What's Happening?
The Government Accountability Office (GAO) has reported a significant increase in federal agencies' use of paid administrative leave in 2025, reaching nearly $10 billion. This represents a sixfold increase from
previous years. A substantial portion of this expenditure, approximately $6.7 billion, is attributed to the Trump administration's deferred resignation program (DRP). This program incentivized federal employees to resign by offering paid administrative leave. In 2025, federal employees collectively took 21.6 million workdays of leave, a sharp rise from 4 million workdays in 2023 and 4.4 million in 2024. The use of paid administrative leave peaked in July 2025, with nearly 3 million workdays, of which 2.5 million were associated with the DRP. Furthermore, almost 100,000 employees took more than 90 days of paid administrative leave in 2025, compared to fewer than 600 in 2023 and 2024. The DRP was implemented shortly after the Office of Personnel Management (OPM) issued regulations for the 2016 Administrative Leave Act, which aimed to curb the use of such leave.
Why It's Important?
This surge in paid administrative leave and its associated costs raise significant questions about federal workforce management and taxpayer expenditure. The deferred resignation program, while intended to streamline the federal workforce, has resulted in substantial short-term financial outlays. The GAO's findings highlight a potential disconnect between the stated goals of workforce reduction and the immediate financial impact. The lack of a dedicated leave category for workforce restructuring efforts, as noted by the GAO, impedes accurate tracking and evaluation of the program's true cost-effectiveness. This makes it difficult for policymakers to assess whether the Trump administration's workforce reductions are genuinely leading to long-term government savings, as OPM Director Scott Kupor had previously suggested, with an estimated $20 billion in annual savings. The report underscores the need for greater transparency and accountability in federal personnel policies, particularly when programs involve significant financial incentives for employees to leave their positions.
What's Next?
The Government Accountability Office has recommended that the Office of Personnel Management address the data reliability issues in its public-facing paid leave data. Crucially, the GAO also advised OPM to create a new category within federal payroll systems specifically for reporting paid leave related to workforce reductions. In response to these recommendations, OPM has indicated a change in its stance. OPM Director Scott Kupor has stated that the agency will initiate the process of developing a new paid administrative leave category focused on workforce reduction efforts. This development will involve coordination with federal agencies and payroll service providers. The implementation of this new category is expected to provide more timely and accurate reporting on the use of such leave, enabling better analysis of its impact and cost. This move aims to improve the government's ability to determine the extent to which cost-saving goals from workforce reduction initiatives are being met.
Beyond the Headlines
The extensive use of paid administrative leave through programs like the deferred resignation program could have broader implications for federal employee morale and the perception of government efficiency. While the program aimed to reduce the workforce, the substantial cost associated with paying employees not to work, even temporarily, might be viewed critically by the public. This situation also highlights the complexities of implementing large-scale workforce changes within the federal government, where legal frameworks and employee protections often necessitate structured and sometimes costly transition periods. The GAO's report implicitly suggests a need for more robust planning and transparent accounting mechanisms when designing and executing such programs to ensure they achieve their intended objectives without unintended financial burdens or negative perceptions. The ethical dimension of paying employees to resign, even if voluntary, could also be a point of public and political debate, especially concerning the allocation of taxpayer funds.
