Fear and Loathing in DC
Federal workers are afraid and in the dark.

NYT (“Trump’s Moves to Upend Federal Bureaucracy Touch Off Fear and Confusion“):
An Education Department employee was attending a funeral this week when she got the call: She was being placed on administrative leave because she works on projects that connect Black students, among others, to federal government programs.
A disabled veteran employed at the Department of Veterans Affairs grew emotional when he heard about the rescinding of telework options, unsure whether it would mean the end of his job taking care of fellow soldiers.
A Federal Trade Commission employee was so anxious that he told family members not to talk about politics on unencrypted lines. Across government agencies, workers eyed one another nervously, wondering whether a colleague would report them, accusing them of resisting the new administration’s move to end certain programs.
President Trump’s rapid push to overhaul the federal bureaucracy in his first days in office has been met with a mix of fear, fury and confusion throughout the work force.
Dozens of employees across the government, many of whom spoke on the condition of anonymity because of worries of retribution, described agencies gripped with uncertainty about how to implement the new policies and workers frantically trying to assess the impact on their careers and families. As the nation’s largest employer, the upheaval in the federal government could reverberate in communities throughout the country.
Starting on Inauguration Day, the orders and memos came down one after the other, many crafted in the pugnacious tone of a campaign speech: the shuttering of “Radical and Wasteful” diversity programs in federal agencies; the stripping of civil service protections from a share of the federal work force; the end to remote work, which, one administration memo claimed, had left federal office buildings “mostly empty” and rendered downtown Washington “a national embarrassment.”
All new hiring was frozen, job offers were rescinded, scientific meetings were canceled and federal health officials were temporarily barred from communicating with the public, a directive that some understood as so broad that it even extended to making outside purchase orders for lab supplies.
For the more than two million federal workers, roughly four-fifths of whom live outside the Washington area, change is inevitable whenever a new administration takes over. But few had expected it to come at this speed and scale.
[…]
Federal employees looked to their supervisors for guidance, but said they often had none to give, as they tried to interpret brief orders and memos with few specifics. For example, the return-to-office memo said employees with a disability could be exempt, but it was unclear what kind of disability might qualify. Some managers said they knew nothing beyond what was in the news. Adding to the panic were remarks by the president himself, who suggested on Friday that he might consider shuttering the Federal Emergency Management Agency, which employs 20,000 workers around the country.
[…]
Inside federal offices, the mood has been tense and anticipatory. One employee at the Homeland Security Department said the staff felt at risk of being fired at any moment. At the Commerce Department, employees were terrified whenever a meeting was called, one worker said.
The isolation is deepened, some federal employees said, by the fact that most of their fellow Americans see the federal government as bloated and inefficient. Some said that reform, if it were well thought-out, would be healthy and welcome. But many noted that they had accepted significant pay cuts to work for the government because they believe in public service — issuing Social Security checks, keeping air travel safe and inspecting food, among other roles.
[…]
Compounding the anxiety was a directive from the Office of Personnel Management instructing agency heads to turn over by Jan. 24 names of those who were still in their probationary period, typically within one or two years of their hiring.
The directive noted that such employees “can be terminated during that period without triggering appeal rights,” and that managers should determine whether they should be retained, according to a copy obtained by The New York Times.
[…]
One of the most sweeping changes made by Mr. Trump in his first week was to order federal workers back to the office full time by later next month, ending years of a flexible telecommuting policy, which in many offices dated to well before the pandemic. For some who want to keep working for the government, this could mean selling homes, changing children’s schools and moving hundreds of miles in a matter of weeks. New mothers are debating whether they will be able to return from maternity leave, and couples have been forced to choose who gets to keep their current jobs.
Many offices do not currently have enough room for all of the employees to come back. This, some contend, is the whole point. Shortly after the November election, Elon Musk and Vivek Ramaswamy, the men tapped by Mr. Trump to remake the government, 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.”
POLITICO (“‘I am terrified’: Workers describe the dark mood inside federal agencies“):
President Donald Trump’s executive orders targeting the federal workforce have injected a fresh wave of anxiety among employees across the bureaucracy — stoking fears the president is coming for their jobs.
