What you need to know
In recent weeks, thousands of government employees in federal agencies have either been financially incentified to voluntarily leave their position or have been outright terminated. At first glance, these actions contradict the widespread belief that it is nearly impossible to remove federal bureaucrats. Leaving aside whether you agree or disagree with the nature and breadth of these cuts, one question top of mind for many is how these reductions in the federal workforce were even allowed or accomplished in the first place.
- In recent weeks, thousands of government employees have resigned or been terminated.
- This experience contradicts the belief that is it impossible to reduce federal government headcounts.
- We explore the policies and procedures that underlie this outcome.
Example: USAID
One of the first agencies where terminations occurred is the United States Agency for International Development (USAID). Congress has tasked USAID with delivering foreign aid to other countries, including food assistance, economic development initiatives, and programs to build democratic institutions and strengthen civil society. Its annual budget is about $40 billion, and as of January 2025, it had almost 12,000 employees.
On January 20, 2025, President Trump signed an Executive Order halting all foreign aid for 90 days. In the following weeks, most USAID employees were put on paid administrative leave and later formally terminated, reducing the agency’s headcount to less than a thousand. Their dismissals are currently the subject of federal court proceedings.
Civil Service and Federal Employment
The core tenet of a civil service system is that people are hired based on merit and cannot be removed from their positions except “for cause,” such as poor performance or malfeasance. Federal termination processes are complicated, and employees have many opportunities to appeal or delay. As a result, pre-2025, very few federal civil servants were terminated for cause each year, data suggests less than a thousand out of a total workforce of several million.
The only other way to end a civil servant’s employment is through a reduction in force (RIF), where the federal government terminates workers because of funding shortages or the elimination of an entire agency, office, or program. We will consider RIFs in a future brief, but it is important to understand that the USAID terminations did not involve a RIF.
The USAID Workforce
The figure below shows the different types of workers at USAID.
USAID is not unique in its reliance on contract workers. Of the 2,150 employees at the National Science Foundation, 1,500 are civil servants, 450 are administrative contractors, and 200 are scientists hired on short-term contracts. Eliminating over 30% of the agency’s workforce (650 contractors, temporary employees, and probationary civil servants) is relatively easy. A RIF would be needed to implement further cuts.
Additional Considerations: Congressional Budgeting
A major unresolved issue in the terminations at USAID and elsewhere is whether they violate Congress’ “power of the purse” - the power to control agency actions by enacting annual appropriations bills that set an agency’s budget and direct how it should be spent. In the case of USAID, terminating almost all of the agency’s employees and related resources makes it impossible to continue the agency’s programs as Congress funded them.
In the coming months, federal court decisions will determine whether the terminations at USAID and other agencies were constitutional. However, it is important to understand that the major question in these cases is not whether the terminations violated civil service regulations – rather, it is whether agencies must be given the personnel needed to carry out congressional budget mandates.
The Take Away
The USAID example shows that significant workforce reductions can be made in many federal agencies without a RIF and without violating civil service regulations.
The unresolved question is whether the terminations violate Congress’ power to shape agency actions through appropriations bills.
Enjoying this content? Support our mission through financial support.
Further reading
Congressional Research Service. (2025). Federal workforce downsizing: Voluntary and involuntary mechanisms. Feb 10, 2025. Available at https://tinyurl.com/bdws3urs
Schoenfeld, A. and Lai, K. (2025) A Timeline of Cuts, Legal Orders and Chaos at U.S.A.I.D. The New York Times, March 5, 2025,. https://tinyurl.com/y3pmzfh6, accessed 3/15/25.
Sources
Congressional Research Service. (2025). Federal workforce downsizing: Voluntary and involuntary mechanisms. Feb 10, 2025. Available at https://tinyurl.com/bdws3urs.
Friedman, D. (2025). RIFs are a complicated, time-consuming process for agencies, experts say. Federal News Network 2/6/25. Available at https://tinyurl.com/mr83s4bs, accessed 2/14/25.
National Science Foundation. (2024). NSF at a Glance. Available at https://tinyurl.com/mr2epk8h, accessed 2/14/25.
USAID Office of Inspector General. (2020). Contractor use for disaster and stabilization responses: USAID Is constrained by funding structure but better data collection could improve workforce planning. Report E-000-22-002-M, Sep 29, 2022. Available at https://tinyurl.com/25kde22n, accessed 2/9/25.
White House. (2025). Executive Order: Reevaluating and Realigning United States Foreign Aid. Signed Jan 20, 2025. Available at https://tinyurl.com/386nspcd, accessed 2/14/25.
Contributors
John Arnold (Intern) Is a junior at Binghamton University majoring in Political Science and Economics.
Robert Holahan (Content Lead) is Associate Professor of Political Science and Faculty-in-Residence of the Dickinson Research Team (DiRT) at Binghamton University (SUNY). He holds a PhD in Political Science from Indiana University, where his advisor was Nobel Laureate Elinor Ostrom. His research focuses on natural resource policy, particularly domestic oil and gas production, and extends into international environmental policy. He was PI on a National Science Foundation grant that utilized a 3000-person mail-based survey, several internet-based surveys, and a series of laboratory economics experiments to better understand Americans’ perspectives on energy production issues like oil drilling and wind farm development.
William Bianco is Professor of Political Science at Indiana University and Founding Director of the Indiana Political Analytics Workshop. He received his PhD from the University of Rochester. His teaching focuses on first-year students and the Introduction to American Government class, emphasizing quantitative literacy. He is the co-author of American Politics Today, an introductory textbook published by W. W. Norton, now in its 8th edition, and authored a second textbook, American Politics: Strategy and Choice. His research program is on American politics, including Trust: Representatives and Constituents and numerous articles. He was also the PI or Co-PI for seven National Science Foundation grants and a current grant from the Russell Sage Foundation on the sources of inequalities in federal COVID assistance programs. His op-eds have been published in the Washington Post, the Indianapolis Star, Newsday, and other venues.
