Executive Order on RIFs coming today

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:As of March 14th, there is likely be a "funding shortfall."

The RIF EO supposedly directs agencies to remove any activities that are not specifically required by statute. Of course, that could be read broadly or narrowly. But, it gives agencies plenty of leeway to determine that a reorganization is needed.

It will be enjoined by then. And I am sure that staff cut under a RIF must be commensurate with the cut in funding, like you can’t RIF most of your workforce after a small or moderate budget cut.

[Anonymous]

I bet Musk &Co. took one look at those RIF requirements and their heads exploded because they couldn't understand about the preferences, and points, and bumping rights... and they said "F--- it!" We'll just skip all this mumbo jumbo and imply that employees will get a paid vacation if they "resign."

It would take at least a month for any agency to work through those RIF regs, and then affected employees are entitled to 60 days notice before being RIF'd. So, that's at least 3 months.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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 Funds are rescinded or restricted by law (requiring a congressional act).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.

the question is whether a large budget decrease would satisfy the bolded. As in, what' going to happen in March if they can pass a budget.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:As of March 14th, there is likely be a "funding shortfall."

The RIF EO supposedly directs agencies to remove any activities that are not specifically required by statute. Of course, that could be read broadly or narrowly. But, it gives agencies plenty of leeway to determine that a reorganization is needed.

For how many things this will be implementable? There are lots of activities that are authorized by law and/or appropriated explicitly, so the “by statute” clause might cover more than the DOGE folks think.

[Anonymous]

RIF regs are a perfect example of how federal regulations can be a gigantic pain in the @ss, but the beauty of that is that pain-in-the-@ss regulations slow down impulsive decisions.

The gov. may be slow and that can be irritating, but its slowness can also be a secret weapon when there is an insider-threat.

[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.

It looks like they’re trying to argue people should be fired if they are not doing statutorily required work. So if someone’s job is not explicitly covered in law could that be considered lack of work?

I’m trying to figure out what their angle is.

[Anonymous]

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.

It looks like they’re trying to argue people should be fired if they are not doing statutorily required work. So if someone’s job is not explicitly covered in law could that be considered lack of work?

I’m trying to figure out what their angle is.

What does it even mean for a job to be covered by law??

[Anonymous]

This may be a dumb question but my head is spinning from all the chaos — if we are made Schedule F do we lose all RIF protections?

[Anonymous]

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.

It looks like they’re trying to argue people should be fired if they are not doing statutorily required work. So if someone’s job is not explicitly covered in law could that be considered lack of work?

I’m trying to figure out what their angle is.

You are giving them way too much credit. They are not arguing anything. These people are not informed enough to understand how to move forward within the confines of the law/regs.

[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.

It looks like they’re trying to argue people should be fired if they are not doing statutorily required work. So if someone’s job is not explicitly covered in law could that be considered lack of work?

I’m trying to figure out what their angle is.

You are giving them way too much credit. They are not arguing anything. These people are not informed enough to understand how to move forward within the confines of the law/regs.

It’s hard to turn off my lawyer brain. I keep wanting to make sense of things, but it’s like we’ve fallen down the Alicr in Wonderland rabbit hole.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:This may be a dumb question but my head is spinning from all the chaos — if we are made Schedule F do we lose all RIF protections?

Yes, that’s the idea.

[Anonymous]

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.

It looks like they’re trying to argue people should be fired if they are not doing statutorily required work. So if someone’s job is not explicitly covered in law could that be considered lack of work?

I’m trying to figure out what their angle is.

I guess but they couldn’t justify a RIF on that basis w/o a funding shortfall…or shouldn’t be able to anyway. And the courts would ultimately determine whether a position or function is “required by law” explicit or not. Then again, I’m not sure that’s even a relevant standard.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I mean, they are using RIFs to evade spending/programs that Congress has appropriated and asked the agencies to do. So there are separation of powers issues here. We're in uncharted waters.

There are charts -- they are called laws and regulations.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

the question is whether a large budget decrease would satisfy the bolded. As in, what' going to happen in March if they can pass a budget.

NP and I doubt there's a large budget cut. Several Rs vote against any budget whatever it is so they need D support for anything. At that point a flat budget is most likely.

[Anonymous]

Does anyone have a take on how much work is "not specifically required by statute"? I get the sense that almost everything is required by statute. Add that the RIF laws don't really match up with Elon's vision of AI and kids replacing all experienced federal workers.

March 14 + the courts are the two things that matter the most here. To pass a CR before Pi day they will need 60 votes in the Senate OR the Rs could go nuclear and change the rules to 50 votes. To get to 60 they need Dems, who will likely stop any massive cut/RIF -- at least until Sept. 30. But if Ds push that, then a shutdown might be the grand gop plan anyway.

My bet given that Rs DGAF about any precedence: Rs go for a shutdown, RIF like crazy, blame the Ds for "ignoring their mandate", and then change the senate rules to require only 50 votes. Then they pass a CR that codifies the RIFs/budget cuts.

Best case scenario, the Dems negotiate a CR that lasts until Sept. 30. Then the hammer falls with the nex year budget.