Walkinshaw Escalates OPM Oversight as Agency Conceals Staffing Losses Fueling Federal Retirement Backlog

WASHINGTON, D.C. — Congressman James R. Walkinshaw (VA-11), a Member of the House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform, led three colleagues — Representatives Robert Garcia (CA-42), Ranking Member of the Oversight and Government Reform Committee, Kweisi Mfume (MD-07), Ranking Member of the Subcommittee on Government Operations, and Suhas Subramanyam (VA-10) — in following up with the Office of Personnel Management (OPM) on their original December inquiry requesting answers on continued federal retirement processing delays. In their letter, members of Congress demand the agency account for staffing losses in its Retirement Services division that its own Inspector General flagged but OPM omitted from its response to their December inquiry. In a follow-up letter to OPM Director Scott Kupor, the Members warned that the Trump administration's own workforce reduction policies have pushed employees out the door faster than the system can process them, and that OPM's response has been to tout new technology rather than come clean about the depth of the crisis. Thousands of federal employees who have spent careers in public service are now waiting in administrative limbo, unable to reach their former agency's HR offices, uncertain about their benefits, and trapped in a processing backlog. For many, the wait continues with no clear answers in sight. "What we do not support is the use of rhetoric about modernization efforts to obscure the existing backlog of retirement applications for federal employees, many of whom were pushed out by the Trump administration's workforce reduction policies," the Members wrote. OPM's partial response omitted findings from its own Inspector General indicating the Deferred Resignation Program had eliminated more than 100 positions in OPM's Retirement Services division, on top of contact center staffing that had already dropped from 150 to 115 representatives. That means fewer people answering calls, and no clear path for retirees to reach anyone once they lose access to government systems upon separation. "Why was this staffing reduction number not included in OPM's first response?" the Members wrote. The Members also ask OPM to provide information regarding staffing level changes within its Office of Legislative Affairs from December 2024 to present. This office plays a critical role helping Members of Congress advocate for retirees encountering delays. The letter also focuses on another basic unresolved question from the Members' December inquiry: once federal employees lose access to government email and internal systems, how are they supposed to reach their former agency's HR office at all? OPM has yet to provide a response as to whether a mechanism exists for retirees to contact a human being when their application hits a wall. The Members demanded a full accounting of OPM's Online Retirement Application adoption across federal agencies, including a specific update on GSA and USPS, which OPM previously identified as still in interim adoption status with full implementation expected by early 2026. The Members also pressed OPM on disability, deferred, and postponed retirement cases, asking what percentage of total cases these represent and whether OPM met its Q1 2026 deadline for full integration of these case types. These are public servants who earned their retirement through decades of honorable service. The Members requested a full response to all outstanding questions as soon as possible. Full letter text is available here and below. The Honorable Scott Kupor Director The Office of Personnel Management1900 E Street, NW, Washington, D.C. 20415 Dear Director Kupor, On December 22, we wrote to OPM with questions regarding ongoing delays in federal employee retirement application processing and requested a full response by January 29, 2026. To date, OPM has provided only a partial response to a number of those questions. In its partial response, OPM also indicated it expected additional progress by early 2026 in the adoption and usage of its new digital retirement tool, the Online Retirement Application (ORA). In the meantime, we continue to hear from constituents who are experiencing significant delays and communication failures regarding their retirement applications. We write to follow up on outstanding questions from our initial letter and to request an update on ORA implementation across the federal government. Outstanding Questions and Status Update Requests: What guidance has OPM provided to agencies to ensure that retiring employees who lost access to government email and internal systems can continue to communicate with human resources offices using personal contact information? While information regarding OPM’s Online Retirement Application (ORA) system was provided, no clear answer was given regarding how retirees may directly contact their former employing agency’s HR office when there is a concern regarding the status of their retirement application. 