As the Trump administration works to reshape how federal workers can challenge unfavorable job actions, former officials from the Merit Systems Protection Board are sounding the alarm about serious risks to the civil service.
In recent months, the Office of Personnel Management has put forward several new rules aimed at altering the appeals process for federal employees who feel they were unfairly fired by their agencies. While these rules haven’t been finalized yet, three separate proposals would shift decision-making power to OPM.
Since it was established in 1978 through the Civil Service Reform Act, MSPB has been responsible for handling appeals from federal employees facing adverse personnel actions such as suspensions and terminations. However, the latest proposed changes would hand authority over to OPM instead of MSPB for appeals involving job losses tied to agency downsizing (RIF), probationary dismissals, or suitability determinations.
Raymond Limon, a former MSPB member appointed by President Biden who stepped down in 2025, expressed concern that OPM’s moves go “directly against” what Congress intended when it enacted the 1978 legislation.
“OPM would both create the rules and judge your case based on those same rules,” Limon explained during a May 13 virtual discussion organized by the Partnership for Public Service. “You’d no longer have an impartial judge — someone independent from the agency that let you go. You’d lose the chance to present live testimony at a hearing. You’d lose access to discovery. And you’d lose the ability to seek review in federal court.”
“This raises serious concerns,” Limon noted.
For years, federal employees who believe they were treated unfairly in a personnel matter have had the option to bring their case before MSPB.
“The board operates independently and doesn’t take sides. Its judges examine each situation objectively against existing regulations,” said Richard Vitaris, a former MSPB administrative judge, during last week’s Partnership event. “If you strip that authority from the board and hand it to OPM, there’s a much higher risk that agency decisions would simply be approved without proper scrutiny.”
However, OPM argues that shifting jurisdiction away from MSPB and streamlining the appeals process will make adverse actions faster, less costly, and less burdensome for agencies.
“Under the new system, employees wouldn’t have to deal with the complicated merit board process,” wrote Noah Peters, a senior advisor at OPM, in a May 5 opinion piece for Bloomberg Law. “It’s not fair to employees who want swift resolution for mistakes, errors, or legal violations during a RIF, and it’s not fair to taxpayers who pay for this overly drawn-out process.”
In practice, the proposed changes would eliminate the discovery phase in appeals, substituting it with an “as-needed investigation or audit” conducted by OPM. OPM claims the discovery phase leads to “unnecessary delays and added expenses.”
Federal employees would also lose their right to a hearing in most situations, with OPM relying entirely on written documentation. The changes would further restrict employees’ ability to request a review of case outcomes.
Once finalized, these regulations would place OPM’s Office of Merit System Accountability and Compliance (MSAC) in charge of hearing and ruling on employee appeals.
Peters pointed out that the 1978 Civil Service Reform Act “specifically excluded” RIF challenges from MSPB’s authority, leaving that decision to OPM. He maintained that moving appeals to OPM is “both legal and essential.”
“Congress never meant for the merit board to handle every federal employee dispute while OPM focused only on creating rules,” Peters stated. “Congress … gave OPM the authority to design a better RIF appeals process — and that’s precisely what OPM is attempting with its proposed RIF appeals rule.”
Nevertheless, the Trump administration’s proposals have encountered fierce opposition. Critics argue that moving the appeals process into OPM would create conflicts of interest, weaken due process, and reduce transparency. Democracy Forward, a nonprofit legal group, described the changes as “a major rollback of civil service safeguards.”
“Congress deliberately structured the CSRA to keep workforce policy — managed by OPM — separate from the adjudication of workforce rights — handled by MSPB,” the group stated in public comments on OPM’s proposal. “This separation was designed to shield employment decisions from political pressure and guarantee impartial review when employees contest agency actions. This proposed rule would tear down that barrier.”
The Trump administration is also pushing a separate plan to modify the RIF process by emphasizing performance over seniority on retention lists. Proposed OPM regulations would rearrange the criteria agencies use when deciding which employees to keep or cut during a RIF.
In its proposal, OPM noted that the current RIF priority system can result in top performers with less tenure being laid off, while lower-performing but more senior staff stay. OPM said the planned updates would bring the RIF process up to date and shift it toward a merit-driven approach.
However, Robert Shriver, managing director of Democracy Forward’s Civil Service Strong program, contended that OPM hadn’t provided sufficient evidence that the changes would lead to better results. Pointing to worries about harm to employee recruitment, retention, and institutional knowledge, Shriver called on OPM to pull back its proposal.
“A professional civil service relies not just on written legal protections, but on the belief and reality that career public servants follow consistent rules rather than changing political or management agendas. This proposal would damage that trust,” Shriver said earlier this month. “Once that trust is broken, it’s very hard to restore.”
If you’d like to reach this reporter regarding recent developments in the federal government, please send an email to drew.friedman@federalnewsnetwork.com or connect via Signal at drewfriedman.11
Copyright
© 2026 Federal News Network. All rights reserved. This website is not intended for users located within the European Economic Area.
