short shRIFt

Federal employees do not deserve their jobs. Federal employees do not deserve their paychecks. And these are jobs that can be fired at will. They’re consuming taxpayer dollars. Those jobs are paid for by the American tax people, who work real jobs, earn real income, pay federal taxes and then pay these federal employees.

~Marjorie Taylor Greene/February 27, 2025

On August 26, the Partnership for Public Service (PPS) reported there was close to a 10 percent reduction in the federal workforce since the start of the second Trump presidency. The underlying data showed that of the approximately 200,000 individuals who left there federal jobs, more than 135,000 had taken advantage of the administration’s “deferred resignation program.” In return for voluntarily leaving government employment, they received paid administration leave (at their current salary) and benefits through the end of the fiscal year (September 30, 2025).

The generic term for these kinds of cutbacks in employee costs is RIF (reduction in force). Supporters of this process claim it is the most empathetic means of cutting expenses. The labor budget target is reached without having to fire anyone. Although, choosing to stay in one’s job is no guarantee you will not be fired anyway, exactly what has happened to 65,000 federal workers since January 20.

Which brings me back to Ms. Taylor Greene and her like-minded colleagues. In their minds, the Trump employee reductions have done nothing more than relieve taxpayers of the expense of supporting the welfare of people who have no value. However, if you have ever been involved in or affected by a RIF, you would know this is far from the truth. Let me explain by sharing my own experience in February 2003.

At the time I served as vice-president for policy and community at the Kaufman Center for Entrepreneurial Leadership (KCEL), a division of the Ewing Marion Kaufman Foundation in Kansas City. A newly selected president, upon his arrival, informed us he believed the foundation was overstaffed and announced a RIF, which I must admit included a very generous severance package. An associate would receive three months full pay and benefits for each year of service. Especially for colleagues who had been at the foundation since its creation, the offer represented a major windfall.

At 53 years of age and only five years of service under my belt, the 15 months of severance pay and benefits seemed less attractive even though I had no idea whether my current position was on the chopping block. That question seemed to be resolved when the president told us he was rebranding the foundation which included eliminating separate divisions for the entrepreneurship and education functions. I assumed that meant some of the vice-presidents in KCEL would no longer be necessary.

Where I might fit in the new organization was the only remaining variable until the president called me into his office. As anticipated he told me that the senior management functions for the two divisions would be combined. He then told me he wanted me to be the vice-president for research and policy for the entire foundation, a major upgrade from my current position. However, he told me he was not ready to make this change public and asked me not to discuss it with anyone else. This was the first red flag. Then, as he continued to articulate his plans for the foundation’s future direction and operations, it became clear that he had little if any fealty for either Mr. Kaufman’s donor intent or our benefactor’s workplace philosophy. Within two weeks of being offered the promotion, I informed the president I decided to take advantage of the RIF offer and was immediately escorted out of the building by the foundation legal counsel. That was a pretty good indication I made the correct choice.

I was not alone. Several of the former senior management team left for early retirement or to pursue equally prestigious employment. Five months later I was offered an endowed professorship at Miami University and in the interim was busy with consulting opportunities including one with Civil Service College in Singapore. As you probably figured out, the Kaufman associates who took the buy-out were those who did not need it. Their value in the marketplace assured any disruption in employment would be temporary.

I have no doubt this is also the case with the over two million federal workers who received the January 28, 2025 memo from the Office of Personnel Management (OPM) titled, “Fork in the Road.” Far from being the worthless burden imagined by Taylor Greene, a list of prominent officials who voluntarily left mirrors the experience at the Kaufman Foundation. They include:

• David Lebryk, the highest ranking career official at the Treasury Department
• Jim Jones, director of the Food and Drug Administration’s food division
• Michelle King, acting Social Security Administration commissioner
• Steven Reilly, senior engineer at General Services Administration
• Seven federal prosecutors including John Keller, acting lead attorney for the DOJ Public Integrity Section, and Kevin Driscoll, acting head of the Criminal Division
• 30 career employees who were assigned to Elon Musk’s DOGE team

In their joint resignation letter, the 30 DOGE assignees wrote, “We will not use our skills as technologists to compromise core government systems, jeopardize Americans’ sensitive data, or dismantle critical public services.”

Equally important are the long-term impacts of this federal reduction in force. First, highly-skilled individuals, confident of alternative employment, in critical positions are most likely to resign. Replacements must be recruited and trained, generally at a cost significantly more than the former employees’ compensation. Additionally, critical services are disrupted in the interim. The best example was the immediate impact on air traffic controllers, all of whom initially received the “Fork in the Road” memo on January 28, one day before the collision between American Airlines Flight 5342 and an Army helicopter near Ronald Reagan National Airport, killing all 67 passengers. On January 31, OPM announced air traffic controllers were now ineligible to participate in the voluntary resignation program.

And the unintended casualties of the federal RIF continue to mount. Department of Agriculture specialists working on containment of the bird-flu outbreak were let go only to be recalled. Local Social Security offices, especially in rural communities are closing, creating an unmanageable flood of inquiries and requests for assistance at urban SSA call centers. The annual influx of summer visitors to national parks have overwhelmed the remaining park rangers.

All of this provides more evidence that Project 2025 and DOGE were never about government efficiency. As Donald Trump affirms every day, the only campaign promise he intends to keep is the one he made on June 10, 2024. “I am your retribution.” Though more accurately, he means, “I am MY retribution.”

For what it’s worth.
Dr. ESP