Committee To Grill Office of Personnel Management on Civil Service Overhaul

Why it Matters

The Office of Personnel Management is in the middle of the most aggressive overhaul of federal civil service rules in a generation — and on March 25, 2026, the agency's director will face the House lawmakers who control its funding. The OPM oversight hearing before the House Appropriations Subcommittee on Financial Services and General Government arrives as OPM has finalized or proposed a cascade of regulations that would fundamentally reshape how the government hires, rates, disciplines, and fires its workforce. For the roughly 2 million federal civilian employees affected, the stakes are concrete: new rules could strip civil service protections from policy-influencing positions, upend how layoffs are conducted, cap top performance ratings, and dismantle collective bargaining agreements across agencies.

OPM Director Scott Kupor — the hearing's sole scheduled witness — will sit across from a subcommittee that holds the purse strings for his agency at a moment when outside groups and federal employee unions are raising alarms about OPM's institutional capacity to absorb the new authorities it is claiming for itself.

A Blitz of Rulemaking Sets the Stage

The two weeks before the hearing saw a remarkable volume of regulatory activity from OPM, giving subcommittee members no shortage of material to probe.

Schedule Policy/Career: Stripping Civil Service Protections

OPM finalized the Schedule Policy/Career rule, effective March 9, 2026, creating a new excepted service category for career employees in "policy-influencing" positions. The rule allows agencies to reclassify those employees, effectively removing traditional civil service protections. Director Kupor framed the change as restoring accountability: "Schedule Policy/Career restores a basic principle of democratic governance: those entrusted with shaping and executing policy must be accountable for results." Critics, including the Council of Scientific Society Associations (COSSA) and the American Educational Research Association, argue the rule risks politicizing the career workforce and undermining merit system principles.

New Layoff Rules: Performance Over Tenure

OPM published a proposed rule that would overhaul reduction-in-force (RIF) procedures by prioritizing performance ratings over tenure and length of service when agencies conduct layoffs. OPM called the current system "outdated" and "cumbersome." The American Federation of Government Employees warned the changes would "pave the way for arbitrary mass firings of federal workers," particularly when paired with the agency's separate proposal to cap top performance ratings through a forced distribution system.

That linkage is critical: if fewer employees can earn top ratings, and performance ratings carry more weight in layoff decisions, the combined effect could significantly expand management's discretion over who stays and who goes during workforce reductions.

RIF Appeals: OPM Seeks to Replace MSPB

In a separate proposed rule, OPM moved to shift adjudication of RIF appeals away from the Merit Systems Protection Board and to OPM itself. The nonpartisan Partnership for Public Service submitted formal comments opposing the change, arguing that OPM "does not have the capacity or political independence to effectively adjudicate RIF appeals" and that the rule "will not fix long-standing performance management challenges" or "improve government efficiency." This proposal goes directly to the question of whether OPM can serve as both the architect of workforce policy and the referee when employees challenge it — a tension that appropriators are well-positioned to examine.

Collective Bargaining Dismantled

OPM also issued guidance directing agencies covered by Executive Orders 14251 and 14343 to terminate or modify collective bargaining agreements with federal employee unions, with monthly reporting to OPM on the status of all agreements. The directive represents a significant shift in federal labor relations that falls squarely within OPM's purview.

Health Benefits Controversy

Separately, members of Congress wrote to Kupor expressing "strong opposition" to OPM's decision to eliminate coverage for medically necessary care for transgender people under the Federal Employee Health Benefits and Postal Service Health Benefits programs beginning in plan year 2026. The letter requested detailed information about the decision-making process and could surface during the hearing as an additional line of questioning.

The OPM Congressional Oversight Landscape

The hearing falls under the jurisdiction of the Appropriations Committee — not an authorizing panel — which means the subcommittee's leverage is budgetary. Chaired by Rep. Dave Joyce (R-OH), with Rep. Steny Hoyer (D-MD) serving as ranking member and Rep. Nick LaLota (R-NY) as vice chair, the subcommittee controls the funding that enables OPM to implement these sweeping changes. The central question for appropriators is whether OPM's budget and institutional capacity match the scope of new authorities the agency is claiming.

Kupor himself has been publicly telegraphing OPM's direction. At a Federal News Network event on March 5, he defended Schedule Policy/Career and disclosed that OPM is pursuing additional regulatory changes to make it easier to remove poor-performing employees and to overhaul the government's performance management system, including removing the ban on forced distribution of performance ratings. Those public remarks effectively previewed the policy terrain the hearing will cover.

Lobbying Activity Signals Broad Interest

Lobbying disclosure records show sustained interest in OPM-related topics over the past year. Searches for filings referencing the Office of Personnel Management, federal workforce management, and government HR policy returned more than 10,000 total matches across the period from March 2025 through March 2026, with at least six specific filings confirmed within the date range covering the Second and Third Quarters of 2025. The volume reflects the breadth of stakeholders — from federal employee unions to government contractors to technology firms — with interests tied to how OPM manages the federal workforce.

What the OPM Oversight Hearing Will Test

A hearing notice has been published. Kupor is the sole listed witness.

The subcommittee's 15 members span both parties and include appropriators with deep institutional knowledge — Rep. Rosa DeLauro (D-CT), Rep. Tom Cole (R-OK), and Rep. Steve Womack (R-AR) among them — alongside members representing districts with large federal employee populations, notably Hoyer and Rep. Glenn Ivey (D-MD).

For Republicans, the hearing offers a chance to examine whether OPM's reforms are delivering the accountability and efficiency gains the administration has promised. For Democrats, it is an opportunity to press Kupor on whether the agency is overreaching — claiming new powers to adjudicate appeals, reclassify employees, and dismantle labor agreements without the institutional infrastructure or independence to do so responsibly. The Partnership for Public Service's pointed criticism that OPM lacks the "capacity or political independence" to take on these roles gives that line of questioning a nonpartisan anchor.

The answers Kupor provides could shape not just OPM's next appropriation, but the trajectory of federal workforce policy for years to come.

Access the Legis1 platform for comprehensive political news, data, and insights.