# Federal Workforce Accountability Efforts Stall as OPM Seeks Public Input on Overdue Reforms
A federal agency responsible for managing the nation’s civil service workforce has acknowledged that recent reforms aimed at improving accountability among government employees have not produced the intended results, prompting a renewed push to gather feedback from stakeholders before finalizing long-awaited regulatory changes.
## Numbers Tell a Troubling Story
New workforce data reveals that terminations and separations tied to poor performance or misconduct have remained largely flat across the federal government. Through mid-2026, approximately 3,100 federal employees have been removed from their positions based on performance failures or behavioral issues — a figure nearly identical to the roughly 3,500 separations recorded during the entire previous fiscal year, when certain agencies including the Postal Service and intelligence community were excluded from the tally.
The stagnation is particularly noteworthy given the sweeping administrative shifts that have been implemented to streamline the process of holding career employees accountable. Policy changes have been introduced at multiple levels, from expanded eligibility criteria for removing underperforming staff to revised performance rating caps that limit how many workers can receive top marks in annual evaluations.
## Reopening the Comment Period
In response to the lack of meaningful progress, the overseeing personnel agency has reopened its public comment window for an additional two weeks. The proposal under review would fundamentally reshape how agencies handle employee grade reductions, removals, and non-disciplinary separations. While a partner body responsible for appeals review has already completed its portion of the rulemaking process, the personnel agency’s segment remains in limbo.
Agency leaders have framed the reopened comment period as an opportunity to ensure the final regulations reflect real-world challenges identified by both former and current federal managers. One key concern highlighted is the structural disincentive that may discourage supervisors from acting decisively when a team member is not meeting expectations.
## A Landmark Report Identifies Root Causes
The conversation around reform gained momentum following an independent investigation published in late August by a nonpartisan research group. The organization, founded by two former senior federal officials, conducted extensive interviews with veteran government leaders and distilled the obstacles to removing genuinely underperforming employees into five central themes:
– **Inconsistency** in how removal proceedings are handled across different agencies
– **System manipulation** by employees who learn to navigate the disciplinary process
– A prevailing view among human resources and legal teams that they are **too cautious** when advising on terminations
– **Insufficient training and tools** provided to frontline supervisors
– A cultural tendency to let problematic employees remain in their roles rather than initiate action
The report’s authors have been careful to emphasize that this is not a partisan issue. They argue that every administration, regardless of political orientation, struggles with the same fundamental challenge: how to maintain a competent and productive workforce while respecting the rights and protections afforded to career civil servants.
## Calls for Bipartisan Legislative Action
While the administrative rulemaking process continues, advocates for reform say lasting change will likely require legislative intervention. The recommendations put forward by the independent research group include measures that would need congressional approval, such as standardizing removal procedures across all agencies and creating transparent metrics for tracking accountability actions.
“Congress was the first branch established by the Constitution, and it should take the lead here,” one of the report’s founders stated. “A bipartisan approach would provide stability and prevent the kind of pendulum swings that make long-term workforce planning so difficult.”
The other co-founder added that establishing a single, uniform, and transparent process — paired with meaningful measurement of outcomes — would be the foundation for any successful reform effort.
## What’s at Stake
With hundreds of thousands of career civil servants serving across dozens of federal agencies, the ability to manage workforce performance effectively is a matter of public interest. When poor performers remain in roles they are unsuited for, the consequences can ripple through service delivery, taxpayer dollars, and employee morale throughout the government.
Federal agencies are now waiting to see what input they receive during the extended comment period before the personnel agency moves forward with its portion of the proposed regulations. The outcome could shape the federal workforce for years to come.
—
## Frequently Asked Questions (FAQ)
**What are adverse actions in the federal workforce?**
Adverse actions refer to formal employment actions taken against federal employees, including terminations, suspensions, demotions, and other disciplinary or non-disciplinary separations, typically related to poor performance or misconduct.
**Why hasn’t the federal workforce seen more accountability actions despite new policies?**
Multiple factors contribute to this, including structural disincentives for managers to initiate proceedings, inconsistencies in how different agencies handle removals, overly cautious human resources and legal guidance, and a lack of proper training and tools for frontline supervisors.
**What changes has the current administration already made?**
Several reforms have been introduced, including expanded suitability and fitness regulations, the formalization of Schedule Policy/Career, granting the personnel agency authority over certain types of adverse action appeals, and limits on how many employees can receive high performance ratings.
**What is the independent report from August about?**
Published by a nonpartisan organization founded by former senior federal leaders, the report identified five root causes that prevent agencies from removing truly underperforming employees and offered reform recommendations, many of which require congressional action.
**Who is eligible to submit comments on the proposed regulations?**
The comment period is open to federal employees, agency leaders, advocacy groups, union representatives, legal professionals, researchers, and any members of the public with an interest in federal workforce management.
**When is the deadline for public comments?**
The deadline for submitting feedback on the proposal is September 29, 2026.
**Will civil service protections be affected by the proposed changes?**
The regulations aim to balance accountability with due process and existing civil service protections. Advocates for reform emphasize that the goal is not to strip protections but to ensure they are applied fairly and do not inadvertently shield employees who are genuinely underperforming.
—
## Conclusion
The disconnect between policy changes designed to strengthen federal workforce accountability and the flat data on actual adverse actions signals that deeper structural issues remain unaddressed. Both the overseeing personnel agency and independent reform advocates agree that the current system is not working as intended. With the public comment period reopened and a nonpartisan report providing a detailed roadmap for change, there is renewed hope that meaningful reform is on the horizon — but the path forward will likely require collaboration across the executive and legislative branches, as well as sustained bipartisan support. The coming weeks, as stakeholder feedback is collected and reviewed, will be a critical moment for shaping the future of how the federal government manages its most valuable asset: its people.
Thank you for reading
