Trump Administration Accused of Using Relocation Tactics to Force Federal Workers to Quit
WASHINGTON – The U.S. government’s human resources agency, the Office of Personnel Management (OPM), is facing accusations of using relocation as a tactic to shrink the federal workforce, with labor unions and governance experts condemning the move as a thinly veiled attempt to force employees to resign.
The controversy stems from an email sent by OPM to at least two dozen remote workers, demanding they relocate to Washington, D.C. within a mere nine days. The employees, some of whom reside thousands of miles away, were informed that failure to comply could result in "adverse action," potentially including termination of employment.
"The memo tells the OPM employees that if they decline to move to Washington their options for continued employment with this agency may be limited, and the Agency may pursue an adverse action against you," the email stated, according to sources familiar with the directive and copies obtained by Reuters. The memo further notes that employees who choose not to relocate may be eligible for severance pay, a detail that critics argue further underscores the administration’s intent to incentivize resignations.
The directive comes amid a broader push by President Donald Trump and his self-proclaimed "cost-cutting czar," Elon Musk, head of the Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE), to reshape the federal bureaucracy. While the administration has previously advocated for relocating Washington-based federal workers to other parts of the country, this latest move marks a significant shift, targeting remote employees with a demand to move to the capital.
The suddenness and apparent lack of consideration for the employees’ personal circumstances have drawn sharp criticism. At least two of the affected workers told Reuters they were already contemplating leaving OPM, suggesting the relocation demand may serve as the final push. One source indicated that as many as 200 employees may have received the relocation memo.
Neither OPM, DOGE, nor the White House has responded to requests for comment on the matter.
Experts Condemn "Abnormal" Short Notice
Governance experts have weighed in on the situation, questioning the ethics and motivations behind the OPM directive. Nick Bednar, a governance expert at the University of Minnesota Law School, acknowledged that government agencies possess the authority to relocate workers and terminate their employment for refusing to move. However, he emphasized that the exceptionally short notice provided to the OPM employees is "abnormal."
"Giving them this short relocation notice is clearly an effort to get them to quit, to force them from their position," Bednar stated. "It’s another way to cut the size of government."
Union Alleges "Attack on the Civil Service"
Labor unions have also condemned the OPM’s actions, characterizing them as a direct assault on the civil service. The National Federation of Federal Employees (NFFE), a union representing 110,000 government workers, stated that this is the first time they are aware of the Trump administration having ordered employees to relocate to Washington.
"It’s another attack on the civil service and to force people to quit," said Steve Lenkart, executive director of the union.
Contradictory Actions Raise Questions
The OPM’s ultimatum is particularly striking given that it was issued on the same day Trump directed government agencies to submit plans by April 14 for relocating offices out of the Washington area to less-costly regions of the country. This apparent contradiction has fueled speculation that the relocation demands are less about improving government efficiency and more about deliberately shrinking the federal workforce.
Adding to the narrative of workforce reduction, new FBI Director Kash Patel has already ordered approximately 1,500 employees out of the Washington area to field offices across the country, with roughly 500 slated for relocation to Alabama.
Broader Effort to "Cull" the Federal Workforce
Trump and Musk have openly expressed their desire to reduce the size of the federal workforce, viewing it as "bloated and corrupt." While there is bipartisan agreement on the need for civil service reform, unions and federal workers have criticized Musk’s approach as overly aggressive and insensitive to the needs of employees.
Since Trump took office, an estimated 100,000 workers out of the 2.3 million-strong federal civilian workforce have either been fired or accepted buyouts. This week, Trump issued further directives for government agencies to undertake "more large-scale layoffs," and a new Trump administration memo instructed agencies to submit plans by March 13 for a "significant reduction" in staffing.
The actions by the OPM must be contextualized within this broader plan to shrink the workforce and potentially replace more expensive federal employees with lower-wage and potentially less skilled or experienced workers.
Impact on Federal Workforce and Government Services
Critics warn that these drastic workforce reductions, coupled with the relocation tactics employed by the OPM, could have serious consequences for the quality and efficiency of government services. The loss of experienced and knowledgeable employees could lead to delays, errors, and a decline in overall performance. There are valid arguments for maintaining a high standard of professionalism within the civil service.
As the Trump administration continues to pursue its agenda of reshaping the federal government, the debate over the size and scope of the workforce is likely to intensify. The controversy surrounding the OPM’s relocation demands serves as a stark reminder of the human cost of these policy decisions and the potential impact on the dedicated individuals who serve the American public.
