Reduction in Force (RIF) is a Real Threat

Federal employees facing a Reduction in Force (RIF) is a real threat as of the posting of this article. Since the 2024 Presidential Election results, the establishment of the “Department of Government Efficiency” (DOGE) and the appointments of cartoonish like individuals such as Elon Musk and Vivek Ramaswamy to oversee the nongovernmental entity DOGE, the federal workforce has become destabilized. This situation has led to a surge in inquiries from federal employees, as well as state and local government employees, regarding Reductions in Force (RIF), retention rights, and appeal rights. While it is premature to assess the precise impact and scale of the impending RIF, which remains unclear but clearly forewarned and wide-scale, certain statements made by both Musk and Ramaswamy have alarmed numerous Federal employees, even those who ironically supported Trump (may be time for federal employees who are Trump supporters to “take your medicine”) However, these federal employees who are trump supporters must have known. In fact, it is worth noting that, Ramaswamy in 2023, as a presidential candidate, publicly promised to, “slash 50% of federal workers” through arbitrary means including using the last digit of federal employee’s social security numbers to arbitrarily determine whether they remain employed.

_{Elon Musk, smoking marijuana on the Joe Rogan show. Federal employees are prohibited from smoking marijuana. This is one of the guys, a naturalized US Citizen, tasked by Trump to arbitrarily decide whether a federal employee remains employed, regardless of merit, years of service, veterans preference, performance evaluations, etc.}

Both Ramaswamy and Musk have made exceedingly and increasingly odd assertions regarding their proposed implementation of “mass firings” of federal employees. For instance, in November 2024, during an interview with Lex Friedman, a renowned podcaster, Ramaswamy publicly stated the following concerning firing a large number of active Federal employees:

Meanwhile Musk, a naturalized US Citizen who could arguably not pass a suitability adjudication (required for every federal employee) for other reasons, has begun the crowdsourcing of targeting federal employees.  He is openly generating threatening behavior against federal employees and even encouraging your neighbors to turn against you as if you are their enemy. Unlike federal employees, by their own statements, Elon Musk, Vivek Ramaswamy, and Donald Trump believe they are not subject to statutory law, regulations, a Code of Ethics, or performance standards. This distinction is significant because federal employees are held accountable to these guidelines and standards, both on and off duty, which govern their conduct and performance. In other words, a federal employee cannot sexually assault anyone or commit fraud and gain or maintain federal employment. Simply stated, Elon Musk, Vivek Ramaswamy, and Donald Trump are not held to the same standards as any federal employee.

Reduction in force (RIF) is a real threat at present. The situation has gained substantial public attention and support of the Trump political base, prompting the formulation of absurd and arguably illegal solutions by the individuals appointed by President-Elect Trump to oversee this effort. The Heritage Foundation, the leading conservative proponent of Project 2025, has flooded federal agencies with thousands of information requests, the results of which they will use for the intended mass firings.  It is imperative federal employees do not disregard this threat. Begin preparing financially and mentally now, as federal employees have a history of disregarding imminent danger until it directly impacts them.  Then, it may be too late.

In a legally compliant explanation, a Reduction in Force (RIF) in the federal workforce is a process used by federal agencies to reduce the number of employees due to various reasons, such as reorganization, lack of work, shortage of funds, or other similar circumstances. However, in the DOGE (Musk and Ramaswamy) version, they would circumvent prescribed regulations specifically designed to ensure RIFs are non-politicized.  Instead, they would seemingly (and admittedly) arbitrarily fire federal employees in large numbers, to, as Ramaswamy stated publicly, achieve a fifty-percent off the top reduction. They would ostensibly use arbitrary procedures, such as the last digit of your social security number, and possibly even your political affiliation in the last presidential election, as the larger geographic targets have a greater share of federal employees. These locations include Washington, D.C. (13.9%), Huntsville, Alabama (9.3%), and Virginia Beach, Virginia (9.2%), as well as other metro areas that historically lean Democratic.  

During a RIF, employees may be separated (terminated) from their positions, downgraded, or reassigned based on specific regulations to maintain a politically non-partisan federal workforce. A system that has worked for a hundred or more years. These retention regulations are designed to consider factors such as tenure, veterans’ preference, length of service, and performance ratings. In theory, under prescribed regulations, the objective is to ensure that the process is fair and transparent. However, as previously mentioned, both Musk and Ramaswamy publicly declared their intention to disregard the law including retention regulations to politicize the firing of federal employees.  They also call for requiring all federal employees to return to the office, regardless of where you live and whether your agency even has office space available, even if the return would cost your agency more money. In the private sector, this is called “quite firing”.

Generally, no. This is because no one ever envisioned federal employees would need appeal rights in connection with political firings. However, 

• An employee in a bargaining unit covered by a negotiated grievance procedure that does not otherwise exclude reduction in force can use the negotiated grievance procedure of their applicable Master Agreement (“Contract”).  In this instance,  that bargaining unit employee may not appeal the reduction in force to the Merit Systems Protection Board (MSPB) unless, as otherwise provided in 5 USC 7121 (d), or the employee alleges discrimination. See, 5 CFR 1201.3 (c).
• A non-Bargaining unit must seek jurisdiction under MSPB regulations prescribed by the Office of Personnel Management (OPN) at 5 CFR 351.901.  It is important to note that in cases in which a non-bargaining unit employee resigns prior to the effective date of a RIF, after receiving notification of his RIF rights, the MSPB will not have jurisdiction over a RIF appeal if he cannot show that the resignation was obtained through duress or coercion or that a reasonable person would have been misled by the agency. Jones v. Department of the Interior (MSPB 1997).

Appeal rights in connection with a Reduction in Force are very complicated as there are many variables in both the facts and circumstances of each case that must be considered in determining whether the RIF is appealable, under what basis, and in which administrative forum.  Each situation requires a case-by-case analysis. One thing is guaranteed, the Courts will be backed up for years in such a scenario.  In many respects, a repeat of Trump’s infamous 8 USC 714 effort that resulted in significant litigation and the requirement that the Department of Veterans Affairs pay tens of million dollars to affected employees who were removed under this special authority, even those removed (fired) for provably egregious misconduct. It ultimately cost taxpayers tens of millions of dollars.

BOOK A FREE CONSULTATION | WHAT WE DO | CONSULTING QUESTIONS | FEE STRUCTURE

The contents of this website (InformedFED.com) are intended to convey general information only and not to provide legal advice or opinions. Consultants at InformedFED are not attorneys. They are senior level practitioners of employee labor relations and EEO. The contents of this website, and the posting and viewing of the information on this website, should not be construed as, and should not be relied upon for, legal or employment advice in any particular circumstance or situation. The information presented on this website may not reflect the most current legal or regulatory developments. No action should be taken in reliance on the information contained on this website and we disclaim all liability in respect to actions taken or not taken based on any or all of the contents of this site to the fullest extent permitted by law. InformedFED is comprised of independent senior level practitioners and consultants who are not employees of InformedFED.