Loading...

Trump’s actions to disrupt the federal bureaucracy spark concern and uncertainty

Government agencies are overwhelmed with uncertainty as they struggle to navigate the flood of new policies, while employees scramble to understand the effects on their lives.

For over two million federal employees, transitions are expected with each new administration. However, the rapid pace and vast scope of these changes have caught many by surprise. Credit: Eric Lee/The New York Times.

 

A Department of Education employee was attending a funeral when she received an unexpected call: she was being placed on administrative leave due to her involvement in programs that support Black students and others in accessing federal resources.

A disabled veteran working at the Department of Veterans Affairs grew emotional upon learning that telework options were being revoked, fearing it could jeopardize his ability to continue caring for fellow soldiers.

At the Federal Trade Commission, anxiety ran so high that one employee warned family members not to discuss politics over unencrypted lines. Across government agencies, workers exchanged uneasy glances, wary of being accused by colleagues of opposing the administration’s push to dismantle certain programs.

President Trump’s swift and sweeping efforts to reshape the federal bureaucracy in his early days in office have triggered a wave of fear, frustration, and uncertainty among federal employees.

Dozens of federal employees, many speaking anonymously due to fears of retaliation, described an atmosphere of deep uncertainty as agencies struggled to interpret and implement a wave of new policies. Workers scrambled to gauge how the sweeping changes would impact their careers and families. As the nation’s largest employer, the disruption within the federal government was poised to send ripples through communities nationwide.

From Inauguration Day onward, a steady stream of executive orders and memos arrived, many carrying the combative tone of a campaign speech. Among them: the abrupt termination of so-called “Radical and Wasteful” diversity programs in federal agencies, the revocation of civil service protections for portions of the workforce, and the immediate halt to remote work—justified by an administration memo claiming federal office buildings were “mostly empty” and that Washington’s downtown had become “a national embarrassment.”

Hiring was frozen, job offers rescinded, scientific meetings abruptly canceled, and federal health officials were temporarily barred from public communication—a directive interpreted so broadly that some believed it even extended to purchasing lab supplies.

For the more than two million federal workers—about 80% of whom live outside the Washington area—transitions are expected with each new administration. However, the speed and scale of these changes caught many off guard.

“They are being upended in the most brutal and traumatic way imaginable,” said Max Stier, president of the Partnership for Public Service, a nonprofit advocating for effective governance. Stier expressed deep concerns about how the rapid overhaul could weaken the country’s ability to respond to pressing threats, from terrorism to pandemics.

He acknowledged that the desire for change is understandable but cautioned that “the pace is both unnecessary and harmful.”

Federal employees turned to their supervisors for clarity, only to find that they, too, were struggling to interpret vague directives and memos that offered little detail. For instance, the return-to-office order mentioned exemptions for employees with disabilities, yet provided no guidance on which conditions might qualify. Some managers admitted they had no more information than what was being reported in the news.

Fueling the uncertainty was a comment from the president himself—on Friday, he suggested he might consider shutting down the Federal Emergency Management Agency, a move that sent shockwaves through its 20,000 employees across the country.

During a visit to North Carolina on Friday, President Trump hinted that he might consider shutting down the Federal Emergency Management Agency, a remark that sparked concern among its 20,000 employees nationwide. Credit: Kenny Holston/The New York Times.

 

A spokesperson for the Office of Personnel Management defended the measures in a statement, describing them as “bold steps toward creating a federal workforce driven by merit, excellence, and achievement, ensuring a government that serves the public efficiently and effectively.”

“We have already saved millions of taxpayer dollars that were previously spent on DEIA programs—initiatives that not only wasted hard-earned taxpayer money but also fostered discrimination against federal employees,” the statement added, referring to efforts focused on diversity, equity, inclusion, and accessibility.

Donald F. Kettl, an emeritus professor at the University of Maryland and an expert on civil service, acknowledged that there is broad agreement among scholars that reforms are needed.

“It’s too difficult to hire, too complicated to fire, and there’s a major disconnect between the current civil service system and the skills government needs to tackle 21st-century challenges,” Dr. Kettl explained.

However, he warned that many of the Trump administration’s proposed changes could do more harm than good. “They seem more focused on shifting the balance of power than on actually improving government performance,” he said.

Within federal offices, anxiety has been mounting. A Homeland Security Department employee described a workplace atmosphere where staff felt they could be dismissed at any moment. At the Commerce Department, one worker said employees were on edge, dreading every new meeting announcement.

The sense of isolation is exacerbated, some federal employees noted, by the widespread public perception that the federal government is bloated and inefficient. While many agreed that well-planned reform could be beneficial, they also pointed out that they had accepted lower salaries to serve the public—whether by issuing Social Security checks, ensuring air travel safety, or inspecting food.

“The reality is that the American economy depends on the work my agency does,” said Colin Smalley, a geologist with the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers and president of his local chapter of the International Federation of Professional and Technical Engineers. “We keep construction projects moving, maintain open ports and waterways, ensure power grids function, and protect communities from natural disasters while aiding in recovery efforts. Undermining our mission ultimately harms the public.”

