Federal Workforce Changes Since January 20, 2025: A Short Recap
Federal workforce changes since January 20, 2025 have reshaped where employees work, how agencies hire, which positions retain traditional civil service protections, and how employees challenge certain personnel actions. Return-to-office directives, deferred resignations, reductions in force, collective bargaining exclusions, and Schedule Policy/Career have changed the employment landscape well beyond Washington headlines and have made once largely abstract concepts, tangibly harmful.
For federal employees, the practical question is personal: What changed for my position, what can I do to protect my career, and can I "stick it out?"
Federal workforce changes since 2025
Every federal employee is adversely affected. However, the scope of the adverse impact depends on your appointment, agency, bargaining unit, and the dates and legal basis of the action affecting you. Some changes began as executive directives (orders) in 2025 and became final regulations in 2026. Others remain subject to exceptions, litigation, or future effective dates. Most recently in October of 2026, agencies are again trying to decertify unions after repeated previous failed attempts. This recap focuses on major governmentwide developments through October 21, 2026; individual agencies and specialized personnel systems may operate under additional rules. Further, attempts to adversely affect retirement benefits are underway and can only be stopped if Democrats are successful in the 2026 midterms.
In this post, we are only covering the highlights of federal workforce changes. Also, remember that nearly all of the changes were made through executive order. A new president could easily reverse every executive order signed by Trump.
Return to office changed the federal workplace
On January 20, 2025, President Trump directed executive branch agencies to end remote work arrangements and require employees to return to their duty stations full time. In theory (but not functional application), the memorandum allowed agency heads to make rare necessary exemptions and required implementation "consistent with applicable law". That combination matters in theory: the directive established a broad return-to-office policy, but its text did not eliminate every exception. [Read the presidential memorandum.]
Disability accommodations require a separate analysis. In February 2026, in an unusual move, the EEOC and OPM issued joint guidance explaining when telework may be granted, modified, or denied as a reasonable accommodation. This paved the way for EEO Administrative Judges to begin departing from previously established law in their rulings. Agencies still have obligations under the Rehabilitation Act. An employee’s preferred accommodation is not automatically required (never was in reality), but an accommodation request cannot be resolved solely by pointing to a general agency abstract preference for in-person work. [EEOC–OPM telework accommodation guidance.].
What employees should do: Keep your work-location agreements, accommodation decisions, position description, and written reporting instructions. Identify whether the dispute concerns routine telework, a remote duty station, or a disability accommodation before deciding how to respond. Keep a record of all emails generated or received in connection with your request and maintain chronological notes.
Hiring restrictions and deferred resignations
The January 2025 hiring freeze and subsequent workforce reduction initiatives made departures and replacement hiring central management issues. GAO found that approximately 134,000 employees separated and approximately 66,000 were hired at the agencies it reviewed during the first half of 2025. Another 144,000 employees had been approved for deferred resignation programs (DRP) requiring departure by the end of that year. The DRP alone reportedly cost U.S. Taxpayers in excess of several billion dollars to pay former employees to not work. In a recent analysis, the Government Accounting Office (GAO) put the revised figure in excess of 9.5 billion dollars just for the administrative leave.
The administration’s “Fork in the Road” program offered deferred resignation under specified terms. Employees considering their history under that program should distinguish deferred resignation from a reduction in force, early retirement authority (VERA), or a separation incentive payment. The actual agreement and personnel action determine what occurred as there were multiple versions of the Delayed Resignation Program.
As previously stated, in September 2026, GAO estimated that agencies in its review incurred $9.5 billion of taxpayer cost in paid administrative leave salaries during 2025, including approximately $6.7 billion associated with deferred resignation. GAO identified data limitations and found that OPM could not accurately track the actual administrative leave costs of any workforce reduction efforts.
Federal RIF procedures and appeal rights changed in 2026
Reductions in force became a major part of the administration’s restructuring agenda. Litigation affected implementation, but a ruling allowing a broad initiative to proceed does not establish that every resulting personnel action is lawful.
For example, on July 8, 2025, the Supreme Court stayed an injunction involving the administration’s workforce optimization order and implementing memorandum. The Court expressly declined to decide the legality of individual agency RIF and reorganization plans. This was an interim stay decision, not blanket approval of every federal layoff. [Read the Supreme Court’s order.]
