Trump’s In-Office Mandate: ‘Act First and Figure It Out Later’

President Donald Trump’s mandate to get federal workers back into the office is on course to collide with union bargaining agreements, anti-discrimination laws, and geographic realities that create a patchwork of policies to navigate.

“The administration is telling agencies to act first and figure it out later,” said attorney Michelle Bercovici, who represents federal employees for Alden Law Group PLLC. “A lot of people are going to be scratching their heads at the last minute and trying to shoehorn employees into places.”

Trump ordered that agencies terminate remote work arrangements in a flurry of Day One executive orders Jan. 20. Acting Office of Personnel Management Director Charles Ezell followed up with a guidance memo Jan. 22 telling agencies they have until Friday to alter their policies, and gave a 30-day deadline to get staff into compliance.

The sudden but not unexpected move will leave agencies scrambling to sort through legal duties while trying to meet the expectations of Trump and an administration taking a hard line against federal workers, according to labor observers, including logistical uncertainties around office space and the possibility that many civil servants will resign.

Trump campaigned on cracking down on federal workers and making the government leaner and more efficient. He said in December that he would fire workers who didn’t come back to the office, and Elon Musk—a close adviser and head of the “Department of Government Efficiency” initiative—said in a Wall Street Journal op-ed that he would welcome the resignation of employees who didn’t want to return to in-person work.

The White House didn’t immediately respond to a request for comment.

Telework and Conditions of Employment

Ezell’s guidance accused labor unions of abusing collective bargaining to get more remote work protections and called for a centralized policy on it.

He said in Jan. 22 memo that lack of in-office work presents a “glaring roadblock” to Trump’s agenda. “Virtually unrestricted telework has led to poorer government services and made it more difficult to supervise and train government workers.”

Currently, employees can have either a remote work or telework designation. According to OPM, a teleworking employee is expected to report to their agency work site on a regular basis; remote work doesn’t include this expectation.

In fiscal year 2023, 43% of government workers participated in some kind of telework arrangement, OPM found in a 2024 report.

The implementation of Trump’s RTO policy will have to go through the labor unions representing federal workers. Many unionized agencies have agreed to memorandums of understanding, in addition to their collective bargaining agreements, that outline remote work options.

Even without these MOUs, the agencies will have a legal obligation to negotiate over the policy because the location of an employee’s duty station is a mandatory subject of bargaining, said Vanessa Matsis-McCready, associate general counsel at the HR firm Engage PEO.

“From a legal perspective, there’s a lot still in play but the message of ‘The boss wants us back in the office’ is very clear,” she said.

Unions have already begun mobilizing in response to Trump’s flurry of executive orders. The National Treasury Employees Union sued Jan. 21 over Trump’s “Schedule F” order that stripped career civil servants of their job protections, and the American Federation of Government Employees joined a public interest group in suing over DOGE’s formation.

Rushab Sanghvi, general counsel for the American Federation of Government Employees, said the union was still considering options for responding to the RTO mandate, but the union “hopes” the administration understands its obligation to bargain.

Disputes over bargaining and working conditions will have to go through either a grievance process or the Federal Labor Relations Authority, which is currently operating without a general counsel.

Exemptions, Exodus

According to the OPM memo, employees with disabilities, “qualifying” medical conditions, or who have other “compelling” reasons could be exempt from the RTO rule. The Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 and the Rehabilitation Act of 1973 both contain protections for workers with disabilities and medical conditions.

The government already has robust systems for determining if a worker qualifies for an accommodation under these laws. Agencies are required to have an interactive discussion with an employee about their desired accommodation. It can refuse a request, but has to show that it places an “undue burden” on the agency.

Bercovici said an undue burden on an agency could include situations where an employee who needs access to classified documents asks for a remote work designation, because that information can only be accessed on-site. But an agency can’t claim that telework is an undue burden “just because their policy outlaws telework,” she said.

“That’s not an undue burden and that’s where you run into litigation,” she added. “People with disabilities are going to be facing a very uphill battle.”

A separate OPM directive sent to agencies Thursday said supervisors were only required to certify telework arrangements for employees claiming to have “other compelling reasons” and not for workers with disabilities or qualifying medical conditions.

Employees who are not able to get an exemption will likely have to return to the office eventually, though the order does have considerations for geographic realities. The OPM guidance states that agencies should take steps to move a worker’s duty station to the “most appropriate” office if they are more than 50 miles from any existing agency space.

Both Matsis-McCready and Bercovici said employees may instead choose to leave government work for the private sector, leading to an exodus of qualified professionals.

“You have to think very carefully about whether or not a workforce that’s going to give you visionary and modern government services wants to live under this particular set of throwback rules,” Walter Olsen, a senior fellow at the Cato Institute, said.

“Some advisers in this administration may want there to be a lot of quitting and that differs from the attitude of almost any normal employer,” he said. “A normal employer doesn’t want to increase the quit rate.”