A Case for Public Service: Why Cutting the Federal Workforce is Not Efficient?

“In spite of everything, I am just waiting on word to go back to work so I can serve the American people. That’s why I’m in public service; that’s why all of us are.”

—Terminated Federal Worker, Food and Drug Administration ¹

This sentiment reflects the deep commitment of federal employees who work tirelessly, often behind the scenes, to keep the country running. From ensuring public health and national security to processing benefits and maintaining critical infrastructure, federal workers are the backbone of government operations. Their commitment to service is evident—92% of respondents in the 2024 Federal Employee Viewpoint Survey (FEVS) stated that contributing to the common good is important to them. Yet, despite their essential contributions, only 57% of the 674,000 federal survey respondents feel adequately recognized for their work (Office of Personnel Management [OPM], 2024).

Federal employees serve not for accolades but out of a deep sense of duty to those they serve, what we know as Public Service Motivation (Perry & Wise, 1990). Whether responding to public health crises, facilitating disaster relief, or safeguarding national security, their work impacts every aspect of daily life. In doing their job, they are fulfilling prior legislative, executive, and even judicial mandates regarding public service. In other words, people across the country expect many of these services. Yet, despite this, their efforts often go unnoticed. It is crucial not only to acknowledge their contributions, but also to recognize that their work is rooted in a broader mandate—one that reflects the will and needs of the public. They deserve recognition and support, not the risk of termination for simply carrying out the responsibilities entrusted to them.

The U.S. federal bureaucracy has not evolved in a vacuum; it is the product of centuries of reform aimed at creating an efficient and effective government that serves everyone—not just a select few. These reforms were born from the lessons of the past, particularly the abuses of the spoils system, where political loyalty outweighed competence (Cayer & Sabharwal, 2016; Rosenbloom, 2014). Yet today, federal employees are increasingly scapegoated, and actual efforts are being made to dismantle institutions rather than address specific inefficiencies. While no system is perfect, history has shown that incremental policy changes—rather than radical overhaul—yield the best results (Lindblom, 1959). If a car’s battery dies or a part malfunction, we do not junk the entire vehicle; we fix what is broken. Similarly, we must refine and modernize government systems while safeguarding the integrity and expertise of the civil service. Are we reverting to an era where political favoritism overrides merit? Protecting federal employees from political purges is not just about job security—it is about ensuring continuity, expertise, and a government that works for all.

Firing 105,961 federal employees does not create a more efficient government, it does the opposite. Anyone attempting to access services will experience delays or loss of essential services, undermining the very purpose of government and its function to serve all people. The notion of a “bloated” federal workforce is simply a myth, as evident in the evolution of the federal bureaucracy. In 1967, there were 2.25 million federal employees; in 2020, that number had slightly decreased to 2.21 million. At its peak in 1945, the federal workforce stood at 3.37 million. Meanwhile, the U.S. population has grown by 143%—from 139.9 million in 1945 to 340.1 million in 2024—yet the federal workforce has remained static and is over a million fewer than its peak (Light, 2020). The real expansion has occurred in the shadow government of contractors and grant workers, which has ballooned to 6.8 million—more than three times the size of the federal workforce. As Light (2014, 2020) has highlighted, outsourcing has led to inefficiencies and reduced government accountability. Cutting federal employees under the false pretense of reducing bloat ignores the reality: we need a well-functioning, professional civil service, not an overreliance on costly and less accountable private contractors.

The Trump administration’s drastic cuts—eliminating over a hundred thousand federal jobs, with more on the way; shutting down the Department of Education, eliminating the Presidential Management Fellowship program that served as a pipeline for attracting the best and the brightest to the federal government; slashing USAID; and gutting NIH funding—will not create efficiency. Instead, these cuts threaten essential services, delay medical breakthroughs, and disrupt the lives of millions who rely on these programs. Federal bureaucracy serves as the backbone of our government. It provides the structure and consistency needed for stability and continuity. It ensures the delivery of essential services, the implementation of policies, and the fulfillment of public needs, even during times of change.

Shutting down agencies is not simple; it requires congressional approval and will spark costly legal battles that taxpayers will ultimately fund. Meanwhile, the federal workforce has remained stable for decades despite a population boom, while outsourcing to private contractors has surged, making government less accountable. We must safeguard the federal employees who are performing well and ensure that reforms focus on addressing inefficiencies, not dismantling institutions. Are we really making the government work better by cutting the very people who keep it running? True efficiency is not about the arbitrary dismantling of institutions—it’s about purposeful reform that strengthens, rather than undermines, the systems we all depend on. Such reform should follow planned change models that prioritize structured, phased implementation to ensure that efficiency is improved without destabilizing core institutions. This approach focuses on gradual, targeted reforms, such as focused training, process optimization, and the adoption of new technologies that enhance government operations while preserving institutional knowledge and expertise. Moreover, the consequences of any reform or change should be carefully weighed, in light of both its immediate effects on government functions and its broader impact on society. Unintended consequences, such as delays in services or loss of critical knowledge, must also be anticipated and mitigated. Planned change allows for adaptive, sustainable improvements that preserve the integrity and effectiveness of government systems.

The government must serve everyone—“all means all”— not as a Machiavellian tool for advancing the self-interests of a select few, but as a foundation for collective well-being and accountability. Perhaps, this is a moment for America to reflect on the importance of these workers and the vital role of public service. To most of these workers, public service is more than just a job or a paycheck—it is a dedication to the common good, a commitment to something greater than oneself. Many talented professionals, including technology experts who left lucrative private-sector careers, have chosen to serve in government because they are driven by a mission: making our country the best it can be. Their dedication embodies the spirit of public service motivation, yet in these challenging times, we risk undermining this commitment. As Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. once said, “Only when it is dark can you see the stars.” Now, more than ever, we must support and invest in the best and brightest, ensuring that our government remains strong and effective for the people it serves.

To shed light on these issues we invited leading scholars in public administration to provide a commentary on Trump administration’s sweeping efforts to politicize the federal civil service and dismantle Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion (DEI) frameworks. Central to these efforts is the reassertion of the unitary executive theory, which has been used to justify mass firings, weaken merit-based protections, and expand executive control over the public workforce. Donald Moynihan analyzes the return of Schedule F, which allows for the mass conversion of career officials into at-will political appointees, thereby undermining the principles of neutral competence and democratic accountability. Norma Riccucci exposes how the rollback of DEI initiatives and the weaponization of “merit” reinforce systemic inequality in hiring and advancement. Mary Guy highlights how unannounced purges and the dismantling of civil service norms are not genuine reforms but deliberate attempts to destabilize public institutions. William Resh critiques the rise of a privatized “parallel state” built on political loyalty, which erodes public trust, weakens oversight, and harms service delivery to vulnerable populations. Finally, Susan Gooden makes a powerful case for DEI as a cornerstone of democratic governance, reminding us that inclusion, fairness, and justice are constitutional values—not partisan ideals. Together, these commentaries sound a clear and urgent warning: the future of American democracy depends on restoring civil service protections and recommitting to equity in public administration.