A U.S. federal judge has temporarily blocked President Donald Trump’s plan to downsize the federal workforce by offering financial incentives for voluntary resignations. The ruling, issued just before the program’s deadline, comes after federal employee unions challenged the initiative in court.
Federal Judge Pauses Government Buyout Plan
Federal Judge George O’Toole Jr. issued a temporary halt on the Trump administration’s buyout program, delaying its deadline until a scheduled hearing on Monday. The decision followed a lawsuit filed by the American Federation of Government Employees (AFGE) and other federal unions, which argued that the Office of Personnel Management (OPM) had acted unlawfully by implementing the plan without congressional approval.
The lawsuit raises concerns over the legality and financial feasibility of the program, which aims to reduce the federal workforce significantly. Initially set to expire at 11:59 p.m. EST on Thursday, the program’s pause allows the court to review claims that it lacked proper funding and provided conflicting guidance to employees. The Justice Department has confirmed that federal employees will be informed of the pause and that no resignations under the program will be processed until further notice.
White House Defends the Buyout Amid Union Backlash
Despite the legal challenge, the Trump administration remains adamant that the program is necessary to streamline government operations. White House Press Secretary Karoline Leavitt framed the temporary halt as an opportunity to increase participation, suggesting that more federal workers would take advantage of the offer.
“We are grateful to the judge for extending the deadline so more federal workers who refuse to show up to the office can take the administration up on this very generous, once-in-a-lifetime offer,” Leavitt stated. According to the White House, more than 40,000 federal employees had already accepted the buyout, with expectations of a surge in last-minute resignations. The administration had initially set a target of 200,000 employees voluntarily leaving, arguing that the move would save American taxpayers tens of millions of dollars.
Union Lawsuit Challenges Legality and Impact of the Plan
The AFGE, the largest federal employee union, strongly opposed the plan, accusing the Trump administration of trying to “dismantle the civil service” and replace experienced professionals with unqualified political appointees and contractors. The union contends that the government lacks the necessary budgetary approval to fund the severance payments beyond mid-March, raising doubts about whether federal agencies can honor the September payout deadline.
In an email to members, the union also highlighted concerns about misleading communication from the government regarding the terms of the buyout. Employees reported receiving a vague and ominous late-night email titled “Fork in the Road,” which many initially mistook for spam. Some workers expressed confusion and distress, fearing they would be terminated regardless of their decision.
Uncertainty Looms as Workers Await Court Decision
As the Monday hearing approaches, thousands of federal workers remain uncertain about their employment status. The OPM has clarified that the buyout program is not being canceled but merely postponed, reassuring employees that those who have already submitted resignations will still be honored under an extended deadline.
However, many employees are skeptical, given the administration’s history of abrupt policy changes. “The tone of the initial email was like, ‘You may be cut anyway,’” said Monet Hepp, a medical support specialist at the Department of Veterans Affairs. “People were blindsided by it.”
The legal battle over Trump’s federal workforce reduction plan underscores broader tensions between the administration and career civil servants. With the court set to rule on the plan’s legitimacy next week, the future of thousands of government employees remains in limbo.
Democrats Warn of “Brain Drain” Amid Trump Controversial Resignation Package
Democrats have strongly criticized a new resignation package for federal employees, warning that it could lead to a significant “brain drain” within the government. In a letter to then-President Donald Trump, Democrats on the House Oversight Committee cautioned that the departure of experienced personnel would severely impact the government’s ability to function effectively.
“Without the expertise and institutional knowledge that so many federal employees bring to their work, our government will be incapable of responding effectively to national emergencies, serving the American public, or even carrying out routine operations,” the lawmakers wrote. Their concerns highlight fears that losing veteran civil servants could weaken key agencies, leading to inefficiencies in public services, disaster response, and national security operations.
Security and Public Service Agencies at Risk
The Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) became the first national security agency to offer the resignation package to its employees on Tuesday, raising alarms among former intelligence officials and lawmakers. Critics argue that this move could undermine U.S. national security by forcing out seasoned professionals with critical expertise. The loss of institutional knowledge in intelligence gathering and counterterrorism operations could create vulnerabilities that adversaries might exploit.
Beyond national security, reports suggest that other crucial agencies, such as the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) and the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS), may also face staff reductions. NOAA, responsible for weather forecasting and climate research, plays a vital role in disaster preparedness. Likewise, HHS oversees critical public health programs, and any workforce reduction could hamper its ability to respond to health crises. With growing concerns about government efficiency and public safety, Democrats insist that the resignation package could have long-term repercussions for every American if Trump refused to reverse the policy .
