February 6, 2025 - 8:00pm
Donald Trump’s Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE) hit an unexpected roadblock today when a federal judge in Massachusetts temporarily blocked its signature initiative mere hours before deadline. Yet even with this judicial intervention, the programme has already achieved something remarkable: convincing tens of thousands of federal employees to voluntarily resign. While falling well short of the administration’s ambitious target of 100,000 to 200,000 departures, these 40,000 resignations represent the largest voluntary exodus from federal service in America’s post-war history. Even as the White House denies reports that it’s drafting orders to cut thousands more workers from health agencies, America’s vast bureaucratic apparatus is facing one of the biggest shake-ups in its history.
The innovation — and potential danger — of this voluntary resignation programme lies in its circumvention of America’s robust civil service protections. The administration has effectively created a two-track approach: pursue controversial reclassifications through Schedule F (Trump’s attempt to strip job protections from civil servants by expanding a narrow exemption traditionally reserved for political appointees) while simultaneously incentivising departures through voluntary resignations to avoid legal battles. Even before yesterday’s court intervention, this strategy had already achieved something significant: changing the cultural perception of federal employment from “safe career” to something more temporary — a psychological transformation that may prove more consequential than the actual number of departures.
Previous attempts at federal workforce reduction, including Trump’s first-term efforts, crumbled in the face of legal challenges. But these departures show how carefully structured voluntary programmes can achieve what direct confrontation cannot. While unions and advocacy groups are mounting fresh legal challenges to Trump’s attempt to strip employment protections— with the National Treasury Employees Union and PEER already filing suits over due process violations — they have far fewer options when workers choose to leave.
However, there is still a huge amount of uncertainty with the scheme. Career coaches report their clients wrestling with basic questions: can they take other jobs during this period? And will they maintain access to retirement benefits? For some, this makes the deal less attractive. But others, particularly those close to retirement or extremely burned out on the work, may see an opportunity: essentially paid job-search time with none of the usual restrictions of federal service.
This approach carries undeniable risks. Brain drain is a real concern — the longest-tenured or most marketable federal employees, those with either specialised technical skills or institutional knowledge, will likely be the first ones to leave. There’s also the question of whether Musk, whose management style at X and Tesla has often favoured dramatic gestures over slow but steady reforms, is the right person to oversee such a delicate restructuring. While Trump seems content to let Musk play the villain for now, tensions could emerge if DOGE’s actions start affecting critical government functions or generating too much negative press.
Looking ahead, DOGE’s approach — if pursued through the year — could prove more consequential than Trump’s other, far more publicised initiatives. While immigration raids and tariff wars generate headlines, the quiet erosion of federal workforce stability represents a fundamental shift in how American government operates. The question isn’t whether these 40,000 departures hit arbitrary targets, but whether they signal the beginning of a permanent transformation in how Americans view government service. For good or ill, early signs suggest they might.
Oliver Bateman is a historian and journalist based in Pittsburgh. He blogs, vlogs, and podcasts at his Substack, Oliver Bateman Does the Work
MoustacheClubUS
Join the discussion
Join like minded readers that support our journalism by becoming a paid subscriber
To join the discussion in the comments, become a paid subscriber.
Join like minded readers that support our journalism, read unlimited articles and enjoy other subscriber-only benefits.
SubscribeIf we are ever going to get control of our deficits, and indeed our debt, this must be one part of the solution. May the promise be realized.
Decades ago, many workers in the private sector received fully funded pensions that guaranteed a decent income through retirement. Today few private sector workers receive that benefit. Even state governments have substantially reduced their retirement packages because they can no longer afford the old, generous guarantees.
Only federal workers continue to receive generous retirement packages and, I would suggest, these packages are out of step with the times. What’s so special about federal workers that they deserve substantially more generous benefits than most other Americans? The traditional argument is you have to compensate public servants well to ensure they’re not easily corrupted, but surely we all have a duty to obey the law irrespective of our compensation.
