Hubbry Logo
Excepted serviceExcepted serviceMain
Open search
Excepted service
Community hub
Excepted service
logo
7 pages, 0 posts
0 subscribers
Be the first to start a discussion here.
Be the first to start a discussion here.
Excepted service
Excepted service
Excepted service
View on Wikipedia
from Wikipedia

The excepted service is the part of the United States federal civil service that is not part of either the competitive service or the Senior Executive Service. It allows streamlined hiring processes to be used under certain circumstances.

Overview

[edit]

Most civilian positions in the federal government of the United States are part of the competitive service, where applicants must compete with other applicants in open competition under the merit system administered by the Office of Personnel Management. However, some positions are excluded from these provisions, and some agencies are composed entirely of excepted service positions. Agencies with excepted service positions may employ unique evaluation criteria, such as with research grade evaluation scientists, who are reviewed based on scientific output. Some agencies may use excepted service hiring authorities, such as Veterans Recruitment Appointment (VRA) or Schedule A (disability). Positions filled using these hiring authorities (and which are not always excepted service, such as attorneys) may remain in the excepted service or may convert to the competitive service after a set amount of time (usually two years).

A common feature of many of these agencies and positions is that they have national security and/or intelligence functions, such as the National Geospatial-Intelligence Agency, National Reconnaissance Office, Central Intelligence Agency, the Department of State, the Defense Intelligence Agency, the Defense Counterintelligence and Security Agency, the National Security Agency, the Federal Bureau of Investigation, U.S. Secret Service, and the NCIS. Attorney positions, Presidential Management Fellows, Presidential Innovation Fellows, and Foreign Service positions are examples of positions excepted across-the-board in all Federal agencies. Not all excepted service members serve in sensitive areas—for example, teachers and administrators at DOD schools, both in the U.S. and overseas, are also excepted. In addition, most employees in the legislative branch of the federal government are excepted service employees.

Until the Civil Service Due Process Amendments Act of 1990 (Pub. L. No. 101-376, 104 Stat. 461), employees in the excepted service who did not have veteran's preference did not have the right to appeal adverse actions to the United States Merit Systems Protection Board (MSPB). These amendments made it so that most employees in the excepted service, who had completed a two-year trial period (also called a probationary period) had appeal rights. The current statute (5 U.S.C. section 7511(b)) excludes certain positions, including anyone whose appointment was made by the advice and consent of the Senate, anyone appointed by the President, anyone whose position was determined to be of a confidential, policy-determining, policy-making, or policy-advocating character by the President or the Office of Personnel Management, members of the Foreign Service, employees of the Central Intelligence Agency or Government Accountability Office, and many employees of the Postal Service, Postal Regulatory Commission, Panama Canal Commission, the Tennessee Valley Authority, the Federal Bureau of Investigation, and intelligence components of the Department of Defense. These employees have no right to external appeals.

[edit]

From 5 U.S.C. § 2103:

(a) For the purpose of this title, the excepted service consists of those civil service positions which are not in the competitive service or the Senior Executive Service.

(b) As used in other Acts of the United States Congress, “unclassified civil service” or “unclassified service” means the “excepted service”.

Hiring authorities

[edit]
Schedule A: 13.8%Schedule B: 1.3%Schedule C: 0.2%Schedule D: 2.5%Executive: 0.1%Other: 82.1%
  •   Schedule A: 13.8%
  •   Schedule B: 1.3%
  •   Schedule C: 0.2%
  •   Schedule D: 2.5%
  •   Executive: 0.1%
  •   Other: 82.1%
Excepted service positions by hiring
authority in 2015[1]

A hiring authority is the law, executive order, or regulation that allows an agency to hire a person into the federal civil service.[2]

Office of Personnel Management schedules

[edit]

Some service positions are classified by the Office of Personnel Management into lettered categories, although not all excepted service authorities fall into this classification:

  • Schedule A appointments are "impracticable to examine". They are used to appoint specific position types such as attorneys, chaplains, physicians; when there is a critical hiring need or the position is in a remote location; and to hire disabled applicants. In addition to this, as of 2016, there were 122 agency-unique Schedule A hiring authorities.[1][3]
  • Schedule B appointments are "not practicable to hold a competitive examination". Schedule B appointees must meet the qualification standards for the job. As of 2016, there were 36 agency-unique Schedule B hiring authorities.[1][3]
  • Schedule C appointments are political appointments to confidential or policy-setting positions.[1][3]
  • Schedule D appointments are those where competitive service requirements "make impracticable the adequate recruitment of sufficient numbers". These are known as the Pathways Programs, which consist of the Internship Program, Recent Graduates Program, and Presidential Management Fellows Program.[1][3]
  • Schedule E appointments are administrative law judges.[4]
  • Schedule Policy/Career appointments, formerly known as Schedule F appointments apply to "confidential, policy-determining, policy-making, or policy-advocating positions."[5]

Schedules A and B were created by the Pendleton Civil Service Reform Act of 1883, Schedule C was created in 1956, and Schedule D was created in 2012.[1] Schedule E was created in 2018.[4] Schedule F was created in October 2020 and repealed in January 2021,[5][6] and was reinstated in January 2025.[7]

Other hiring authorities

[edit]

Several excepted service hiring authorities are not classified into the OPM schedules. Some of the more prevalent include:

Principal excepted agencies

[edit]

The following are selected excepted service agencies:[15]