Just a few days into Trump’s second term, some federal workers are contemplating quitting. Others are preparing to file grievances with their unions or moving communications with each other to secure platforms like Signal. Some, fearing they’ll be caught up in the White House’s purge of diversity programs, are leaving their names off of memos and documents they worry could be labeled as DEI-adjacent.
As federal employees searched this week for clues within the orders to see how they’ll be affected, a staffer with the Environmental Protection Agency said they were cleaning out their inbox and waiting for information about early retirement and buyout programs.
[…]
POLITICO spoke to almost two dozen federal workers for this article and granted anonymity to many in order to protect them from retribution for speaking out.
It’s too early to tell if a mass exodus of federal workers will occur. The vagueness of the president’s orders has many workers waiting to see how they will be implemented once political staff is in place. But what is clear is that the new administration intends to follow through on its threats to purge and dismantle the federal bureaucracy.
My wife and I are both Defense Department workers, so we are, at least for now, exempt from the hiring freeze. (That was not clear at the outset, and there was some concern at work that one person couldn’t accept a promotion and that we wouldn’t be allowed to replace two departing/ed professors.) The most likely impacts on us are from the return to office edict and just the general climate of a purge of those perceived as disloyal to the President. Neither of us are covered by collective bargaining.
My wife’s team requires people to show up to the office two days a week. Aside from one “core” day a month where everyone is there, they spend hours on Teams meetings regardless of whether they’re telecommuting. A requirement for 100 percent in-office will be challenging from a logistical standpoint and add some expenses for commuting and parking. And, since they barely have enough desks to support the current arrangement, it’s unclear how they’re going to accommodate the whole team at once on a daily basis.
While I have enjoyed considerable flexibility, my position is not coded as telework-eligible. For now, then, I don’t expect any changes on that front.
My greatest concern is that, while I ostensibly enjoy academic freedom, my only protection in that regard is leadership adherence to the norm. My position is in the Excepted Service, so I enjoy none of the normal career protections if my position were to go away for any reason. Further, while the norm is “tenure without tenure,” I essentially have no recourse if my contract is not renewed upon its expiration in July 2027.
That puts me in a considerably better position than those in the new administration’s immediate crosshairs, including those whose jobs are based on something that could be construed as “DEI.” To say nothing of, for example, transgender servicemembers. But it certainly creates a chilling effect on my ability to write in core areas of my scholarship, including defense policy and civil-military relations.
More broadly, it puts the federal workforce in general in a quandary. Do they comply with legal but objectionable orders? Do they resign their posts entirely?
To take one example, I’ve seen multiple posts from ostensibly seasoned folks in my social feeds arguing that agency heads and other senior officials ought to simply refuse to carry out perfectly legal orders, such as sending out letters based on an OPM template ordering the shutdown of DEI programs and the reporting of those trying to hide said programs using clever name changes. While the policies themselves may well be questionable—and will almost certainly be challenged in court—promulgating guidance is not. It’s not a hill to die on.
Rather clearly, Trump, Musk, and others are actively trying to purge the federal government of people who aren’t fully on board with the MAGA agenda and, indeed, just thinning the herd, period, by making federal employment less rewarding. Unfortunately, this will be quite popular even beyond Trump’s base.
It is likely to be effective in the most perverse way. Those most apt to leave will be younger workers with the best prospects in the private sector. Their departure will leave the federal workforce poorer in the short run, while also depleting the ranks of future leadership. The very oldest workers, who are financially able to retire, may also depart. With a hiring freeze in place, it’s not even clear when and whether they can be replaced. (The freeze doesn’t just apply to those entering government; even a move within an agency constitutes a “new hire.”) The result will be a less talented, less efficient civil service—which will, naturally, fuel the narrative that the civil service is mediocre and inefficient.
Some random thoughts:
I’m just glad I’m retired. I spent 20 years post active duty working for the Air Force as part of the large contingent of contract workers that work in the federal government offices. Term of art was called “augmented staff”. Not much differentiation was made between us and the actual civil servants. My attitude was “I work for the Air Force but get paid by my employer.” Contract employers didn’t like that.
What a banal phrase designed to hide the reality of what is going on.
We had several civil servants (primarily tech experts) who were hired specifically to work remote. They have no office to return to. Not sure if there are exceptions made for them.
