The federal government is paying more than 154,000 people not to work
Source: Washington Post
July 31, 2025 at 7:00 a.m. EDT
The government is paying more than 154,000 federal employees not to work as part of the Trump administrations deferred resignation program, according to two administration officials.
The number, which has not been previously reported, accounts for workers at dozens of agencies who took offers from the government as of June to get paid through Sept. 30 the end of the fiscal year or the end of 2025 and then voluntarily leave government, significantly reducing the size of several major agencies, according to two Office of Personnel Management officials, who spoke on the condition of anonymity to disclose details of the administrations plans to scale down government.
The buyouts have rapidly sped up the process of slashing the federal workforce at an unprecedented rate, the officials said. But critics have argued the administrations tactics of using buyouts and administrative leave have been wasteful because the public is paying tens of thousands of employees not to work for months.
Officials could not say how much the government is spending on salaries for employees who are resigning. The timing of buyouts has varied by agency, employees remain on their agencies payrolls as long as they are on leave and some workers got additional payments through other retirement programs, as well. The officials also could not say how much they expect the cuts will save in payroll costs in the long term.
Read more: https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2025/07/31/federal-workers-doge-buyout-paid/
Waste. Fraud. Abuse. AND a violation of both the "Antideficiency Act" and the "Budget Control and Impoundment Act".

UpInArms
(53,199 posts)also distorts the employment activity reports, as they do not qualify for unemployment benefits until they are not receiving payments
SickOfTheOnePct
(8,236 posts)I highly doubt anyone who took it will be eligible for unemployment benefits.
The only people I know who took it (including myself) were people that were already retirement eligible...I was planning to retire in Dec 2025, I'm just retiring three months early now.
UpInArms
(53,199 posts)Yet if you had been terminated without cause, you could/would have filed for benefits
SickOfTheOnePct
(8,236 posts)...but none of the people who took this particular offer were terminated.
The people who were terminated under what I consider an illegal reduction in force (RIF) can claim unemployment.
SickOfTheOnePct
(8,236 posts)... you view the DRP as a violation of the Antideficiency Act and Impoundment Act.
The billets being paid for were in the budget, with dollars appropriated to pay for them, so the Antideficiency Act doesn't come into play, and the dollars appropriated are being paid, no impounded, so the Impoundment Act doesn't come into play.
I know our discussion earlier this week centered around the obviously illegal RIFs, but I'm still not seeing the violations that you see with regards to the DRP.
Full disclosure, though we did discuss it, I'm currently on DRP, being paid through 30 Sep, starting retirement on 1 Oct.
BumRushDaShow
(157,384 posts)And I'm still wondering why you keep narrowing what has been done to just a "deferred retirement".
There were a whole plethora of "Fork in the Road" nonsense emails sent out to employees in every Department and Agency - some that resulted in illegal "buyouts" which were NOT authorized by any legislation - I showed you the HHS crap from brainworm host (that is the Department my agency was under) - HHS sends all employees a $25,000 voluntary buyout offer
As I noted before, there were also numerous "without cause" FIRINGS - where employees with satisfactory or higher performance appraisals, were suddenly told to get out, and where those impacted had then attempted to get their cases (appropriately) addressed by the MSPB.... until 45 illegally fired the (D) member on the Board, leaving them without a quorum to even operate and carry out final adjudications (that case along with the NLRB Board members, is still being litigated in the lower courts after the SCOTUS allowed the illegality to continue, apparently not addressing the merits of those Board firings).
There are currently several "class action" suits that have been filed on behalf of federal employees who were illegally terminated - early mention of that here - Thousands join class actions as fired feds weigh options to challenge Trump's moves
More recently - Appeals board creates new path to renew reversals of probationary firings
The DOGE fuckheads assumed that if someone had "on probation" in their personnel file, they were "NEW" employees. A significant number were NOT "new", and were "Career" (way past "Career Conditional" status), but had moved to a different position - many being promoted to management positions (where there is a brief "probationary period" ).
Congress has only passed ONE "Rescissions" package that was signed into law to claw back funding that had already been authorized by the Continuing Resolution" that the government is currently operating on. JUST ONE. And that one was essentially ideologically targeted.
SickOfTheOnePct
(8,236 posts)...because that's what the article you posted was talking about, the DRP.
I agreed yesterday and I agree today that any buyouts outside of VERA/VSIP offers are illegal. I agreed yesterday and I agree today that the mass firing of probationary employees is illegal. I agreed yesterday and I agree today that the mass layoffs of employees in an effort hobble or completely destroy agencies/activities is illegal.
