Taxpayer Rage: $9.5B For No Work

A roll of cash next to a warning sign on a wooden surface — TAXPAYING MONEY SHOCKER

The government spent $9.5 billion paying federal employees not to work in 2025, and most of it was on purpose.

Story Snapshot

A Government Accountability Office report tallied $9.5 billion in 2025 paid leave costs.
About $6.7 billion came from a “deferred resignation” program that parked workers on leave until exit.
The federal workforce fell by roughly 11 percent, about 255,000 to 256,000 employees.
Supporters call it a transition cost; critics frame it as paying people to do nothing.

What GAO Counted, And Why The Price Tag Is So Big

The Government Accountability Office reported that agencies spent about $9.5 billion in 2025 on paid leave for employees who were not working. The single largest driver was a government-wide deferred resignation program.

This program let employees agree to resign or retire by September 30, 2025. In return, agencies placed them on paid administrative leave until the separation date, with full salary and benefits. GAO estimated that portion alone at about $6.7 billion.

The federal government paid federal workers $9.5 billion not to work in 2025 amid President Trump's push to shrink the federal workforce, according to a new watchdog report. https://t.co/kzhI8kB8gA

— ABC News (@ABC) September 16, 2026

Agencies used paid administrative leave far more than in recent years. A separate summary said use tied to the deferred resignation program surged by several hundred percent compared with two years prior. This was not a hidden benefit or a rogue perk.

It was the designed bridge for a fast downsizing push, so offices could clear desks quickly while keeping an orderly exit path. GAO flagged data gaps on precise costs inside some agencies, but the topline estimate stands.

How Many People Left, And How Fast It Happened

The federal workforce shrank by roughly 11 percent in 2025, a drop of about 255,000 to 256,000 employees across major agencies, according to watchdog and trade press tallies grounded in GAO material. A midyear snapshot showed separations outpacing hires by wide margins at nearly all large departments.

Office of Personnel Management updates and follow-on reporting described hundreds of thousands of exits for the year, with many employees accepted into deferred resignation in the first half and remaining on payroll into fall or winter.

That timeline explains the cost curve. People who accepted deferred resignation often did not work for months but still drew pay and benefits until the deadline. The government paid to reduce headcount without mass firings.

The question is whether that bridge saved money and disruption later. That is an accounting frame, not a mystery. Programs like buyouts and early retirements always trade up-front cost for a faster reshaping of the workforce.

Is It Waste Or A Transition Cost?

Taxpayers deserve a clean answer to a simple question: did this spending lower long-run costs and improve service? GAO’s past work on downsizing warns that savings vanish when leaders fail to plan for workload, skills, and service levels.

If agencies paid billions for idle time but then rehired for the same roles, that offends common sense. If, instead, the program cleared low-priority positions, flattened layers, and held the line on backfilling, the cost looks like a one-time overhaul charge.

Labeling the number “$9.5 billion paid not to work” lands with a thud because it is true and easy to picture. But policy is judged by results. A tight, targeted exit program can protect front-line services while removing bloat.

A sloppy one creates backlogs and forces expensive contractors to plug gaps. The facts to watch now: agency service metrics, contractor spending, and whether 2026 payrolls stayed lower than 2024. That is the ledger that decides if the 2025 bet paid off.

What Comes Next For Agencies And Taxpayers

Agencies that downsized hard now must prove they can still deliver. Leaders should publish service-level dashboards, vacancy controls, and hiring plans by mission area. Congress should tie 2026 and 2027 funding to clear staffing and performance targets so savings do not leak away.

The Office of Personnel Management should fix data tracking on administrative leave so the next Government Accountability Office review is precise to the dollar, program, and bureau. Transparency will settle the debate faster than spin ever will.