Date: February 5, 2025

TELG principal Scott Oswald spoke with 1A, an NPR-affiliated radio program. Mr. Oswald, the show's host, and a senior VP from Partnership for Public Service discussed the Trump administration's deferred resignation offer for federal employees. They spoke about the offer's legality, speculated on its potential impact on the workforce and economy, and fielded questions from callers seeking advice.

Oswald

Quoteworthy:
"It is an offer that is unauthorized, it is unenforceable, and it likely is unlawful. Folks who are accepting the offer ultimately need to be prepared that they're not going to get what they're being promised."

R. Scott Oswald

» View on 1A

(Transcript produced by 1A and edited lightly by The Employment Law Group)

Todd Zwillich: This is 1A. I’m Todd Zwillich. Millions of workers across the country have just hours left to make a huge decision. The Trump administration has given federal workers an ultimatum: Either resign by Thursday, stay home on full pay until September; or stay in your job but with no future guarantee that it won’t be eliminated. Now is that an offer or a threat?

[Soundbite of Donald Trump]: If they don’t agree by February 6 to show up back to work in their office, they will be terminated.

[Soundbite of Tim Kaine]: You don’t have any authority to do this. Do not be fooled by this guy.

Zwillich: Virginia Senator Tim Kaine isn’t the only one casting doubt on the offer, which millions of workers received in the now infamous “fork in the road” mass email. This is a special hour where we want to hear from you. Are you a federal worker weighing this massive choice? Maybe you’ve made up your mind already. Tell us your story. 855-236-1A1A is the number to call all hour long.

Our government could be more efficient, sure, but is this the way to make it happen? Do you trust this deal? Is it legal? We want to hear from you and not just about the offer. Are you a federal worker locked out of your agency? What do you want us to know about the work that you do? If your work is eliminated or blocked by Elon Musk and DOGE, what concerns do you have? Call us. (855) 236-1212.

We got this comment from Dan early this morning: “While I understand the unions and others’ arguments that the ‘fork in the road’ deferred resignation program may be found to be legally supportable in the future, it appears there’s no definitive protection for federal employees.”

And we got this from Elizabeth: “I’m a federal employee working at USDA. When we received the OPM email, the ‘fork in the road’ email, a lot of us thought it was spam or a phishing attempt. As the week goes on, everything about the deferred resignation seems like a scam. I will not resign.”

Thank you for that message, Elizabeth. Thanks for your message, Dan.

Joining me in the studio now, Michelle Amante, senior vice president of government programs at the Partnership for Public Service. It’s an organization working to inspire a new generation of civil servants and transform the way government works. Hi, Michelle.

Michelle Amante: Thank you for having me.

Zwillich: Thanks for being here.

Also, with us in studio, Scott Oswald, an attorney here in Washington, D.C., specializing in employment law. He’s who you want on your side when fighting wrongful termination or employer fraud. He’s the managing principal at The Employment Law Group. Scott, thank you for being here.

R. Scott Oswald: Todd, happy to be here.

Zwillich: We’re happy to have you here.

Again, 855-236-1A1A is the number to call. We have a couple of questions for our experts here, and then we go to your calls with your stories and your questions from all across the federal government, both from here in Washington, D.C., and people listening around the country.

Axios reports that around 20,000 federal workers have accepted the offer, the “fork in the road” offer so far. That’s under 1% of the federal workforce. There’s been no official statement from the White House or from Elon Musk or from DOGE on that number. Michelle, what specific guidance, if any, are you providing federal workers about evaluating this potential resignation offer?

Amante: I think there are four pieces of guidance that when we’re talking to federal employees, we’re advising them on. One is, I think, make sure you continue to ground yourself in the mission of your agency and serve the public. Remember why you came to the federal government in the first place. So that’s number one.

Number two: Know your rights, and I’m excited that Scott is on the call with us this morning,. I think we’re going dig into that a little bit more.

Number three: I would say, make sure you’re talking to your friends, your family, your members of Congress, and your community about the work that you do. So much of the work of government is unseen, and we want to make sure the American public knows what you do each and every day.

And number four, we’re telling people to build community. There are over 2,000,000 federal workers across the country in every single county. Build community with each other, not just through your unions where you’re seeing a lot of action on social media but in different modalities. So, make sure you’re building community across the country.