But you posted an article that is specific to DRP, not any of the other layoffs/firings, which I agree are illegal.
BumRushDaShow
(157,384 posts)(unfortunately I am out of WaPo gifts until tomorrow) but as an example, this is there -
(snip)
Democrats on the Senate Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations have separately estimated that the government has spent billions of dollars paying workers who are on leave either through the voluntary departure program or because of ongoing litigation over mass firings, according to a report released Thursday. The Democrats, led by Sen. Richard Blumenthal (Connecticut), argue that the U.S. DOGE Services race to slim government this spring led to mistakes and waste, estimating that the whole enterprise cost the government $21.7 billion.
In letters to agencies inspectors general Thursday, Democrats requested a review of the costs of DOGE cuts, including how much agencies spent paying workers who were sidelined or resigned.
Some agencies have publicly shared resignation numbers for their staffing changes, though the full scope of the buyouts has largely remained unclear until now. A Washington Post canvass of agencies and internal records counted 14 agencies that had shed more than 105,000 employees through early resignation offers. The higher figure from the Trump administration accounts for some agencies that The Posts tally did not.
(snip)
Unless it is designated as "unpaid (administrative) leave", then "administrative leave" is "paid leave". They then include the term "buy out" with that (which apparently is applying to SOME Department/agencies but not all, which is why I mentioned about what HHS was doing). I.e., "take this $$$$" as an incentive to "stop work", go on "administrative" leave until the end of the FY, and then good bye.
Blumenthal released a report (I didn't get chance to link in the OP) here (PDF) - https://washingtonpost.com/documents/b256b202-ff01-48dc-a2d1-80b0e43fa87a.pdf
SickOfTheOnePct
(8,236 posts)
Im disagreeing that the DRP violates either the Antideficiency Act or the Impoundment Act. Even the lawsuits filed by the unions dont claim that.
Will read the Blumenthal report in a bit, thanks for the link!
BumRushDaShow
(157,384 posts)and a decision had a deadline that was BEFORE any follow-on C.R. had been enacted. And thus there were no guarantees of even having funded FTEs for any "deferred resignations" (and "paid administrative leave" ).
I know during lapses (and I was still in my agency during the Green Eggs and Ham shutdown and then one other after, where the earlier Gingrich shutdown in the '90s amazingly didn't impact my agency because we actually had an appropriations bill passed for us but ended up going to work in a multi-agency building that was near empty because few others had appropriations), we were told - don't even open the lid on your laptop. There was a call-tree where the supervisor would contact you to let you know that funding had been approved. They were that strict.
If the previous C.R. had lapsed and you had people on "administrative leave" from that "Fork in the Road", then they would have no guarantee of getting any money and that "agreement" would have been in violation, and even moreso if the C.R. had different amounts appropriated and was not just a simple re-up (and they DID change the new C.R. from what was originally in the earlier one).
And another illegal and idiotic thing that happened with this was to originally have OPM doing the "Fork in the Road" emails and giving directives to Departments and agencies. THAT is not and NEVER WAS their role. OPM is NOT somehow at the top of any federal hierarchy to do something like that. They handled onboarding/payroll/benefits/retirements, etc. They did NOT have any authority to dictate to Departments and agencies what to do with their employees for staffing purposes.
But these tech bros just assumed that the government was set up like their corporate world.
Still, OPM came back around with a 2nd memo, now with what was suddenly dubbed the "deferred resignation program". But it was STILL emphasized that doing this BEFORE any follow-on C.R. was most likely a violation of the Antideficiecy Act (and THAT was GOP loons saying that).
Then it was all revised again - https://www.democraticunderground.com/10143388770
And again (this time with a threat of "take it or get fired (furloughed)) - https://www.democraticunderground.com/10143389792
And yes a union (NTEU) DID sue calling it unlawful - https://www.democraticunderground.com/10143395194
Their suit is here and it cites the statues required for doing any kind of a "RIF" as an example, which was the threat with the "take this deal or get fired" crap sent to some agencies - https://www.bloomberglaw.com/public/document/NATIONALTREASURYEMPLOYEESUNIONetalvDONALDJTRUMPetalDocketNo125cv0/1?doc_id=X6GQQJCTJ5798KO0B4EFD0PO585
Remember, I am a LBNer and was posting many of the stories related to this since the beginning!