I think managers down the food chain need to chill out and not react until something specific is directed. And even then ask a lot of questions and request clarifications. It is the panic that is wanted. And make sure of the authority of those directions.
And document, document, document. Have a paper trail.
James, do you ever worry about potential blowback from running this blog? I used to think “Oh, that would never happen”, but now…..I don’t know.
It’s like every time I think they can’t get any more awful, here they are, even more awful than I would’ve imagined.
@Jax: Historically, not so much. Even in the first Trump administration, I wrote freely here and in more visible fora. But the atmosphere this time is different. I took my institutional affiliation off my bio here and on m social media accounts shortly after the election. I’m kind of playing it by ear otherwise.
Just to add another grim thought to all of this: this fear of purging is absolutely going to induce some people to say things they don’t believe to keep their jobs. For example, it has been reported that some interviews conducted by incoming Trump administration folks have asked questions like “who won the 2020 election?” I expect a nontrivial number of people to say what they think Trump wants to hear so as to avoid losing the capacity to pay their mortgage and feed their families.
This is pure authoritarianism.
@James Joyner: Not that it isn’t obvious, but for emphasize I will note: this is chilling and disturbing.
I have a cousin who works for the IRS and has done so for years. He conducts investigations of firms offering unusual tax services. Sometimes this results in referral for prosecution.
His expectation is that for them, the people on the block will be those with less that two years, and then early retirement buyouts, which he is likely eligible for.
And no, there isn’t enough office space at his office either.
@Jay L Gischer: For a lot of jobs it doesn’t matter much if you’re working in-office or remotely, as long as the supervisor is keeping track of your work. I think the Trump administration could get more savings from selling the office buildings and allowing more remote work.
@Steven L. Taylor: Just as cruelty being the point, chilling and disturbing are part and parcel.
The right wing mob has gone feral. They can’t know shame and that is what’s truly scary. A world without shame amounts to hell on earth.
That right there is why the Republican establishment embraces Trump as their authoritarian. The deregulators (“the government is the problem”) and the taxation hardliners (“government small enough to drown in the bathtub”) of the GOP need to weaken the civil service to achieve the ends they’ve sought for decades. They’ve found a useful idiot in Trump.
@Jax:
Recently I’ve wondered uneasily about this.
@Steven L. Taylor: Indeed. There’s genuine concern where I work that there will be a purge. And there’s not really any safeguard in place.
@Scott:
Yes AND. I absolutely agree that they shouldn’t, to use a hackneyed phrase, comply in advance. On the other hand, too many seem not to be contingency planning, either.
We’ve known, for example, that a return to office order was likely more than two months ago. And yet a lot of managers have done nothing to prepare for that. At the very least, they ought to have been documenting the real cost to the taxpayer of compliance and offering some broad guidelines to their workforce, who are understandably concerned that they’ll be put in an untenable position. Many took jobs precisely because of the telework arrangements. Unlike my wife, many don’t live within commuting distance of their agency. And people have just been left hanging for weeks without any information.
100% this and it’s part of a trend that goes at least as far back as Reagan’s quip: ” think you all know that I’ve always felt the nine most terrifying words in the English language are: I’m from the Government, and I’m here to help.”
Everyone tends to hate the government until you need that help. No one wants to admit that there are, in fact, challenges that only the government can help with. That’s before we get into taking care of people who have been injured working for the government (the VA) or need to access the social safety net to survive.
@James Joyner:
Agreed on all this. And it’s important to note that in the more tech aspects of government work, most people are taking a haircut in terms of pay to do the work. So teleworking was one of the “perks” of the job (also it allowed people who didn’t live in Federal hub locations to contribute.
@Steven L. Taylor:
I’ve been hearing about a lot of folks being subjected to loyalty interviews. It’s chilling and utterly counter productive.
I’ll also share the this is also trickling into contractors and nonprofits who interact the government–especially if they are seen as working on “liberal/progressive” topics like improving the social safety net or economic mobility within urban areas.
@Fortune:
This assumes that the Trump administration is being honest about “savings” being the goal here. These are the same folks who said about six months ago “In no way do we support the crazy ideas in the 2025 plan…” I don’t see why anyone will take them at their word in good faith.
@James Joyner:
FWIW, even folks in union positions are concerned–especially if Trump follows through on the Project 2025 plans for the NRLB and breaking organized labor.
