Federal Judge Clears Path for Controversial Trump Era Resignation Plan

BOSTON, Mass. — A federal judge has ruled to continue the Trump administration’s Deferred Resignation Program, allowing federal workers to voluntarily resign while retaining benefits until September 30. U.S. District Judge George O'Toole dismissed a lawsuit from unions that challenged the program, stating that they lacked standing to sue.

On Wednesday, O’Toole lifted a previous court order that had temporarily paused the program’s deadline, which initially allowed workers until February 6 to accept the offer. The ruling marks the continuation of an initiative by the Trump administration aimed at reducing the federal workforce through voluntary resignations.

The Office of Personnel Management (OPM) had informed over 2 million federal employees about the program, which offers full pay and benefits for those who resign, ensuring they are not required to work during the resignation period. The message from OPM, titled “Fork in the Road,” warned employees that not accepting the offer could leave them uncertain about their employment status amid anticipated downsizing at federal agencies.

Despite the ruling, the unions representing federal workers argued that the plan was unlawful and amounted to an ultimatum for employees. Union leaders contended that the program violated federal law and could lead to mass terminations – a viewpoint that O’Toole ultimately dismissed as lacking direct relevance to the unions involved.

O’Toole stated that the unions did not have a direct stake in the directive, as their alleged damages were indirect, including potential loss of membership and logistical challenges in addressing member concerns over the program. “They allege that the directive subjects them to upstream effects… but are challenging a policy that affects others,” O’Toole wrote.

During the court hearing, Justice Department attorney Eric Hamilton characterized the buyout offer as a “humane off-ramp” for federal employees ahead of more drastic changes to federal employment structure planned by the Trump administration. He noted that the administration intends to implement a series of reforms to reorganize the workforce, including tightening in-person attendance requirements.

Elena Goldstein, an attorney representing the union plaintiffs, criticized the administration’s approach, claiming it was enacted hastily and without careful consideration of its implications for federal operations. “For the last two weeks, confusion has reigned for millions of career civil servants,” Goldstein stated, asserting that the OPM’s decisions lacked comprehensive assessment and were shifting rapidly, leaving workers without clarity.

As the deadline for the resignation offer had resulted in approximately 65,000 federal employees accepting the program, the Trump administration announced an extension to allow more employees to participate. Press Secretary Karoline Leavitt expressed gratitude for the judge’s decision, which she asserted would facilitate access to what the administration deems a “once-in-a-lifetime offer.”

Still, the legal challenge remains significant as federal labor unions argue the program could undermine long-standing worker protections and violate financial protocols mandated by Congress. They contend that the offer raises serious questions about its funding sources, highlighting concerns regarding potential disruptions at critical government agencies.

With the Deferred Resignation Program now allowed to proceed, it is uncertain how this will affect the federal workforce’s dynamics as the Trump administration continues its plan to reshape government operations.