Few issues have split Washington quite like the debate over where federal employees should work. Since the pandemic forced agencies to adopt mass telework in 2020, the U.S. government has been running a nationwide experiment in what “Work From Anywhere” really means. At its height, hundreds of thousands of federal workers logged in from homes across all 50 states, proving that essential services could continue even without traditional office presence.
Five years later, however, the pendulum is swinging back. What began as an emergency solution has turned into a tug-of-war between flexibility and control. Successive waves of policy, from OPM’s early encouragement of remote work, to Biden-era hybrid models, and now the 2025 mandate to end most remote arrangements-have reshaped how agencies think about the future of work. For employees, this has meant sudden changes to daily life, while for government leaders it has raised thorny questions about productivity, accountability, recruitment, and the billions tied up in federal office real estate.
With this backdrop, it’s worth examining how government-wide guidance has evolved and what it reveals about the broader debate over Work From Anywhere.
Federal Government Work From Anywhere Policy: Summary
Remote work in the federal government has never followed a single, stable path. Since 2020, policy has shifted from emergency telework to broader hybrid experimentation and then, by 2025, toward a much firmer push back to in-person work. That makes the federal government one of the clearest examples of how Work From Anywhere can become a political, operational, and cultural debate all at once.
For domestic work within the United States, the picture has changed dramatically. During and immediately after the pandemic, many agencies embraced telework and remote work at scale, with some employees working fully remotely across different states and agencies using hybrid schedules to support recruitment, retention, and continuity of service. More recently, however, that flexibility has narrowed. Government-wide direction has moved toward ending most remote arrangements and increasing full-time office attendance, even if implementation still varies by agency, role, union status, and exemption criteria.
International Work From Anywhere is not really the story here. Federal remote work has primarily been about allowing employees to work from approved locations within the United States rather than creating a cross-border mobility framework. In practice, the main policy question has been whether employees can work away from their assigned federal office, not whether they can work abroad for a set number of days.
What makes the federal government especially interesting is the scale of the trade-offs involved. Remote work expanded the talent pool, supported continuity, and improved flexibility for many employees, but it also triggered debates around fairness, public accountability, office space, service delivery, and political control. The result is not a simple remote-work model, but an evolving tug-of-war over what the future of public sector work should look like.
US Federal Government-Wide Guidance on Remote Work
In the U.S. federal government, “Work From Anywhere” generally refers to remote work and an arrangement where employees work from an approved alternate location (like home) and are not expected to regularly report to an agency office. This differs from traditional telework, where employees split time between home and office.
Government-wide policies on telework date back to the Telework Enhancement Act of 2010, which required agencies to establish telework programs. However, the scale of remote work expanded dramatically during COVID-19. By June 2024, about 207,000 federal employees, roughly 9% of the federal workforce, were working remotely across all 50 states (and even in 84% of U.S. counties). Remote federal workers by county (June 2024). Blue areas had the highest concentrations.
Early in the pandemic, federal agencies leaned heavily on telework to ensure continuity of operations. The Office of Personnel Management (OPM) and the White House encouraged agencies to leverage remote work for recruitment, retention, and real estate savings. In fact, OPM released a comprehensive 2021 Guide to Telework and Remote Work, highlighting how flexible work arrangements can improve work-life balance and drive results.
Agencies gained discretion to decide if and how to offer remote work, and OPM underscored that there is no “one-size-fits-all” policy for telework across government. Notably, OPM’s guidance distinguished telework from remote work and affirmed that while these flexibilities can boost efficiency and resilience, they are not an employee entitlement. Each agency was expected to craft policies fitting its mission and workforce needs.
Starting in mid-2023, the tone from the top began to shift. With COVID-19 impacts receding, the Biden Administration signaled it was time to “substantially increase in-person work” at agencies by the fall of 2023. The White House and OMB directed agencies to scale back pandemic-era telework levels, citing concerns about service delivery and underused office space. This push culminated in a dramatic policy reversal in early 2025: On January 20, 2025, a presidential memorandum instructed all executive agencies to end remote work arrangements and return employees to full-time in-person duty, allowing only limited exceptions.
Subsequent guidance from OPM and OMB clarified that exceptions could be made for “compelling reasons” like certain disabilities, medical needs, or military spouse relocations. This marked a clear shift in government-wide policy, from embracing flexibility to reasserting the primacy of physical office presence.
