Decision time is looming for an estimated two million federal employees who are eligible for the buyout plan proffered by President Trump.
Workers have until Thursday to decide whether or not to accept the buyout. The basic offer is that government workers will be paid until the end of September — and retain their benefits — so long as they declare their resignations by Feb. 6.
The proposal is part of a broader effort by the Trump administration to reduce and reform the government.
The most visible manifestation of this effort is the Department of Government Efficiency, spearheaded by Elon Musk.
Musk has previously said he believes it would be possible to scythe $2 trillion from the federal budget. More recently, he has eased back from that figure while still suggesting $1 trillion could be cut.
Trump is also demanding that more federal workers cease working from home. This, too, is intended to reduce the size of the public workforce.
On Wednesday, Trump said of federal workers: “We’re requiring them to show up to work or be terminated…We think a very substantial number of people will not show up to work and therefore our government will get smaller and more efficient.”
Here’s what else to know.
Most, but not all, federal workers are eligible
The offer came from the U.S. Office of Personnel Management (OPM) in a Tuesday email. A lot of employees and their managers were initially confused.
The OPM’s website now offers answers to a number of frequently asked questions.
The administration is referring to the buyout as “deferred resignation.”
The OPM notes that, as a general rule, all full-time federal employees are eligible. However, it does outline some exceptions: Military personnel, U.S. Postal Service employees, “those in positions related to immigration enforcement and national security” and “those in other positions specifically excluded by your employing agency.”
The bottom line is it’s a massive proposal, given that almost two percent of the nation’s civilian workforce is on the federal payroll.
NBC News reported this week that the Trump administration expects between 5 percent and 10 percent of the federal workforce to quit. A senior administration official said this could result in around $100 billion in annual savings.
Unions and Democrats are skeptical
Democrats and their allies in the labor unions are highly suspicious of the Trump proposal.
Democrats doubt whether Trump is willing or able to uphold his side of the bargain.
As The Hill’s Rebecca Beitsch and Brett Samuels previously reported, Sen. Chris Van Hollen (D-Md.) has complained that the idea looks “like another rushed Trump scam” to his eyes.
Van Hollen also said that Trump “has a history of not following through on commitments.”
Sen. Tim Kaine (D-Va.), whose state like Van Hollen’s is home to a huge number of federal employees, warned anyone inclined to accept the offer that Trump would “stiff you.”
Unions, equally unpersuaded of Trump’s bona fides, have emphasized the idea that the president is seeking to force employees out — to the detriment of citizens who depend upon government services.
The largest union representing federal workers, the American Federation of Government Employees (AFGE), released a statement accusing the administration of “purging the federal government” in a way that would have “vast, unintended consequences that will cause chaos for the Americans who depend on a functioning federal government.”
AFGE president Everett Kelley contended, “It is clear that the Trump administration’s goal is to turn the federal government into a toxic environment where workers cannot stay even if they want to.”
Matthew Biggs, president of the International Federal of Professional & Technical Engineers, which represents around 30,000 federal employees, told NPR the offer amounted to a “resignation threat.”
Biggs added, “It’s written pretty clearly that if you don’t take this thing, this so-called offer, you may not have a job.”
There are legitimate questions about its legality
Much of the skepticism around the offer concerns how it will be paid for.
The argument that it’s not legal is pretty simple: The power of appropriation rests with Congress. The legislature has not directed any funds be used for a mass buyout. Trump therefore doesn’t have the power to make that decision unilaterally.
This thesis is, obviously, rejected by the administration and its allies, who argue the commander-in-chief has expansive enough powers to make good on his offer.
In the first camp, the AFGE’s policy director Jacqueline Simon told The Hill that current congressional appropriations are “directing the agencies to spend that money to hire people to carry out the functions of the agency, not to sit at home.”
On the pro-Trump side, Sen. Rand Paul (R-Ky.) said earlier this week that “the courts have shown a lot of leeway for the executive on hiring and firing.”
Either way, legal challenges to the proposed buyout seem likely.
Big changes are coming, one way or another
Employees weighing whether or not to take the buyout will have to ponder just how radically Trump is going to remake the government — and how sweepingly he might try to pare down the workforce.
The original email sent by OPM conspicuously noted that, for those who choose to remain in their jobs, “We cannot give you full assurance regarding the certainty of your position or agency.”
It added only that “should your position be eliminated you will be treated with dignity and will be afforded the protections in place for such positions.”
The subsequent FAQ from the agency was just as ominous in parts.
“The federal workforce is expected to undergo significant near-term changes,” it noted.
Some observers discerned Musk’s hand in the OPM email and FAQ, given that they both borrowed the image of a “fork in the road” — a metaphor he used in an email to employees of X soon after he took over the social media website.
Whether Musk was responsible or not, the FAQ regarding the buyout made some effort to strike a sunnier tone.
In response to the question of whether people who accepted the buyout would be able to take an extended vacation between now and September, the official answer is:
“You are most welcome [to] stay at home and relax or to travel to your dream destination. Whatever you would like.”
The impact on the public depends on how many people take the buyout
Skeptical voices worry about the impact of the sweeping offer on the functions of the federal government.
Sen. Mark Warner (D-Va.), drawing on his experience in the private sector, has warned that it is a fundamentally bad idea to “randomly go through and say to your whole workforce, ‘Oh we want you all to quit.’”
Elaine Kamarck, a senior fellow at the Brookings Institution who also worked as a senior policy advisor in former President Clinton’s administration, told Politico that “the blanket approach, which is pure Elon Musk, is going to have unintended consequences down the road.”
Kamarck added, “What if a third of the nation’s air traffic controllers take this buyout? Or all the CDC scientists leave for the private sector and then there’s a tuberculosis epidemic? That’s the risk with the way they’ve done it, sort of using a blowtorch for a very small issue.”
That being said, the prognostications about major impact on public services is premised upon a large number of people taking the buyout.
That may not happen — a refusal that would put the ball of government reform back in the court of Trump and Musk.
