Keep Factually independent
Whether you agree or disagree with our analysis, these conversations matter for democracy. We don't take money from political groups - even a $5 donation helps us keep it that way.
Which federal agency issued the reclassification of professional degrees under the Trump administration?
Executive summary
The reclassification of thousands of federal employees under the Trump administration was implemented by the White House via an executive order that directed changes to civil service hiring and classifications—often described as reinstating the previously proposed “Schedule F” or creating a similar “Schedule Policy/Career” classification—linked to the Office of Personnel Management (OPM) rulemaking process and spearheaded by the President’s executive action [1] [2]. Reporting and state responses frame the move as an administration-driven reclassification intended to make many policy-related civil servants easier to fire, and several states and attorneys general have formally opposed the OPM proposal tied to that effort [1] [2].
1. What actually issued the reclassification: an executive order and OPM rulemaking
The immediate instrument for the reclassification was an executive order from President Trump, posted on the White House website and described in coverage as effectively reinstating “Schedule F,” which changed civil‑service rules to reclassify broad categories of career federal employees [1]. That executive action directed agencies and the personnel system to alter classifications and set in motion rulemaking at the Office of Personnel Management (OPM), which is the federal agency responsible for civil‑service policy and thus the administrative vehicle for a new Schedule Policy/Career rule [1] [2].
2. How reporters and officials describe who did the work: White House policy plus OPM implementation
News outlets, legal filings and state attorneys general—all citing the same sequence—attribute the policy to the Trump White House as the originator and to OPM as the implementer: the President signed the order and OPM proposed or drafted the related rule to create the new classification [1] [2]. In short: the White House issued the directive; OPM was the federal agency charged with translating that directive into personnel regulation [1] [2].
3. What the reclassification sought to change: from protected career status to at‑will classifications
Coverage and state statements explain the substance: the policy would strip long‑standing civil‑service protections from many policy‑related employees—analysts, attorneys, scientists, regulators—redefining them into an at‑will status similar to political hires and making them easier to fire [2] [1]. Critics note that the proposed Schedule Policy/Career is a reprise of the earlier Schedule F idea that in its prior incarnation was estimated to potentially affect tens of thousands of workers [2].
4. Who objected and on what grounds: multistate opposition and legal concerns
At least 19 state attorneys general joined a coalition opposing the OPM proposed rule, warning it would remove due‑process protections, politicize the civil service, and hinder states’ ability to rely on consistent federal partners in areas from disaster response to program administration [2]. News coverage similarly framed the executive order as turning career civil servants into political appointees and warned of negative effects on government impartiality and performance [1].
5. Competing framings: administration’s stated intent vs. critics’ warnings
The White House framed sweeping personnel changes across prior policy areas as a corrective to what it viewed as bureaucratic overreach; contemporaneous reporting on other Trump executive actions emphasizes a pattern of directing agencies to change hiring and oversight [3]. Critics, including state officials and press outlets, portrayed the Schedule F/Policy approach as a partisan effort to politicize the civil service and degrade institutional expertise [2] [1]. Both framings appear in the record: the action was initiated by the President and operationalized through OPM rulemaking, while opponents have mobilized legally and politically in response [1] [2] [3].
6. Limitations and gaps in available reporting
Available sources document the executive order and the OPM proposal and relay reactions, but do not in this set provide the full text of the final OPM regulation, a concrete, audited count of exactly how many positions would be reclassified under the new rule, or subsequent court rulings resolving the legal challenges [2] [1]. For those specifics—final regulatory text, scope by agency, or outcome of litigation—available sources do not mention detailed figures or final legal outcomes in the materials provided [2] [1].
7. Bottom line for readers: who issued it and whom to watch for next
The reclassification originated with a presidential executive order from the White House and was implemented through rulemaking at the Office of Personnel Management—meaning the White House set policy and OPM was the federal agency charged with carrying it out [1] [2]. Watch for OPM rule texts, federal regulatory filings, and court filings from states and unions for definitive answers on scope, implementation, and legal fate [2] [1].