Two later changes deserve particular attention:
Retention rules: OPM’s final RIF rule, effective September 2, 2026, prioritizes performance over tenure and length of service in retention determinations and changes other aspects of RIF coverage and procedures. The rule preserves the earlier framework for notices issued before its effective date. [Final RIF regulation.]
Appeal forum: A separate final rule transfers covered non-SES RIF appeals from MSPB to OPM when the agency issues the specific RIF notice on or after September 2, 2026. Older notices require analysis under the transition provisions. [Final RIF appeals regulation.]
Do not assume that an older article telling every employee to file a RIF appeal with MSPB still applies. Check the notice date, appointment, action, and governing rule. OPM’s current instructions generally require covered RIF appeals within 30 calendar days after the action’s effective date, subject to the stated filing rules. Separate statutory claims may involve different procedures. [OPM’s current RIF appeal instructions.]
Probationary employment became a separate area of reform
Executive Order 14284 and implementing guidance changed the completion of covered probationary and trial periods. The framework requires an affirmative determination that finalizing the appointment advances the public interest. Simply reaching an anniversary date should not be treated as proof that all required personnel steps have occurred. [OPM’s probationary period implementation guidance.]
Effective September 2, 2026, OPM also became the adjudicative agency for specified probationary and trial-period appeals. This is a limited avenue, including certain partisan-political or marital-status claims and procedural challenges involving preappointment conditions. It does not give every probationer a general appeal of management’s performance judgment. Independent EEO and other statutory avenues may still apply. [OPM’s probationary and trial-period appeal guidance.]
An employee’s service history matters. A “probationary” label alone is not a complete analysis of appeal rights.
Schedule F returned as Schedule Policy/Career
The Schedule F debate moved into a new implementation phase. Executive Order 14171, issued January 20, 2025, revived the framework under the name Schedule Policy/Career. OPM published its final implementing rule in February 2026, and Executive Order 14410 in June 2026 designated positions and further implemented the system. OPM’s Schedule Policy/Career resources and the June 2026 executive order explain the progression.
The framework covers designated policy-influencing career positions. It does not convert every federal employee into a political appointee. However, OPM’s employee guidance describes covered positions as at-will and states that employees cannot appeal covered performance-based and adverse actions to MSPB. It also directs employees to internal agency whistleblower procedures.
OPM states that reassignment into the schedule does not change pension benefits and does not automatically remove an employee from an existing bargaining unit (which is odd). These distinctions are essential: retirement eligibility, bargaining coverage, and removal protections are different issues. [OPM’s employee reference guide.]
If your position is affected, request the designation notice, updated personnel documentation (SF-50), and applicable internal review procedures.
Collective bargaining coverage narrowed at designated agencies
Executive Orders 14251 and 14343 excluded designated agencies and components from federal labor-management relations coverage on asserted national security grounds. In February 2026, OPM directed covered agencies to terminate or modify collective bargaining agreements in accordance with those orders.
The same guidance expressly recognizes limits: agencies must continue honoring agreements for employees outside the exclusions, and the implementation direction does not apply where a currently applicable court order prevents it. [OPM’s February 2026 implementation memorandum.]
Employees should verify the status of their specific bargaining unit. Previous union coverage, a dues deduction, or another agency’s announcement does not by itself establish which grievance and representation procedures currently apply. Many unions, such as the American Federation of Government Employees, now accept dues payment online, avoiding the agency need to process dues allotments.
DEI policy changed, while EEO complaint procedures remain relevant
Executive Order 14151 directed agencies to terminate DEI and DEIA offices, positions, and programs to the maximum extent permitted by law. That was a substantial change to agency organization and employment policy. [Read Executive Order 14151.]
Employees should not confuse those organizational directives with the elimination of federal EEO procedures. EEOC continues to describe a complaint process for federal employment discrimination, and its joint accommodation guidance continues to recognize Rehabilitation Act obligations. Generally, an employee must contact an agency EEO counselor within 45 calendar days of the alleged discriminatory matter, subject to applicable exceptions. [EEOC’s federal complaint process overview.]
If a removal, accommodation denial, rating, or reassignment may involve unlawful discrimination or retaliation, carefully identify the claim and deadline promptly. Waiting for a broader policy dispute to be resolved can put an individual EEO claim at risk.
