Remote Work Became a Washington Way of Life. Is That About to Change?

In early December, the Social Security Administration (SSA) agreed to extend work-from-home arrangements for thousands of employees for another five years, bringing relief to many within the agency.

However, this reprieve may be short-lived. Two weeks later, President-elect Donald J. Trump sharply criticized the deal, vowing to challenge it in court. “If people don’t return to the office,” he declared, “they will be dismissed.”https://svtoday.org/

This exchange highlighted what could become one of the first major conflicts of Trump’s second administration. Over recent years, many federal employees have adapted their lives to hybrid work models, which help balance job responsibilities with family obligations. Some have even pushed the Biden administration to maintain these arrangements. To strengthen their position, a significant number of federal workers have joined unions, hoping to negotiate telework policies.

For Trump and his supporters, these work-from-home arrangements represent a troubling sign of unchecked liberal leniency—”a gift to a union,” in Trump’s words—and an opportunity to reduce the size of the federal workforce by removing “obstructionist” employees.

Elon Musk and Vivek Ramaswamy, two business figures appointed by Trump to lead a government efficiency commission, voiced support for “voluntary terminations” if federal employees were required to return to the office five days a week.

Many private-sector employers have recently adopted similar policies, arguing that in-person work fosters better communication, mentoring, and collaboration.

This looming clash adds to the mounting tension in Washington as Trump prepares for his second term. A government employee involved in union efforts to protect remote work said that union leaders feared press coverage of their campaign might draw unwanted attention to the agency and provoke action from the Trump administration.

“We’re not ready to make this public yet,” said a representative from the National Treasury Employees Union.

Trump will not be the first president to oppose widespread remote work for federal employees. The Obama administration had made it easier for federal workers to telecommute, but it never anticipated the large-scale shift that the pandemic would cause. By 2022, President Biden sought to reverse course, calling in his State of the Union address for most federal workers to return to in-person work. His administration issued new memos in 2023 outlining the shift, mindful of political pressure from Republicans who criticized what they called “bubble bath bureaucrats” working from home on taxpayer dollars.

Yet, change has been slow. A 2023 study found that federal buildings were operating at less than one-third of their pre-pandemic occupancy levels. White House Chief of Staff Jeffrey Zients has repeatedly expressed frustration over the lack of sufficient return-to-office levels, as about 15 to 20 percent of federal employees are based in the Washington, D.C. area.

Washington’s overall weekly office occupancy rates were below average for ten major metropolitan areas last year, lagging behind cities like New York and Chicago, according to Kastle, a building security firm. This trend may be partly due to Washington’s liberal political climate and younger demographics, both of which are correlated with a preference for remote work.

When the Brookings Institution, a prominent Washington think tank, announced in October that most employees would need to return to the office for at least three days a week starting in March, younger employees voiced concerns about the disproportionate impact on them, especially regarding commuting and childcare costs.

“We have four months,” said Brookings President Cecilia Rouse, a former top economist under Biden, in a meeting with employees. “I hope that’s enough time for everyone to adjust.”

The attachment to working from home in Washington may also stem from the unique culture of the city, where many employees are deeply mission-driven and prefer to focus on their work rather than spend time commuting.

“I’m mission-driven, why would I want to waste two hours in the car?” said Kenneth Baer, a former senior official at the Office of Management and Budget under President Obama.

In 2023, after the Justice Department proposed increasing in-office requirements, a group of department lawyers wrote to their leadership, expressing that the change would undermine their productivity.

Several lawyers highlighted the productivity benefits of telework, including shorter work hours and the ability to manage family responsibilities. These views were consistent with a 2020 study by Stanford economist Nicholas Bloom, which found that remote workers saved about 80 minutes a day, much of which was used for additional work. A recent study by the U.S. Department of Labor found that industries with more remote work saw greater productivity gains.

The battle over remote work continues to play out across federal agencies, with some employees unionizing to safeguard their telework privileges in case Trump reinstates an executive order that would make it easier to fire federal workers.

Last year, civil rights lawyers in the Justice Department overcame initial resistance from leadership and voted to unionize. At the Federal Trade Commission, employees voted to unionize as well, partly to protect their remote work arrangements under future administrations. However, negotiations with the agency have been slow, with contract talks only intensifying recently.

It remains uncertain how much influence these efforts will have. Trump’s pick to lead the Office of Management and Budget has said that the new administration expects many bureaucrats to “not want to go to work” and will seek to “traumatically affect” them.

Donald Kettl, an expert on civil service at the University of Maryland, noted that while federal employees’ attempts to preserve remote work through unionization could have some effect, the Trump administration is likely to challenge anything not explicitly protected by law.

“Anything not enshrined in the law, they’ll want to challenge,” Kettl said. “And if it is enshrined, they’ll go after that as well.”