Using EOR’s to Support International Work
Some organisations choose to support international work through an Employer of Record (EOR), particularly when hiring employees in countries where they do not have a legal entity. While this can simplify local payroll and employment setup, it also introduces trade-offs around cost, control, employee experience, and long-term scalability. As remote work policies mature, many companies reassess whether an EOR model aligns with their broader Work From Anywhere strategy or whether alternative compliance-led approaches are more appropriate.
How Different Agencies Are Implementing WFA Policies
Remote Work in the Department of Defense (DoD)
The DoD’s stance on remote work has evolved significantly. During the pandemic, DoD components (like the Air Force) learned that many duties could be performed effectively offsite, leading senior leaders to overhaul telework policies and “leverage… increased telework posture into a more permanent posture”.
In January 2024, DoD issued a new policy (DoDI 1035.01) formally recognizing telework and remote work as valuable workforce tools, useful for retention (e.g. keeping talented military spouses or dispersed experts) and mission continuity. DoD explicitly instructed its components to encourage telework and remote work where mission-appropriate, while stressing these arrangements are voluntary flexibilities and not guaranteed rights. By spring 2024, about 8% of DoD’s 785,000 civilian employees were teleworking or remote.
However, after the January 2025 government-wide return-to-office order, DoD pivoted sharply. An initial memo directed that, absent specific exemptions, all DoD employees return to their duty stations full-time.
Soon after, in March 2025, DoD leadership issued strict guidance limiting “situational telework” only to rare, compelling needs (like weather emergencies or office closures). The memo emphasized that routine or recurring telework is no longer allowed as a workaround, and any telework must be intermittent, officially approved in advance, and justified by mission necessity.
In effect, the Pentagon has rolled back the flexibility it once embraced, complying with the mandate to terminate most remote work. This abrupt shift hasn’t been seamless: DoD employees, like many others, have faced confusion and logistical hiccups in the rush back to base. (Indeed, federal unions reported some returning staff found insufficient office space, even working from closets due to previous downsizing of facilities.)
Remote Work in the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA)
The VA, with its mix of frontline healthcare staff and headquarters offices, had allowed substantial teleworking. As of early 2025, over 20% of VA’s nearly 480,000 employees had some form of telework or remote arrangement. But VA is now moving in lockstep with the government-wide return-to-office push.
In February 2025, VA announced a new policy that “eligible employees must work full-time at their respective duty stations” unless exempted for disability or other compelling reasons. The agency laid out a phased plan: By February 24, 2025, all political appointees, senior executives, and supervisors within 50 miles of a VA facility had to terminate any regular telework or remote agreements (only occasional ad-hoc telework would remain).
By April 28, 2025, this applied to all non-union staff within 50 miles of an office as well. For now, VA employees beyond 50 miles (and unionized workers) are not required to return daily, pending further guidance. Notably, VA’s policy carves out exceptions for those with documented disabilities or serious medical conditions, and for certain military spouse employees who’ve relocated.
VA leadership argues this crackdown is about fairness and performance. “Most VA clinical staff don’t have the luxury of working remotely,” noted Acting VA Secretary Todd Hunter, calling the move “a commonsense step toward treating all VA employees equally.” He suggested that bringing everyone to the same in-person standard will improve collaboration and productivity across the department. This reflects a tension in agencies like VA: doctors and nurses have always been on-site to care for veterans, so there’s resentment if support staff stay home. By aligning headquarters and administrative personnel with the in-person culture of hospitals and clinics, VA hopes to boost overall teamwork (though some remote VA employees are understandably unhappy about losing flexibility).
Remote Work in the IRS and the Treasury Department
The IRS and other Treasury bureaus present another perspective. They greatly expanded telework during the pandemic – a change that, by Treasury’s own assessment, did not hurt productivity. In fact, Treasury officials told Congress in 2023 that increased telework had resulted in “consistent organizational performance, increased applicants for positions with telework, and stable retention and engagement” among employees. The IRS benefited from hiring talent outside the DC area and keeping experienced staff who might otherwise leave.
Nevertheless, by late 2023 and 2024, there was pressure to rein in these arrangements. The Treasury Department issued directives to increase the number of days employees must report on-site, aiming to curb extensive telework. This move met fierce resistance from the National Treasury Employees Union (NTEU), which represents IRS workers.
