OPM Calls $9.5 Billion in Paid Leave a "400% Return." Its Own Numbers Say Otherwise.

OPM Director Scott Kupor says the $9.5 billion the federal government paid its own employees not to work last year was "a massive benefit to the taxpayer," describing it as a 400 percent return on investment. His argument is that the paid administrative leave was a one-time cost, that the government now has 270,000 fewer employees, and that the result is $40 billion a year in savings. Shaun Southworth disagrees, and he makes the case using OPM's own numbers.

The Savings Figure Keeps Moving

Start with the $40 billion. OPM's claimed savings number has been $20 billion, then $35 billion, then $28 billion, then $20 billion again in Kupor's own letter to GAO last month, and now $40 billion this week. That is five different figures in thirteen months. A return on investment calculation depends on knowing the return, and the return has not held still.

The 270,000 figure is also broader than it sounds. It is OPM's tally of departures since January 2025, running through this July. That is eighteen months of attrition, not one year.

Who Actually Left

About half of the deferred resignations were retirements, meaning the government lost many of its most experienced people. Agencies then hired roughly 20,000 people back into the same offices and job series, most with no federal experience, at about a grade and a half lower. Kupor acknowledged the problem in March: "We probably have some skills that we now need to hire back, quite frankly." Paying people to leave and then paying to replace them is not a return. It is paying twice.

The IRS Example

The IRS lost 27 percent of its examination and collection staff, and audit revenue fell 35 percent. Yale's Budget Lab estimates the ten-year revenue loss at close to $600 billion, or about $60 billion a year. That single agency's lost revenue exceeds the entire $40 billion in annual savings OPM now claims.

How the Cuts Were Carried Out

The process matters as much as the math. Roughly 25,000 probationary employees were fired with letters stating the termination was "based on your performance," while OPM's own email told agencies to cut anyone not "mission-critical." A federal judge called that "a lie." The Merit Systems Protection Board, where those employees would appeal, had no quorum for half the year while it received four times its normal caseload.

The tone toward the workforce was part of the picture too. OPM's FAQ described federal positions as "lower productivity jobs in the public sector." Russ Vought said in 2023, "We want to put them in trauma." Federal employee morale in the latest survey stands at 32 out of 100.

A Fair Point About Timing

In fairness, Kupor inherited most of this. He was not sworn in until July 15, 2025, months after the January 28 "Fork" email that launched the deferred resignation program. But inheriting the policy does not make a 400 percent return a defensible description of it.

What This Means for Federal Employees

If you were one of the roughly 25,000 probationary employees terminated last year, the wording of your termination letter still matters. A letter citing "performance" when the real reason was a workforce reduction is the kind of fact that can shape an MSPB appeal or other challenge, and the reasons an agency gives at the time of the action are often difficult for it to change later. Keep your letter, any related emails, and your performance records together. If you are still employed and watching your agency rehire into positions it just emptied, document your own workload, grade, and duties, since those facts bear on future RIF, reassignment, and classification questions.

Shaun's question to federal employees is a simple one: were the cuts good or bad, and if you were one of the 25,000, what did your letter say? If you want help understanding your own options, the attorneys for federal employees at Southworth PC represent federal workers nationwide.

Legal Disclaimer: This content is for general informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. Federal employment situations are fact-specific and time-sensitive. Please consult a qualified federal employment attorney about your specific situation.