{"id":8884,"date":"2025-01-03T17:08:45","date_gmt":"2025-01-03T22:08:45","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.appliedpolicy.com\/staging\/7403\/?p=8884"},"modified":"2025-01-13T17:02:55","modified_gmt":"2025-01-13T22:02:55","slug":"federal-workforce-reform-revisiting-schedule-f","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.appliedpolicy.com\/staging\/7403\/federal-workforce-reform-revisiting-schedule-f\/","title":{"rendered":"Federal Workforce Reform: Revisiting Schedule F"},"content":{"rendered":"

President-elect Trump\u2019s return to the White House has brought renewed attention to the organization and operations of the federal workforce. Statements from the Trump transition team and remarks<\/a> from Elon Musk and Vivek Ramaswamy, who are set to lead the advisory Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE), have fueled speculation<\/a> about an imminent restructuring of civil service roles as well as \u201clarge-scale firings\u201d of government employees. Central to this discussion is the possible reinstatement of Schedule F, an executive order originally issued by President Trump in 2020 and more recently emphasized as a key component of the Heritage Foundation\u2019s Project 2025<\/a>.<\/p>\n

Under Schedule F, certain federal civil service positions would be reclassified as being of ‘a confidential, policy-determining, policy-making, or policy-advocating character’ and excepted from the competitive hiring process. While this reclassification would make it easier for the administration to remove current employees from these roles, it would not reduce the overall number of positions. Instead, it would allow the administration to fill the reclassified roles directly with political appointees.<\/p>\n

Background <\/strong><\/p>\n

Protections for federal civil service employees are rooted in the Pendleton Act of 1883<\/a>, a landmark law designed to replace the patronage system with merit-based hiring and ensure the civil service was staffed by experts in specialized fields rather than political appointees.<\/p>\n

The Civil Service Reform Act of 1978<\/a> introduced a loophole, permitting certain positions to be classified as “confidential, policy-determining, policymaking, or policy-advocating”\u2014designations traditionally reserved for political appointees. This opened the door to excepting some civil service employees from civil service protections.<\/p>\n

Introduction of Schedule F<\/strong><\/p>\n

On October 21, 2020, during his first administration, former President Donald Trump issued an executive order establishing Schedule F, a sweeping directive to reclassify a broad swath of career federal employees under the “excepted service.” Trump positioned<\/a> Schedule F as a necessary reform to counteract what his administration perceived as excessive influence wielded by unelected bureaucrats, whom he argued were obstructing policy implementation.<\/p>\n

Perspectives on Reform
\n<\/strong><\/p>\n

The push to reshape the civil service reflects frustrations among those who argue<\/a> that unelected bureaucrats have disproportionate influence over federal policy and that changes are needed to increase accountability and reduce costs. However, many opponents criticize this interpretation of the Civil Service Reform Act, stating that it undermines the intent of the Pendleton Act and has no historical precedent. Opponents further contend<\/a> that Schedule F violates the Supreme Court\u2019s Major Questions Doctrine<\/a>, a principle that highlights the importance of Congressional authority in widespread policy changes.<\/p>\n

Biden Administration: Dismantling Schedule F and Strengthening Civil Service Protections <\/strong><\/p>\n

On January 22, 2021, President Biden issued an executive order, Protecting the Federal Workforce<\/em><\/a>, revoking Schedule F as part of broader efforts to strengthen civil service protections. As a result, Schedule F never went into effect, and civil service protections remained in place<\/a>.<\/p>\n

On May 9, 2024, Biden\u2019s Office of Personnel Management finalized a new regulation<\/a> titled Upholding Civil Service Protections and Merit System Principles<\/em><\/a>. Describing Schedule F as \u2018sidestep[ping] statutory requirements built into the Federal hiring process\u2019 it specified<\/a> that the characterization as \u2018confidential, policy-determining, policymaking, or policy-advocating\u2019 references noncareer political appointees and cannot be applied to career civil servants. The regulation also organized an appeals process with the Merit Protection Board for any civil servant involuntarily transferred to an excepted categorization.<\/p>\n

Lauded by stakeholders, including The Partnership for Public Service<\/a>, these Biden administration policies may stall but cannot prevent the reimplementation of Schedule F. \u00a0Meanwhile, Congress has not advanced<\/a> the Saving the Civil Service Act<\/a>, which would expressly prohibit the reclassification of executive agency positions as political appointments.<\/p>\n

