Impact of President Trump’s Executive Orders on the Federal Workforce
Client Alert | January 27, 2025
Gibson Dunn is available to help clients understand what these and other expected policy changes will mean for them and how to navigate the shifting regulatory environment.
Within hours of his return to the Oval Office, President Donald Trump issued a flurry of executive actions to change how the federal workforce operates during his administration.
First, President Trump issued an executive order, “Restoring Accountability to Policy-Influencing Positions Within the Federal Workforce,” that aims to increase the effective oversight and streamline the removal and replacement of certain federal employees who hold “positions of a confidential, policy-determining, policy-making, or policy-advocating character.” Generally, non-exempt civil service employees have procedural tools available to challenge and appeal their removal. Monday’s order reinstates President Trump’s October 2020 executive order that sought to exempt certain federal employees from those civil service protections by designating them under “Schedule F,” a new classification for agency personnel in policy-making positions. Former President Joe Biden rescinded the 2020 “Schedule F” executive order shortly after taking office. And in April 2024, the Office of Personnel Management published a final rule explaining, among other things, that career civil servant protections are not lost by an involuntary move from a competitive service to excepted service position. The April 2024 rule also interpreted the phrases indicating excepted service positions—i.e., “confidential, policy-determining, policy-making, or policy-advocating”—as applying only to noncareer political appointees, not “career employees.” Departing from the prior administration’s approach, Monday’s order instructs the Director of the Office of Personnel Management to “amend the Civil Service Regulations to rescind all changes made by the final rule of April 9, 2024.”
Monday’s order also amends the 2020 reclassification order in several ways—most noticeably, the order now refers to the newly excepted class of employees as “Schedule Policy/Career” rather than “Schedule F.” Despite this change in terminology, the substance remains largely the same. Monday’s order targets “cases of career Federal employees resisting and undermining the policies and directives of their executive leadership.” By excepting Schedule Policy/Career employees from those protections, Monday’s order seeks to make employees in “policy-influencing positions” directly “accountable to the President.”
It is currently unclear which federal positions will fall under the new classification. The new order requires the Director of the Office of Personnel Management to “promptly recommend to the President which positions should be placed in Schedule Policy/Career,” and updates on that front should be available shortly.
The new order has already been challenged in court. This week, the National Treasury Employees Union challenged the order in the United States District Court for the District of Columbia. The suit claims that, in issuing the order, the President exceeded his statutory authority to prescribe rules for competitive service positions, infringed upon federal employees’ procedural due process rights, and violated the Administrative Procedure Act.
Second, President Trump issued an executive order seeking to reform the federal hiring process. The order, “Reforming the Federal Hiring Process and Restoring Merit to Government Service,” directs the Assistant to the President for Domestic Policy within the next 120 days to “develop and send to agency heads a Federal Hiring Plan that brings to the Federal workforce only highly skilled Americans dedicated to the furtherance of American ideals, values, and interests.” In developing that Federal Hiring Plan, the Assistant to the President for Domestic Policy must consult with the Director of the Office of Management and Budget, the Director of the Office of Personnel Management, and the Administrator of the Department of Government Efficiency. Among other directives, the Federal Hiring Plan must: “prevent the hiring of individuals based on their race, sex, or religion, and prevent the hiring of individuals who are unwilling to defend the Constitution or to faithfully serve the Executive Branch”; “integrate modern technology to support the recruitment and selection process”; and “decrease government-wide time-to-hire to under 80 days.”
Notably, the executive order requires the Federal Hiring Plan to “include specific agency plans to improve the allocation of Senior Executive Service positions” in various agencies. Senior Executive Service (SES) employees serve just below presidential appointees within federal agencies. There are a limited number of SES positions in the federal government, and the executive order seeks to evaluate how the allocation of those positions “will best facilitate democratic leadership, as required by law, within each agency.”
Third, President Trump issued a memorandum focused on “Restoring Accountability for Career Senior Executives.” The memorandum begins by emphasizing that the “President’s power to remove subordinates is a core part of the Executive power” and “because SES officials wield significant governmental authority, they must serve at the pleasure of the President.” The memorandum directs, among other things, the Director of the Office of Personnel Management, in coordination with the Director of the Office of Management and Budget, “to issue SES Performance Plans that agencies must adopt.” And consistent with the executive order described above, the memorandum directs “[e]ach agency head,” to the extent permitted by the relevant statute, to “reassign agency SES members to ensure their knowledge, skills, abilities, and mission assignments are optimally aligned to implement [the administration’s] agenda.” Reports indicate that some agencies started reassigning senior career officials this week.