NTEU blasted the policy as “arbitrary” and out-of-touch with telework’s proven benefits, vowing to fight any attempts to roll back telework for bargaining-unit employees. Union leaders pointed out the irony: just months earlier, Treasury had praised telework’s success to Congress, and now it was “doubling down on unwise guidance” from OMB to force people back without evidence.
That OMB guidance (from April 2023) indeed had urged agencies to restore “organizational health” by getting more feds back in offices. But IRS employees and their union argue that telework has been a “win-win” – boosting productivity and morale – and that the focus should be on results rather than where work is done.
As of 2025, the tug-of-war continues. The House of Representatives (in a largely party-line vote) even passed a bill – the SHOW UP Act – which would cap federal telework at 25% of an employee’s work time and restore pre-pandemic in-office levels. While not enacted into law, it underscores the political divide: some lawmakers see extensive WFA arrangements as unacceptable. At the IRS and elsewhere, implementation of WFA now hinges on negotiations and the balance between executive branch mandates and union contracts.
Front-line IRS offices (like taxpayer assistance centers) are largely back to normal operations, but many headquarters and IT personnel had been teleworking and are now adjusting to hybrid schedules or returning more frequently.
Recent Shifts: From Hybrid Models Back to the Office
In the immediate aftermath of the pandemic, hybrid work (a mix of telework and office days) became the norm for many federal employees. Throughout 2021-2022, agencies experimented with flexible schedules, for example, allowing employees to work remotely several days per week, while maintaining some presence for team meetings or customer-facing tasks. This hybrid approach was backed by the administration at the time: agencies were told to make telework a part of workforce strategy and even consider remote-first positions to attract talent. By 2022, surveys showed improved employee engagement and no drop in mission performance under hybrid setups.
However, by mid-2023 a pivot began. Citing concerns about diminished services and empty federal buildings, the administration issued guidance to “substantially increase meaningful in-person work” by agency staff. This OMB memo (April 2023) prodded agencies to scale back telework from the elevated pandemic levels, while monitoring impacts on organizational performance. Agencies responded with updated “return-to-office” plans.
For instance, the Education Department in January 2025 ordered employees living within 50 miles of their office to return at least by February, albeit causing some chaos as workers scrambled to find desks and even which building to report.
The biggest jolt came with the change in administration in January 2025. The new President’s day-one directive to terminate remote work government-wide (with few exceptions) sent agencies rushing to comply. Federal employees who had been hired as “remote” or had moved far from their duty stations suddenly were told to either report in-person or seek exemptions. In many cases, hybrid arrangements were abolished in favor of full-time office attendance. This abrupt shift was challenging.
Some agencies had downsized office space during the hybrid era, anticipating continued telework, and suddenly had to accommodate a wave of returning staff. The American Federation of Government Employees (AFGE) union reported instances of agencies scrambling to find room for employees who had no assigned cubicles or offices anymore. As one union leader noted, “members… are having to work in closets because they don’t have the space”, raising workplace safety and logistical concerns.
Interestingly, even as the mandate pushes more feds back to the office, the government is continuing efforts to reduce its real estate footprint. The General Services Administration (GSA) has been tasked with shedding costly leases and even selling off underutilized federal buildings to save taxpayer dollars. Both the prior and current administrations agree there’s an opportunity to cut unused office space by a substantial percentage.
The paradox is evident: GSA is cancelling leases for “mostly empty” offices at the same time agencies are attempting to repopulate offices. It suggests that the federal workplace of the future may not simply revert to 2019 norms, but could involve more office sharing, hoteling workstations, and smaller footprints even if most staff are in-person. The hybrid era proved work can get done with fewer people on-site, and agencies may yet seek a middle ground and maximizing space efficiency while honoring the push for face-to-face collaboration.
Impact of WFA Policies on US Government Operations and Workforce
The grand telework experiment of the past few years has yielded a mix of positive outcomes and ongoing debates. Numerous studies and reports indicate that expanded remote work did not cripple government operations – and in many cases improved them. A GAO review found that at the pandemic’s peak, telework allowed agencies to maintain their missions and serve the public effectively, accounting for over 80% of work hours in some agencies.
