Trump’s remote work ban could cripple federal services: hybrid work expert
FLORIDA, UNITED STATES — The Trump administration’s plan to end remote work for federal employees could harm government efficiency and waste taxpayer dollars, writes Gleb Tsipursky, CEO of Disaster Avoidance Experts.
Impact of remote work ban on federal workforce
The plan, spearheaded by Vivek Ramaswamy as co-head of the Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE), aims to reduce the federal workforce by approximately 25% through voluntary resignations triggered by the elimination of telework options.
This strategy targets a workforce that manages a $6.1 trillion budget, with current federal salaries accounting for just 1.8% of that budget at $110 billion. The proposed policy could trigger significant departures of experienced personnel from critical agencies like the Department of Homeland Security, Department of Education, and Federal Reserve.
Tsipursky argues this strategy is shortsighted and risks critical disruptions to public services.
“Federal employees are the backbone of government functions, from managing Social Security to overseeing disaster response,” writes Tsipursky.
“Mass resignations would create skill shortages that taxpayers ultimately pay for through reduced service quality and inefficiency.”
Ignoring proven telework success
Remote work has proven successful during the COVID-19 pandemic, with federal agencies maintaining productivity while reducing office-related expenses. The Office of Management and Budget has documented enhanced operational efficiency through flexible work arrangements.
Critics also worry about morale among remaining employees. Increased workloads and diminished institutional knowledge could spark further resignations, creating a vicious cycle of inefficiency. Tsipursky notes this would likely ripple out to industries reliant on federal oversight, further straining state and private sector operations.
“The administration’s plan doesn’t save money—it shifts costs onto taxpayers while undermining government effectiveness,” Tsipursky argues.
Economic considerations
The initiative’s economic rationale appears flawed, as any immediate payroll savings would likely be offset by substantial costs. These include:
- Recruitment and training expenses for replacement personnel
- Reinvestment in office infrastructure
- Increased operational inefficiencies during transition periods
- Potential disruption to federal services and programs
Instead of sweeping mandates, targeted modernization could improve government efficiency. Embracing technology, updating systems, and continuing remote work where it has proven effective would preserve public services and reduce costs without destabilizing the workforce.
“The federal government must prioritize reforms that protect taxpayer dollars while ensuring its ability to serve the public effectively,” Tsipursky concludes.
