President Trump’s Office of Personnel Management is going after one of the most stubborn problems in Washington: how hard it is to hold a federal employee accountable.

On July 1, 2026, OPM proposed a sweeping set of reforms to modernize how agencies address poor performance and misconduct.

The plan would give managers clearer tools, standardize the process, and cut the delays that let problems drag on for months.

The July 1 package remains in proposed-rule status. It opens for public comment after it publishes in the Federal Register, with comments due 30 days after publication.

The core changes are practical and specific.

ADVERTISEMENT

The proposal would establish a default 30-day Performance Improvement Plan, eliminate pre-PIP procedures that OPM says only delay action, and standardize the response periods employees get in adverse-action cases.

It would also require agencies to actually train supervisors on how to handle accountability, which is a real gap in the current system.

The biggest structural change targets how the Merit Systems Protection Board reviews a manager’s decision.

Right now, MSPB leans on a checklist known as the Douglas factors. The proposal would replace that rigid checklist with a totality-of-the-circumstances standard.

The OPM announcement lays out the whole package.

It describes a proposed rule that streamlines performance-based and disciplinary procedures, modernizes adverse-action steps, and strengthens accountability across the workforce. It reaches the supervisor-training side of the problem as well, which matters because bad processes often leave managers afraid to act.

OPM says the default 30-day PIP and the elimination of pre-PIPs would let managers move faster on genuine performance problems. The agency is also trying to standardize the response periods employees get in adverse-action cases, so the system is less dependent on agency-by-agency confusion.

Director Scott Kupor said the goal is to give managers better tools to address performance issues efficiently while keeping a fair and consistent process. In other words, the administration is making the case that accountability and fairness can exist in the same system.

OPM framed all of it as part of the Trump administration’s broader push to build a high-performing federal workforce.

ADVERTISEMENT

That framing matters because this reform is aimed at the management system itself, rather than one agency or one headline-grabbing misconduct case.

The announcement puts supervisor training, performance management, adverse-action timing, and appeal review inside the same accountability package, which is why the proposal could matter across the executive branch.

The Federal Register public inspection copy fills in the legal detail.

It says OPM and MSPB are jointly issuing proposed regulations covering performance-based reductions and removals, non-disciplinary separations, adverse actions, MSPB review of those actions, and supervisor training. That makes the proposal broader than a simple PIP tweak.

OPM’s stated aim is to improve accountability for poor performance and misconduct by streamlining the administrative process. The rulemaking also targets the paperwork record, especially the way settlement agreements can erase official documentation of performance or conduct issues.

MSPB’s piece is refocusing penalty review on a totality-of-the-circumstances test instead of rigid prescribed factors. Comments are due 30 days after Federal Register publication, so agencies, unions, employees, and watchdogs will all get a chance to weigh in before the proposal becomes final.

The document also addresses restrictions on clean-record settlements that scrub official documentation of performance or conduct problems, and it confirms comments are due 30 days after Federal Register publication.

The clean-record settlement issue is a big deal because it speaks to whether problem employees can quietly move around government with a polished personnel file.

The proposed rule says agencies should preserve accurate information about poor performance or conduct so later employment, qualification, suitability, and security decisions are made with the real record in view.

ADVERTISEMENT

In plain English, OPM is trying to make the paper trail harder to erase when the underlying facts matter to taxpayers and future supervisors.

Kupor’s own explanation cuts through the bureaucracy.

In his official blog, he notes that MSPB currently uses a list of twelve Douglas factors to judge whether a manager’s penalty is reasonable.

He argues that review too often turns mechanical, producing foot-fault reversals against managers who failed to document every single factor in enough detail.

The totality-of-the-circumstances standard, he says, would still protect employee rights while ending form-over-function reviews.

Kupor is also clear about the intent. The reforms are meant to reward excellence, demand accountability, and still treat job loss as a serious matter.

The point is to protect the strong workers who keep the government running while giving managers a realistic path to deal with poor performers or serious misconduct.

The July 1 proposal follows a separate accountability move that is already finalized.

OPM’s final suitability rule, announced June 29, strengthens the government’s ability to address serious misconduct throughout an employee’s career.

ADVERTISEMENT

OPM says the rule modernizes suitability regulations and gives agencies additional tools to protect public trust and apply a more consistent accountability framework. The agency says the point is to make sure federal employees continue meeting integrity standards after they are hired.

The release ties the changes to Trusted Workforce 2.0 and governmentwide continuous vetting. That means the accountability framework is connected to the ongoing process of checking whether people remain suitable for federal service.

The practical shift there is significant. OPM says the final rule closes a gap between the tools available before someone enters government and the tools available after serious misconduct appears later.

That final rule is already farther along than the July 1 proposal, so the two actions should not be confused.

The suitability rule deals with whether someone remains fit for federal service after appointment, especially when serious misconduct comes to light later.

OPM says the change closes a gap between the tools agencies use before hiring and the tools available after someone is already inside government.

Federal News Network reported that the final suitability rule lets agencies apply the same standards used to judge applicants to current employees as well.

That means agencies can weigh whether employees file taxes on time, meet citizenship requirements, properly use government resources, and comply with nondisclosure obligations. Those examples show why the final rule is about integrity and trust, rather than only ordinary job performance.

Those factors sit alongside existing considerations such as criminal or violent conduct, excessive alcohol use, deception, and fraud. In practice, that gives agencies a broader set of tools when a current employee’s conduct raises questions about fitness for federal service.

The outside reporting is useful because it shows how broad the finalized rule could become in real agency practice. It also highlights why unions and employment lawyers are likely to watch the new standards closely.

The report also explains why federal unions and employment lawyers are likely to watch this closely.

Suitability and fitness standards have traditionally been most familiar at the front door of federal employment, while the final rule pushes that same framework deeper into the career of current employees.

That is why the final rule pairs so naturally with the July 1 proposal: one focuses on fitness and integrity, while the other focuses on performance, adverse actions, and appeals.

This is where the two moves connect. One rule is already final and sharpens suitability standards, while the new proposal would reshape how agencies handle performance and adverse actions.

Taken together, the two actions point in one direction. The Trump administration wants a federal workforce where accountability actually means something.

The suitability rule is locked in. The performance and adverse-action overhaul is still a proposal, and the comment window will decide how much of it survives intact.

For taxpayers who have watched underperformers cling to federal jobs for years, this is the kind of reform that has been overdue for a very long time.

This is a Guest Post from our friends over at WLTReport. View the original article here.

 

Join The Conversation. Leave a Comment.