The corridors of federal buildings have grown noticeably quieter over the past three months. As I walked through the Department of Labor last week, the emptied desks and packed-up personal items told a story that statistics are only beginning to capture.
Federal employee unions are facing unprecedented pressure under the current administration’s labor policy shifts. Since January, over 7,200 federal workers represented by the American Federation of Government Employees (AFGE) have received reduction-in-force notices, marking the largest wave of federal layoffs in nearly two decades.
“We’re seeing systematic dismantling of worker protections that have been in place since the Civil Service Reform Act,” said Everett Kelley, AFGE National President, during our interview at their Washington headquarters. “These aren’t just numbers—they’re careers, families, and institutional knowledge being shown the door.”
The Department of Interior has been hit hardest, with 1,800 positions eliminated. The Environmental Protection Agency follows with 1,370 layoffs, while the Department of Agriculture has shed 930 positions. These reductions align with the administration’s stated goal of reducing the federal workforce by 15% through what officials term “bureaucratic streamlining.”
Labor Secretary James Davidson defended the moves in a press briefing yesterday. “We’re creating a more responsive, efficient government by reducing redundancies and outdated positions,” Davidson stated. However, my analysis of Office of Personnel Management data reveals targeted reductions in environmental science, labor relations, and regulatory enforcement divisions—the very departments responsible for implementing worker protections and environmental regulations.
The layoffs follow Executive Order 14067, signed in February, which substantially revised federal labor relations practices. The order removed previous requirements for agencies to justify workforce reductions and eliminated certain collective bargaining rights related to reorganization.
Dr. Martha Reeves, government employment specialist at Georgetown University, explained the broader implications. “These aren’t typical efficiency measures we’re seeing,” she told me. “Historical patterns show these targeted reductions focusing on areas where civil servants provide regulatory oversight or scientific expertise that may contradict administration priorities.”
My investigation found disturbing patterns in the implementation timeline. Internal memos obtained from the Office of Management and Budget reveal agencies were instructed to prioritize layoffs of employees with more than 15 years of service—those with the highest salary levels and, importantly, the most institutional knowledge of regulatory frameworks.
For James Wilson, a 24-year veteran of the EPA’s enforcement division who received his notice last month, the personal impact is devastating. “I’ve dedicated my career to protecting American waterways,” Wilson said, clearing his desk in the EPA’s Washington office. “Now I’m told my position is ‘redundant’ while my caseload of industrial compliance investigations sits unassigned.”
Congressional oversight has been limited. The House Committee on Oversight and Accountability held just one hearing on the layoffs in March, lasting only 90 minutes with no follow-up scheduled. Democratic representatives have requested documentation on layoff criteria, but those requests remain unfulfilled as of this writing.
This pattern mirrors previous attempts to reshape federal agencies through workforce reductions. During my coverage of government reorganization efforts in 2018, I documented similar targeted cuts that courts later found violated civil service protections. The difference now is scale and speed.
Union representatives warn of ripple effects beyond those directly laid off. “We’re seeing a chilling effect on remaining employees,” noted Patricia Martinez, AFGE Local 1629 President. “People are afraid to enforce regulations or challenge decisions that might contradict political appointees’ directives.”
The Office of Personnel Management claims these reductions reflect “modernization efforts,” but provides little evidence of efficiency improvements. My analysis of department budgets shows contractor spending increased by 23% in departments with the highest layoff rates—suggesting privatization rather than actual reduction.
The Congressional Budget Office projects these workforce reductions will save approximately $1.2 billion annually in direct salary costs. However, their analysis notes potential offsetting costs from lost institutional knowledge, reduced enforcement capacity
