Senior Defense Official Holds Backgrounder on Civilian Personnel Policies

View Online Senior Defense Official Holds Backgrounder on Civilian Personnel Policies March 18, 2025 Senior Defense Official:  All right, thank you. Well, thanks for your time. I'm happy to have the chance to talk about the department's efforts to realign the civilian workforce with national security priorities. So, as you know, the department's been public about its decision to undertake a strategic reduction of 5 to 8 percent of the department's civilian workforce in order to direct resources and manpower towards more mission critical functions. And so, we're talking about three different methods the department has used to achieve that reduction. The first is the voluntary employee participation and deferred resignation program. I also refer to that as DRP. I know some of you also refer to that as "Fork in the Road". Number two, removing certain probationary employees. And lastly, instituting a hiring freeze. So, those three efforts are the focus of today's call. Each of those was directed by Secretary Hegseth and they're focused on promoting the department's lethality, readiness and war-fighting ability. And throughout this process, the department is ensuring that any employees impacted by the workforce reductions are treated with dignity and respect. So, I wanted to highlight that the majority of the workforce reduction effort is voluntary measures and the biggest component of that to date has been DRP. So, when DRP was offered broadly to the workforce, there was very good participation, all voluntary, civilian employees raising their hands and saying they would like to be considered to go on admin leave and to be paid throughout that time. And then to move on to something else or to retire from there. And the department approved the majority of those applications. And so, once again, those were all voluntary and that's the majority of the reduction measures we've taken. And then the hiring freeze as well as a passive attrition measure. So, we initiated the hiring freeze a couple weeks ago. It was directed by the Secretary. And we have annually something like an average of 70,000 civilian employees onboard at the department. So, it breaks down to something like 6,000 new hires a month. So, without having to remove any existing employees through the hiring freeze, that just naturally creates something like 6,000 civilian workforce slots a month of natural attrition. There's always some friction in any employee pool. It's no different at the department. Some employees are moving on to other things, some employees are retiring and, as long as we maintain the hiring freeze, we're gaining thousands towards the workforce reduction target each month just by instituting that. So, again, DRP and the hiring freeze are both voluntary or passive measures that are not actively removing any of the civilian workforce without them volunteering for it. So, I'm going to pause there, and we'll take some of your questions. Thank you. MODERATOR:  Thank you, sir. Please limit your questions to questions about the civilian workforce – one question and one follow up. With that, we'll call on Konstantin, Military.com. Q:  Thanks, everybody. Thanks for doing this, sir. I guess my first question would be if you can offer any insight into that third category — how many civilian employees you guys have terminated as part of these measures? Thanks. Senior Defense Official:  Thanks, Konstantin. Appreciate the question. I think we spoke last time I was on one of these too, so thanks for being back. So, I can talk about the various measures of employees being removed. I'll just make sure — are you asking about kind of numbers out of each of the three, or are you asking really specifically about probationary employee removal numbers? MODERATOR:  Konstantin, and your follow-up. Q:  Specifically about probationary employee removal numbers, but if you're able to offer numbers on all three categories, I think we would all benefit from that. Senior Defense Official:  Yeah, well, I'll start with the others. So, to date, the department has approved more than 20,000, nearing 21,000 of the applications from employees that volunteered to participate in deferred resignation program. So, those will actually be achieved over time. We're in the process of placing those employees that were approved on administrative leave – They'll have a variety of actual departure dates from department employment. The end date for those that are not yet retirement eligible is the end of the fiscal year, September 30th of this year. For those that would reach retirement eligibility between October 1st and the end of calendar year 2025, they will be able to go on admin leave now and then remain on admin leave until that retirement eligible date. So, for a smaller pool of the 21,000, those will be coming off the department rolls October, November and December of this year as well. So, that's in progress. We're still placing some of those volunteered and accepted employees on administrative leave now. But again, very few of them would actually be removed at this point because one of the desirable aspects of the program that led to some volunteering is the ability to be paid on admin leave until whatever the formal end date is. So, that's the DRP section. Again, on