Remote control: How Trump’s return-to-office mandate will short-circuit federal talent
This ham-fisted approach to government management will likely prove counterproductive, undermining the very efficiency and accountability it claims to promote.
President Trump’s recent executive action (and the guidance that has followed) mandating a return to full-time in-person work for federal employees is not just misguided, but a blatant disregard for empirical evidence and modern workforce trends. This ham-fisted approach to government management will likely prove counterproductive, undermining the very efficiency and accountability it claims to promote.
The Office of Personnel Management’s own very recent research provides incredibly strong evidence of the benefits of remote work options in strengthening the number and quality of applicants to federal job opportunities. Remote job postings attracted significantly larger and more diverse applicant pools, receiving an average of 233 applicants, over 14 times more than non-remote positions. This expanded talent pool allows agencies to be more selective and potentially hire higher-quality candidates, a fact that seems lost on the current administration.
Our independent research at the University of Southern California’s CLEAR Initiative corroborates these findings. We found that remote job postings not only attracted larger applicant pools but also closed faster, with a mean posting length of 11 days versus 21 days for non-remote positions. This efficiency in hiring is something the federal government desperately needs, yet the executive action seems determined to ignore.
What’s more, we examined the locational variation for federal jobs. We use a “coarsened exact matching” approach that allows us to match remote and in-person jobs on essential job characteristics and use regression on the matched sample for doubly robust estimators. In other words, we compared hiring outcomes on location-based positions to their remote counterparts (i.e., in the same agencies, and at the same level and federal occupational series) for the years 2021-2023, using USAJobs and USAStaffing data.
We find that posts that offer remote work are associated with over 200 more applications received, 10 less days to close, and 0.5 more hires. South Dakota, North Dakota and Oklahoma receive the least number of applications and would benefit most from offering remote jobs. Jobs located in Georgia, Maryland and Virginia still receive a substantial number of applications, take as little time to hire as remote jobs, and successfully hire almost as often. We show that while remote jobs expand the applicant pool overall, states with a less robust supply of workers benefit substantially more by offering remote work.
Considering that over 85% of the federal government workforce works outside of the DC metropolitan region, we found that agencies serving regional concerns in red state locations were particularly advantaged by offering remote jobs for STEM occupations. For instance, as shown in the following graph, 16 of the 20 states receiving the least applications for location-based STEM jobs were states that Trump won in 2024. Location-based STEM jobs in Montana and Kansas received as many as 200 less applicants than their remote counterparts.
Note: This figure represents the number of applications received per STEM job for location-based positions compared to their remote counterparts (i.e., in the same agencies, and at the same level and federal occupational series) for the years 2021-2023, using USAJobs and USAStaffing data. Source: Joun, E. and Resh, W. “The Effects of Remote-Work Offerings Relative to Location-Based U. S. Federal Job Opportunities.” Presented at the Association for Public Policy Analysis and Management, November 22, 2024.
However, it was not just STEM positions that saw this type of difference in talent pools; our research also revealed crucial regional variations in the impact of remote work offerings for all types of jobs beyond STEM positions. This includes positions in administrative and office support, communication, business and financial management, and even some in public safety. Agencies serving more rural populations, especially, would benefit significantly from remote work options, as their in-person jobs receive fewer applications and take longer to fill. This nuanced picture underscores the shortsightedness of a one-size-fits-all mandate for full-time office work.
The abrupt elimination of telework flexibility is likely to create a talent exodus from federal agencies that serve all Americans. As Everett Kelley, president of the American Federation of Government Employees, rightly points out, “Providing eligible employees with the opportunity to work hybrid schedules is a key tool for recruiting and retaining workers in both the public and private sectors.” By removing this flexibility, federal agencies will undoubtedly find themselves at a severe competitive disadvantage in attracting top talent.
The executive order’s justification relies on political rhetoric rather than hard data. Numerous studies, including our own, have shown that telework can lead to increased productivity and job satisfaction when implemented effectively. In fact, OPM’s fiscal 2022 telework report found that employees who telework at least three days a week scored their engagement at 77.1 out of 100, compared to 58.5 for those who did not telework frequently. Other studies from both the private and public sector found that remote/hybrid workers are more (and at worse, no less) hardworking and committed.
