Downsizing Democracy: President Trump's (and Elon Musk’s) Federal Buyout Program

In an unprecedented effort to reshape the federal government, President Donald Trump’s administration has implemented a sweeping initiative to downsize federal agencies. At the core of this initiative is a federal buyout program designed to offer employees financial incentives to voluntarily leave their positions. While the administration has framed this program as a cost-saving measure, the mass layoffs that followed have raised significant concerns about national security, government stability, and the growing influence of private individuals—most notably Elon Musk—in federal decision-making. Now that the program has ended and the courts have ruled in favor of the administration, thousands of federal employees find themselves without jobs, and the structure of the federal government has been dramatically altered.

At the heart of this restructuring is the Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE), an advisory body created through executive orders rather than congressional action. Led by Elon Musk as an unpaid special government employee, DOGE has been tasked with identifying cost-cutting measures and streamlining federal operations. However, Musk’s appointment has fueled controversy, as he maintains extensive business dealings with federal agencies, particularly through his companies SpaceX and Tesla. His role in government decision-making, despite his vested financial interests, has prompted significant ethical and legal concerns regarding conflicts of interest and the privatization of governmental functions.

DOGE has strategically placed hand-picked appointees in key federal agencies, granting them access to sensitive government data and decision-making power. This consolidation of influence under Musk has sparked criticism from lawmakers, watchdog organizations, and ethics experts, who view the expansion of executive power as a prioritization of deregulation and privatization over public services and national security. Critics argue that Musk’s influence has led to policy decisions that benefit private enterprise at the expense of the broader public, eroding government oversight and accountability. Among DOGE’s most consequential initiatives was the federal buyout program, which caused an unprecedented reduction in the federal workforce.

As part of the broader downsizing effort, the Office of Personnel Management (OPM) introduced the buyout program. Employees who accepted the buyout offer were promised eight months of salary and benefits, with payments extending through September. However, questions arose regarding whether the administration possessed the legal authority to implement such a program without explicit congressional approval, particularly given that the federal budget is set to expire on March 14th.

Despite these concerns, the program proceeded, and 77,000 federal workers—roughly 3% of the civilian federal workforce—opted in. The original deadline of February 6, 2025, was extended by a court ruling to February 12, allowing additional employees to take advantage of the buyout. Once the extended deadline had passed, the administration acted swiftly, proceeding with mass firings that further reduced the federal workforce.

The scale and abrupt nature of these layoffs have drawn widespread condemnation. National security agencies, including the Department of Energy (DOE), were particularly affected. Within the DOE, 350 employees from the National Nuclear Security Administration were abruptly dismissed on February 13 as part of a broader purge that ultimately affected nearly 2,000 staff members. Public outcry over the security implications of these layoffs prompted the Trump administration to partially reverse course, reinstating all but 28 of those laid off by February 14. Nevertheless, the chaotic implementation of these cuts has left agencies scrambling to maintain operational efficiency, raising serious concerns about the federal government’s ability to function effectively following such a drastic reduction in personnel.

Federal employee unions, including the American Federation of Government Employees, swiftly challenged the buyout program in court. They argued that the administration lacked statutory authority to offer such buyouts and could not guarantee payments beyond the congressional funding deadline of March 14, 2025. Additionally, unions contended that the program undermined labor protections and diverted union resources.

On February 12, 2025, U.S. District Court Judge George O’Toole ruled against the unions, lifting the temporary pause on the buyout program. The court found that the unions lacked standing to bring the case, as they were not directly impacted by the buyouts. Furthermore, Judge O’Toole ruled that the case fell outside federal district court jurisdiction, arguing that labor disputes of this nature should be handled through administrative mechanisms rather than judicial intervention. However, the ruling stopped short of affirming the program’s legality, leaving open the possibility of future challenges.

With the court ruling in place, the Trump administration finalized the layoffs of thousands of federal employees, setting in motion both immediate and long-term consequences. The sudden reduction in federal personnel has weakened essential public services, diminished national security capabilities, and eroded institutional knowledge within government agencies. The abrupt nature of these layoffs—without clear contingency plans—has led to significant operational disruptions, with many agencies struggling to fulfill their core functions.

The buyout program represents more than just a restructuring of the federal workforce; it reflects President Trump’s expanded interpretation of executive power and his administration’s prioritization of private-sector influence in government decision-making. The increasing role of private individuals, particularly Elon Musk, in shaping federal policies underscores the growing intertwinement between corporate interests and public governance. Critics argue that this shift undermines democratic accountability, as decision-making authority becomes increasingly concentrated in the hands of unelected individuals with significant financial stakes in government operations.

For federal employees, the buyout program has introduced profound uncertainty and instability, raising questions about the future of public service under an administration committed to aggressive deregulation and privatization. As the dust settles, the long-term implications of this program remain uncertain. Whether this restructuring will lead to a more efficient government, as the administration claims, or whether it will erode the foundations of public service and national stability, remains an open question. The extent to which private entities will continue to shape federal governance—and the consequences of this influence—will likely be a defining issue for years to come.

Sylvie Watts is a junior concentrating in political science and computer science. She is a writer for the Brown Undergraduate Law Review and can be reached at sylvie_watts@brown.edu.

Simon Juknelis is a first-year concentrating in computer science and history. He is an editor for the Brown Undergraduate Law Review and can be reached at simonas_juknelis@brown.edu.