Administrative Leave for Federal Employees: A Paid Vacation or a Management Tool?

The terms "administrative leave" and "authorized absence" have been in the news infrequently over the years, often linked to high-profile scandals at agencies like the Veterans Administration (VA) and the Internal Revenue Service (IRS). More recently, the Trump Administration turned these forms of leave into a weapon against federal employees as it sought to decimate the federal workforce in accordance with Project 2025 instructions. But what do these terms actually mean for a federal employee? Are they a form of discipline? A paid vacation? Or a necessary tool for managers?

This post breaks down what administrative leave is, how it's used (and misused), and why it’s a constant point of contention in the federal sector.

(Note: For the purpose of this article, we will use the term "administrative leave" to cover the synonymous "authorized absence." We are also specifically excluding the topic of "official time" used by union representatives for union-related activities.)

Background: The "Deferred Resignation Program" (DRP) and Administrative Leave for Federal Employees

A more notable and recent, large-scale example of administrative leave was the "Deferred Resignation Program" (DRP) introduced in early 2025. This program, sarcastically nicknamed the "fork in the road" by the Trump administration was (ostensibly) a voluntary offer to a large portion of the federal workforce. The original goal of the Trump Administration and Project 2025 was to simply fire hundreds of thousands of federal employees. Once the Trump Administration realized that the action was not only illegal, but would most assuredly be overturned by the courts, which it was, they developed the Deferred Resignation Program.

Here’s how it used administrative leave:

1. The Offer: Eligible federal employees could agree to voluntarily resign from their positions.

   
   

2. The Leave: In exchange, they were immediately placed on paid administrative leave for several months (typically until September 30, 2025) and not required to perform any work, or even remain available for recall. Experts argued this use of administrative leave was illegal.

   
   

3. The Result: Federal employees continued to receive their full salary and benefits while on administrative leave, but they were not required to work. In fact, they were authorized to work a second job while still being paid by taxpayers. Ironically, this occurred during a record period in which hundreds of thousands of Americans in the private sector were being laid off. These same federal employees, while being paid by taxpayers, were now directly competing with the same taxpayers, for a decreasing number of jobs in the private sector.

   
   

This program was the largest-ever, and most costly uses, of administrative leave for a non-disciplinary, non-investigative purpose.

Employees and Estimated Cost

The scale of the DRP was massive, with reliable estimates suggesting over 154,000 federal employees accepted the offer.

The cost became a subject of significant political debate.

• Cost Estimates: Critics of the program, including congressional Democrats, estimated the short-term cost of paying so many employees not to work was approximately no less than $15 billion dollars. The Trump administration essentially paid 15 billion dollars of taxpayer money for employees to not work.

  
  

Regardless of the political debate, the DRP serves as a powerful and misused example of administrative leave being used as a large-scale workforce management tool.

What Administrative Leave Is (And What It Isn't)

At its core, administrative leave is an absence from duty granted by an agency without charging the employee leave (like annual or sick leave) and with no loss in pay. The most critical point to understand is that placing a federal employee on administrative leave is not a disciplinary or adverse action under the law. Subsequently, there is no basis for an actionable appeal to the Merit Systems Protection Board (MSPB). However, it could form the actionable and legitimate basis for a complaint to the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC).

An Adverse Action is defined as a removal, a suspension of more than 14 calendar days, a furlough without pay for up to 30 calendar days, or a reduction in grade or pay.

A Disciplinary Action is defined as corrective action for misconduct, such as written reprimands, suspensions from duty without pay, or involuntary reductions in grade.

Placing an employee on paid leave does not fall into either of these categories. The Federal Labor Relations Authority (FLRA) has also traditionally considered the common term "excused absence" to be a form of administrative leave. (Social Security Administration, San Juan Teleservice Center, 101 FLRR 1-1012)

Common Uses for Administrative Leave

Before proceedings, it is important to first note that the Office of Personnel Management (OPM) is the primary and ultimate regulator concerning any use of administrative leave. While agencies have regulatory discretion, its regulations cannot conflict with OPM guidance.

For many federal employees, the most familiar use of administrative leave (or "excused absence") is for situations like:

• Inclement weather shutdowns

• Blood donations

• Specific agency-sponsored volunteer activities

• Other regulatory basis as determined by the agency. Note, agency regulations can vary from agency to agency.

