When Donald Trump took office this time and abolished his Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE) to reshape the American bureaucracy, we all knew there would be a lot of changes, and detractors of the new president warned that they would be bad ones. This becomes increasingly apparent as firings and hirings occur.
Many workers have been let go and declared redundant, only to be found indispensable later and haphazardly substituted for private sector employees or other government workers, but this coming and going has not stopped and will most likely continue for some time.
The majority of the fired employees were “probationary employees” hired less than two years ago, and when rehired, they were immediately placed on administrative suspension and told to wait for future orders.
The real consequences of the Trump Administration’s decision
One of the cases involves Raphael Garcia, a former military veteran and analyst at the Department of Veterans Affairs who is now disabled. He was reinstated in his position following court orders from two federal judges, but he was not permitted to continue his duties and was placed on administrative leave.
He has been told that he will receive back pay while on leave, but he is not holding his breath. “I’ll believe it when I see it,” Garcia said in an interview with NBC News this week, adding that he won’t know if his salary has resumed until the end of the pay period in late March.
He is not alone; 24,000 federal probationary employees are in the same boat. A Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) employee who was fired, rehired, and placed on leave stated, “Honestly, I don’t fully trust this administration and its appointees on whether or not I’ll be able to return to work.”
I have been out of work for a full month.” After being told that his agency’s human capital department would contact him to discuss benefits and paperwork to get him back on the job, he has received no further information.
Because of the insecurity and stress, this FEMA employee has begun looking for a new job: “I’d rather continue my work for FEMA and the American people”. But “if I pass up another opportunity only to be terminated again in a few weeks, it could exacerbate an already bad situation.” They’ve already shattered my confidence and trust. The next steps are unclear. “It’s extremely confusing and chaotic.”
Sarah Boim, a probationary employee at the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), was fired in February and has yet to be contacted directly, despite her position. She believes her “rehiring email” was sent to a CDC email account she no longer has access to after being fired, and she demands transparency in dealing with the situation.
This is because the method for communicating the rehiring process has not been consistent across the board; some have received email notifications, while others have received phone calls from managers or supervisors. This has contributed to the indecision climate, which has exacerbated the problem.
An employee at the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau has gone even further, claiming that the Trump administration intends to “honor this reinstatement” only as long as its mass firing initiatives are blocked by federal judges, and that everything was done in bad faith.
Even during the appeal of the reinstatement orders, federal officials argued that returning “removed employees to full duty status would impose substantial burdens” on various agencies, “cause significant confusion, and cause turmoil for the terminated employees.”
One of the most vocal opponents is the director of human capital operations at the Environmental Protection Agency, who stated in one of the filings:
“Specifically, all employees offered reinstatement into full duty status would have to be onboarded again, including going through any applicable training, filling out human resources paperwork, obtaining new security badges, re-enrolling in benefits programs and payroll, reinstituting applicable security clearance actions, receiving government furnished equipment, and other requisite administrative actions.”
