The U.S. Office of Personnel Management (OPM) recently revised its guidance for telework and remote work. OPM also issued a proposed rule regarding appeal rights of probationary employees. What does it mean for you?

Revised Telework, Remote Guidance

OPM’s revised guidance for telework and remote work, issued in late December 2025, significantly tightens the rules governing when and how federal employees may work outside the office.

The new guidance reinforces full-time, in-person work as the default expectation for federal employees and sharply limits the availability of both routine telework and remote work arrangements. With the updated guidance, OPM is hoping to make clear that telework and remote work are discretionary management tools, not employee entitlements, and may be denied, modified, or terminated at any time.

The new guidance follows an earlier January 2025 Presidential Memorandum (PM) which instructed Executive department and agency heads to “take all necessary steps to terminate remote work arrangements and require employees to return to work in-person at their respective duty stations on a full-time basis.” The PM further stated that “department and agency heads shall make exemptions they deem necessary.”

Potential Impacts on Federal Employees

OPM say remote work arrangements could lead to changes in locality pay, official duty stations, and reduction-in-force rights. There are some exemptions, which include certain military spouses, Foreign Service spouses, reasonable accommodations for disabilities, pregnancy-related conditions, and other “compelling reasons.”

 Non-compliant federal employees and agencies may face grievances, MSPB appeals, EEO complaints, and litigation as these policies are enforced.

According to the Government Accountability Office, around 10% of the entire federal workforce worked from home before remote work agreements were directed to be canceled. OPM says because of the return-to-office mandate they are seeing significantly higher in-office rates.

Further, OPM has urged agencies to analyze real estate costs, travel expenses, locality pay impacts, and productivity before approving remote work.

Appeal Rights of Probationary Federal Employees

OPM also issued a proposed rule in early January 2026 that would significantly change how federal employees terminated during probationary and trial periods may challenge their removals. It would narrow appeal rights and shift adjudication authority away from the Merit Systems Protection Board (MSPB).

OPM would replace the MSPB as the sole adjudicator of appeals arising from probationary and trial period terminations, centralizing decision-making within OPM’s Merit System Accountability and Compliance office. Employees also will not be permitted to include claims of unlawful discrimination in the appeal but instead will need to pursue unlawful discrimination claims with the EEOC. The proposal implements President Donald Trump’s April 2025 Executive Order and would affect thousands of new federal employees, as well as supervisors and managers serving probationary periods.

Appeals would generally be decided on the written record, with no automatic right to discovery or a hearing. OPM would have discretion to conduct investigations or hold hearings only when deemed necessary. The proposed rule represents a major shift in federal employment law, reducing due process protections for probationary employees while increasing agencies’ flexibility to remove new hires and supervisors. It also raises broader questions about executive authority, civil service protections, and the future role of independent adjudicative bodies.

This proposed rule would eliminate nearly all practical avenues for probationary employees to challenge their termination. The initial rule, according to the Federal Register, would implement a procedure for employees or their representatives and agencies to seek reconsideration of an initial decision, establishing a timeline of 30 days from the date the decision is issued for a party to seek reconsideration. It would also not allow probationary federal employees to appeal a firing based on poor performance or conduct.

Possible Unintended Effects

While the clear intent of the proposal is to reduce the number of adverse action appeals across government, it is likely that the opposite outcome takes hold, and could lead to more litigation and prompt more people to appeal or otherwise file complaints. Further, while the current administration wants to take every effort it can to remove probationary employees or limit their rights, this proposed rule will likely just cause more litigation.

Whether your matter is related to telework and remote work, or the OPM’s proposed rule regarding appeal rights of probationary employees, federal employment is subject to laws and regulations that differ significantly from those in the private sector; consulting with a federal employment lawyer can make all the difference. Tully Rinckey’s team of dedicated federal employment attorneys is available to assist you today. Please call 8885294543 to schedule a consultation, or schedule a consultation online.

Michael C. Fallings focuses his practice on federal sector labor and employment law. Michael has extensive experience litigating cases on behalf of employees at the U.S. Merit Systems Protection Board (MSPB), Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC), and in both state and federal courts. He also has experience negotiating settlement agreements on behalf of federal employees. Michael has received numerous awards, including the 2026 Lawdragon 500 Leading Litigators in America, LawDragon 500 the Next Generation (2024-25), Lawdragon 500 Leading Civil Rights & Plaintiff Employment Lawyers (2025), National Black Lawyers Top 40 under 40, and Super Lawyers Rising Star (2023).