However, the most high-profile use is placing an employee on administrative leave pending the results of an investigation or while a personnel action is being decided. This is a common practice in sensitive matters, allowing the agency to conduct its inquiry without interference while keeping the employee in a paid status.

The Controversial Side: Negotiability and Overuse

This is where administrative leave gets complicated. The negotiability of this leave—meaning, what unions can bargain for—is "all over the place." Management officials have a right to assign work, and any proposal that forces an agency to grant leave, stripping it of its discretion, is generally nonnegotiable. (97 FLRR 1-1123). Further, no employee has any "right" to access the workplace. Access and authorization to the workplace is solely controlled and determined by the agency through its supervisors and managers.

Despite this, managers have often been very generous, sometimes due to a lack of understanding of their own rights. This has led to collective bargaining agreements or local agreements that grant administrative leave for a huge variety of reasons, including:

• Employee birthdays

• Employee appreciation days

• Non-agency volunteer activities

• Holiday shutdowns

• Fitness activities

• Participation in counseling related to agency drug testing programs

Note, with the elimination of federal labor unions in the federal workplace as of the publication date of this article, negotiability is no longer an issue.

When Good Intentions Go Wrong

This generosity has led to some absurd situations and labor disputes.

• Birthday Leave: The Department of Veterans Affairs was hit with an Unfair Labor Practice (ULP) complaint when it unilaterally ended its practice of giving employees four hours of administrative leave on their birthdays. The FLRA sided with the union, forcing the VA to bargain over the change. (DVA Medical Center, Asheville, N.C., 96 FLRR 1-1068)

• The Telework Shutdown: In one case, a union (AFGE Local 3911) argued that when the agency's official duty site closed for weather, employees at alternative sites (like teleworkers) should also be excused from duty. The FLRA, fortunately, drew a line, stating that employees scheduled to work at other sites are not entitled to excused absences just because the main office closes. (104 LRP 35923)

These examples highlight a significant tension: management's need to control its workforce versus a union's desire to negotiate benefits, sometimes to an illogical extreme. However, the bottom line is that no employee has a right to administrative leave.

An Update on Congressional Reform

The widespread and sometimes decades-long use of administrative leave for employees under investigation (as seen in the VA scandals) caught the attention of Congress. In 2016, the House approved reform measures aimed at curbing potential abuse and limiting how long an employee can remain on paid leave during an investigation.

The most significant change came from the Administrative Leave Act of 2016. This law was passed by Congress to address the widespread and costly overuse of paid leave, especially for employees under investigation for long periods. Before this act, "administrative leave" was an informal, all-purpose category of paid, excused absence. The 2016 law reformed this by statutorily defining and splitting paid leave into several new, distinct categories.

Changes from the Administrative Leave Act of 2016

1. Creation of New, Specific Leave Categories: The act largely replaced the old, generic "administrative leave" with three new types of paid, non-duty status:

   • Investigative Leave: This is for employees placed on leave while under an investigation. It has strict time limits and requires escalating agency approval for extensions.

   • Notice Leave: This applies to employees who have been served with a notice of a proposed adverse action (like a removal or suspension).

   • Weather and Safety Leave: This new category formally authorizes paid leave when an agency is closed or an employee cannot report to work due to weather, an act of God, a terrorist attack, or other safety concerns.

2. Strict Limits on Traditional "Administrative Leave": The original, undefined "administrative leave" is now severely restricted. Under the law and its implementing regulations (which were finalized by OPM in late 2024), its use is generally capped at 10 workdays (or 80 hours) per employee in a calendar year. This leave is now intended only for brief absences that don't fit the other new categories (e.g., blood donation or voting).

3. Increased Accountability: The law requires federal agencies to meticulously track and report the use of these new leave categories separately, putting an end to the practice of lumping all paid absences into one unmonitored "administrative leave" bucket.

In short, Congress effectively eliminated the old, undefined use of administrative leave for long-term absences and replaced it with a much stricter, more accountable system with specific leave categories and time limits.

Conclusion

Administrative leave is a critical, and often misunderstood, management tool. It is not a punishment or an employee righjt, but a neutral duty status action that allows an agency to function during investigations, weather events, or other situations. However, its application is a complex balancing act, caught between agency discretion, employee rights, and the often-bizarre world of union negotiations (when applicable)..