The Trump administration’s proposal to offer buyouts to federal employees is a master class in political sleight of hand. Upon close inspection, it’s about as sensible as paying off a credit card with Monopoly money.
The administration stated that it will pay employees who accept these “deferred resignations” through September as long as they accept the offer by Thursday. It claims the resulting reduction in the federal workforce will generate up to $100 billion in savings for taxpayers.
But that figure is not just optimistic; it’s fantastical. Even if we accept officials’ maximum estimate that 10% of the about 2.4 million civilian federal employees will take this golden handshake, the math simply doesn’t add up.
Consider the numbers. The federal workforce — which includes approximately 153,000 employees in California alone — spans from bustling urban centers to remote rural areas across the nation. Now consider the financial implications: Following the 2024 5.2% raise Congress passed for federal employees, their average cost to taxpayers is approximately $150,000 annually in salary and benefits. If 240,000 employees were to vanish from the federal payroll, the savings would amount to around $36 billion. This figure, while substantial, falls dramatically short of the trumpeted $100-billion projection.
But the greatest folly of this proposal is not its fuzzy math or impact in the states; it’s a fundamental misunderstanding of the role federal employees play. They are not mere cogs in a bureaucratic machine, easily discarded without consequence. Rather, they ensure that the government delivers essential services and practices fiscal responsibility, shepherding the vast majority of federal spending outside direct operations.
Federal employees are the watchdogs who prevent waste, fraud and abuse in government contracts, grants and entitlement programs. They steward our public lands, administer health services to veterans, process loans for small businesses and homebuyers, and conduct audits to ensure that taxpayer dollars are spent judiciously, among other responsibilities. To suggest that their departure — especially the departure of the most skilled among them — would save money is to ignore the vital role they play in safeguarding the public purse.
Moreover, the most competent and market-competitive employees are especially likely to seize this opportunity to leave government service. Yet these are the individuals the government can least afford to lose — those with skills and expertise that are highly valued in the private sector. Their departure would not only imminently drain the federal workforce of its top talent but could also lead to a longer-term brain drain that compromises the efficiency and effectiveness of government.
A scenario in which the most capable watchdogs are removed from their posts suits a kleptocratic system, not a representative democracy. It enables those who wish to exploit government resources for personal gain, free from the scrutiny of experienced professionals. In a democracy, that is nothing short of catastrophic.
The administration’s proposal is akin to firing all the accountants in a corporation and expecting profits to soar. It’s a shortsighted strategy that prioritizes fleeting payroll reductions over long-term fiscal health. The potential for waste and mismanagement in the absence of professional oversight could easily eclipse any supposed savings in employee compensation.
This buyout scheme may appeal to those who reflexively view the government as bloated and inefficient. But effective governance requires investing in human capital, not liquidating it. The pursuit of the latter suggests this is a veiled attempt to hobble the federal workforce under the guise of fiscal responsibility.
Moreover, in the grand tapestry of federal spending, only a small fraction goes to federal employees directly delivering public goods on the ground. The vast majority of spending is channeled through indirect policy delivery (such as grants, contracts and loans), where third parties outside the federal civil service are the recipients or users of taxpayer dollars. Our tax dollars are safeguarded through the oversight of these channels by the very employees the administration seems so eager to jettison.
The Trump administration’s buyout proposal is not a panacea; it’s a placebo. It offers the illusion of fiscal responsibility while potentially undermining the structures designed to prevent misuse of public funds. It prioritizes headline-grabbing numbers over substantive fiscal policy.
Reshaping the federal government in an image more palatable to those who view it with inherent suspicion — and perhaps seek to profit from the gutting of public services — is a dangerous game. It risks sacrificing long-term stability for short-term political gain.
The American people need something better than fiscal fabulism. They need responsible governance that values and retains the most skilled public servants.
William Resh is an associate professor of public policy and management at USC’s Sol Price School of Public Policy, the director of USC’s Civic Leadership Education and Research Initiative, and the author of “Rethinking the Administrative Presidency.”
The post Why the federal worker buyouts are no panacea for the U.S. budget appeared first on Los Angeles Times.
