ATR Submits Comments Supporting OPM Rule to Hold Government Workers Accountable

Americans for Tax Reform on June 7th submitted comments in response to a proposed rule by the Office of Personnel Management (OPM) regarding improving performance, accountability, and responsiveness in the civil service. In the comments, ATR described the actual legality and constitutionality of the order, the effectiveness of the order in holding bureaucrats and poor performers responsible, the success of similar state proposals, and the savings returned to the taxpayer as a result of the rulemaking.

The letter first notes establishes the legal grounds behind the rulemaking:

In particular, the rule aims only to move “policy-influencing career positions” into Schedule Policy/Career. The President and OPM have long had the power to exclude certain employees of a “confidential, policy-determining, policy-making, or policy- advocating character” from the chapter 75 procedural requirements regarding the disciplinary process for federal workers, as outlined in Title 5 of the U.S. Code. This proposed rule would use existing presidential powers.

Importantly, the proposed rule also does not allow for discrimination based on political ideology or discrimination based on other personal factors like race, sex, or religion. Rather, the rule would establish a more meritocratic system for federal workers, where workers who perform well are rewarded while poor performers can be removed. While protecting the rights of federal employees to hold their own political views, the rule would also allow for the removal of employees who refuse to do their job, which is to execute the policy agenda of the President who the American people elected.

The comments then explain that the rule makes bureaucrats more answerable to the people, which is incredibly popular with those affected:

Currently, it is far too difficult to address poor-performing or insubordinate employees in the federal government. As of April 2025, private-sector employees faced “layoffs and discharges” at a much higher rate (1.2 percent) than government employees overall (0.2 percent) or federal government employees (0.1 percent), according to the Bureau of Labor Statistics. This stark contrast in the rate of firings and other separations is largely due to the burdensome review process present in the federal government.

In 2018, a flash poll of 176 federal employees conducted by the Government Business Council asked whether the workers “support or oppose the administration’s efforts to make it easier to fire poorly-performing employees.” That poll found that a majority (51 percent) of federal workers support or strongly support the proposal, while just 24 percent oppose it.

Federal workers who perform their jobs well are understandably displeased with the portion of their colleagues who continue to perform poorly without consequence. So are the American people more broadly. Polls have consistently shown that Americans believe that the federal government and its workforce have a lack of efficiency.

The comments invoke similar state proposals which have successful in combating these issues:

Policies similar to the proposed rule have been introduced at the state level in a number of states, among them Arizona, Florida, Georgia, Indiana, Kansas, Texas, and Utah.

One study focusing on Florida, Georgia, and Texas in 2002 concluded that there are significant decreases in the amount of time it takes to remove poor-performing workers as well as increases in “satisfaction levels with personnel administration.” Multiple surveys of human resources professionals in the relevant states have also shown that at-will employment is preferable to more regulated employment structures.

Additionally, the comments highlight the burden lifted from taxpayers:

There are also savings at the internal administrative level: As the number of employees who require an extended appeals process is reduced, agency leadership will need to spend less time and money conducting such appeals. OPM estimates that having policy-influencing employees face Schedule Policy/Career procedures instead of more costly chapter 43 or 75 procedures would save agencies approximately $13.2 million per year, or more than $130 million over ten years.

Finally, the comments concluded that the proposed rule is legal, necessary, and fitting for the issue at hand.

OPM’s rule would make the federal workforce more accountable to the American people, increase government efficiency, and save money for taxpayers. Similar proposals at the state level have found great success, and the lessons from these state-level case studies should be used to improve the efficiency and accountability of the federal workforce next.

Click here to read the full comments.