Labor & Employment Law Daily Wrap Up, AGENCY NEWS—GAO report shows sharp federal workforce cuts, prompting service delivery concerns, (Jun 18, 2026)

By Brandi O. Brown, J.D.

Federal workforce cuts have resulted in a net loss of at least 250,000 employees.

Federal agencies’ sharp workforce reductions in 2025 are likely straining service delivery and program execution, with staffing losses outpace hiring and vacancies remain unfilled, according to two Government Accountability Office (GAO) reports examining the first year of the Trump administration’s second term.

The Trump administration’s workforce initiatives have sparked extensive litigation, including court orders temporarily halting probationary terminations and some reductions in force, as well as a ruling finding that the Office of Personnel Management lacked authority to direct agencies to terminate probationary employees, with appeals ongoing. Congress also intervened by temporarily restricting the use of funds for RIF actions.

In the latest report, released this week, GAO’s findings make clear that early 2025 trends accelerated over time, with most deferred resignation separations occurring later in the year and pushing total workforce losses past 11 percent, underscoring the cumulative and ongoing nature of the downsizing effort.

The reports show that agencies collectively lost more than 250,000 civilian employees between the end of 2024 and early 2026, although the total is incomplete because the Small Business Administration and U.S. Agency for International Development did not provide data. These reductions were driven primarily by resignations and retirements, including widespread participation in the deferred resignation program (DRP), rather than by layoffs.

GAO’s most recent report includes a breakdown in the changes in size of total civilian workforce at the reporting agencies during that time. Among those, the agencies with the highest reduction in workforce, by percentage, were the Department of Education (−45.6), the General Services Administration (−36.8), the Office of Personnel Management (−33.9), the National Science Foundation (−32.5), the Department of Housing and Urban Development (−30.5), the Department of Energy (−29.4), the Department of the Treasury (−26.1), the Environmental Protection Agency (−23.7), the Department of Labor (−23.1), and the National Aeronautics and Space Administration (−20.7).

Agency operations and staffing imbalance. With regard to agency operations, however, GAO data point to a growing imbalance between departures and hiring. In 2025, agencies reported approximately 378,000 separations but only about 127,000 hires. With hiring restrictions still in place for most positions, many agencies have not replaced departing employees, leaving fewer staff to carry out existing workloads.

This imbalance directly affects service delivery. As staffing levels fall, agencies must redistribute responsibilities among remaining employees or defer lower-priority activities, as has already been seen with agencies like the EEOC and the IRS. In practice, this can translate into slower processing times, reduced program oversight, and increased backlogs for services delivered to the public.

Uneven strain across agencies. The strain is likely to be uneven across the government. Agencies that experienced particularly steep workforce declines—such as the Departments of Education, Energy, and Housing and Urban Development—likely face greater challenges in maintaining operations at prior levels. By contrast, agencies with smaller reductions or exemptions from hiring limits, such as those with national security or public safety roles, may be better positioned to absorb the impact.

Knowledge loss. The structure of workforce reductions may also affect service delivery. Because the administration relied heavily on voluntary exits, agencies had limited control over which employees left. GAO data show that more than 80 percent of separations were voluntary, meaning agencies may have lost experienced personnel or staff in critical roles without the ability to strategically manage reductions. This can complicate workforce planning and weaken institutional knowledge, particularly in specialized or technical positions. (For example, one news outlet reported that in the first year after Biden left office, 14 percent of the total number of Ph.D.s in STEM or health fields exited the federal workforce.)

The report’s findings are indicative that the deferred resignation program likely added another layer of operational complexity. Many employees who accepted the program remained on payroll but were placed on administrative leave until their departure dates, delaying the full effect of workforce reductions while still removing those employees from active service. As a result, agencies may have experienced temporary gaps in active staffing even before formal separations occurred.

Federal employee unions have argued in litigation and public statements that these dynamics could reduce agencies’ capacity to meet statutory and mission requirements. Union challenges to DRP and related measures have emphasized concerns that widespread departures—combined with hiring freezes—could undermine core government functions and public-facing services.

Indeed, the unions are not the only ones who have raised such concerns. In August 2025, for example, Rep. Robert Garcia, Ranking Member of the Committee on Oversight and Government Reform, sent a letter to the Secretary of the Department of Agriculture, seeking information about staffing cuts at the U.S. Forest Service, including firefighters, administrative personnel, and others who contribute to disaster preparedness. In the letter, Garcia expresses concern over the Trump Administration’s staffing decisions, which he contends are “exacerbating an already dire situation” by severely impacting the U.S. Forest Service’s ability to respond to wildfires. He highlighted how layoffs, early retirements, and deferred resignations had led to critical shortages in both frontline firefighters and essential support staff.

Delayed impact. Finally, the timing of separations suggests that operational impacts may continue to unfold. Nearly two-thirds of departures took place in the second half of 2025, reflecting the delayed effects of DRP participation. This means that agencies are still adjusting to lower staffing levels, and longer-term effects on service delivery, enforcement, and program administration may not yet be fully realized.

Overall, while the administration has succeeded in reducing the size of the federal workforce, GAO’s findings have identified the resulting staffing gaps—and the methods used to achieve them—that are likely to have ongoing consequences for the government’s ability to deliver services efficiently and consistently.

News: AgencyNews PublicEmployees WhiteHouseNews Reports Layoffs GCNNews