Trump Administration Reclassifies Hundreds of HHS Workers, Easing Path to Firings

WASHINGTON — The Trump administration on Friday took a fresh step to loosen job safeguards for federal health workers. An email sent to employees at several agencies within the Department of Health and Human Services notified them that colleagues faced reclassification under a new category known as Schedule P/C.

This move strips away traditional civil service protections. It makes dismissal simpler. And it reflects years of effort to reshape the bureaucracy.

The email, reviewed by Reuters, said the initial impact at HHS would hit “on the order of hundreds, not thousands.” Additional groups would follow in later rounds. An HHS official confirmed the message’s authenticity. The changes finalize previously announced reductions in force. No new mass layoffs are planned, the official added.

Broader Push to Remake Federal Workforce Gains New Momentum

The reclassification revives elements of a plan once called Schedule F. That earlier version aimed to shift policy-influencing roles out of standard civil service rules. Now renamed Schedule Policy/Career, or P/C, it targets employees whose work shapes or executes administration priorities.

In February, the Office of Personnel Management issued a final rule on the category. It estimated up to 50,000 career federal employees across government could lose appeal rights before the Merit Systems Protection Board. Federal News Network reported the details. Affected workers would find it far easier to face suspension, demotion or removal. They could still pursue discrimination claims in court. Yet the streamlined process for challenging discipline vanishes.

OPM officials defended the change. They argued agencies struggle with misconduct and poor performance. “It will give agencies the practical ability to separate employees who insert partisanship into their official duties, engage in corruption or otherwise fail to uphold merit principles,” the agency stated. White House Press Secretary Karoline Leavitt put it bluntly. “If people aren’t doing their jobs, if they aren’t showing up for work, if they’re not working hard on behalf of this president, they’re not welcome to work for him at all.”

OPM Director Scott Kupor echoed the point. Employees may disagree with presidential priorities. But active efforts to undermine them cross a line. Senior advisor Noah Peters described a “crisis” of misconduct in federal ranks. Public comments on the proposal ran heavily against it. Some 94% of more than 40,000 responses opposed the rule. Unions and good-government groups warned it would politicize the civil service and invite retaliation.

Yet the administration pressed ahead. The rule followed an executive order that tightened probationary periods. It required managers to certify in writing that a new hire advances the public interest before granting full status. Earlier this year, mass terminations of probationary employees — often recent hires with limited protections — swept through HHS, the CDC, NIH and other agencies. Courts issued mixed rulings. One judge deemed the initial wave unlawful but declined to force broad reinstatements. The Supreme Court allowed parts to proceed during appeals.

At HHS, the latest email ties directly to those earlier reduction-in-force plans. The department has already shed significant staff. Reports from 2025 detailed layoffs of thousands, including probationary scientists and public-health specialists. Some notices went out during a government shutdown. Others targeted specific programs in disease control, biodefense and mental health. Reversals followed in certain cases after public backlash or legal pressure. But the overall direction stayed clear. Shrink the workforce. Increase managerial flexibility.

Friday’s action lands amid parallel efforts on collective bargaining. In August 2025, HHS moved to end union recognition for thousands of employees across the CDC, FDA, NIH and other components. It reclaimed office space and equipment used for union work. The Associated Press covered the announcement. HHS spokesman Andrew Nixon said the step would keep resources “fully focused on safeguarding the health and security of the American people.”

The American Federation of Government Employees called it illegal. Union leaders insisted contracts bolster stability and expertise, especially at agencies like the CDC. They pointed to the union’s role after an August attack at the CDC’s Atlanta campus. It helped improve emergency communications and security protocols. Strong workforce relations, they argued, aid rather than hinder public health responses.

This fits a wider pattern. The administration has targeted unions at the Department of Veterans Affairs and Environmental Protection Agency too. A May appeals court decision let an executive order limiting bargaining rights move forward while litigation continues.

Critics see a systematic attack on institutional knowledge. Federal health agencies lost experienced staff in waves throughout 2025. Probationary firings hit hardest at CDC and NIH. Numbers reached into the thousands before some reinstatements. Programs on outbreak response, addiction services and community health felt the strain. Supporters counter that government grew bloated. They say accountability suffered. Political loyalty tests, they insist, were never the goal. Performance was.

But the practical effect is unmistakable. Hundreds of HHS employees now sit in a more precarious spot. Their reclassification removes layers of due process built over decades. Future tranches could expand the number. Agencies must now compile position lists for White House review. President Trump will make final calls on who falls under the new rules.

Democrats in Congress have introduced bills to protect the civil service. Lawsuits from unions and advocacy groups are expected. One coalition led by Democracy Forward has signaled plans to challenge the Schedule P/C framework in court. Sen. Chris Van Hollen and others vow to fight both legislatively and judicially.

For now, the machinery moves. An email on a Friday afternoon. A policy finalized months earlier. Hundreds of health department workers with reduced safeguards. The administration frames it as efficiency. Opponents call it erosion of independence. The outcome will shape how the government handles future health crises, drug approvals and scientific research for years ahead.

So the stakes sit high. Public health depends on stable expertise. Yet management demands clear lines of authority. Balancing those tensions has never been simple. This latest chapter adds new pressure to an already strained system.