of RS, the problems boiled down to a lack of funding and resources at OPM.

“Without the adequate staffing, without the adequate automation, there’s nothing you can do,” Zawodny said. “There’s only so much that’s going to be able to come through that funnel at a time. No matter how much you pour on top of it, it can’t all come out evenly.”

Zawodny said over the course of 2013, the backlog continued to increase. The office attempted to address the paperwork surge, similar to the current situation, by having staff work overtime.

Later, after getting approved to make more hires in RS, Zawodny said it still took OPM months to get the new recruits through a lengthy hiring process.

“And then you have to train the individuals,” he added. “It took upwards of nine months to a year to get an individual ready to start processing, doing calculations, providing benefits and advice.”

Congress eventually got involved, raising concerns about OPM’s absence of a long-term plan to overhaul the mostly paper-based process, combined with across-the-board budget cuts and a lack of consistent leadership within OPM.

More than a decade later, OPM’s new modernization efforts have taken a significant step forward. But in the big picture, the ORA platform represents about one-third of the total work for overhauling retirement processing. ORA modernizes the user-facing part of the process, OPM officials have explained, but more work is ahead before the government’s retirement process can be considered fully digital.

OPM is still looking to upgrade its digital file system (DFS), which contains personnel data on all retiring employees, as well as “Janus” — OPM’s program for calculating retirement annuities for applicants.

“We are revamping an entirely manual process — we’re realistic enough to understand that takes time. It takes iterations of software development, it takes process changes,” Kupor said. “Our team is doing everything we can to be proactive and get ahead of it. I’m certain there will be lessons that we’ll learn and things that we can do differently as we go forward, but we are absolutely committed to the cause here.”

“Digital retirement is changing what federal employees can expect from all of us — from every agency, from our payroll providers, and from OPM as well,” Lee added. “We’re seeing real results today with faster service, fewer errors, greater transparency. We’re committed to continuously improving.”

Despite OPM’s long-term efforts, though, the Trump administration’s workforce disruptions across the entire year have ultimately heightened employees’ uncertainty, according to NARFE’s Hatton.

“Whether it’s a shutdown, whether it’s reductions in force, hollowing out agencies, hollowing out HR staff through the deferred resignation program,” Hatton said. “That all can create disruptions in getting these files processed. We’re especially concerned that the agency side of the process is going to be difficult.”

In the immediate term, Flanagan, the retirement advisor, recommended that retiring employees currently in the process keep an eye out for any communications from OPM or their agencies, while also simply being prepared for things to take much longer than usual.

“But I don’t know what else employees can do,” she said. “I really don’t.”

Back to top

The post ‘In the dark:’ Retiring federal employees face major delays first appeared on Federal News Network.

© Federal News Network

A bill to restore collective bargaining rights for a majority of federal employees cleared the House in a floor vote Thursday afternoon.

House lawmakers voted 231-195 to pass the Protect America’s Workforce Act. The entire Democratic Caucus, along with 20 Republicans, voted in favor of the legislation.

The bill’s passage this week came after a discharge petition on the legislation reached the required 218-signature threshold in November, forcing the House to hold a floor vote on the bill. On Wednesday, the legislation cleared an initial voting hurdle, teeing it up for its final passage Thursday afternoon.

The Protect America’s Workforce Act, led by Reps. Brian Fitzpatrick (R-Pa.) and Jared Golden (D-Maine), aims to nullify two of President Donald Trump’s executive orders this year that called for most agencies to end their union contracts. The legislation, if enacted, would restore collective bargaining for tens of thousands of federal employees.

“This is a bipartisan effort to protect federal workers in this country,” Rep. Robert Garcia (D-Calif.), ranking member of the Oversight and Government Reform Committee, said Thursday on the House floor. “We’re talking about our federal nurses, our firefighters, law enforcement, medical professionals, the men and women that are working across our airports, that are taking care of our nuclear reactors in this country. They deserve the right to organize.”

In March, Trump ordered most agencies to cancel their agreements with federal unions, on the grounds that those agencies work primarily in national security. The president signed a second executive order in August, expanding the number of agencies instructed to bar their unions from bargaining on behalf of federal employees.

