America Can’t Afford Trump’s War on Remote Work
The Trump administration’s proposal to force federal employees back into the office full-time has sparked widespread debate and concerns about inefficiency and waste. The plan, as articulated by Vivek Ramaswamy, the entrepreneur and former presidential candidate tapped by Donald Trump to head the new Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE), is designed to shrink the federal workforce by compelling mass resignations. Ramaswamy explained during an interview with Tucker Carlson that this strategy would reduce bureaucracy by making federal positions less appealing to those who prefer flexible work arrangements. However, this approach threatens to waste taxpayer dollars and undermine the government’s ability to serve the public effectively, as suggested by the latest Office of Management and Budget (OMB) report.
Ramaswamy, in his discussion with Carlson, emphasized that the administration’s goal is to cut down the number of federal employees by eliminating telework options and mandating a strict in-office policy. He suggested that this “radical idea” would lead to the voluntary departure of approximately 25% of federal workers, thereby reducing the payroll budget without the need for direct terminations. Carlson, however, expressed skepticism, noting the strong job protections afforded to federal employees, which make it difficult to fire them outright. Ramaswamy dismissed these concerns, stating that the mass resignations would occur naturally if remote work privileges were rescinded.
This plan rests on the assumption that the loss of workers would automatically translate into cost savings. With the federal payroll totaling $110 billion, proponents of the policy argue that reducing headcount would result in a leaner, more efficient government. Ramaswamy framed it as a way to dismantle what he described as a bloated bureaucracy, claiming that many unelected federal employees draft regulations that undermine Congressional authority. “If you literally just mandated that they have to show up for work, Monday through Friday, a radical idea, a good number of them would quit that way,” Ramaswamy said, arguing this would reduce unnecessary regulatory burdens and streamline operations.
Yet in reality, this proposal is economically and operationally short-sighted. The federal workforce of 2.2 million employees is responsible for managing a $6.1 trillion budget, meaning 1.8% of the budget goes for salary, a very low number for overhead. It includes vital functions across agencies such as Homeland Security, the Department of Education, and the Federal Reserve. Forcing mass resignations would lead to critical skill shortages in these agencies, particularly in roles requiring specialized expertise. Recruitment and training of replacements would not only delay the restoration of full operational capacity but also incur significant costs, likely offsetting any perceived savings. Moreover, an exodus of experienced personnel would disrupt ongoing projects, reducing the quality and efficiency of government services.
The proposal also dismisses the documented success of remote work in the federal sector. During the COVID-19 pandemic, telework allowed agencies to maintain productivity while reducing overhead costs associated with maintaining fully staffed physical offices, per OMB’s findings. This transition proved that flexible work arrangements could sustain, and even enhance, operational efficiency. Reversing this progress, as Ramaswamy suggests, would require significant reinvestment in office infrastructure, including utilities, maintenance, and security. These additional expenses would negate much of the anticipated payroll savings and ultimately burden taxpayers with unnecessary costs.
Ramaswamy further justified the plan by linking it to broader goals of regulatory reform. He argued that a reduction in the workforce would allow for a dramatic rollback of federal regulations, claiming that up to 50% of existing rules could be deemed invalid if they were written by unelected officials. While this rhetoric may resonate with those frustrated by federal bureaucracy, it ignores the complexities of governance and the value of institutional expertise. Federal employees are not merely rule-makers; they are also the implementers of policies passed by Congress. Their work ensures the smooth functioning of programs that millions of Americans rely on daily, from Social Security benefits to disaster response.
The human and economic costs of this policy also extend beyond the federal workforce. Morale among remaining employees would likely plummet as workloads increase and institutional knowledge dissipates. This could lead to further attrition and a self-reinforcing cycle of inefficiency. Industries reliant on federal oversight might also face disruptions, with businesses and state governments bearing the brunt of delays and mismanagement. These ripple effects would significantly diminish the effectiveness of federal spending, exacerbating waste rather than curbing it.
Rather than adopting a one-size-fits-all approach to workforce reduction, the federal government should prioritize targeted reforms that enhance efficiency without sacrificing service quality. Modernizing outdated processes, leveraging technology, and embracing the benefits of remote work could achieve meaningful cost reductions while maintaining operational integrity. Ramaswamy’s suggestion that agencies could simply operate with fewer employees overlooks the nuances of federal functions and the risks associated with gutting critical programs.
Forcing federal employees back to the office with the intent of provoking resignations is a deeply flawed strategy. Far from creating a leaner and more efficient government, it risks undermining the very institutions that keep the nation running. By prioritizing optics over outcomes, this proposal would lead to increased waste, disrupted services, and diminished public trust. In a world where flexible work has demonstrated its value, clinging to outdated workplace policies is not only inefficient but also economically reckless.
Key Take-Away
The Trump administration's "War on Remote Work" aims to shrink the federal workforce by forcing employees back to the office. This risks inefficiency, skill shortages, and higher costs, suggesting that targeted reforms and remote work should be… Share on XImage credit: August de Richelieu/pexels
Dr. Gleb Tsipursky was named “Office Whisperer” by The New York Times for helping leaders overcome frustrations with hybrid work and Generative AI. He serves as the CEO of the future-of-work consultancy Disaster Avoidance Experts. Dr. Gleb wrote seven best-selling books, and his two most recent ones are Returning to the Office and Leading Hybrid and Remote Teams and ChatGPT for Thought Leaders and Content Creators: Unlocking the Potential of Generative AI for Innovative and Effective Content Creation. His cutting-edge thought leadership was featured in over 650 articles and 550 interviews in Harvard Business Review, Inc. Magazine, USA Today, CBS News, Fox News, Time, Business Insider, Fortune, The New York Times, and elsewhere. His writing was translated into Chinese, Spanish, Russian, Polish, Korean, French, Vietnamese, German, and other languages. His expertise comes from over 20 years of consulting, coaching, and speaking and training for Fortune 500 companies from Aflac to Xerox. It also comes from over 15 years in academia as a behavioral scientist, with 8 years as a lecturer at UNC-Chapel Hill and 7 years as a professor at Ohio State. A proud Ukrainian American, Dr. Gleb lives in Columbus, Ohio.