Details of the narrowly approved budget framework for House Republicans are still in the air, but the initial proposals show the possibility of changes in federal benefits, primarily in retirement and healthcare.
As part of a resolution on the GOP budget, the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee is considering cutting at least $50 billion from forced spending, according to a framework approved by lawmakers in the 216-214 vote on Thursday. That level of spending cuts will almost certainly delve into the federal interests, the Association of National Activities and Retired Federal Employees (NARFE) said.
” Given that the only major forced spending under the committee’s jurisdiction are federal retirement and health benefits, such a reduction in size will inevitably come from federal retirement and health benefits,” Narfe writes. Letter to the Congress last week.
It will take weeks or even months for Republicans in the House and Senate to resolve the exact details of the budget framework and push the bill’s text into the final product. The final version of the budget is expected to be announced later this spring or summer, with more votes being held during that time. But both House and Senate Republicans agree to the same version of budget resolutions, allowing them to pass the law with a simple majority vote, avoiding filibuster rules.
A Republican, spokesman for the Oversight Committee, declined to comment on where the proposed spending cuts would go. However, many proposals are already in circulation, including some possibilities that could lead to changes in federal employee retirement benefits, health insurance, and more.
Although it’s not final yet, here are some of the possibilities Republicans are considering as part of their mandatory spending cuts.
Possibility to change FEHB Premium
As part of the budget resolution, a small number of proposals on the table will make changes to the Federal Employee Health Benefits (FEHB) program. In particular, one of the oversight committee proposals will switch the FEHB program from the current shared premium model to a flat-rate “voucher” model.
Under the law, the government currently pays 72% of the weighted average of all FEHB plan premiums, FEHB subscribers pay the remaining share, and the exact premium is based on the registered plan.
However, under the switch to the “voucher” model of both FEHB and the Health Benefits of Postal Services (PSHB) programme, the government’s contribution to health insurance premiums will instead be linked to rising consumer prices.
Lawmakers estimated the change could save $16 billion to $18 billion over a decade. However, John Hutton, Vice President of Nalf’s Policy and Program, raised concerns that the flat-rate model would exponentially increase how much FEHB participants who need to pay for the program would increase and increase “significant” amounts over time.
“The costs for federal employees in their first year may not look large, but all of a sudden, when you’re in your 10th year, you’re paying more,” Hutton said in an interview. “It could get worse over time and spiral into more programs.”
Over the course of 10 years, the government’s share of premium costs could drop below 50%, rather than the current share of 72%. According to Narfe’s calculations.
Over the past few years, FEHB premiums have risen significantly. In 2025, premiums for enrollees increased by 13.5% on average. This is the highest premium increase compared to the previous year for over 10 years. In 2024, FEHB Premium also rose by an average of 7.7%, and in 2023 it increased by an average of 8.7%.
Reduce inappropriate payments for FEHB
Another proposal from lawmakers could change the FEHB to reduce inappropriate payments and remove ineligible subscribers from the program.
The Federal Employee Health Benefit Protection Act, which lawmakers are considering enacting as part of their budget resolution, requires that the Office of Personnel Management audit them to audit federal families currently enrolled in the FEHB program. The OPM then removes individuals who are found to not qualify for the health benefits of FEHB.
In 2023, the government’s Accountability Office reported that ineligible FEHB subscribers would cost nearly $1 billion a year. Last year, as a result of these findings, OPM began addressing the issue by setting stricter requirements for verifying enrollees and requesting institutions to verify the eligibility of participants in a random sample of 10% of FEHB registrations.
Narfe said it wasn’t necessarily against further changes, but warned that the way it was implemented was important.
“Our only concern is that by placing an overly burdensome requirement for proof of eligibility, efforts to prevent those who mistaking the benefits from eligible families, wrote in a letter to Congress.
Proposed changes to FERS contributions
The budget resolution could further include changes to retirement benefits for many federal employees and pensioners through the Federal Employee Retirement Plan (FERS).
In one proposal from House Republicans, lawmakers are considering increasing the FERS contribution rate for federal employees by 4.4% towards a 4.4% contribution rate. Civil Service Resignation and Disability Fund.
Currently, FERS employees donate 0.8% if employed before 2012, 3.1% if employed in 2013, and 4.4% if employed in 2014 or after 2014.
With the change, if implemented, all federal employees will have a contribution rate of 4.4%. The proposal does not change the value of pension payments for federal employees, but the Fed will pay more from its paycheck to OPM’s retirement fund.
“It’s really just a total pay cut for federal employees,” Hutton said.
The House of Representatives estimated that changes in FERS contributions could save $44 billion over a decade. However, details of many possible implementations in the proposal are still unknown. It may take weeks or months for more details to appear about the effective date or who will be affected exactly.
Make more federal governments a willing employee
In addition to changing FERS contributions, another proposal from Republicans who could move on to budget resolutions will turn new federal employees into will if they do not accept a higher FERS contribution rate.
Under the proposal, future federal employees will maintain their FERS pension contribution rate below 4.4% if they choose to classify will. However, those who choose to maintain merit system protection will see a higher contribution rate.
“This is a trade-off between getting a greater wage or losing job safety,” Hutton said. “Merit-based civil servant protection is not designed to protect employees, but to ensure nonpartisan civil servants who support their expertise.”
The lawmakers’ proposals are consistent with the Trump administration’s efforts to reclassify the broader propaganda of career civil servants to remove job protections, make them employees, and make them easier for agencies to fire them. The White House said the move would increase accountability, but critics argued that removing protections for these jobs would politicize career civil servants.
Change High-3 to High-5 for the resignation of Fed
Republicans are also paying attention to possible changes to the current “3” calculations to determine the value of a retirement pension for federal employees.
Currently, the retirement ceremony calculates pensions for federal employees by averaging the highest third consecutive year’s revenue. However, the proposal, if implemented, will instead move federal employees to the “high 5” calculations for benefits to FERS retirees. That is, calculate the Fed’s pension based on the average of revenues for up to five consecutive years in civil service.
Lawmakers estimated that switching to “High-5” instead of “High-3” would save the government $4 billion over the course of a decade. However, Nalf argued that the change was unfair, especially for those who are retired or near.
“It would break the promises of the retirees by reducing the value of their vested profits,” Nalf wrote. “Pensions are not a gift. They have been acquired. Reducing their value in any way fails to respect their commitment to these civil servants.”
Remove FER supplemental payments
Another proposal from House Republicans is trying to eliminate FERS’ supplementary retirement benefits.
By law, federal employees who retire before the age of 62 will earn supplemental FERS payments to close the gap until they are eligible for Social Security. However, House Republicans are considering removing the interests of federal retirees entirely.
If Supplemental FERS payments are removed, Hutton said they would collide with the most difficult first responders, including federal firefighters and law enforcement officials. They will need to retire by the age of 57, so they will spend a lot of time earning pension payments when they retire and ultimately when Social Security benefits begin.
Combining it all, Hutton said he believes the proposals attributed to the Oversight Board will have a negative impact on all federal workers and federal retirees. Still, he recommended that federal employees should not make retirement or benefits decisions based solely on what Congress does.
“The federal workforce is already under attack due to forced reductions and loss of protections in the merit system,” Hutton said. “If you add all of these changes, plus these things, it’s going to hurt even more.”
Copyright©2025 Federal News Network. Unauthorized reproduction is prohibited. This website is not intended for users within the European Economic Area.