1. Are there mechanisms for retiring employees who lost access to government email and internal systems to directly reach a human being in the human resource office of their former employing agency, yes or no? 2. If yes, what is the guidance or process OPM has provided to agencies regarding this type of outreach? OPM has heavily advertised its new digital retirement tool, the Online Retirement Application (ORA), and promoted its role in retirement processing reform. Please provide a list of named agencies (with components when applicable) that have wholly adopted and launched ORA for their entire HR teams and workforce. For agencies that remain in interim status, please provide a list of agencies (by component when applicable) and what the adoption status is, and the estimate for full usage. Please also provide what number and percentage of current cases are and are not using ORA, what the reasons are for non-adoption and usage, and what steps remain to be taken by OPM and employing agencies for full implementation. OPM did not provide the number or percentage of current retirement cases that are not being processed through ORA. 3. Please provide a breakdown of how many federal retirement applications are in progress and not being processed through the ORA system. 4. OPM provided GSA and USPS as agencies in interim ORA adoption status and stated that full implementation of ORA was expected by early 2026. Please provide an update on their implementation status. 5. OPM stated that the remaining agencies not yet fully onboarded to ORA include primarily smaller agencies and congressional offices. Please provide a list of these smaller agencies. Please list any step and/or discrete action under the end-to-end retirement processing process that is not captured by ORA. OPM mentioned 3 retirement case types that are not yet fully captured by ORA (i) disability cases; (ii) deferred retirement cases; and (iii) postponed retirement cases – but did not provide which discrete actions related to these case types are not currently integrated with the system. 6. Please provide more information regarding what parts of these cases are not fully integrated with ORA. 7. Please also share what percentage of total existing retirement cases each of these case types comprise. 8.     OPM also stated that it anticipated full integration of all case types by the end of Q1 2026. Please provide a status update on integration. What has been the impact on OPM’s customer service and support for the existing retiree population amidst the growing number of new retirements, and have there been any staffing or work assignment changes within the components that manage this process since December 2024? OPM noted in its original response that its Contact Center Representative staffing levels had decreased from 150 to 115 between January 2025 and January 2026 due to a combination of normal retirement and new Trump policies like the Deferred Resignation Program, designed to push federal employees out of federal service. However, OPM did not mention any staffing or work assignment changes within the Office of Legislative Affairs, which plays an important role in the retirement process, often helping Members of Congress advocate for retirees when they encounter challenges with application processing. 9. What, if any, staffing level changes have occurred within the Office of Legislative Affairs between December 2024 and the present? Please provide quarterly data on staffing levels from December 2024 to present. 10. Given other staffing changes within OPM over the last year, have any teams within OPM specifically designated to handle retirement cases, including but not limited to the Retirement Services team, received any new responsibilities that previously belonged to other          teams, yes or no? 11. If so, what are those responsibilities, and from which teams were they transferred? A January 30 letter that we received from the Deputy Inspector General of OPM raised concerns associated with staff reductions across the agency resulting from Trump-implemented staffing initiatives such as the Deferred Resignation Program, Reductions in Force, and the termination of probationary staff. The Office of the IG refers directly to its OPM Top Management Challenges for FY 2026 report and states that these staff reduction policies pose a challenge to building and sustaining an optimal workforce to support the agency’s mission. Specifically, the IG cites data from its November 2025 report indicating the loss of more than 100 staff in the Retirement Services division due to the Deferred Resignation Program. The Office of the IG reiterated concerns that these losses would compound existing delays in retirement processing. 12. Why was this staffing reduction number not included in OPM’s first response? 13. What plans, other than implementation of ORA, does OPM have to address staffing shortages within the Retirement Services division? Even if ORA improves long-term efficiency, how is OPM addressing the existing retirement backlog, including cases resulting from the Trump Administration’s workforce reduction policies, under current staffing levels? To be clear, we are supportive of efforts to modernize OPM’s retirement application process and hope to see continued progress on the use and implementation of ORA. What we do not support is the use of rhetoric about modernization efforts to obscure the existing backlog of retirement applications for federal employees, many of whom were pushed out by the Trump Administration’s workforce reduction policies. Thank you in advance for your cooperation. Sincerely, ###