Zwillich: Well, building community is what we specialize in here at 1A, and we continue to encourage people to join that community. And you can do it this hour: 855-236-1212, that’s the number to call. I can see the board starting to light up, so get in on this conversation.

Twenty thousand people, just under 1% of the federal workforce so far. Look, that number is going to go up by tomorrow. People have this offer on their desk. They might be weighing a last-minute decision. Twenty thousand, does that sound like a lot to you, a little? What does that number feel like?

Amante: If you’re trying to shrink government, 20,000, as you mentioned, is less than 1%. It’s over 2,000,000 in the federal workforce. The threat that we have heard, though, is, if a lot of people don’t take this offer, they will move to take additional action to try to shrink the federal workforce.

Zwillich: Meaning you could be laid off.

Amante: Correct, and we’re seeing it already. Obviously, the shuttering of USAID, any employee that was involved in any kind of DEIA program, has been put on administrative leave or has lost their job. So, we’re seeing this happen systematically already, so there is reason to believe it will continue to happen. But for right now, 20,000 is the number that we’re hearing as well, and we’re waiting to see what happens.

Zwillich: Scott, as an attorney, what concerns do you have about the “fork in the road” ultimatum?

Oswald: Well, number one is the fact that this may not be a fork in the road for some people. It actually may be a dead end because folks who take this offer, I mean, they are in essence relying upon the good faith of Donald Trump and Elon Musk. And, you know, whether that’s a good deal or not, you look at their past performance. I think that is an important indicator.

I mean, fundamentally, the problem with this is that it is an offer that is unauthorized. It is unenforceable, and it likely is unlawful. And so, folks who are doing this ultimately need to be prepared that they’re not going to get what they’re being promised. That’s the concern.

Zwillich: In other words, if you respond to that email with “resign,” which is what the email asked you to do if you want to take the offer, you’re saying there’s a risk. You could say, “Sure. I’ll take eight months’ vacation or eight months to look for another job. I’ll get paid.” It’s possible judges, court orders, injunctions, that money might not be there?

Oswald: Yeah, exactly. And what you’re doing is you’re releasing your rights. So, in addition, when you send in the email, then you get a release of claims back, and the release language is very broad. It releases any type of claim that you have against the government. It says that you will not pursue any judicial, administrative, or other process against your agency or the federal government, that you won’t contest if you don’t get the benefits. So, you’re in a situation where you are relying upon good faith because you’re not going to have any legal rights that you’re going to be able to stand on.

Zwillich: (855) 236-1212 is the number to call. Let’s get right to the phones. Daniel, in Baltimore, you’re on the air.

Caller #1: Hi, good morning. Just to pick up where Scott left off: I’m not sure that this whole offer is going to be a dead end. As a matter of fact, I think a lot of these folks might be rehired as contractors at a multiple of what they’re currently earning. So, my question is: Is this really going to be efficient for the government? Are there going to be cost savings? Or, ultimately, are they going end up spending more on contractors?

Zwillich: Thank you, Daniel. Scott, that’s a two-part question. On the one hand, hey, even if you take the deal, you might be hired back. That’s good for you but maybe even bad for the government because more money, but it might be a good deal for somebody who takes the deal.

Oswald: Yeah, a couple things. First off, if you accept this deal, you will not be able to, in all likelihood, work for anybody else through the 30th of September. Most agencies have rules that prohibit outside employment, require you to not only notify the agency but obtain specific approval from the agency before you accept outside employment. You know, who knows how many folks are going to take this deal? There may be nobody in the ethics office to approve such a request. So, you may be in no man’s land through September, not being paid, not being able to get outside employment, really towards a dead end.

Zwillich: Michelle, what are you hearing?

Amante: Hearing the same thing, and I think the one thing that Scott and I were talking about before the show started was the danger of taking this offer too could limit your ability to collect unemployment insurance. That is something that every federal employee should be considering when they’re weighing this offer.

Zwillich: Boy, the board is lit up already. So many people weighing this decision and who want to talk about their role in the federal government, their mission, and what their agency does. (855) 236-1212.

Garrett is in Silver Spring, Maryland. Garrett, go ahead.

Caller #2: Hi, good morning. Contractors were brought up, and I’m a current federal contractor. I was just wondering, you know, Michelle mentioned, “Know your rights.” What rights and protections do federal contractors have? Because we as well received this email, yet this is not an option for us. There is no fork in the road.