The memorandum also significantly changes Executive Resources Boards and Performance Review Boards within agencies. Under 5 U.S.C. § 3393(b), agencies must establish Executive Resources Boards to conduct merit-based hiring for career SES officials. And under 5 C.F.R. § 430.311, agencies must establish Performance Review Boards “to make recommendations to the appointing authority on the performance of its senior executives.” President Trump’s memorandum directs “[e]ach agency head” to “terminate its existing Executive Resources Board (ERB), institute a new or interim ERB, and assign senior noncareer officials to chair and serve on the board as a majority alongside career members.” Similarly, the memorandum directs “[e]ach agency head” to “terminate its existing Performance Review Board membership and re-constitute membership with individuals committed to full enforcement of SES performance evaluations that promote and assure an SES of the highest caliber.”
Fourth, President Trump issued a memorandum establishing a hiring freeze on federal civilian employees. The freeze excludes “positions related to immigration enforcement, national security, or public safety.” And the “the Director of the Office of Personnel Management (OPM) may grant exemptions from this freeze where those exemptions are otherwise necessary.” No such exemption applied to law students who expected to begin working for the Department of Justice later this year. Citing the federal hiring freeze, the Department of Justice recently rescinded the employment offers of students hired under the Attorney General’s Honors Program.
Within 90 days, “the Director of the Office of Management and Budget (OMB), in consultation with the Director of OPM and the Administrator of the United States DOGE Service (USDS),” must submit “a plan to reduce the size of the Federal Government’s workforce through efficiency improvements and attrition.” The freeze will expire for most departments once OMB submits its plan. However, the freeze will “remain in effect for the IRS until the Secretary of the Treasury, in consultation with the Director of OMB and the Administrator of USDS, determines that it is in the national interest to lift the freeze.”
Notably, the memorandum explains that “[c]ontracting outside the Federal Government to circumvent the intent of this memorandum is prohibited.”
Fifth, President Trump issued a memorandum directing federal departments and agencies “to terminate remote work arrangements and require employees to return to work in-person at their respective duty stations on a full-time basis.” The memorandum explains that “department and agency heads shall make exemptions they deem necessary.” And the memorandum recognizes that the directive to return to work in-person must be “implemented consistent with applicable law.”
Finally, President Trump issued an executive order “Establishing and Implementing the President’s ‘Department of Government Efficiency’“ also known as “DOGE.” The executive order renames the United States Digital Service, which had previously provided consultation services to federal agencies on information technology, to the United States DOGE Service. DOGE will be part of the Executive Office of the President, unlike its predecessor which was housed in the Office of Management and Budget. As contemplated in some of the executive actions described above, DOGE will assist the administration in evaluating federal workforce issues and “modernizing Federal technology and software to maximize governmental efficiency and productivity.” The order requires each executive agency to establish a “DOGE Team of at least four employees, which may include Special Government Employees, hired or assigned within thirty days of the date of this Order.” DOGE Teams—typically comprised of “one DOGE Team Lead, one engineer, one human resources specialist, and one attorney”—will assist agency heads in increasing government efficiency. In the past week, several lawsuits have been filed challenging the lawfulness of DOGE.
Gibson Dunn continues to monitor developments in this area. Government contractors, federal grant recipients, and other private sector employers should consider reviewing their programs and contacts with federal employees to ensure compliance with evolving legal requirements. Gibson Dunn is available to help clients understand what these and other expected policy changes will mean for them and how to comply with new requirements.
Gibson Dunn’s lawyers are available to assist in addressing any questions you may have regarding these developments. Please contact the Gibson Dunn lawyer with whom you usually work, any leader or member of the firm’s Public Policy, Administrative Law & Regulatory, Energy Regulation & Litigation, Labor & Employment, or Government Contracts practice groups, or the following in Washington, D.C.:
Michael D. Bopp – Co-Chair, Public Policy Practice Group,
(+1 202.955.8256, [email protected])
Stuart F. Delery – Co-Chair, Administrative Law & Regulatory Practice Group,
(+1 202.955.8515, [email protected])
Matt Gregory – Partner, Administrative Law & Regulatory Practice Group,
(+1 202.887.3635, [email protected])
Andrew G.I. Kilberg – Partner, Administrative Law & Regulatory Practice Group,
(+1 202.887.3759, [email protected])
Tory Lauterbach – Partner, Energy Regulation & Litigation Practice Group,
(+1 202.955.8519, [email protected])
© 2025 Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher LLP. All rights reserved. For contact and other information, please visit us at www.gibsondunn.com.
Attorney Advertising: These materials were prepared for general informational purposes only based on information available at the time of publication and are not intended as, do not constitute, and should not be relied upon as, legal advice or a legal opinion on any specific facts or circumstances. Gibson Dunn (and its affiliates, attorneys, and employees) shall not have any liability in connection with any use of these materials. The sharing of these materials does not establish an attorney-client relationship with the recipient and should not be relied upon as an alternative for advice from qualified counsel. Please note that facts and circumstances may vary, and prior results do not guarantee a similar outcome.