References

[edit]
Revisions and contributorsEdit on WikipediaRead on Wikipedia

Excepted service

View on Grokipedia
from Grokipedia
The excepted service consists of those positions in the executive branch of the federal government and the government of of Columbia that are specifically excluded from the or the Senior Executive Service by , , or . These roles bypass the standard open competitive examination process mandated for most federal hiring, allowing agencies to appoint individuals based on alternative criteria such as specialized expertise, clearances, needs, or impracticability of broad competition. Appointments to the excepted service do not grant employees "competitive status," which restricts their non-competitive transfer to positions in the and subjects them to agency-specific retention rules during reductions in force. Excepted service positions are categorized under schedules defined in federal regulations, including Schedule A for hiring individuals with severe disabilities, certain experts, or temporary needs; Schedule B for professional, scientific, or administrative roles where competitive exams are deemed unnecessary; and Schedule C for confidential, policy-influencing aides to high-level officials, often involving short-term political appointments. Agencies may also establish their own excepted appointing authorities for unique missions, such as intelligence analysis or , exemplified by organizations like the , , , and Securities and Exchange Commission, where security vetting and operational urgency preclude standard competitive procedures. While enabling flexible recruitment for critical functions, the system has drawn scrutiny for potential politicization, particularly in Schedule C expansions that facilitate rapid placement of aligned personnel during administration changes, though empirical data on abuse remains limited and contested across partisan analyses.

Historical Context

Origins and Pendleton Act

Prior to the Pendleton Act, the federal government operated under the , whereby appointments were primarily based on political loyalty and rather than merit, fostering widespread , incompetence, and inefficiency as unqualified individuals filled key roles, often prioritizing partisan interests over administrative capability. This system, entrenched since the Jacksonian era, culminated in crises such as the assassination of President on July 2, 1881, by Charles Guiteau, a mentally unstable office-seeker denied a consular post, highlighting the destabilizing effects of patronage-driven expectations. The , signed into law by President on January 16, 1883, responded by creating the to administer open, competitive examinations for fitness in classified positions, mandating and prohibiting political assessments or removals for partisan reasons. Initially applied to roughly 13,000 positions—about 10 percent of the federal civilian workforce—the Act targeted clerical roles in large customs districts (over 50 employees) and post offices, as well as subordinate departmental positions, while excluding laborers, non-executive officers, and Senate-confirmed appointees. This framework inherently preserved non-competitive appointments for roles where examinations were deemed impracticable or counterproductive, such as those demanding , determination, or specialized —initially encompassing diplomatic, consular, and certain leadership positions exempt from mid-tier exam requirements to maintain executive flexibility. By allowing presidential regulations for admissions and exclusions to promote efficiency, the Act laid the foundational distinction between the for routine, examinable functions and the excepted service for non-routine executive needs, ensuring causal alignment between appointment methods and positional demands without subjecting all roles to standardized testing ill-suited to discretionary . As classified coverage expanded to approximately 46 percent of positions by 1901 under Theodore Roosevelt's expansions, the excepted category retained scope for such targeted exemptions, comprising the majority of appointments into the early while enabling adaptability in and confidential domains.

Post-World War II Expansion

Following , temporary appointment authorities implemented during wartime to address urgent personnel shortages in defense and related fields transitioned into enduring excepted service categories, enabling agencies to retain flexibility for positions where competitive examinations proved impractical. This evolution was facilitated by the Ramspeck Act of 1940, which empowered the President to revise longstanding exceptions, thereby prioritizing post-war needs for specialized, non-competitive hiring in emerging intelligence and technical domains. The 1949 Hoover Commission reinforced this framework by advocating decentralized agency authority over recruitment and examinations, particularly for roles demanding expertise—such as scientific and technical posts—that standard competitive processes failed to evaluate effectively, thus legitimizing excepted service as a targeted tool for administrative efficiency amid pressures. Subsequent growth in excepted service positions stemmed causally from expanded federal responsibilities in security and complex operations, rather than unsubstantiated claims of uncontrolled expansion; by June 1996, excepted service personnel approximated 1.4 million (excluding select agencies), constituting nearly half of the non-SES federal civilian workforce and underscoring adaptations to verifiable agency demands without evidence of systemic lapses.

Key Legislative Milestones

The Civil Service Reform Act of 1978 (Pub. L. 95-454), signed on October 13, 1978, restructured federal personnel categories by creating the Senior Executive Service (SES) as a hybrid tier distinct from both competitive and excepted services, thereby delineating excepted service boundaries while retaining executive authority under 5 U.S.C. § 3302 to exempt positions where competitive exams would impede policy implementation or agency functions. This reform addressed documented rigidities in pre-1978 hiring, such as protracted examinations that delayed staffing for time-sensitive roles, preserving excepted appointments for confidential or policy-influencing positions to facilitate alignment of agency leadership with presidential directives. The (Pub. L. 107-296), enacted November 25, 2002, granted the newly formed Department of Homeland Security exceptional human resources flexibility, including expanded use of excepted service appointments exempt from certain title 5 requirements, to overcome delays in filling positions post-9/11. By authorizing deviations from standard classification, pay, and adverse action procedures, the act enabled empirical responses to recruitment shortfalls, with DHS leveraging excepted authorities to prioritize operational readiness over procedural uniformity. The Intelligence Reform and Terrorism Prevention Act of 2004 (Pub. L. 108-458), passed December 17, 2004, bolstered excepted service applications in intelligence by mandating reforms to processes, which historically bottlenecked hiring for roles under competitive constraints. Implementing findings on systemic delays—where clearance backlogs averaged over a year—the act empowered streamlined vetting reciprocity across agencies, permitting faster excepted placements in policy-sensitive intelligence positions to enhance executive control over threat response capabilities.

