With President Donald Trump signing an executive order directing federal agencies to eliminate telework, Republican leaders in Congress recently took aim at teleworking within the federal government, claiming that remote and hybrid arrangements create inefficiencies and bloat costs. However, these claims run counter to the data. For HR professionals, the debate over federal telework offers valuable lessons on talent management, cost efficiency, and the future of hybrid work arrangements.
In a January 15th congressional hearing titled “The Stay-at-Home Federal Workforce,” critics like House Oversight Committee Chairman James Comer, R-Ky., painted telework as an indulgence that caters to employee convenience at the expense of operational effectiveness. Alongside Senator Joni Ernst, R-Iowa, the incoming Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE) under Elon Musk has also pushed for a rollback of telework policies, contending that federal offices lie vacant, and that employee performance suffers.
The Data vs. the Myths
While Republican critics describe telework as a wasteful policy leaving federal buildings empty, a May 2024 report from the White House Office of Management and Budget (OMB) shows otherwise. More than half of the federal workforce is not eligible for telework due to job requirements—inspecting facilities, providing healthcare, managing public lands—and those who are eligible still spend most of their time on-site. Specifically, the OMB found that over 61% of telework-eligible work hours are spent in the office, underscoring the reality of hybrid schedules rather than full-time remote work. For HR leaders, these findings highlight that even in large, complex agencies, telework is rarely an “all or nothing” proposition; properly structured hybrid models can maintain substantial in-person coverage while offering significant flexibility.
Beyond questions about office occupancy, the data points to the productivity benefits of telework. Agencies with higher rates of telework, such as the Social Security Administration, have reported measurable gains in output despite historic lows in staffing. Similarly, the Congressional Budget Office found that federal agencies sustained considerable on-site staffing throughout the pandemic—exceeding 80% of total work hours—an indication that remote work did not hollow out government services. From an HR standpoint, these statistics undermine the notion that telework invariably leads to disengagement. Instead, they suggest that remote options can complement in-person functions and even enhance service delivery when supported by strong management practices.
Critics of telework often single out underused federal office space as a glaring example of inefficiency, with Senator Ernst arguing that remote work has rendered office buildings obsolete. Yet the real estate challenge reflects a broader transformation in workplace design. Organizations in both the public and private sectors are increasingly repurposing or consolidating office space to adapt to evolving work styles. The General Services Administration estimates that telework-oriented real estate optimization can save billions annually in rent and maintenance costs.
For HR professionals, this approach can redirect funds from sprawling office leases toward investments in technology, training, and employee engagement. Moreover, it positions agencies—and any large organization—to respond nimbly to changing demands while reducing overhead. Far from wasting resources, effective telework policies can spur innovations in space utilization that enhance efficiency.
Telework and Talent
Telework also serves as a powerful lever for attracting and retaining top talent. A November 2024 Government Accountability Office report found that federal agencies offering remote or hybrid options expanded their applicant pools dramatically. The IRS, for instance, saw a marked increase in the quality and quantity of customer service representatives, no longer constrained by geography. In a tight labor market, offering telework can be a differentiator for HR departments competing for skilled workers. Meanwhile, federal agencies like U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services observed improved employee satisfaction and lower turnover among those who benefited from flexible work arrangements. These findings are in line with broader trends: hybrid and remote models have consistently been associated with higher engagement and lower attrition.
From an HR management perspective, rolling back telework could create unintended costs and disruptions. Critics like DOGE assert that ending telework would save money by filling vacant buildings and curtailing employee “perks.” Yet federal salaries constitute only a fraction of the total government budget—4.5% of the $6.1 trillion annual spending—and forcing all employees back to the office risks triggering a wave of resignations. For HR leaders, that would mean a costly and time-consuming process of recruiting and training replacements, potentially resulting in skill gaps and reduced organizational capacity. Agencies dealing with highly specialized roles—such as those in cybersecurity, disaster response, and public health—cannot simply plug these positions overnight. The likely fallout, including slower services and rising overtime costs, underlines how inflexible return-to-office mandates could actually be more expensive and detrimental to mission-critical functions.
A disruption in federal operations would also resonate with private-sector HR departments. Delays in government approvals, inspections, and regulatory functions would adversely affect businesses that rely on federal oversight. The knock-on effect is a workforce—both public and private—operating in an environment of greater uncertainty and inefficiency. In other words, teleworking is not just a federal workplace concern; it is a key part of a functioning ecosystem that includes private industry, contractors, and local governments. HR professionals in all sectors should be aware that weakening telework arrangements in the public domain can reverberate beyond federal agencies, reducing predictability and collaboration opportunities that arise from virtual cross-sector teams.
Policymakers now stand at a crossroads. Telework’s supporters cite it as a tool that modernizes the workforce, allows strategic use of real estate, and taps into talent pools unconstrained by location. Critics from the Republican ranks and DOGE maintain that remote arrangements sacrifice accountability. Yet the evidence supporting telework is growing, and for HR leaders, it suggests that a thoughtful hybrid framework can enhance both productivity and job satisfaction. Fostering trust, providing targeted training for remote management, and developing robust performance metrics are all essential strategies that ensure employees remain engaged and accountable, regardless of location.
Ultimately, the debate over telework policies in the federal government carries broader significance for HR professionals across industries. As the workplace evolves, successful organizations will likely be those that integrate flexible work models without compromising on service quality or accountability. The proposed elimination of telework rests on weak data and risks causing disruptions far costlier than maintaining or expanding hybrid arrangements. By focusing on tangible metrics—productivity, workforce satisfaction, operational resiliency—HR leaders can champion remote and hybrid work as legitimate, evidence-based strategies that support an agile, high-performing workforce. The data shows these policies work and ignoring that evidence in favor of nostalgic views about fully in-person work risks undermining the very goals—efficiency, effectiveness, and talent retention—that HR professionals strive to achieve.
Dr. Gleb Tsipursky was named “Office Whisperer” by The New York Times for helping leaders overcome frustrations with hybrid work and Generative AI. He serves as the CEO of the future-of-work consultancy Disaster Avoidance Experts. Dr. Gleb wrote seven best-selling books, and his two most recent ones are Returning to the Office and Leading Hybrid and Remote Teams and ChatGPT for Leaders and Content Creators: Unlocking the Potential of Generative AI. His cutting-edge thought leadership was featured in over 650 articles and 550 interviews in Harvard Business Review, Inc. Magazine, USA Today, CBS News, Fox News, Time, Business Insider, Fortune, The New York Times, and elsewhere. His writing was translated into Chinese, Spanish, Russian, Polish, Korean, French, Vietnamese, German, and other languages. His expertise comes from over 20 years of consulting, coaching, and speaking and training for Fortune 500 companies from Aflac to Xerox. It also comes from over 15 years in academia as a behavioral scientist, with 8 years as a lecturer at UNC-Chapel Hill and 7 years as a professor at Ohio State. A proud Ukrainian American, Dr. Gleb lives in Columbus, Ohio.