Combined, Trump’s two orders impact an estimated two-thirds of the federal workforce.

Prior to Thursday afternoon’s vote, several Republicans spoke on the House floor in opposition to the legislation.

“The president has been fighting back against the deals that public sector unions have negotiated for themselves, at the expense of the American taxpayer, by invoking an existing legal authority,” said Rep. James Comer (R-Ky.), chairman of the Oversight committee. “[This bill] directly threatens that progress by overturning the president’s executive order that exercises one of the few tools available to him under the law to more effectively manage the federal workforce.”

Many federal unions, however, have called Trump’s orders nixing collective bargaining illegal. A union coalition, led by the American Federation of Government Employees, sued the Trump administration earlier this year over its rollback of collective bargaining rights. The lawsuit alleges that the administration took an overly broad interpretation of agencies that work primarily in national security, and argues that many of the agencies impacted by Trump’s orders have nothing to do with national security.

Following AFGE’s lawsuit, a federal judge in April blocked the administration from enforcing the executive order. An appeals court later overturned that decision, allowing agencies to move forward with “de-recognizing” their unions. Several agencies have since rescinded their collective bargaining agreements.

Federal unions, including the National Federation of Federal Employees, lauded the House’s passage of the bill on Thursday.

“This is an incredible testament to the strength of federal employees and the longstanding support for their fundamental right to organize and join a union,” said Randy Erwin, NFFE’s national president. “In bipartisan fashion, Congress has asserted their authority to hold the president accountable for the biggest attack on workers that this country has ever seen.”

Despite the House’s passage of the legislation, it would still require approval in the Senate to be enacted. The companion bill for the Protect America’s Workforce Act, first introduced in September by Sen. Mark Warner (D-Va.), has one Republican cosponsor, Sen. Lisa Murkowski (R-Alaska).

“We need to build on this seismic victory in the House and get immediate action in the Senate,” AFGE National President Everett Kelley said Thursday. “And also ensure that any future budget bills similarly protect collective bargaining rights for the largely unseen civil servants who keep our government running.”

The post House passes bill to restore collective bargaining for federal employees first appeared on Federal News Network.

© AP Photo/Julia Demaree Nikhinson

The government’s dispersed systems for managing human resources for the federal workforce are on the verge of a major transformation, according to the Office of Personnel Management.

By January, OPM said it expects to award a federal contract that will eventually result in a cohesive HR system for all agencies to use. But in the short term, creating a governmentwide HR entity will mean working to consolidate the more than 100 systems agencies currently use for workforce management.

It’s not the first time OPM has attempted to merge the disparate HR IT systems across government. But Dianna Saxman, OPM’s associate director of HR Solutions, said the effort currently underway is “different.”

“We’re really leveraging the collective wisdom of the entire federal community,” Saxman said Tuesday during a public meeting of the Chief Human Capital Officers (CHCO) Council. “We’ve already brought experts from many different agencies into a steering committee that is helping us to set the strategy up front.”

Along with employing a steering committee at OPM, Saxman said many federal human capital leaders have started collaborating internally with other agency executives, like chief information officers and chief data officers, to plan the integration of the upcoming HR system.

“What we’re seeing in these agency engagements is a lot of enthusiasm and support for the overall effort,” Saxman said.

Once implemented, the new system will be the source for agencies, HR offices and federal employees to manage personnel records, payroll systems and performance data, while also having the capability to provide federal workforce analytics.

After OPM awards the HR IT contract in January, the agency will spend the next several months implementing the core HR system by the end of April. From there, OPM plans to work one-on-one with agencies to configure the platform to meet their unique needs.

All told, OPM’s end goal is to have the HR IT system fully adopted governmentwide by September 2027.

The value of the anticipated contract award in January is not yet clear. But it comes after OPM released a request for proposals (RFP) in October, detailing a specific plan of action to modernize and centralize the more than 100 current federal HR systems.

