If you’re one of the over 2 million federal employees who received the “Fork in the Road” email, you’re probably wondering where to go from here. The new administration is interested in making large changes to the federal government, with President Trump signing executive orders to remove protections from federal employees, force a return to office, freeze hiring and end diversity and inclusion programs on the day of his inauguration.
Voluntary resignation may sound like a nice alternative to staying in a job with so many unknowns. However, before abandoning ship, it’s important to make sure the lifeboats are seaworthy. In this case, there are a few holes to be aware of.
The offer on the table
Is it a buyout?
Though many politicians are calling the offer a buyout, most lawyers and law experts disagreed with this being the correct term. Federal employment lawyer Justin Schnitzer says, “It’s not a buyout. It’s not a severance,” while employment attorney James Plunkett told a Bloomberg reporter, “I always go to the text, and they’re calling it deferred resignation. So that’s what I would call it.”
The basics of the offer
At first glance, the offer presented in the “Fork in the Road” email sounds promising. Anyone who chooses to resign between Jan. 28 and Feb. 6 can take the “deferred resignation offer.” It’s quick and painless to do too. No complicated paperwork or exit interviews required—just a “reply” to the email with the word “resign.”
The offer states that anyone who accepts it will be paid their full salary and benefits until Sept. 30, 2025, and will be exempt from the return-to-office mandate. It implies that employees will not have to do their work remotely during this time by portraying the eight paid months as an extended vacation in multiple places in the U.S. Office of Personnel Management’s (OPM) FAQ page. However, due to the vague language used in the offer, it’s unclear if this is the case—and even less clear if there is any legal precedent or guarantee of the deal being fulfilled.
In addition, by taking the offer, employees are agreeing to sign an included pre-written resignation letter that includes unclear language like, “I understand my employing agency will likely make adjustments in response to my resignation including moving, eliminating, consolidating, reassigning my position and tasks, reducing my official duties, and/or placing me on paid administrative leave until my resignation date.”
The language used makes it ambiguous whether this means that those who take the offer can still be fired or laid off in the interim, thereby losing their salary and benefits much sooner than expected. Though it’s been implied that employees might be placed on administrative leave if a position is eliminated, it’s not currently legal for federal employees to have more than 10 days of administrative leave in a single year.
Who is included (and excluded) from the offer?
All full-time federal employees are being offered the option to take the deferred resignation, with the exception of the following areas:
- Military personnel of the armed forces
- U.S. Postal Service employees
- Positions related to immigration enforcement
- Positions related to national security
In addition, agencies can exclude specific positions from deferred resignation at their discretion.
Why is the offer being made?
According to OPM, the offer is an attempt to let employees “depart the federal government on terms that provide [them] with sufficient time and economic security to plan for [their] future—and have a nice vacation.” The new administration has already promised a drastic reduction in the federal workforce, and the buyout is being held up as a way to let people voluntarily leave as a first step.
Buyouts aren’t a new concept and are often used in the private sector. However, in the case of the federal government, the reason behind the offer may not be just to soften the emotional impact of a workforce reduction. When talking about the buyouts on Wednesday with reporters, Speaker Mike Johnson said that he supported the buyouts, noting that “drastic times call for drastic measures.” He went on to say that as things currently stand, “The new president can’t come in and just walk into an agency and say you’re all fired, you know, which, that [would] probably be appropriate in some of these places. But he’s not allowed to do that under the law.”
Schnitzer says, “The president is trying to do away with due process.” Most federal jobs are not considered at-will employment, which essentially means that in order to fire a government employee, there must be a proven cause and documented steps. The extra protections are there for a reason—to keep public servants neutral and free from the influence of newly elected officials. If an employee chooses to resign, they risk losing many of these protections.
Should you take the offer?
While everyone should make their own decision based on their personal circumstances, there are a lot of reasons to think twice before taking such an offer.
Labor unions are firmly against it
An email from the president of the National Treasury Employees Union (NTEU) said that they “Strongly urge [federal employees] not to take this alleged ‘deal.’ It is not good for you or for the American people.” They warned members that “there is no guarantee what they will do or that it can be enforced if you resign.”
Elected representatives warn there is no budget approved to fulfill the promises of the offer
Sen. Tim Kaine said on the Senate floor Tuesday, “The president has no authority to make [the deferred resignation] offer. There’s no budget line item to pay people who are not showing up for work.”
Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse wrote that there is not currently an approved federal budget for the year and clarified that buyout authority is limited to $25,000 (which would be vastly and repeatedly exceeded if employees are truly given eight months of paid leave).
Lawyers say there is no legal precedent to support the offer or guarantee its fulfillment
Schnitzer warned that the ambiguity of the offer raises many questions and that agencies would likely refuse to add any clarity to avoid opening themselves up to litigation. Schnitzer added that while employees can normally revoke their resignation at any time up until the effective date, it seems unlikely that will be the case here.
OPM’s FAQ page seems to agree with this assessment, stating, “It is the objective of the program to move quickly to consolidate and/or reassign roles and in many cases place employees on administrative leave which would likely serve as a valid reason to deny recission requests.”
Photo by fizkes/Shutterstock