Many managers were pleasantly surprised to see productivity surge in certain areas. For example, a U.S. Army Corps of Engineers division reported that with fewer office distractions and no commute, employees produced more outputs (like processing leases and contracts) while working remotely. Across government, employees enjoyed better work-life balance, and employee satisfaction scores in surveys rose for those teleworking frequently, reflecting reduced stress and commuting fatigue.
OPM reported that federal employees who teleworked at least three days a week had higher engagement scores, and agencies saved on real estate and energy costs with fewer bodies in buildings.
One of the clearest benefits of WFA has been on recruitment and retention. Offering remote work greatly widens the talent pool. OPM found that job announcements advertising remote work got, on average, 366 applications vs. just 51 for similar non-remote positions.
In other words, seven times more people apply when a job can be done from anywhere. Agencies that embraced remote hiring were more likely to hit their targets for filling mission-critical roles. This makes intuitive sense – a qualified cybersecurity expert in rural America might jump at a federal job if it doesn’t require uprooting to Washington, DC. Likewise, current employees have been more likely to stay in federal service if they can relocate or telework when life demands (whether following a spouse’s military reassignment or attending to family needs). These flexibilities helped the government keep valuable employees who might otherwise quit.
Even DoD acknowledged remote work can help “retain valuable employees with hard-to-replace, mission essential skills” and keep military spouses employed despite moves. In short, WFA options became a selling point for government jobs, which historically struggled to compete with private-sector salaries and now agencies could compete with location flexibility and stability.
From a productivity standpoint, evidence tilts positive as well. Unions and employees tout that output remained steady (or even improved) with telework. The NTEU cited Treasury’s own data that teleworkers delivered consistent performance. Some supervisors observed employees putting in longer hours at home, with no commute, many were logging on earlier and off later, essentially donating extra work time. However, measuring knowledge-worker productivity is complex. Skeptics argue that not everything can be quantified in spreadsheets; they worry about intangible losses like creativity, mentorship of junior staff, and cross-pollination of ideas, all harder to cultivate over Zoom.
There is also a customer service angle: agencies like the Social Security Administration and IRS faced criticism for backlogs and slow call center response times during the pandemic, which critics linked (fairly or not) to remote work. For example, in early 2023 Republicans in Congress blamed expanded telework for passport processing delays and veterans’ claims backlogs, insisting that more hands on deck in offices would improve service.
Many of those claims were anecdotal, and agency leaders often countered that the delays were due to sheer volume and outdated systems, not telework per se. Nonetheless, public perception of government efficiency became part of the debate.
The impact on operations also extends to real estate and local economies. With thousands of feds not commuting, downtown business districts (especially in Washington, DC) saw far fewer workers patronizing restaurants and shops.
DC’s Mayor even pleaded in early 2023 for the federal workforce to return, noting that vacant offices hurt the city’s revenue and vibrancy. Federal buildings remained costly but underutilized, rent and maintenance had to be paid regardless of occupancy. By one account, early in 2023 many agency HQs were only at ~25% capacity on a given day, prompting tough questions about why taxpayers should fund millions of square feet of empty space. These fiscal and community impacts added pressure on agencies to find a new normal.
Challenges and Controversies Surrounding Work-From-Anywhere in the US Government
WFA policies in government have not been without controversy. A core challenge has been management culture and trust. Pre-pandemic, many federal managers were skeptical that employees working out-of-sight would truly be productive. As one study noted, before 2020 senior leaders often equated physical presence with productivity. The pandemic forced a change in mindset, but some of that old-school attitude remains.
Supervisors worry about how to mentor and monitor staff remotely, how to build team cohesion over distance, and whether a remote employee is as focused as one in-office. There have been cases of abuse, the occasional employee “working” from a beach or holding multiple jobs remotely, fueling those wary of WFA. Ensuring accountability and performance standards in a virtual setting continues to be a management learning curve, requiring new metrics and frequent communication.
Another controversy is equity. When some employees can work from anywhere and others (by nature of their job) cannot, it can breed resentment. We saw this at VA: doctors, nurses, and hospital staff had to be on-site throughout COVID, while many headquarters staff worked from home. Morale issues arise if telework is seen as a perk for a privileged few. By forcing even headquarters employees back in person, agency leaders claim they are leveling the playing field.