the hiring freeze category, it's a passive measure, no active employee removals. It's simply slowing down the rate at which the department would typically bring on board new employees. And so, even though we're attritting the civilian workforce in the department, as long as the hiring freeze is in effect, that's not with active removals. That's just simply not bringing in something like 6,000 people a month that we typically would bring in. Now very specifically, you asked about probationary employees. As you know, the department was in the process of executing a stated intent of removing about 5,400 probationary workforce employees. That action has become the subject of litigation. And so, I'd direct any further questions about that process to the Department of Justice, but the Department had previously made public the stated goal of about 5,400 probationary worker removals. Q:  So just to follow up on that, as you say, it's subject to judicial action. So, I mean are you able to say whether any employee — like have employees been given their jobs back then as a result of court orders? Or do they remain — like what — this category of employees, what is their status within the Department of Defense right now? Senior Defense Official: Yeah, so, what I can share today, because it's the subject of ongoing litigation, is the department is committed to fully complying with every applicable court order regarding the process. And so, anything beyond that regarding what is the court requiring, I'll refer you to the Department of Justice for those. Thank you. Q:  Thank you. MODERATOR:  Next Lita, AP. Q:  I'm here, it's Lita. Can you tell us how many employees requested the Fork in the Road? And I know that national security is a key reason that people would turn down a request, but is that actually accurate? And I have a follow up. Senior Defense Official:  Yeah, thanks, Lita. Sorry, I'll just clarify, which part of that you're asking is accurate or not? Q:  That national security is one of the reasons why someone would be turned down for the Fork in the Road. Senior Defense Official:  Understood, thank you. Yes, so, we did have more applications for DRP than the 21,000. And I'll just share that the vast majority of those that applied were in the 21,000 that received it. And so, that's as far as I'll share just on numbers. But what we did is the personnel team worked with the military services and DOD components so that this wasn't just a totally open process where any employee could depart at will because, as you mentioned, to ensure the department's ability to effectively function, it's important to consider things like which roles can be removed without losing effectiveness. And then you also could have unintended consequences like a higher concentration of participating employees in one job function. So, in the extreme, you could have 10 of 10 experts in a certain field all participate. And if you just blindly accepted all of the applications and approved them, you'd have a lot of unintended consequences. So, yes, to answer your question, absolutely, we worked with the services and components to ensure that any of the employees that volunteered to participate could be allowed to — the approved employees from that pool could be approved without negatively impacting the department's lethality and readiness. MODERATOR:  Lita, you said you had a follow-up. Q:  Yes, so, how many total does that 3 to 5 percent represent? Can you give sort of a number? And is there a worry that US military will be forced to shift from their jobs into civilian type roles in order to fill some of those posts? Thank you. Senior Defense Official:  Yeah, thank you. Yeah, so, the 5 to 8 percent figure breaks down to something in the 50,000 to 60,000 range. We have a very large civilian workforce in the department. We have about 800,000 appropriated fund employees. Another 100,000 non-appropriated. Then there's some additional employees in other categories as well, such as foreign nationals. So, it's a large workforce. So, the number sounds high, but I would focus on the percentage — 5 to 8 percent reduction is not a drastic one. It's one the secretary is confident can be done without negatively impacting readiness in order to make sure that our resources are allocated in the right direction. And I take your point, I've seen some of that reporting and concerns that have talked about, well, what if uniformed service members are instead retasked with those functions. What I would highlight again is those the department approved to participate in the process were those where, in conjunction with working with our team out there in the force, that we are confident we could absorb those removals without detriment to our ability to continue the mission. And so, that's how we can be confident that we don't need to worry about any resulting impact on the uniformed force. MODERATOR:  Ellee, CBS. Q:  Thanks for doing this. A question on the probationary employees who were cut. Were there two categories? Was there the category of probationary employees with unsatisfactory performance and probationary employees who just didn't meet the time requirement or was it just one or the other? Senior Defense Official:  Ellee, thanks for the question. I'm limited in the things I can discuss now that aren't subject to the litigation. But