Everything You Need to Know (and Ask!) About OPM’s New Schedule Policy/Career Role: Oversight Resource for OPM’s Schedule Policy/Career Rule
In February 2026, the Office of Personnel Management finalized a rule creating Schedule Policy/Career, a new category for certain career federal positions they deem as “policy-influencing.”
When the rule was initially proposed, FAS raised concerns that removing civil servant employment protections could place unnecessary and undesirable political pressure on highly specialized scientific and technical career professionals serving in government. While we appreciate the Administration’s revisions (such as those that clarify competitive service status), important questions remain about how the rule will be implemented in practice, and how it may affect agency operations, workforce motivation, and mission delivery. This is a complex change to a long-standing system, with significant implications for thousands of current and future public servants – with great potential for unintended consequences. Congress has both a responsibility and opportunity to understand the rule’s intent, implementation, and impacts as it works constructively to shape a better federal workforce system that meets the needs of the country.
This resource is designed to help Congressional members and staff (and other oversight bodies) with cross-cutting and agency oversight roles understand what implementation could look like, where discretion lives in implementation, what changes or risks may emerge over time, and what questions may be most useful to ask in oversight activities such as hearings, briefings, letters, commissioned reports, and GAO audits. Potential areas to watch and requests are aimed at specific implementation periods, as part ongoing engagement with individual agencies, or as part of more holistic review, with the goal of supporting practical, evidence-based oversight as agencies put the rule into effect.
Background
Under the rule, Schedule P/C positions remain career, merit-based roles, but employees in Schedule P/C roles:
- Move from the competitive service to the excepted service, with no appeal for such transfers
- Lose Chapter 43 (performance) and Chapter 75 (adverse action) due process protections under Title 5
- No longer have MSPB appeal rights
- Become effectively at-will for purposes of removal
- Retain protections from prohibited personnel practices (PPP) enforced internally instead of the U.S. Office of Special Counsel (OSC)
Importantly, career staff who had competitive status can transfer to a non-Schedule P/C role and regain competitive service protections. Staff who are hired into Schedule P/C roles under the merit system can likewise gain competitive status after 2 years and acquire competitive service protections if they move out of Schedule P/C.
This rule gives agencies significantly more authority over certain career policy roles. Whether that authority improves accountability or creates new risks depends almost entirely on how agencies interrupt and apply it.
If you’re interested in….
What the rule actually changes (and what it doesn’t)
Understand
- Schedule P/C are not political appointees. Under the new regulation, schedule P/C roles are policy influencing roles hired through merit processes and who retain their roles across administrations, vs. political appointments, which are selected through the White House and whose tenure ends when a president leaves office.
- The rule primarily changes protections and removal authority for staff moved to Schedule P/C, not hiring – though overseers should stay aware of hiring practices for these roles.
- Schedule P/C roles remain career, merit-filled positions and P/C employees have or can attain competitive service status (but this is worth continued engagement on)
- However, while in P/C roles, employees lose Ch. 43/75 process due process protections and MSPB appeal rights.
Ask agencies (now)
- How are you explaining this change to managers and staff?
- By what criteria will you decide what agency positions are determined to be “policy influencing” for approval by OPM?
- What written guidance have supervisors received?
Watch
- Confusion in agencies about what this is
- Implementers with different interpretations on breadth of the definitions
- Differential discussion of or treatment of Schedule P/C roles beyond this rulemaking
Why it matters: Early confusion or inconsistency may lead to uneven or overbroad designation of roles, uneven treatment across agencies, or morale challenges due to confusion about goals.
What is policy influencing (and what isn’t)
Understand: Agencies are supposed to identify roles based on whether the duties of the position meet the statutory test for being policy influencing – the role, not the person. Agencies are told to consider: roles that:
- Shape, write, or interpret regulations or policy
- Advise senior leaders on policy choices
- Translate presidential or agency priorities into action
- Direct the work of people doing the above
- Sit in policy offices, regulatory offices, or leadership advisory roles
- Have authority to influence how laws and directives are carried out
Agencies should not be considering:
- Performance
- Seniority
- Political beliefs
- Individual behavior
Ask (after agencies have made determinations):
- What criteria did you use to determine a role was policy-influencing?
- Did you conduct a role-by-role analysis? Are there instances where you designated whole offices?
- Which occupational series and functions were included? Were scientists, attorneys, grants officials, or program managers included?
- How did you treat supervisory roles?
- What written justification exists for each position?
Watch:
- Expansion or changing of definitions over time beyond the initial intent
- Use of office-wide or team-wide designations rather than position-specific analysis
- Application of the definition to roles that are primarily technical, scientific, legal, or delivery-oriented rather than policy-shaping
- Variation in interpretation across components or agencies
Why it matters: Good oversight here is about definitions and consistency.
How positions get put on the schedule
Understand: Agencies identify the roles, OPM vets the justification, and the President makes the final decision to place the positions into Schedule Policy/Career.
Ask (after agencies have made designations)
- What process did agencies use to identify positions? Are all such positions designated Schedule P/C?
- Who approved each designation at agencies?
- What documentation supports each decision at agencies?
- How are employees and job applicants notified about placement into Schedule P/C?
- How is OPM ensuring consistency between agencies?
- Given the volume of positions reviewed, what process exists to revisit or correct designations if needed?
Ask (on a rolling basis, or in a GAO review 1 year after implementation)
- How many positions were added after the initial designation?
- What justifications were used later, and did they change in scope?
- Whether the definition of “policy-influencing” is changing?