Amante: Right. As federal contractors, you do not have the same rights as civil servants in government, and so, obviously there’s employment law that applies to the private sector as well, but you are in a different employment category. And so, as you mentioned, you did not get this offer. Unfortunately, you’ll have to wait and see. It could end up being that there are more opportunities for contractors, or it could be the opposite depending on where the administration places its priorities.

Zwillich: Garrett, does that have you worried that your status as a federal contractor could leave you vulnerable later even though “fork in the road” isn’t available to you?

Caller #2: Most definitely. In the agency that I work for, in the office that I work for, we provide services to the government itself, to different agencies and within the agency. And we’ve already seen a massive downturn in requests, so it’s definitely a concern with the work turning downwards, that contractors will not be used.

Zwillich: Garrett, we appreciate your call. Thanks so much for calling in.

Scott Oswald, attorney, is here. Michelle Amante from the Partnership for Public Service is here. This is a special hour on 1A on the massive upheaval facing millions in the federal workforce. (855) 236-1212. You need not give your name. First names are fine, and if you need to be anonymous in these times, that’s okay too. We want to hear from you. (855) 236-1212. We’ll take a short break here. Be right back. I’m Todd Zwillich. This is 1A.

Zwillich: Welcome back to one 1A. I’m Todd Zwillich.

Time is running out for federal workers. They’ve been given an ultimatum: Stay in their jobs and take a risk that they won’t have them at all in a few months or accept what we’ve heard is a questionable offer to resign. Today, we’re taking your calls as Thursday’s deadline for the “fork in the road” offer approaches, and a lot is at stake. We want to hear from you. If you or someone close to you is weighing this massive choice and anyone else affected by this upheaval in the federal government, our number: (855) 236-1212. Do you trust the Trump administration to follow through on this offer to federal employees? Do you work at an agency that’s being blocked from doing its work? Our number again: (855) 236-1212.

Michelle Amante is here, senior vice president of government programs at the Partnership for Public Service. It’s an organization working to inspire a new generation of civil servants and transform the way government works. Also with us, Scott Oswald. He’s an attorney here in Washington, D.C., an employment attorney, which is why he’s here. He’s the managing principal at The Employment Law Group. (855) 236-1212.

We’ve got a caller who works at USAID who prefers not to use their name. Go right ahead.

Caller #3: Thank you so much. First of all, regarding the “fork in the road” offer, I absolutely do not trust the administration to deliver on their promises, and I absolutely will not take it. But I also want people to know about what’s happening in the federal workforce and that we, federal employees who work on behalf of the American people, have absolutely been gaslit and intimidated for the past two weeks by the Executive Branch.

The unelected Elon Musk has called the U. S. Agency for International Development “a criminal organization that has to die.” President Trump called the leadership of my agency “radical lunatics,” and Secretary of State Rubio accused us of insubordination. We, at USAID, have been locked out of our workplace since Monday by the same people who are telling us we should stop teleworking and go back to the office. And now, they’re saying, “You have to telework through Friday, then you are being put on administrative leave, and all your colleagues who work around the world saving lives every day are being called back to headquarters.”

So, I think people just need to know the extent of gaslighting that’s happening in the federal government. And I am deeply concerned about what’s happening in the Ronald Reagan Building right now as we speak as we are locked out of our workplace.

Zwillich: Ronald Reagan Building in the center of Washington, D.C., just steps from the White House. Caller from USAID, you mentioned that Donald Trump has called the leadership of your agency “radical lunatics.” Are they radical lunatics? You know them. You work for them.

Caller #3: Absolutely not. These are career civil servants, foreign service officers who have dedicated their career on behalf of the American public to going to some of the poorest countries in the world to help make America safe by reducing conflict that’s happening around the world, reducing the spread of diseases, by increasing education, and by improving agriculture, which the entire world benefits from. We are a very tiny part of the federal budget, less than 1%, and we deliver more than what we take from the federal budget. We help improve U.S. security.

Zwillich: Tomorrow, here on 1A, we’ll be talking all about USAID: its mission; what the agency is going through now; what workers are going through; and what officers around the world are experiencing now that they’ve been recalled, told to stop work, move out of their houses, take their families, and move back to America within thirty days, the shutdown, the dissolution of USAID and US foreign aid by Elon Musk, DOGE, and the Trump administration. That’s tomorrow on 1A, a full hour on USAID.

In this hour, we’re talking all about the “fork in the road” offer, the resignation ultimatum from Elon Musk and the Trump administration. (855) 236-1212 is the number to call now.

