The Probationary Project Pt 2: Introduction to Respondents and the Innerworkings of their Firings

Pt 2 of a series of information about the results of the probationary survey

On May 18th the results of a survey evaluating the impact of the federal government’s probationary firings in 2025 were released. The survey began by asking respondents basic questions, such as where they lived, their positions, and whether they were terminated, to get a better understanding of who was participating in the survey. The survey also asked questions about the way information of their firings was shared, and how respondents felt about their agency’s leadership as a result of their treatment. If you’re interested in a more in-depth look at this data, view the page on introduction to respondents and trust in the government agency.

This article combines both reports from our website to give readers a sense of who the survey is speaking to, how this population was terminated, and their feelings about the government as a result. This article sets the stage for the remaining articles planned to be published, which explore the impacts of these terminations to the American public, and the personal and career impacts to respondents. We also will be publishing a set of recommendations from survey organizers on ways to assist the probationary community. Subscribe to our Substack to stay up to date on these releases, and our other, NIH-focused content.

Introduction to Respondents

Respondent Locations and Workplaces

We asked respondents where they were located and the agencies they were working at prior to their termination.

Upon analysis, it was discovered that respondents lived across 43 states and the U.S. Virgin Islands. In this map, any state that had from one to ten respondents is shown as <11, to protect identities of respondents.

We received responses from fired probationary employees who worked in 12 different departments and 15 distinct agencies, bureaus, and subgroups. To protect respondents’ anonymity, we chose to display only the responses from the five departments from which we received the most responses. Check out our interactive dashboard see a list of the subagencies within these agencies. The number of respondents was small (306) compared to the large number of probationary employees terminated, but the geographic and agency-based distribution we received showcases that we received a diverse array of responses.

Length of Probationary Period

In the federal government, a probationary period is required any time an employee begins a new posting, even if they have worked in government for years in a parallel role or as a federal contractor.

Probationary periods in the private sector are different from the federal sector. In the private sector, individuals can seek work without a probationary employment trial period, and many are hired as at-will employees, meaning they can be fired at any time. In the federal sector, it is a law that new federal employees serve at least a one-year probationary period. These individuals do the work of a full-time employee for the entirety of their probationary period, and they are also a protected class of federal workers.

Most survey respondents were in the midst of a one-year probationary period, but some were close to completing their two- or even three-year probationary periods. The survey indicates that many of these employees worked at their agency for multiple years prior to their termination notification.

Government’s Actions in February 2025

Over half of survey respondents (68%) were terminated from their federal positions on or around February 14, 2025. Others were placed on administrative leave and terminated at a later date, or simply told they were on administrative leave with no further details.

In response to various court orders, some agencies reinstated terminated employees at different points in time. To better understand this disorganization, respondents were asked about their agencies’ actions in the days and weeks following February 14. About 25% of respondents were reinstated in their roles, while another 15% were reinstated only to be terminated again later. About 45% of respondents were placed on administrative leave (paid leave) and terminated at a later date. Finally, about 6% of respondents were placed on administrative leave and, as of January 31, 2026, they were either still on administrative leave or had resigned.

Those in the “other” categories shared different versions of reinstatement, administrative leave (again), and termination again. These various outcomes demonstrate a lack of planning across the government.

Most of those who were reinstated were allowed to return to their jobs by court order (58.8% of reinstated respondents).

Process of Their Firings

Throughout this survey, respondents were also asked about their termination experiences including questions about transparency and trust in leadership, how adequately they felt their agency shared information, if they were missing documentation, and what the experience was like for reinstated employees.

Lack of Transparency

Most respondents felt that both their department or agency and their human resources (HR) department lacked transparency in information sharing. The government has processes in place to govern these types of information sharing and, in this case, they were not followed. 80% of respondents also noted they felt they were negatively impacted because of their agencies’ actions due to their firings.

Agency Reinstatement Actions

Some respondents were reinstated after their initial firing, but they did not receive standardized information or treatment, with many having questions left unanswered.

Although they were able to return to their jobs, many of the respondents lacked any feelings of job security and were unable to find answers to questions about their futures as federal employees.

Trust in Leadership

Probationary employees were fired in an unlawful manner. In their short answers, many respondents shared that their departments and even their direct supervisors were often uncertain about what was happening. This uncertainty created gaps in communication and information sharing. There was no precedent for unlawful firings at such a large scale and, thus, there was no apparent strategy for how agencies should proceed.

An overwhelming amount of respondents reported they no longer have any trust in the top leadership at their former agency (about 82% of 300 respondents).

While trust in local leadership fared somewhat better, over a quarter of 299 respondents reported that they lacked trust in their local leadership.

Trust in leadership is essential to a healthy workforce dedicated to their mission. It is also imperative for the American public to be able to trust their government.

Reflections:

Survey respondents included federal probationary employees from across the country and various government agencies. Collectively, they had decades of experience and were serving long probationary periods within the federal government.

There was no uniformity among agency responses (such as reinstatements), and respondents’ quotes confirm the confusion and disappointment sown as a result of these inconsistencies.

This data shows a lack of consistency and trust across government agencies. Individuals stated they did not receive clear communication from human resources, leadership in their agencies and/or their local leadership, and the majority of these respondents said they have no trust in top agency leadership. This lack of trust is indicative of damage that may persist into future administrations.