The Trump administration’s latest attempt to shrink the federal workforce—offering employees eight months of pay and benefits to resign—has ignited skepticism from lawmakers, legal experts, and federal employee advocates. Critics are questioning not only the plan’s feasibility but also its legality, as the administration seeks to reshape the government’s workforce while enforcing a strict return-to-office mandate.
A “Vacation” or a Legal Minefield?
The offer, which exempts employees from President Trump’s return-to-office policy, was championed by Elon Musk, a prominent Trump ally. Musk framed it as a chance for workers to “take the vacation you always wanted, or just watch movies and chill.” However, legal experts argue the proposal likely runs afoul of the Antideficiency Act, which bars the government from misallocating federal funds.
“It is quite clear that the appropriations laws direct agencies to use that money to hire people to carry out the functions of the agency, not to sit at home,” said Jacqueline Simon, policy director at the American Federation of Government Employees.
Sen. Chris Van Hollen (D-Md.), who represents a state with a high number of federal employees, dismissed the plan as another haphazard Trump scheme.
“It looked like another rushed Trump scam to me,” he said, labeling it the “brainchild of Elon Musk.”
Uncertain Legal Standing and Worker Skepticism
The legality of the buyout remains murky. Traditionally, federal workforce reductions follow strict guidelines. The government can offer Voluntary Separation Incentive Payments (VSIPs)—capped at $25,000—but these require immediate resignation, not months of paid leave.
“We can’t find the legal authority that OPM has to do this, rather than the agencies themselves,” Simon added, highlighting that the government is currently funded under a continuing resolution expiring in mid-March, raising further doubts about the plan’s financial backing.
Sen. Tim Kaine (D-Va.) warned federal employees against rushing into the offer, questioning whether they’d even receive the promised payments.
“As soon as you say, ‘I’m resigning,’ and you send that in, then the administration knows, ‘Oh, that person doesn’t want to work with us.’ That may not be such a good thing,” Kaine said. “What if they decide after 48 hours, just like they did with the funding thing, ‘Well, actually, let’s start over again’?”
A Purge or an Efficiency Move?
Trump has framed the effort as a way to reduce what he sees as an inefficient federal workforce.
“We’re requiring them to show up to work or be terminated,” he said during a bill signing. “We think a very substantial number of people will not show up to work, and therefore our government will get smaller and more efficient.”
However, lawmakers warn that indiscriminately shedding federal workers could disrupt critical government services.
“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,’” said Sen. Mark Warner (D-Va.). “If our best scientists quit, if our folks who are protecting our food safety quit, what is that going to mean?”
Critics also point to Trump’s history of reversing policies abruptly, as seen with his withdrawal of an OMB spending freeze memo just one day after issuing it. That fuels fears that the resignation offer could disappear just as quickly—leaving employees without jobs or promised payments.
Workers Face a Tight Deadline
Federal employees have until Feb. 6 to decide whether to take the buyout, a timeline that critics argue is designed to pressure workers into quick decisions.
“I would just say don’t act precipitously, even though they’re trying to rush you to a decision,” Kaine cautioned.
The White House insists the plan is legal and in line with Trump’s commitment to reducing remote work.
“This is a suggestion to federal workers that they have to return to work,” said press secretary Karoline Leavitt. “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.”
The administration argues that in-person work is the standard for law enforcement, teachers, and nurses, so federal employees should be held to the same expectations.
Potential Legal Battles Ahead
If the government fails to pay employees who accept the deal, legal challenges are almost certain.
“They can’t make these promises, and they’re promises that they shouldn’t be making,” Simon said. “Why should the American people pay people to stay at home when the work still needs to be performed?”
0 Comments