yes, the first removals of probationary employees were directly focused on employees that were documented and significantly underperforming in their job functions and/or had misconduct on their record. And so, our guidance was for those to be the first probationary employees removed. And no, the department did not undertake probationary employee removals just blindly based on the time they had been hired. The fact that someone was a probationary employee did not directly mean that they were going to be subject to removal. This is a process similar to what I was describing earlier with DRP. We worked hand in hand with services and DOD components to determine where those removals could be absorbed. And then any further questions related to that ongoing process I'd direct to the DOJ since this is now subject to litigation. MODERATOR:  Ellee, did you have a follow up? Q:  Just one more. The three categories you laid out I don't think got to the reduction in force. When do you expect the reduction in force to start after this hiring freeze? Senior Defense Official:  Yeah, thank you. We're certainly focusing today just on these three things that are already in progress or have already been in progress. There are other methods available to the secretary, which is voluntary separation incentive program, reduction in force, etc. I won't get ahead of the secretary; it'll be the secretary's prerogative to designate how and when he might use any of the other tools that would be available to him to achieve the stated reduction targets. Thank you. MODERATOR:  Brandi Vincent, Defense Scoop. Q:  Hi, thank you so much for doing this. I'll have a question and a follow up. But first, are there exemptions for officials who have top secret clearances or SCI designations who are probationary or may be up for reduction down the line? Senior Defense Official:  Yeah, thanks, Brandi. Are you asking specifically in cases of individuals with top secret clearances for the probationary employee removal process or individuals that meet that description across the department's workforce reduction initiatives? Q:  I'd appreciate if you could comment on both, just because I've heard from sources that there's been a bit of confusion about that. Senior Defense Official:  OK, well, I'll start with probationary employees in that category. So, when we undertook the process of executing the department's stated goal of about 5,400 probationary employee removals, that was in concert with the forces to work to identify the population of probationary employees, the work they're performing and their performance. And so, certainly the skills and attributes of each worker is something that the department is able to weigh in individual cases. This was not just a blind process; it was a case-by-case process. And so, certainly clearances and other aspects of training would be relevant considerations when deciding how to shape any of the workforce reductions with respect to probationary employees. And I would say something similar when you look at something like DRP. We were speaking about the fact that we worked hand in hand with the services to ensure that each application was vetted, and we knew that we could absorb any resulting impacts without harming the department's readiness. And so, that would also include things like clearance level. But no, not as a — it wouldn't just be a de facto category of saying, well, you have a clearance, then you will not be considered. It was a broad consideration of the entire workforce. Q:  Thank you. I appreciate that. And then separately, I was wondering if these reductions are going to have an impact specifically on IT emerging technology AI positions in DOD, because a lot of these are sort of nascent and new roles. Are y'all working to get ahead of that? And are you considering those positions as contributing to lethality and readiness? Senior Defense Official:  Yeah, well, I won't speak for the secretary in defining categories. Certainly, you're naming things that come up a lot today in the emergent technology area. And again, I just want to stress, this is a very active process. So, when we in personnel and readiness work in connection with services and components, we are taking their very active input and analysis on the employees and the skills and attributes they need to get after the functions the secretary is directing them to do. And so, all of these considerations are inherent in that analysis, right. So, for example, if the Air Force is evaluating its force, it's evaluating with the stated goals it has from the secretary in order to conform with the national defense strategy. And so, any critical area that the secretary and the services have identified is going to be weighed heavily when determining which portions of the workforce and what skill sets need to be retained. MODERATOR:  Idrees, Reuters. Q:  Just a couple of quick questions. Firstly, do you have a sense of which services the Fork in the Road applicants are from mostly? Do you have a breakdown by service? And who actually approves the applications? What level does it rise to? Senior Defense Official:  Yeah, thanks, Idrees. So, I don't have it in front of me right now how the roughly 21,000 breaks down among the services. Certainly, the numbers are going to be somewhat similar across the services so that it's