Definition and Distinctions

Core Characteristics

The excepted service encompasses federal positions that are exempt from the requirement of open competitive examinations for appointment, as determined by the Office of Personnel Management (OPM) when such exams are deemed impracticable or unnecessary for roles involving confidential, policy-determining, or specialized functions. These appointments remain subject to core provisions of Title 5 of the , including pay, leave, and basic employment standards, but lack the competitive status granted to employees in the , meaning incumbents do not automatically qualify for non-competitive transfer to competitive positions or enjoy equivalent protections against arbitrary removal. This structure enables agencies to fill roles where standardized merit exams cannot reliably evaluate candidates' suitability, such as advisory positions demanding alignment with an administration's policy objectives or handling of sensitive matters, where subjective judgment, trust, and rapid outweigh broad . Appointments in the excepted service often occur on indefinite, temporary, or time-limited bases, without the probationary periods or tenure rights that build career protections in the , allowing greater administrative flexibility to adapt to changing priorities while still adhering to principles where feasible. The defining rationale reflects a practical acknowledgment that not all federal functions lend themselves to uniform testing; for instance, policy-influencing roles require demonstrated loyalty to executive directives, which exams cannot assess, prioritizing causal effectiveness in over rote qualification screening. This exemption avoids the inefficiencies of forcing competitive processes onto positions where they would hinder performance, such as in urgent or niche expertise areas, though it demands rigorous agency justification to prevent abuse.

Comparison to Competitive Service and SES

The encompasses the majority of federal civilian executive branch positions, requiring appointments through open competition, merit-based examinations, and eligibility registers managed by the Office of Personnel Management (OPM). This process confers competitive status to appointees, enabling noncompetitive movement to other competitive positions after a probationary period, but it frequently results in extended hiring timelines averaging 102 days from vacancy announcement to entry on duty, with some agencies experiencing delays exceeding six months due to procedural requirements. In empirical assessments, these rigidities have been linked to inefficiencies, such as understaffing in mission-critical roles, prompting legislative and administrative efforts to streamline processes. By contrast, the excepted service exempts designated positions from competitive examination and register requirements under statutory authorities, allowing agencies to appoint qualified individuals more expeditiously when open is deemed impracticable, such as for confidential or policy-sensitive roles. Appointments here do not confer competitive status, limiting inter-agency mobility without prior service credit, which prioritizes agency-specific expertise and rapid alignment with leadership directives over broad merit protections. This flexibility addresses causal bottlenecks in rigid systems, where empirical data show competitive hiring's procedural layers exacerbate vacancies in dynamic environments, enabling excepted service to fill gaps in weeks rather than months. The Senior Executive Service (SES) operates as a hybrid corps for approximately 7,000 senior leaders, emphasizing performance-based compensation, mandatory mobility across agencies, and protections against removal without cause to foster non-partisan expertise. Unlike the excepted service, SES positions blend competitive and excepted elements but exclude purely political or confidential roles requiring direct elected , instead mandating recertification and executive development to counter agency siloing. Excepted service, however, accommodates top influencers—such as advisors or confidential aides—without SES mobility mandates, as these roles demand tight integration with transient administrations rather than insulation. Structurally, and SES safeguards, while promoting merit and continuity, can engender inertia against policy shifts, as evidenced by documented bureaucratic delays in implementing executive directives, such as regulatory reforms during the 2017-2021 period where career officials cited procedural hurdles to slow rollbacks. mitigates this by facilitating at-will adjustments in policy-determining positions, enhancing democratic to elected leaders without undermining core operational stability in non-policy functions. This distinction underscores 's role in balancing with , grounded in observations of competitive rigidity's real-world costs.

Statutory Foundations

The excepted service encompasses all positions in the executive branch of the government that fall outside the and the Senior Executive Service, functioning as a residual category for roles where competitive examination is impracticable due to the nature of the duties involved. This definition, codified in 5 U.S.C. § 2103(a), explicitly excludes conferral of competitive status upon appointees, thereby limiting access to certain merit-based protections and transfer rights available in the . Positions within this service include those specifically excepted by statute, such as certain roles, as well as agency-specific exceptions approved under delegated authorities. The statutory authority for establishing excepted positions originated with the of January 16, 1883 (22 Stat. 27), which mandated competitive examinations for classified positions but permitted exceptions for roles incompatible with open competition, such as those requiring or specialized expertise. Section 2 of the Act empowered the President to classify offices and prescribe regulations, laying the groundwork for executive discretion in excepting positions from merit-based hiring. Subsequent codifications in Title 5, , particularly under chapters 33 and 35, refined this by requiring agency heads to submit justifications to the Office of Personnel Management (OPM) for approving schedules of excepted positions, ensuring exceptions align with demonstrable needs rather than arbitrary preference. Approvals for these exceptions have historically emphasized verifiable justifications tied to operational imperatives, as documented in Government Accountability Office analyses of excepted service usage and legal bases. For instance, agencies must articulate why competitive processes cannot be applied without hindering efficiency, with OPM oversight preventing unchecked expansion. This structure comports with Article II, Section 2 of the , which grants the President authority to appoint officers with advice and consent, while congressional statutes provide statutory limits and accountability mechanisms to constrain potential abuse.

