What steps can federal employees take if the 2026 raise is less than expected?
This fact-check may be outdated. Consider refreshing it to get the most current information.
Executive summary
Federal employees face a likely small 2026 raise under the White House alternative pay plan—most civilians would get about a 1% across‑the‑board increase while certain law‑enforcement roles could receive ~3.8% [1] [2]. OPM’s FEPCA formula recommended a substantially larger 3.3% base raise plus large locality adjustments (average locality 18.88%), and unions and House Democrats have proposed bills to restore larger increases [3] [4].
1. What the proposals actually say — two competing pay pictures
Federal pay guidance and proposals for 2026 diverge sharply: the Office of Personnel Management’s statutory FEPCA calculation would have produced a 3.3% across‑the‑board raise plus large locality adjustments (average locality ~18.88%) that in some metros could exceed 20% total, whereas the White House alternative pay plan transmitted to Congress calls for a 1% base increase and freezes locality pay at 2025 levels, with a 3.8% special increase targeted to some law‑enforcement positions [3] [2] [1].
2. What employees can do immediately — practical, record‑level steps
Federal employees should: Confirm their expected pay action and effective date with agency payroll/HR and OPM announcements (OPM and agency pages are being used to publish special rate tables and effective dates) [5] [2]; track union and congressional efforts—AFGE and others have introduced bills and public campaigns to press for higher raises or restore FEPCA parity [4] [6]; review benefits changes that affect take‑home pay (notably announced FEHB premium hikes averaging double digits) and adjust budgets accordingly [7] [8].
3. Using unions and Congress — leverage channels that have produced results
Unions and sympathetic lawmakers are actively pursuing fixes: AFGE and other unions have publicly criticized the administration’s alternative plan and backed legislation (for instance bills seeking a 4.3% adjustment or restoring FEPCA‑level increases) that, if enacted, would change the raise amount [4] [6]. Historically, Congress has the final say on actual pay adjustments; employees can press their representatives, join union lobbying, and support legislative language that restores larger raises [1] [4].
4. Administrative and legal avenues — what reporting shows is available
The president transmits an alternative pay plan under statutes that set the process; OPM then implements special rates and agency coverage decisions [5]. If Congress objects, it can pass different pay legislation or attach provisions to appropriation bills. Sources describe the legal/administrative path but do not report a ready legal remedy for individual employees beyond collective bargaining or statutory change [5] [1]. Available sources do not mention a specific court case that would compel higher pay.
5. Budget and benefits context — why a small raise matters now
A 1% across‑the‑board increase would be the smallest in recent years and comes amid steep benefit cost shifts: FEHB premiums are projected to rise dramatically (averaging 12.3% in one union’s announcement and reported similarly by Government Executive), which can erode any modest raise’s purchasing power [9] [7] [8]. The gap between the FEPCA recommendation and the administration’s plan is the core dispute described across reporting [3] [2].
6. Personal finance steps to blunt an inadequate raise
Reporting suggests employees should plan assuming modest base increases: tighten cash flow, revisit health plan elections given steep premium rises, and investigate supplemental employer‑offered benefit options (news coverage urges employees to “strategically approach” pay changes and benefits to protect income) [3] [8]. Agencies and benefits offices will publish special rate tables and effective dates—employees must act before open‑season or enrollment deadlines [5] [2].
7. Political and hidden agendas — fiscal posture versus recruitment/retention
The administration frames its alternative pay plan as fiscal discipline and workforce streamlining; critics and unions contend it undermines recruitment and retention and breaks long‑standing parity practices with the military [1] [2] [6]. Unions are motivated both by member welfare and by political leverage; the White House is motivated by budget priorities—each side’s public messaging reflects these institutional agendas [1] [4].
8. What to watch next — decision points and timelines
Key upcoming items to monitor in agency and congressional reporting: OPM’s release of special rate tables and definitions of which law‑enforcement groups get the higher 3.8% increase, congressional floor action or amendments to appropriations or pay statutes, union lobbying outcomes, and final FEHB premium notices that will determine net take‑home effects [5] [1] [8]. These published actions will determine whether the 1% plan holds or Congress/OPM alters pay for subsets of the workforce [5] [1].
Limitations: this summary relies solely on the provided reporting and government releases; available sources do not mention specific litigation strategies to force a larger raise nor do they provide district‑level locality tables for final pay outcomes beyond the summaries cited [5] [3].