Full Breakdown
$9.5 B Paid Administrative Leave Tied to Trump Administration’s Deferred Resignation Program
By Drooid · · How we work
Background & Context
In January 2025 the Trump administration, through the Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE), offered federal employees the option to resign while remaining on full pay and benefits through September 2025. The Office of Personnel Management (OPM) called it a “deferred resignation program” (DRP) to accelerate voluntary workforce reductions. Tech billionaire Elon Musk headed DOGE until May 2025.
Core Event: GAO Report Highlights $9.5 B Leave Expenditure
A Government Accountability Office (GAO) audit released this week estimated that federal agencies spent $9.5 billion on paid administrative leave in 2025—a sixfold increase from the combined 2023-2024 cost of $3.2 billion. The GAO calculated that $6.7 billion of the total was directly linked to the DRP. Payroll data showed a 435 % rise in paid-leave usage from 2023 to 2025, with workdays climbing from roughly 4 million per year to about 21.6 million in 2025.
Data & Statistics
| Metric | Figure | Source |
|---|---|---|
| Total paid administrative leave cost (2025) | $9.5 billion | GAO |
| Portion attributable to DRP | $6.7 billion | GAO |
| Increase in leave usage (2023-2025) | 435 % | GAO |
| Employees who accepted DRP | 144,312 (GAO) / ~140,000 (other outlets) | GAO, OPM |
| Federal workforce reduction since Jan 2025 | ~271,000-300,000 employees | OPM, various reports |
| Peak leave workdays (July 2025) | 2.5 million of 3 million workdays | GAO |
Official Statements & Responses
OPM Director Scott Kupor defended the program, saying the one-time $9.5 billion expense was intended to generate $40 billion per year in taxpayer savings. He described the DRP as a “practical, humane, and voluntary option” for moving personnel.
The GAO noted methodological limits: OPM does not track the exact cost of paid leave used for workforce reduction, and the agency could not verify whether projected long-term savings have been realized.
Criticism & Opposition
Critics argue the DRP was poorly planned and caused service disruptions. Douglas Pasternak, research director of Public Citizen’s Trump Accountability Project, called the effort “haphazard,” citing delayed Social Security checks, longer Veterans Affairs wait times, and cuts to federal firefighting and cybersecurity staff. Union leaders warned employees against the offer, questioning the government’s ability to honor promised payouts.
Conflicting Reports & Gaps
- Employee count: GAO estimates 144,312 participants; other outlets cite “nearly 140,000.”
- Workforce reduction total: OPM data mention 271,000 departures; other analyses reference 300,000 job losses.
- Savings claims: DOGE’s public “Wall of Receipts” claimed $110 billion in cuts, but a GAO review found 96 % of those figures unverifiable.
Verbatim Quotes
- “There are multiple examples of how this was not thought out,” — Douglas Pasternak, Public Citizen
- “Murray also said, “Trump spent billions to push out experienced and badly needed experts across government – this was the most expensive way imaginable to make government worse.” — Sen. Patty Murray (D-WA)
- “We designed the DRP as a practical, humane, and voluntary option to accelerate workforce transitions in a system that desperately needed movement,” — Scott Kupor, OPM director
Why It Matters
The $9.5 billion outlay represents a substantial short-term fiscal burden while the intended long-term savings remain unverified. The rapid expansion of paid leave and the displacement of experienced staff have raised concerns about continuity of critical services, from public health to cybersecurity. The GAO’s call for clearer accounting mechanisms underscores ongoing transparency challenges in evaluating the true cost-benefit of large-scale federal workforce reforms.