MISSION ACCOMPLISHED: HOW THE TRUMP ADMINISTRATION ENDED THE FEDERAL TELEWORK ERA
By Lucas Novak, Government Affairs Correspondent
May 5, 2025
The Return to Office Revolution
In what the White House is hailing as a significant policy victory, newly released government data shows that federal telework rates have plummeted to their lowest levels since the COVID-19 pandemic, marking a dramatic reversal of remote work practices that had become entrenched during the previous administration. According to the Jobs Report for April, 81.8 percent of federal workers now report they do not work from home for pay—a figure that outpaces even the private sector, where 79.2 percent of employees report no remote work.
The statistics, released as part of the Bureau of Labor Statistics’ monthly employment report, reveal that just 8.9 percent of federal employees worked “some hours” remotely, compared to 11 percent of private sector workers. Similarly, 9.7 percent of federal workers teleworked “all hours,” nearly matching the 9.8 percent rate in the private sector.
These numbers represent a remarkable shift from just one year ago. In April 2024, under the Biden administration, only 68.5 percent of federal workers said they did not work at home for pay, which was comparable to private sector rates at that time. The data also showed that 19.8 percent of federal workers worked “some hours” from home in April 2024, and 11.5 percent teleworked “all hours.”
For the Trump administration, which made ending remote work for federal employees one of its earliest priorities, the data validates a controversial policy that faced significant resistance from federal employees, their unions, and Democratic lawmakers.
The Executive Mandate: Trump’s Early Push
President Donald Trump signaled his determination to end federal telework within days of taking office. In a January speech from the East Room, before signing the “Laken Riley Act” into law, Trump declared his intent to fundamentally change how the federal workforce operates.
“We have informed the federal workforce, which they’ve looked to do for many years, that if they’re working for the federal government, they must show up to the office on time and on schedule,” the president announced. “We don’t want them to work from home, because as everyone knows, most of the time they’re not working, they’re not very productive, and it’s unfair to the millions of people in the United States who are in fact working hard from job sites and not from their home.”
Trump set a firm deadline of February 6th for employees to return to their offices, warning that those who refused would be terminated. He further suggested that many federal employees had not been present in their offices for “many, many years, from even before COVID,” and insinuated that some might have been collecting federal paychecks while working other jobs.
“We may ask these people to prove that they didn’t have another job during their so-called employment with the United States of America, because if they did, that would be unlawful,” the president said. “As you understand, a lot of people are getting paychecks, but they’re actually working other jobs, so they’ll have to prove that to us, that they weren’t.”
The president framed the policy as a dual-purpose initiative: both to increase productivity and accountability among federal workers, and as a mechanism to reduce the size of government through attrition when employees unwilling to return to offices would resign or face termination.
“In any event, we’re requiring them to show up to work or be terminated. We think a very substantial number of people will not show up to work, and therefore our government will get smaller and more efficient, and that’s what we’ve been looking to do for many, many decades, frankly,” Trump concluded.
DOGE: Musk’s Anti-Telework Crusade
The implementation of the return-to-office mandate became a central focus for the newly established Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE), led by billionaire entrepreneur Elon Musk. Though not a formal government agency but rather an advisory commission, DOGE has wielded remarkable influence over federal workforce policies.
Musk, who had eliminated remote work at his own companies like Tesla and SpaceX, brought the same philosophy to the federal government. In a November 2024 Wall Street Journal op-ed co-authored with former DOGE co-lead Vivek Ramaswamy, Musk wrote: “Requiring federal employees to come to the office five days a week would result in a wave of voluntary terminations that we welcome: If federal employees don’t want to show up, American taxpayers shouldn’t pay them for the Covid-era privilege of staying home.”
The anti-telework crusade faced immediate obstacles, including existing collective bargaining agreements with federal employee unions that guaranteed telework arrangements. Legal experts questioned whether the administration could unilaterally revoke these negotiated benefits, and multiple unions filed lawsuits challenging the return-to-office orders.
Nevertheless, DOGE forged ahead with implementation, establishing a system of tracking and accountability measures for federal workers. In February, Musk instituted a controversial requirement for all federal employees to submit weekly emails listing five accomplishments, described as the “5 bullets” policy. More recently, agencies began requiring employees to declare their daily work location through monitoring tools, raising privacy concerns among workers and civil liberties advocates.