Looking Ahead: Schedule F Plans in the Trump Administration <\/strong><\/p>\n

The Trump transition team has declared its intention to revive Schedule F<\/a>, with the aim of replacing 50,000 civil servants. To do so, the Trump administration will have to circumvent the protective barriers set in place by the Biden administration requiring them to finalize any replacement regulation in replacement, a process that would take months. Alternatively, the Trump administration may pass an interim final rule as a workaround to revive Schedule F more quickly. However, such actions would be opposed by unions and good governance groups which previously challenged Trump\u2019s original executive order in 2020. As a result, the effects of future actions taken regarding Schedule F are not anticipated<\/a> to be seen until at least the Summer of 2026.<\/p>\n

Research support for this article was provided by Blaize Shiebler, Health Policy Intern.<\/em><\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

President-elect Trump\u2019s return to the White House has brought renewed attention to the organization and operations of the federal workforce. Statements from the Trump transition team and remarks from Elon Musk and Vivek Ramaswamy, who are set to lead the advisory Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE), have fueled speculation about an imminent restructuring of civil […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":19,"featured_media":8885,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"nf_dc_page":"","ap4_related_services":"","footnotes":""},"categories":[1],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-8884","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","has-post-thumbnail","hentry","category-uncategorized"],"yoast_head":"\nFederal Workforce Reform: Revisiting Schedule F - Applied Policy<\/title>\n<meta name=\"description\" content=\"Under Schedule F, certain federal civil service positions would be reclassified and excepted from the competitive hiring process.\" \/>\n<meta name=\"robots\" content=\"index, follow, max-snippet:-1, max-image-preview:large, max-video-preview:-1\" \/>\n<link rel=\"canonical\" href=\"https:\/\/www.appliedpolicy.com\/federal-workforce-reform-revisiting-schedule-f\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Federal Workforce Reform: Revisiting Schedule F - Applied Policy\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:description\" content=\"Under Schedule F, certain federal civil service positions would be reclassified and excepted from the competitive hiring process.\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.appliedpolicy.com\/federal-workforce-reform-revisiting-schedule-f\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:site_name\" content=\"Applied Policy\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:published_time\" content=\"2025-01-03T22:08:45+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2025-01-13T22:02:55+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:image\" content=\"https:\/\/www.appliedpolicy.com\/wp-content\/uploads\/iStock-1500080015.jpg\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:width\" content=\"1183\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:height\" content=\"887\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:type\" content=\"image\/jpeg\" \/>\n<meta name=\"author\" content=\"Applied Policy\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:card\" content=\"summary_large_image\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:label1\" content=\"Written by\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data1\" content=\"Applied Policy\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:label2\" content=\"Est. reading time\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data2\" content=\"4 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.appliedpolicy.com\\\/federal-workforce-reform-revisiting-schedule-f\\\/#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.appliedpolicy.com\\\/federal-workforce-reform-revisiting-schedule-f\\\/\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Applied Policy\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/appliedpolicy.com\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/326364c9511f087d2d72266f52773a49\"},\"headline\":\"Federal Workforce Reform: Revisiting Schedule F\",\"datePublished\":\"2025-01-03T22:08:45+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2025-01-13T22:02:55+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.appliedpolicy.com\\\/federal-workforce-reform-revisiting-schedule-f\\\/\"},\"wordCount\":732,\"image\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.appliedpolicy.com\\\/federal-workforce-reform-revisiting-schedule-f\\\/#primaryimage\"},\"thumbnailUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.appliedpolicy.com\\\/staging\\\/7403\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/iStock-1500080015.jpg\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\"},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.appliedpolicy.com\\\/federal-workforce-reform-revisiting-schedule-f\\\/\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.appliedpolicy.com\\\/federal-workforce-reform-revisiting-schedule-f\\\/\",\"name\":\"Federal Workforce Reform: Revisiting Schedule F - Applied