A U.S. federal judge has temporarily delayed the deadline for federal workers to decide whether to accept a resignation package introduced by the Trump administration, presenting a significant pause in the administration’s efforts to reduce the federal workforce. The much-debated buyout initiative, known as the deferred resignation program, offered federal employees the chance to voluntarily resign from their positions while receiving pay and benefits through September of the current year.
The program was framed by the administration as a cost-saving measure and an opportunity for employees ready to leave federal service to do so on mutually beneficial terms. However, legal challenges and opposition from federal employee unions claimed that the program was coercive and lacked proper authorization. Critics also argued that the timeframe given for employees to make this decision—set to expire at 11:59 p.m. on Thursday—was unfairly short and pressured employees into making potentially life-altering decisions too quickly.
In an eleventh-hour decision, U.S. District Judge George A. O’Toole Jr. granted a temporary order halting the deadline. The judge’s ruling came in response to legal challenges that contended the program was unlawful due to the absence of congressional approval for its funding. Several unions representing federal employees had sought to block the program, citing that its implementation could cause irreversible harm to those participating.
Federal unions have played a pivotal role in challenging what they see as an attempt to undermine protections for public sector workers. “This program should not have moved forward without careful scrutiny, and it certainly shouldn’t put employees in a position where they’re rushed into making such significant decisions,” said a union representative involved in the case.
The Trump administration had touted the program as a voluntary option, emphasizing that the decision to participate rested entirely with individual employees. It was estimated that over two million workers were eligible for the offer, though only a smaller fraction was anticipated to accept. Initial data indicated that as of Thursday afternoon, fewer than 60,000 workers had opted in. According to administration officials, this number fell short of initial expectations, which ranged between five to ten percent.
Legal experts have pointed out several questions surrounding the initiative. One contentious issue is whether the program’s projected expenditures adhere to federal budget guidelines. Another concern lies in its potential violation of labor practices, as employee representatives argue that using monetary incentives in this way undermines long-standing protections.
The blows to the program follow an era of heightened tension between the Trump administration and federal labor unions. Many public sector representatives view the administration’s sweeping attempts to streamline government structures and reduce personnel as broadly hostile to civil servants. These efforts, critics argue, have contributed to eroding morale among federal workers.
Despite the pause, analysts predict that similar government restructuring initiatives may resurface. They warn, however, that such efforts are likely to encounter robust opposition from unions and worker advocacy groups. “This ruling demonstrates that there are checks and balances in place,” said a political commentator familiar with the case. “It will be interesting to see whether the administration can make a more convincing case for this initiative in future proceedings or if this halt proves to be the first step in shelving it entirely.”
Federal officials have since announced that employees will be notified promptly of changes to the program’s deadlines, particularly in light of the court’s intervention. For now, eligible workers are no longer bound by the original cutoff, which has given them more breathing room to weigh their options.
The judge is expected to hear further arguments on the case next week. Until then, federal employees and their representatives will likely continue to vigorously debate the merits and pitfalls of the plan. This pause also provides an opportunity for the broader public to assess what such workforce-reducing measures mean for the shape and functionality of the federal government.
The implications of this ruling stretch far beyond the program at hand, setting a legal precedent regarding how far executive power can extend without congressional support.