If federal workers are exposed to market forces like the private sector, they’d have less time, and sense of security, to pursue their own political agenda in their jobs.
Instead of arguing against other people’s pensions you could also be arguing to re-establish reasonable benefits for private sector workers.
For it’s not precisely true the private sector is not generous, that just goes for the bottom 90%, the upper strata are doing better than ever. A major reason for that was the massive wealth transfer that took place in the past 40 years. Not least because big parts of big capital do get nanny state support through subsidies, bailouts, loose monetary policy and protection against market discipline.
The reality is that the overwhelming majority of private employers could not remotely afford to fund pensions to anywhere near the level of the public sector, who really are in La La land.
Wait and see how the closures, insolvencies and redundancies really start to pile up ahead of the NIC increases in April.
The public sector was of course insulated from the impact of the NIC increases through extra funding. Says it all really doesn’t it. Can you imagine the outrage if the public sector was going to have to make cuts to pay the NIC increases.
I strongly suspect that the number of closures, insolvencies and redundancies will be such that the NIC increases will little additional tax revenue if the public sector is factored out.
Your last point is almost certainly correct. Labour governments never learn from history, studiously ignore the Laffer curve and give no thought to iatrogenics when it comes to fiscal policy.
The absurdity of claiming to be pro-growth and simultaneously strangling the lifeblood out of small business, the primary growth engine in the UK economy, is totally lost on Rachel from accounts.
Indeed. The authors suggestion of the need for a ”delicate restructuring” is way off the mark.
In the UK more than 25% of the tax collected by local government for things like road repairs and rubbish collection actually goes on the extraordinarily generous pensions that these organisations pay to people who have already been lavishly rewarded with pay and conditions much better than they could get in the private sector..
Except a few top brass, speaking from experience the pay in the public sector is much less than you can earn in the private sector
I’ve worked in the public sector in the past, and for the bulk of those that work in it the wages are considerably lower than they’d earn for comparable work in the private sector. The better pension schemes went some way for making up for this however, but if you take that away there will be no incentive for anybody decent to work in public sector jobs at all
“Brain drain is a real concern — the longest-tenured or most marketable federal employees, those with either specialised technical skills or institutional knowledge, will likely be the first ones to leave.”
I was just reading an analysis from another expert who suggested the longest-tenured govt employees tended to be the least competent. The most ambitious and effective employees are lured to the private sector.
That’s certainly true in the UK.
Yet in your comment above you claimed that public sector workers are lavishly rewarded with pay and conditions much better than they could get in the private sector?
After the Trump win, a couple of my friends who are Federal Government employees were excited at the prospect of his presidency. They were planning on retiring soon, and were fairly certain that with Trump coming in there would be financial incentives and attractive packages for retirement. This was a big topic of discussion among them since the election. As of today, the deadline for taking Trump’s offer, about 40,000 have accepted the offer. That is a lot, but over the last decade, there have been about a 100-110 thousand retirements from the Federal Government each year. I’d wager that the 2025 number of retirements will not be significantly different. There is a lot of noise in the system right now.
I have a good buddy in the bureacracy as well. He’s got some years left and is very patriotic. There are some good people swimming in the Swamp.
But 40,000 voluntary resignations in 2 weeks is not bad. I think they should keep all the DEI coordinators and let people “authentically” respond to their “Resilience Trainings.”
The 40,000 quoted seems to be double what most US sources are quoting, but even then it’s only 1% of the total. (Suspect the actual number isn’t clear yet and may change)
Voluntary, or ‘Mutually Agreed’ severance schemes are not new. They are often the first thing used when costs and headcount have to be reduced, and virtually all Public agencies are highly likely to have used them at some point – certainly the case in the UK. As the Author states for many employees they work v well enabling them to take a deal close to their planned retirement anyway, or enabling them to leave with money a usual resignation or other job acquisition wouldn’t have facilitated.