Policy\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/appliedpolicy.com\\\/#website\"},\"primaryImageOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.appliedpolicy.com\\\/federal-workforce-reform-revisiting-schedule-f\\\/#primaryimage\"},\"image\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.appliedpolicy.com\\\/federal-workforce-reform-revisiting-schedule-f\\\/#primaryimage\"},\"thumbnailUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.appliedpolicy.com\\\/staging\\\/7403\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/iStock-1500080015.jpg\",\"datePublished\":\"2025-01-03T22:08:45+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2025-01-13T22:02:55+00:00\",\"author\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/appliedpolicy.com\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/326364c9511f087d2d72266f52773a49\"},\"description\":\"Under Schedule F, certain federal civil service positions would be reclassified and excepted from the competitive hiring process.\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.appliedpolicy.com\\\/federal-workforce-reform-revisiting-schedule-f\\\/#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.appliedpolicy.com\\\/federal-workforce-reform-revisiting-schedule-f\\\/\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.appliedpolicy.com\\\/federal-workforce-reform-revisiting-schedule-f\\\/#primaryimage\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.appliedpolicy.com\\\/staging\\\/7403\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/iStock-1500080015.jpg\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.appliedpolicy.com\\\/staging\\\/7403\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/iStock-1500080015.jpg\",\"width\":1183,\"height\":887,\"caption\":\"General Services Administration, GSA\"},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.appliedpolicy.com\\\/federal-workforce-reform-revisiting-schedule-f\\\/#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/appliedpolicy.com\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Federal Workforce Reform: Revisiting Schedule F\"}]},{\"@type\":\"WebSite\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/appliedpolicy.com\\\/#website\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/appliedpolicy.com\\\/\",\"name\":\"Applied Policy\",\"description\":\"Health policy and reimbursement consulting\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"SearchAction\",\"target\":{\"@type\":\"EntryPoint\",\"urlTemplate\":\"https:\\\/\\\/appliedpolicy.com\\\/?s={search_term_string}\"},\"query-input\":{\"@type\":\"PropertyValueSpecification\",\"valueRequired\":true,\"valueName\":\"search_term_string\"}}],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\"},{\"@type\":\"Person\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/appliedpolicy.com\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/326364c9511f087d2d72266f52773a49\",\"name\":\"Applied Policy\",\"image\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.appliedpolicy.com\\\/staging\\\/7403\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/AP_Logo_icon_HiRes_rgb-1-300x300.jpg\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.appliedpolicy.com\\\/staging\\\/7403\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/AP_Logo_icon_HiRes_rgb-1-300x300.jpg\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.appliedpolicy.com\\\/staging\\\/7403\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/AP_Logo_icon_HiRes_rgb-1-300x300.jpg\",\"caption\":\"Applied Policy\"},\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.appliedpolicy.com\\\/staging\\\/7403\\\/author\\\/applied-policy-insight\\\/\"}]}<\/script>\n<!-- \/ Yoast SEO plugin. -->","yoast_head_json":{"title":"Federal Workforce Reform: Revisiting Schedule F - Applied Policy","description":"Under Schedule F, certain federal civil service positions would be reclassified and excepted from the competitive hiring process.","robots":{"index":"index","follow":"follow","max-snippet":"max-snippet:-1","max-image-preview":"max-image-preview:large","max-video-preview":"max-video-preview:-1"},"canonical":"https:\/\/www.appliedpolicy.com\/federal-workforce-reform-revisiting-schedule-f\/","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Federal Workforce Reform: Revisiting Schedule F - Applied Policy","og_description":"Under Schedule F, certain federal civil service positions would be reclassified and excepted from the competitive hiring process.","og_url":"https:\/\/www.appliedpolicy.com\/federal-workforce-reform-revisiting-schedule-f\/","og_site_name":"Applied Policy","article_published_time":"2025-01-03T22:08:45+00:00","article_modified_time":"2025-01-13T22:02:55+00:00","og_image":[{"width":1183,"height":887,"url":"https:\/\/www.appliedpolicy.com\/wp-content\/uploads\/iStock-1500080015.jpg","type":"image\/jpeg"}],"author":"Applied Policy","twitter_card":"summary_large_image","twitter_misc":{"Written by":"Applied Policy","Est. reading time":"4 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.appliedpolicy.com\/federal-workforce-reform-revisiting-schedule-f\/#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.appliedpolicy.com\/federal-workforce-reform-revisiting-schedule-f\/"},"author":{"name":"Applied Policy","@id":"https:\/\/appliedpolicy.com\/#\/schema\/person\/326364c9511f087d2d72266f52773a49"},"headline":"Federal