The Trump administration’s Deferred Resignation Program (sometimes framed as a “buyout”) represents a dramatic strategy to shrink the federal workforce. Under the program, full-time civilian federal employees who voluntarily resign by February 6, 2025, can keep their pay and benefits through September 30, 2025 — even if they don’t return to work. The Office of Personnel Management (OPM) called it a “voluntary off-ramp,” designed to realign the workforce while giving workers a generous exit package.
A central driver behind the program is the administration’s frustration with remote work. In internal messaging, officials have emphasized a push for more in‑person federal staffing. Many federal workers in Washington, D.C., reportedly remain remote, and this program is being pitched in part as a way to encourage people who don’t want to return to the office to leave voluntarily. The promise of continued pay and benefits — regardless of daily workload — is accompanied by a waiver of in-person work requirements until the end of September.
But the proposal has sparked fierce backlash and legal challenges. Labor unions and Democratic lawmakers have raised serious concerns about its legality. Critics, including unions like the American Federation of Government Employees (AFGE), question whether OPM even has authority to offer this type of program. Some say the deal looks like a “scam” or a way to coerce people out of federal service, especially given clauses in the resignation agreement that could strip employees of future legal or administrative recourse.
There are also funding and contractual risks. In sample agreements, continuing salary and benefits through September are made “subject to the availability of appropriations,” raising questions about whether the government will truly follow through, especially if spending laws change. Several lawmakers have pointed to potential violations of the Anti-Deficiency Act, which restricts the government from committing to spending it hasn’t been approved to incur.
The program’s implementation has been rocky. A federal judge temporarily blocked the February 6 deadline so more legal arguments could be made, giving employees more time to weigh their decisions. Despite that, tens of thousands of federal workers reportedly signed up. Some critical agency staffers, like at the Department of Education, were warned that the resignation deal “could be canceled at any time,” and that they may be waiving legal protections by opting in.
The stakes are high. Proponents argue the program allows for a “humane” reduction in workforce — targeting employees who may not support in‑person mandates, while paying them out with dignity. Opponents, however, warn it could hollow out crucial expertise, force out dedicated civil servants, and undermine continuity in essential government functions. The debate raises bigger questions about how, and whether, the federal government can modernize without eroding the civil service foundations built for long-term institutional stability.
