We’re thrilled to sit down with Donald Gainsborough, a political savant and the driving force behind Government Curated, to discuss the latest developments in federal employee compensation policy. With President Trump’s expected pay freeze plan for 2026 looming, Donald brings unparalleled expertise to unpack the intricacies of this decision, the historical context of federal pay adjustments, and what it means for the future of government workers. In our conversation, we explore the urgency of the upcoming deadline, the legal frameworks shaping pay decisions, and how this administration’s approach compares to past policies.
What’s the significance of the deadline President Trump faces by the end of this month for federal employee pay, and what’s at stake if it’s missed?
The deadline by the end of August is critical because it’s when the president must issue an alternative pay plan for federal employees for the upcoming year, in this case, 2026. If he doesn’t act in time, automatic pay increases mandated by the 1990 Federal Employees Pay Comparability Act kick in. These increases are often substantial, especially for locality pay adjustments, and without an alternative plan, the administration loses control over the budget impact. It’s essentially a safeguard to prevent unchecked salary hikes that could strain federal finances, but missing the deadline means those automatic raises become the default, whether they align with economic realities or not.
Can you break down the 1990 Federal Employees Pay Comparability Act and explain why it’s so often sidestepped by administrations from both parties?
The 1990 Federal Employees Pay Comparability Act was designed to ensure federal employees’ pay remains competitive with private sector wages, primarily through automatic adjustments based on market data, especially for locality pay. The idea was to close pay gaps and attract talent to government roles. However, the formula for these adjustments often results in increases that administrations—Republican and Democratic alike—view as fiscally unsustainable or misaligned with broader budget priorities. So, each year, presidents typically declare an economic emergency or propose an alternative plan to override these automatic raises. It’s become a routine workaround to maintain flexibility over federal spending.
This year’s process for announcing federal pay proposals has felt a bit unusual. Can you explain why the Trump administration skipped the typical spring budget submission for this announcement?
Absolutely. Normally, presidents unveil their federal pay proposals alongside their full budget submission to Congress in the spring. This year, however, the Trump administration opted not to follow that tradition. Russell Vought, a key figure in the administration, explained that submitting a full budget wasn’t in their interest at the time, partly because Republicans were also navigating budget reconciliation efforts. They sent only a partial budget to Congress to avoid what Vought called “confusing” messaging to the public. It’s a strategic move, but it left many pay raise observers in the dark until closer to the August deadline.
Based on what’s been shared so far, what can we expect from Trump’s likely plan for federal employee pay in 2026?
From what we’ve gathered, particularly from the Office of Management and Budget’s passback documents released in April, it looks like President Trump is gearing up to propose a pay freeze for federal workers in 2026. These documents, which guide agencies in preparing their budget requests, signaled a clear intent to halt any raises. Additionally, Congress hasn’t included any specific language about federal pay in their funding bills this year, which effectively gives a nod to the White House’s direction. So, barring any last-minute changes, a freeze seems to be the plan on the table.
Looking back at Trump’s first term, how does his current approach to federal pay align with his past actions?
During his first term, Trump was quite consistent in pushing for pay freezes—he proposed them in three out of four years. Each time, though, Congress stepped in and overruled him, ultimately approving raises ranging from 1.4% to 2.6%. There was an interesting pivot in 2020 when he initially suggested a modest 1% across-the-board increase, only to backtrack and advocate for a freeze again. Congress ended up sticking with the 1% raise. His current expected plan for a 2026 freeze mirrors that earlier pattern of prioritizing fiscal restraint, though it remains to be seen if Congress will push back again.
How does this expected pay freeze compare to President Biden’s approach to federal employee compensation last year?
There’s a stark contrast here. In his final year, President Biden approved a 2.0% average pay raise for federal employees for 2025. That increase was split into a 1.7% across-the-board boost to basic pay and a 0.3% adjustment for locality pay, reflecting a commitment to incremental growth in compensation. Trump’s anticipated freeze for 2026, on the other hand, signals a complete halt to raises, highlighting a very different philosophy on federal workforce investment and budget management between the two administrations.
Once President Trump issues this alternative pay plan, what are the next steps in the process to make it official?
After the alternative pay plan is issued by the end of August, the next key step happens in December. That’s when the president must publish an executive order to formally implement the plan. This order locks in the specifics of the pay structure for 2026, whether it’s a freeze or some other adjustment. It’s the final procedural hurdle to ensure the plan takes effect, and it also gives a clear directive to agencies for payroll planning in the new year.
What is your forecast for the future of federal employee compensation policies, especially given the recurring tension between automatic raises and administration priorities?
I think we’re going to see continued friction between the legal mandates like the 1990 Act and the fiscal priorities of whoever is in the White House. Pay freezes or minimal raises will likely remain a go-to strategy for administrations aiming to control spending, especially in times of economic uncertainty. However, Congress often has the final say, and with growing advocacy for fair compensation to retain federal talent, we might see more pushback against freezes in the coming years. The bigger question is whether there’ll be a serious effort to reform the underlying laws to balance competitiveness with budgetary realities. It’s a complex issue that’s not going away anytime soon.
