Trump Looking To Block What?
The Trump administration on Monday rolled out a major proposal that would reshape how federal employee layoffs are challenged, eliminating independent review by a federal board and shifting full authority to the executive branch.
The rule targets federal workers dismissed through a Reduction in Force (RIF), a layoff process used across more than 20 federal agencies last year as the administration moved to streamline government operations and reduce bureaucracy.
If finalized, employees affected by future RIFs would no longer be able to appeal their terminations to the Merit Systems Protection Board (MSPB), a quasi-judicial agency that has historically reviewed federal employment disputes. Workers would also lose the ability to take those cases to federal court.
Instead, appeals would be handled internally by the Office of Personnel Management (OPM), the same agency that—alongside the Office of Management and Budget—directed agencies to begin workforce reductions.
Independent Review Would Be Eliminated
Currently, the MSPB provides an independent layer of oversight and has previously ruled that some agencies violated personnel rules during layoffs. Under the proposed rule, hearings would only occur if OPM itself orders one.
Appeals to federal courts, which are currently allowed after MSPB decisions, would be eliminated entirely.
In its proposal, OPM argued that court involvement adds little value and slows necessary government reforms.
“OPM believes there is minimal benefit from additional judicial review compared to OPM’s adjudicatory process,” the proposal states.
Administration Says System Is Broken
The Trump administration defended the rule as a commonsense reform aimed at fixing a slow and costly system.
“Congress gave OPM authority over reduction-in-force appeals,” an agency spokesperson said. “This rule puts that authority to work by replacing a drawn-out, expensive process with a streamlined review led by experienced professionals.”
According to OPM, the change would allow agencies to restructure without years of litigation while still correcting mistakes when they occur—delivering faster resolutions for employees and taxpayers alike.
Unions and Watchdog Groups Push Back
Federal employee unions quickly criticized the proposal, warning that it concentrates too much power inside OPM and weakens civil service protections.
Everett Kelley, president of the American Federation of Government Employees, said the rule would make it harder for workers to challenge layoffs and reduce independent oversight of federal employment decisions.
Good-government groups echoed those concerns. Jenny Mattingley of the Partnership for Public Service questioned whether OPM’s Merit System Accountability and Compliance office has the staff or resources to manage a large volume of appeals.
She also warned that consolidating oversight inside one agency blurs the line between decision-making and review.
MSPB Under Fire
The proposal sharply criticizes the MSPB, describing it as inefficient and often unable to function due to backlogs and lack of a quorum.
While the administration points to those issues as justification, reports show the MSPB’s caseload surged dramatically during President Trump’s first fiscal year back in office.
The administration has also faced scrutiny for its handling of the board itself, including President Trump’s early decision to remove the MSPB chair. That move was later upheld by a divided federal appeals court, with the majority ruling that Congress cannot limit the president’s authority to remove board members.
A dissenting judge warned that the decision could weaken agency independence across the federal government.
What Happens Next
The proposal is expected to face legal and political challenges, but supporters say it reflects a broader effort by the Trump administration to reduce bureaucracy, restore executive accountability, and make the federal workforce more efficient.
If adopted, the rule would mark one of the most significant changes to federal employment oversight in decades.
