Executive Order on RIFs coming today

[Anonymous]

what if you are essential in certain scenarios? like in my agency if you are at a certain point in an investigation you are essential, otherwise it tolls for the length of the shutdown

this is all so dumb. how much money will be wasted on this? a hiring freeze would get rid of like 5% or whatever over 4 years.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:At the very end: “ This order shall be implemented consistent with applicable law and subject to the availability of appropriations.”

Translation: they can’t do 99% of what they propose.

wink wink. They’ll try but they’ll fail in court bc of this little thing call the Constitution.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:soooooo are the civil enforcement agencies law enforcement? outside of the cfpb i guess, poor guys

Law enforcement would probably be anyone drawing LEAP pay.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I'm talking to someone at DoD and what's going on is completely insane. The military is going to grind to a halt.

Aren't they exempted?

What's going on over there?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I'm talking to someone at DoD and what's going on is completely insane. The military is going to grind to a halt.

Aren't they exempted?

What's going on over there?

That doesn’t seem like the group you want to piss off.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:At the very end: “ This order shall be implemented consistent with applicable law and subject to the availability of appropriations.”

Translation: they can’t do 99% of what they propose.

wink wink. They’ll try but they’ll fail in court bc of this little thing call the Constitution.

In the end, it's possible, but when they tell you you are RIFed, lock you out of your office, block access to your computer/system, and don't pay you, will it really matter?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Can someone give an example of a program that isn't required by law? My husband and I are having a hard time coming up with one.

Appropriations funding is often not very specific and jobs that are related to policy are often not specifically required by a law.

There’s no law or statute that requires IT support. But try having an agency without IT support.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:soooooo are the civil enforcement agencies law enforcement? outside of the cfpb i guess, poor guys

Law enforcement would probably be anyone drawing LEAP pay.

That’s not what the EO says. Cannot even imagine DOGE knows what LEAP is.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:soooooo are the civil enforcement agencies law enforcement? outside of the cfpb i guess, poor guys

Law enforcement would probably be anyone drawing LEAP pay.

That’s not what the EO says. Cannot even imagine DOGE knows what LEAP is.

(f) “Law enforcement” means:
(i) engagement in or supervision of the prevention, detection, investigation, or prosecution of, or the incarceration of any person for, any violation of law; or
(ii) the protection of Federal, State, local, or foreign government officials against threats to personal safety.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I'm talking to someone at DoD and what's going on is completely insane. The military is going to grind to a halt.

Aren't they exempted?

What's going on over there?

Approximately 950,000 civilians work for the DOD. I work for the Navy and my organization provides logistical and supply support. It’s 75% civilian as a whole, my work center has roughly 800 civilians and only 5 military. And honestly, they don’t know what we actually do. The try and learn but rotate out every 1-2 years.

[Anonymous]

at this point I am operating as though every day I could get fired for no reason, and without severance.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Can someone give an example of a program that isn't required by law? My husband and I are having a hard time coming up with one.

A program can be require by law. However, that doesn’t mean the positions supporting it are. In other words, you could technically have one person running and operating the program the 40 who supported the program could be considered non-essential.

[Anonymous]

It seems that these cuts would put the economy into a recession. Everything has a ripple effect. Consumer spending would contract. So everyone/everything the workers spend money on would be affected. Mortgage defaults would increase. And all this would happen at a time when prices will increase because of tariffs. As others noted, most of the federal workforce is outside DMV. This would have ripple effects for the entire nation.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:It seems that these cuts would put the economy into a recession. Everything has a ripple effect. Consumer spending would contract. So everyone/everything the workers spend money on would be affected. Mortgage defaults would increase. And all this would happen at a time when prices will increase because of tariffs. As others noted, most of the federal workforce is outside DMV. This would have ripple effects for the entire nation.

Kevin Hassett (CEA chair) was quoted as wanting to "reduce demand and increase labor supply to combat inflation" -- i.e. workforce cuts and spending cuts all at once. It's all going according to plan. The only ones coming out whole from this are the billionaires and cronies.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Meh only Congress can RIF. Waiting for the court ruling in 3,2,1…

Yes, RIFs are governed by specific statutes. They don’t just happen because a President arbitrarily orders them.

The basis for NO Reduction in Force (RIF) without a reduction in funding primarily stems from federal appropriations law and Office of Personnel Management (OPM) regulations governing RIF procedures. Here are the key legal foundations:

1. Appropriations Clause of the U.S. Constitution
• Article I, Section 9, Clause 7: “No Money shall be drawn from the Treasury, but in Consequence of Appropriations made by Law.”
• This means the Executive Branch cannot eliminate federally funded positions without congressional authorization unless the appropriated funds are insufficient to sustain them.

2. Federal Personnel and RIF Laws
• 5 U.S.C. § 3502 (Retention Preferences and RIF Regulations)
• Establishes the legal framework for RIFs, stating that they occur when there is a “lack of work, shortage of funds, or reorganization.”
• Without a shortage of funds, agencies cannot conduct RIFs simply for management convenience unless Congress authorizes a restructuring.
• 5 C.F.R. Part 351 (OPM RIF Regulations)
• Defines RIF procedures, specifying that an agency must justify the RIF based on lack of work, shortage of funds, reorganization, or the exercise of a reemployment right.
• Agencies must follow these regulations when separating, demoting, or reassigning employees.

3. Impoundment Control Act of 1974 (2 U.S.C. § 681 et seq.)
• Prevents the Executive Branch from withholding or delaying congressionally appropriated funds without approval from Congress.
• The White House cannot refuse to use allocated agency funds to force layoffs unless Congress explicitly rescinds or reduces those funds.

4. Antideficiency Act (31 U.S.C. § 1341)
• Prohibits government officials from making financial commitments exceeding available appropriations.
• If an agency is fully funded, ordering a RIF without a funding shortage could be seen as an unlawful refusal to execute appropriated funds.

5. Federal Vacancies Reform Act (5 U.S.C. §§ 3345–3349d)
• Limits the President’s ability to bypass Senate-confirmed leadership and appoint temporary officials who could otherwise attempt to execute mass layoffs without proper authority.

Bottom Line:
• RIFs require a legal basis—either a funding shortfall, reorganization, or lack of work.
• If Congress has fully funded an agency, the White House cannot unilaterally RIF employees unless:
1. Congress authorizes a reorganization (e.g., through specific legislation).
2. The agency faces a legitimate shortage of work (not just a preference for downsizing).
3. Funds are rescinded or restricted by law (requiring a congressional act).

In summary, a lack of reduced funding means an agency has no statutory basis to RIF employees unless Congress explicitly permits it.

Is there any law that species that Congress must order the reorganization? It seems to me the Executive could reorganize the Executive Branch. Also, there will likely be many arguments there is a shortage of work. When I worked for the federal government 10 years ago, there were literally 3-4 more employees than work needed. Most people twiddled their thumbs most of the working day. I know it’s not like that in every department of every agency, but I think there’s a legitimate argument to be made that there is a shortage of work to support the workforce in at least some instances.

The bottom line is that I would fully expect that these RIFs will proceed and while the courts could delay them, ultimately, neither Congress nor the courts will stop them.