As a dedicated government civilian, I have always taken pride in my work—supporting the mission, ensuring continuity, and providing expertise that keeps our agencies running efficiently. But lately, an unsettling reality has begun to take shape: a looming Reduction in Force (RIF) that seems inevitable.
The Department of Government Employment (DOGE) has been unrelenting in its push to shrink the civilian workforce, and rather than following the Office of Personnel Management (OPM) processes designed to ensure fairness and transparency, they appear to be sidestepping established guidelines. This approach not only undermines job security but also raises serious concerns about the integrity of the workforce reduction process.
The Department of Government Employment (DOGE) isn’t acting independently to shrink the civilian workforce—it has become a tool of President Trump, driven by an agenda that prioritizes sweeping cuts over stability. Under the leadership of Elon Musk, DOGE appears more focused on disruption than on upholding the long-standing policies set by the Office of Personnel Management (OPM) to ensure fairness and transparency. By sidestepping these established guidelines, DOGE is not just threatening job security—it is undermining the integrity of the entire workforce reduction process, leaving thousands of dedicated government employees in a state of uncertainty.
The Erosion of Stability
For years, government civilians have been assured that any workforce reductions would follow strict OPM policies—policies that emphasize seniority, tenure, and proper notification procedures. However, what we are witnessing now feels different. DOGE’s actions suggest a willingness to bypass these safeguards in favor of a more arbitrary, aggressive downsizing effort. Employees who have dedicated decades to public service are left in the dark, unsure whether they will have a job in the coming months.
The Ripple Effect on National Security and Readiness
Beyond the personal impact on thousands of federal employees, this aggressive approach to downsizing has broader implications. Many of the roles targeted for reduction are not just administrative positions—they include analysts, logisticians, engineers, and other professionals whose expertise is critical to national security and operational readiness. Eliminating these positions haphazardly, without due process, risks weakening the very institutions we are meant to uphold.
The Need for Transparency and Fairness
At a time when trust in government institutions is already fragile, it is imperative that workforce reductions be handled with transparency and adherence to established procedures. The OPM exists to ensure that RIFs are conducted fairly, mitigating undue hardships on employees while preserving mission-critical capabilities. By disregarding these processes, DOGE not only damages employee morale but also sets a dangerous precedent for future workforce decisions.
The Myth of the “Lazy Government Employee”
One of the most damaging misconceptions fueling the push for civilian workforce reductions is the idea that government employees are lazy, overpaid, and a drain on taxpayer money. This narrative has been perpetuated for years by those who either misunderstand the role of government civilians or have a political agenda that benefits from undermining public service. The truth, however, is far different.
Government civilians are the backbone of federal operations. They provide continuity in national defense, intelligence, public safety, healthcare, infrastructure, and countless other critical areas. Unlike political appointees, who may come and go with each administration, career civil servants bring institutional knowledge, expertise, and long-term commitment to their roles. Their work ensures that agencies function efficiently regardless of the political climate.
The notion that these employees are sitting idly, collecting paychecks for minimal effort, is not only false—it’s offensive. Many civil servants work long hours, often under-resourced, to keep essential government functions running. They are subject to strict performance evaluations, accountability measures, and bureaucratic hurdles that make it impossible to simply “coast” through their careers.
The push to cut the workforce based on this flawed narrative does more than just harm employees—it weakens the government’s ability to serve the public. Reducing personnel without understanding their contributions leads to overworked teams, inefficiencies, and a loss of institutional knowledge that is difficult—if not impossible—to replace. If the goal is truly to make government more effective, then undermining the people who make it work is the worst possible strategy.
Government civilians deserve clarity, fairness, and respect. I urge policymakers, agency leaders, and oversight bodies to demand that DOGE follows the proper procedures outlined by OPM. If reductions must happen, they should be conducted lawfully, ethically, and with an understanding of the long-term consequences.
This is not just about jobs—it’s about the integrity of our workforce and the effectiveness of the government itself. We cannot afford to let bureaucratic maneuvering undermine the very foundation of public service.