Maryland Democratic Sen. Chris Van Hollen and more than a dozen Senate Democratic colleagues are warning that two proposed rules from the Trump administration’s Office of Personnel Management (OPM) could upend long-standing protections for federal workers, shifting power away from an independent review board and into the hands of political appointees.
In letters submitted during the official comment period, the senators urged OPM to abandon plans that would move appeals involving employee suitability and workforce reductions out of the Merit Systems Protection Board (MSPB) and into OPM itself, arguing the change would erode due process and open the door to political interference.
“We write in strong opposition to the Office of Personnel Management’s (OPM) proposed rule, Suitability Action Appeals,” the senators wrote. “While we agree that suitability standards and procedures play a critical role in protecting the federal government, this proposal undermines the statutory framework, independence, and due process protections that ensure those standards are applied fairly and lawfully.”
The effort centers on two proposals, one covering suitability determinations for federal employees and applicants, and another involving Reduction in Force appeals. In both cases, the lawmakers say the administration is attempting to transfer authority from an independent adjudicator to the same agency responsible for writing and enforcing personnel policies.
Van Hollen was joined on the suitability appeal letter by Sens. Ron Wyden (D) of Oregon, Bernie Sanders (I) of Vermont, Mark Warner (D) and Tim Kaine (D) of Virginia, Richard Blumenthal (D) of Connecticut, Mazie Hirono (D) of Hawaii, Gary Peters (D) of Michigan, Tammy Duckworth (D) of Illinois, Andy Kim of New Jersey (D), and Angela Alsobrooks (D) of Maryland.
At the center of the dispute is the separation established under the Civil Service Reform Act of 1978, which divided personnel policymaking and adjudication between OPM and the Merit Systems Protection Board. Lawmakers say that structure was intentional and designed to prevent conflicts of interest.
“This separation was not accidental. Congress sought to prevent precisely the structure this rule would create, one where the same agency that promulgates personnel policy also adjudicates claims that those policies were applied improperly or unlawfully,” Van Hollen said. “By transferring suitability appeals from MSPB to OPM, the proposed rule collapses this intentionally designed safeguard and recreates aspects of the system Congress chose to abandon.”
Democrats have warned that under the proposal, OPM would control every stage of the process, from drafting policy to enforcing it and ultimately deciding appeals, placing final authority in the hands of the agency’s director, a political appointee.
“Under this proposal, OPM would draft suitability policies, implement those policies, and adjudicate appeals arising from them,” Van Hollen noted. “This consolidation makes OPM the policymaker, the enforcer, and the final arbiter.”
Democratic lawmakers also challenged OPM’s assertion that internal divisions within the agency could preserve impartiality, noting that all decision-making chains would still report to the same politically appointed leadership.
“However, in practice, this separation cannot play out when both chains ultimately report to you in your politically appointed role as the Director of OPM as the rule clearly states that the Director of OPM will be the final arbiter of appeals,” the senators wrote.
Reduction in Force Appeals
The senators who wrote about suitability action, with the addition of Sens. Michael Bennet (D) of Colorado and Alex Padilla (D) of California, signed a letter addressing Reduction in Force appeals.The legislators argued that the proposed changes would dismantle procedural safeguards that have governed federal workforce decisions for decades.
“At its core, this proposal undoes Congress’s deliberate separation of personnel policymaking and adjudication of appeals, undermines due process protections for federal employees, and poses heightened risks of politicization given the current administration’s attacks on the nonpartisan civil service,” they wrote. “While framed as an efficiency measure, the rule would instead erode structural safeguards that have anchored the merit-based civil service for decades.”
They pushed back on the administration’s claim that the current system is inefficient, pointing to the MSPB’s quasi-judicial process, which includes hearings, discovery, and a formal record, as essential protections for workers facing layoffs or other personnel actions.
“Particularly in RIF disputes involving complex claims related to the application of retention factors, preferences, or allegations of improper motive, a transparent and independent process is critical to preserve procedural fairness and employees’ rights,” the senators wrote.
The letters also raised concerns about OPM’s capacity to take on the expanded role, noting that its internal Merit System Accountability and Compliance office lacks the independent structure of the MSPB.
“Transferring appeals without evidence of readiness would risk inconsistent determinations, procedural delay, and diminished confidence in outcomes, which are the very issues the proposal claims to address,” the senators wrote.
They added that the proposed rules come as part of a broader set of changes that would consolidate authority within OPM, including appeals involving probationary employees and other personnel matters, at a time when the agency’s workforce has been reduced.
“Concentrating all these adjudicatory functions within OPM at a time of reduced internal staffing and without demonstrated capacity would create further risk of inconsistent determinations and procedural delays,” the senators wrote.
The lawmakers pointed to recent actions by the administration involving federal workers as further reason for concern, arguing that independent oversight is critical to protect against political retaliation.
“As members of Congress, we have witnessed firsthand the vital services delivered to the American people by a nonpartisan and highly skilled federal workforce,” the senators noted in the letter. “It is our responsibility to ensure that the civil service remains protected from political retaliation and that it is guaranteed full due process rights. This proposed rule runs counter to those principles. We strongly urge OPM to reject it and instead collaborate with Congress to responsibly manage and modernize federal workforce operations.”