Belgium survived not having a government for quite a while because of civil service.
Don’t think the opposite would have worked out so well.
This all just makes me angry and sad. Real people are going to be hurt by this, all in service to a wrongheaded philosophy that government is unnecessary.
I can’t imagine that they’ve thought through the unemployment ramifications. Government workers typically make not-great salaries, balanced out by decent benefits. Between the inability to find a sufficient number of replacement jobs, plus the increased numbers of people who do not have access to, say, affordable health care, this will not look great for the administration. Also, the fact that things just won’t get done.
All of this needs to be firmly laid out at the administration’s front door. Hopefully the lapdog press will figure out what their jobs are, but I’m not holding my breath.
The traditional heavy handedness of government workers, especially regulators and the IRS, doesn’t bode well for much sympathy from the general population.
@matt bernius: I think that the work from home order is a combination of a couple of things. First and foremost, I think it is an anti-pandemic lockdown signal. Second, a lot of businesses have decided they don’t like work-from-home and so this feeds that constituency as well. Third, it is just a way to agitate the federal workforce to help create the atmosphere discussed in the OP.
And, anecdotally, there are a lot of folks, especially older ones, who think that if a person is not in the office, they aren’t working. This was the view of the president of my former university, who just so happens to be roughly the same age as Trump.
@Connor: Nice to see the endorsement of authoritarian practices.
Clarifying but not surprising.
@Connor: Any specific examples that you personally experienced? Otherwise it is just armchair blathering.
@Scott: I interpret it as right-wing talking points. (Which does not preclude it also being armchair blathering, to be clear).
While I can certainly agree that the federal government is not perfect, over the years it has become quite clear to me that large, private entities are not better and that, on balance, everyone is usually trying to do their jobs.
And while, without a doubt, there are examples of regulations that should be reformed or removed, I think any such discussion needs to acknowledge the vast array of regs that are vital to our health and welfare.
@Fortune: You really have no idea at all that this whole theater act isn’t about cutting costs in government do you?
Ah, to be that young again.
ETA: “I’ll also share the this is also trickling into contractors and nonprofits who interact the government–especially if they are seen as working on “liberal/progressive” topics like improving the social safety net or economic mobility within urban areas.”
Maybe I’m too cynical, but I’d just start from the assumption that this administration has no interest in that sort of goal and figure out how the coming war shakes out and how to fight it. But I’ve never been good at institutional politics–I left when the company I worked for was sold/acquired 40 years ago.
It’s been 30s years and a lot of government bloating since we had Reinventing Government overseen by VP Al Gore. I went 2 years on the chopping block before they finally accepted that the savings were there.
What seems to be really upsetting is that Trump’s changes are impacting the DC functionaries instead of those out in the provinces doing actual work for the American People.
Two outcomes here with the telework. Either the workers return to the offices, or telework is put on firmer footing and a lot of now underutilized real estate in DC and other cities get sold off. And if telework holds, then no reason not to put the agency outside of the DC are in areas where the work is done, such as in Kansas for the USDA.
Our trans daughter just got let go by her company Friday. She was a civilian contractor working on DoD projects (IT). Seems awfully coincidental that it would happen now.
Steve
@Steven L. Taylor:
The call-out of regulators and the IRS is the tell that it’s right-wing talking points.
Regulations are always discussed in the abstract in order to leverage the fact that “there are examples of regulations that should be reformed or removed” on the cost side without enumerating the protections that will be missed on the benefits side. The IRS is a great all-purpose anti-government bogeyman, because nobody likes the tax paying process, especially when it is siloed away from the government services people want. The devil is ALWAYS in the details.
Senator Warren sent a letter to Elon Musk laying out where she would find the $2T in savings DOGE is shooting for. Don’t expect enthusiasm from the right when the savings come from the targets she has identified.
@steve:
I’m truly sorry for your family. This is the downside of the argument that US voters need to “touch the stove” if they’re ever going to learn that MAGA with power is as bad as people warned them it would be. Far too many of the people who will get burned knew what was coming and they were outvoted.
It comes down to whether you believe that the Trump Administration officials who are enthusiasts of Curtis Yarvin (Retire All Government Employees) and Project 2025 are sincere in their beliefs. I see no reason to doubt them.