Even the Trump memorandum’s claim that federal workers should return to the office out of a sense of “fairness” has little support in the research. In fact, equity concerns should focus on adverse outcomes that actually do exist regarding telework. For instance, among federal workers who requested telework arrangements, those with disabilities “were substantially more likely than others to have their requests turned down.”
Furthermore, the order completely overlooks the potential cost savings associated with telework arrangements. Reduced office space requirements, lower utility costs and decreased commuting expenses can result in significant savings for both agencies and employees. By mandating a full return to office work, the administration is more likely wasting than saving taxpayer resources.
Rather than this draconian approach, a more effective strategy would involve allowing agencies to tailor their telework policies based on mission requirements, employee performance and operational efficiency. This could include setting clear performance metrics, conducting regular assessments of telework’s or remote-work’s relative impact, and providing training for managers to effectively oversee remote teams.
While ensuring an efficient and accountable federal workforce is crucial, this executive order is a regressive step that ignores empirical evidence and modern workforce realities. It risks not only undermining the government’s ability to attract and retain top talent but also potentially leading to a less effective and less diverse federal workforce. As we move forward, it is imperative that agency leaders, employee representatives and policymakers closely monitor the impacts of this shortsighted policy and be prepared to advocate for evidence-based adjustments. The goal should be to create a federal workforce that is truly engaged, productive and capable of meeting the complex challenges facing our nation, not just physically present in an office.
William G. Resh, Ph.D., is an Associate Professor at the Sol Price School of Public Policy, where he holds the C. C. Crawford Professorship in Management and Performance and is the Director of the Civic Leadership Education and Research (CLEAR) Initiative.
Elizabeth Joun is a doctoral candidate at USC’s Price School. Their dissertation research focuses on how the nature of the work environment will evolve as remote work becomes an increasingly important consideration.
Remote control: How Trump’s return-to-office mandate will short-circuit federal talent
This ham-fisted approach to government management will likely prove counterproductive, undermining the very efficiency and accountability it claims to promote.
President Trump’s recent executive action (and the guidance that has followed) mandating a return to full-time in-person work for federal employees is not just misguided, but a blatant disregard for empirical evidence and modern workforce trends. This ham-fisted approach to government management will likely prove counterproductive, undermining the very efficiency and accountability it claims to promote.
The Office of Personnel Management’s own very recent research provides incredibly strong evidence of the benefits of remote work options in strengthening the number and quality of applicants to federal job opportunities. Remote job postings attracted significantly larger and more diverse applicant pools, receiving an average of 233 applicants, over 14 times more than non-remote positions. This expanded talent pool allows agencies to be more selective and potentially hire higher-quality candidates, a fact that seems lost on the current administration.
Our independent research at the University of Southern California’s CLEAR Initiative corroborates these findings. We found that remote job postings not only attracted larger applicant pools but also closed faster, with a mean posting length of 11 days versus 21 days for non-remote positions. This efficiency in hiring is something the federal government desperately needs, yet the executive action seems determined to ignore.
What’s more, we examined the locational variation for federal jobs. We use a “coarsened exact matching” approach that allows us to match remote and in-person jobs on essential job characteristics and use regression on the matched sample for doubly robust estimators. In other words, we compared hiring outcomes on location-based positions to their remote counterparts (i.e., in the same agencies, and at the same level and federal occupational series) for the years 2021-2023, using USAJobs and USAStaffing data.
Is your IT team ready to solve a potentially network-crippling problem? Learn tips and tactics for a successful resiliency strategy in our new ebook, sponsored by PagerDuty.
We find that posts that offer remote work are associated with over 200 more applications received, 10 less days to close, and 0.5 more hires. South Dakota, North Dakota and Oklahoma receive the least number of applications and would benefit most from offering remote jobs. Jobs located in Georgia, Maryland and Virginia still receive a substantial number of applications, take as little time to hire as remote jobs, and successfully hire almost as often. We show that while remote jobs expand the applicant pool overall, states with a less robust supply of workers benefit substantially more by offering remote work.