somewhat evenly absorbed. There are some deviations based on some assessments of mission criticality, but I don't have those in front of me today. But we certainly can take a note and see if that's something that we could provide to you if you're looking to see the variation service to service in DRP participation. And then my apologies, did I miss another portion of your question? Q:  Yes, I'll just ask that and my follow up. Who approves the applications for the Fork in the Road, like what level does it rise to? And then other agencies had to bring back their probationary employees that they had fired because of the court order. How many probationary employees that you had fired had to be brought back, if any? Senior Defense Official:  Yeah, thanks. So, to the first part of that follow up, this is in conjunction with the office of the Secretary of Defense working hand in hand with each of the military services and components. And so, I would let each of them speak to the process and the analysis they used to pass their mission analysis and recommendations to the office of the secretary. And then the office of the secretary , on his behalf, was evaluating that and briefing the secretary on the plans throughout. And then to the second part of the follow up, I'm going to defer it again to the DOJ for the active litigation because kind of the nature of will employees that have been removed or are being brought back is all nested in that litigation discussion right now. Thank you. MODERATOR:  Luis, ABC. Q:  Hi, thanks for this briefing. Two questions. First one, you talked about the 5,400 being the first layer, the first wave I guess of probationaries. Can you tell us what the universe is of probationary employees at DOD? And what distinctions may filter that number? We've seen some numbers being previously reported and just like some clarity on that. And also, I'll take the follow up after the first question. Senior Defense Official:  Yeah, thank you. So, what I've been trying to communicate — and apologies if I didn't communicate it clearly. When I talk about the layers or the increments or the steps of the workforce reduction plan with respect to civilians, I'm referring to the components such as DRP probationary employee removals, hiring freeze. The department has only communicated one intent and one number on probationary employee removals and that was back on February 21st when the department communicated a goal of 5,400 probationary employee removals. There has been no other signal from the department on future intended removals of probationary employees. And I think you had a follow up. Q:  Yeah, well, follow up to the first question, so what exactly is the top line number then when you look at the 800,000 — the almost 900,000 civilian employees, how many of those 900,000 actually are probationary employees? Senior Defense Official:  So, the total probationary employee count, when we did this analysis at the secretary's direction to examine the probationary employee workforce, the population was in the mid-50,000s, something like 54,000 for the department writ large. And so, that's well under 10 percent of the total civilian workforce for the department. Q:  And can you say now that that — because right now I understand how you're saying you're focusing on a certain grouping of the probationary employees. But can you provide assurances to the other probationary employees, the other 50,000 probationary employees, that they will not be subject to any potential rift? Senior Defense Official:  Yeah, thank you for the question. So, again, I won't get ahead of Secretary Hegseth. He has not communicated anything about conducting specifically a reduction in force or not as part of this overall reduction plan. What he has communicated is the reduction target of about 5 to 8 percent of the civilian workforce overall. And as you know, as we've been discussing right now, we're subject to litigation specifically regarding probationary employee removals. And then the secretary has multiple methods, as you referenced, that would be at his disposal that he could execute, at his election and with his specific guidance in the future. And he has not communicated anything about his intent for those — any potential follow-on programs in order to get to the 5 to 8 percent. MODERATOR:  next Haley, CNN. Q:  Hi, thank you. I'm wondering if you can speak to some confusion regarding especially civilians who are overseas. It seems that PCS moves have been canceled or frozen. Civilians have been told to cancel their flights and cancel their moving plans as a result of this. Can you speak to — and I think that's both the firings, but then also the hiring freeze — is there any clarity you can provide for those civilians who are not in the continental US and sort of what they should be expecting? Senior Defense Official:  Yeah, thanks for the question, Haley. I appreciate the opportunity to address that. I have seen some of those instances you're referring to. And so, when Secretary Hegseth instituted the hiring freeze on the 28th of February, he provided built into that memorandum that he would be the approval authority for exemptions. So, from the beginning he signaled that he would be considering case-by-case scenarios of individuals. And so, one of the more pressing scenarios that arises that you highlighted