In May, OPM had previously released its initial RFP through the General Services Administration schedules program, which emphasized the need for interoperability in governmentwide human capital systems. The May RFP came just weeks after OPM initially announced a sole source award to Workday in early May, but then quickly canceled that award.

The expected timing for awarding the HR IT contract also “aligns beautifully” with the Trump administration’s newly released President’s Management Agenda, Saxman said. She highlighted three key goals in the new agenda that dovetail with the HR IT consolidation effort.

For one, a centralized HR IT platform would underly the administration’s goal of fostering a “merit-based” federal workforce, Saxman explained.

“As we look to foster greater merit, we’re able to do that by having an end-to-end HR IT capability that allows us really to see what’s happening with the federal workforce, with skillsets we have available [and] how people are being promoted and evaluated,” Saxman said. “This gives us that visibility.”

The Trump administration’s goal of making “buying power” more efficient calls for consolidated contract opportunities that are “smarter, faster, cheaper,” according to another component of the new PMA.

“A lot of the contracting processes in government are really decentralized, and there’s a lot of repetitive action there,” Saxman said. “This effort seeks to centralize the purchasing of a private sector core human capital capability at OPM — we would have one entity buying it on behalf of the entire federal government.”

On top of that, Saxman noted that OPM’s effort aligns with the goal of leveraging technology, as the PMA seeks to “consolidate and standardize systems,” while also incorporating “digital-first” government services and eliminating data siloes.

“We’re going to be consolidating over 100 systems into one, reducing the number of system integrations that are required and the complexity of managing all of these systems,” she said.

Saxman outlined what she said will eventually be an array of benefits for agencies, HR offices, federal employees and external stakeholders, once legacy HR systems are decommissioned and the new system is fully implemented.

“There are many manual data requests that come out from OPM, many different stakeholder groups,” she said. “But we’ll have an opportunity where the data will be readily available in dashboards, so we can have a real view of what’s happening with the federal workforce at any point in time.”

OPM also hopes to ease the workload for HR employees by eventually moving all personnel records to single files, even when employees transition between multiple agencies throughout their career. Currently many federal employees have personnel records that span across multiple different HR systems.

“Our goal here is to have one system that they can manage their employee record,” Saxman said.

For signs of success, Saxman said OPM will be measuring and looking for improvements in employee experience, cost savings and better data overall.

“A lot of our HR professionals are working with outdated, disparate technologies that are not serving them well, that are not serving our employees well,” Saxman said. “As a federal community, this is something that we have wanted to do for a long time.”

The post OPM’s plan to unify disparate HR systems taking shape first appeared on Federal News Network.

© Getty Images/VectorInspiration

The Trump administration has laid out its President’s Management Agenda, providing a framework for the administration’s overarching priorities to drive change in the federal government for the next few years.

The new PMA, which the Office of Management and Budget published Monday, includes three key priority areas, each of which contain several underlying goals the administration wants to meet, such as eliminating “woke” government, ending “over-classification” and “buying American.”

Many of the goals contained in the management agenda are already taking shape through a number of President Donald Trump’s executive orders and other changes to government the president has initiated since taking office.

“In his first months in office, President Trump already took bold and decisive actions to begin to reshape the federal government and end its weaponization against American citizens,” OMB Deputy Director for Management Eric Ueland wrote Monday in a memo to agencies.

A senior OMB official, speaking on background, said the PMA takes the president’s promises, as well as the administration’s work already underway, and creates a framework to “institutionalize” those end goals.

“Some of the previous PMAs have been all-encompassing and trying to be everything to everybody, whereas this PMA is very clearly tied to what President Trump promised the American people he would do when he got elected,” the official said in an interview with Federal News Network. “These are going to be priorities every agency focuses on for the full Trump administration.”

The Trump administration’s three PMA priorities are:

• Shrink the government and eliminate waste
• Ensure accountability for Americans
• Deliver results, buy American

The PMA has been a staple of presidential administrations for more than 20 years. Generally, each PMA aims to address systemic challenges in government management by setting goals and holding agency executives accountable. It’s a way for the White House to work with agencies to establish top priorities, then monitor progress toward priority-based goals.

