The Trump administration’s efforts to shrink the federal government by offering what amounts to a buyout to federal employees is raising questions about its implementation and legality.
The offer purports to give federal employees who choose to resign about eight months of pay and benefits, while making them exempt from President Trump’s new return-to-office mandate.
Elon Musk, a top Trump ally who had a hand in the effort, said the offer would give employees time to “take the vacation you always wanted, or just watch movies and chill.”
But the offer’s vague language is igniting skepticism and calls for workers to reject the deal, while raising questions about whether the government has the legal authority to do it.
“It looked like another rushed Trump scam to me,” said Sen. Chris Van Hollen (D-Md.), who represents a state with numerous federal employees, calling the move the “brainchild of Elon Musk.”
“We know that Donald Trump has a history of not following through on commitments.”
Jacqueline Simon, policy director at the American Federation of Government Employees, one of the main federal employee unions, said workers should treat the offer with plenty of skepticism.
“It’s a great illustration of the old adage that if a thing seems too good to be true it probably isn’t true,” said Simon, who questioned the plan’s legality and noted a stopgap measure is keeping the government funded for the time being.
“We’re under a [continuing resolution] that expires in mid-March, and so the whole idea of promising full pay and benefits for no work for seven months or eight months … We can’t find the legal authority that OPM has to do this, rather than the agencies themselves,” she continued, using an abbreviation for the Office of Personnel Management (OPM).
Legal experts who spoke to The Hill said the move likely violates the Antideficiency Act, which bars the government from spending beyond what is dictated in their budget and requires them to use federal funding as intended.
“It is quite clear that the appropriations laws [are] directing the agencies to spend that money to hire people to carry out the functions of the agency, not to sit at home,” Simon said.
“The whole thing is, of course, based on a completely false premise that just randomly getting rid of however many federal employees sign up for this cockamamie scheme — that no one will notice — that the American people won’t notice the decline in the services that the federal government provides.”
Lawmakers representing federal workers in the D.C. area railed against the deal.
Sen. Mark Warner (D-Va.) said the plan was in line with comments from Russell Vought, Trump’s pick to again lead the Office of Management and Budget (OMB).
“Are there ways to make our bureaucracy more effective? Amen. But I’ve run businesses, you don’t randomly go through and say to your whole workforce, ‘Oh, we want you all to quit.’ If our best scientists quit, if our folks who are protecting our food safety quit, what is that going to mean?”
Multiple lawmakers also pointed to Trump’s quick rescission of an OMB memo on funding as all the more reason federal employees should be wary of the deal. That memo was meant to freeze federal spending but was pulled back a day after it was unveiled.
“As soon as I heard about it, it struck me there’s a lot of razor blades in that apple,” said Sen. Tim Kaine (D-Va.), who also questioned the legal authority to offer the buyouts.
“So if you resign, are you even going to get the pay? As soon as you say ‘I’m resigning,’ and you send that, then the administration knows, ‘Oh, that person doesn’t want to work with us.’ That may not be such a good thing. What if they decide after 48 hours, just like they did with the funding thing, ‘Well, actually, let’s start over again’?”
Workers who want to take the offer have until Feb. 6 to make a decision, according to emails sent to federal workers.
“I would just say don’t act precipitously, even though they’re trying to rush you to a decision by Feb. 6,” Kaine said.
Trump on Wednesday described the resignation offers as a way to shrink the government.
“We’re requiring them to show up to work or be terminated,” Trump said during a bill signing at the White House.
“We think a very substantial number of people will not show up to work, and therefore our government will get smaller and more efficient,” Trump added. “And that’s what we’ve been looking to do for many, many decades, frankly.”
Trump said many government employees who work remotely are “not working” or are “not very productive.” He also suggested that his administration may ask federal workers to prove that they did not have another job in addition to their government role.
The White House has asserted that Trump is within his legal authority to take such sweeping action to cull the federal workforce. A spokesperson on Wednesday called the suggestion that the resignation offers amounted to a purge “absolutely false.”
“This is a suggestion to federal workers that they have to return to work,” press secretary Karoline Leavitt told reporters. “And if they don’t, then they have the option to resign, and this administration is very generously offering to pay them for eight months.”
Leavitt called it “unacceptable” that swaths of federal workers do not work from the office, comparing their situation with that of law enforcement, teachers and nurses who show up to work in person.
“It’s an overwhelmingly popular policy with people outside of Washington, D.C.,” Leavitt said. “The president campaigned on this, and his administration is keeping the promise.”
The federal government already has established ways to reduce the size of the workforce.
It can do a reduction in force, and it can also offer incentive payments for voluntary “separations.” Those are typically capped at $25,000 and require staffers to end their employment immediately rather than many months later.
But the new offer from Trump is far afield of those plans and is unique in its wide-ranging nature.
If the government fails to pay federal workers who accept the buyouts, Simon said there could be a lawsuit.
“They can’t make these promises, and they’re promises that they shouldn’t be making,” she said. “I mean, why should the American people pay people to stay at home when the work still needs to be performed?”
