Federal employees are getting more details on what to expect if they appeal an adverse action, following the Trump administration’s finalization of an overhaul to the government’s avenues for challenging agencies.

Guidance that the Office of Personnel Management released on Monday explains what the appeals process will look like for employees if they dispute a firing or demotion during a reduction in force (RIF), while serving in a probationary period or due to a suitability action.

Starting Sept. 2, OPM will take over the adjudication process for all appeals across those three categories — removing the authority from the Merit Systems Protection Board, where it has been for decades.

After the Trump administration released three final rules last week, OPM’s implementation guidance outlines several significant changes in the adjudication process.

Notably, following the transition next month, federal employees who file appeals will no longer have a right to a hearing or a formal investigation. Instead, OPM in most cases will rely exclusively on the written record to adjudicate appeals and issue decisions.

In some limited instances, at its own discretion, OPM will still conduct hearings or investigations, but “only when necessary and efficient,” one of its guidance documents states.

In the implementation guidance, OPM said removing federal employees’ “categorical right” to appeal hearings will streamline and speed up decisions in their cases.

But federal workforce experts and former MSPB officials have raised concerns that taking those steps out of the process will erode due process for federal employees, and lead to OPM “rubber stamping” many appeals.

Going forward, OPM’s Merit System Accountability and Compliance (MSAC) office will handle RIF and probationary appeals, while its Suitability Executive Agent (SuitEA) will take over appeals that employees file against agencies after a suitability-related adverse action.

Federal unions and other employee groups have contended that the appeals changes mean federal employees will no longer see an impartial process, with OPM serving as both the policy-setting entity on the front end and the adjudicator of personnel actions on the back end.

“Suitability and RIF appeals belong before a neutral body like the MSPB, not a federal agency dedicated to carrying out the administration’s agenda like OPM,” the National Treasury Employees Union said earlier this year. “OPM claims that it is ‘streamlining’ appeals, but the result will be a less fair process for federal employees.”

In response to the concerns, OPM said in its guidance that as a “structural safeguard,” its adjudicators will be “insulated from anyone involved in the challenged action.”

The Trump administration’s changes apply to appeals employees file on or after Sept. 2, the day that the final rules take full effect. Appeals already in process, and any that get filed prior to that date, will still go to the MSPB for adjudication.

“The rules draw a clean line between old and new cases. Nothing pending is disrupted, reopened or nullified,” OPM wrote. “In practical terms, MSPB will finish the cases it has, and OPM will take new ones.”

OPM also outlined the general steps and timeline for adjudicating appeals. Initially, employees will have 30 days to file an appeal with OPM, following the date of the agency’s action.

Agencies will get 30 days to file their response to the appellant, which should include the reason for the action and all personnel and agency records related to the case.

The employee then gets 15 days to reply to the agency’s filings, with an opportunity to submit additional allegations based on the content of the agency’s submitted record.

After that, adjudicators at OPM will review the case and issue an initial decision, in most cases based only on the written record.

OPM is also adding the possibility for a “director review” in certain cases.

“Before a decision becomes final, the OPM director may, on the director’s own initiative, reopen and reconsider any initial or reconsidered decision, considering factors such as clear legal error, erroneous material factual findings or issues of exceptional or governmentwide importance,” the guidance states.

Once OPM issues a decision in the case, appellants and agencies have 30 days to request that OPM’s decision be reconsidered, if desired. If no requests are filed within that time, OPM’s initial decision becomes final.

OPM said the offices being tasked with running the appeals processes have prior experience adjudicating cases dealing with employee classifications, compensation and leave.

But some workforce experts have said it will be a challenge that MSAC staff do not have experience taking on adjudicatory work dealing specifically with firings and adverse actions, and questioned OPM’s overall capacity to add more to its workload.

OPM has seen a 35% staffing decrease under the Trump administration, and more than half of employees who left had at least a decade of experience working at the agency. A recent report from the Government Accountability Office warned that the recent changes have put OPM at risk of seeing its pre-existing skills gaps worsen.

Between fiscal 2024 and fiscal 2026, MSAC experienced a 41% staffing decline, GAO reported. OPM plans to use AI tools and modernize IT systems to support offices that now have lower staffing, according to the agency’s 2027 congressional budget justification. The OPM budget document also outlined plans to prepare MSAC for adopting the additional adjudicatory functions from MSPB.

“OPM has assessed expected case volume and staffing needs for each program and determined that SuitEA and MSAC can administer these appeals from day one,” OPM’s new guidance states. “OPM will monitor appeal volume, processing times and staffing throughout implementation and adjust as needed.”

If you would like to contact this reporter about recent changes in the federal government, please email drew.friedman@federalnewsnetwork.com or reach out on Signal at drewfriedman.11

Copyright © 2026 Federal News Network. All rights reserved. This website is not intended for users located within the European Economic Area.