HR-5750-119
Placed on the Union Calendar, Calendar No. 524.
Sponsored by Brandon Gill (R-TX)
What it does
This bill would extend the probationary period for new federal employees in the competitive service from 1 year to 2 years, and would create a new 2-year trial period for employees in the excepted service. Veterans with hiring preference ("preference eligibles") would retain a 1-year period. The bill would also raise the continuous service threshold required before an employee gains access to certain adverse-action appeal rights from 1 year to 2 years, and would require agencies to affirmatively certify — to the Office of Personnel Management within 30 days of the period's end — that retaining each employee advances the public interest, or the employee is automatically terminated.
Who benefits
Federal agencies and agency heads, who would gain a longer window to evaluate new hires and broader discretion to decline to retain employees without triggering full adverse-action procedures. The Office of Personnel Management, which would gain a new oversight and certification role. Taxpayers who believe a more rigorous vetting process produces a more effective civil service. Applicants who ultimately are retained, as the certification requirement may prompt more structured performance feedback. FAA and TSA, which are explicitly brought under the new framework.
Who is hurt
New federal employees hired after the effective date, who would face a longer period of reduced job security and delayed access to adverse-action appeal rights. Non-veteran employees are disproportionately affected relative to veterans, who retain the 1-year period. Federal employee unions, whose members would have fewer procedural protections during the extended period. Employees in positions requiring lengthy formal training or licensure, whose 2-year clock does not begin until training or licensing is complete — potentially extending the at-will period significantly. Agencies themselves may face higher administrative burdens from the mandatory certification process.
Supporters argue
Supporters argue that the current 1-year probationary period is too short to meaningfully evaluate performance in complex federal roles, many of which involve multi-year training pipelines or require specialized licenses before full duties begin. They contend that the automatic-termination default with an affirmative retention certification requirement creates genuine accountability, replacing a system where probationary employees are often retained by inertia rather than demonstrated merit. They further argue that raising the continuous-service threshold for adverse-action appeal rights to 2 years aligns employee protections with the new probationary timeline, preventing employees from gaining full civil service tenure protections before their fitness has been adequately assessed.
Opponents argue
Opponents argue that doubling the probationary period — and making automatic termination the default unless an agency affirmatively certifies retention — fundamentally shifts the federal employment relationship in ways that could deter qualified candidates from choosing public service over private-sector jobs with greater stability. They contend that the "public interest" certification standard is vague and grants agency heads "sole and exclusive discretion," creating conditions for politically motivated terminations that circumvent existing civil service merit protections. They further argue that delaying adverse-action appeal rights until 2 years of service removes a key check on arbitrary or discriminatory dismissals during an extended vulnerable period.
Constitutional context
Congress has broad authority to structure the federal civil service under Article II and its Article I appropriations and necessary-and-proper powers. No enumerated-power challenge is likely here. However, the bill's grant of "sole and exclusive discretion" to agency heads for retention certifications, combined with OPM's implementing role, could face post-Loper Bright scrutiny if OPM issues regulations that go beyond the bill's text — courts would now independently assess whether those rules are authorized rather than deferring to OPM's interpretation.
Checks and balances
The executive branch — specifically agency heads and OPM — gains expanded authority over federal employee retention; Congress retains oversight through the Committee on Oversight and Government Reform, and affected employees retain limited judicial review of terminations that violate constitutional protections such as the Due Process Clause.
Historical precedent
The Civil Service Reform Act of 1978 established the current 1-year probationary period and the adverse-action appeal framework this bill would modify, and has been the baseline for federal employment law for over four decades.