is in some cases there were individuals that were in the process of moving or preparing to move in order to arrive at an assignment with the Department of Defense. And in some instances, those assignments are overseas or what we refer to as OCONUS. And so, again, the secretary had an intent and expressed an intent to be an exemption authority throughout the process. And so, we here in the office of the Secretary of Defense have been focused on gathering from services and components, any individuals that were in scenarios like you described and assessing any hardship that the hiring freeze might place on them if they weren't to otherwise keep the start date, and the travel plans that they had initially planned. And so, the secretary has been reviewing those on a case-by-case basis. We as a staff are responsible to ensure that we highlight those instances to him. And then recently you may be aware the secretary has now delegated exemption authority with respect to the hiring freeze. As of March 14th, the secretaries of the military departments who now may approve hiring freeze exemptions at their level with respect to the civilian workforce, as well as the Under Secretary of Defense for Personnel and Readiness, which is the office in which I work. And so, the undersecretary may also review and approve exemption requests for other organizations other than the military departments within the department. And so, with all of these exemptions, the guidance is to look at any hardships placed on an individual by the hiring freeze as well as looking at mission critical functions and ensure that we get individuals critical to a special department capacity to where they need to be to start work. Q:  Got it. Thank you so much. And then just as a general follow up, I mean, how are you all wanting to ensure, if you are, that the people who are leaving? Because I've heard — I'm sure we've all heard from several people who are saying, well, we can do the work that we're doing whether it's an analyst or whatever it is in the civilian capacity. It would be easier to find a job elsewhere instead of the government if we're going to be dealing with this. But these are also the people who may be particularly skilled and good at their jobs. So, I guess what is your message to those people who you would want to keep on for the skill level that they provide, but who may be seeing or thinking that this is more of a hassle than it's worth and they'd rather go into the private sector? Senior Defense Official:  Yeah, thanks for the follow up. Yes, I follow what you're saying. A couple of things I'd like to highlight. One is that the secretary, throughout this process, has been clear about the value that's provided by the department's civilian workforce as part of the team. So, at no point has he communicated anything other than the civilian workforce is a necessary component and an enabler to ensuring that the department is lethal and ready. But with any workforce, there are times when you have to reallocate resources to certain of the more critical functions. And so, that means not every person will be retained at every step of the process, but that in no way detracts from the value the civilian workforce provides. And I also would like to highlight the fact that I'm so privileged to work among so many talented people that serve here in the Pentagon, there are so many across the force in civilian roles. So often I have the privilege of getting to see firsthand the motivation and the patriotism of the civilian workforce. And I would say in so many instances, they're not here because of the paycheck; they're here because of the mission. And so, I'm confident that will remain the case going forward for so many of my civilian workforce colleagues that still care about this mission. They were motivated to serve the country in a really unique way and I'm confident they'll continue to do that. Senior Defense Official:  Meghann Myers, Defense One. Q:  Thanks very much. I also have a question about the hiring freeze that's affecting currently serving DOD civilians. So, this most recent memo that came out delegates authorities down, but you still have to — P&R still has to approve every exemption. So, I wanted to ask how many exemptions have come to OSD? How many of them have been granted? And when can these components expect to see a follow-on memo with more guidance about how to file these exemptions and consider them? Senior Defense Official:  Yeah, well, that's a very active process. I don't have numbers in front of me today to share about the number of individuals that have been requested. There are certainly instances where the military departments and other components may pursue certain categories of critical functions. It may be individuals in cases like we were speaking to earlier, where they have unique hardships. There are no numbers to share today but that is certainly a very active and live process as we work to understand the most critical functions, the support that's most needed by each of the departments and components. So, it is ongoing, we're working hand in hand with each of the departments and components to help them understand and to standardize and streamline the exemption request process. And it's a really new one, right? This was signed on the 14th. So, we're just a few days into