Committee tussles over workforce reductions, appeals consolidation and whistleblower protections
Loading...
Summary
Ranking members pressed OPM Director Scott Cooper on the loss of roughly 300,000 federal employees, effects on morale and recruitment, the reclassification known as the 'policy career' rule, and a proposal to shift certain appeal processes into OPM rather than the Merit Systems Protection Board.
Democrats and Republicans on the House Appropriations Subcommittee sparred over whether OPM has aided or should correct the administration’s workforce reductions and on what appeals and whistleblower protections will look like under proposed rule changes.
Ranking Member Hoyer opened the hearing by citing OMB director Russell Vought’s public remarks — quoted in committee as urging actions that would leave bureaucrats 'traumatically affected' — and said those remarks and other policies have driven departures and harmed recruitment. Hoyer argued the Federal Employee Viewpoint Survey’s (FEVS) cancellation and reclassification proposals (formerly discussed as 'Schedule F' and referred in the hearing as a 'policy career' rule) undermine merit protections and the ability of employees to pursue independent appeals.
Cooper’s response and OPM position Scott Cooper acknowledged OPM’s role in implementing policies but repeatedly said many changes predated his tenure. He confirmed published datasets showing roughly 300,000 fewer federal employees since the administration began and said, "more than 90% of those were people who voluntarily chose to resign." Cooper also said the policy-career rule had not yet taken effect, that the White House would publish lists of positions to be converted, and that the agency created a separate whistleblower protection for policy‑career roles pending any statutory changes by Congress.
Appeals and separation of duties Members including Ranking Member Hoyer pressed Cooper on consolidation of certain appeals (RIF and probation-related appeals) into OPM rather than the Merit Systems Protection Board (MSPB). Cooper said the agency’s regulatory proposal would consolidate some RIF/probation appeals into OPM along with suitability appeals; he argued that OPM has policy expertise and that adjudicating within OPM would be more efficient. Members warned that adjudication within the same executive agency that sets rules raises separation-of-authority and independence concerns.
'Doge' / USDS-related questions Representative Pokan asked whether Cooper had contact with the group referred to in the hearing as 'Doge' (members compared it to USDS). Cooper said he had 'virtually not at all' and that staffing records for USDS/Doge are best provided by USDS; he offered to check whether OPM had relevant records and make them available if possible.
Status and next steps Members asked for documents and data for the record on who served in these White House teams, their hiring authorities and compensation, and the statutory basis for removing certain whistleblower protections. Cooper offered datasets on workforce reductions and said OPM would follow up on requests for staffing lists and clarifications about appeals procedures.
