More than two million federal employees are facing a critical deadline: by midnight on Thursday, February 6, 2025, they must decide whether to accept a “deferred resignation” offer from the Trump administration. Under the proposal, employees who accept would continue receiving their salaries through September without reporting for duty. However, those who decline may face termination.
This decision carries significant career and financial implications, employment attorneys and government watchdogs have warned. The Office of Personnel Management (OPM) issued the offer, but experts told CBS MoneyWatch that key provisions remain unclear, posing risks to employees who opt in.
Legal and Financial Concerns
The Trump administration’s authority to extend such an offer is also in question. A lawsuit filed on February 4 by several federal employee unions argues that the deferred resignation policy violates multiple laws. The plaintiffs describe the offer as “arbitrary, capricious,” and in violation of the Administrative Procedure Act, a 1946 law that regulates federal agency procedures.
The proposal comes as part of the Trump administration’s broader initiative to require federal employees to return to in-office work five days a week, effectively ending remote work arrangements. The administration aims to encourage up to 10% of the federal workforce to resign, which it claims would save $100 billion annually.
To date, approximately 40,000 federal employees—around 2% of the workforce—have accepted the deal, according to a CBS News source. However, that number could increase as the deadline approaches.
White House Justification
White House spokeswoman Karoline Leavitt defended the initiative, stating on January 28 that it is designed to “make our government efficient and productive again.”
“If [federal workers] don’t want to work in the office and contribute to making America great again, then they are free to choose a different line of work, and the Trump Administration will provide a very generous payout of eight months,” she said.
Potential Risks for Employees
Experts have raised concerns about the vague terms of the offer.
“There is a risk for employees to take this without knowing what would happen down the line,” said Ryan Nerney, managing partner at the law firm Tully Rinckey and an expert in federal employment law.
“If you decide to take this, and let’s say there’s a reduction in force and your job is eliminated, there is no guidance on what would happen in a circumstance like that. Would you still get paid through September 30?” he questioned.
The email from OPM outlining the offer lacks clarity, further adding to employees’ uncertainty, according to Doreen Greenwald, president of the National Treasury Employees Union.
“It’s very confusing—it says you won’t have to do your position duties anymore, but there is a caveat that says if they need you, you have to keep doing that,” Greenwald told CBS MoneyWatch.
Elon Musk’s ‘Fork in the Road’ Influence
Federal workers received the Trump administration’s offer in an email titled “A Fork in the Road,” mirroring a 2022 email from billionaire Elon Musk to Twitter employees after his acquisition of the platform, which he later renamed X. Musk’s email required employees to decide within a day whether they would commit to a “hardcore” work style or resign with three months’ severance.
Musk is also leading the White House’s Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE), a nongovernmental task force aimed at cutting federal costs. He has publicly supported the deferred resignation offer, stating on X that employees who accept it can do “whatever you like, including obtaining a new job” while continuing to receive government pay and benefits through September.
Legal Challenges and Funding Concerns
Despite Musk’s endorsement, the unions’ lawsuit questions whether OPM has the financial authority to make such an offer. The email sent to employees states that those who resign by February 6 will receive pay through September 30. However, funding for most federal agencies expires on March 14.
This raises concerns that the administration is planning to spend money “before an appropriation is authorized,” potentially violating the Antideficiency Act, which prohibits federal agencies from spending beyond their approved budgets.
The lawsuit also alleges the policy violates the Administrative Procedure Act, which allows courts to overturn agency actions deemed “arbitrary, capricious, an abuse of discretion, or otherwise not in accordance with law.”
Further uncertainty looms over what might happen if courts rule the program unlawful. Robert Weissman, co-president of the watchdog group Public Citizen, warned that employees who accept the offer could face unforeseen consequences.
“I could imagine going back to work and being told you did not work, and we’re not going to pay you for an illegal program,” Weissman said, advising federal employees to “be skeptical about what is actually going to be delivered through this offer.”
Impact on Federal Services
The unions’ lawsuit also highlights the potential harm to public services if large numbers of federal employees resign.
A workforce reduction could disrupt essential services, such as tax processing, Social Security verification, and Medicare and Medicaid administration, experts warn.
“There is no 10% across-the-board slush fund of employees that [the public] would not feel any harm by this,” Greenwald emphasized. “The federal government is not Twitter—it is funded by Congress and budgeted by that process, and it is set to uphold the laws that Congress has passed.”
Rushed Decision-Making
Federal employee unions have criticized the administration’s tight nine-day deadline for employees to make a decision. The lawsuit describes the deadline as “an arbitrary date … selected to put maximum pressure on the federal workforce so that they would accept the offer, in many cases contrary to federal agency and federal employee interests.”
By contrast, past voluntary resignation offers, such as buyouts under the Clinton administration, provided workers with up to a year to decide.
Despite these concerns, some employees—particularly those already planning to retire—may find the offer beneficial, Nerney noted.
