OPM Final Rule Allows Federal Agencies to Fire Employees for Post-Appointment Conduct Using Expedited 'Suitability Actions'

The U.S. Office of Personnel Management (OPM) has finalized a sweeping regulatory change that fundamentally alters how the federal government disciplines its workforce. Published on June 30, 2026, the "Suitability and Fitness" final rule grants OPM and federal agencies the authority to fire current employees for serious misconduct using expedited "suitability actions."[1]

Taking effect on July 30, the regulation closes what administration officials describe as a long-standing accountability gap. Previously, suitability actions—which can include removal and a government-wide debarment for up to three years—were primarily used to screen out applicants before they were hired.[2]

Once an individual entered federal service, agencies generally lost the ability to use the suitability process for newly discovered misconduct. Instead, they had to rely on standard adverse action procedures under Chapter 75 of Title 5.

OPM Director Scott Kupor argued that this created an illogical double standard. "For too long, the federal government has had stronger tools to prevent someone with serious misconduct from entering public service than to address the same misconduct once that individual is already employed," Kupor stated.

The roots of this regulatory divide trace back to a 2011 decision by the Merit Systems Protection Board (MSPB). In that case, the independent board ruled that OPM could not take a suitability action against a federal employee based on conduct that occurred after they were hired.

From that point forward, agencies wanting to remove an employee for post-appointment misconduct were funneled almost entirely into the Chapter 75 process. While Chapter 75 provides robust due process—including 30 days of advance written notice, the right to an oral reply, and a full evidentiary hearing before the MSPB—agency managers have long criticized it as slow and cumbersome.

The new rule erases the pre- and post-appointment distinction. Going forward, if a trusted employee engages in serious misconduct, their agency can refer the case to OPM. OPM then has the sole authority to make a final suitability determination and direct the employee's removal.[1][2]

Beyond changing the procedural pathway, the final rule expands the specific types of conduct that can render a federal worker "unsuitable" for public service. The updated criteria now explicitly include failing to file timely tax returns, the theft or misuse of government resources, and failing to comply with nondisclosure obligations.

These additions directly implement directives from a March 2025 Presidential Memorandum and a February 2025 executive order tied to the administration's "Department of Government Efficiency" workforce optimization initiative.[1]

While the administration champions the rule as a necessary modernization of the civil service, federal employee unions and advocacy groups have raised severe alarms. During the public comment period, the rule received over 1,400 submissions, many warning that the change circumvents established due process protections.

Critics argue that by shifting disciplinary actions from Chapter 75 to the suitability framework, the government is effectively bypassing the MSPB's rigorous evidentiary standards. The National Active and Retired Federal Employees Association (NARFE) cautioned that the rule could be used to bypass performance-based review processes designed to ensure merit-based terminations.[3]

Further compounding these concerns is a separate, pending OPM proposal from February 2026. That companion rule would change the venue where appeals of suitability actions are heard, moving them away from the independent MSPB and placing them under OPM's own jurisdiction.[2][3]

Labor advocates warn that consolidating both the firing authority and the appeals process within OPM—an agency headed by a presidential appointee—could enable politically motivated dismissals under the guise of suitability.[3]

For agency human resources and security offices, the immediate practical impact will depend entirely on how aggressively OPM chooses to use its newly reclaimed authority. Agencies retain the discretion to pursue ordinary discipline under Chapter 75 instead of referring a case to OPM.[2]

If OPM reserves suitability actions only for the most egregious cases—such as severe fraud or criminal behavior—agencies may see only a modest shift in how misconduct is handled. However, if OPM adopts a broader approach, it could fundamentally reshape the federal disciplinary landscape.[2]

The regulatory shift arrives as the federal government expands its "Trusted Workforce 2.0" continuous vetting initiatives. As automated systems increasingly flag real-time risk indicators for current employees, agencies will now have a faster, OPM-directed mechanism to remove those deemed unfit for continued service.[2]

Legal challenges are widely expected. Prior federal court rulings have held that OPM-directed removals are still technically adverse actions that require full MSPB appeal rights, setting the stage for a high-stakes judicial battle over the limits of executive branch authority over the civil service.[4]