Attorneys for Federal Employees — Nationwide

Nearly 200,000 federal workers and supporters follow our updates across TikTok, Instagram, YouTube, Facebook, and LinkedIn. Each briefing gives you the three stories that actually matter to your job, plain‑English legal guidance, and one short practice to protect your peace of mind. If it helps you, forward it to a colleague—new readers can subscribe at https://fedlegalhelp.com/newsletter. 

Today at a Glance

• Political Appointees Are at a 40-Year High. Career Senior Executives Are at Their Lowest Since 1998. A new Partnership for Public Service report documents the simultaneous surge and collapse happening at the top of the federal workforce — and warns of "institutional consequences" for agencies that are now led primarily by political loyalty rather than managerial experience.
• The Army Is Giving Surplus Civilians Days to Decide on VSIP or VERA — But the Notices Don't Confirm Eligibility. Automated surplus notices are landing in Army civilians' inboxes without confirming whether the employee actually qualifies for the offer. The $25,000 buyout nets roughly $17,000–$19,000 after taxes. The cross-command matching phase begins April 7.
• Forced Rating Curves Are Facing Pushback — But the Rule Is Still Moving Forward. The top Democrat on the House Oversight Committee formally called OPM's forced distribution performance rating proposal illegal. The comment period closed March 26. A final rule could follow and would reshape how 2 million federal employees are evaluated, promoted, and ranked in a RIF.

Top Stories:

1. Political Appointees Are at Their Highest Level in 40 Years. Career Senior Executives Are at Their Lowest Since 1998. Both Happened at the Same Time.

Source: Government Executive — March 31, 2026

TL;DR: A new report from the Partnership for Public Service documents a simultaneous, unprecedented shift in who leads the federal government. By January 2026, the Trump administration had installed more non-Senate-confirmed Schedule C political appointees — approximately 1,835 — than any modern president at the same point in a term. That is roughly 800 more than President Biden had at the same point and approximately 1,000 more than at the one-year mark of Trump's first term. At the same time, the career Senior Executive Service collapsed from approximately 8,127 at the end of the Biden administration to about 5,837 in January 2026 — a nearly 30% decrease and the lowest level since at least 1998. The Partnership warned the simultaneous trends represent "institutional consequences" including loss of institutional memory, technical capacity, and independent professional judgment. Further expansion is expected as Schedule Policy/Career conversions proceed and Schedule G — a new category for political appointees not requiring Senate confirmation — expands.

For federal employees, this means:

• If you are a career SES member, you are working in a system that has lost nearly a third of your colleagues in one year. The pressures on those who remain — including new performance rating limits, increased alignment-with-presidential-priorities criteria, and expanded political appointee oversight — are documented and are not speculative.
• If you are a mid-level career employee, the hollowing out of the career SES above you creates real structural instability in your chain of command. Decisions that were historically made by experienced career executives may increasingly be made by political appointees who arrived recently and may leave quickly.
• If you are considering whether to apply for an SES position, the data in this report is material information about what that career path currently looks like.

Legal Insight:
Career members of the Senior Executive Service retain civil service protections under Title 5 that differ in important ways from general schedule employees. SES members facing removal or demotion actions have specific procedural rights, including the right to 30 days' advance written notice and the right to reply, and in certain circumstances the right to a hearing before the Merit Systems Protection Board. SES members converted to non-career or Schedule C positions without consent may have claims depending on the specific facts of the conversion. If you are a career SES member who has experienced a change in your appointment type, your position's designation, or an adverse personnel action, consider talking with your union and a qualified federal employment attorney about your specific situation before any deadlines pass.

2. The Army Is Giving Surplus Civilians Days to Decide Whether to Accept a VSIP, Take Early Retirement, or Be Matched to a Job Somewhere Else in the Force — Here Is What You Need to Know Before You Sign Anything

Source: Federal News Network — March 31, 2026

TL;DR: Federal News Network published detailed guidance this week on what Army civilians facing the "rebalancing" reassignment program should know before accepting a VSIP buyout or VERA early retirement offer. The core problem: the Army's automated notices do not confirm whether an employee is actually eligible for the offer they received. Employees are accepting or declining offers — with timelines as short as two business days — without knowing whether they qualify, what the tax consequences are, or what happens if no reassignment match is found for them during the cross-command phase scheduled to begin April 7. Key warnings from retirement and financial experts: the $25,000 VSIP is paid as a lump sum subject to federal, state, and local income taxes, leaving most employees with roughly $17,000–$19,000 after taxes; employees who have received recent recruitment, relocation, or student loan repayment bonuses may be categorically ineligible; and employees who return to federal service — including as contractors — within five years must repay the entire gross VSIP amount.

