In early 2025, the Trump administration rolled out an aggressive new workforce‑management strategy by offering a “deferred resignation” plan to nearly all civilian federal employees. Under this program, employees who submit their resignation by February 6, 2025, can maintain full pay and benefits—not just for a brief severance payout, but all the way through September 30, 2025. According to the Office of Personnel Management (OPM), those who take the offer will generally be placed on paid administrative leave for the interim period, excused from any in‑person work requirement, and allowed to retain key employment benefits like health coverage, retirement accrual, and leave.
The administration clearly frames this as more than a standard buyout: it’s a mechanism to streamline and reshape the federal workforce. According to the “Fork in the Road” memo, this is part of a larger push to promote a return to the office, enforce performance standards, and reduce long-term headcount. By offering employees an eight-month bridge with pay—even if they stop working regularly—Trump’s team hopes to encourage voluntary exits from long-term federal service without mass layoffs.
Implementation of the program, however, has already sparked serious concern and legal challenges. Some experienced contradiction and ambiguity in the contract language OPM later sent out, particularly over whether employees are guaranteed pay regardless of appropriations. Legal experts have noted that agencies may lack the statutory or budgetary authority to pay employees through September if current funding expires, raising unfairness and even illegality under the Antideficiency Act.
Critics, including federal employee unions, argue the program is fraught with risk. The American Federation of Government Employees (AFGE), for example, has published materials warning that the offer contains vague eligibility criteria, unclear protections, and potentially unenforceable commitments. There are worries that “deferred resignation” is being pitched primarily as a way to cull experienced staff under the guise of voluntary separation—and that career professionals may feel coerced to accept.
The program has also drawn bipartisan political pushback. Senator Sheldon Whitehouse (D‑RI) described the offer as potentially fraudulent, demanding explanations from OPM and EPA leadership over whether there is legal authority and funding to uphold the terms. A key court development underscored those concerns: on February 6, a federal judge temporarily blocked the program’s deadline amid a legal challenge led by unions, citing “serious legal questions” about its structure and whether promised payouts are legally binding.
Despite the controversy, many details are confirmed by OPM’s own documentation. Its February 4, 2025 memo states that employees who accept the offer will be placed on paid leave by March 1 and remain so through September (unless they choose to accelerate their resignation). But roll-out problems have already emerged: for instance, the GSA initially told probationary employees they would not be paid for the full period, a claim that was later reversed following scrutiny. The combined political, legal, and logistical friction surrounding this program makes it one of the most volatile workforce initiatives in recent memory—one with potentially long-lasting implications for federal service, institutional knowledge, and public-sector capacity.
