INSIGHTi

Executive Order 13932 on Assessing and
Hiring Job Candidates in Federal Agencies
August 21, 2020
Background
President Donald Trump issued Executive Order (E.O.) 13932, titled “Modernizing and Reforming the
Assessment and Hiring of Federal Job Candidates,” on June 26, 2020. The E.O. seeks to alter the federal
hiring process by removing potentially unnecessary education qualifications to ensure that the federal
hiring process is merit-based. The “merit system” is generally held to be a keystone of the federal civil
service.
This E.O. aligns with the President’s Management Agenda, which identifies “enhanced alignment and
strategic management of the Federal workforce” as a primary goal. The E.O. also appears to align with
certain aspects of current law. In particular, the Office of Personnel Management (OPM) and agencies are
prohibited by law from prescribing a minimum educational requirement for competitive service positions,
albeit with limited exceptions for scientific, technical, and certain other positions.
OPM has issued guidance on E.O. 13932 for the increased use of skills- and competency-based
assessments in the federal hiring process. OPM’s guidance explained that the agency’s website already
outlines a number of competency-based assessment options. OPM’s guidance also offers a schedule for
the implementation of the E.O.
Contents of Executive Order 13932
Purpose
Section 1 of the E.O. emphasizes the merit-based foundation of the U.S. civil service and suggests that
hiring within the federal government should reflect this principle. The E.O. posits that the American
public’s perception of the federal hiring process is important to maintaining public confidence in the civil
service. In order to keep up with private employers that have modernized their hiring processes, the E.O.
suggests that the federal government should favor skills- and competency-based hiring techniques over
degree-based educational requirements to assess some job candidates. The E.O. addresses the potential
exclusion of capable candidates who have the skills and competencies to be successful in a given
Congressional Research Service
https://crsreports.congress.gov
IN11490
CRS INSIGHT
Prepared for Members and
Committees of Congress

---

Congressional Research Service
2
employment opportunity but do not meet education requirements. The document acknowledges OPM’s
role in creating hiring rules and guidance and determining qualification requirements for federal jobs. It
argues that many federal jobs have an overreliance on educational requirements rather than accepting
experiential learning as an alternative path to consideration for federal employment. The Administration
views these provisions as a fulfillment of its commitment to increasing employment opportunities.
Revision of Job Classification and Qualification Standards
Section 2 outlines a method for altering the federal hiring process. It mandates that the director of OPM—
in collaboration with the director of the Office of Management and Budget (OMB), the assistant to the
President for domestic policy, and the heads of agencies—review all job classifications and qualification
requirements within the competitive service. The Administration states that any changes to the job
classifications and qualification requirements will be made public within 120 days and become effective
180 days following the publication of the E.O. The document directs that minimum education
requirements should be used only when an education qualification is legally required to perform the
duties of the job. Further, it suggests that a candidate’s education should be considered only if it is
directly relevant to the essential competencies of the position.
Improving Assessments in the Federal Hiring Process
Section 3 suggests a method for implementing assessment-based hiring techniques. All agencies are to
work with the director of OPM to develop practices to assess candidates on their relevant knowledge,
skills, competencies, and abilities outside of their educational attainment or lack thereof. It also specifies
that candidates’ self-evaluations of their qualifications are not sufficient and that agencies must require
the candidates to prove their qualifications via assessments. In addition, it mandates that agencies
continually evaluate the quality, integrity, and effectiveness of these assessment techniques.
Potential Issues
OPM reports that nearly half of federal employees do not have bachelor’s degrees. Consequently,
agencies need to routinely evaluate whether a minimum education requirement is necessary, and if not,
what knowledge and skills are necessary. While the E.O. may help align the federal hiring process with
hiring trends in the broader job market, there may be questions about the feasibility of the E.O.’s
proposed timeline.
If Congress reviews this E.O., several topics for potential congressional oversight may be considered. For
example, some observers have expressed doubt that OPM has the necessary resources and time to
implement the E.O. within 120 days. In addition, effective implementation of the E.O. may depend on
agency buy-in to make substantive changes to their practices. At the same time, implementation of the
E.O. may bring risks if agencies do not implement the E.O. carefully. One concern is that removing
minimum education requirements may allow for more subjectivity in the assessment of candidates, which
could lead to perverse outcomes, such as a risk of favoritism in the hiring process.
If Congress wishes to consider options for legislation and their pros and cons, it could require OPM to
suggest amendments to the agency’s statutory authority for position classification at Title 5, Chapter 51,
of the United States Code. OPM could also be required to notify the House and Senate Committees on
Appropriations of any specific funding needed to implement the E.O. Finally, OPM’s inspector general
could be required to review the agency’s implementation of the E.O., including any effects on the merit
system, and report the findings to Congress.

---

Congressional Research Service
3

Author Information

Taylor N. Riccard

Analyst in Government Organization and Management




Disclaimer
This document was prepared by the Congressional Research Service (CRS). CRS serves as nonpartisan shared staff
to congressional committees and Members of Congress. It operates solely at the behest of and under the direction of
Congress. Information in a CRS Report should not be relied upon for purposes other than public understanding of
information that has been provided by CRS to Members of Congress in connection with CRS’s institutional role.
CRS Reports, as a work of the United States Government, are not subject to copyright protection in the United
States. Any CRS Report may be reproduced and distributed in its entirety without permission from CRS. However,
as a CRS Report may include copyrighted images or material from a third party, you may need to obtain the
permission of the copyright holder if you wish to copy or otherwise use copyrighted material.

IN11490 · VERSION 1 · NEW

---