There’s been pushback from some lawmakers to this offer. One of the loudest voices is Democratic Senator Tim Kaine of Virginia, where lots and lots of federal workers not only live but their offices are housed, a huge part of the economy, of course, in the northern part and actually across Virginia. Last week in the Senate, Tim Kaine gave this warning.

[Soundbite from Kaine]: My message to federal employees who received this is: Yeah, the president has tried to terrorize you for about a week and then gives you a little sweetheart offer. “If you resign in the next week, we’re just going to pay you for doing nothing for the next seven months.” He’s tricked hundreds of people with that offer. He doesn’t have any authority to do this. Do not be fooled by this guy.

Zwillich: Senator Tim Kaine of Virginia.

There also from the Commonwealth of Virginia, Democratic Senator Mark Warner had this to say over the weekend when he talked to Face the Nation on CBS.

[Soundbite of Mark Warner]: We got chaos on steroids going on, and we had heard from Trump’s supporters — the OMB director, for example — that he wanted to traumatize federal workers. Well, that is happening. And these workers are the folks that inspect our fruit, our milk, our eggs. What happens if they all quit?

Zwillich: Michelle, we’re talking about the effect on federal workers, their families, their decisions, but, ultimately, all this also affects the effectiveness and the ability of federal agencies to operate. I suppose it depends on how many people take the offer, whether right now it’s less than 1%, not that many. If that number reaches 15 or 20%, how do we wrap our arms around the question of what actually happens to the services, the operations, the governance that agencies provide? Maybe that varies agency to agency. I don’t know.

Amante: It’s a great question. There was no intentionality behind this email. As you mentioned, it went out to the whole workforce, so we don’t know who is going to take the offer. It could be the senior most agency leaders. It could be your next generation of talent. We don’t know, and so it will absolutely affect agency operations.

And even before we know who takes the offer, it’s affecting agency operations right now. Agencies are in chaos. There’s a lot of fear and anxiety with the federal workforce. And if the outcome that we want — and I know the American people want — is a more effective, efficient, and responsive government, this is not driving to that outcome.

Zwillich: Scott, for anyone still considering what to do ahead of the deadline, you’ve offered some caution at the top of the show: It might not be legal. They might not follow through. People are making decisions in the next 24 hours. How would you like them to think it through and structure those decisions?

Oswald: Well, for sure, it’s individualized. Every person’s situation is different, and there may be individuals who really were thinking about leaving the federal workforce, and maybe this is the time for them. But for anybody who relies upon their job, relies upon their income, it is far better to stick it out after today. As Michelle mentioned, it’s possible that there may be a reduction in force at some of these agencies. And if that happens, individuals will have a whole panoply of rights that are available to them. And that reduction in force will occur over time. Folks who are at the top of the heap will have preference.

Importantly, individuals, if they are reduced, will still maintain their rights. So, they’ll be able to appeal that decision, for instance, using the internal mechanism. They’ll be eligible for unemployment compensation as well. These are all things that will be available, so it is far better for most of the federal workforce to stay in place, to wait, and see what happens with their agency.

Zwillich: You’re suggesting then — just to narrow it down — if somebody’s truly on the fence and can see both sides, your not legal advice but decision advice is to let sticking it out win the day.

Oswald: For most people, that’s going to be the better result.

Zwillich: Michelle, one of the things I was hearing from people I know who work in the civil service right now is that people who are taking the “fork in the road” offer so far — and this is anecdotal — seem to be the very young and the very old, people close to retirement. You can see why somebody who’s three months from retirement anyway would want to take it. Free money. You might be able to see why somebody in their first job might take it. They might feel like “last in, first out.” They might get laid off anyway. Is that what you’re hearing? And if that’s the case, what’s the effect on the functioning of the civil service?

Amante: Anecdotally, we’ve heard the same thing. As you mentioned, a large part of the partnership’s mission is to try to inspire the next generation of public servants, and we spend a lot of time with college students, talking to them about why federal service is so important. And we know that stability is important for them when they’re looking for their next job opportunity. This is a generation that grew up during the recession. They watched their parents struggle with the great recession, and having this new instability in government is going to have a profound effect, not only on the generation you’re talking about right now taking the offer but for generations to come. So, it will have a long-lasting effect.

