What are the political and fiscal arguments for freezing or modifying the 2026 federal pay raise?
This fact-check may be outdated. Consider refreshing it to get the most current information.
Executive summary
Freezing or modifying the 2026 federal pay raise has been justified by advocates of fiscal restraint as a tool to rein in projected compensation costs and realign priorities, while opponents argue it breaks longstanding parity norms, undermines recruitment and retention, and fails to match inflation or recommended comparability metrics [1] [2] [3]. The choice rests on competing political priorities—budget discipline versus workforce competitiveness—and on whether administrators use statutory discretion to target selective increases, such as for law‑enforcement roles, instead of broad locality adjustments [4] [2].
1. Fiscal discipline: controlling near‑term outlays and headline budget numbers
Proponents of a freeze point to the immediate budgetary impact of fully implementing the Federal Employees Pay Comparability Act (FEPCA) formula, which would have produced a roughly 3.3% across‑the‑board raise plus large locality adjustments and, by one administration estimate, locality increases that could have cost $24 billion in the first year alone if allowed to take effect [5] [4]. The White House alternative—finalizing a 1% base increase while holding locality pay at 2025 levels—was explicitly pitched as a way to rein in those large, concentrated fiscal effects and to maintain “fiscal discipline” amid shifting budget priorities [1] [6].
2. Targeted exceptions and political signaling: selective boosts for priority missions
Administrations often preserve discretion to grant larger raises for narrowly defined groups even while freezing broader locality adjustments, and the 2026 approach did precisely that by authorizing OPM to consider additional increases for some federal law‑enforcement personnel to align with a 3.8% military raise [2] [6]. That mix serves a dual political purpose: it signals support for high‑visibility national security and law‑enforcement roles while limiting across‑the‑board costs, an approach that appeals to constituencies focused on public safety and the armed forces [2] [4].
3. Labor and workforce competitiveness: parity, morale and recruitment risks
Opponents — including unions and advocacy groups — frame freezes as harmful to retention and recruitment, noting the federal workforce already trails private‑sector pay by a substantial margin in many localities and that the Federal Salary Council and associations like NARFE recommended larger increases to close an estimated pay gap near 25% [5] [7]. Unions argued the 1% plan — and frozen locality pay — breaks a long‑standing expectation of parity with service members and the private sector and could exacerbate turnover, particularly in high‑cost areas where locality pay matters most [8] [7].
4. Political calculus: Congress, unions and the power to modify the plan
Even after a presidential pay plan or executive order, Congress retains leverage through appropriations and can override or modify proposals during the spending process, which turns the pay question into a political tug‑of‑war between the administration’s fiscal framing and congressional or union pressure for larger adjustments [9] [2]. That dynamic creates incentives on both sides: administrators emphasize budget limits and reform packaging, while unions and some lawmakers push legislative fixes or retrofit higher raises in appropriations bills to protect members and preserve precedent [1] [8].
5. Longer‑term reform vs. short‑term cuts: structural arguments for modifying how pay is set
Beyond immediate dollar savings, some defenders of modification or freeze argue for structural reform—merit‑based adjustments, updated job classifications, and more agency flexibility—to make federal pay more market‑responsive rather than relying solely on the FEPCA formula and large locality spikes [1]. Critics counter that reform rhetoric can mask short‑term savings goals and that delaying locality adjustments shifts rather than solves competitiveness gaps, leaving agencies to face larger catch‑up pressures later [1] [10].