Featured January 16, 2026 Celebrating 143 years of the merit-based civil service: The Pendleton Act Back to Blog Proposed rule on probationary period employee appeals would further erode due process for civil servants Date January 28, 2026 Authors Partnership for Public Service Tags Government Effectiveness, Workforce Earlier this week, the Partnership submitted comments in response to a new Office of Personnel Management regulation that threatens to politicize the firing of civil servants by changing how federal employees in their probationary or trial period appeal their removal. The phrase “probationary period” has been in the news a lot over the past year, beginning when the Trump administration carried out sweeping removals of probationary period employees across the federal workforce. Federal workers are generally in their probationary period during their first year on the job. Unlike the private sector, “probationary” does not mean that an employee has already performed poorly. Instead, it means they are on a trial period before earning various employment rights. In many cases, the probationary employees removed by the administration were told they were dismissed for poor performance, despite a lack of evidence or in direct contradiction to prior performance evaluations. As such, these dismissals undermined trust between agencies and their employees and weakened our government’s ability to recruit and retain top talent. Currently, federal employees in their probationary or trial period appeal removals through the Merit Systems Protection Board, an independent body designed to fairly rule on disputed performance actions. The proposed regulation instead moves the appeals process within OPM, removes an employee’s right to a hearing and gives the OPM director sole discretion to reopen contested decisions. The Partnership’s view The Partnership for Public Service strongly believes that the probationary period can be a highly effective performance management tool. When used well, it allows supervisors to assess fit, set clear expectations and address performance issues before a problem employee gains full civil service protections. The effectiveness of the probationary period depends on good management, not fewer safeguards. In its submitted comments, the Partnership asserted that OPM’s proposed regulation does little to strengthen effective supervisory or performance management practices and instead risks turning the probationary period into a shortcut for politicized workforce reductions. Moreover, we expressed concern that OPM lacks the capacity and political independence to effectively adjudicate disputes. The office within OPM that has been proposed to rule on appeals has historically handled only a small number of narrow cases. The proposed regulation also flies in the face of congressional intent. In the Civil Service Reform Act of 1978, Congress intentionally gave the MSPB the power to rule on appeals of personnel actions. This was done as an intentional safeguard to ensure neutrality and consistency across many decisions, and to increase trust in outcomes. Moving appeals into OPM, as proposed, would create a conflict of interest for the agency and weaken confidence that decisions will be made based on facts instead of politics. Efforts to streamline the appeals process should not mean ending due process for probationary period employees. An apolitical civil service depends on independent oversight of employee appeals processes, particularly for employees with the fewest protections. Rather than weakening existing safeguards, OPM should focus on strengthening performance management, investing in supervisors and ensuring that institutions like the MSPB are properly staffed and resourced to carry out their mission. Learn more about the Government for a New Era initiative, our effort to develop reforms for a more effective, responsive and accountable government.