To the older population, that’s your institutional knowledge. So, there’s no systematic way to make sure that they’re passing that on to the federal employees that are staying.

Zwillich: People have questions about the “fork in the road” offer from all over the federal government. (855) 236-1212 is the number to call to get your voice in this conversation with Michelle and Scott, our two experts.

We have another caller from the federal workforce in D.C. who prefers to remain anonymous. Caller, go ahead.

Caller #4: Hi. I have a question about something that was just being discussed, with employees who accept the offer being unable to work because they’re delayed with the ethics board. So, my question is why couldn’t these employees just go ahead and resign after giving their deferred resignation, so that they can then seek other employment?

Oswald: So, that’s possible, but remember that you’re going to be in a situation where you might be interviewing for positions. There are some agencies’ ethics rules, which require you to notify the ethics office even if you’re interviewing, let’s say, with a contractor that does business with your agency. In those situations, you may not get advanced approval, and so you’re locked into this position.

Yes. You can always resign. That then ends your relationship with the federal government, and you can go out and find other work. But, as long as you are still an employee of the federal government, you’ve got a duty of loyalty and a duty to not do anything that would be inconsistent with that duty. So that’s the real problem.

Zwillich: Are there people in the civil service at some level who are prevented from taking employment in the private sector in the area where they work, like ethics rules that lock you out of sort of revolving door type of employment? In other words, if you take the offer and you work in a sector — I don’t know, let’s call it defense contracting procurement, I’m making that up — in some cases, are you prevented from even interviewing at a defense contractor for a certain period of time?

Oswald: At some agencies, yes. And there are periods of time where you have to be in a cool down period where you are not doing any work with your agency. So, there are some important rules that apply to individuals who are federal government employees. It’s very important that you know what those rules are before you accept this offer.

Zwillich: There was an email obtained from the Washington Post from Erv Koehler, an assistant commissioner of general supplies and services at GSA. That’s the General Services Administration. They manage all of the real estate, all of the buildings and properties in the federal government, and a whole lot more. That email was to staff, and it said that layoffs are likely after the deferred resignation offer expires.

Michelle, how does that enter into the decision tree for people? You might say, well, I’m not taking this offer. They’re saying roll the dice. You could be laid off later. What resources are you offering to help people make informed decisions if they don’t want to take Elon Musk’s path on the “fork in the road” to what might come later?

Amante: In terms of resources, one thing I want to mention is that the partnership has a federal resource hub available with a lot of information, and we’re keeping it up to date. We also launched a webinar series, where we are building community. We are providing advice. Our next webinar is on Thursday about knowing your rights. On Monday, I’ll be moderating a session on whistleblower rights. So, you know, make sure you’re tapping into resources, not only from the partnership but from other organizations as well.

Zwillich: Mary, I introduced you before, and we didn’t quite have you on the line yet, but you don’t want reveal where you work in the civil service. But, Mary, you have a question. Go ahead.

Caller #5: In respect, specifically of the Senior Executive Service, I have two questions. The first is whether or not — and this would be for the attorney Scott Oswald — whether or not he’s aware of any class action suits being put together. He indicated that his view was that the action was unauthorized, unlawful, unenforceable. That would suggest that legal action would be appropriate in this case. Is that happening anywhere that he knows about?

And the second question is, he indicated that there is a whole panoply of rights available to employees. And again, specifically in regard to the Senior Executive Service, where specifically would he point to where those rights are encoded?

Zwillich: Mary, thank you for that call. Scott. First question, class action and other legal interventions, are you aware of any?

Oswald: Yeah. Actually, yesterday, in the U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts, the American Federation of Government Employees filed a suit on behalf of all federal government employees, including those in the SES, to challenge the “fork in the road” email. So more on that later on.

To Mary’s specific question, you know, many people in the SES have reversion rights. So, they have the ability to move back into the civil service, and in those situations where an individual has that ability, all of the rights that apply to a civil service employee apply to them.

Zwillich: We’re going to be hearing a lot more from you, a lot more from our experts in studio. That’s Scott Oswald. He’s the managing principal at The Employment Law Group. He’s the lawyer. He’s not giving legal advice, but he’s giving really good advice. You want listen to what Scott has to say this hour. Also with us, Michelle Amante, who’s giving great advice as well. She is senior vice president of government programs at the Partnership for Public Service. And most importantly, you being part of this conversation at (855) 236-1212.