SickOfTheOnePct
(8,236 posts)Ive been through every government shutdown the last 16 years (and I know you went through many of them if not more as well), and whenever the shutdowns ended, anyone on admin leave got back pay just like everyone else did.
In 2019, it was actually codified that all employees have to receive back pay after a shutdown, and as people on admin leave are still employees, Congress would have actually had to change the law in order to not pay all employees back pay after shutdown ended (had it happened back in March) in order to not pay everyone, and that wasnt going to happen.
As I noted earlier, even the union lawsuit didnt claim a violation of any law as relates to DRP - the complaints were that it was unfair to give employees such a short time period to decide and that the unions would be losing dues money if people took the offer.
BumRushDaShow
(157,384 posts)The Gingrich one was the most significant at that time (and thankfully my agency didn't get impacted).
Here is a different set of unions suit (again, these are the "early ones" - they have come back around with later suits) - AFGE, et al - https://www.afge.org/publication/trump-administration-fork-directive-ultimatum-unlawful-as-written-unions-urge-court-to-find/
The Fork Directive is the latest attempt by the Trump-Vance administration to implement Project 2025s dangerous plans to remove career public service workers and replace them with partisan loyalists. The Fork Directive amounts to a clear ultimatum to a sweeping number of federal employees: resign now or face the possibility of job loss without compensation in the near future. Even so, as employees face threats from the Office of Personnel Management (OPM) that failure to resign may result in being fired without compensation, workers are being offered a package that violates the law. For example, it is wholly unclear how the government can promise to pay workers for a deferred resignation when the funds to do so have not been appropriated.
The complaint further describes FAQs made available promoting the Fork Directive that are misleading. For example, despite assertions that workers would be free to accept other jobs after resigning, longstanding federal ethics regulations place numerous restrictions on the outside employment opportunities that a current federal worker can accept.
(snip)
Everything they did was backasswards and I certainly remember the 1990s furloughs/RIFs/buyouts under Clinton and the legislation that it took to bring it about as there is a "seniority" aspect involved too that was ignored by DOGE and their minions.
And I will agree to disagree although I had to take all kinds of ridiculous training and get read the riot act on this stuff.

SickOfTheOnePct
(8,236 posts)at our agency, people taking DRP could also take VERA/VSIP in conjunction with it, if they met the career field restrictions for those programs. Payouts were $25,000.
FakeNoose
(38,047 posts)Oh my gosh that makes so much sense!
twodogsbarking
(14,662 posts)it only took a fraction of a second to switch back before you peed your pants.
Bengus81
(9,095 posts)twodogsbarking
(14,662 posts)Sorry, couldn't resist.
Scalded Nun
(1,453 posts)Pay farmers (Big Ag is I am sure the biggest beneficiary) NOT to plant crops.
Jughead
(102 posts)Then they apply for unemployment in their states. The states lose money and the existing workers and companies in that state pay more.
Nice move Cheetolini.
SickOfTheOnePct
(8,236 posts)you cant claim unemployment when you voluntarily quit.
Bengus81
(9,095 posts)I know a carpet laying friend who did it against a POS that I worked for too for three years before I quit. He took pay stubs showing 60-65 hours per week for weeks and weeks and weeks.
He was awarded unemployment.
SickOfTheOnePct
(8,236 posts)...if you quit due to wage theft.
Voluntarily quitting when you're going to collect up to six months of pay and benefits, during which time you're also permitted to find other work is not quite the same.
twodogsbarking
(14,662 posts)No need to explain the one, eh.
LudwigPastorius
(13,054 posts)Karasu
(1,712 posts)Nazi concentration camps and stating "This is my 0% employment plan," while indiscriminately deporting people and doing their damnedest to kill off the senior population. Their definition of "unemployed" is also so fucking broad that it applies to practically anyone outside of the antiquated 9 to 5 model.
This is not a serious political entity and should have stopped being treated as such 10 years ago.
haele
(14,438 posts)Ya, I got and read that "Fork in the Road" memo.
Small print said the Government could recsind or modify it if budget or legal circumstance dictate in the future.
The new Federal FY is beginning in October, and agencies are scrambling to get any of next year's merit pay raises or bonuses set in September so they will be in place and contractually payable before the new FY. So money is tight. And no one trusts Congress to actually allow appropriated money to actually be spent next year, the way they were talking this year.
Polybius
(20,609 posts)It's always been a dream of mine.
SickOfTheOnePct
(8,236 posts)I've been home since March 26.