Tens of thousands of US government workers have resigned in recent months, unable to bear what many describe as a hostile and uncertain work environment under President Donald Trump’s second-term push to slash the size of the federal government. Although sweeping layoffs promised by the administration have been stalled in court, the exodus is well underway.

By the end of September, an estimated 260,000 civil servants—nearly 12% of the federal civilian workforce—are expected to have exited. Most have accepted buyouts, early retirement packages, or simply walked away from mounting workplace stress.

Charlotte Reynolds, a senior tax analyst who recently retired after 33 years at the IRS, described the emotional toll:

“They told us we weren’t productive, we weren’t useful. I worked hard. It made me feel horrible.”

Fear and dysfunction inside agencies

President Trump signed an executive order in January aiming to “dramatically reduce the size and cost of government.” Since then, the Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE)—a new agency led by tech billionaire Elon Musk—has overseen the strategy of attrition through pressure, confusion, and uncertainty.

Internal memos and agency-wide emails have paired incentives to quit with warnings of future layoffs. Remote work was abruptly ended, leading to cramped offices and low morale, and senior staff were often reassigned to unfamiliar tasks.

Dr. Don Moynihan, a professor at the University of Michigan, said the administration deliberately avoided direct firings to sidestep legal constraints:

“It’s inappropriate to think of these as voluntary resignations. Many of these employees feel that they were forced out.”

A buyout offer labeling jobs as “lower productivity”

A requirement to list five accomplishments per week

Mismatched reassignments to roles outside employees’ skill sets

Union backlash: ‘Harassment and trauma’

Unions representing federal workers have sharply criticized the administration’s methods.

Everett Kelley, president of the American Federation of Government Employees (AFGE), which represents 800,000 workers, accused the White House of harassment:

“The president has empowered people like Elon Musk and his DOGE team to harass, insult, and lie about federal employees and force tens of thousands off the job.”

Kelley referenced a 2023 statement from Trump’s budget chief Russ Vought, who said:

“When they wake up in the morning, we want them to not want to go to work.”

Mental strain and departures

Many workers describe significant mental and physical strain as they waited to learn whether they would be terminated.

One Social Security Administration employee, who requested anonymity, said he reluctantly accepted a second buyout offer:

“There were definitely moments when I felt defeated. It turned your world upside down.”

According to agency reports reviewed by Reuters, 75,000 workers accepted the first round of buyouts, but no figures have been released for the second offer. Under the terms, most who left will continue receiving full pay and benefits through September 30, though they are no longer required to work.

Legal roadblocks to layoffs

Despite avoiding formal mass terminations so far, the Trump administration has faced legal challenges to its layoff plans.

In a landmark decision on May 9, U.S. District Judge Susan Illston of California temporarily blocked layoffs at 20 federal agencies, including Agriculture, Treasury, Health and Human Services, and Veterans Affairs. She also ordered that workers who had already been dismissed be reinstated.

Judge Illston ruled that any such restructuring requires Congressional authorization, not unilateral executive action.

Appeal in progress

The administration is appealing Illston’s decision and has warned that it still plans deep cuts at several agencies, including:

80,000+ jobs at the Department of Veterans Affairs

10,000 jobs at Health and Human Services

The appeals process could take months, but the administration remains aggressive in its mission to reduce the federal workforce. For now, much of that reduction is happening not through direct firings—but through attrition driven by pressure, policy changes, and fear.