The Trump administration is proposing changes that would make it easier to fire federal employees accused of misconduct in a matter of days, because they no longer meet “suitability and fitness” standards required to join the federal workforce.

The Office of Personnel Management, in a proposed rule it will publish Tuesday in the Federal Register, plans to expand suitability adjudications normally reserved for federal job applicants to include current employees.

The proposed rule, once finalized, would allow the Trump administration to fast-track the firing of federal employees, on the grounds that they no longer meet suitability standards for federal employment.

OPM’s proposed rule states agencies must remove federal employees within five workdays, if it decides they no longer meet the suitability standards. An OPM spokesperson said the proposed rule would only allow OPM to take suitability-based disciplinary action against federal employees based on an agency’s referral.

OPM wrote in a press release that agencies have relied on “overly cumbersome and restrictive procedures” to remove federal employees accused of serious misconduct.

“It has been easier to bar an applicant from federal employment with past serious misconduct, than it has been to address a current employee committing the same misconduct,” OPM wrote.

The federal HR agency said its proposed rule “eliminates this disparity,” and ensures federal employees are held to the same suitability standards as candidates applying for government jobs.

Acting OPM Director Chuck Ezell said the proposed rule “ensures misconduct is met with consequence and reinforces that public service is a privilege, not a right.”

“For too long, agencies have faced red tape when trying to remove employees who break the public’s trust,” Ezell said in a statement.

Former acting OPM Director Rob Shriver, now managing director of Democracy Forward’s Civil Service Strong Program, called the proposed rule an “end-run around the long-established processes for dealing with feds’ performance and conduct matters.”

“There is a lot of room for interpretation here in these standards. And the fact of the matter is that, generally speaking, when somebody is an applicant, they have less rights,” Shriver said.

Suzanne Summerlin, general counsel for the Federal Workers Legal Defense Project, said OPM’s proposed rule is “completely in opposition to due process rights.”

“It’s trying to use suitability rules that were originally designed for pre-employment screening as a shortcut for removals to bypass due process that is owed to these workers. And that’s not accountability — that’s a loophole,” Summerlin said.

Federal employees who fall under Title 5, once they clear their probationary periods, typically face discipline under Chapter 75 of the U.S. Code.

“They have to notify you that you are required to perform a particular duty, that your performance was unacceptable, and they have to be able to show that they rated the employee’s performance in an accurate and reasonable way,” Summerlin said.

OPM’s proposed rule states current federal employees would fall short of current suitability standards if they fail to “comply with generally applicable legal obligations,” including filing their taxes on time, or failing to certify compliance with nondisclosure agreements.

Federal employees would also fall short of this suitability standard over theft or misuse of government resources and equipment. The proposed rule states federal employees wouldn’t meet suitability standards for “refusal to furnish testimony.”

“They want people ratting each other out, for lack of a more professional term,” Summerlin said. “They want people to be mistrustful of one another and to constantly be providing members of the administration with information.”

Shriver said the proposed rule’s language on “compliance with any applicable nondisclosure obligations” could have a chilling effect on federal employees reaching out to the Office of Special Counsel or Congress.

“They have an obligation to disclose if they have evidence of waste, fraud and abuse. They have a right to make disclosures to members of Congress,” Shriver said. “My concern is, where are they going to take this? What kinds of disclosures are they going to be considering a violation here?”