The Trump administration launched a nationwide “deferred resignation” offer to millions of civilian federal employees, inviting them to voluntarily resign by early February 2025 in exchange for being paid their full salary and benefits through September 30, 2025. Employees who accepted were placed on administrative leave and exempted from new in‑person workplace requirements until that date. The program was communicated via an email from the Office of Personnel Management (OPM) titled “Fork in the Road.”

This initiative differs from traditional buyouts or voluntary early‑retirement incentives because it was offered on a government‑wide scale and tied directly to broader efforts to reshape federal workforce culture, including enforced return‑to‑office policies.

Administration officials framed the program as a tool to reduce long‑term federal payroll obligations, streamline operations, and encourage a workplace culture centered on in‑person work and accountability. Some White House statements anticipated savings from reduced staffing and claimed such measures were necessary to modernize government and cut waste.

The deferred resignation offer also interacted with the administration’s broader push to abolish or limit remote work mandatory from the COVID‑19 era, with a stated preference for employees who work physically in federal offices.

Participation varied significantly across agencies. Early reporting suggested only a small proportion of the federal workforce initially opted in — around 20,000 employees out of about 2.3 million — much lower than administration expectations.

However, in specific agencies like the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and USDA, more employees accepted the offer through additional rounds. At EPA, more than 2,600 employees took the deferred resignation offer, reflecting significant impacts on certain departmental workforces.

Combined with other early retirement and separation incentives, attrition from federal jobs in 2025 has been substantial — described in reporting as among the largest civilian workforce declines since World War II.

The program was controversial from its inception. Federal employee unions and Democratic lawmakers argued the plan lacked clear statutory authority, raised compliance issues under appropriations law, and could be used to pressure career civil servants to exit government service.

A federal judge temporarily blocked the program earlier in 2025 to allow arguments over its legality — including whether OPM had the authority to offer pay beyond current appropriations — before lifting the pause and allowing the deadline to stand.

Unions such as the American Federation of Government Employees (AFGE) warned employees not to accept the offer, calling it legally questionable, urging workers to protect their rights and job protections, and highlighting uncertainties about whether promised benefits would actually be paid.

Supporters of the program — including some conservative policymakers and OPM officials — argue it provides a voluntary and dignified exit for workers unwilling to meet new workplace expectations or embrace organizational changes. They describe it as a humane way to reduce government size without forced layoffs.

The White House claimed that the initiative would eventually save taxpayers money by reducing overall staffing costs and that it aligns with efforts to reform the civil service into a more flexible, performance‑focused workforce.

Critics warn the program could lead to loss of experienced civil servants and institutional knowledge, potentially undermining the government’s ability to deliver essential services, from environmental protection to public health and social programs.

Concerns also focus on the legal basis for the program, especially its reliance on executive authority without specific congressional appropriations, and whether full compensation through September 2025 is guaranteed under existing law.

Some federal workers expressed anxiety that the program was a thinly veiled effort to purge the civil service of employees who do not align with the administration’s priorities, and that accepting the offer might jeopardize pensions or benefits tied to long‑term service.