Most of my friends and former colleagues who aren’t retired are either civil servants or contractors. They have varying amounts of concern.
One thing about the return-to-work EO is that it specifically grants agency heads to make exceptions:
It’s clear that telework will be reduced but can’t and won’t be completely eliminated, so the uncertainty is what exceptions each agency will make. Because the federal government bureaucracy is massive and tends to be slow, it’s probably going to be a while (weeks, possibly months) for agencies to figure out what exceptions and alternatives they will make and publish specific guidance.
Adding to this is that it’s not just a choice between telework and coming into the central office. There’s a range of situations between full-time come to the office and full-time telework. For another example, there has long been the “50 mile rule” that agencies need to move the employee’s duty station to the “most appropriate agency office based on the employee’s duties and job function” if an employee’s official duty station is more than 50 miles from any existing agency office. In the DoD, for example, you might live in Colorado but work for an office in the DC area (my best friend’s current situation), and the agency could now theoretically require him to go to a local DoD base/facility within 50 miles of his and essnetially telework from there. That rule has been around for a long time, but implementing it on a mass scale is not simple.
There have also long been jobs that have been remote for ages – one that I’m aware of are security clearance investigators, who travel constantly and have to work in places where there are no federal facilities. I find it very hard to believe that those and similar jobs will change.
As I’ve noted before, I think that pre-prepartion is easier said than done when agencies and supervisors don’t know what the EO is actually going to say. And at least from the many people I know, people have been planning and supervisors have been telling to expect a roll-back in telework and to prepare.
But now that the EO and initial guidance are out, it’s time for Agency heads, SES, and GS-13+ to earn their pay.
That’s surprising to hear. I was excepted service (all intelligence personnel are), and we still had pretty robust protections against arbitrary firing. On rare occasions, we had to try to get rid of shit-bags, and it was very challenging, even without collective bargaining.
This whining and carrying on about regulations and the IRS always ticks me off.
On regulations: these don’t come out of nowhere. There’s almost always a reason–a GOOD reason–for regulatory standards. I provided an example the other day, where some of the houses that are still standing, surrounded by charred remains of other homes, were the ones built to updated regulatory building requirements. Whining about the cost of regulations demonstrates a lack of understanding of the big picture in most (but not all) cases. Anyone who wants to complain about regulations had better come with specific, current, examples. We don’t dump toxic chemicals in rivers anymore, not just because it’s an @ssh0le thing to do, but because there are clear health impacts, not just for animals and wildlife, but for humans.
On the IRS: Again, this demonstrates a level of brainwashing. The IRS has been chronically underfunded. Some people lie on their taxes. This is wrong (and unpatriotic). But underfunding the IRS means that they are going to go after the easiest accounts to recover, rather than the bigger fish. You want the IRS off of the back of smaller businesses? Then give them the resources to go after the seven- and eight-figure liars, rather than the five- or six-figure ones.
@JKB: And don’t forget the Grace Commission and the number of their suggestions (over 100 total) Reagan invested effort in getting Congress to act on–ZERO, iirc.
@Steven L. Taylor:
While that is all true to an extent, another factor is that there is real resentment from some people who work in jobs that are not compatible with telework. The people I know best – those who work in intelligence – understand that the government is not going to build a SCIF in their home, but are often frustrated when the various services they rely on while at work are no longer local and are more difficult to access. An analogy is the difference between being able to walk into a store’s customer service department and talk to a person to get an issue resolved vs. playing phone/email tag.
Whether the perception is accurate or not, a lot of people think that telework is easier and more difficult to supervise. And a lot of that is true. It is easier to skate at home than the office.
Additionally, I’ve been a full-time remote worker in the private sector since 2017, and not having to commute, being able to control my work environment, have my dogs with me, poop in my own bathroom, have a good lunch of my own food that I prepare fresh in my own kitchen, set the temperature to what I want, have sex with my wife on a break if we’re in the mood, etc. are just some of the huge advantages that I really appreciate, and I don’t ever want to go back to working in an office. I try very hard not to give a bad or privileged perception about how great it is for me personally because I know that a lot of people are jealous and I don’t want to rub it in their faces, even unintentionally. In many ways, it really is not fair to people who either can’t or aren’t allowed to have the benefits of remote work (and of course, remote work does come with tradeoffs). And that is before the money. The money I save from not commuting, not having to have an office wardrobe, and being able to write off home office expenses on my taxes (to name just three things) means that I’m effectively paid more than someone who can’t telework.
