ANCHORAGE, Alaska — Federal employees across various agencies are facing termination under the Trump administration’s intensified downsizing efforts. The layoffs primarily target probationary employees, including both newcomers and experienced workers who recently transitioned into new roles.
Warren Hill, a maintenance supervisor at Lake Clark National Park and Preserve, was among those affected. After two decades of service, Hill was still classified as a probationary employee due to his recent promotion. His termination letter, received without prior notice, abruptly ended his career, nullifying retirement benefits he had been accruing for years.
Probationary status applies not only to new hires but also to seasoned professionals who shift agencies or accept new positions within the federal workforce. As a result, employees from the National Park Service, the U.S. Forest Service, the Department of Veterans Affairs, the Food and Drug Administration, and multiple other agencies have faced layoffs. Estimates suggest that over 2,000 positions at the U.S. Forest Service have been cut, with the Internal Revenue Service anticipating an additional 7,000 layoffs.
The Office of Personnel Management defended the move, stating, “The probationary period is a continuation of the job application process, not an entitlement for permanent employment.” Trump administration officials maintain that the initiative aligns with broader government efficiency measures, citing performance-based dismissals as a standard part of workforce management.
However, affected employees argue that terminations have been indiscriminate. Terri Wollenberg, a former U.S. Army and Navy veteran, had been working at the Cedar Rapids Veterans Center before being dismissed. “I didn’t even know I was on a list that could possibly be considered,” she said. With no immediate replacement, her responsibilities remain unfulfilled, disrupting operations at the facility.
Some workers intend to appeal their dismissals, but success remains uncertain given existing civil service regulations. Others, like Kayleigh McCarthy, a former U.S. Forest Service employee monitoring wildlife behavior, have expressed frustration over receiving termination letters citing performance issues despite consistent positive evaluations.
Labor unions have initiated legal action, challenging the legality of these mass layoffs. They claim that the removals disregard due process and have devastating economic consequences for affected employees and their communities.
The Trump administration’s approach to federal employment has sparked debate over the balance between reducing government expenditure and ensuring stable public service operations. As agencies proceed with workforce reductions, the long-term implications for federal service delivery and employee morale remain in question.
For further information on federal employment policies, visit the U.S. Office of Personnel Management.
