Trump Administration’s “Deferred Resignation” Program Sparks Nationwide Debate
In January 2025, the Office of Personnel Management (OPM) quietly unveiled a sweeping and highly controversial workforce initiative — a so-called “deferred resignation” or buyout plan detailed in a memo titled “Fork in the Road.”
The offer was unlike anything the federal government had seen before. It allowed up to 2.3 million civilian federal employees to formally resign by mid-February, remain on full salary and benefits without performing any work, and continue receiving those benefits until September 30, 2025.
How the Program Was Framed
The White House and OPM pitched the initiative as part of a broader effort to “improve government efficiency” and reverse a steep decline in in-person work. Reports at the time noted that only about 6% of federal staff in Washington, D.C., were regularly working on-site.
Officials insisted the program was voluntary and would save money long-term by encouraging employees already considering departure to step aside in an orderly fashion.
Who Took the Offer
The original deadline for participation was February 6, later extended to February 12 after a brief court-ordered pause.
Early projections anticipated a 10% participation rate, but initial uptake was slower — just 2% of the workforce (about 40,000 employees) signed on by early February.
Over time, however, interest grew dramatically. By July 2025, an estimated 154,000 employees — 6.7% of the federal civilian workforce — had accepted the offer and were effectively on paid administrative leave for the summer.
Legal Battles and Union Pushback
Almost immediately, the initiative drew legal fire. Critics claimed it violated multiple federal statutes, including:
-
Anti-Deficiency Act concerns over paying salaries without congressional appropriation for this specific purpose.
-
Administrative Procedure Act violations over how the program was created and implemented.
Several federal employee unions urged their members not to take the deal, calling it coercive rather than truly voluntary, and filed lawsuits to block it outright.
In early February, a federal judge temporarily halted the program and extended the resignation deadline. However, after a short review, the court lifted the block, and the initiative moved forward.
The Price Tag and Fallout
By mid-2025, the program’s costs stunned even some supporters. Senate investigators estimated $21.7 billion spent in total:
-
$14.7 billion paid to employees who resigned under the program.
-
$6.7 billion for employees who remained on leave during litigation or internal agency restructuring.
Critics argued the buyout weakened essential government services, strained national security operations, and wasted taxpayer money. Supporters countered that it was a necessary reset of an unwieldy federal workforce that would pay off in future efficiency gains.
Aftershocks Across Agencies
The ripple effects didn’t end with the initial resignations. Agencies including the Department of Energy and the Department of Defense pursued further downsizing through layoffs and early retirements. These moves raised alarms among lawmakers and security experts concerned about the loss of institutional knowledge and the government’s ability to respond to emergencies.
The “Deferred Resignation” program may have been framed as a voluntary restructuring effort, but its costs, legal battles, and operational consequences have left Washington — and much of the nation — debating whether it was an innovative solution to a bloated system or a costly misstep that weakened federal capacity at a critical time.