Watch
- Whether processes remain consistent and well-documented over time
- Patterns of employee questions or concerns about how decisions were made
Why it matters: Much of the practical discretion in this rule rests in how agencies conduct and document this step. Understanding this process is key to meaningful oversight.
What the loss of Chapter 43 & 75 protections really means
Understand: This removes performance improvement periods (PIPs), MSPB appeal rights, and statutory due process (notice and response) removal processes.
Ask
- How will agencies set standards for managers to meet before removing someone on Schedule P/C?
- What internal review happens before a removal decision is finalized?
Watch
- How frequently this authority is used across agencies
- Whether managers express uncertainty about when or how to use this authority
- Differences in how agencies apply this authority
- Situations where employees raise concerns related to PPP protections
Why it matters: The health of the civil service depends on disciplined, fair, and consistent implementation of workforce policies.
What replaces MSPB and OSC review and whistleblower safeguards
Understand: Schedule P/C employees cannot appeal placement or removal through MSPB or file complaints with the OSC. Instead, the rule requires agencies to create and enforce internal protections against Prohibited Personnel Practices (PPPs), including whistleblower reprisal.
Ask (when agencies have made designations)
- What PPP/whistleblower safeguards have you established for Schedule P/C?
- Who reviews allegations of misuse?
- Are these procedures public to employees?
- If an employee is separated, will they have access to these procedures?
- Will job applicants have access to these procedures?
- How are complaints tracked and reported?
- Will the confidentiality of whistleblowers be protected?
- What training have managers received on PPP risks when using Schedule P/C authority?
- What role do IG and OSC play?
- Are Schedule P/C related PPP complaints being flagged as a category?
Watch
- Whether employees understand where and how to raise concerns
- Whether safeguards are formalized in written procedures
- Whether managers demonstrate understanding of PPP responsibilities
- Patterns in complaint data that may indicate either effective safeguards or lack of awareness
- How seriously agencies operationalize these safeguards in practice
Why it matters: Under the traditional civil service system, MSPB provided an independent judge, formal record, public decisions, visible check on agency action. OSC safeguarded the merit system by protecting federal employees and applicants from prohibited personnel practices and provided a secure channel for federal employees to blow the whistle by disclosing wrongdoing. Under Schedule P/C, legitimacy depends on whether agencies build credible, transparent, and trusted internal safeguards. Visible safeguards are essential for preventing misuse of at-will authority; protecting whistleblowers and dissenters acting in good faith; maintaining workforce trust in policy offices; ensuring accountability does not become perceived politicization. Agencies need to have strong systems before problems arise.
Hiring and merit rules
Understand: Hiring for Schedule P/C roles must still follow merit procedures. New hires in Schedule P/C can gain competitive status in 2 years.
Ask (on a rolling basis)
- Are there any differences between traditional merit hiring and Schedule P/C hiring practices?
- As the rule is implemented, how many new hires have been made into these roles?
- Have any individuals previously serving in political roles been hired into Schedule P/C roles?
Watch
- Whether employees and managers clearly understand how competitive status is gained
- Public hiring announcements and transparency around these roles
Why it matters: Perceptions of politicization may arise here.
Workforce and mission impacts
Understand: These roles will sit in a wide range of functions across agencies. Early concerns about Schedule P/C highlighted risks to sensitive, scientific, technical, or high-demand roles where continuity and ability to “speak truth to power” are valued.
Ask (on a rolling basis)
- Have you seen retention or recruitment impacts in Schedule P/C roles?
- Have employees moved to Schedule P/C declined roles or departed Federal service?
- What Schedule P/C roles are in the national security, scientific, or health fields, or fields engaged in long-term risk work?
- How are agencies addressing concerns that Schedule P/C would stifle dissent or evidence-based policymaking?
- How many employees in Schedule PC roles have transferred or competed for non-Schedule PC roles? How many have sought to?
Watch
- Hollowing out of key policy offices
- Reluctance of experienced staff to serve
Why it matters: Accountability gains should not come at the expense of mission capacity.
Does this address the performance problem it’s meant to solve?
Understand: OPM justifies the rule using MSPB and FEVS data showing managers struggle to remove poor performers; however, the rule does not introduce a more mature performance management standard.
Ask (on a rolling basis, or through GAO review)
- What evidence do you have that those in “policy influencing” roles have performance issues, or that the impact of such performance issues is greater?
- Have you used this authority to remove employees for performance issues? Why could they not be addressed under prior mechanisms?
- Are managers finding it easier to address poor performance? What about to incent strong performance?
- What indicators are you watching for improved overall performance?
- What standards are being applied for performance? Are they consistent within or across agencies?
Watch
- Rule exists on paper but behavior doesn’t change
- Different definitions for poor performance arise from adverse action, conduct and performance as defined in Chapters 43 and 75
- Performance problems persist for other reasons
Why it matters: Congress should know if the remedy matches the diagnosis.
Data Congress should request via GAO for ongoing tracking and comparison
Request from agencies:
- List of all positions designated
- Written justifications
- Counts by grade, office, and occupational series
- Number of removals using this authority
- Number of PPP/whistleblower complaints related to it
- Number of hires into Schedule P/C roles
Why it matters: Early transparency prevents speculation and enables evidence-based oversight.
If this proposed rule were enacted it would have deleterious effects on government workers in general and federal researchers and scientists, specifically.
When we introduce “at-will” employment to government employees, we also introduce the potential for environments where people are more concerned about self-preservation than service to others.