As a tumultuous year for the federal workforce comes to a close, many employees are in a much different position now than they were at the start of 2025.

The Trump administration’s efforts to reduce staffing across agencies resulted in the loss of more than 317,000 federal employees governmentwide. It’s a 13.7% decrease compared with September 2024 workforce numbers, Office of Personnel Management data shows.

At the same time, 68,000 new federal employees joined the civil service during 2025, according to OPM Director Scott Kupor. Combining both attrition and hiring data, the administration’s changes over the course of 2025 amounted to a net staffing decrease of about 10.8%.

Kupor touted the results as exceeding the administration’s goals, saying relatively few losses were due to reductions in force (RIFs) and firings of probationary employees. Out of all employees who left their jobs in the last year, “over 92% did so voluntarily,” he said, mainly via the deferred resignation program (DRP).

“None of this is to minimize the impact of anyone losing a job, but the ‘mass firing’ headlines do not in fact tell the full story,” Kupor wrote in a Dec. 10 post on X.

But some federal workforce experts argue that the administration’s reductions in 2025 amounted to a “forced exodus.” Max Stier, president and CEO of the Partnership for Public Service, pointed to what he said have become “dangerous gaps” in key federal services, like food safety inspection, Social Security processing, veterans’ healthcare and disaster response.

“This loss of expertise directly harms Americans’ access to critical services and will take decades to repair,” Stier told Federal News Network.

Rep. James Walkinshaw (D-Va.) also pushed back against the idea of the administration’s DRP being “voluntary.” He said many feds who left government felt they had no choice — they felt threatened they would be fired anyway, if they did not leave through the DRP.

“Federal workers were hit with DOGE, watched agencies shutter, were threatened with imminent reductions in force, demagogued and bombarded with those mindless ‘5 things’ emails,” Walkinshaw said Dec. 11. “Nothing about that was voluntary — the ‘fork in the road’ was coercion.”

Still, the workforce cuts so far align with the Trump administration’s overall goal to “downsize the federal workforce,” as the Office of Management and Budget recently laid out in the new President’s Management Agenda. Specifically, the administration said it is targeting cuts of “unnecessary positions” and “poor performers,” while emphasizing more efficiency.

“We’ve seen significant success in right-sizing the federal workforce and addressing performance issues,” Eric Ueland, OMB’s deputy director for management, said during a Dec. 9 Chief Human Capital Officers (CHCO) Council meeting.

The workforce reductions hit some agencies harder than others. The top three agencies facing staffing reductions are the departments of Defense, Agriculture and Treasury — with Treasury’s reductions mostly concentrated within the IRS, according to research from the Partnership for Public Service.

By scale, DoD has seen the largest staffing reduction across government. The department lost over 61,600 employees during 2025 — a total of about 8% of its total workforce.

Following just behind DoD, the Treasury Department lost more than 31,600 employees, yielding a staffing reduction of nearly 28%.

And at USDA, the loss of more than 21,600 employees over the last year amounted to a roughly 22% staffing decrease overall.

But other agencies, such as USAID and the Education Department, saw even deeper cuts to their workforces, despite being smaller agencies by volume.

Governmentwide, the loss of more than 300,000 federal employees has shown up in a multitude of ways. At the IRS, for instance, an agency watchdog warned there will likely be issues with the 2026 tax filing season, as a direct result of the 25% cut to the IRS workforce. And at USDA, the staffing reductions are affecting the work of some of the department’s underlying agencies.

The Partnership for Public Service said the cuts are harming communities as well. An analysis of more than 530 stories on the federal government throughout 2025 shows the impacts of the federal workforce reductions across the country.

“Notably, more than 45% of these stories involve harms to science-related sectors, including agricultural research, healthcare and public land management,” the Partnership said. “Together, they show the direct, tangible consequences these changes are having on individuals, organizations and communities.”

Over the course of 2025, the impacts also continued to spread. In a survey the Partnership conducted in September, 46% of respondents said they or someone they know had been impacted by the government cuts. That’s up from 29% of respondents who said the same in March.

Still, there are many who view the Trump administration’s changes positively. About 80% of those who are supportive of the federal workforce overhauls said they believe the changes will make their communities and lives better, the Partnership’s September survey found. But even among those who were supportive of the changes, 41% still expressed concerns about a loss of experience and knowledge in the federal workforce in the short term.

The changes are impacting many who have stayed in their jobs as well. Federal employees are experiencing disruptions in the workplace at a rate far higher than the national average, according to a recent Gallup survey.

Close to one-third — about 29% — of federal employees say their workplace has been disrupted “to a very large extent.” That’s nearly triple the 10% of U.S. employees who say the same, Gallup found. Across the federal workforce, it’s leading to increases in stress and loneliness, as well as a decline in employee engagement.

