As a leading voice in federal policy and legislative strategy, Donald Gainsborough serves as the helm of Government Curated, where he navigates the complex intersection of civil service regulations and executive mandates. With years of experience deciphering the inner workings of the federal bureaucracy, he offers a unique perspective on the unprecedented workforce shifts currently reshaping the executive branch. Today, we explore the intricate challenges and fiscal realities facing agencies as they reintegrate thousands of employees following year-long administrative leaves.
Federal employees previously focused on diversity initiatives were recently returned to work after a year of paid administrative leave. What specific challenges do managers face when reassigning staff to different priorities, and how do they ensure these new roles promote organizational efficiency?
The immediate challenge for any manager in this situation is the fundamental shift in the “efficiency of the service” standard, which is the legal basis used to justify these reassignments. Managers must take employees who spent years specializing in diversity, equity, and inclusion and pivot them toward non-DEI tasks that align with the current administration’s priorities. To do this effectively, leadership must first conduct a comprehensive audit of existing skills to see where an equal employment specialist or program analyst can provide the most value without crossing into prohibited “woke” policy territory. Second, they must issue formal “management-directed reassignments,” which clearly outline updated job functions and new performance metrics to ensure accountability. Finally, there must be a rigorous onboarding process that functions almost like a new hire orientation, as these individuals have been disconnected from the daily operations of the Interior Department for over twelve months.
Maintaining thousands of employees on paid leave for over a year carries significant fiscal and public perception risks. How should agencies weigh the costs of idling staff against the goal of restructuring, and what metrics determine if repurposing them is more cost-effective than a reduction in force?
Agencies are currently caught in a difficult balancing act between being good stewards of taxpayer money and the legal complexities of mass layoffs. While it may seem counterintuitive to pay roughly three-dozen Interior employees to stay home for a year, the cost of a botched Reduction in Force (RIF) can be far higher due to protracted litigation and back-pay requirements. The metric for “common-sense” repurposing usually hinges on the availability of existing vacancies; if the department can fill critical roles with recalled staff rather than hiring new personnel, they mitigate the financial sting of the year-long idling. However, the optics remain a hurdle, as the public sees employees exercising and completing home projects on the government dime while a “deferred resignation program” simultaneously handles 150,000 other workers. Ultimately, the decision to recall rather than terminate often comes down to the department’s desire to avoid the “11th hour” court injunctions that have recently stalled their attempts at sweeping RIFs.
Consolidating human resources and administrative functions away from individual bureaus into a central secretary’s office creates a new reporting structure. What steps are necessary to reintegrate workers after a year-long “brain drain,” and how can leadership effectively bridge the gap in their institutional knowledge?
The transition from localized bureau control to a centralized reporting structure under the Secretary’s office is a massive cultural and operational shift that requires more than just a memo. To bridge the “brain drain” mentioned by returning staff, leadership needs to implement a “knowledge transfer” protocol where centralized HR specialists provide intensive briefings on the new reporting lines and software updates implemented during their absence. Because the institutional memory of these employees has effectively been frozen since early 2025, there must be a grace period where they can relearn the departmental mission without the immediate threat of performance-based removal. Centralization also means these employees are now under much closer scrutiny from political leadership, so clear communication regarding what constitutes a “non-DEI” task is essential to prevent accidental policy violations. Managers must also foster an environment where these employees feel empowered to ask questions about the new landscape, rather than operating in a state of paralysis due to the fear of being fired.
Current guidance encouraged agencies to use administrative leave as a tool for restructuring, despite previous laws capping its use at ten days. What are the long-term legal implications of this practice, and how does it affect the rights of employees facing potential layoffs or management-directed reassignments?
We are entering uncharted legal territory because the 2016 law that capped administrative leave at ten days was largely ignored or selectively enforced, with OPM only issuing final regulations in 2024. By pausing the enforcement of these caps to facilitate restructuring, the administration has created a precedent that could be challenged in the Federal Circuit or by the Merit Systems Protection Board. For the employees, this long-term idling acts as a “soft” disciplinary action that sidesteps the due process typically required for a RIF, such as competitive level rankings and veteran preference rights. If a group of workers can prove they were “unlawfully targeted” for their previous work on environmental justice or DEI, the government could face massive settlements. The long-term risk is that “administrative leave” becomes a permanent loophole for future administrations to sideline career staff they find ideologically misaligned without officially firing them.
Many employees returning from a year of forced idling report intense anxiety and a sense of “hysteria” regarding their job security. What practical protocols can leadership implement to manage these raw emotions, and what is the best strategy for rebuilding morale during a significant shift in agency mission?
To manage the “hysteria and anger” described by returning staff, leadership must move beyond cold, administrative memos and engage in transparent, mission-focused dialogue. Practical protocols should include one-on-one “re-entry meetings” with supervisors to discuss career paths and provide assurance that their return is a genuine management-directed action intended to promote efficiency, not a precursor to a trap. Rebuilding morale requires a clear “North Star”—in this case, focusing on the core, non-political mission of the Interior Department that many of these employees still deeply value. Leaders must also address the “rumblings” and uncertainty that fueled depression and anxiety over the last year by providing a stable, 12-month outlook for their new roles. When employees feel that their work has a tangible impact and that they aren’t just being “warehoused” until the next wave of layoffs, the raw emotions will eventually give way to professional engagement.
What is your forecast for the future of civil service workforce management?
My forecast is that we are witnessing the end of the traditional, “untouchable” career civil service and moving toward a more fluid, mission-aligned workforce where reassignments are the primary tool for executive control. We will likely see more agencies follow the Interior Department’s lead in consolidating power into the Secretary’s office, effectively stripping bureaus of their independent HR authority to ensure total alignment with the White House. The use of administrative leave as a “waiting room” for restructuring will probably become a standard tactic, despite the 2016 caps, as long as court injunctions keep preventing clean, mass terminations. In the coming years, federal employees should expect to be much more versatile; the era of holding a single, specialized policy role for twenty years is fading, replaced by a system where the “efficiency of the service” demands constant adaptation to the shifting political priorities of the day.
