The next phase in the Trump administration’s effort to rapidly downsize the federal work force was well underway on Tuesday as confusion roiled through the ranks over how employees should respond to an ultimatum from Elon Musk to justify their roles or be fired.
Since Sunday afternoon, at least three independent agencies have formally alerted staff members of upcoming dismissals through a “reduction in force” process ordered by President Trump, according to emails shared with The New York Times and employees who spoke on the condition of anonymity out of fear of reprisal.
That process, part of Mr. Trump and Mr. Musk’s large-scale plan to make drastic cuts to the number of federal employees across the country, follows the firing of thousands of probationary workers. Mr. Musk, the tech billionaire, is Mr. Trump’s right-hand man in this extraordinary effort.
Reductions in force typically mean a significant elimination of roles as part of a restructuring at the agency.
So far, the early “reduction in force” round includes cutting 144 people at the Department of Housing and Urban Development in offices across the country. The General Services Administration has plans to cut 30 to 40 people, with notifications going out to individuals by the end of the week. And on Sunday, the U.S. Agency for International Development notified its staff that some 2,000 employees based in the United States would be cut.
“I regret to inform you that you are affected by a reduction in force (RIF), the aid agency’s acting director, Peter Marocco, wrote in a standard letter to the employees affected by the cuts. “This RIF action does not reflect directly on your service, performance or conduct.” Mr. Marocco said it was part of an agency restructuring to “better reflect” the priorities of U.S.A.I.D. and foreign policy.
Scott Turner, the housing secretary, wrote in a memo to an employee that “a reduction in force within your competitive area will be conducted effective March 28.” The Times obtained a copy of the memo with the employee’s name redacted.
Don Moynihan, a public policy professor at the University of Michigan, said the use of reductions in force can be complicated. In a social media post, Mr. Moynihan predicted two fights: whether agencies followed the legal process and whether the courts agree that Mr. Trump can “RIF” agencies funded consistently by Congress.
In an executive order this month, Mr. Trump directed agencies to prepare for a “large scale” reduction in force.
Five labor unions representing federal workers sued the Trump administration this month over its plans to use that path to fire large swaths of the federal work force. The unions say the administration’s use of the practice violates protocol set by Congress. A federal judge in the District of Columbia denied the unions’ request for a temporary pause in the firings and directed the unions to make their argument to the Federal Labor Relations Authority.
This stage of cuts follows a confusing directive from the Office of Personnel Management on Monday night, instructing employees to respond to an equally confounding request initiated by Mr. Musk over the weekend. On social media, he announced that by the end of the day on Monday, all federal employees were to provide five bullet points on what they had accomplished the previous week. Not long after Mr. Musk’s announcement, the personnel office sent an email with the subject line “What did you do last week?”
Some agencies directed their employees not to respond to the email at all. Then on Monday, less than four hours from the response deadline, the personnel office announced that all employees should reply.
This posed challenges to employees who did not have access to their email over the weekend or on Monday.
Some employees at the Department of Veterans Affairs do not routinely log into their government email, as it is not part of their jobs, and do not have a government-issued computer. On Monday, a human resources official with the Veterans Health Administration in Portland, Ore., announced that 16 computers would be set up in the lobby of its building until 9 p.m. so that employees could respond, according to an email obtained by The Times.
It was not immediately clear on Tuesday whether employees had been fired for not responding with a list of five accomplishments. In the last-minute instructions from the personnel office, managers were told they could make those decisions themselves.
The probationary firings and the reduction-in-force effort also appear to have collided in some cases, causing additional confusion and turmoil.
In at least one case, an employee at U.S.A.I.D. said they were fired two different ways: once with a notification that the employee was part of a reduction-in-force plan, and again because the employee is probationary. The employee declined to speak publicly out of concerns about retribution.
“They are making sloppy mistakes,” said Kevin Owen, an employment lawyer with Gilbert Employment Law, referring to the Trump team leading the effort. “They don’t know what they’re doing to the level of professionalism as we would expect federal H.R. employee professionals to be advising.”
On Monday evening, in an email announcing the upcoming cuts that did not offer much detail, the acting administrator of the General Services Administration, Stephen Ehikian, said the agency was seeking approval from the personnel office to lower the required age and length of service to be eligible for voluntary early retirement.
“I offer my sincere and heartfelt gratitude for all G.S.A. employees impacted by this decision,” Mr. Ehikian wrote. “I appreciate your service to this nation, as well as my best wishes for the next stages of your lives and careers.”
Between 30 and 40 employees would be targeted in this first round of reduction-in-force cuts, according to a person familiar with the plan who was not authorized to speak about it publicly.
The person said those notifications should go out by the end of this week.
Claire Cain Miller contributed reporting from Portland, Ore.
