On Tuesday, the Office of Personnel Management (OPM) released a memorandum outlining the details of a “Deferred Resignation Program.”
According to OPM, the program allows federal employees to submit their resignation by Feb. 7, 2025, with an effective date of Sept. 30, 2025. OPM says employees who opt for this arrangement will remain on payroll and continue receiving their full salary and benefits until their resignation becomes effective.
The memorandum also states that agencies may place employees on administrative leave or adjust workloads but does not guarantee these conditions. Some initial reports suggested that this offer includes Voluntary Separation Incentive Payments (VSIPs), commonly known as “buyouts.” However, there is no mention of such payments in the actual OPM memorandum regarding the deferred resignation. Employees who resign under this offer should not expect any severance or incentive beyond continued employment until September.
Despite OPM’s framing, the legal authority for such an arrangement remains unclear, raising significant concerns about potential violations of federal employment law, unwise public policy, and budgetary constraints.
Unclear Legal Basis for Administrative Leave
OPM suggests that employees who opt for deferred resignation may be placed on paid administrative leave during this period. This raises questions under 5 U.S.C. § 6329a (the Administrative Leave Act), which limits the use of administrative leave to 10 days total.
However, recent regulations promulgated by the Biden administration direct OPM to interpret the 10-day cap as applicable only to administrative leave for investigative purposes. 5 C.F.R. § 630.1404. This interpretation may be enough to bring the deferred resignation policy into compliance with the Administrative Leave Act. Nevertheless, agencies would still need a valid legal justification for prolonged administrative leave, and it is not clear that OPM’s offer would be sufficient. Federal workers considering this choice should deeply consider that OPM’s offer may be rescinded or overturned.
Employees Have a Right to Withdraw Resignation
Under 5 C.F.R. § 715.202(b), federal employees who submit resignations retain the right to withdraw them before the effective date, except under limited circumstances where an agency can demonstrate that withdrawal would be disruptive to operations. The Trump administration’s plan seemingly acknowledges this right, and says that employees who wish to withdraw their resignations at a later date could do so.
However, there is nothing legally binding agencies to that promise. In fact, legal precedent establishes that agencies could easily deny an employee that wishes to withdraw their resignation so long as the agency has replaced the employee, abolished the position, or can prove operational disruption.
If an employee accepts the deferred resignation, they may legally attempt to withdraw it at any time before Sept. 30, 2025. Agencies that deny these withdrawals without proper justification could face legal challenges. However, it is not advisable that workers rely on the administration’s promise to honor the wishes of employees who elect to resign and then decide instead to stay.
Resignation Acceptance is Not Guaranteed
Employees considering the deferred resignation offer should be aware that resignation acceptance is not guaranteed. Department of Defense agencies and activities are reoportedly informing employees via emails that resignations submitted under this program may not be accepted. In fact, no agency is required to accept resignation elections under this program.
Acceptance of resignations is completely at the discretion of the agency. This presents a serious risk to employees who submit their resignation in good faith, only to find themselves in a precarious position if their request is denied.
Agencies could deny resignations selectively, leaving employees in a state of uncertainty—potentially affecting their career prospects, assignments, or treatment in the workplace. Those who express an interest in the deferred resignation program but are not permitted to leave may face heightened scrutiny, adverse personnel actions, or even targeted removals as a result of being viewed as disloyal.
Employees who are considering this option should proceed with extreme caution and seek advice from their union or legal counsel before taking any steps.
It’s Bad Public Policy
Additionally, this plan has the potential to upend entire agencies and divisions if large numbers of employees take the deal. Without sufficient budget space to hire replacements, critical government functions could be severely reduced or even eliminated, leaving essential services that Americans rely on with no staff to carry them out. This lack of a transition strategy makes the proposal not only legally dubious but also highly irresponsible from a public policy standpoint. Even if the administration wants to reduce the overall size of the federal budget, the responsible approach is to do so through studied and targeted reductions, rather than a blanket call for resignation that could result in personnel leaving from any number of essential positions.
There is possibly a deeper agenda at play as well. By timing the latest resignation date to the end of the fiscal year, the administration isn’t just accelerating workforce reductions—it’s preemptively cutting these positions from the next federal budget, effectively shrinking agencies permanently. Unlike a hiring freeze, which simply leaves vacancies open, this gives them eight months to plan agency budgets around lost positions, ensuring they disappear from the ledger entirely.
Corporate Strategy Ill-Suited for Government
This proposal mirrors the strategy Elon Musk used when taking over Twitter—offering employees a choice between staying under new conditions or resigning with unclear benefits. It even uses the same email headline (“A Fork in the Road”). However, the federal government is not a corporation, and attempting to run it like a business disregards the statutory and regulatory framework that governs public employment. Unlike the private sector, federal employment is bound by strict legal protections and congressional oversight, making this kind of forced attrition legally and logistically impractical.
What Should Federal Employees Do?
Federal employees should not rush into accepting this offer without consulting their union representatives or legal counsel. Federal sector unions and others have advised their members not to take the deal.
The reality is that this offer provides little to no benefit for most employees. The only certain outcome of this plan is that employees who accept it will be signaling to their employer that they are willing to resign from federal service – with no promise of that resignation being accepted, or any compensation beyond what they would normally receive.
Given the clear conflicts with existing federal law, this policy is likely to face legal challenges—and those who sign on too quickly may find themselves locked into a disadvantageous position with no recourse.
Before taking any action, employees would be well-advised to consider:
- Consulting with their union to understand how this might impact rights under a collective bargaining agreement.
- Seeking legal advice on how this resignation may affect future employment prospects, retirement benefits, and reinstatement rights.
- Waiting for further guidance from OPM or federal courts, as legal challenges to this policy are likely imminent.
Conclusion: An Unsound and Unstable Proposal
The Trump administration’s deferred resignation plan is fraught with practical and legal issues. It appears to be a policy designed to encourage federal employees to volunteer to resign under potentially misleading or unenforceable pretenses, offering nothing of substance in return.
Generally speaking, federal employees should reject this offer. Otherwise, they risk walking away from their careers based on an unenforceable and potentially unlawful policy.
An employee facing this decision would be well-advised not to sign anything unless and until they have received personalized advice about their situation and feel completely prepared to assume any risks associated with this proposal.
Editor’s note: This piece is part of the Collection: Just Security’s Coverage of the Trump Administration’s Executive Actions