President Trump’s aggressive attacks against federal workers have not only hurt government operations but threatened the nation’s stability. In his first week in office, President Trump ordered the U.S. Office of Personnel Management to issue roughly two million federal workers an ultimatum: resign by February 6 (later changed to February 10) and receive paid leave through September 30 or risk the insecurity of staying in their position. Amid uncertainty for federal workers, over 60,000 have already accepted the buyout deal, constituting roughly 3% of the workers who received the offer. The number of workers choosing to leave has spurred controversy and raised questions regarding the offer's legality, effectiveness, and broader implications for government operations.

In sending this message, President Trump makes clear his intentions of gutting the federal workforce, not only an ineffective plan but a disrespectful one. Although President Trump blames government overreach on federal employees, the federal workforce has actually gotten smaller over time. In 1967, the federal workforce made up 1.1% of the total U.S. population, while it only made up 0.6% in 2018. Additionally, federal employees made up only 6.6% of federal spending in 2019, a small portion of the large sum of government spending. High-level federal employees who manage many employees and large programs with far-reaching impacts are compensated with relatively modest wages, which pale in comparison to those of the private sector. 

Even if President Trump’s offer reaches his goal — 10% of workers accepting — it would make very little economic difference. According to the Brookings Institution, reaching this goal would only save roughly $10.8 billion annually, a small percentage of total government spending, which rose to $6.75 trillion in the 2024 fiscal year. This would cause more harm to federal agencies than help to any other sector of government. Furthermore, the cost of the buyouts alone would be extremely expensive and legally questionable. Congress must first authorize using future funding to finance these buyouts, a process which President Trump has not yet fulfilled. Finding these funds would likely prove difficult for the Trump administration, and would conflict with their budget slashing goals. A federal judge has already pushed back the deadline to accept the offer, and multiple lawsuits from federal workers and unions pressure the legality of President Trump’s proposal. 

Aside from the legality of the offer, federal workers are key to the operation of many essential functions required in policy implementation. Efforts to reduce these roles would fail to recognize the value that these qualified workers bring to the government and society at large. Most of the federal workforce serve in security-related positions, and often contribute in ways that may not be noticed by the broader public. Without a complete plan to replace these workers, many of the unnoticed luxuries that federal employees provide may be lost. For example, federally employed air traffic controllers and transportation security agents are critical to air travel, which would be much more difficult and time consuming without them. Without a plan to ensure air travel continues to be efficient in the absence of federal employees, suggesting that these employees should resign is shocking and threatens effective government function. 

Furthermore, the Trump administration’s efforts to reduce federal spending through buyouts and mass firings raise significant concerns over legality, effectiveness, and potential damage to essential government processes. Implementing a different approach that respects the contributions of federal employees and carefully considers the implications of reducing the workforce would be more sensible. Rather than targeting public servants, the Trump administration should focus on larger areas of government spending. A well-functioning government depends on the experience, skill, and dedication of its workforce, and cutting these workers risks harmful consequences to national security, economic stability, and public services. Federal employees are not an obstacle to government success. They are the pillars that uphold the critical processes that serve the greater population.

Essential federal jobs uphold the nation’s well-being and ensure the safety, protection, and happiness of American citizens. Undermining these positions threatens the services that citizens rely upon daily. Between ensuring national security, managing public health initiatives, overseeing environmental protections, and maintaining infrastructure, federal employees are integral to the country's stability and success. Losing federal workers directly impacts communities like Ithaca and institutions like Cornell. Federal employees safeguard the quality of the water in the Finger Lakes, and federal funding supports research at Cornell. Despite their contributions to society, President Trump’s offer frames federal employees as disposable and costly. This notion is disrespectful to experienced and professional federal employees who serve the public, often in extremely demanding roles. Asking federal workers to resign is a disservice to their important work, and is a misguided and ineffective attempt to limit government spending.