OPM Schedules and Authorities

The of Personnel Management (OPM) exercises authority over excepted service appointments through Schedules A, B, C, D, and related provisions under 5 CFR Part 213, which codifies agency-specific exceptions approved by OPM to address circumstances where competitive hiring examinations are impracticable or not administratively feasible. These schedules function as targeted mechanisms, requiring agencies to submit justifications for OPM review and approval, thereby enabling adaptation to specific workforce gaps while imposing limits on scope and duration to align with principles. OPM periodically consolidates and publishes active authorities, as in its annual notices, to ensure transparency and prevent unauthorized proliferation. Schedule A permits indefinite or temporary appointments for positions demanding exceptional qualifications difficult to evaluate via standard tests, including scientific, technical, or professional roles such as researchers in specialized fields or experts in . It also encompasses hires of individuals with severe physical disabilities whose abilities cannot be readily assessed competitively, provided they meet essential job requirements. Agencies must demonstrate the scarcity of qualified candidates through evidence like labor market analyses before OPM grants authority. Schedule B authorizes appointments for professional and administrative positions where procedures would unduly hinder agency operations, notably including attorneys, economists, and certain regulatory specialists requiring advanced credentials or bar membership. Unlike Schedule A, it emphasizes roles with established qualification standards but logistical barriers to open competition, with OPM stipulating conversion eligibility to after probationary periods in some cases. Schedule C applies exclusively to confidential or policy-influencing positions directly assisting top agency officials, such as advisors or aides involved in drafting executive directives, limited to roles at or below GS-15 to preserve alignment with political leadership changes. OPM assigns unique identifiers to each approved position and restricts totals through case-by-case evaluation, with temporary variants allowable for up to 240 days to cover transitional needs. This schedule's design prioritizes loyalty and discretion over broad expertise, subject to if the position's character shifts. Schedules D and E facilitate developmental and experimental hiring: Schedule D covers student trainees and recent graduates in pathways like the Pathways Program, offering non-competitive entry for up to two years with potential conversion upon successful completion. Schedule E, though less commonly invoked, supports agency pilots for innovative recruitment models, such as targeted , with OPM-imposed time limits and evaluation criteria to assess efficacy before permanence. Across these schedules, OPM's delegation framework under 5 CFR Part 213 mandates empirical documentation of need—such as qualification shortages or operational urgency—fostering incremental adjustments rather than expansive exemptions, as evidenced by agency-specific listings refined through ongoing regulatory updates.

Appointment Mechanisms

Schedules A Through E

Schedule A authorizes appointments to positions where competitive examinations are impracticable due to the specialized nature of the work, such as scientific, technical, or professional roles requiring unique expertise that cannot be readily assessed through standard testing. Agencies use this schedule for hard-to-fill vacancies, including expert positions at agencies like the (FDA) for reviewing complex pharmaceutical or applications, where delays in hiring could hinder regulatory functions. This authority enables non-competitive hiring, bypassing the full process, which typically involves public notices, examinations, and ranking, thereby allowing agencies to onboard qualified specialists more rapidly—often without the months-long timelines associated with competitive announcements. Schedule B covers positions where competitive service requirements are not feasible owing to specific professional qualifications or training needs, such as certain legal roles, expert consultants, or student trainees in fields like or . For instance, it permits appointments of attorneys or subject-matter experts who possess advanced degrees or certifications not easily evaluated via general exams, with initial terms limited to three years to ensure targeted utility without indefinite tenure. This schedule supports agency needs for temporary influxes of specialized advice, such as in or legal advisory capacities, where standard competition might deter high-caliber candidates from or academia. Schedule C applies to confidential, policy-influencing, or supervisory roles over confidential staff, requiring Office of Personnel Management (OPM) approval for each position to maintain limited scope. These are often immediate aides or advisors to political appointees, with annual additions government-wide numbering approximately 1,000 to 2,000, predominantly during administration transitions to align staffing with new leadership priorities. Permanent positions remain capped per agency, while temporary transitional ones are restricted to 50% of the agency's highest permanent count or three slots, lasting up to 240 days, ensuring they serve short-term alignment without embedding permanent political influence. Schedule D facilitates trial or developmental appointments, particularly through Pathways Programs for students, recent graduates, and Presidential Management Fellows, allowing agencies to assess performance over one- to two-year periods before potential conversion to . Appointments target entry-level talent pipelines, with grade limits (e.g., GS-09 for recent graduates) to focus on potential rather than immediate , providing a structured evaluation mechanism that reduces long-term hiring risks through probationary oversight. Schedule E encompasses temporary authorities for emergent or limited-duration needs, such as national emergencies or specific trial staffing, with built-in sunset provisions to prevent conversion to permanent roles. Examples include short-term hires for response or nurse positions in health agencies, confined to non-renewable terms (often one year maximum) and subject to OPM revocation, emphasizing flexibility for acute demands like disaster recovery without altering core composition.

Alternative Hiring Pathways

Certain federal statutes grant agencies authority to hire personnel into excepted service positions without adhering to the standard competitive service examination processes administered by the Office of Personnel Management (OPM), enabling tailored recruitment for mission-specific needs. For instance, the Central Intelligence Agency Act of 1949, particularly Section 8(a), empowers the CIA Director to appoint and compensate all agency personnel—excepting only the Director and Deputy Director—without regard to Title 5 civil service laws, thereby bypassing OPM certification and competitive ranking requirements. This exemption facilitates rapid integration of specialized expertise in intelligence operations, where delays from standardized procedures could compromise operational tempo. Similarly, demonstration projects authorized under 5 U.S.C. § 4703 permit OPM-approved experiments with alternative personnel systems, including streamlined hiring mechanisms like direct hire authority for technical and acquisition roles. The Department of Defense's Acquisition Demonstration Project (AcqDemo), established in 1999 and expanded thereafter, exemplifies this by allowing participating laboratories and organizations to recruit directly for hard-to-fill positions, replacing traditional ranking with simplified evaluation criteria focused on qualifications and mission alignment. These projects test deviations from rigid competitive mandates, which often extend time-to-hire beyond 100 days in specialized fields, by prioritizing causal factors like candidate expertise over procedural uniformity. Post-9/11 expansions underscored the practical advantages of such pathways, as agencies like the CIA and DOD leveraged statutory flexibilities to accelerate workforce growth amid heightened demands. Demonstration initiatives in DOD science and technology reinvention laboratories (STRLs) under this have yielded measurable efficiencies, including reduced timelines and enhanced retention of technical talent through targeted incentives, addressing empirical gaps in hiring where vacancy durations averaged longer due to mismatched processes for high-stakes roles. This approach aligns with causal realities of expertise-driven environments, where one-size-fits-all requirements empirically hinder agility, as evidenced by pre-flexibility hiring lags that impeded post-crisis scaling.

