Excluding Positions from Performance Appraisal Requirements
In a memo issued on April 28, 2026, Office of Personnel Management (OPM) Director Scott Kupor advised federal agencies to exclude all employees in Schedule C and Schedule G General Schedule (GS) positions from the performance appraisal requirements under Subchapter I of Chapter 43 of Title 5, including requirements for performance standards, progress reviews, and annual ratings of record.
This directive simplifies personnel management for these excepted-service political appointments, which are now treated as “at-will” roles where retention and removal do not hinge on formal performance ratings.
The memo clarifies that these employees operate outside the structured appraisal frameworks that apply to most competitive-service GS employees. They are excluded due to the confidential, policy-determining, policy-making, or policy-advocating nature of their positions.
This latest memo is not a surprise, as it is a step in implementing policies that have already been formulated.
President Trump took action creating Schedule F in his first term. On January 20, 2025, his first day in office for his second term, he signed Executive Order 14171, “Restoring Accountability to Policy-Influencing Positions Within the Federal Workforce.” On July 17, 2025, President Trump signed Executive Order 14317, “Creating Schedule G in the Excepted Service.”
OPM published a final rule on February 5–6, 2026, implementing the Schedule Policy/Career framework. Estimates suggested it could affect up to 50,000 career positions (roughly 2% of the federal workforce) involved in confidential, policy-determining, policy-making, or policy-advocating work.
With this background, the OPM memo takes the next logical step of implementing what has been covered in earlier issuances.
What the Memo Directs Agencies to Do
The new OPM directive is straightforward: agencies are to immediately stop applying the performance appraisal rules in 5 CFR Part 430, Subpart B, to Schedule C and Schedule G GS employees.
Key reasons cited in the memo:
- These positions are political appointments in the excepted service, making employees effectively at-will. Removal or non-retention does not require performance-based justification under Chapter 43.
- A long-standing administrative freeze on discretionary awards, bonuses, and similar payments for political appointees (outlined in OPM guidance from August 3, 2010) means these employees are ineligible for performance-based monetary incentives or GS quality step increases anyway.
The exclusion is not total. These employees are still eligible for within-grade increases (WGIs) under 5 U.S.C. § 5335, which are granted upon a determination of “acceptable level of competence” and satisfaction of other statutory conditions. These procedures fall outside the requirements of Chapter 43, giving agencies flexibility to design simpler evaluation processes.
If a WGI is delayed (for example, because the employee lacked sufficient opportunity to demonstrate competence), it must be granted retroactively once competence is established.
The memo instructs agencies to direct questions on appraisals to [email protected] and on pay issues to [email protected]. It was distributed to Chief Human Capital Officers, their deputies, and HR directors.
Key Differences from Standard GS Positions
Standard GS employees in the competitive service are covered by Subchapter I of Chapter 43, which requires agencies to maintain performance appraisal systems that:
- Set clear performance standards.
- Provide ongoing feedback.
- Issue annual ratings used for decisions on rewards, retention, promotions, and removals.
These systems tie directly into adverse-action protections under Chapter 75 and appeal rights to the Merit Systems Protection Board (MSPB) for performance-based actions. In contrast, Schedule C and G GS employees:
- Do not receive formal Chapter 43 ratings of record.
- Have no entitlement to performance awards or quality step increases.
- Operate in an at-will environment where policy alignment and competence can be assessed through agency-specific means, without the procedural safeguards of Chapter 43.
Implications for Federal Agencies
The memo has several practical and strategic implications for agencies:
- Reduced Administrative Burden: Agencies no longer need to apply the full Chapter 43 system to these political GS employees.
- Flexible Performance Management for WGIs: Agencies gain discretion to create streamlined internal processes for determining “acceptable level of competence.” These can be tailored to the at-will nature of the positions while still complying with WGI statutes. Retroactive pay rules remain intact to protect employees who later demonstrate competence.
- Consistency with Broader Reforms: The guidance aligns with the Schedule Policy/Career changes affecting career employees. Together, they create a tiered system: full protections for most rank-and-file GS workers; simplified processes for political appointees in C and G; and enhanced accountability (while retaining merit-based hiring) for career policy roles.
- HR and Legal Responsibilities: Agencies must update internal policies, notify affected employees where appropriate, and ensure supervisors understand the new rules. Legal and HR offices will likely need to review position classifications to confirm which GS-paid roles fall under C or G. Training on WGI competence determinations will be essential.
- Workforce Responsiveness: Supporters argue these changes make the federal workforce more agile and responsive to elected leadership. Critics worry about politicization or reduced institutional knowledge, and NARFE highlighted this criticism, contending the modified system “Threatens Rule of Law”.
- No Impact on Other Benefits: Whistleblower protections, veterans’ preference (where applicable in hiring), and other statutory rights remain unchanged. The focus is narrowly on performance appraisal systems.
Overall, the latest OPM memo represents a targeted, technical adjustment that implements a significant portion of the administration’s civil-service reform agenda. Formalizing the exclusion of Schedule C and G GS positions from Chapter 43 requirements removes a layer of bureaucracy for those in the impacted positions.
Agencies are expected to implement the changes promptly. As federal human resources professionals review the memo, many will view it as part of a continuing evolution: from the 2020 Schedule F proposal, through its 2025 revival and expansion via Schedule G and Schedule Policy/Career, to this practical guidance on day-to-day performance management.
While federal unions and political donations from federal employees usually reflect heavy partisanship favoring Democrats, critics of this approach under the Trump administration (such as this statement from NARFE) will see the OPM menu as removing “merit-based competitive service protections from federal employees that are critical in ensuring a nonpartisan, professional civil service.”
The result of these actions is a clearer delineation between career civil servants with robust protections and policy-oriented roles expected to align closely with the President’s agenda, potentially reshaping how thousands of federal jobs are managed in the years ahead. Most of the significant actions taken by the Trump administration regarding the federal workforce are being challenged in court. It is likely one or more of these cases will eventually reach the US Supreme Court as they are in various stages of litigation in court systems around the country.