The “fork in the road:” Are you at it? Are you making this decision? Is the offer on your desk? Can you trust it? Do you think the money will be there for eight months? Can you look for a job in the meantime? How are you thinking this through? (855) 236-1A1A is the number to call. We’re going to take a brief break. You’re listening to 1A from WAMU and NPR. I’m Todd Zwillich.

Zwillich: Welcome back to 1A. I’m Todd Zwillich. We’re talking about the choice facing millions of federal workers. The Trump administration has offered most federal workers the chance to hand in their notice and stay home on full pay until September or stay with no guarantee of future employment. The deadline is tomorrow, and we’re weighing the pros and cons with you. Is it a con? That’s one of the questions. Are you weighing this choice? We want to hear from you. Call us. (855) 236-1212.

Michelle Amante is here, senior vice president of government programs at the Partnership for Public Service. Also with us, Scott Oswald. He’s an attorney here in D.C. He’s the managing principal at The Employment Law Group.

And we got this message from a federal employee at NASA’s Goddard Space Flight Center in Greenbelt, Maryland.

Caller #6: We’re all weighing that “fork in the road” email. Truthfully, I didn’t believe it when we first got it. I didn’t even think that Elon had the ability to give us the pay until September. But now that we’ve been getting these clarification emails, it’s sounding like they do or at least, you know, they’re promising that they do. I still don’t trust it, so I’m not going take it. But with the bridge being down in Baltimore and living in Baltimore, the traffic has gone up substantially. So, working in the office is a really difficult move for us.

Zwillich: One federal worker at NASA’s Goddard Space Flight Center in Greenbelt, Maryland, who doesn’t want to take the offer but also recognizes that returning to work is especially difficult now. (855) 236-1212. And while we’re talking about NASA and its mission and also how that interacts with Elon Musk’s business, SpaceX, let’s go to another caller who also works at NASA who prefers not to give their name. Caller, go ahead.

Caller #6: Hi, yeah, so that was me before. I had called in. I had a question for you guys as well. We just got some new emails throughout the week to clarify this offer. One of [the questions] was: Could we return federal work? It says this offer doesn’t affect your ability to apply. Super ambiguous, and I’ve noticed there’s a lot of ambiguity in all of this guidance that we’re getting. I was wondering, from an attorney’s point of view, would they be able to implement a law that says we can’t return? As somebody working in the federal government now, can I go to a contractor during that seven-month period? And do you trust the email?

Zwillich: Thank you so much for that call from NASA. I want to point out that might be the first double dip in 1A history, both voice mail and then live call back to back. I think we just made 1A history there. Scott, what about the question though: your ability to work in the federal government afterward? It says you can apply. What about the clarification, quote, unquote, contract that people got following on the ‘fork in the road’ offer, and what are their rights?

Oswald: There’s no prohibition on applying for a position, but, you know, the question is whether or not you’re going to be rehired into the federal government. During these seven months, you’re certainly going to have some difficulty in obtaining employment with a contractor because if it’s a contractor with the agency, in all likelihood, that’s going to violate the ethics rules. So, you’re going to need to get specific authority before you even interview with that contractor. Nothing that prevents you though from coming back into federal service. I mean, the question is: With a newly, quote, unquote, slimmed-down federal government, how many people are they’re going to be hiring and whether they’re going to be hiring people at your level?

Zwillich: Caller, do you do specialized work at NASA? Don’t give your job. Don’t give yourself away. Do you do work that’s specialized enough that if you were going to seek related work in the private sector, it would be at a contractor that does similar work to what you already do?

Caller #6: Yes. Yeah. We’ve looked at mostly defense contractors and other people who do work at NASA. I’ve looked all around, even at tech companies, while I’ve considered this offer. But at the end of the day, I support NASA’s mission more than anything. I love my job. I just hate how the last two weeks have been.

Zwillich: Now, you just heard a little bit more. He works in a specialized field where he would be going probably to tech companies or contractors that do business with NASA, and that could complicate things, Scott.

Oswald: Yeah, it really could. And the other issue is — I don’t know if he has security clearance, but there are all kinds of issues that relate to an employee. Once they separate from the federal government, then, of course, they’ve got to have a contractor pick up their clearance. There are ways to do that, but it becomes more complicated, of course, if you end your service with the federal government. There may be some period of time where that contractor is working to re-clear you.

Zwillich: (855) 236-1212. We’re going to go to another call. Michelle, you wanted to add.