Performance.gov, the website that hosts the administration’s PMA, so far contains only an outline of Trump’s management agenda. Details are missing on which federal leaders will be tasked with delivering on the goals, where there has already been progress, and how the administration will measure results for each priority.

An OMB official blamed the 43-day government shutdown for the limited details on the PMA website. Though confirming that more information would eventually be available, the official did not provide a specific timeline.

“We’ll work with the agencies and identify where they’re already making progress and start putting out — as PMAs in the past have — updates on the success that’s been had, what metrics we’re going to be looking at measuring and what agencies are going to be part of different leads for the individual goals,” the official said.

Shrinking the government

For the Trump administration, the first priority in the PMA focuses on shrinking the government and eliminating waste, particularly in programs that Trump has described as “woke” or “weaponized.”

To meet that end, the PMA’s first priority defines three key goals:

• Eliminate woke, weaponization and waste
• Downsize the federal workforce
• Optimize federal real estate

Already, the Trump administration has taken significant steps toward those goals. Agencies spent much of this year under a hiring freeze, while the administration simultaneously reduced the size of the federal workforce by more than 300,000 employees.

Going forward, the OMB official pointed to Trump’s latest executive order on federal hiring as a way to measure progress toward the PMA’s first priority. The Oct. 15 order called on agencies to form strategic hiring committees composed mainly of political appointees, as well as create staffing plans for the coming year.

“A key part of that will be making sure agencies are putting in place those hiring committees,” the official said. “They’re making very strategic decisions around who they’re hiring and what positions they’re hiring for, so we don’t just inflate the federal government again and overwhelm all the success we’ve had in reductions to date.”

Trump’s first priority area in the PMA is a clear departure from the Biden administration’s agenda, which had centered on strengthening the federal workforce and included efforts to increase federal hiring and workforce development.

On top of reducing the federal workforce, the Trump administration’s first PMA priority additionally focuses on removing programs related to diversity, equity, inclusion and accessibility (DEIA), as well as ending a number of federal programs the administration described as “wasteful.”

That goal already began taking shape earlier this year, as the Trump administration directed agencies to end DEIA programs, and remove federal employees who worked on DEIA-related projects. The administration has also sought to shrink certain agencies, including USAID and the Education Department.

As a final piece of its first PMA priority, the administration said it plans to shrink the government’s real estate holdings by offloading “unnecessary” leases and federal buildings, as well as moving agency facilities to more “cost-effective” locations.

Trump has signed a number of executive orders this year focused on making federal architecture “beautiful,” and changing the way agencies prioritize federal building locations, while also requiring all federal employees to work on-site full time.

A focus on accountability

In addition to shrinking government, the administration will also be focused on driving “accountability” as the second PMA priority. The effort will impact federal employees, agency programs and government contractors, according to the agenda’s outline.

The underlying goals for achieving Trump’s second priority area are:

• Foster merit-based federal workforce
• End censorship and over-classification
• Demand partners who deliver

Many of the goals under the second PMA priority are familiar, as the administration has already attempted to reach those ends. For instance, the administration has created a new “Schedule Policy/Career” classification for federal employment, and altered performance management standards for federal employees.

“One benefit of the way that PMA is structured for this administration is it’s going to be easy to integrate this PMA into performance reviews for individual employees across the government and hold them accountable for delivering on the president’s priorities,” the OMB official said.

The Office of Personnel Management in May also issued a “merit hiring plan,” which in part called on agencies to question job applicants on how they will adhere to the president’s priorities.

“A lot of this is following up on executive orders and policy decisions made by the president early on,” the OMB official said. “We’re going to be having agencies strategically hiring [and] they need to do so following the merit hiring plan.”

The second priority area also includes a focus on implementing Trump’s orders related to collective bargaining and labor-management relations at agencies. On top of that, the administration also detailed goals of promoting transparency in the federal government, such as through “find[ing] and annihilat[ing] government censorship of speech.”

Additionally, the second PMA priority includes goals of changing government contracting by working with “the best businesses,” and tasking political appointees, rather than career employees, with leading grant processing work.

