When Donald Trump won the 2024 election, the media airwaves were suddenly infused with a raft of stories regarding the federal workers who were distraught over the possibility of working under a Trump administration. Pearls were dutifully clutched, and a woe-is-me cacophony drowned out the sound of cooler heads arguing that such employees should approach their work in a nonpartisan manner. But perhaps taking a prompt from Mario Puzo’s Don Corleone, the president made an offer that could prove difficult to refuse.
A Dear John for Federal Workers
On Jan. 28, an estimated 2 million federal employees received an email from the Office of Personnel Management (OPR), which oversees the civilian workforce. Titled “A Fork in the Road,” the mailer presented a set of options:
“If you choose not to continue in your current role in the federal workforce, we thank you for your service to your country and you will be provided with a dignified, fair departure from the federal government utilizing a deferred resignation program.”
The message asked them to reply with the word “resign” if they wanted to take advantage of retaining all pay and benefits until Sept. 30 and be “exempt” from the in-person work requirement – at which point they would no longer be employed. The federal workers have until Feb. 6 to decide. But what happens if they choose to stick around?
First, it will not be business as usual. Under a Four Pillars rubric, employees will be required to return to the office (for a five-day week), work in a performance culture, meet enhanced standards, and be aware a streamlined approach is incoming. And while a number of workers may believe that they can coast under the radar and just get by, the email attempts to remove that possibility.
No Safe Haven
For federal workers who decide to tough it out, the future is not set in stone. The email continued:
“At this time, we cannot give you full assurance regarding the certainty of your position or agency but should your position be eliminated you will be treated with dignity and will be afforded the protections in place for such positions.”
So even if they refuse to take the “resign” option, their roles could still be cut, changed, or redeployed. It seems likely that Trump’s plan here is to root out those who are not fully committed to working under his administration. But this is just the beginning of the president’s efforts to cut the bloated bureaucracy.
In the waning days of Trump’s first term, he implemented Schedule F – which was immediately overturned by Joe Biden when he became president and is now poised to make a comeback. Liberty Nation News’ senior political analyst Tim Donner explained:
“It will empower massive changes in the bureaucracy, re-classifying thousands of careerists as political appointees. It refers to a section of the Civil Service Reform Act of 1978, exempting some federal employees from civil service protections, specifically those ‘whose position has been determined to be of a confidential, policy-determining, policy-making or policy-advocating character.’ Under Trump’s plan, the number of such employees would jump from roughly 4,000 to about 50,000, signaling a sea change in the way Washington does business.”
It is the ultimate Swamp-draining tactic. And the plan goes further.
Get Outta Town!
An additional flank of Trump’s cutting agenda seems likely to be moving federal agencies out of Washington, DC. He has a track record of making this work. In 2020, he authorized moving the headquarters of the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) from DC to Grand Junction, CO. LNN’s Jim Fite detailed the results:
“Of the 176 BLM staff told to relocate, only 41 did. The others either retired early, moved into other government positions, or just quit and looked for alternative kinds of work. The number of vacancies went from 121 in July 2019 to 326 in March 2020.”
This three-pronged approach to cutting the size of the federal workforce – the “resign” email, Schedule F, and moving agencies out of DC – will almost certainly have the desired effect. What remains will be a streamlined government filled with only workers willing to do the job required under the rules set by the new boss.
The New York Times called it a “frontal assault on the federal bureaucracy.” And the authors may be correct. However, it is not an assault on people but on a workplace culture that has allowed bureaucracy and bloat to thrive and become the goal rather than the enemy of efficiency. And who knows? Perhaps the American taxpayer will discover that – much like when Elon Musk bought Twitter and cut 90% of the staff – trimming the fat sometimes makes for a better meal.