Amante: The caller also mentioned the additional guidance coming out, doubling down on this offer, and I just wanted to mention that it doesn’t change the questions revolving around the legality of it. So, simply because OPM sends out another memo saying it’s all fine and it’s all good, these questions are still there. There’s also a lot of concerns around the continuing resolution that’s expiring and if there will even be money to pay these employees.

Zwillich: Wait, you’re saying Congress actually has a role in this? I’m being sarcastic if you didn’t hear it in my voice. Congress actually has a role in deciding how much money goes to agencies and who works there.

Amante: And which agencies exist as well. So, yes, Congress plays a very important role, and we are hoping that we will be hearing more from Congress in that oversight capacity.

Zwillich: Interesting. I had forgotten that Congress actually has a role in all of this over the last couple of weeks. It’s fascinating to think about Article One of the Constitution. Scott, go ahead.

Oswald: The deferred resignation agreement, this release that you’re going to sign, specifically states that, in all likelihood, there will not be a reappropriation in March. So, you know, again, you are betting on Congress getting its act together, passing something, passing monies, that ultimately an agency is going to use. So, you really are going forward based on faith, not on anything that is supported by the law.

Zwillich: We’re taking calls from you at (855) 236-1212. Bill, you’re next. You’re on the air.

Caller #7: Hi there. I’m a federal retiree living in suburban Washington, D.C., and I’m concerned about the effect of, sooner or later, dropping tens — perhaps hundreds of thousands — of former federal employees into the local job market. It seems to me the ripple effect of this action could affect everybody that works in an area with a dense concentration of federal employees. I’d like to hear any ideas you have on that, and I will take my answer off the air.

Zwillich: Bill, thank you so much. He raises an important point, Michelle. On the one hand, city officials in the District of Columbia are thrilled about the return to work because it gets people in the downtown core, gets them going to the restaurants, gets them shopping downtown. We get it. He raises an important point. If you’re going to cast thousands or millions of people out of the federal workforce, can the private economy absorb them? Donald Trump said we want people to work in the wonderful private economy where they can actually be efficient. Is that realistic?

Amante: So, one really important point to remember is that 85% of the federal workforce is outside of the D.C. metro area. So, obviously, it’s critical to the D.C. economy, but these federal employees are across the country. In terms of the D.C. metro area, I think that’s why you’ve got Senator Kaine, Senator Warner, and others really concerned about this email because they recognize the impact on the local economy: thousands of people without jobs, potential housing market collapse. Look, there are serious ripple effects from these actions.

Zwillich: Let’s go to Chris, who works at the Department of Education. Chris, you’re on the air.

Caller #8: Hi there. I work at the Department of Education — lucky me — but my job is not in the policy end of things. I’m in a job that is actually a congressionally mandated function, and so I was wondering about two things. One, how can they do what they’re doing without getting congressional approval? And two, we’ve been told that one of these DOGE employees or Elon Musk’s former employees — I think it’s the one who’s 19 years old — is now in the Department of Education, and they’re accessing our HR files. I’m really disturbed by that. That is a breach of security. I work in data confidentiality and those sorts of issues, and I do not understand how they can be doing this and have it not be flagged as illegal.

Zwillich: Alright. There are two giant questions here, Scott. First, the role of Congress at the Department of Education and other agencies like USAID across the government. We haven’t heard very much from the Republicans who control the House and the Senate. They seem to have abrogated their Article One authority so far. But what about the future of these decisions? What if Congress does decide to step in?

Oswald: Well, the first question was whether or not this is a violation of law, and there’s no question that it is. There’s something called the Administrative Leave Act, which allows a period of only 10 days of administrative leave. So, what the administration is doing here is directly contrary to law. What they’re hoping is that no one calls them on it.
As to the access of your employment file, if it is someone without the need to know — and it sounds as if that’s the situation here — we need to know more, of course, but it may very well be a breach of the Privacy Act. It applies to federal government employees. Individuals who don’t have the right to know, if there’s a publication of private information that relates to you and to your loved ones in your human resources file that’s then being bandied about, that very well might be not only a violation of law but a violation of law you can do something about by bringing an action against not only the agency but also the individuals who are accessing.

