The federal government paid federal workers $9.5 billion not to work in 2025. That is the headline from a new report, and the scale of it demands attention.
Abc13’s report found that $6.7 billion of that $9.5 billion was tied to the deferred resignation program. The federal workforce shrank by roughly 216,000 workers in 2025.
Fork in the Road Email
The program began with a cryptic email sent to federal workers. It was titled “Fork in the Road,” and it invited workers to take a one-time offer to leave the workforce and receive pay through September 2025. Nearly 140,000 workers took the buyout offer from the government.
That number represents a significant share of the total workforce reduction. The deferred resignation initiative led to a 435% increase in paid administrative leave costs last year. Administrative leave costs were six times more than what the government spent in 2023 on administrative leave.
The Department of Government Efficiency launched the deferred resignation initiative. Its aim was simple: shrink the federal workforce by paying people to leave voluntarily.
Cost Breakdown
The $9.5 billion figure covers multiple programs. The largest chunk was the deferred resignation program, which accounted for $6.7 billion of the total.
Here is how the report breaks down the spending:
- $6.7 billion was tied to the deferred resignation program
- Paid administrative leave and other buyouts made up the remaining portion
The federal workforce shrank by roughly 216,000 workers in 2025.
Scott Kupor Pushes Back
Scott Kupor, the director of the Office of Personnel Management, criticized the GAO report. He argued that the moves to cut the federal workforce will benefit taxpayers over time, once workers are removed from the federal government payrolls.
Kupor made the case that the $9.5 billion is a short-term expense delivering long-term savings. He noted that the reduction of 270,000 employees comes with a $40 billion per year savings in taxpayer dollars.
“The GAO report fails to highlight the difference between a one-time expense ($9.5 billion) to reduce the size of the federal government by 270,000 employees and the $40 billion per year savings in taxpayer dollars that this reduction provides. That 400% return on investment is a massive benefit to the taxpayer.”
The administration’s framing rests on the idea that the one-time payment produces a permanent benefit. Kupor described the arrangement as a massive benefit to the taxpayer.
Skeptics Have Questions
Outside experts have questioned — and struggled to confirm — the figures the Trump administration has cited for the program’s savings. The administration has claimed the deferred resignation initiative led to hundreds of billions in savings.
The national debt and federal spending have both gone up during Trump’s second term. That context matters when judging claims of massive efficiency gains.
Some departments have already moved to reverse cuts and hire workers and contractors back in certain roles to fill government needs. Others are continuing plans to relocate staff out of Washington to regional hubs, which could also lead to attrition.
Bottom Line
The administration’s argument is straightforward: a one-time payment now yields permanent savings later. The GAO report documents the payment; the savings remain unverified.
The paper’s view is this: independent scrutiny of government spending is essential, and the administration’s claims need to be tested against actual results. A 400% return on investment sounds impressive, but the figures behind it have not been confirmed.
The paper supports small business and is wary of big government and big corporations alike. It takes a light-touch approach to regulation and backs the principle of public accountability. When a story touches one of these positions, the paper says so plainly and argues for it.
In this case, the paper sides with the principle of independent scrutiny over unverified claims of huge savings. The GAO report documents the payment; the savings remain unverified.
The $9.5 billion was paid to workers not to work. That is a fact. Whether it delivered the promised savings is a question that remains open.
Where the paper stands
The paper backs federal workers who took the buyout offers and is against the deferred resignation program and the agencies writing their own authority to hand out these payments. The $9.5 billion paid to workers not to work is a real cost, and the promise of $40 billion in savings is not verified.
The deferred resignation initiative was written by the Department of Government Efficiency. It gave federal workers a choice to leave the workforce in exchange for money, and nearly 140,000 took it. The program also pushed paid administrative leave costs up 435%, far beyond what the government spent in 2023.
This is an agency writing its own authority to hand out payments. The paper is against that, and against any office gathering more power, whatever party holds it. The administration’s claim of a 400% return on investment rests on figures outside experts have questioned and struggled to confirm.
Get the Notebook.
The day's best stories and every fresh verdict, in plain English, in your inbox by seven. One email a day, no more.