Federal Government Paid Billions for Administrative Leave in 2025
Left 50%
Center 50%
Right 0%
2 left · 2 center · 0 right
What happened
On Tuesday, the Government Accountability Office released a report estimating that federal agencies spent $9.5 billion on paid administrative leave for federal employees in 2025, a 435 percent increase from 2023. About $6.7 billion of that total was associated with the Deferred Resignation Program, a January 2025 Office of Personnel Management buyout offered as part of Department of Government Efficiency efforts to shrink the workforce. Employees who opted in could stop working and still receive pay through September 30, 2025; GAO counted roughly 144,000 participants from agency leave data. OPM Director Scott Kupor said the $9.5 billion was a one-time cost against claimed savings of about $40 billion a year from a smaller federal workforce. GAO said its figures are estimates because OPM does not separately track leave used for workforce-reduction programs.
Sourcing check · Fully on the record · 4 articles
4 of 4 articles cite a named source for the story. It was on the record from the first report.
What these terms mean and how they're counted
- On the record · names a source 4 of 4
- On the record means the article cites a source by name for the story's main claim: a person, or an institution speaking officially, such as a company statement or a named agency's spokesperson. The opposite is an unnamed source. The count is how many of the counted articles cite at least one such source; the names are everyone named across them, each once however the articles spell it. Here: Government Accountability Office, Scott Kupor and Douglas Pasternak
- Primary evidence · cites a document or data 4 of 4
- Primary evidence means the article cites a record you could check yourself: a court filing or ruling, a dataset or report, a recording or transcript, an official statement or press release, market data. A quote is not a document. The count is how many articles cite one. Here: GAO report, report
- Credits another outlet 0 of 4
- The article says the story comes from another outlet's reporting (“first reported by Reuters”). Those articles relay the story; they are not independent confirmation. Here: Each article presents its own reporting.
- Unnamed sources 0 of 4
- The main claim is attributed to people who are not identified: “people familiar with the matter”, “officials said”. The count is how many articles do this.
- How it developed
- When the first report landed and whether it named anyone; when the first named source and the first document appeared. Here: First report Sep 16, 20:45 UTC by ABC News, naming its source. First document in the first report, from ABC News (GAO report).
- Not counted 0
- Opinion, analysis and video pieces, and articles too short to assess. Every count above is out of the counted articles. An article republished under a new headline is one article.
This is about who is cited, not whether the story is true. Each source below says what it names. How we count
BLINDSPOT.
Only left-leaning outlets are covering this story
— the other side's media is silent.
Omitted — what each side leaves out
Unpacked
Right-leaning outlets had not covered this as of publication, so those readers miss that paid-leave costs for federal workers jumped under the DOGE buyouts. Left-leaning coverage reports the GAO estimate as the short-run price of shrinking government, but splits over whether to include the administration's defense. ABC News carries the personnel office's claim that the spending is a one-time bill for lasting payroll cuts, while NBC News says the White House did not respond. Without that defense, the $9.5 billion reads as pay for idle staff rather than a transition cost.
ABC News and the Guardian describe the outlays as pay for employees "not to work," not as ordinary administrative leave.
Has anyone shown that the deferred resignations produced the yearly savings the administration claims?
Bottom line
Right-leaning media has not reported the GAO leave findings, so readers there never see the $9.5 billion figure or OPM's claim, quoted by ABC News, of a 400% return.
The receipts — 6 facts one side's coverage lacks
- Federal agencies spent an estimated $9.5 billion on paid administrative leave in 2025
- OPM director Scott Kupor said the workforce reduction would save $40 billion per year
- About $6.7 billion of the leave spending was tied to the deferred resignation program
- GAO said OPM does not know the actual costs of paid administrative leave used for workforce reduction efforts
- GAO said it could not determine whether the leave program's long-term savings goals were met
- Some departments reversed cuts and hired workers back after positions were eliminated
The Left View
Outlets covering the report, including The Hill, NBC News, ABC News, The Guardian, and CBS News, led with GAO’s $9.5 billion 2025 leave-cost estimate and the $6.7 billion share tied to the deferred-resignation buyout. They reported a 435 percent rise in paid administrative leave from 2023 to 2025, salary costs about six times 2023 levels, and federal workforce reductions on the order of 216,000 to 271,000 after January 2025. Left-leaning coverage framed the spending as paying employees not to work, cited the “Fork in the Road” email and Elon Musk’s role at DOGE, and carried criticism from Sen. Patty Murray and Public Citizen that the cuts were poorly planned and disrupted services. CBS News and others also quoted Kupor’s claim of roughly $40 billion in annual savings and noted GAO’s finding that OPM cannot isolate actual program costs or confirm whether long-term savings goals were met.
Our Take (balanced)
The story is substantive: it rests on a named GAO report with specific dollar estimates, leave-day counts, a documented OPM program, and an on-the-record agency response. Established: GAO estimated $9.5 billion in 2025 administrative-leave salary costs, about $6.7 billion linked to the Deferred Resignation Program, a 435 percent increase in reported leave use from 2023 to 2025, and that OPM does not know actual DRP leave costs because they are mixed with other paid leave. Unverified in this record is OPM’s claim of $40 billion a year in savings; GAO said it could not determine whether government-wide savings goals were met. No right-leaning outlet has reported this. Watch for the full GAO report and tables, OPM’s methodology for the $40 billion figure, and whether OPM creates the separate leave-tracking category GAO recommended.
6 sources
- Federal employees were paid nearly $7B not to work under DOGE effort: GAO
- Trump administration spent $9.5B last year on employee leave, driven by DOGE-era cuts
- Federal employees paid $9.5 billion not to work in 2025: GAO
- US government paid federal employees $9.5bn not to work amid Doge cuts – report
- Feds paid $9.5 billion in leave costs in 2025 due to DOGE buyout
- Federal agencies spent $9.5 billion on salary costs for administrative leave in 2025
More stories
The week's bottom lines, in your inbox
One email a week: the five stories that mattered and what they actually mean. Free.