Federal employee pay raise for 2026
This fact-check may be outdated. Consider refreshing it to get the most current information.
Executive summary
President Trump submitted an alternative 2026 federal pay plan that would raise base pay by 1.0% and freeze locality pay, while giving certain federal law‑enforcement categories a 3.8% boost [1] [2]. That proposal contrasts with what the statutory FEPCA/OPM formula would produce — roughly a 3.3% across‑the‑board base raise plus large locality adjustments (average locality +18.88%) — and Congress still must act to set final pay rates [3] [4].
1. A President’s plan vs. the statutory recommendation: two very different price tags
The Office of Personnel Management’s statutory comparability formula — the Federal Employees Pay Comparability Act (FEPCA) mechanics — would have produced a 3.3% base increase for 2026 (ECI-based) and locality increases that OPM estimated would average 18.88%, creating a much larger overall adjustment than the White House proposed [3] [4]. The Trump alternative pay plan, submitted Aug. 28, 2025, instructs OPM to implement a 1.0% across‑the‑board base pay increase and to leave locality pay at current rates, while carving out a 3.8% raise for certain law‑enforcement employees [1] [2].
2. Who wins and who loses under the White House plan
Most civilian federal employees would see a modest, 1% boost if the White House plan were adopted — the smallest annual increase since 2021, according to union leaders — and locality pay freezes would mean workers in high‑cost metro areas forego the much larger adjustments the FEPCA formula would have produced [5] [6] [1]. By contrast, particular law‑enforcement categories would be aligned with the 3.8% military increase, an explicit targeted increase intended to address recruitment/retention in those roles [2] [4].
3. The politics: Congress holds the final pen
An administration’s “alternative pay plan” is a recommendation; Congress must approve or set pay raises in law. Multiple labor groups and unions have publicly pushed back, advocating for a larger adjustment — for example, AFGE and NARFE criticized the 1% plan and backed proposals for a higher, across‑the‑board raise [6] [7]. Historically, Congress often accepts the president’s proposal, but it is not bound to do so; the legislative branch can enact the OPM‑recommended increases, the administration’s plan, or an altogether different outcome [3] [2].
4. Unions and retiree groups frame the debate as affordability vs. parity
Unions emphasize that health‑insurance premium hikes and inflation erode take‑home pay, arguing a 1% bump won’t keep pace with costs for active employees and annuitants [5]. Organizations representing retirees and active employees criticized the plan as below market and below parity with other federal pay precedents; at the same time, the administration frames the smaller raise and frozen locality pay as a fiscal‑discipline decision in the broader budget [7] [1].
5. Conflicting public reporting and alternative calculations in the press
Some outlets and advocacy sites report alternative figures — for instance, certain sites published an expected or “unofficial” 2% or 2.0% across‑the‑board projection for 2026 or even described a pay freeze, reflecting either early budget language or differing interpretations of the president’s budget technical supplements [8] [9] [10]. Those variations underscore that numerous organizations publish interim estimates that can diverge from the administration’s submitted plan or the OPM formula until Congress acts [8] [10].
6. What federal workers should watch and practical timing
Final pay tables are typically issued by OPM in December each year and take effect the first full pay period in January; Congress must approve appropriations or legislation that can alter or confirm those rates [2] [4]. Union campaigns, Congressional negotiations over the continuing resolution or appropriations, and any statutory action on FEPCA‑mandated adjustments will determine whether the 1% White House proposal, a larger OPM formula result, or a different path becomes law [6] [3].
7. Limitations and what’s not covered
Available sources in this packet do not mention final Congressional action taken after the White House submission or any signed legislation enacting a specific 2026 pay table; they also do not include the December OPM pay tables that normally finalize rates (not found in current reporting). Readers should treat the White House plan as a proposal, the OPM/FEPCA values as a statutory calculation, and Congress as the ultimate arbiter [2] [3].
Bottom line: the administration’s 1% across‑the‑board plus targeted 3.8% law‑enforcement increase is the defining proposal for 2026 wages in current reporting, but it directly contradicts the higher FEPCA/OPM formula result and faces organized union opposition and Congressional decision points before it becomes reality [1] [3] [6].