Adding to employees’ fears was a directive from the Office of Personnel Management requiring agency heads to submit, by Jan. 24, a list of employees still within their probationary period—typically the first one or two years after hiring.

The directive emphasized that such employees “can be terminated during that period without triggering appeal rights” and instructed managers to assess whether they should be retained, according to a copy obtained by The New York Times.

Jacqueline Simon, policy director for the American Federation of Government Employees, which represents roughly 300,000 members across various agencies, warned that efforts to dismiss probationary employees could have serious repercussions for government operations.

For instance, she pointed out that workers in the Food Safety and Inspection Service—who inspect meat and poultry plants to prevent diseased animals and contaminants from entering the food supply—often leave within a year due to the job’s demanding nature.

“It’s not a job people stay in for long,” Ms. Simon said, describing the work as “dirty and dangerous.” She warned that if the Trump administration removed all probationary employees from the Food Safety and Inspection Service, it would create a severe shortage of inspectors at meat processing plants.

An attorney at a federal enforcement agency echoed similar concerns, explaining that his team consists of more than a dozen lawyers, with over half still in their probationary period. Losing them all, he said, would be “catastrophic” for their ability to carry out law enforcement responsibilities.

One of the most sweeping mandates issued by Trump in his first week was the order to bring all federal workers back to the office full time by late next month, effectively dismantling a long-standing telecommuting policy that, in many agencies, predated the pandemic. For some employees who wish to remain in government service, this directive means selling their homes, relocating their families, and enrolling their children in new schools— all within just a few weeks. New mothers on maternity leave are now questioning whether they will be able to return to work, while couples face difficult decisions about whose career to prioritize.

Complicating matters further, many federal offices simply do not have enough space to accommodate a full return to in-person work. Some argue that this is intentional. Shortly after the November election, Elon Musk and Vivek Ramaswamy—both tapped by Trump to spearhead government reforms—wrote in a Wall Street Journal op-ed: “Requiring federal employees to come to the office five days a week would result in a wave of voluntary terminations that we welcome.”

“I think it’s clear what he’s trying to do—push people to quit,” said Representative Glenn F. Ivey of Maryland, a Democrat representing a district with tens of thousands of federal employees. “The plan seems to be to drive out a large number of federal workers and replace them with political loyalists.”

Representative Glenn F. Ivey’s district in Maryland is home to tens of thousands of federal workers. Credit: Haiyun Jiang for The New York Times.

 

The administration’s actions are already facing legal challenges from unions and other organizations, which argue that eliminating civil service protections violates federal employment laws.

Among the first to be directly affected by the president’s new policies were employees involved in diversity, equity, and inclusion programs. Trump ordered the immediate shutdown of all such offices, placing their staff on administrative leave by Wednesday at 5 p.m. Agencies were instructed to finalize layoff plans by Jan. 31. Additionally, the administration warned employees of “adverse consequences” if they failed to report colleagues who did not comply with the orders within 10 days, even setting up a dedicated email account for such reports.

One of the affected employees, who was placed on leave while attending a funeral, had worked on a well-regarded program that helped students access scholarships and industry connections, as well as assisted Black communities in navigating government programs that were often overlooked. The Trump administration, in various statements, has labeled such initiatives “harmful” and “wasteful.”

“If that’s considered harmful, then I’m proud of it—because what I did was empower communities to succeed,” she said. “We are brilliant, but we don’t have the generational wealth and nepotism that others do, so we have to learn how to build opportunities for ourselves.”

In a workforce that is nearly 20 percent Black, many employees fear another significant consequence of these policies: a federal government that becomes whiter and less diverse.

The federal government is the nation’s largest employer.Credit…Tom Brenner for The New York Times

 

By the end of the week, many employees admitted they were unsure how much longer they could endure the upheaval. Some likened the atmosphere to the McCarthy era, disheartened by how quickly their office leaders complied with the new directives.

At the Department of Labor, staff looked on as a recently hired civil service employee was escorted out—her dismissal tied to her past role as a political appointee. Another employee recounted how her manager not only instructed her to remove all mentions of “diversity, equity, and inclusion” from the agency’s website, as required by the executive order, but also to erase references to “underserved” and “marginalized communities.” After complying, she retreated to a supply closet, called her mother, and broke down in tears.

On Tuesday morning, Moriah Lee, an analyst at NASA, attended a virtual town hall to understand how the administration’s orders would impact her small team, which audits and monitors space program projects. The acting supervisors—colleagues she had known for years—made it clear that they had no intention of showing flexibility, she said.

The weekly speaker series, once a staple of the agency’s diversity program, was abruptly discontinued—no more sessions featuring deaf individuals, combat veterans, and others who had shared their experiences. Also gone was Moriah Lee’s ability to live in Nashville while commuting twice a month to her office in Huntsville, Alabama, a privilege now revoked under the new policies.

After the virtual town hall, she and her colleagues returned to work, shaken but resolute. “The ones acting most out of fear are those in authority,” she observed.

Yet, for Ms. Lee, the abrupt end of remote work, coupled with the sweeping directives, was simply too much. After nearly six years of public service, she made a difficult decision—she submitted her resignation.

Source: https://www.nytimes.com/2025/01/25/us/politics/trump-federal-workers.html?searchResultPosition=7

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *