Under President Trump, OPM Delivers a More Accountable and Effective Federal Workforce

The U.S. Office of Personnel Management (OPM) is the federal government’s central human resources agency. It:

• Manages federal civil service policies, including hiring, classification, and performance management.
• Coordinates recruiting and hiring for federal jobs (largely via USAJOBS) and sets government‑wide HR standards.
• Administers major benefit programs for federal employees and retirees, such as health insurance (FEHB), life insurance, and retirement (CSRS/FERS) systems.
• Provides HR guidance and oversight to agencies and collects workforce data for the executive branch.

In short, OPM is the federal government’s HR and personnel policy hub for about 2 million civilian employees.

Scott Kupor is the Director of the U.S. Office of Personnel Management (OPM). He was sworn in on July 14, 2025, after Senate confirmation, and previously spent nearly three decades in the private sector, including as a managing partner at the venture capital firm Andreessen Horowitz.

As OPM Director, he is the government’s chief personnel official for the civil service. Under 5 U.S.C. § 1103 and related statutes, the Director is responsible for administering federal personnel management, including:

• Developing and enforcing government‑wide rules and policies on hiring, classification, pay, performance, and workforce restructuring.
• Directing OPM staff and issuing guidance and regulations agencies must follow.

Many of the specific changes in the article (Deferred Resignation Program, HR 2.0, DEI rollbacks, etc.) were carried out under presidential executive orders from President Trump, with Kupor using this statutory authority to issue implementing guidance and regulations to agencies.

The Deferred Resignation Program (DRP) was a government‑wide, voluntary separation program created by OPM in January 2025 to accelerate downsizing of the federal workforce.

Key features:

• Employees could submit a deferred resignation effective September 30, 2025 (or an earlier date tied to their appointment), instead of quitting immediately.
• In return, they were generally placed on paid administrative leave for about eight months, kept their full pay and benefits, and were exempt from in‑person return‑to‑office mandates and most work duties during that period.
• Participants were also promised exemptions from certain reductions‑in‑force (RIFs) and from being reclassified into new categories like Schedule F during the deferral period.

Operationally, once an employee opted in and their agency accepted, their future resignation date was locked in. Agencies could then plan to abolish or restructure those positions effective at the end of FY 2025. Because the program offered full pay and benefits for a limited remaining period plus relief from return‑to‑office and layoff risk, it proved attractive to many workers who were already considering leaving. OPM reports in the article that about 154,000 employees chose this path, which are counted as voluntary resignations.

Federal Executive Institute (FEI):

• FEI, in Charlottesville, Virginia, was a residential training and leadership‑development center for senior federal executives, run by OPM. It offered programs like Leadership for a Democratic Society and other executive education and networking courses for GS‑15 and Senior Executive Service officials.
• On February 10, 2025, President Trump issued Executive Order 14207, “Eliminating the Federal Executive Institute,” directing OPM to abolish FEI and revoking earlier directives that created it. The order argued FEI primarily served and entrenched a Washington bureaucratic class rather than directly benefiting taxpayers.
• The OPM release in your article reflects carrying out that order: OPM “ended ineffective programs like the Federal Executive Institute,” as part of workforce and training cuts.

Federal Executive Boards (FEBs):

• FEBs were 26 regional interagency councils across the U.S. that coordinated federal agencies outside Washington, D.C., helped with emergency preparedness, workforce development, and communication between headquarters and field offices.
• Following Trump’s February 2025 executive order on “commencing the reduction of the federal bureaucracy,” OPM issued a final rule on March 21, 2025 formally eliminating the Federal Executive Boards by removing their implementing regulations.
• Government Executive reporting notes OPM “officially ended” FEBs as part of these cuts.

In short, OPM ended FEI and FEBs pursuant to Trump administration directives aimed at shrinking and centralizing the federal bureaucracy and cutting what the administration described as non‑essential or self‑reinforcing leadership and coordination structures.

“Federal HR 2.0” is the Trump administration’s initiative to replace the federal government’s many fragmented human‑resources IT platforms with one government‑wide “core human capital management” (HCM) system.

According to the December 10, 2025 OPM/OMB memo and OPM’s news release:

• Agencies today use over 100 separate core HR systems, which are costly, hard to maintain, and make it difficult to share accurate workforce data.
• Under Federal HR 2.0, agencies will migrate over several years to a single commercial, best‑in‑class HR system that becomes the official system of record for federal personnel data (appointments, pay, position history, performance, etc.).

Likely effects:

• For employees: their HR, payroll, and personnel records will be held in a unified system, which should mean more consistent records and, over time, more modern self‑service tools (for leave, benefits, personnel actions). During migration there is some risk of data errors or delays, so employees are being advised by outside experts to keep their own copies of key records.
• For agencies and managers: fewer duplicative systems, standardized workflows for hiring and promotions, and easier government‑wide reporting, but also up‑front transition costs, loss of local customization, and a heavy dependence on a central vendor and governance process run by OPM/OMB.

The article’s reference to “consolidate over 100 disparate, outdated core HR IT systems … as part of ‘Federal HR 2.0’” is describing this move to one shared HR backbone.

OPM’s statement that it “eliminated illegal and unfair so‑called ‘diversity, equity and inclusion’ (DEI) programs” refers to implementing President Trump’s Executive Order 14151, “Ending Radical and Wasteful Government DEI Programs and Preferencing,” and follow‑on OPM guidance.

What was targeted:

• EO 14151 directs OMB and OPM to terminate “all discriminatory programs, including illegal DEI and ‘diversity, equity, inclusion, and accessibility’ (DEIA) mandates, policies, programs, preferences, and activities in the Federal Government, under whatever name they appear.”
• OPM’s January and February 2025 memos instruct agencies to:
  • Shut down DEI/DEIA offices and dedicated DEI staff positions that provide preferences or set goals based on race, sex, or other protected traits.
  • End or redesign DEI initiatives, employee resource groups (ERGs), and “Special Emphasis Programs” where they are used to influence hiring, promotion, awards, or training opportunities based on demographic categories.
  • Cancel mandatory DEI‑themed trainings that OPM or DOJ view as promoting “divisive concepts” or preferences.
• OPM’s “further guidance” memo clarifies that statutorily required Equal Employment Opportunity (EEO) and reasonable‑accommodation programs must continue; they are not classified as DEI programs under the order.

What employees are likely to see:

• Closure or downsizing of DEI/DEIA offices and reassignment or separation of staff who worked exclusively on those portfolios.
• The end of formal DEI‑branded trainings, fellowships, and targeted advancement programs that explicitly consider race, gender, or similar characteristics.
• Employee groups organized around identity may lose official sponsorship, funding, or duty‑time support, though informal, voluntary groups can still exist.
• Greater emphasis in official policy documents and HR guidance on “merit‑based” hiring and promotion criteria, and less use of demographic goals or “representation” metrics in management decisions.

These changes implement the administration’s view that DEI‑labeled activities should not influence employment decisions, while maintaining legally required nondiscrimination and accommodation obligations.