The Probationary Project Pt. 3: Impacts to the American Public

Read a breakdown of the impact of the probationary firings to the American Public

Impacts to the American Public Report

The fired federal workers who responded to this survey came from agencies that touch nearly every aspect of American life. They are scientists, public health professionals, conservation officers, legal experts, researchers, communications specialists, and more. The largest share worked at the Department of Health and Human Services, followed by the Departments of Commerce and of the Interior. These people actively improved public health, protected natural resources, maintained environmental health, ensured public safety, and safeguarded national security. After their firing, the work remains, but now without people to do it. You can learn more about the probationary project and visit our interactive dashboard on 27 UNIHTED’s website.

The breadth of services these workers provided demonstrates that the repercussions of these firings will be felt throughout the nation. The most commonly reported consequence of these terminations was a larger, sometimes unmanageable workload for the federal workers who remained, as reported by approximately 240 survey respondents. Close behind was the loss of institutional knowledge reported by 210 respondents, followed by the loss of young civil service talent by175 people, and reduced public services by 165 respondents.

The graphs below show both what public services these workers provided and what they believe was lost, in their own words and from their own data.

The impact of these graphs translate into slower response times, reduced oversight, degraded services, and risks to public safety and human life. A significant number of respondents also flagged a lack of oversight for permitted activities and compromised public safety as direct consequences of the firings.

Impacts to Federal Civil Service

The public organizations that worked with respondents did not support their unlawful terminations either, according to respondents.

Two hundred eighteen respondents self-reported that they had worked with public counterparts, such as state and city employees, volunteers, public landowners, and nonprofit workers. Ninety-six percent of these public counterparts either “strongly opposed” or “opposed” the probationary employee terminations, demonstrating a lack of public support for the firings from the organizations with whom respondents worked.

Contractors Prior to Federal Employment

The federal government commonly transitions contractors into full-time federal employees. Despite working for an agency for years to often decades, when individuals make the transition, they must complete a probationary period.

Forty-five percent of probationary employee respondents worked as contractors in the federal government before they transitioned into their full-time role. Of those former contractors, over 55% had worked as a contractor for more than four years. Nineteen percent worked 11 years or more in the government before starting the federal role from which they were fired as a probationary employee.

Through firing of these probationary employees, the government workforce lost decades of specialized experience and institutional knowledge.

Employing contractors can cost significantly more to the government at the time of contract award than employing their federal counterparts. Although contractor employees’ salaries may often be lower than federal employees’, contracting companies charge fees on top of employee salaries, raising the total cost per contractor employee (although the scope of this survey did not evaluate these exact costs). It’s hard to determine the final cost to the American Public due to the costs of benefits associated with hiring Federal Workers, but it’s a consideration worth thinking about, when you consider that these cuts likely did not achieve their goal of benefiting the taxpayer through these cost cuts.

Firing people with extensive institutional knowledge may prove more expensive to the federal government than if they had kept probationary federal employees in their roles.

The federal government can hire workers through several pathways, including internship programs, graduate programs, and the Presidential Management Fellowship. These recruitment pathways frequently provide participants with on-the-job experience and education.

Fifty-three of the survey respondents replied they were recruited through one of these programs. This means that these employees previously worked for the government in other capacities and were already deemed capable and competent to be hired for another federal position prior to their termination.

These responses demonstrate that federal workers who responded to this survey were not entry-level hires. They were the product of years of deliberate investment by the agencies that trained them, the recruiting programs that sought them out, and by their own hard work.

In addition to having job skills, the respondents to this survey are a highly educated group. Over 80% have a master’s degree or higher, and 99% with a minimum of a bachelor’s degree. Thirty-three percent of respondents hold a doctorate degree or dual degree (PhD, MD/PhD, or equivalent).

Firing these federal employees means that the government workforce lost people who dedicated themselves to learning as much as possible about their fields and gained expert knowledge and skills that are not easily replaceable. It takes years, sometimes close to a decade, to attain a PhD. Now, these respondents are unable to apply their skillsets in the employment area in which they were hired or to do careers they trained for that directly supported the American public.

When DOGE fired probationary employees the government lost the investment it had made in these people: the training, the clearances, the institutional knowledge, the specialized expertise built over careers

New Employment and Returning to Federal Service

Of the 298 respondents who provided information on their new job sector, only 11% returned to work as civil servants in the federal government.

Nearly half of these 298 respondents are now employed within the U.S. in non-federal jobs, such as roles in industry, academia, or state government. This shows that these employees left the federal government, leaving that workforce to suffer.

The last four charts explore whether respondents would consider returning to civil service if given the opportunity.

For some, this was a simple “yes” or “no,” but for others, this question is nuanced and difficult to address. Being illegally fired from their federal jobs took a huge toll on respondents’ mental health (for details see our dashboard on “Personal Impacts & Effects on Mental Health”), as well as caused financial stress, as seen in other responses.

Many respondents expressed concern about returning to the federal workforce because of fear of being targeted in future unlawful actions against federal employees. Growing partisanship in the government concerned some, while others worried about being asked to relocate and uproot their lives without any reassurances of a stable career.

Conclusion

The data from the survey respondents demonstrate the impact that the public will suffer as a result of these unlawful terminations. The loss of experienced and highly educated workers will hinder the U.S. government structure and ability to serve the public. Many of these workers are unlikely to come back soon to the federal service soon because the most common requirement for their return was a change in administration.