Warner, Colleagues Press Trump Administration to Reverse Course on Rollback of Federal Employee Protections

WASHINGTON - U.S. Sen. Mark R. Warner (D-VA) and more than ten of his Senate colleagues are urging the Trump Administration's Office of Personnel Management (OPM) against implementing two rules that would severely weaken longstanding civil service protections for federal employees. The senators submitted two letters for OPM's official comment periods on its proposed rules regarding Suitability Action and Reduction in Force (RIF) appeals.

In the first letter, the senators urged OPM to reject its proposed rule that would transfer jurisdiction over suitability action appeals when an employee or prospective employee is deemed unsuitable for federal service from the Merit Systems Protection Board (MSPB) to OPM. In the second letter, the senators urged OPM to reject its proposed rule that would transfer jurisdiction over RIF appeals from the MSPB to OPM. In both letters, the senators expressed concern that the rules would shift the adjudication of appeals from the independent MSPB to an internal OPM process overseen by a political appointee - a clear conflict of interest in which OPM is the policymaker, the enforcer, and the final arbiter of these appeals. Further, they noted that these moves will erode protections for employees and invite political interference in workforce matters. The Senators stressed that these proposed changes are especially dangerous given the Administration's recent abuses of federal employees.

<_u53a_p>

In addition to Sen. Warner, Sens. Chris Van Hollen (D-MD), Ron Wyden (D-OR), Bernie Sanders (I-VT), Richard Blumenthal (D-CT), Mazie Hirono (D-HI), Tim Kaine (D-VA), Gary Peters (D-MI), Tammy Duckworth (D-IL), Andy Kim (D-NJ), and Angela Alsobrooks (D-MD) signed the suitability action appeals letter. Sens. Ron Wyden (D-OR), Bernie Sanders (I-VT), Michael Bennet (D-CO), Richard Blumenthal (D-CT), Mazie Hirono (D-HI), Tim Kaine (D-VA), Gary Peters (D-MI), Tammy Duckworth (D-IL), Alex Padilla (D-CA), Andy Kim (D-NJ), and Angela Alsobrooks (D-MD) joined Sen. Warner is sending the reduction in force appeals letter.

<_u53a_p>

"We write in strong opposition to the Office of Personnel Management's (OPM) proposed rule, Suitability Action Appeals (OPM-2025-0173-0001). While we agree that suitability standards and procedures play a critical role in protecting the federal government, this proposal undermines the statutory framework, independence, and due process protections that ensure those standards are applied fairly and lawfully," the senators wrote in their suitability action appeals letter, which can be viewed here.

<_u53a_p>

"We write in strong opposition to the Office of Personnel Management's (OPM) proposed rule-Reduction in Force Appeals [2026-02576]-that seeks to move the venue for Reduction in Force (RIF) appeals from the Merit Systems Protection Board (MSPB) to OPM. At its core, this proposal undoes Congress's deliberate separation of personnel policymaking and adjudication of appeals, undermines due process protections for federal employees, and poses heightened risks of politization given the current Administration's attacks on the nonpartisan civil service. While framed as an efficiency measure, the rule would instead erode structural safeguards that have anchored the merit-based civil service for decades," the senators wrote in their RIF appeals letter, which can be viewed here.

Full text of both letters can be viewed below.

<_u53a_p>

Suitability Action Appeals:

We write in strong opposition to the Office of Personnel Management's (OPM) proposed rule, Suitability Action Appeals (OPM-2025-0173-0001). While we agree that suitability standards and procedures play a critical role in protecting the federal government, this proposal undermines the statutory framework, independence, and due process protections that ensure those standards are applied fairly and lawfully.

<_u53a_p>

Congress spoke clearly when it enacted the Civil Service Reform Act of 1978. That law reformed the former Civil Service Commission and deliberately created separate entities with distinct missions where personnel policymaking authority was assigned to OPM and independent adjudication of workforce appeals was assigned to the Merit Systems Protection Board (MSPB).

<_u53a_p>

This separation was not accidental. Congress sought to prevent precisely the structure this rule would create, one where the same agency that promulgates personnel policy also adjudicates claims that those policies were applied improperly or unlawfully. By transferring suitability appeals from MSPB to OPM, the proposed rule collapses this intentionally designed safeguard and recreates aspects of the system Congress chose to abandon.

<_u53a_p>

By contrast, the MSPB was structured to provide independent, balanced adjudication. Removing appeals from MSPB eliminates this neutral forum and centralizes authority within the policymaking body of OPM. Under this proposal, OPM would draft suitability policies, implement those policies, and adjudicate appeals arising from them. This consolidation makes OPM the policymaker, the enforcer, and the final arbiter.

<_u53a_p>

OPM contends that internal reporting structures will preserve impartiality, claiming that staff taking suitability actions will operate in separate units and report through different supervisory chains than those deciding appeals. However, in practice, this separation cannot play out when both chains ultimately report to you in your politically appointed role as the Director of OPM as the rule clearly states that the Director of OPM will be the final arbiter of appeals.