The problem when you run these programmes is you often have the wrong people apply, as the Author notes. Those with good alternative options tend to also be those your organisation hurt more by their leaving.
Furthermore the randomness of the Trump approach and it’s impact on what work is then compromised remains unknown. It may be, as Trump and Allies hope, work of no value and little impact. But folks can often find they actually appreciated what the Govt was doing when it stops.
Thus just a further chaotic, rushed approach for which the consequences remain uncertain. Chuck everything up in the air and let’s see where things land type thing. Coupled of course with ‘advance spin’ – much like the trade war stuff where the actual delivered benefits turned out to be minuscule. Reducing the Federal workforce and budget is a legit, and probably in some areas, necessary, action. Doing it in a haphazard way has considerable risk it turns out to represent poor value for money. But this isn’t about that, it’s about optics and performative messaging.
Even you will have to admit that the USAID thing is a masterstroke. How better to graphically illustrate just how corrupt and profligate the US state class has become? Kemi should be drawing up plans for a British DOGE. It’s a pretty safe bet that ‘effective throughput’ of similar programmes here is just as bad as the c20% that is all the US apparatchiks have managed to achieve. Maybe Elon could be invited to consult.
Kemi? I think you mean Nigel et al….
A masterstroke for Xi and the CCP for sure, as into the void they will go.
There’s a difference between ‘leaning’ an organisation that may need that, and assuming everything bad and thus let’s gut the lot. The chances are he’s going to make an awful hash of a ‘leaning’ that was necessary.
As it is it looks like Trump is now being held back by the Courts too. It may take legislation in Congress to confirm his plans, and therein lies quite a problem for him. One reason you are hearing alot about these EOs is he doesn’t have the support in Congress needed for many of his recent actions. The brakes are being applied but the ‘spin’ is out ahead for the moment.
A masterstroke for Xi and the CCP for sure, as into the void they will go.
Is the CCP really going to finance the world’s sex changes? Don’t think so.
The USA is a putative democracy and a free repiblic, limited by guaranteed constitutional rights. This means that we have the rights to expression, self defense, due process, and other civil liberties that can’t be voted away.
It also means that we choose our political leadership.
A highly partisan, unaccountable, unelected, and often grossly incompetent cadre of agency officials deeply, deeply threatens that form of government.
Congressional testimony over the last two decades shows that our agencies refuse to carry out the will of the voters. Directives from Senators and Presidents, if they were Republicans, were regularly stymied, ignored, or badly bungled by resistant and uncooperative agency personnel. During Trump I, laws meant to enable the fight against global terror were even turned against not just President Trump, but against Republicans in general. Majy leading Democrats see Republicans as so morally bankrupt that it became perfectly acceptable to try to ruin their lives.
That needs to end. We are not a one party state. We are not a socialist state. Nor should policy disagreements degenerate into lawfare and civil conflict.
I realize that when the government overseeing the world’s largest military and the world’s largest economy undergoes fundamental changes, it becomes a source of deep anxiety, not just for Democrats and their self-interest, but for the entire world.
The fact remains that our federal government is in dire need of reform. It wastes far too much money, does far too much damage, badly bungles most of what it attempts, and has itself become a growing danger to our freedoms and our way of life.
The Biden Administration took on more federal debt vis a vis our GDP than at any time since WWII, creating historically awful inflation, and largely wasting the proceeds.
A disastrous withdrawal from Afghanistan presaged ferocious wars, erupting in Europe and the Middle East.
Crime skyrocketed domestically, our national borders were essentially left wide open, and our navy would now likely lose a traditional naval war in the Pacific, if we were forced to defend Taiwan.
This must change. Some essential personnel must be kept, yes. Others simply need to be dismissed, either by replacement, retirement, or attrition.
The voters have spoken, and they’ve said that the chaos and dysfunction of the Obama-Biden-Harris regime must end.
Brain drain is the point. Not a flaw.