There’s virtually no doubt that those same ideas will return in the second Trump administration. Image: yhelfman/Shutterstock.com
By: FEDweek StaffIn 1976, a then-unknown rock band named Boston released a self-titled debut album that was a smash hit, reaching No. 3 on the Billboard chart and staying on the chart for more than two years. Singles from the album including “More than a Feeling,” “Long Time” and “Peace of Mind” were hits of their own, playing from 8-Track and cassette players nationwide and boomed out into campus quads from speakers nearly the size of dorm room refrigerators.
Fans couldn’t wait for their second album, which was too bad because a wait was what they got. After two years—an eternity between albums in those days, especially for following up a hit—the joke became that the band would just reissue their first album and title it “Boston’s Greatest Hits.” Finally, a follow-up appeared, titled “Don’t Look Back”—ironically, because that’s just what it did. The title track did well because it at least was something new, but overall the album sounded like a mere recycling of the first, and people didn’t need to hear it again. After that came the usual story of a band’s decline into breakups, reunions and lawsuits.
This comes to mind because, after a gap of four years, the second Trump administration is shaping up as a similar experience for federal employees and retirees–much as many of them don’t want to look back to the first Trump administration.
Then, the White House repeatedly proposed the same set of ideas regarding benefits—particularly retirement and health insurance, the two with the greatest value to employees and retirees, and thus the greatest cost to the budget.
These included requiring employees to contribute more toward retirement; basing the calculation of new benefits on a high-5 salary base rather than high-3; reducing the value of inflation protection on retirement annuities; and shifting more of the cost of health insurance from the government to the enrollee.
Also: ending the FERS retirement supplement paid to employees who retire before age 62 until they reach that age and can claim Social Security benefits; and reducing the rate of return on the TSP’s government securities G fund. Over time, there was some variation—for example, how large the increase in required contributions would be, and whether it would apply to both CSRS and FERS or just to FERS.
There also was discussion of even eliminating the defined benefit portion of a FERS benefit for newly hired employees while (maybe) increasing the government contribution to their TSP accounts.
None of those ideas were enacted at the time, largely due to opposition of congressional Democrats, who argued that they would make the government less attractive as a current or prospective employer—which was part of the motivation, truth be told. Since then, Republicans in Congress have released much the same ideas each year, only to have them blocked by the prospect of a veto from the Biden administration which they knew they could not override.
There’s virtually no doubt that those same ideas will return in the second Trump administration—because a lot of the people will be the same and those are the only ideas they have.
Chances for enactment will be improved with Republicans in control of both the House and Senate, but Democrats still will have enough senators to successfully filibuster, if it comes to that.
What else could lie ahead? With the Trump II team aiming for major reductions in federal employment, there’s been speculation about buyout and early retirement offers. After all, the argument goes, that’s what the Clinton administration did the last time there was a major downsizing of federal agencies, largely avoiding the lengthy and disruptive RIF process. That’s worth watching for, since the leaders of the upcoming “department of government efficiency” commission have raised that as a possibility.
Although one has to wonder whether those so intent on – what to them – are the positive optics of laying off federal employees will instead pay them off. Maybe that will be the title track of the second album and it will catch on if only because it is something new.
Otherwise, it all will sound the same the second time around.
Agency RIFs, Reorganizations Starting to Take Shape
Order Formally Launches ‘Schedule Policy/Career,’ Adds Category of Appointees
Top 10 Provisions in the Big Beautiful Bill of Interest to Federal Employees
A Pre-RIF Checklist for Every Federal Employee, From a Federal Employment Attorney
Work Longer or Take the FERS Supplement Now: Which is Better?
See also
Alternative Federal Retirement Options; With Chart
Primer: Early out, buyout, reduction in force (RIF)
Retention Standing, ‘Bump and Retreat’ and More: Report Outlines RIF Process
