In his short time in office, President Trump has taken early steps to fulfill his promise to downsize the federal government. In a series of actions, he has mandated that federal workers return to the office five days a week, offered buyouts to those willing to resign, and issued an order to freeze some spending. These moves display the right impulse and plenty of gumption while leaving many questions about how they will actually work.
Excluding the decennial spikes in which the federal government takes on temporary employees to conduct the census, the executive branch hasn’t been as lavishly staffed as it is today since the early 1990s: a little over 2 million federal employees, a number that ballooned by 140,000 between 2019 and 2023. The demands of the pandemic and the federal government’s effort to staff up ahead of the implementation of the Bipartisan Infrastructure Law contributed to the expansion. And, according to the Trump administration, only 6 percent of them work full-time in a physical office. There’s surely plenty of fat to be trimmed here, and the Trump administration is hoping the fat will leave of its own accord.
“Fork in the Road,” read the headline of a Wednesday night email sent to every federal employee. The letter advised executive branch staff that the pandemic is over, and it was time to return full-time to the office. Those who are not on board were given the opportunity to resign. Those who choose to do so, other than rare exceptions, would not be required to work but would still be paid through September 30 (unless they leave for another job before then). This coincides with the end of the fiscal year, an effort to blunt arguments that the president would run afoul of the law if he failed to disburse funds specifically appropriated by Congress. Unless they occupy roles in the military, the U.S. Postal Service, immigration enforcement, or other roles relating to national security, every federal worker was invited to take their services elsewhere.
It’s hard to imagine how this could have been made any easier for workers who might want to take advantage of this opportunity. Federal staffers don’t even have to write a resignation letter. Just “type the word ‘Resign’ into the ‘Subject’ line of the email,” read OPM’s instructions. “Hit ‘Send.’” Simple as that.
The Trump administration’s maneuver isn’t unprecedented. In 1994, President Bill Clinton set out to trim the federal workforce by 273,000 via contract buyouts of up to $25,000, although he did so with the support of congressional legislation. Only 148,000 took advantage of that offer, but that wasn’t Clinton’s only attempt to downsize the federal payroll. In 1999 and 2000, he again sought congressional authority for “buyouts.” In structuring this attempted slim-down as “deferred resignations” rather than a “buyout,” the Trump administration skirts legal objections to the maneuver that some of the president’s opponents have raised.
The most compelling criticism of the president’s initiative is that it is an overly blunt way to go about thinning the ranks of the federal workforce. Those who take advantage of “deferred resignations” are likely to have prospects elsewhere in government or in the private sector — which is to say they are likely to be the most competent employees with the most initiative. This random approach could leave unexpected holes that are difficult to fill in the short term.
That said, obviously the federal workforce can be — and should be — substantially reduced. The Trump administration estimates that up to 10 percent of the federal workforce — approximately 200,000 government employees — may take the offer on the table. If they did, it could save the taxpayers about $100 billion. That will not alter the trajectory toward the fiscal crisis that the country faces (that will require grappling with entitlements), but every little bit helps.
And the maneuver is likely to be popular. Of the 15 Trump executive orders Reuters/Ipsos polled recently, “downsizing the federal government” was by far the most popular with 61 percent in favor and just 35 percent opposed.
More uncertainty surrounds Trump’s efforts to freeze some federal spending. Trump issued an executive order calling for a pause, and then the Office of Management and Budget issued a memo attempting to explain how it would be implemented titled, “Temporary Pause of Agency Grant, Loan, and Other Financial Assistance Programs.” But the memo only sowed confusion, with Trump’s team scrambling to emphasize that assistance to individuals, such as Social Security payments and food stamps, would not be affected. After a federal judge temporarily blocked the freeze, the White House rescinded the OMB memo, which caused many people to assume that he had backed off the freeze. But then White House Press Secretary Karoline Leavitt announced that only the memo was rescinded and that “the President’s EO’s on federal funding remain in full force and effect, and will be rigorously implemented.” A federal judge reiterated that this did not change the fact that implementation was blocked. Got it?
Trump is pursuing worthy goals here, but bringing the federal behemoth under control is extremely difficult, and there’s no clever trick for doing it. We have no doubt that if Elon Musk owned the federal government, it’d be half the size and twice as effective. But there is a vast array of bureaucratic power centers, statutes, union rules, and other impediments that make the federal government vastly different from a private company.
Still, even if achieving rationality and efficiency in federal practices is a Sisyphean challenge, it’s worth moving the boulder as far as possible.