Considering that over 85% of the federal government workforce works outside of the DC metropolitan region, we found that agencies serving regional concerns in red state locations were particularly advantaged by offering remote jobs for STEM occupations. For instance, as shown in the following graph, 16 of the 20 states receiving the least applications for location-based STEM jobs were states that Trump won in 2024. Location-based STEM jobs in Montana and Kansas received as many as 200 less applicants than their remote counterparts.
However, it was not just STEM positions that saw this type of difference in talent pools; our research also revealed crucial regional variations in the impact of remote work offerings for all types of jobs beyond STEM positions. This includes positions in administrative and office support, communication, business and financial management, and even some in public safety. Agencies serving more rural populations, especially, would benefit significantly from remote work options, as their in-person jobs receive fewer applications and take longer to fill. This nuanced picture underscores the shortsightedness of a one-size-fits-all mandate for full-time office work.
The abrupt elimination of telework flexibility is likely to create a talent exodus from federal agencies that serve all Americans. As Everett Kelley, president of the American Federation of Government Employees, rightly points out, “Providing eligible employees with the opportunity to work hybrid schedules is a key tool for recruiting and retaining workers in both the public and private sectors.” By removing this flexibility, federal agencies will undoubtedly find themselves at a severe competitive disadvantage in attracting top talent.
The executive order’s justification relies on political rhetoric rather than hard data. Numerous studies, including our own, have shown that telework can lead to increased productivity and job satisfaction when implemented effectively. In fact, OPM’s fiscal 2022 telework report found that employees who telework at least three days a week scored their engagement at 77.1 out of 100, compared to 58.5 for those who did not telework frequently. Other studies from both the private and public sector found that remote/hybrid workers are more (and at worse, no less) hardworking and committed.
Even the Trump memorandum’s claim that federal workers should return to the office out of a sense of “fairness” has little support in the research. In fact, equity concerns should focus on adverse outcomes that actually do exist regarding telework. For instance, among federal workers who requested telework arrangements, those with disabilities “were substantially more likely than others to have their requests turned down.”
Furthermore, the order completely overlooks the potential cost savings associated with telework arrangements. Reduced office space requirements, lower utility costs and decreased commuting expenses can result in significant savings for both agencies and employees. By mandating a full return to office work, the administration is more likely wasting than saving taxpayer resources.
Sign up for our daily newsletter so you never miss a beat on all things federal
Rather than this draconian approach, a more effective strategy would involve allowing agencies to tailor their telework policies based on mission requirements, employee performance and operational efficiency. This could include setting clear performance metrics, conducting regular assessments of telework’s or remote-work’s relative impact, and providing training for managers to effectively oversee remote teams.
While ensuring an efficient and accountable federal workforce is crucial, this executive order is a regressive step that ignores empirical evidence and modern workforce realities. It risks not only undermining the government’s ability to attract and retain top talent but also potentially leading to a less effective and less diverse federal workforce. As we move forward, it is imperative that agency leaders, employee representatives and policymakers closely monitor the impacts of this shortsighted policy and be prepared to advocate for evidence-based adjustments. The goal should be to create a federal workforce that is truly engaged, productive and capable of meeting the complex challenges facing our nation, not just physically present in an office.
William G. Resh, Ph.D., is an Associate Professor at the Sol Price School of Public Policy, where he holds the C. C. Crawford Professorship in Management and Performance and is the Director of the Civic Leadership Education and Research (CLEAR) Initiative.
Elizabeth Joun is a doctoral candidate at USC’s Price School. Their dissertation research focuses on how the nature of the work environment will evolve as remote work becomes an increasingly important consideration.
Copyright © 2025 Federal News Network. All rights reserved. This website is not intended for users located within the European Economic Area.
Related Stories
When federal agencies embrace unified observability, employees are better equipped to address CX challenges
An acquisition reset: Deregulating to deliver best value mission support for the American people
Trump-era mandates threaten USPTO stability, trademark filings