Performance ratings and federal hiring: new rules
OPM’s performance management memorandum, revised in March 2026, calls for clearer distinctions among rating levels and a fiscal-year appraisal cycle beginning October 1, 2026 for covered non-SES and non-senior-professional employees, consistent with applicable bargaining obligations. Employees should obtain their current performance plan, document accomplishments against its standards, and address factual errors in ratings promptly. The revised RIF framework makes an accurate performance record especially consequential.
Hiring also changed. The October 15, 2025 executive order (14356) established additional controls through strategic hiring committees and annual staffing plans. Applicants should therefore avoid assuming that the original January freeze describes the entire later hiring system.
For applicants, a particularly visible, and arguably much needed, change is the two-page federal resume limit, implemented for USAJOBS applications beginning September 27, 2025. A lengthy traditional federal resume now needs careful revision to preserve the experience and qualifications required by the announcement. [OPM’s resume policy announcement.]
Pay and health insurance changed household finances
The January 2026 pay adjustment provided a 1% across-the-board increase for the General Schedule and certain other statutory pay systems, while locality percentages remained at 2025 levels. Separate special-rate provisions mean that one percentage does not affect every employee’s adjustment and Republicans are pushing for no federal employee pay increase.
Health insurance costs also rose. OPM reported an average 12.3% increase in the FEHB enrollee premium share for plan year 2026 and plans massive increases in 2027; actual changes varied by plan in 2026. OPM attributed premium pressure primarily to medical provider costs, prescription drug utilization, and behavioral health spending. The percentage increase in a premium deductions cannot simply be subtracted from a salary increase because the percentages apply to different dollar amounts.
The 2025 shutdown: even more chaos
The October–November 2025 appropriations lapse intersected with workforce reductions. OPM’s guidance on the November 12 reopening legislation directed agencies to rescind specified RIF notices and restore affected employees. It also described a temporary restriction on RIF funding through January 30, 2026. Those were time-limited statutory provisions, not a permanent prohibition on federal RIFs. [OPM’s reopening and RIF guidance.]
One newly finalized change has a future effective date
On October 19, 2026, OPM published a final rule eliminating the time-in-grade restriction on advancement to competitive-service GS positions. Its effective date is January 19, 2027. As of this article’s update date, employees should not treat the restriction as already eliminated. Occupational qualification standards and applicable agency qualification requirements remain relevant under the new rule. [Read the final time-in-grade rule.]
Frequently asked questions about federal workforce changes
Did every federal employee lose civil service protections?
No. Coverage depends on the employee’s appointment, position, service history, and governing authority. Schedule Policy/Career affects designated positions; it does not automatically cover the entire workforce.
Can federal employees still receive telework as a reasonable accommodation?
Potentially. EEOC and OPM guidance continues to recognize telework as a possible disability accommodation. The appropriate accommodation depends on the individual circumstances, essential job functions, and applicable legal standards.
Do federal RIF appeals still go to MSPB?
Not universally. Under the new rules, covered non-SES RIF actions with specific notices issued on or after September 2, 2026 go to OPM. Earlier notices require review under the transition rules.
Has the federal time-in-grade requirement already ended?
No, as of October 21, 2026. OPM published the final rule on October 19, but its stated effective date is January 19, 2027.
Why Federal Employees Choose InformedFED
The Cost-Control Model: We eliminate massive upfront financial risks by offering flat-fee services and low-minimum hourly retainers, making expert support affordable even for issues where the financial recovery wouldn't justify a high-priced attorney.
Unbundled, "A La Carte" Services: You retain control and only pay for the services you need. You can hire us for a single task—like an Initial Case Assessment (ICA)—and decide your next steps from there with no ongoing obligation.
Unmatched Accessibility: We are the only experts available to clients 18/7, including evenings, weekends, and holidays, ensuring you never miss a critical deadline.
Insider Knowledge: Our consultants possess decades of "internal" knowledge of agency policies and HR procedures, providing a strategic advantage during early dispute stages and settlement negotiations.
Indirect Representation: We offer "indirect representation," allowing you to retain us for specific tasks or phases—such as writing responses or second opinions, significantly reducing costs compared to full scope legal representation.
Disclaimer: InformedFED provides credentialed and recognized Subject Matter Experts to deliver administrative, litigation, and consulting support directly to federal employees and unions. We do not provide legal representation. Click here to book a no obligation consultation.