Applications and Positions

National Security and Intelligence Roles

The excepted service predominates in U.S. national security and intelligence agencies, including the (CIA), (NSA), and (FBI), due to the exigencies of covert operations, protection, and rapid threat response, which preclude the delays and disclosures inherent in hiring. These agencies rely on excepted authorities to recruit personnel capable of handling highly sensitive duties without public advertisement of vacancies, which could alert adversaries or compromise sources and methods. The explicitly established the CIA as an independent agency with all positions excepted from competitive service requirements, enabling flexible appointments, promotions, and reassignments tailored to missions rather than standardized rules. This statutory framework, codified in 50 U.S.C. § 3507 and reinforced by 5 U.S.C. § 2302(a)(2)(C)(ii), exempts CIA roles from open competition to prioritize operational efficacy over bureaucratic uniformity. The NSA, operating under Department of Defense excepted schedules, similarly employs broad excepted hiring for cryptologic and positions, as authorized by and OPM approvals under 5 CFR Part 213. In the FBI, excepted service covers special agents and analysts, bypassing competitive exams to focus on specialized skills vetted through background checks and polygraphs, per authorities in 28 U.S.C. § 536 and Schedule B provisions. Excepted hiring facilitates polygraph examinations and security clearances essential for mission-critical roles, ensuring recruits are aligned with imperatives without the vetting disruptions of public competitions. For instance, CIA and NSA processes mandate polygraphs for most hires, screening for loyalty and undisclosed foreign contacts in ways incompatible with competitive service's emphasis on merit-based . This approach mitigates risks of inadvertent leaks from broad applicant pools or prolonged hiring timelines, which historically hampered responsiveness before post-World War II reforms centralized such flexibilities. Internal mechanisms, including agency inspectors general and congressional committees, provide absent in critiques emphasizing unchecked secrecy, as excepted positions remain subject to statutory oversight and performance standards. Across the , these roles number in the tens of thousands, comprising the bulk of federal personnel exempt from competitive constraints to sustain discreet, agile operations.

Policy-Determining and Confidential Positions

Schedule C authorizes a limited number of excepted positions characterized by their confidential or policy-determining functions, exempting them from requirements to permit direct appointment by agency heads or the President for roles demanding trust and alignment with executive directives. These include confidential assistants to cabinet secretaries, policy advisors in regulatory agencies, and special counsels in the Executive Office of the President, with agency-specific caps—such as up to 75 for administrative support—resulting in a total of approximately 1,400 such roles across the federal government as documented in recent listings. Schedule C appointees serve at the pleasure of the appointing authority, leading to substantial turnover upon presidential transitions, with data from prior administrations showing near-total replacement to embed the incoming executive's policy vision and counter potential holdover influences from previous tenures. In practice, this has supported swift advisory input on priority shifts; for example, during efforts to revise environmental regulations at the Environmental Protection Agency, policy-determining aides facilitated deregulatory actions amid documented implementation lags attributable to career staff continuity. By prioritizing executive discretion in staffing advisory capacities, Schedule C enhances the federal government's capacity to respond to voter-endorsed changes, mitigating the inherent in the competitive service's tenure protections that can perpetuate outdated priorities. Although concerns exist regarding the potential for unqualified selections or short-term focus, analyses of post-election bureaucratic dynamics indicate that such positions reduce friction in policy execution, outweighing risks when contrasted with evidenced delays in agenda advancement under entrenched career structures.

Controversies and Debates

Claims of Reduced Accountability

Critics, including advocacy groups such as Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington (CREW), have claimed that the excepted service enables patronage and nepotism, particularly through Schedule C appointments for confidential or policy-influencing roles, by bypassing competitive merit-based hiring and allowing political loyalty to influence selections over qualifications. These allegations, often amplified in reports from left-leaning organizations, assert that such practices erode the merit system established by the Pendleton Act of 1883, potentially prioritizing personal or partisan connections in federal staffing. However, U.S. Government Accountability Office (GAO) profiles of the excepted service have not documented systemic abuse, with oversight focusing on distribution rather than prevalent impropriety, and OPM's review processes for conversions from political to career roles identifying isolated issues rather than broad patterns since the early 1990s. Another set of claims centers on diminished for excepted service employees, who typically lack full appeal rights to the Merit Systems Protection Board (MSPB) for removals, especially during initial trial periods of up to two years, contrasting with protections that require notice, response opportunities, and preponderance-of-evidence standards. from groups like Protect Democracy highlights this as enabling easier dismissals without rigorous justification, raising risks of politicized terminations in roles intended for policy alignment. Empirical reviews by MSPB indicate that while excepted employees face streamlined removal processes suited to non-routine duties, comprehensive data on appeals show no disproportionate patterns of arbitrary actions attributable to these mechanisms. Assertions of reduced accountability have included narratives linking excepted service expansion to heightened corruption risks, portraying it as a vector for ideological capture or ethical lapses beyond traditional spoils systems. Such claims, prevalent in mainstream media and progressive critiques, suggest growth in excepted positions— from specialized schedules like those for national security—fosters unmerited influence. Yet, analyses reveal this expansion aligns with evolving agency missions and technical demands rather than partisan entrenchment, with no verified causal evidence of corruption spikes; GAO and OPM data track increases in categories like cyber or intelligence roles without correlating them to ethical breaches. CREW and similar sources, while citing historical precedents like 19th-century patronage, often lack quantitative links to modern excepted service operations, reflecting institutional biases toward viewing executive hiring flexibilities as inherently suspect.