<_u53a_p>

Further, the proposal comes alongside multiple rules related to removing authority from the MSPB to OPM, including the appeal process for both probationary employees and reductions in force (RIFs). Transferring all these appeal responsibilities to OPM particularly amid a reduced internal workforce and without demonstrated adjudicatory capacity risks inconsistency, delay, and diminished confidence in outcomes-the exact consequences OPM claims this rule seeks to remedy.

<_u53a_p>

This rule must also be considered in the broader context of recent suitability rulemaking that would further centralize personnel authority within OPM. Taken together, these actions would concentrate extraordinary power in a single agency led by political appointees, enabling OPM to sidestep long-established due process protections that shield federal employees from adverse actions based on political considerations, retaliation for exposing waste, fraud, and abuse, or other conduct protected by the merit system principles. This approach risks undermining merit based governance while weakening accountability and increasing politization.

<_u53a_p>

For these reasons, we strongly urge OPM to withdraw this proposed rule and instead work collaboratively with Congress and stakeholders to modernize and improve suitability processes while maintaining the independence and merit principles that underpin our civil service system.

<_u53a_p>

Reduction in Force Appeals:

We write in strong opposition to the Office of Personnel Management's (OPM) proposed rule-Reduction in Force Appeals [2026-02576]-that seeks to move the venue for Reduction in Force (RIF) appeals from the Merit Systems Protection Board (MSPB) to OPM. At its core, this proposal undoes Congress's deliberate separation of personnel policymaking and adjudication of appeals, undermines due process protections for federal employees, and poses heightened risks of politization given the current Administration's attacks on the nonpartisan civil service. While framed as an efficiency measure, the rule would instead erode structural safeguards that have anchored the merit-based civil service for decades.

<_u53a_p>

In the Civil Service Reform Act of 1978, Congress divided the former Civil Service Commission's responsibilities between OPM and MSPB, assigning OPM the task of promulgation and interpretation of federal personnel policy, while entrusting MSPB with the independent adjudication of workforce appeals. This separation was not incidental; it was designed to prevent the very conflict of interest this proposed rule would create. By consolidating policymaking and adjudicatory authority within OPM, the agency that writes and interprets RIF regulations would also determine whether those same regulations were lawfully applied. The proposed rule directly contradicts the statutory framework Congress deliberately constructed to safeguard neutrality and merit principles.

<_u53a_p>

The proposed rule contends that the current "dual-track" structure by which OPM creates RIF regulations and MSPB adjudicates appeals creates inefficiencies. It also asserts that MSPB, as opposed to OPM, lacks institutional expertise about RIFs. However, the quasi-judicial procedures available before MSPB, which include hearings, discovery, and the development of a formal record, are not bureaucratic obstacles; rather, they are consequential safeguards for employees in a merit-based system. Particularly in RIF disputes involving complex claims related to the application of retention factors, preferences, or allegations of improper motive, a transparent and independent process is critical to preserve procedural fairness and employees' rights.

<_u53a_p>

The proposal further undermines both efficiency and independence by designating the Director of OPM as the final decision-maker in workforce appeals. Concentrating final adjudicatory authority in a single political appointee could create delays, and it would erode the structural independence Congress sought to protect when it separated this type of policymaking from its adjudication.

<_u53a_p>

Additionally, OPM has not demonstrated that it possesses the adjudicatory capacity necessary to replace MSPB's established system. The rule would shift appeals to OPM's Merit System Accountability and Compliance (MSAC), which reports directly to the OPM Director and lacks the independent, balanced, multi-member board structure of the MSPB. Transferring appeals without evidence of readiness would risk inconsistent determinations, procedural delay, and diminished confidence in outcomes, which are the very issues the proposal claims to address.

<_u53a_p>

Further, this rule accompanies several other proposed rules that would shift additional authority from the MSPB to OPM, including appeals involving probationary employees and suitability determinations. Concentrating all these adjudicatory functions within OPM at a time of reduced internal staffing and without demonstrated capacity would create further risk of inconsistent determinations and procedural delays.

<_u53a_p>

Equally troubling is the erosion of procedural safeguards acknowledged within the proposal itself. Eliminating or weakening hearing rights and evidentiary collection processes would diminish the ability of employees to meaningfully challenge agency errors and would undermine confidence in the integrity of the system.

<_u53a_p>

Finally, this proposal cannot be viewed in isolation from the broader context of the Administration's attacks on the merit-based federal workforce. Recent attempts at mass removals and the President's rhetoric suggesting that personnel actions are directed at political opponents underscore the importance of maintaining robust, independent oversight of RIF actions. Even if this restructuring were presented as purely administrative, it would still collapse the policymaking and adjudicatory separation Congress directed. Especially in the current political climate, the agency that sets personnel policy should not also have adjudicatory authority. If it were to have this concentrated authority, it would heighten the risk of misuse and politicization of workforce decisions.

<_u53a_p>

As members of Congress, we have witnessed firsthand the vital services delivered to the American people by a nonpartisan and highly skilled federal workforce. It is our responsibility to ensure that the civil service remains protected from political retaliation and that it is guaranteed full due process rights. This proposed rule runs counter to those principles. We strongly urge OPM to reject it and instead collaborate with Congress to responsibly manage and modernize federal workforce operations.

###