DOGE’s war on telework would make government more expensive, less responsive

Senator Joni Ernst’s (R-Iowa) recent claims that only 6 percent of federal employees work in person full-time, while nearly one-third work remotely on a full-time basis, have reignited debates about telework in the federal government.

Her report, which is extremely critical of remote work, aligns with the agenda of DOGE, the Department of Government Efficiency spearheaded by billionaires Elon Musk and Vivek Ramaswamy. Yet data from the Office of Management and Budget, the Government Accountability Office, the White House Office of Personnel Management and other credible sources tell a different story. These agencies have published data underscoring the numerous benefits of telework for productivity, cost savings, retention and operational efficiency.

These are neutral, nonpartisan government sources, compared to Ernst, a politician now in-cycle who has long expressed a strong bias against telework. Given that, we should take her perspective with a grain of salt and instead trust the high-quality data we have available.

The White House Office of Management and budget published an August 2024 report that directly contradicts many of Ernst’s assertions. The report provided a detailed breakdown of telework eligibility and participation. Approximately 50 percent of federal employees are ineligible for telework due to job duties requiring in-person attendance, such as managing public lands, conducting inspections or delivering health care services.

Among those who are eligible to telework, about 61 percent of their work hours are spent on-site, with many employees participating in hybrid work arrangements. This data contradicts Ernst’s narrative, which largely overlooks the prevalence and efficiency of hybrid work models.

How does this break down for individual agencies? A November 2024 report from the Government Accountability Office evaluated four agencies — the Farm Service Agency, the IRS, U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services and the Veterans Benefits Administration. Telework ranged from minimal (only 11 percent of total hours worked at the Farm Service Agency) to robust (VBA telework stood at 66 percent of total hours). 

Agency representatives shared with the Government Accountability Office that shifts in telework policies have influenced recruitment, hiring and retention in diverse ways. The IRS noted that telework broadened their talent pool, enabling the agency to attract customer service representatives from regions far beyond their physical office locations. Citizenship and Immigration reported that their hiring data revealed a significant boost in applicant interest for roles where telework was an option. Conversely, Farm Service Agency officials observed that restricted telework availability in their agency has likely played a role in its recruitment and retention difficulties, although they emphasized that compensation and workload pressures were more critical factors in these challenges.

The Office of Personnel Management’s report further highlights the positive effects of telework. The report notes that 72 percent of federal supervisors believe telework has either maintained or improved their workers’ productivity. Among federal employees with telework opportunities, 84 percent reported increased job satisfaction, attributing this to improved work-life balance. A Federal Employee Viewpoint Survey from the same agency revealed that 78 percent of respondents agreed telework contributes positively to their work-life integration, making it easier for agencies to retain top talent.

These government agencies are not the only ones to reach such conclusions — their findings align with the private sector, where telework has been shown to significantly reduce turnover and increase employee engagement.

Ernst’s claims about government inefficiency due to telework also fail to account for the strategic management of underutilized office space. And this is where Musk and DOGE should take note.

Although Ernst’s report criticizes vacant federal buildings, the real issue, and the real opportunity for cost savings, stems from outdated real estate practices rather than telework itself. The General Services Administration estimates that if the federal government were to optimize office space to accommodate telework, it could save more than $1 billion annually in rent and maintenance costs alone. And although it would take an act of Congress, there are probably billions that could be reaped through the sale of unneeded or underused government buildings to private buyers.

This illustrates telework’s potential to reduce government expenditures without compromising service quality.

Ernst and DOGE have argued that telework diminishes accountability, but the evidence contradicts this. The Office of Personnel Management report highlights that performance metrics and management systems ensure accountability in telework environments. Regular check-ins, collaborative technologies, and clear goal-setting has successfully allowed supervisors to monitor productivity effectively.

The alignment between Ernst’s telework criticisms and DOGE’s objectives raises questions about her motivations. DOGE leaders Musk and Ramaswamy have openly advocated for return-to-office mandates as a means of forcing attrition within the federal workforce. Musk, a vocal opponent of remote work in the private sector, has characterized telework as incompatible with “hardcore” work. But this approach appears more ideological than evidence-based, aiming to curtail government size rather than enhance its efficiency. 

The proposal by Ramaswamy and DOGE to reduce telework and compel employees back to the office is remarkably short-sighted. The compensation of roughly 2.3 million civilian federal employees represents only 4.5 percent of the government’s $6.1 trillion annual budget.

And while their plan assumes that mass resignations from such a policy would yield significant cost savings, the reality is far more complex. Critical agencies (Homeland Security, for example) require specialized expertise, and the loss of skilled personnel will likely result in significant operational gaps. Replacing these employees would involve lengthy recruitment and training periods, during which agency functionality would be impaired. Moreover, the cost of onboarding new staff would likely offset any payroll savings, leaving taxpayers no better off financially.

The disruption caused by mass resignations would also have profound implications for the quality and efficiency of government services. Federal employees are not merely desk-bound bureaucrats. They execute policies passed by Congress, oversee disaster response, administer Social Security, and ensure regulatory compliance in critical industries. An exodus of experienced staff would jeopardize these essential functions, introducing inefficiencies and delays that would ripple across the economy and society.

To give an example, if veterans’ benefits claims were to linger for lack of employees to process them, would that really be savings that DOGE would want to claim credit for?

The human and economic costs of this policy would extend far beyond the federal workforce. For employees who remain, morale would likely plummet as workloads increase and institutional knowledge is lost. This would create a self-reinforcing cycle of inefficiency, as reduced capacity drives further attrition. Industries reliant on federal oversight, such as pharmaceuticals, defense contracting, and infrastructure, would also face disruptions. Delays in approvals, audits, and compliance checks could result in financial losses for businesses and state governments, compounding the economic damage.

All signs, including the reports cited above, suggest that the flexibility of telework allows employees to exceed traditional productivity benchmarks, debunking the myth that remote work fosters laziness or disengagement. Thus, the broader societal and economic effects of dismantling telework would be severe. Industries dependent on federal oversight would face cascading disruptions, from delayed infrastructure projects to interrupted regulatory approvals.

The resulting inefficiencies would increase the overall cost of government, exacerbating waste rather than curbing it. Meanwhile, taxpayers would bear the financial and functional burdens of rebuilding government capacity lost to mass resignations.

In reality, telework offers a model for modernizing the federal workforce in ways that enhance efficiency, save money, and improve employee satisfaction. The alignment between Ernst’s criticisms and DOGE’s agenda appears less about improving government and more about pushing ideological goals to downsize federal operations and roll back regulations, regardless of the broader consequences.

Telework has proven to be a valuable asset for the federal government, driving productivity, reducing costs, improving retention, and contributing to sustainability goals. While Ernst’s report aligns with DOGE’s agenda to promote return-to-office policies and downsize the government, it neglects the overwhelming evidence supporting telework’s benefits.

Rather than eliminate telework, policymakers should focus on leveraging its advantages. That is where Ernst and DOGE should be looking to find efficiencies.

Gleb Tsipursky, Ph.D., serves as the CEO of the hybrid work consultancy Disaster Avoidance Experts and authored the best-seller “Returning to the Office and Leading Hybrid and Remote Teams.“