The Trump administration is advancing a federal workforce downsizing plan, causing confusion among employees about responding to demands from Elon Musk to justify their roles. Independent agencies have begun notifying staff of forthcoming layoffs as part of a “reduction in force” directed by Trump. The Department of Housing and Urban Development will cut 144 positions, while the General Services Administration plans to let go 30-40 staff. Additionally, the U.S. Agency for International Development informed 2,000 employees of impending cuts. Labor unions are challenging these reductions, claiming they violate congressional protocol, and there are concerns about disorderly execution of the process.
The Trump administration’s next step in its initiative to swiftly reduce the federal workforce was making significant progress on Tuesday, as uncertainty spread among employees regarding how to address an ultimatum from Elon Musk to validate their positions or face termination.
Since Sunday afternoon, multiple independent agencies have officially informed employees of forthcoming layoffs through a “reduction in force” procedure mandated by President Trump, based on emails shared with The New York Times and accounts from staff who requested anonymity for fear of repercussions.
This procedure is part of Mr. Trump and Mr. Musk’s expansive strategy to drastically reduce the number of federal employees nationwide, which includes the dismissal of thousands of probationary staff. Mr. Musk, the technology billionaire, is a key ally for Mr. Trump in this exceptional campaign.
Reduction in force actions usually signify a considerable decrease in positions as part of an agency’s restructuring.
Currently, the initial wave of “reduction in force” includes the elimination of 144 positions within the Department of Housing and Urban Development across various locations. The General Services Administration aims to reduce its workforce by 30 to 40, with notifications expected to be sent out by the end of the week. Additionally, on Sunday, the U.S. Agency for International Development alerted its staff that approximately 2,000 employees in the United States would be laid off.
“I regret to inform you that you are affected by a reduction in force (RIF),” stated Peter Marocco, the acting director of the aid agency, in a standard letter sent to affected employees. “This RIF action does not reflect directly on your service, performance or conduct.” Mr. Marocco explained that it is part of an agency restructuring intended to “better align” with U.S.A.I.D.’s priorities and foreign policy.
In a memo, Scott Turner, the housing secretary, informed an employee that “a reduction in force within your competitive area will be conducted effective March 28.” The Times obtained a copy of the memo with the employee’s name obscured.
According to Don Moynihan, a public policy professor at the University of Michigan, the application of reductions in force can be complex. He suggested in a social media post that two battles are likely to arise: whether agencies adhered to the legal protocols and whether the judiciary will uphold Mr. Trump’s authority to “RIF” agencies supported consistently by Congress.
This month, Mr. Trump issued an executive order requiring agencies to gear up for a “large scale” reduction in force.
Five labor unions representing federal employees filed a lawsuit against the Trump administration this month concerning its plans to utilize this pathway to terminate large numbers of federal workers. The unions assert that the administration’s approach contradicts the regulations established by Congress. A federal judge in Washington, D.C. denied the unions’ request for a temporary hold on the dismissals and directed them to submit their case to the Federal Labor Relations Authority.
This round of cuts follows a perplexing directive from the Office of Personnel Management on Monday night, instructing employees to respond to a similarly unclear request made by Mr. Musk over the weekend. He had posted on social media that all federal workers were to submit five bullet points of their achievements from the previous week by Monday’s end. Shortly after Mr. Musk’s announcement, the personnel office sent an email entitled “What did you do last week?”
Several agencies advised their employees not to respond to the email at all. However, on Monday, just hours before the response deadline, the personnel office informed all workers that they should comply.
This created difficulties for employees lacking access to their emails during the weekend or on Monday.
Many employees at the Department of Veterans Affairs do not typically log into their government email accounts, as this is not part of their job responsibilities, and they lack government-issued computers. On Monday, a human resources representative from the Veterans Health Administration in Portland, Oregon, communicated that 16 computers would be made available in the building lobby until 9 p.m. to allow employees to respond, per an email obtained by The Times.
It was unclear on Tuesday whether any employee had been terminated for failing to submit their list of five accomplishments. In last-minute guidance from the personnel office, managers were given the discretion to make such decisions themselves.
The dismissals of probationary employees and the reduction-in-force measures appear to have overlapped in certain instances, leading to added confusion and upheaval.
In one instance, an employee at U.S.A.I.D. reported being dismissed twice: first with a notice indicating they were part of a reduction-in-force plan, and again for being a probationary employee. The individual chose not to speak publicly due to fears of retaliation.
“They are making careless errors,” said employment lawyer Kevin Owen, referring to the Trump administration leading the effort. “Their level of professionalism falls short of what we expect from experienced federal HR professionals.”
On Monday evening, an email detailing the upcoming cuts, which lacked specific information, was sent by the acting administrator of the General Services Administration, Stephen Ehikian. In it, he indicated the agency was seeking approval from the personnel office to lower the minimum age and service length required for voluntary early retirement.
“I extend my sincere gratitude to all G.S.A. employees affected by this decision,” Mr. Ehikian expressed. “I value your service to this nation and wish you all the best in the next chapters of your lives and careers.”
This initial round of reduction-in-force cuts is expected to target between 30 and 40 employees, according to a source familiar with the plan who was not authorized to speak publicly.
Notifications are anticipated to be distributed by the end of this week.
Claire Cain Miller contributed reporting from Portland, Ore.