Trump's right to slim federal workforce, but he shouldn't rule out remote work | Opinion
Kudos to Trump (and Musk) for their work to reduce the government's footprint. But they shouldn't overlook the benefits of keeping some federal workers out of the office.
I am 100% behind President Donald Trump trying to right-size the federal government.
Really, all taxpayers should be.
Our current rate of deficit spending is going to end badly, and the time to fix it is now. That’s a big part of what Trump ran on and he’s delivering on those campaign promises.
Trump and his government-slashing sidekick Tesla CEO Elon Musk have a target of cutting federal spending by $2 trillion, which even Musk has acknowledged is a long shot.
It’s still a worthy goal.
Where I disagree with Trump and Musk, though, is in whether all federal workers have to be back in the office. More on that shortly.
In Trump’s early executive orders, he's focused on ways he could reduce the roughly 2 million civilian federal workforce – and make it easier to fire some employees by reclassifying their jobs.
Brian Riedl, senior fellow at the Manhattan Institute and an expert on federal budget policy, said that the government spends about $300 billion a year in salaries and benefits for those employees, and that slashing 20% of that workforce would amount to a savings equal to less than 1% of federal spending.
So while the scale of savings may be comparatively slim, it’s still an important aim.
“If the spending is wasteful and unnecessary, then even a dollar in cuts is worth doing,” Riedl told me. “I think it’s signaling that reducing the footprint of government means more than just reducing the benefits going out – it also means having a smaller bureaucracy that can impose fewer regulations and controls.”
Trump wants workers back in the office. Will they take the bait?
To help “encourage” some of these federal workers to exit the workforce, Trump has said that he wants all civil service employees back full-time in the office. He’s also offered buyouts to those same employees who may resist giving up that flexibility.
Let’s take a closer look at that plan.
The U.S. Office of Personnel Management sent a memo to employees Tuesday, offering eight months of pay and benefits – if they resign by Feb. 6, this Thursday.
"If you choose not to continue in your current role in the federal workforce, we thank you for your service to your country and you will be provided with a dignified, fair departure from the federal government utilizing a deferred resignation program," the memo states.
Since the COVID-19 pandemic, many federal workers have enjoyed fully remote work or flexible hybrid policies. Hard numbers are difficult to find and vary widely depending on the source, but the Office of Management and Budget reported last year that 10% of employees work fully remotely and 54% work on-site because of their job’s requirements.
Republicans have found other data claiming just 6% of federal employees work in an office. Regardless, it’s a high percentage of workers who have gotten used to the remote-work lifestyle and aren’t eager to give it up.
The unions who represent many federal workers aren’t happy with these changes and have pushed back hard against them, filing lawsuits against Trump’s actions.
It’s this union representation that’s part of the problem. Public-sector workers join unions (32%) at five times the rate as private-sector workers (5.9%). That means government employees typically enjoy much cushier benefits, including pensions, and it’s much harder to fire poor-performing or lazy workers.
This is why Trump and Musk want them back in the office – for more oversight.
Trump shouldn't overlook the benefits of remote work
While I understand the rationale for mandating employees back to an office, Trump is overlooking some of the potential benefits of letting them stay virtual.
Stephen Miller, Trump’s White House deputy chief of staff for policy, hit on one of the reasons in a recent interview.
“There's 2 million employees in the federal government,” Miller said on CNN. “Overwhelmingly, the career federal service in this country is far left, left-wing.”
No doubt he’s right.
So it seems like it would allow for a lot more ideological diversity if a higher percentage of federal workers could live anywhere within the United States – not stuck in the “swamp” of D.C. or other hubs where federal offices are located.
Plus, think of all the savings that could come from not having to keep up – or build – large office buildings.
“My preference is to cast a wide national net for these jobs and kind of weaken Washington's concentration of wealth that way,” Riedl said. “It’s not just going to be a bunch of D.C. liberals. You’re going to get different walks of life, different perspectives.”
Yet, he did say that if remote work were to become a permanent fixture, then more accountability measures need to follow, too.
Kudos to Trump (and Musk) for their work to reduce the government’s footprint. But they shouldn’t overlook the benefits of keeping some federal workers out of the office.
Ingrid Jacques is a columnist at Paste BN. Contact her at ijacques@usatoday.com or on X, formerly Twitter: @Ingrid_Jacques.