that, but it's very active and we're moving out on the secretary's guidance to ensure that the delegation will be used effectively. Q:  OK, so to follow up, what message do you have to DOD civilians who are, for example, living out of hotel rooms with their spouses and their kids with their personally owned vehicles having already been sent overseas, all of their belongings sent overseas and they're waiting for an exemption so that they can rebook a plane ticket so that they can finish their PCS. Senior Defense Official:  Yeah, well, first my message would be that we are grateful — the secretary is grateful for the commitment each of them has made to serve in these capacities. We understand the position of uncertainty that they're in. And the best way to move forward is to be clearly communicating with their hiring authority and the relevant chain of command to ensure that we bring their unique circumstances in front of decision makers so they can be considered for exemptions in an expeditious manner. Q:  And I'm sorry, but can you assure these people that the increased expenses they're incurring on their own credit cards at this point will be reimbursed in an expeditious manner? Senior Defense Official:  Yeah, thank you for the question. I don't have something to share right now about what the process is going to be, but that's certainly something we're considering. And I acknowledge and appreciate your point on the fact that those that are stationary right now pending a decision are incurring expenses. Something we're aware of and something we'll certainly consider on their behalf. MODERATOR:  We'll take our last question. Jeff Schogol, Task & Purpose. Q:  Thank you. So, I'll make it quick. So, the most recent DOD demographic report says that DOD has 878,000 civilian employees, 8 percent of that is 70,261, OPM estimates that 45.8 percent of DOD is veterans, that comes to 32,180 veterans. So, if I — is that about how many veterans are going to be let go under these efforts? Senior Defense Official:  Jeff, thank you for the question and I appreciate your advocacy on behalf of veterans. Of course, the department is so much stronger for having so many people that serve in uniform then commit to serve the department in a civilian capacity and we appreciate that as well. I'm an example of that myself. I was in the Army for more than a decade, now privileged to serve in a civilian capacity. And we appreciate — I work every day with so many veterans that are now part of the civilian workforce. So, I'm not going to quibble with the calculations. I know you've already looked at the numbers that are public. There will be some veterans impacted by the workforce reductions. I would highlight the same thing as with the uniformed service. When I was in the Army, I also understood that I served as long as my service was needed and in the public's interest. So, the department is a steward of the US taxpayers' money, we need to be good stewards and accountable for that money and also ensure that we accomplish the mission and have the right focus on the mission. So, even within the military, there are times where you see that individuals will leave service when their services are no longer directly in the nation's interest. And the same thing is true in the civilian side and some of those people will be veterans that served in uniform previously. We're certainly again looking at case-by-case as we plan workforce reduction. So, there are so many critical skills and experience that veterans have to offer, and that's part of the analysis when we consider who is contributing to the core mission functions and who should be retained. Q:  Thank you. I'm so sorry, I had too much coffee. I just wanted to make sure I had it right. So, about 32,000 veterans will be let go as part of the Defense Department's effort to trim the civilian workforce by up to 8 percent. Do I have that right? Senior Defense Official:  Well, I'm not going to speak to hypotheticals because I understand the calculations you're talking about. That would be with the assumption that if we hit an exact certain percentage based on the numbers of a certain day of DOD civilian employees and then linearly applied. And I can't guarantee any of those things. So, again, each employee that has valuable and unique skills and experiences is being looked at on a case-by-case basis as we go through the various steps of hiring freeze. And so, no, there's not some categorical direction that whatever the ultimate workforce reduction percentage is that that has to be applied exactly with respect to veterans or any other category. It's a case-by-case basis. We do understand that some veterans will be part of the removal and we're grateful for their service just as we are grateful for the service of everyone that's volunteered to serve the country. Q:  Thank you. Do you have an estimate of veteran? MODERATOR:  Jeff, thank you for your question. Sorry, that's the end of our briefing. If you have follow-up questions, please feel free to reach out to us in the duty box. Thank you so much for joining us today.

ABOUT   NEWS   HELP CENTER   PRESS PRODUCTS

Unsubscribe | Contact Us

This email was sent to sajanram1986.channel@blogger.com using GovDelivery Communications Cloud on behalf of: U.S. Department of Defense 1400 Defense Pentagon Washington, DC 20301-1400