Trump Impact: What does President Trump’s 1st term suggest for federal workers in his 2nd term?
This story is part of WTOP’s ongoing series, Trump Impact, which looks at how the new administration could change the D.C. region.
President-elect Donald Trump has big plans to make the federal government smaller when he returns to the White House in January for his second term.
His new Department of Government Efficiency, or DOGE, led by Elon Musk and Vivek Ramaswamy, is pledging to press for the largest cuts to the federal government in the country’s history.
Musk has said he believes $2 trillion in cuts could be made, which would require the elimination of thousands of federal employees.
So what will actually take place during the next four years?
An examination of what happened during the first Trump administration could provide some clues.
What happened to the federal workforce in Trump’s first term?
When President Trump came into office in 2016, his administration pledged to shrink the federal government and its workforce, though not with as quite the bold claims that are now being made by DOGE.
The federal workforce changed between 2016 and 2020, but modestly.
The full-time, civilian federal workforce actually increased slightly during Trump’s first term, rising an average of 0.9% per year.
A review by the nonpartisan Partnership for Public Service found that the number of federal workers gradually increased overall, though some individual agencies were scaled back.
The Department of Veterans Affairs grew by more than 3% to nearly 380,000 employees in 2020, starting with about 336,000 in 2016.
The Department of Homeland Security also grew by 1.7% over the four years, ending the term with more than 183,000 employees. The increase came as the president stepped up efforts to secure the country’s borders.
But several labor-related agencies lost workers.
The Office of Personnel Management (OPM), which began with 5,230 employees, fell by nearly 14%. The Department of Labor also got smaller, by 3.1%, dropping from close to 15,000 employees to 13,324.
Moving feds out of Washington
Trump has repeatedly said he believes too many federal workers are based in D.C., frequently referring to the need to “drain the swamp.”
He is again pledging to do that in his second term.
His administration’s efforts in his first term to move agencies out of the D.C. area were limited, but did have a major impact on those that were affected. They included parts of the Department of Agriculture — the Economic Research Service and the National Institute of Food and Agriculture.
Both were moved to Kansas City, based in part on the administration’s view that they would be closer to stakeholders and consumers, and would reduce costs to taxpayers.
A Government Accountability Office report found the agencies lost a lot of staff, since many employees decided to quit or retire, rather than move out of state.
Each agency by 2020 had 150 permanent employees — fewer than half what they had in 2016.
While they gradually hired more people, many had very little experience compared to the people who left. It is also unclear if the move will save taxpayers money.
Firing federal workers
Near the end of his first term, Trump issued an executive order involving “Schedule F” to allow federal government agencies to reclassify workers, essentially making it easier for agencies to fire them.
The incoming Trump administration plans to bring back “Schedule F,” which its agenda said is needed to restore the president’s authority “to fire rogue bureaucrats.”
But the impact of the executive order was limited, since it didn’t come about until October of 2020 and President Joe Biden rescinded the executive order when he came into office in January of 2021.
Trump plans to revive Schedule F soon after he comes into office, which worries the unions representing federal workers. It is also a concern of D.C.-area lawmakers, most of whom are Democrats.
Members of the Virginia and Maryland congressional delegations have made it clear they plan to fight on behalf of federal workers and protecting their jobs.
Sen. Chris Van Hollen, D-Md., said it would be a “huge mistake” to replace federal workers with “political cronies.”
“We’ve had a longtime merit-based civil service in the United States of America. That federal government has served people well,” Van Hollen said.
That is not the view of many Republican lawmakers, including those who say bureaucrats are part of an unaccountable “deep state.” But Van Hollen’s view is echoed by other Maryland lawmakers.
Rep. Steny Hoyer, D-Md., who has served for decades in Congress, said lawmakers have a lot of work to do and pledged to protect federal employees. Hoyer called the civil service “the pride of this country.”
“It is a civil service sworn to uphold the law and to carry out the policies on behalf of the American people,” he said.