Arguments for Executive Flexibility

Proponents argue that the excepted service enables the executive branch to align administrative implementation with the president's elected mandate, countering the entrenchment fostered by protections, which empirical accounts document as enabling bureaucratic resistance to policy directives. safeguards, intended to prevent spoils-system abuses, have evolved to shield career officials from removal for performance or misalignment issues, complicating reforms such as on regulatory streamlining. For instance, analyses of agency responses to presidential initiatives reveal instances where entrenched personnel delayed or diluted directives, as protections render dismissals arduous absent findings. This dynamic underscores a causal link: without excepted mechanisms for policy-influencing roles, unelected officials can impede voter-accountable , necessitating flexible appointments to ensure directive fidelity. Excepted service authorities demonstrably enhance by expediting for specialized or urgent needs, bypassing protracted competitive examinations and veterans' preferences that extend timelines. Federal hiring data indicate average processing exceeds 90 days for competitive positions due to structured assessments and appeals, whereas excepted pathways—exempt from such mandates—facilitate selections in weeks to months, per agency practices. OPM evaluations affirm this flexibility aids mission-critical , with usage surging over two decades to address impracticalities in traditional processes, yielding effective outcomes in roles demanding rapid policy execution without compromising qualifications. Safeguards mitigate overreach risks, as statutorily delineates excepted schedules (A-E) with position caps—e.g., Schedule C limited to hundreds of confidential aides—and OPM conducts reviews to verify impracticability of competitive exams, preventing arbitrary expansion. Historical application since the Pendleton Act's residual category has sustained adaptability across administrations without precipitating governance breakdowns, balancing flexibility against permanence.

Schedule F and Bureaucratic Resistance

Executive Order 13957, issued on October 21, 2020, established Schedule F within the excepted service to reclassify certain federal positions characterized by their confidential, policy-determining, policy-making, or policy-advocating nature, thereby removing civil service tenure protections and enabling at-will employment adjustments. This reform targeted an estimated 50,000 positions across executive agencies, focusing on roles where unelected career officials exert significant influence over policy implementation without direct accountability to elected leadership. Proponents argued that such reclassification would counteract entrenched bureaucratic inertia, often described as "deep state" sabotage, by aligning policy execution more closely with presidential directives while preserving merit-based hiring processes. Critics, including the National Treasury Employees Union (NTEU), contended that Schedule F risked politicizing the by eroding protections and facilitating arbitrary dismissals based on policy disagreements rather than performance. The NTEU, representing over 250,000 federal workers, viewed the order as a step toward reinstating systems, potentially subjecting career experts to loyalty tests and undermining institutional expertise in favor of short-term political goals. Defenders countered that these fears were overstated, noting that Schedule F maintained competitive selection and examination requirements under 5 U.S.C. § 3309, distinguishing it from pure political appointments while addressing real accountability gaps in policy-influencing roles. They emphasized that the reform did not eliminate expertise but enabled removal of officials demonstrably obstructing executive priorities, without converting positions into Schedule C political slots. Empirical instances of bureaucratic resistance during the Trump administration underscore the rationale for Schedule F, including documented delays in deregulation efforts at agencies like the Environmental Protection Agency and Department of Energy, where career staff cited internal procedural hurdles or interpretive disagreements to slow rollbacks of Obama-era rules. For example, reports detail career officials withholding , invoking selective statutory interpretations, or coordinating with external litigants to frustrate on and , contributing to only partial implementation of promised reforms despite clear presidential intent. Such patterns reveal causal links between insulated tenure and policy sabotage, prioritizing abstract norms over democratic ; evidence from these cases supports reclassification as a pragmatic tool for ensuring policy influencers align with elected mandates, rather than perpetuating unaccountable power within the executive branch.

Recent Reforms and Developments

Trump Administration Initiatives (2020)

On October 21, 2020, President issued 13957, establishing a new Schedule F category in the excepted service for federal career employees occupying positions of a confidential, policy-determining, policy-making, or policy-advocating character. The order specified that such positions, which are not normally subject to changes accompanying presidential transitions, would be reclassified from the , stripping employees of statutory protections against adverse actions for performance or while preserving in appointments and prohibiting removals based on political affiliation. Agencies were required to submit lists of potentially eligible positions to the Office of Personnel Management (OPM) within 90 days and to begin reclassifications, with OPM tasked to issue implementing guidance. The executive order's stated purpose was to improve accountability and performance management among policy-influencing federal employees, whom the administration contended were shielded by civil service rules from effective oversight despite exercising substantial discretion in executing the President's agenda. It emphasized that while most career civil servants provide continuity and expertise, a subset in non-routine policy roles warranted at-will employment status to align operations with elected leadership, arguing that existing protections—such as those under Title 5 of the U.S. Code—impeded timely removal of underperformers or those obstructing policy implementation. OPM estimates projected that up to 50,000 positions across the executive branch could qualify for reclassification, primarily targeting mid- to senior-level roles in policy formulation rather than the broader executive workforce. Implementation proceeded in preliminary stages, with agencies directed to review and propose positions for Schedule F placement, but no actual reclassifications occurred before the order's revocation. The Government Accountability Office reported that executive agencies identified potential candidates but halted processes upon President Biden's inauguration on January 20, 2021, resulting in zero positions moved to Schedule F during the original initiative. This limited rollout precluded observable operational impacts, such as shifts in policy execution speed or employee turnover rates, though the order's framework anticipated enhanced responsiveness in affected roles without mandating mass dismissals.

