Following the haphazard rollout Tuesday of a plan the White House claimed offered “buyouts” to nearly the entire federal workforce but ultimately looked more like extended paid leave prior to leaving government, federal employee groups, Democratic lawmakers and good government experts are warning federal workers not to respond to the Trump administration’s “deferred resignation” email.
According to the terms of the offer, if a federal employee decides to resign by Feb. 6, they can retain their current pay and benefits until Sept. 30. Although federal regulations cap buyouts through the Voluntary Separation Incentive Payment program at $25,000, the administration appears to be circumventing this by instructing agencies to place resigning employees on paid administrative leave for the remainder of the fiscal year.
By Tuesday morning, a consensus had emerged among unions and other federal employe associations: Don’t take the deal. Between the questionable legal authority to grant deferred resignations, a lack of guarantee that an employees’ resignation will be accepted and that their pay and benefits will actually continue, and Elon Musk’s involvement and past history with mass resignation efforts, feds should be wary, they said.
“Right now, we have more questions than answers about this email and the ‘deferred resignation program,’” reads an email from Matt Biggs, president of the International Federation of Professional and Technical Engineers to union locals. “We know of no underlying policy nor any authority under which OPM is offering ‘deferred resignation.’ We ask you . . . to tell [bargaining unit employees] not to ‘resign’ and accept the terms of the ‘deferred resignation program.’”
In an FAQ compiled for members, the American Federation of Government Employees warned of potential loopholes the administration could exploit to avoid paying employees who accepted the resignation offer.
“Nothing in the program documentation purports to prohibit the termination or separation of an employee who accepts deferred resignation,” the union wrote. “While the OPM email suggest that employees will maintain their compensation and benefits until the effective date of their resignation date, it does not explicitly state that employees are shielded from layoffs or other adverse actions before Sept. 30, 2025. There is no guarantee that employees opting into the program will not be targeted for such actions.”
Democrats on Capitol Hill also noted both Trump and Musk’s proclivities for allegedly bilking vendors and employees. When Musk acquired Twitter in 2022, he sent a similar mass email to employees—also entitled “Fork in the Road”—soliciting resignations. Last year, former employees sued the multi-billionaire for allegedly reneging on severance payments, though the case was dismissed on jurisdictional grounds.
“I’m just saying to folks, ‘Don’t fall for what so many contractors have fallen for with this guy,” Sen. Tim Kaine, D-Va., said. “‘Come work on my casino, come work on my hotel,’ and then they end up getting stiffed. And I think they’re getting set up to face the same treatment.”
Kaine added he did not think Trump had the legal authority to carry out the quasi-severance offers and the only guarantee is the administration would not backfill for those individuals who do leave.
“It looked like another rushed Trump scam to me,” said Sen. Chris Van Hollen, D-Md. “I’m not sure if it’s legal but I would advise [federal employees] to make sure it is if they’re even thinking about it because…Donald Trump has a history of not following through.”
Several Democrats cautioned that if Trump backtracks on his offer or it is deemed unlawful, those who did sign up for the severance would then have targets on their backs as disloyal workers. Sen. Patty Murray, D-Wash., the top Democrat on the Senate Appropriations Committee, said federal workers could face consequences if the offers are rescinded.
“We have not been able to see any authority for that, nor do we have the appropriations to do that,” Murray said. “I think it could leave the employees in a tough spot.”
Republican lawmakers, meanwhile, embraced Trump’s push.
“Totally support it,” Sen. Ron Johnson, R-Wis., said, adding he is in favor of “weaning people off the federal government.” He noted he had not “scoured federal statutes” to determine whether the offers were legal but he assumed they “probably” were.
Sen. Rand Paul, R-Ky., who chairs the Senate Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee, said any effort to downsize government was “a good idea.”
“I think we should try every possible legal means of making government smaller and making government live within its means,” Paul said, adding, in his view, the president has wide authorities to conduct hiring and firing of federal employees.
Max Stier, president of the Partnership for Public Service, issued a statement Tuesday blasting the measure as one that, if successful, could create critical skills gaps at agencies and hurt mission delivery.
“The Trump administration’s recent efforts to encourage the bulk of the federal workforce to resign are perplexing, of questionable legality and dangerous,” he said. “Americans rely on federal workers to fly safely, help veterans and seniors access their benefits, keep our food and water safe, protect public health, respond to natural disasters and maintain the rule of law. Stripping away expert talent through such a non-strategic approach puts all of us at risk in a profound way.”
And Doreen Greenwald, national president of the National Treasury Employees Union, described the the resignation offer, coupled with the new administration’s ongoing efforts to strip federal workers of their civil service protections and effectively end telework,” as “coercive.”
“The so-called ‘deal’ is a hostile effort to disparage federal employees, weaken agencies and disrupt the valuable services that these employees provide to the public daily,” she said. “The OPM documents lack clarity about the exact terms of the offer, making it unreliable. We also question whether OPM has the legal authority to use a ‘deferred resignation’ to put people on extended administrative leave under these circumstances.”
Read the full article here