Impacts on Federal Agencies and Workforce
The rapid transition back to in-person work has created significant disruption across federal agencies. Reports from multiple departments indicate that many offices were unprepared for the full return of their workforces, having downsized physical footprints during the pandemic as telework became standard practice.
According to federal employees who spoke on condition of anonymity, the return mandate has led to unusual working conditions in some agencies. Workers have reported having to share desks, work from conference rooms or even closets due to space limitations. At the Federal Emergency Management Agency, supervisors were reportedly instructed to flip coins to resolve conflicts over limited workspace.
The Bureau of Labor Statistics’ April jobs report also revealed that federal government employment declined by 9,000 positions during the month and is down by 26,000 since January. While the report notes that “employees on paid leave or receiving ongoing severance pay are counted as employed in the establishment survey,” the figures suggest that the administration’s prediction of workforce reductions through attrition may be materializing.
Federal employee unions have characterized these losses differently, suggesting they represent an exodus of experienced talent and institutional knowledge rather than the trimming of waste. The American Federation of Government Employees (AFGE), which represents more than 700,000 federal and D.C. government workers, has been particularly vocal in its opposition to the policy.
“When you look at who’s leaving, it’s often our most experienced and specialized workers who have options in the private sector,” said one AFGE representative. “What the administration calls efficiency, we call a brain drain.”
Industry Contrasts: Federal vs. Private Sector Approaches
The federal government’s aggressive stance against telework stands in contrast to evolving practices in the private sector. While many companies have also scaled back remote work policies since the pandemic’s height, most have adopted hybrid models rather than full in-office mandates.
According to Bureau of Labor Statistics data, private sector telework rates have declined more gradually, with current figures showing slightly higher remote work adoption than in the federal government. This represents a reversal from historical patterns, as federal agencies were often early adopters of telework policies, with legislation supporting flexible work arrangements dating back to the Telework Enhancement Act of 2010.
Industry leaders in technology, finance, and professional services have particularly embraced hybrid work as a competitive advantage in talent recruitment and retention. Companies like Microsoft, Citigroup, and Deloitte maintain significant remote work options, though with varying degrees of in-office requirements depending on role and department.
“What we’re seeing in the private sector is a much more nuanced approach,” explains Dr. Eleanor Parsons, a workplace flexibility researcher at Georgetown University. “Companies are evaluating which functions truly benefit from in-person collaboration and which can be performed effectively remotely. The all-or-nothing approach of the federal mandate is increasingly out of step with best practices.”
The disparity is particularly evident in job satisfaction metrics. Surveys of private sector employees in hybrid arrangements consistently show higher satisfaction rates than those in either fully remote or fully in-office roles. Meanwhile, federal employee satisfaction, as measured by the Federal Employee Viewpoint Survey, is expected to show significant declines when results are released later this year.
Claims of Productivity Gains and Cost Savings
The White House has framed the reduced telework statistics as evidence of improved government efficiency and accountability. White House spokesman Kush Desai told The Washington Times: “President Trump promised to make our federal government more accountable, transparent and efficient. The Trump administration is delivering on this promise by making federal employees return to the office and better serve the American people.”
Supporters of the return-to-office mandate argue that in-person work facilitates better collaboration, more effective oversight, and stronger organizational culture. They point to challenges with remote work, including difficulties in training new employees, concerns about information security, and potential impediments to innovation that comes from spontaneous interaction.
The administration has also suggested that the policy is generating cost savings through reduced office space needs as employees who refuse to return to offices leave government service. However, detailed analyses of these purported savings have not been released, and critics note that agencies are simultaneously facing increased costs to accommodate returned workers in spaces that were downsized during the telework era.
“The administration can’t have it both ways,” notes former Office of Personnel Management Director Katherine Archuleta. “Either you’re saving money by reducing office space because people are working remotely, or you’re bringing everyone back and need to maintain or expand facilities. The cost-saving argument for eliminating telework doesn’t add up.”
Critics Challenge Productivity and Retention Claims
Opponents of the mandatory return-to-office policy argue that the administration’s approach is based more on ideology than evidence. They point to studies conducted during the pandemic that showed maintained or improved productivity among remote federal workers, along with significant cost savings in reduced office space needs, decreased commuting expenses, and lower carbon emissions.