For federal employees, this means:

• If you are an Army civilian who has received a surplus designation or a VERA/VSIP offer, the first thing to do is not respond to the offer — it is to verify your actual eligibility. The automated notice the Army is sending does not confirm you qualify. Contact your human resources office in writing and ask for written confirmation of your eligibility before your clock runs out.
• The buyout is not $25,000. After taxes, it is closer to $17,000 to $19,000. Before deciding whether that is worth separating from federal service — including your FEHB coverage, your pension accrual, and your TSP contributions — run the actual numbers with a federal benefits advisor or retirement specialist.
• If you are considering VERA, confirm that you have been enrolled in FEHB for the five continuous years required to carry health insurance into retirement. If you have not, ask your benefits officer whether you qualify for an OPM waiver — because agencies with active VERA/VSIP authority sometimes do. Do not assume either way.
• The cross-command matching phase begins April 7. If you have not yet received a VSIP or VERA offer and are in the surplus pool, you may receive a mandatory reassignment notice during that phase. Employees in that phase who decline a non-local assignment will have two business days to respond. The same decision framework applies.

Legal Insight:
The Army's characterization of this process as "voluntary" deserves scrutiny. When an employee's only choices are to accept a reassignment, accept a separation incentive, or wait to be separated — all within a compressed timeline — the question of whether any resulting separation is truly voluntary is legally meaningful and fact-specific. Employees who accept a VSIP or VERA under duress, under a mistaken belief about their eligibility, or in reliance on incorrect information from the agency may have options that are not apparent from the face of the offer notice. Additionally, employees with approved reasonable accommodation agreements, pending EEO complaints, or prior protected activity should consider whether the timing of a surplus designation or offer is connected to any of those facts. Because the legal analysis of any specific separation depends on the individual circumstances — including the precise framing of the offer, the employee's employment history, and the timing of any protected activity — consider talking with your union and a qualified federal employment attorney before the clock runs out.

3. The House Oversight Committee's Top Democrat Called OPM's Forced Ratings Curve Illegal — But the Rule Is Still Moving Forward

Source: Government Executive — March 31, 2026

TL;DR: Representative Robert Garcia (D-Calif.), the ranking member of the House Oversight and Reform Committee, sent OPM a formal letter last week urging it to rescind its proposed forced distribution performance rating rule, arguing that capping the number of employees eligible for top ratings violates federal law. Garcia argued that the law requires performance appraisal systems to evaluate employees based on objective criteria and that an arbitrary cap on high ratings cannot be reconciled with that requirement. The comment period on OPM's proposed rule closed March 26. OPM has not withdrawn the proposal. A final rule could follow. The proposed rule would eliminate the current ban on forced distribution systems, cap the share of employees who can receive top ratings, and eliminate the "Level 2" rating category from the five-point scale — what the administration has called the largest overhaul of the government's performance management system in 30 years.

For federal employees, this means:

• If you are currently rated at any grade level, the proposed rule — if finalized — will change the standards by which you are evaluated, the comparisons made between you and your colleagues, and the ceiling on how many people in your organization can receive a top rating regardless of actual performance.
• The elimination of Level 2 ratings and the cap on top ratings are not just administrative technicalities. They directly affect your eligibility for within-grade increases, promotions, performance awards, and your standing in a RIF retention register, where performance is one of the four factors determining who stays and who goes.
• The comment period has closed. OPM is under no legal obligation to adopt the criticism. But a final rule that implements a forced distribution system contrary to existing statutory requirements is potentially challengeable in court.

Legal Insight:
Under 5 U.S.C. § 4302, agency performance appraisal systems must evaluate each employee's performance against written standards that are specific to their position. A forced distribution system that caps how many employees can receive a particular rating — regardless of individual performance against stated standards — creates a direct tension with that statutory requirement. If you receive a lower rating under a forced distribution system than your actual performance against your written standards would support, the rating itself may be legally challengeable, particularly in the context of a subsequent adverse action or RIF proceeding in which that rating is used against you. Because performance ratings have downstream consequences that often become apparent only when an adverse action occurs, consider requesting a mid-cycle review in writing now, documenting your measurable work outcomes, and talking with your union and a qualified federal employment attorney about how the proposed rule, if finalized, would affect your specific situation.

Mindful Moment of the Day

Mindful Response to Vague Directions 

When you get a tasking that’s vague—“take a first cut at this” or “make this better”—it’s easy to spin in confusion or frustration. Pause, notice the urge to rush or guess, and take three slow breaths to settle your body first. Then write down two or three specific questions you need answered, like deadline, format, or examples, and calmly send them or ask in the next check‑in. Mindfulness here is the gap between “I have no idea” and “Here’s what I need to move forward.”