Amante: You know, with regards to the first part of the caller’s question, regarding Department of Education, certainly USAID, the president has the right to reorganize departments. In fact, with USAID, I believe there was a big restructuring that happened in his first term. The president does not unilaterally have the right to shut down agencies. We talked about the role of Congress. That is Congress’s right. These agencies are appropriated by Congress, and so, it is illegal for the president to unilaterally shut down agencies, and we are hoping that Congress will step up into that oversight role.

Zwillich: Chris, we’ve been hearing a lot about the Department of Education. We know that USAID has been effectively shut down, foreign aid shut down. DOGE employees at the Department of Treasury are putting new code into federal payment systems, and the White House has signaled that the Department of Education is next. What are your colleagues saying?

Caller #8: Oh, as you can imagine, nobody is very happy about any of this. There’s been a very much reduction in any productive work at this point because what can you do? At first, you know, there was just stuff looking for DEI, any of that issue in our work. But now, you know, contracts have been shut down. So, we’re kind of all in a holding pattern. We don’t really know what to think. I’m just very concerned. I think this is a violation of the 1974 Privacy Act to have these people in HR systems, in payment systems, in the federal government in general.

Zwillich: Alright, Chris, thank you for that call. And Scott makes it clear — again, not legal advice, we’re not trying the case here — that it may in fact be a violation of the Privacy Act, and it’s likely we’re going to find out in the coming many months as these issues get before the courts.

Now we’ve been hearing from a lot of people who are against these offers, against what Elon Musk and DOGE is doing in the federal government, but not everybody. We got this voice mail from one of you.

Caller #9: This is Paul from Springfield. They need to lay them all off. Whatever they’re doing is not working. The caller from USAID that said that people are saving lives throughout the world. Okay, that’s great. Except for, guess what, we don’t have the money. It’s not my responsibility. Why, as the taxpayer, am I responsible for everyone throughout the world? This is the problem. If they’re doing so much good work, why is everybody running across the border to come here? If things are so good and all their programs are effective? You need to lay them all off. We can’t afford it anymore. When you have no money in your house, you can’t help the neighbor. So, we need to go back to the basics: the military and the border and security of the country. Everything else is out the window. We don’t have the money. We can’t afford it. I can’t afford it.

Zwillich: Thanks for that call. Michelle, we’ve done hours — and we will in the future — on this show about American soft power overseas and what it does for this country. But your response to the concerns and the support that that caller expresses for doing away with foreign aid?

Amante: The one thing to give a little perspective is all of our federal personnel are 5% of the total budget. So, $6,500,000,000,000, but personnel dollars are about $350,000,000,000. So, it’s tiny. You could lay off every single employee in the government, and it would be a drop in the bucket in terms of the entire federal budget. In terms of what he said about, you know, laying everyone off except for military and borders, what about your air traffic controllers? What about your food safety inspectors? What about the people who help in natural disasters? These are the on-the-ground federal employees that are helping the American public every single day.

Zwillich: We have time for just one more caller before we get to the end of the hour. So many of you have reached out here on 1A. One worker who’s on federal probation who chooses not to give their name. Caller, go ahead.

Caller #10: Hi. This is a question about probationary employees who have, you know, had less than one year of federal service. I’m curious what your protections are compared to federal workers who aren’t on probation since it’s a group extra concerned because there seems to be an increased likelihood that they could be terminated with less protections?

Zwillich: Thanks for that call, and we’ve heard that question before. Scott?

Oswald: Yeah. So, you don’t have any specific civil service rights. The Civil Service Reform Act doesn’t specifically apply to you, but there are two exceptions that would allow you to contest your firing. One is if it’s motivated by political reasons or your marital status. So, if those are the kinds of things that are motivating those who are putting your position on the chopping block, then you may have some recourse.

Zwillich: Well, we have heard from so many of you this hour as the decision looms on the “fork in the road” email from Elon Musk and from DOGE. And also from the president of the United States, he’s involved in this too. Really, we’ve only scratched the surface. There are many of you still on the line, many of you with questions. We’re going to do this again, and we’re going to want to hear from you again.

I want to thank everybody for joining us this hour and making your voice part of the conversation here on 1A. And I want thank our guests: Michelle Amante, senior vice president of government programs at the Partnership for Public Service, and Scott Oswald, managing principal at The Employment Law Group.

Mike Kidd is on the board. Maya Garg has been on the phones. Rupert Gardner has been line producing this program, which comes to you from WAMU, part of American University in Washington and distributed by NPR.

I’m Todd Zwillich. We’ll talk more soon. This is 1A.

» View on 1A