Executive Order on RIFs coming today

[Anonymous]

Hot take: people are waaayy exaggerating the intent and likely effect of this EO. Read between the lines with all the caveats — basically, it’s just saying that they want agencies to get rid of all the BS that’s not “core” to each agency’s statutory mandate and function.

Everyone in government knows the type of stuff I’m talking about.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

I love you!

The lack of funding will come in the form of the President’s Budget which will come out around May timeframe. It will then need to be passed, which could be a problem. But trust that Mr Evil Vought will be planning that budget in the next few months with Mr Evil Musk and it will have the cuts to agency budgets. We gotta start connecting the dots people. Start connecting the dots!!!

Correct.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Hot take: people are waaayy exaggerating the intent and likely effect of this EO. Read between the lines with all the caveats — basically, it’s just saying that they want agencies to get rid of all the BS that’s not “core” to each agency’s statutory mandate and function.

Everyone in government knows the type of stuff I’m talking about.

Oh you sweet summer child.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

You're not wrong, but the unspoken next step in this plan is recession. When there is reduced demand + a lot of people out of work (sorry, "increased labor supply"), you get recession. It's pretty sick when our government intentionally drives us into one.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Oh and if the cuts touch the military - even civilian employees of the different branches - THAT is certainly going to spread across the country.

My spouse is a civilian working for the military and was told by command he's on the potential RIF list.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Hot take: people are waaayy exaggerating the intent and likely effect of this EO. Read between the lines with all the caveats — basically, it’s just saying that they want agencies to get rid of all the BS that’s not “core” to each agency’s statutory mandate and function.

Everyone in government knows the type of stuff I’m talking about.

Oh you sweet summer child.

lol. Oh to be blissfully unaware.

[Anonymous]

Read the definition of “law enforcement” in the EO. It’s very very broad. Encompasses everyone from doj to sec/ftc.

Easier to ask which agencies the RIFs DO apply to!! Ie, which agencies have absolutely no law enforcement functions (as defined by this EO)?

[Anonymous]

Guys, I just went to the WH website to find the EO since you all said it was there. You didn't provide the trigger warning of the front page. It is the most unprofessional White House website I could ever image. And for those wondering, there is a huge picture of the Orange Man pointing with all caps screaming: "AMERICA IS BACK!" You have been warned.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Read the definition of “law enforcement” in the EO. It’s very very broad. Encompasses everyone from doj to sec/ftc.

Easier to ask which agencies the RIFs DO apply to!! Ie, which agencies have absolutely no law enforcement functions (as defined by this EO)?

Doesn’t matter how it could be interpreted. It matters how OPM is going to interpret it. And the answer is, not as broadly as you hope.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Read the definition of “law enforcement” in the EO. It’s very very broad. Encompasses everyone from doj to sec/ftc.

Easier to ask which agencies the RIFs DO apply to!! Ie, which agencies have absolutely no law enforcement functions (as defined by this EO)?

Doesn’t matter how it could be interpreted. It matters how OPM is going to interpret it. And the answer is, not as broadly as you hope.

Lol OPM. you mean DOGE.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:If my fed role is directly authorized or tied to a congressional law or statute, but I am not essential during a shutdown (I am put on furlough), would I be identified for RIF by this EO? The language is confusing.

Yes, but whether you'd be targeted in the RIF would depend on how strongly your agency is required to perform those activities, versus simply being authorized to perform them.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Read the definition of “law enforcement” in the EO. It’s very very broad. Encompasses everyone from doj to sec/ftc.

Easier to ask which agencies the RIFs DO apply to!! Ie, which agencies have absolutely no law enforcement functions (as defined by this EO)?

Doesn’t matter how it could be interpreted. It matters how OPM is going to interpret it. And the answer is, not as broadly as you hope.

Lol OPM. you mean DOGE.

You mean President Elon.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Read the definition of “law enforcement” in the EO. It’s very very broad. Encompasses everyone from doj to sec/ftc.

Easier to ask which agencies the RIFs DO apply to!! Ie, which agencies have absolutely no law enforcement functions (as defined by this EO)?

Doesn’t matter how it could be interpreted. It matters how OPM is going to interpret it. And the answer is, not as broadly as you hope.

Lol OPM. you mean DOGE.

Yes, DOGE is running OPM.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Guys, I just went to the WH website to find the EO since you all said it was there. You didn't provide the trigger warning of the front page. It is the most unprofessional White House website I could ever image. And for those wondering, there is a huge picture of the Orange Man pointing with all caps screaming: "AMERICA IS BACK!" You have been warned.

When I went right after inauguration it was a full on propaganda video of him and military aircraft. Ridiculous.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Read the definition of “law enforcement” in the EO. It’s very very broad. Encompasses everyone from doj to sec/ftc.

Easier to ask which agencies the RIFs DO apply to!! Ie, which agencies have absolutely no law enforcement functions (as defined by this EO)?

Doesn’t matter how it could be interpreted. It matters how OPM is going to interpret it. And the answer is, not as broadly as you hope.

Does the overturning of Chevron deference take away power from OPM/DOGE to interpret the law and do what they want? Would it now be up to the judge to do that? - (Obviously) not a lawyer