Biden Reversal and 2025 Reinstatement

On January 22, 2021, President Biden issued 14003, titled "Protecting the Federal Workforce," which explicitly revoked Executive Order 13957 and eliminated the Schedule F category in the excepted service. The order described Schedule F as a mechanism that could enable arbitrary dismissals of career civil servants, thereby threatening the merit-based, nonpartisan framework of the federal workforce and restoring prior protections against politicization. To further insulate positions from reclassification, the Office of Personnel Management under the Biden administration finalized regulations on April 9, 2024, amending 5 CFR part 212 to entrench status for employees transferred to excepted service roles, imposing procedural hurdles such as documentation requirements and appeal rights to prevent mass shifts like those envisioned under Schedule F. These measures faced reversal following the 2024 election, as persistent challenges with bureaucratic inertia and resistance to executive policy directives—evident in delayed implementations across agencies—prompted renewed emphasis on accountability. On January 20, 2025, President Trump signed 14171, "Restoring Accountability to Policy-Influencing Positions Within the Federal Workforce," which immediately reinstated 13957 with amendments, redesignating Schedule F as Schedule Policy/Career to cover confidential, policy-determining, and policy-influencing career positions while preserving nonpartisan recruitment. The order directed federal agencies to expeditiously review and nominate positions for the new schedule, aiming to facilitate removal of employees obstructing presidential priorities without broadly affecting operational staff. Implementation advanced with Office of Personnel Management guidance issued on January 27, 2025, requiring agencies to submit position reviews by April 2025, followed by a proposed published in the on April 23, 2025, to codify Schedule Policy/Career regulations. This proposal rescinded the 2024 Biden regulations and targeted an estimated 50,000 positions across policy-related roles, enabling at-will termination for poor performance or misalignment with administration goals while retaining veterans' preference and other hiring merits. As of October 2025, agency-led identifications have proceeded on a targeted basis, with official directives emphasizing performance-based accountability over wholesale purges, though final and broader effects remain under review amid ongoing public comments.

