HR-9714-119
Referred to the House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform.
Sponsored by Hillary Scholten (D-MI)
What it does
This bill would set a hard cap of 1,600 on the total number of Schedule C and Schedule G positions across the entire federal executive branch, beginning in fiscal year 2027. Schedule C positions are confidential or policy-determining roles filled by political appointees outside the competitive civil service. Schedule G is a newer category of excepted-service positions created by Executive Order 14317. The cap would apply permanently to all future fiscal years unless Congress changes the law.
Who benefits
Career civil servants, who may face less displacement or competition from political appointees in agency roles. Federal employees' unions, which have long sought limits on excepted-service expansion. Members of Congress seeking to reassert legislative control over executive branch personnel structure. Taxpayers and good-government advocates who argue a smaller political appointee layer reduces patronage and improves agency continuity. Incoming administrations that inherit a leaner political staff structure may also benefit from clearer role delineation.
Who is hurt
Current Schedule C and Schedule G employees who hold positions above the 1,600 cap and could face reclassification or elimination of their roles. Future presidential administrations of either party, which would have fewer political appointees available to implement policy priorities. Individuals who seek politically appointed federal positions as a career path. Agencies that rely on Schedule C appointees to align agency direction with elected leadership may face reduced capacity to do so. Political parties and advocacy organizations that use appointed positions to place aligned personnel in government.
Supporters argue
Supporters argue that the number of Schedule C positions has grown significantly over decades — from roughly 700 in the 1980s to over 1,500 today — and that Executive Order 14317 created Schedule G as a vehicle to dramatically expand political appointments beyond traditional norms. They contend that a statutory cap is necessary to prevent any administration from using excepted-service categories to circumvent civil service protections, which exist to ensure a professional, nonpartisan federal workforce. By codifying a ceiling in law, Congress would reassert its constitutional authority over the structure of the executive branch and protect the merit-based hiring system that has governed federal employment since the Pendleton Civil Service Reform Act of 1883.
Opponents argue
Opponents argue that the President's constitutional authority to appoint officers and direct the executive branch — rooted in Article II — requires flexibility to staff agencies with personnel who reflect the policy priorities of the elected administration. They contend that a rigid statutory cap of 1,600 could prevent future presidents from effectively managing large, complex agencies, particularly during national emergencies or major policy transitions. Critics also argue that Congress is attempting to micromanage executive personnel decisions in a way that may conflict with the separation of powers, and that the appropriate check on appointee numbers is political accountability at the ballot box, not a legislative headcount limit.
Constitutional context
The Appointments Clause (Art. II, §2, cl. 2) gives Congress authority to vest appointment of inferior officers in the President, department heads, or courts — but the President retains broad authority over executive branch organization. Congress has historically regulated the civil service through statute (e.g., the Civil Service Reform Act of 1978), and courts have generally upheld such regulation, but the extent to which Congress can cap the President's pool of political appointees raises separation-of-powers questions that have not been definitively resolved by the Supreme Court.
Checks and balances
Congress would gain authority to set a hard ceiling on executive branch political appointments; the President retains discretion over how to allocate the capped positions across agencies, and could challenge the cap's constitutionality under Article II separation-of-powers principles.
Historical precedent
Congress has regulated the civil service broadly through the Pendleton Civil Service Reform Act (1883) and the Civil Service Reform Act (1978), but no prior statute has imposed a specific numerical cap on Schedule C or equivalent political appointee positions across the entire executive branch.