OPM tells court it never ordered mass firings, contradicting prior claims

The Trump administration told a federal court this week it did not issue a governmentwide directive to fire newly hired federal workers, a claim that runs contrary to its previous statements and accounts from agency officials. 

The Office of Personnel Management is fighting in court to preserve the widespread dismissals of federal employees in their probationary periods after facing a lawsuit from the American Federation of Government Employees. Judge William Alsup from the U.S. District for Northern California asked the Trump administration whether it ordered the firings of mostly new hires, which has impacted at least 25,000 employees throughout government. 

“OPM did not direct agencies to terminate probationary employees, based either on performance or misconduct,” the Justice Department attorneys said in a written response to Alsup, citing a declaration from acting OPM Director Charles Ezell. 

That claim appears to contradict significant evidence to the contrary. Shortly after President Trump’s inauguration, Ezell issued guidance requiring all agencies to compile lists of their probationary employees and send them to OPM. Agencies subsequently had to justify those employees’ roles to OPM and in some cases were instructed to do so in a limited timeframe and with only 200 characters.  

On Feb. 13, OPM had a call with agency human resources leaders directing them to begin terminating employees in their probationary periods, a source familiar told Government Executive at the time. That call was widely reported. 

On Feb. 14, OPM followed up on that call with a memorandum to the Chief Human Capital Officers Council with the subject "Follow up: CHCO Council Special Session." 

"We have asked that you separate probationary employees that you have not identified as mission-critical no later than end of day Monday, 2/17," OPM wrote in the memo. "We have attached a template letter. The separation date should be as soon as possible that is consistent with applicable agency policies." 

In the letters provided to probationary employees across government, agencies directly stated the workers were being terminated due to performance. 

“The agency finds, based on your performance, that you have not demonstrated that your further employment at the agency would be in the public interest,” Ezell wrote in termination notices sent to his own employees at OPM. Letters sent to employees at other agencies used nearly identical language. 

Rep. Mark Takano, D-Calif., the top Democrat on the House Veterans Affairs Committee, this week at a hearing asked Tracey Therit, the chief human capital officer at VA, who in her chain of command ordered the firings of probationary employees at her department. 

“There was direction from the Office of Personnel Management,” Therit responded. 

Asked if she wrote the memorandum that VA provided to terminated employees, Therit said, “The memo was provided for my signature.” She declined to say who provided it. 

Therit added she would provide more details to Takano in writing, but had not done so as of Thursday afternoon, according to a committee aide. 

The U.S. District Court held a hearing on Thursday to consider whether to grant a temporary restraining order on the firings. At the request of the Office of Special Counsel, the Merit Systems Protection Board ordered six fired probationary employees to be at least temporarily reinstated into their jobs. MSPB affirmed OSC’s findings that the firings were likely unlawful, and the latter agency is now investigating how to expand its recommendations for a much broader population.