References

  1. https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/5/2103
  2. https://www.opm.gov/policy-data-oversight/hiring-information/types-of-hires/
  3. https://www.opm.gov/policy-data-oversight/hiring-information/competitive-hiring/
  4. https://www.ecfr.gov/current/title-5/chapter-I/subchapter-B/part-213
  5. https://www.opm.gov/policy-data-oversight/hiring-information/hiring-authorities/
  6. https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/2024/07/30/2024-16724/excepted-service-consolidated-listing-of-schedules-a-b-and-c-exceptions
  7. https://www.khanacademy.org/humanities/us-history/the-gilded-age/x71a94f19:politics-of-the-gilded-age/a/gilded-age-politics-patronage
  8. https://study.com/academy/lesson/spoils-system-definition-lesson-quiz.html
  9. https://www.milwaukeeindependent.com/syndicated/vast-public-evil-undoing-revival-spoils-system-returning-civil-service-merit-based/
  10. https://www.archives.gov/milestone-documents/pendleton-act
  11. https://govtrackus.s3.amazonaws.com/legislink/pdf/stat/22/STATUTE-22-Pg403a.pdf
  12. https://www.historians.org/resource/what-is-federal-civil-service-like-today/
  13. https://burbank.granicus.com/MetaViewer.php?view_id=2&clip_id=1689&meta_id=89402
  14. https://egc.yale.edu/sites/default/files/2021-04/2021-0423%2520EconHistory%2520Conference/MP_Yale_Conference%2520ada-ns.pdf
  15. https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/2024/04/09/2024-06815/upholding-civil-service-protections-and-merit-system-principles
  16. https://ballotpedia.org/Competitive_service
  17. https://www.gao.gov/assets/ggd-97-72.pdf
  18. https://www.mspb.gov/studies/studies/Entering_Professional_Positions_in_the_Federal_Government_2.pdf
  19. https://www.congress.gov/bill/95th-congress/senate-bill/2640
  20. https://www.eeoc.gov/history/civil-service-reform-act-1978
  21. https://www.congress.gov/bill/107th-congress/house-bill/5005
  22. https://www.dhs.gov/homeland-security-act-2002
  23. https://www.govexec.com/defense/2002/11/homeland-security-leaders-win-broad-power-over-civil-service-rules/12975/
  24. https://www.congress.gov/bill/108th-congress/senate-bill/2845
  25. https://www.dni.gov/index.php/ncsc-how-we-work/ncsc-security-executive-agent/ncsc-reform-effort/ncsc-security-suitability-reform-effort
  26. https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/PLAW-108publ458/html/PLAW-108publ458.htm
  27. https://www.opm.gov/policy-data-oversight/data-analysis-documentation/personnel-documentation/processing-personnel-actions/gppa11.pdf
  28. https://www.ecfr.gov/current/title-5/chapter-I/subchapter-A/part-6
  29. https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/5/3304
  30. https://www.mspb.gov/studies/studies/Reforming_Federal_Hiring_Beyond_Faster_and_Cheaper_224102.pdf
  31. https://www.gao.gov/assets/gao-25-106658.pdf
  32. https://www.gao.gov/products/gao-25-107152
  33. https://americafirstpolicy.com/issues/20222702-federal-bureaucrats-resisted-president-trump
  34. https://www.gao.gov/assets/ggd-90-105.pdf
  35. https://www.opm.gov/about-us/open-government/plum-reporting/position-descriptions/
  36. https://www.law.cornell.edu/cfr/text/5/213.3402
  37. https://www.cia.gov/readingroom/docs/CIA-RDP92-00455R000100160066-6.pdf
  38. https://nsarchive.gwu.edu/document/28656-document-12-central-intelligence-agency-act-1949-20-june-1949
  39. https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/COMPS-1435/pdf/COMPS-1435.pdf
  40. https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/2006/08/28/06-7210/personnel-demonstration-project-alternative-personnel-management-system-for-the-us-department-of
  41. https://www.dau.edu/acqdemo
  42. https://www.rand.org/content/dam/rand/pubs/research_reports/RR3100/RR3168/RAND_RR3168.pdf
  43. https://www.rand.org/content/dam/rand/pubs/research_reports/RR100/RR114/RAND_RR114.pdf
  44. https://www.everycrsreport.com/reports/R44695.html
  45. https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/2024/02/22/2024-03586/personnel-demonstration-project-at-the-army-futures-command-science-and-technology-reinvention
  46. https://www.mspb.gov/studies/researchbriefs/Direct_Hire_Authority_Under_5_USC_%25C2%25A7_3304_Usage_and_Outcomes_1803830.pdf
  47. https://www.cia.gov/readingroom/docs/CIA-RDP82-00357R000200060070-1.pdf
  48. https://www.dni.gov/index.php/ic-legal-reference-book/national-security-act-of-1947
  49. https://www.cia.gov/careers/cia-requirements/
  50. https://www.intelligencecareers.gov/nsa/suitability-process
  51. https://www.nsa.gov/careers/
  52. https://www.ecfr.gov/current/title-5/chapter-I/subchapter-B/part-213/subpart-C
  53. https://www.opm.gov/information-management/privacy-policy/privacy-policy/escs.pdf
  54. https://www.law.berkeley.edu/wp-content/uploads/2021/05/Trump-Rollbacks-Report.pdf
  55. https://www.opm.gov/policy-data-oversight/senior-executive-service/ses-desk-guide/ch-1-executive-resources-management/
  56. https://academic.oup.com/jpart/article/31/2/451/5983893
  57. https://www.nber.org/digest/feb17/bureaucratic-churn-after-presidential-elections
  58. https://www.citizensforethics.org/news/analysis/faq-the-conservative-attack-on-the-merit-based-civil-service/
  59. https://globalanticorruptionblog.com/2020/10/27/trumps-new-executive-order-on-the-civil-service-poses-a-grave-corruption-threat/
  60. https://www.gao.gov/products/ggd-97-72
  61. https://www.mspb.gov/studies/studies/What_is_Due_Process_in_Federal_Civil_Service_Employment_1166935.pdf
  62. https://www.mspb.gov/studies/researchbriefs/Adverse_Actions_The_Rules_and_the_Reality_1205509.pdf
  63. https://protectdemocracy.org/wp-content/uploads/2025/02/Termination-of-Probationary-employees.pdf
  64. https://feltg.com/making-sense-of-excepted-service-trial-periods-and-appeal-rights/
  65. https://www.narfe.org/blog/2025/04/22/narfe-opm-scheme-to-remove-merit-based-civil-service-protections-threatens-rule-of-law-greater-corruption-and-failure-of-government-operations/
  66. https://www.dmi-ida.org/download-pdf/pdf/OPM%2520Special%2520Study%2520%25E2%2580%2593%2520Excepted%2520Service%2520Hiring%2520Authorities.pdf
  67. https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/GAOREPORTS-GGD-97-72/html/GAOREPORTS-GGD-97-72.htm
  68. https://academic.oup.com/princeton-scholarship-online/book/41683
  69. https://www.opm.gov/policy-data-oversight/human-capital-framework/reference-materials/talent-management/hiringflexibilities.pdf
  70. https://globalfutures.asu.edu/food/wp-content/uploads/sites/14/2024/02/Navigating-USAJOBS_Capstone-Paper.pdf
  71. https://www.opm.gov/chcoc/transmittals/2018/opm-special-study-excepted-service-hiring-authorities-their-use-and-effectiveness_07-18-2018_508.pdf
  72. https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/2020/10/26/2020-23780/creating-schedule-f-in-the-excepted-service
  73. https://protectdemocracy.org/work/trumps-schedule-f-plan-explained/
  74. https://trumpwhitehouse.archives.gov/presidential-actions/executive-order-creating-schedule-f-excepted-service/
  75. https://www.nteu.org/media-center/news-releases/2024/04/04/opmregsskedf
  76. https://www.nteu.org/media-center/news-releases/2025/05/27/opmcommentsonskedpc
  77. https://www.americafirstpolicy.com/issues/afpi-supports-opms-proposed-rule-to-restore-accountability-in-the-federal-workforce
  78. https://www.whitehouse.gov/presidential-actions/2025/01/restoring-accountability-to-policy-influencing-positions-within-the-federal-workforce/
  79. https://www.akingump.com/en/insights/blogs/trump-executive-order-tracker/restoring-accountability-to-policy-influencing-positions-within-the-federal-workforce
  80. https://federalnewsnetwork.com/workforce/2025/04/trump-administration-estimates-50000-federal-employees-will-lose-civil-service-protections/
  81. https://www.gao.gov/assets/730/723120.pdf
  82. https://fedsupport.org/resources/resource-library/faq-schedule-policy-career-formerly-schedule-f/
  83. https://bidenwhitehouse.archives.gov/briefing-room/presidential-actions/2021/01/22/executive-order-protecting-the-federal-workforce/
  84. https://www.regulations.gov/document/OPM-2025-0004-0001
  85. https://www.opm.gov/chcoc/latest-memos/guidance-on-implementing-president-trump-s-executive-order-titled-restoring-accountability-to-policy-influencing-positions-within-the-federal-workforce.pdf
  86. https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/2025/04/23/2025-06904/improving-performance-accountability-and-responsiveness-in-the-civil-service
  87. https://www.govexec.com/workforce/2025/04/opm-proposes-rule-formally-revive-schedule-f/404699/
  88. https://www.regulations.gov/docket/OPM-2025-0004
Add your contribution
Related Hubs
User Avatar
No comments yet.