“It’s making sure that those receiving federal dollars were chosen based on merit, because they’re going to deliver the outcomes that are expected,” the OMB official said.

Modernize technology, “deliver results”

The third and final priority area in the Trump administration’s PMA focuses on consolidating federal procurement, as well as adopting more modern technology into government services.

The priority contains two key goals:

• Efficiently deploy the buying power of the federal government and buy American
• Leverage technology to deliver faster, more secure services

Attempting to advance technology in government has been a long-standing goal across multiple administrations and throughout many agencies. But the OMB official said for the Trump administration, the goal will be to focus on finding modernization initiatives that can be turned around in shorter timeframes, and “moving out of 10-year, 15-year efforts.”

“We are being more specific in where we’re focused and making sure that we’re tackling projects that we can get done, so that we get the results and the benefits of that,” the official said.

The third priority, once again, mirrors many steps that the administration has already taken, such as attempting to reshape the federal acquisition process.

The priority area also focuses on a familiar throughline from the Trump administration and the Department of Government Efficiency of eliminating “waste.”

Some underlying goals in the PMA’s third priority area, for instance, focus on reducing the number of “confusing” government websites. Another focuses on removing “duplicative” data collections and eliminating data siloes.

“Instead of having dozens or hundreds siloed IT systems,” the OMB official said. “We’re going to be able to work off of consolidated IT systems that can operate in an integrated fashion.”

The post Trump’s government management vision centers on elimination, accountability first appeared on Federal News Network.

© AP Photo/Julia Demaree Nikhinson

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 Associated Press contributed reporting.

The post Appeals court backs Trump’s firings of MSPB, NLRB members first appeared on Federal News Network.

© AP Photo/J. Scott Applewhite

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.

© Getty Images/iStockphoto/Jirsak

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.”

The post Fired EPA employees challenge agency, alleging free speech violations first appeared on Federal News Network.

© AP Photo/Pablo Martinez Monsivais

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 post Committee Republicans advance House bill to overhaul the federal probationary period first appeared on Federal News Network.

© AP Photo/Mariam Zuhaib

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.

© Getty Images/bpperry

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 post OPM advises agencies to consider reducing senior executive staffing first appeared on Federal News Network.

© Getty Images/iStockphoto/ArtemisDiana

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.

The post Trump’s departure from presidential transition norms highlights need for reform first appeared on Federal News Network.

© The Associated Press

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.

© 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.”

The post BOP union seeks restoration of collective bargaining through new lawsuit first appeared on Federal News Network.

© AP Photo/Mark Lennihan

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.”

The post Federal union sues OPM, seeking release of ‘Schedule Policy/Career’ records first appeared on Federal News Network.

© Drew Friedman/FNN

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 the government 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.”

Discover more articles and videos now on our 2026 Open Season Exchange event page.

The post 2026 Open Season Exchange: OPM’s Shane Stevens on big-picture plans for FEHB, PSHB first appeared on Federal News Network.

© Federal News Network

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.”

Discover more articles and videos now on our 2026 Open Season Exchange event page.

The post 2026 Open Season Exchange: OPM’s Holly Schumann on getting a head start this Open Season first appeared on Federal News Network.

© Federal News Network

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 Benefits columnist, 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?’ ”

Discover more articles and videos now on our 2026 Open Season Exchange event page.

The post 2026 Open Season Exchange: Consumers’ Checkbook’s Kevin Moss on must-know details of FEHB, PSHB first appeared on Federal News Network.

© Federal News Network

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.”

The post Over 30,000 feds facing possible FEHB premium spike next year first appeared on Federal News Network.

© Federal News Network

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.

“A low premium may look good on paper, but then you may have much higher out-of-pocket costs that you have to incur,” Yoder said during Federal News Network’s 2026 Open Season Exchange.

Estimate your true out-of-pocket health costs

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.

Discover more articles and videos now on our 2026 Open Season Exchange event page.

The post 2026 Open Season Exchange: BCBS’s David Yoder on evaluating costs, benefits first appeared on Federal News Network.

© Federal News Network