Robert Shea, a federal workforce policy expert and former OMB official from the George W. Bush administration, said the workforce changes have had a “chilling effect” on leaders across the career civil service — something he believes will continue into 2026 and beyond.

“Many career officials are now more cautious about how, when and whether they offer professional advice,” Shea told Federal News Network. “That’s particularly when that advice could be perceived as resistance rather than implementation.”

The post How staffing cuts in 2025 transformed the federal workforce first appeared on Federal News Network.

Probationary federal employees are on track to see more restrictions when appealing any future terminations, according to a new proposal from the Trump administration.

Under new proposed regulations from the Office of Personnel Management, fired probationary employees would only be able to appeal their termination if they believe it was due to discrimination based on “partisan political reasons” or “marital status” — or if their agency diverged from standard termination procedures.

“These limited grounds of appeal for probationary terminations reflect the historical principle that probationary periods serve as a critical evaluation phase for new federal employees, and thus that agencies should enjoy great flexibility in separating employees serving probationary or trial periods,” OPM wrote in its proposal, which is scheduled to be published Tuesday on the Federal Register.

Generally, OPM’s regulations seek to alter both the latitude and method for probationary federal employees to appeal an agency’s decision to fire them. Along with limiting options for appeal, the proposal would put OPM in charge of adjudicating employees’ cases, rather than the Merit Systems Protection Board.

“Continuing to allow employees to appeal to the MSPB would not be as efficient as OPM adjudicating appeals,” OPM wrote. “MSPB procedures unnecessarily add complexity to a process designed for federal agencies to evaluate whether it is in the public’s interest to retain employees newly hired into the federal service.”

Instead of MSPB, fired probationary employees would rely on OPM’s Merit System Accountability and Compliance (MSAC) office to determine appeals — something OPM said “will provide much needed clarity and efficiency.” OPM also noted that unlike MSPB, the MSAC office does not have board quorum requirements — something that has previously stalled MSPB’s ability to complete some parts of its work.

But under OPM’s proposal, probationary employees would miss out on several key procedures MSPB uses in appeal cases. Currently, federal employees who appeal an adverse action at MSPB are given the right to a hearing, as well as an opportunity for a “discovery” phase to collect more information on the case.

OPM, however, argued that those steps of the process are costly and unnecessary. Under the proposed regulations, OPM in most cases would neither hold appeal hearings nor conduct a “discovery” phase. The agency would simply make decisions based on written records, unless it determines that additional information or a hearing is needed.

“While employees may lack some procedural mechanisms … streamlining the process will not have a consequential impact upon the substantive outcomes of the appeals, while improving the efficiency and consistency of the process,” OPM wrote.

OPM’s proposal marks the latest change the Trump administration is making to the federal probationary period, impacting new federal hires and recently promoted federal employees. OPM said the changes would help streamline and standardize the appeals process, as well as hold probationary employees more accountable.

The Trump administration has repeatedly argued that agencies have not been effectively using the federal probationary period for decades. In the new proposal, OPM pointed to a 2005 MSPB study, as well as a 2015 Government Accountability Office report — both of indicated “pervasive” issues with the probationary period.

“To this day, poor performance in the civil service has not been adequately addressed,” OPM wrote.

Some federal workforce experts, despite agreeing there is a need for probationary period reforms, have argued that the Trump administration’s heavier focus on terminations runs counter to the core purpose of a probationary period: ensuring agencies have highly qualified employees.

OPM’s proposed regulations align with the Trump administration’s broader overhaul of the federal probationary period earlier this year. In June, OPM issued a final rule that cemented an executive order from President Donald Trump.

Under the June rule, probationary employees can be terminated for broader reasons. Agencies can now decide whether to keep probationary employees based on the needs and interests of the agency, whether a probationer’s employment would advance the organizational goals of an agency, and whether it would advance the “efficiency of the service” — on top of considering both performance and conduct.

Additionally, near the end of the probationary period, OPM now requires that agencies affirmatively certify that probationary employees should continue in their new jobs, rather than earning tenure “by default.” And if a probationary employee is being fired, agencies no longer have to give a reason why — they only need to provide a date effective, which can be as soon as “immediately.”

The Trump administration’s changes also come after agencies faced multiple legal battles earlier this year, after firing tens of thousands of probationary employees based on “performance.” In September, a federal judge ruled that the firings were unlawful. Over the course of 2025, federal employees at some agencies were reinstated, while others were re-fired.

The post OPM tees up more changes for probationary federal employees first appeared on Federal News Network.