House Republicans advance plan to cut federal worker benefits and undermine civil service protections

This story has been updated at 3 p.m. ET, May 1.

Republicans on the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee voted Wednesday mostly along party lines to advance a series of proposals that would require federal workers to pay more toward their retirement benefits and reduce the value of those benefits, despite criticism from Democrats and one of their own members.

As part of the GOP’s effort to pass legislation under budget reconciliation to extend and expand tax cuts for the wealthy first implemented during President Trump’s first term, the panel’s leadership unveiled plans to reduce federal spending by $50 billion, mostly by making federal workers’ contribute more toward the defined benefit portion of their retirement benefits, while simultaneously changing the formula to calculate their monthly annuity payment to be less generous.

Included in the measure is a provision that would require federal workers hired before 2014, who were previously held harmless by Congress’ last foray into reducing federal workforce benefits more than a decade ago, to pay 4.4% of their basic pay toward the Federal Employees Retirement System. And it requires new hires to elect between waiving their civil service protections, becoming at-will employees, or paying an additional 5% of their basic pay toward their FERS annuity.

The legislation also changes the formula for calculating a federal retiree’s FERS annuity from one based on the average of their highest three years of salary to one based on the highest five years, and it eliminates the FERS supplement for employees who retire before Social Security kicks in at 62, though exceptions exist for jobs with a mandatory retirement age like federal law enforcement and air traffic controllers. The elimination of the FERS supplement would occur on the date of the bill's enactment, while the High-5 annuity calculation will take effect for employees who retire Jan. 1, 2027 or later.

Also in the bill are the establishment of a new $350 fee for federal workers to file appeals with the Merit Systems Protection Board, as well as a requirement that the Office of Personnel Management audit the Federal Employees Health Benefits Program for dependents who are no longer eligible for coverage.

Committee Chairman James Comer, R-Ky., justified the cuts by citing a 2024 Congressional Budget Office report that found that feds receive 43% more in benefits than their counterparts in the private sector, though he neglected to mention that same report also found they are paid 10% less on average than those outside government. Indeed, the Bureau of Labor Statistics and the Federal Salary Council have found that the salary gap is even larger, reaching nearly 25% last year.

“The simple truth is a significant amount of the cost associated with federal employees’ benefits are funded by hardworking taxpayers in the private sector, and now increasingly government borrowing,” Comer said.

Democrats, for their part, railed against the proposals, calling them a “betrayal” to hard working civil servants, particularly those already close to retirement.

“This is an outright theft of earned benefits, costing each employee thousands of dollars per year,” said Rep. Stephen Lynch, D-Mass., the panel’s interim ranking member. “And particularly egregious is the plan to force any newly hired employee to accept at-will employment—with no civil service protections—or face an additional 5% contribution on top of the 4.4% that’s already required. Those who choose to remain under the merit-based system with employment protections would be forced to contribute nearly 10% of their paycheck toward retirement at the same time that we’re reducing the amount of that retirement.”

Rep. Melanie Stansbury, D-N.M., described the choice between an employee’s civil service protections or paying more into their retirement as “extortion,” as well as an end-run around the 1978 Civil Service Reform Act.

“After Richard Nixon resigned, there were major overhauls done to the federal service, exactly because of the corruption and the way in which Nixon used the federal workforce to carry out his own personal political vendetta, there were major reforms in the 1970s, because we wanted to protect employees from being used as political agents of whoever was in power,” she said. “This idea of trying to convert federal workers into at-will employees undoes all of the good government reforms put into place after Nixon to protect the workforce.”

Republicans beat back a slew of amendments aimed at reducing the retirement provisions’ impact on federal workers in a series of party line votes. But Rep. Mike Turner, R-Ohio, who opposed the proposals’ application to current employees, said he has spoken to other House Republicans and expressed confidence the measures would ultimately be stripped from the bill before its passage.

“Making changes to pensions and retirement benefits in the middle of someone’s employment is wrong,” he said. “Changing the rules, especially when someone has already been vested in their benefits, is wrong. Employee benefits are not a gift, they’re earned . . . I understand the need for reform, and we can certainly have changes occur for the benefits of new hires, but for current employees, to change the rules for people in the middle of the game is just wrong.”

Correction: An earlier version of this story stated that the change in the formula for calculating federal retirees' annuity benefits was effective on the bill's date of enactment. The correct effective date is Jan. 1, 2027.