@Andy: The problem is that, while I’m for all intents and purposes, a GS-14, I came in on a 3-year contract with a 1-year probationary period and have subsequently been renewed for 3-year periods. My last renewal, in July 2023, was for four years. But, while renewal is expected and I’m getting 5/5 on my evaluation reports and (small) year-end bonuses, I have no recourse if they decide not to renew me in July 2027. So, there’s definitely a huge risk in criticizing administration policy.
@James Joyner:
Ah, that makes sense. The positions in my organization did not have contractual renewal periods. I can only hope that your leadership fights for you and the others there in your situation.
@Andy: I think all of the things you list are legitimate issues that one could raise in a legitimate debate over remote work.
My point was about the politics of the EO.
@Scott F.:
Couple that with the Biden “pardon norms” pearl clutching where so many were willing to sacrifice years of someone else’s life and accept their eventual bankruptcy as “ worth it to prove a point” and you get an idea of the lack of understanding of consequences amongst some.
@Andy: The problem is that our leadership is bifurcated. Our Deans are civilian PhDs and tend to stay for a long time. Our Directors are post-command colonels. They’ve been unwaveringly awesome but don’t come from an academic background and don’t quite understand what we do. Our Presidents/Commanding Generals are brand new brigadier generals who are likely to get two-star commands. But they’re even further removed from what the schoolhouses do and don’t have any reason to fight for us.
Man this post is speaking to me. I know that the members of the public that my current position interacts with need my skills and expertise – my position had been vacant since before anyone ever heard of COVID. But this past week has created a huge urge to take those skills and experience to a different employer with less chaos.
@Steven L. Taylor:
Did I miss your full throated criticisms of Obamas IRS? (Although I confess I had to dig deep in archives). Merrick Garlands look the other way on Team Biden? With bizarre against Trump. Etc.
I have a serious, I think honest, question of folks on this blog. Do you enjoy walking around all day with Trump living rent free in your heads? Life is short, people.
@James Joyner:
It sounds very similar to how the service academies are run, although I’m only familiar with USAFA.
@Connor: I can only speak for myself, but Trump doesn’t live rent free in my head. I’m mostly just trolling people these days–much like you. And I will concede that if the site keeps going the direction of all Trump outrage all the time, it’s gonna be a long four years (and I’ll probably find myself drifting away).
@Connor: The OP is about some truly disturbing, clearly authoritarian actions by this administration. Actions that are directly affecting the author of the post, his spouse, and their colleagues. Actions which you expressed sympathies for.
That doesn’t go away because I didn’t comment on some thing you think I should have commented on.
I could not exist and you still made the comment you made.
@Connor: If you feel I have misunderstood your position or would like to clarify, please feel free.
I am in opposition to these actions and find them disturbing, in case that wasn’t clear.
@just nutha:
One suspects that some of the coverage of the administration will slow.
It will, however, be rather difficult to ignore him.
@Connor: No problem–but tell us first what it’s like being Trump’s Internet janitor–for free.
@Steven L. Taylor: Where there’s life there’s hope.
@Andy: Precisely the same hiring authorities under Title 10. A handful, like the Naval War College and Naval Postgraduate School, have instituted actual tenure. But, even though we’re also under the Department of the Navy, we don’t have it. I don’t think USNA does, either.
@matt bernius:
I know lots of people who think government is the problem. Bizarrely, none of them seem to object to having roads, running water, sewer service, police, fire departments, air travel, passports, national parks, access to health care, a stock market, trustworthy banks, safe food, or any of the other things that only government can provide.
BTW, my wife tells me that at Treasury the hiring freeze is likely to extend to also releasing all workers who are still in their probationary period. That’s everyone who was hired less than a year ago, and quite a few people hired more than one but less than two years ago.
@Connor:
Did I miss something the IRS did wrong under Obama?
(Hint: if you are referring to the Cincinnati office handling of bogus 501(c)(4) organizations, we both know the truth about who was upholding the law there.)