Government Capacity

FAS Position on “Schedule PC” and Impact on Federal Scientists

05.20.25 | 3 min read

FAS shares the following formal comment in the Federal Register and asks that the scientific community, and the people across the nation who benefit from their research, to do the same.


The Federation of American Scientists opposes the proposed “Schedule Policy/Career” (“Schedule PC”) in present form because it rescinds civil servant employment protections, placing unnecessary and undesirable political pressure on highly specialized scientific and technical career professionals serving in government.


FAS encourages the Office of Personnel Management to rescind or substantially overhaul the Proposed Rule on Improving Performance, Accountability and Responsiveness in the Civil Service. We ask that OPM respond to the following comments and reflect how it will revise the Proposed Rule or abandon it.

New Employment Category is Unnecessary

Instead of creating a new employment category – the Schedule P/C for federal civil servants – the same goals can be accomplished by requiring agencies to regularly review and update critical elements in the performance appraisal system and their rating factors. Changing performance elements will have the impact of ensuring attention to accountability and responsiveness to policy without the ambiguity or determining assignment to the Schedule or the taxpayer expense of defending it.

The Administration is already taking this action by changing the performance appraisal system for the Senior Executive Service to make senior executives more responsive to Executive-branch priorities and policies. FAS advocates for updates to performance standards and rating factors appropriate for non-executives–based on the best available evidence–to achieve the intended accountability and responsiveness goals in this Proposed Rule. 

Proposed Rule Conflates Accountability with Administration

The Proposed Rule makes several errors in interpretation of the Civil Service Act of 1978, including the one potentially most detrimental to scientific enquiry, innovation, and exploration: