Author: Jack
Topic: Federal Workforce Reform
Introduction: Trump’s Vision for a Leaner Government
In recent years, the U.S. federal government has increasingly come under fire for inefficiency and wasted money. According to the Pew Research Center, 56% of Americans consider the U.S. federal government to be “almost always wasteful and inefficient”. As such, when presidential candidate Donald Trump announced his intention to streamline the federal government, he was met with praise and support. Now that Trump has taken office and begun this process, what was formerly support has quickly turned into panic and fear, especially among federal employees.
Currently, the exact number of federal employees laid off and the Trump administration’s goal for employee cuts is extremely unclear. Estimates range all the way up to 30% of the three millions civilian federal employees. These massive reductions in force have proven highly controversial, leaving many wondering if these cuts are within the constitutional powers of the executive branch.
Bringing further controversy is the involvement of the Musk-led DOGE, and how exactly the organization is impacting employee termination. Trump and Musk’s efforts are no less than drastic, and have caused a substantial stir within Washington. While many argue that Trump and Musk are far out of line in their quest to improve government efficiency, some protest this and believe such measures are necessary for the health of the nation.
A History of Cuts: From Hiring Freezes to Deep Layoffs
Trump’s hiring slowdown and job slashing is not entirely unique to his second term. Upon his initial inauguration in 2017, Trump worked to decrease the size of the federal government. This included a three month federal hiring freeze at the start of 2018. However, the federal government still grew by an average of 0.9% over Trump’s first term, considerably more than the 0.3% growth rate experienced during Obama’s second term.
While this raises questions over why Trump now believes the federal personnel cuts are necessary, the Trump administration largely points to the nearly 5% overall growth of the federal government under the Biden administration. This represents the largest growth in the federal workforce in one term since the 1980s. Trump has stated that many of the additional workers are simply not necessary. He also has stated that he’s seeking to “reclaim power from this unaccountable bureaucracy” via federal staff cuts and governmental optimization.
Musk and the Mission of DOGE
While Trump seems to have clear-cut goals regarding the federal government’s employees, Musk’s goals are much murkier. The creation of the Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE), was primarily of Trump’s doing. However, Trump has left control of the department to Elon Musk. When initially asked about the importance of DOGE, Musk stated that he would “dismantle government bureaucracy, slash excess regulations, cut wasteful expenditures, and restructure federal agencies”. As such, it would appear Musk is aligned with Trump in aiming to maximize government efficiency, while limiting wasteful procedures.
Many see Trump’s selection of Musk as a reward for his loyalty throughout the election process. Musk entered the political sphere in 2021 by critiquing the Biden administration’s handling of the COVID pandemic, and has since maintained a steady stream of support for Trump. Musk also maintains a high level of support due to his position as the wealthiest man in the world, a feat which many argue proves he is an unrivaled talent in the business world. In contrast to Trump as a businessman turned politician himself, he likely believes Musk’s skill set would transfer well into the realm of government efficiency.
Conflicts of Interest and Ethical Fallout
However, Musk heading DOGE presents several ethical and governmental concerns. Many point out how Trump seems to be surrounding himself with those loyal to him. With Musk loyal at his side, Trump would have the power to fire those misaligned with his ideals, which many believe is far too strong a power for the president. Moreover, Musk has a significant stake in the actions of the government.
One example would be SpaceX, Musk’s rocket firm, has more than $8 billion in ongoing contracts with the U.S. government. Thus, Musk possesses the well-known goal of colonizing Mars, which he has publicly stated is only possible “so long as it is not smothered by bureaucracy”. The rocket firm was also recently fined $633,000 for alleged license infringements by the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA).
Furthermore, Musk’s electric car company Tesla is facing several investigations from government agencies over safety concerns, particularly with the company’s self-driving features. The presence of these conflicts are difficult to ignore as Musk holds the ability to fire the very federal employees investigating his companies. Such conflicts pose major ethical concerns over Musk’s heading of DOGE, and any bias he may hold.
The Legality and Oversight of DOGE
These ethical concerns extend beyond just Musk’s reach. DOGE itself is the primary target for many ethical questions surrounding the recent firing of federal workers. As it stands, DOGE is not an official government department, as it was established by one of Trump’s executive orders, rather than an act of congress.
Additionally, DOGE claims to exist as an advisory body that aims to improve government efficiency, primarily through IT upgrades. However, these IT upgrades seem to have been pushed back in favor of Trump’s goal of shrinking the federal government. Opponents of DOGE accuse it of vastly overstepping its authority, with courts already blocking DOGE’s actions on the basis of acting outside its parameters. Many also believe that a non-official government department should have no control over the hiring and firing of federal workers. However, the department is widely supported by the American public. A poll done by CBS News concluded that most Americans, especially republicans, supported the actions of DOGE, even if they disagreed with how much influence Musk should have.
Who’s Being Let Go? Defining “Non-Essential”
Regardless of the reasoning, ethical concerns, and opposition, Trump and Musk continue their efforts to shrink the federal workforce. Generally, Trump has sought out “non-essential” employees, the exact meaning of “non-essential” varying wildly depending on department. The Department of Justice reports that 84% of its employees are essential, whereas the Department of Commerce reports that only 16% of its employees are. Estimates for Trump’s overall federal reduction goal range from 200,000 less federal employees (6.7% of the total 3 million) to 900,000 (30% of the total). These inconsistencies raise questions over the exact criteria of the employees that the Trump Administration seeks for the basis of employee termination.
Currently, federal firing has primarily targeted probationary employees. Probationary employees are employees that are on a trial period, typically being new hires or employees recently moved to a new position. Due to the trial period often lasting approximately one year, these employees are being targeted because they have fewer civil protections than permanent employees. This means they can be fired with less process and under less scrutiny.
Structural Changes: Executive Orders and Legal Roadblocks
Moreover, in late January, Trump offered a so-called “buyout deal”, in which employees who voluntarily resigned before February 6th would continue to receive pay until September 30th. The Trump administration was targeting a 5-10% resignation rate, with less than 3% of eligible employees taking the offer which is approximately 75,000 people. Those that took the buyout tended to be more experienced personnel, who would face fewer challenges in finding a new position. Furthermore, this would also mean that many of those that resigned were among the most valuable government employees.
The Trump Administration has put several policies in place to curtail federal hiring. On February 11th, Trump signed an executive order that only allowed one new federal hire for every four employees that were fired or left for the foreseeable future, creating a battle of attrition within the federal government. The order also stipulates that any potential new hires had to additionally be approved by a member of DOGE team leadership. With these policies in place, the government would naturally shrink in the long term, regardless of the success of the federal firing process.
However, success has begun to prove far more difficult than had been initially expected. In early March, two federal judges ordered the immediate reinstatement of 25,000 previously fired employees. Trump then filed a motion to overturn said reinstatement, which was denied. This is not the first instance of a federal court ordering reinstatement of federal workers. Civil servants enjoy a wide variety of protections, which provide the basis for the reinstatement order. A majority of civil servants can only be fired with the reasoning of poor performance or misconduct, neither of which applied to the firings on part of Trump or DOGE.
These protections include probationary employees, though they are less stringent. However, reinstating the previously fired employees is proving to be a challenge, with the majority of the reinstated employees being placed on paid leave until further notice. Many employees that are being reinstated are unsure of when they would return to work. These reinstatement orders do nothing to replace the employees that resigned as part of the buyout deal.
Public Services at Risk
Since the implications of the reduction in the federal workforce could be disastrous, the federal government has influence over many crucial U.S. services. These include water, food safety, environmental disaster response, disease control, weather reporting, and flight services. In particular, many argue that the reason for the more disastrous wildfire season in California in 2025 was largely due to the decrease in the ranks of wildland firefighters, an order which Trump signed. A loss of important personnel in many government departments could lead to a dramatic decrease in safety and quality of life across the U.S.
The Public Divide
Despite this, 30% of the American public was in favor of large scale federal workforce reductions, according to a poll conducted by Associated Press-NORC Center for Public Affairs Research, with 40% opposing the reductions. Among those in support, the primary belief is that the U.S. government is wasteful, a view not disagreed upon by the opposition. However, opponents of the personnel cuts fear the damage these cuts could do to the economy and important government programs.
Conclusion: A Workforce in Limbo
Among federal workers, what was once a largely stable occupation has descended into chaos, with many workers concerned they could be terminated any day. While the majority of Americans believe the U.S. government to be largely wasteful and ineffective, they tend to stand by the workers within the government, whereas Trump and Musk seek to improve government efficiency in methods they see fit.