Workforce Reform: Revisiting Schedule F","datePublished":"2025-01-03T22:08:45+00:00","dateModified":"2025-01-13T22:02:55+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.appliedpolicy.com\/federal-workforce-reform-revisiting-schedule-f\/"},"wordCount":732,"image":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.appliedpolicy.com\/federal-workforce-reform-revisiting-schedule-f\/#primaryimage"},"thumbnailUrl":"https:\/\/www.appliedpolicy.com\/staging\/7403\/wp-content\/uploads\/iStock-1500080015.jpg","inLanguage":"en-US"},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.appliedpolicy.com\/federal-workforce-reform-revisiting-schedule-f\/","url":"https:\/\/www.appliedpolicy.com\/federal-workforce-reform-revisiting-schedule-f\/","name":"Federal Workforce Reform: Revisiting Schedule F - Applied Policy","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/appliedpolicy.com\/#website"},"primaryImageOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.appliedpolicy.com\/federal-workforce-reform-revisiting-schedule-f\/#primaryimage"},"image":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.appliedpolicy.com\/federal-workforce-reform-revisiting-schedule-f\/#primaryimage"},"thumbnailUrl":"https:\/\/www.appliedpolicy.com\/staging\/7403\/wp-content\/uploads\/iStock-1500080015.jpg","datePublished":"2025-01-03T22:08:45+00:00","dateModified":"2025-01-13T22:02:55+00:00","author":{"@id":"https:\/\/appliedpolicy.com\/#\/schema\/person\/326364c9511f087d2d72266f52773a49"},"description":"Under Schedule F, certain federal civil service positions would be reclassified and excepted from the competitive hiring process.","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.appliedpolicy.com\/federal-workforce-reform-revisiting-schedule-f\/#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.appliedpolicy.com\/federal-workforce-reform-revisiting-schedule-f\/"]}]},{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/www.appliedpolicy.com\/federal-workforce-reform-revisiting-schedule-f\/#primaryimage","url":"https:\/\/www.appliedpolicy.com\/staging\/7403\/wp-content\/uploads\/iStock-1500080015.jpg","contentUrl":"https:\/\/www.appliedpolicy.com\/staging\/7403\/wp-content\/uploads\/iStock-1500080015.jpg","width":1183,"height":887,"caption":"General Services Administration, GSA"},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.appliedpolicy.com\/federal-workforce-reform-revisiting-schedule-f\/#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/appliedpolicy.com\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Federal Workforce Reform: Revisiting Schedule F"}]},{"@type":"WebSite","@id":"https:\/\/appliedpolicy.com\/#website","url":"https:\/\/appliedpolicy.com\/","name":"Applied Policy","description":"Health policy and reimbursement consulting","potentialAction":[{"@type":"SearchAction","target":{"@type":"EntryPoint","urlTemplate":"https:\/\/appliedpolicy.com\/?s={search_term_string}"},"query-input":{"@type":"PropertyValueSpecification","valueRequired":true,"valueName":"search_term_string"}}],"inLanguage":"en-US"},{"@type":"Person","@id":"https:\/\/appliedpolicy.com\/#\/schema\/person\/326364c9511f087d2d72266f52773a49","name":"Applied Policy","image":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/www.appliedpolicy.com\/staging\/7403\/wp-content\/uploads\/AP_Logo_icon_HiRes_rgb-1-300x300.jpg","url":"https:\/\/www.appliedpolicy.com\/staging\/7403\/wp-content\/uploads\/AP_Logo_icon_HiRes_rgb-1-300x300.jpg","contentUrl":"https:\/\/www.appliedpolicy.com\/staging\/7403\/wp-content\/uploads\/AP_Logo_icon_HiRes_rgb-1-300x300.jpg","caption":"Applied Policy"},"url":"https:\/\/www.appliedpolicy.com\/staging\/7403\/author\/applied-policy-insight\/"}]}},"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.appliedpolicy.com\/staging\/7403\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/8884","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.appliedpolicy.com\/staging\/7403\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.appliedpolicy.com\/staging\/7403\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.appliedpolicy.com\/staging\/7403\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/19"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.appliedpolicy.com\/staging\/7403\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=8884"}],"version-history":[{"count":5,"href":"https:\/\/www.appliedpolicy.com\/staging\/7403\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/8884\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":8918,"href":"https:\/\/www.appliedpolicy.com\/staging\/7403\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/8884\/revisions\/8918"}],"wp:featuredmedia":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.appliedpolicy.com\/staging\/7403\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media\/8885"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.appliedpolicy.com\/staging\/7403\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=8884"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.appliedpolicy.com\/staging\/7403\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=8884"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.appliedpolicy.com\/staging\/7403\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=8884"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}