Recent headlines have focused on changes affecting federal employees in the civil service system. Little attention has been given to reforms impacting the Senior Executive Service (SES). Some of the changes coming for the SES are similar to earlier directives but directed at the senior level of government management.
What is the SES?
The Office of Personnel Management (OPM) has sent out several memos to agencies recently regarding the Senior Executive Service (SES). These changes range from categorizing SES positions to the SES performance appraisal system.
The SES was created by the Civil Service Reform Act of 1978 (CSRA). It is a category of high-level positions within federal agencies providing leadership and management across the civil service. The SES consists of career executives and a smaller group of political appointees responsible for overseeing major programs, setting policy, and managing resources.
Career-Reserved SES Minimum Doubled
By law, there must be at least 3,571 career-reserved positions in the government. This number of positions is “authorized to be filled only through competitive civil service examination….” Over the past four years, the number of SES career-reserve positions has grown rapidly and is now roughly double the minimum number required.
One of the most significant changes in the new Executive Order concerns the minimum number of career-reserved SES positions. The new guidance is based on an Executive Order entitled Restoring Accountability for Career Senior Executives (“SES Accountability”). The Order directed agencies to “reassign agency SES members to ensure their knowledge, skills, abilities, and mission assignments are optimally aligned to implement (the President’s) agenda….”
The Order also ordered agencies to eliminate existing Executive Review Boards and to “assign senior noncareer officials to chair and serve on the board as a majority alongside career members….”
SES positions are designated as “general” or “career reserved.” General positions can
be filled by career or noncareer appointees. Career-reserved positions may only be
filled by career appointees.
Purpose of the SES
Congress intended “a position shall be designated as a career-reserved position only if the filling of the position by a career appointee is necessary to ensure impartiality, or the public’s confidence in the impartiality, of the Government” according to OPM. Many positions, including at the deputy assistant secretary and assistant secretary levels, are currently designated as career roles despite being more appropriate as general positions.
The SES was created to create a link between career civil service and political leadership, not to replace political leadership. The result of the SES changes is that “major policies of the President or agency head are filtered through appointees with reduced democratic accountability.”
OPM has directed agencies to send to OPM at [email protected], by March 24, 2025:
- A revised, proposed list of career reserved SES positions at the agency; and
- A list of requested redesignations of career-reserved SES positions (consistent with agency regulations and organic statutes).
At a minimum, these submissions to OPM are to include:
- Career-reserved positions at the assistant secretary level or above;
- Career-reserved positions at the principal deputy assistant secretary level or
above; - Career-reserved positions at the deputy assistant secretary level or above, where
there is no general schedule SES position at the deputy assistant secretary level in that
component or office; and - SES positions designated as general SES positions on January 19, 2021.
These changes closely mirror broader workforce reforms affecting non-SES federal employees.
Performance Rating System and the SES
Another OPM memo is entitled New Senior Executive Service Performance Appraisal System and Performance Plan.
This memo states the “current SES performance appraisal system does not meaningfully differentiate excellent from poor or mediocre performance across the SES.” Also, the system does not “provide for an accurate systematic appraisal of SES performance to serve as the basis for making eligibility determinations for retention in the Senior Executive Service and for Senior Executive Service performance awards.”
Currently, most SES members receive the highest performance ratings, with fewer than 1% receiving the lowest rating. In the 2023 performance cycle, 96% of executives received ratings of ‘Outstanding’ or ‘Exceeds Fully Successful,’ while fewer than 0.5% were rated below ‘Fully Successful.’
New Performance Appraisal System for the SES
OPM has issued a new SES Performance Plan designed to correct the existing system. OPM states it will reinvigorate the SES performance appraisal system and differentiate excellent from mediocre from poor performance and provide a basis for retaining individuals in the SES. It will also link senior executive bonuses directly to performance.
Agencies are to confirm to OPM by October 31, 2025, that they have transitioned to
the SES Performance Appraisal System and Performance Plan. For agencies not
currently on a fiscal-year SES performance cycle, they are to extend the current cycle and close out on September 30, 2025.
Under the new OPM guidance, agencies are directed to:
- Submit plans to OPM to reassign SES members;
- Terminate existing Executive Review Boards and assign senior noncareer officials to chair and serve on the board as a majority alongside career members;
- Terminate existing Performance Review Board membership and reorganize with people
committed to full enforcement of SES performance standards; - Update SES performance plans to remove DEI language; and
- Report to OPM on the agency’s plan to transition to the new governmentwide SES
Performance Appraisal System, Performance Plan and fiscal year rating cycle.
Position of the Senior Executives Association
The Senior Executives Association (SEA) primarily represents the interests of Career members of the Senior Executive Service (SES), SL/ST, and equivalent positions. It is not a union recognized under the CSRA and its members are not in a bargaining unit.
In response to the recent OPM memos, the SEA President, Marcus Hill, issued a statement outlining their reaction to the new guidance. As one might imagine, the organization representing the career SES members does not agree with the recommendations.
Their position is similar to the statements of unions representing other federal employees contending the federal workforce is nonpolitical and they do a good job on behalf of the American public.
(These documents infer) career federal executives cannot be trusted to fulfill their responsibilities related to assisting incoming administrations with effectively implementing their agendas. This simply is not true. Historically, the vast majority of SES and other Federal executives have honorably and faithfully served bipartisan presidential administrations. In sum, these experienced career professionals have and continue to execute their responsibilities to the best of their abilities regardless of who resides in office. They do so consistent with the oath each of them took to support the Constitution.
OPM’s latest guidance on the SES is inconsistent with the law governing the SES, by insisting that policy-related positions be reserved for general billets that can only be filled by an administration’s political cronies. OPM’s suggestion that career executives are mere technicians is inconsistent with reality and the law.
The SEA statement also notes that “The SEA supports actions that would strengthen accountability among the government’s career executives and assist them with effectively performing their congressionally designed and intended SES roles. SEA stands ready to
work with the Trump Administration in responsibly achieving this priority.”
Summary
Whether the target for optimizing the federal government is senior members of the federal workforce or those in other positions including the General Schedule, the administration’s objectives for changing the federal system are very similar.
Current federal employees and their representatives largely oppose the proposed changes. They argue that the workforce is effective despite being understaffed, operates professionally and apolitically, and that the reforms aim to politicize government operations. Additionally, they contend that the proposed changes violate established laws and regulations.
The Trump administration believes the federal workforce is too large, wields excessive power, functions as an independent branch of government, and lacks proper management, oversight, and performance accountability. They believe it is insufficiently responsive to elected leaders who represent the will of American voters.
The two sides are fundamentally opposed. President Trump has characterized the federal bureaucracy as a “deep state” that operates autonomously, sets its own rules and regulations, and lacks sufficient political oversight.
The numerous lawsuits, vociferous objections, and press releases reflected in the media and on internet sites reflect the increasingly coordinated opposition to policies by the Trump administration.
The outcome remains uncertain. Similar efforts were made during Trump’s first term. His administration appeared more prepared this time and was able to start making changes immediately, knowing the resistance to change would be swift and strong.
We will not know which segment is stronger and likely to prevail for some time. The answers will often come from the judicial system, including final decisions of the U.S. Supreme Court, which means this process will take time.
