While Congress struggles to fund the government through September, watch for potential changes to federal benefits and employment under ongoing resolutions.

As Congress grapples with funding the government ahead of the new fiscal year, the Trump administration's agenda may complicate matters further. John Hatton, the staff vice president of the National Active and Retired Federal Employees Association (NARFE), shared his insights during a recent interview on the Federal Drive with Tom Temin. Hatton points out that the continuing resolution (CR) currently under consideration in the Senate does not inspire confidence, as it keeps funding levels flat without allowing for necessary adjustments or reprioritization essential for future planning. The partisan nature of the CR is evident; it passed with little bipartisan support, and while it may keep the government running temporarily, it introduces potential long-term consequences for federal employees. Hatton warns that federal benefits could become a target in future discussions, particularly under the House's proposed congressional budget resolution aimed at reducing the deficit by $50 billion. This budgetary pressure raises alarms about federal benefits cuts as the House committee on Oversight and Government Reform explores where such savings might come from. Hatton elaborated on two significant proposals that pose a threat to federal employee benefits: increasing contributions to the retirement annuity for current employees and the potential 'voucherization' of the Federal Employees Health Benefits Program. The former would essentially function as a pay cut, as employees would contribute more without receiving additional benefits, while the latter could drastically increase out-of-pocket expenses for both current employees and retirees due to a growing gap between government contributions and actual health care costs. While the proposed measures haven't reached formal legislation yet, the discourse suggests that long-standing benefits may face gradual erosion rather than a dramatic overhaul. Hatton likens this scenario to 'death by a thousand cuts.' He acknowledges that some drastic proposals, like eliminating the FERS annuity entirely, are floating around but not currently a focus of active legislation. The landscape for federal employment is equally concerning; a large-scale workforce reduction is anticipated, with some agencies already initiating layoffs amid ongoing administration efforts. Notifications for reductions in force (RIFs) may vary significantly across agencies, leading to inconsistencies in how employee terminations are enacted. Agencies perceived as politically less favorable might face more severe cuts, complicating the government's operational capabilities. Moreover, Hatton stresses the importance of legal recourse for those affected by these decisions, urging individuals to explore their rights and seek legal consultation where necessary. As the discord between executive actions and congressional directives comes to a head within the context of the CR, it appears the impacts on federal employees could be profound and pervasive. In light of all this, it is evident that the ongoing discussions and resolutions concerning government funding are pivotal for the future of federal employment and benefits. With both legal and legislative strategies likely to emerge as a battleground for federal workers, the situation bears close monitoring. This article has been analyzed and reviewed by artificial intelligence to ensure clarity and accuracy.