“The assumption that employees aren’t working if they’re not physically observed is outdated and not supported by performance data,” says Dr. Jason Windham, a public administration professor specializing in government workforce issues. “Modern management focuses on outcomes rather than presenteeism, and many federal agencies have robust metrics to evaluate remote worker performance.”
Critics also highlight the retention risks posed by the elimination of telework, particularly for specialized roles where government already struggles to compete with private sector compensation. Federal agencies like the General Services Administration, the Department of Commerce, and the Treasury Department had previously cited telework as a crucial tool for recruiting and retaining top talent, especially in technological and cybersecurity fields.
“We’re seeing a concerning exodus of technical talent, particularly in IT, cybersecurity, and specialized scientific roles,” says a former senior executive at the Office of Personnel Management who requested anonymity. “These are positions where the government already faced recruitment challenges. Eliminating flexibility just makes that gap worse.”
The policy also faces criticism for its potential impact on diversity and inclusion efforts. Studies have shown that telework options are particularly valued by women, caregivers, people with disabilities, and those from underrepresented groups. Some employee advocacy groups suggest the strict return-to-office mandate could disproportionately push these employees out of government service.
The Legal Battlefield: Challenges and Outcomes
The administration’s telework rollback has faced multiple legal challenges, with mixed results for both sides. In February, a federal judge blocked the mass firing of federal workers following a union lawsuit, forcing the administration to modify its approach. However, in April, the Supreme Court halted an order by a lower-court judge that would have required the Trump administration to rehire approximately 16,000 probationary employees who had been terminated.
The legal landscape remains unsettled, with several cases still pending in federal courts. Most center on questions of whether the administration’s actions violate existing collective bargaining agreements, whether proper procedures were followed under the Administrative Procedure Act, and whether the policies disproportionately impact protected groups under federal employment law.
Most recently, a coalition of labor unions, nonprofits, and local governments including Chicago, Baltimore, and Harris County, Texas, filed a comprehensive lawsuit challenging the constitutionality of the administration’s federal workforce reorganization efforts, including the telework mandate. The lawsuit specifically targets DOGE’s role, arguing that “DOGE has no authority at all to dictate to the agencies created and governed by Congress any level of staffing cut or spending reduction.”
The White House maintains that all executive actions related to federal employment are lawful and constitutional. In a statement responding to the latest lawsuit, Harrison Fields, a special assistant to the President, asserted: “All of President Trump’s executive actions are lawful, constitutional, and intended to deliver on the promises he made to the American people.”
The Road Ahead: Is Telework Gone for Good?
With the latest data showing a dramatic decline in federal telework, the question remains whether this represents a permanent shift or a temporary policy that could be reversed by future administrations or court decisions.
The transformation has certainly been swift. In less than six months, the Biden administration’s approach to telework—which emphasized agency flexibility and recognized telework as a tool for mission delivery rather than just an employee benefit—has been comprehensively dismantled.
For federal employees hoping for a return to remote work options, the prospects appear dim in the short term. The administration has shown no signs of moderating its position, and DOGE continues to monitor compliance with return-to-office directives. Even as Musk has indicated he may soon step back from his day-to-day involvement with DOGE as his 130-day term as a special government employee expires, the infrastructure and policies he put in place are likely to continue.
“The direction is clear,” says former federal Chief Human Capital Officer Robert Shea. “The question isn’t whether the policy will change under this administration—it won’t. The question is how agencies will adapt their operations, recruitment strategies, and performance management approaches to this new reality.”
For federal managers, the challenge will be maintaining productivity and morale among a workforce that has experienced significant disruption. For employees, particularly those who relocated or made life arrangements based on telework policies that were presented as permanent, difficult choices about their future in government service lie ahead.
As one Department of Energy employee, speaking anonymously due to concerns about retaliation, put it: “We’re being told this is about making government more like the private sector. But in reality, it’s making government less competitive with the private sector, where most of my colleagues would have hybrid options. The irony is that this could end up making government less efficient, not more.”
Meanwhile, the administration is celebrating the statistics as proof of its effectiveness in reshaping federal work culture. As the latest numbers demonstrate, whether through compliance or attrition, the era of widespread federal telework that began during the pandemic appears to have come to a decisive end.
Lucas Novak is a government affairs correspondent specializing in federal workforce policy and management issues. The views expressed in this article are solely those of the author and do not necessarily reflect the editorial position of this publication.
