Among the less-noticed, less-reported implications of “firing” federal employees for whatever reason (or no reason) is the process under current law and regulations that applies to reducing or eliminating programs and positions within the U.S. government. Known as a reduction in force (RIF), these procedures are arcane, complicated, and could have many unintended impacts even if imposed to attain targeted reductions in specific parts or programs of the federal workforce. The Executive Order issued on February 11, 2025, designed to implement “workforce optimization” (Implementing The President’s “Department of Government Efficiency” Workforce Optimization Initiative), has stated that to reduce the workforce, RIF procedures will be followed.
The RIF procedures are found in the Workforce Reshaping Operations Handbook, 119 pages long, not including an Appendix of 107 pages. This manual from the U.S. Office of Personnel Management (OPM) outlines how and what happens to a federal employee who has their position eliminated due to budget cuts or management decisions to stop a program activity.
The key characteristics that drive what will happen are seniority of the employee and their job title (along with a veterans’ preference). As an example, for the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), many staff are hired as an “environmental protection specialist (EPS)” — not a surprise at the agency devoted to environmental protection. There are many job titles at EPA, or any agency, such as chemist, grant administrator, ecologist, meteorologist, and so on. If an office or program element is “reduced in force,” then those staff with more seniority in their job title may have “bumping rights” over someone with the same job title elsewhere in the organization.
If the decision is to reduce the EPA workforce for all “climate-related” or “diversity program” work, some staff may have been hired as “EPS” positions and migrated to climate or diversity related work over time. If there is a RIF, some of those personnel may have started in the water or toxics program and may have bumping rights affecting staff in another part of EPA, outside of the climate or diversity activities — even if that other part of EPA is not the intended target of the cutback.
As an example of the complexity of predicting what might happen, one can examine the one small part of the Workforce Reshaping Operations Handbook, Chapter II (Human Resource’s Role and Responsibilities), Section D (Determining Rights to Other Positions):
Appendix D, Determining Rights to Other Positions, provides additional information on determining employees’ representative rates, normal line of progression for each position, identification of vacancies available for assignment and other placement offers, released employees’ qualifications for assignment, released employees’ assignment rights, and running a mock RIF and reviewing results for accuracy.
This is among the many considerations little-noticed from the first weeks of the new Administration’s “shock and awe” assault on the bureaucracy that could result if big budget or even small “targeted” cuts are forthcoming. Until now, proposed cuts and employees placed on administrative leave appear to have been made without the preparation or details required by the RIF procedures. The new Executive Order helps clarify some of the procedures agencies are to follow when reducing the workforce.
Without Schedule F in place, in addition to applicable regulations and labor contracts, the attempt to fire specific employees may have unpredictable and/or unintended effects and could impact agency activities far outside of the targeted program(s) or personnel. A further element of uncertainty about the future capabilities of federal agencies comes from another component of the Executive Order that states that “The Plan [to reduce the size of the workforce] shall require that each agency hire no more than one employee for every four employees that depart,” with certain exceptions. Future production and schedule of programs are surely to be affected by the difficulties of back-filling vacancies and the impact on staff morale during and after the results of these new initiatives.