Similarly, within a single agency, not all roles are telework-eligible, those in labs, security-sensitive roles, or public-facing jobs might have no choice. Unions have argued that eligibility determinations must be fair and not based on favoritism. OPM’s guidance urges agencies to clearly define which positions are remote-eligible and communicate that to employees. This way, employees understand if their job can or cannot be done remotely (and why).
A big practical challenge has been the whiplash in policies and the speed of changes. Federal employees went from being urged to stay home for safety, to being recruited with promises of remote work, to suddenly being told to get back to their cubicles, all within a couple of years. This has understandably caused confusion and stress.
The rushed return-to-office in 2023-2025 led to reports of agencies ill-prepared for the influx: not enough workstations, IT infrastructure hiccups back in the office, and even people unsure “where their office is… or where their cubicle is” after so long away. The lack of comprehensive change management is a lesson learned. Moving forward, if agencies adjust telework levels, it’s clear they need to plan transitions more carefully, update space plans, and give employees adequate notice to adjust their lives.
There are also legal and bargaining battles underway. Federal unions (like NTEU and AFGE) are fighting sweeping rollbacks of telework, citing contractual telework rights. Some changes – especially affecting unionized employees – must be negotiated.
Unions have filed grievances and unfair labor practice complaints in instances where agencies unilaterally canceled telework agreements. In Congress, as mentioned, partisan lines are drawn: some Republicans want to crack down on WFA (with bills to cap telework or even slash locality pay for remote workers), while Democrats have generally defended telework flexibility and questioned whether forcing a return might prompt valuable employees to quit. This politicization means WFA policy could swing again with future elections.
Finally, security and technical challenges deserve note. Agencies have had to ensure that remote workers can access government networks securely. Cybersecurity protocols, VPN capacity, and data protection for a dispersed workforce required major upgrades (many fast-tracked in 2020).
Classified work largely cannot be done remotely, which limits WFA for intelligence and defense personnel handling secrets. DoD’s remote work policy explicitly requires compliance with strict security guidelines and tech requirements for any telework or remote arrangement. There’s also the issue of “locality pay” – federal salaries are partly adjusted based on the duty station’s cost-of-living. Remote workers have their home as their official station, which can lower their pay if they move to a cheaper area (saving the government money). But teleworkers who occasionally come to a high-cost city office still get that higher locality pay even if living elsewhere most of the time. Some lawmakers found this unfair and proposed tying pay strictly to where an employee lives and works most days. It’s a wonky but contentious detail in the WFA debate around “paying San Francisco salaries for Boise-based teleworkers.”
Finding the Right Balance
As of late 2025, the federal government is still searching for the sweet spot in Work From Anywhere policies. The pendulum swung toward maximum flexibility during the pandemic, and now is swinging back toward traditional in-person norms – perhaps too far back, according to many employees. The challenge ahead will be incorporating the lessons learned: productivity can remain high with remote work, and recruitment does benefit from casting a wider geographic net, but agencies also have legitimate reasons to bring people together, from fostering innovation to better serving the public.
It’s likely that a hybrid model – albeit not as liberal as 2021’s – will re-emerge once the dust settles. Even the recent GAO report cautioned that eliminating remote work entirely could mean losing out on those benefits agencies discovered, and recommended that OPM develop new guidance to help agencies assess the costs and benefits of remote work in a structured way. In other words, rather than blanket policies driven by politics, decisions on WFA should be informed by data on what works and what doesn’t for each agency’s mission.
For federal employees and managers, the ongoing debate has been tense, but there are signs of compromise. Some agencies are exploring hoteling and collaborative spaces to allow part-time telework without costly dedicated offices.
Pilot programs are underway in a few places to let employees work from anywhere in the U.S. for several weeks a year as a retention perk, even if they must be mostly in-office. And technology, from improved video conferencing to virtual project management tools, continues to shrink the gap between remote and in-person collaboration.
The federal government’s venture into widespread WFA has unquestionably modernized its approach to work. It broke old stigmas and proved that “the government can operate outside of government buildings”.
The current return-to-office drive, fueled by concerns over culture and accountability, is testing how much flexibility will endure. In the end, a balanced approach will likely prevail: one that embraces remote work where it makes sense and improves service, while still uniting teams in person when needed to uphold the sense of common purpose in public service. The conversation is far from over, but it has moved the federal workforce toward a more engaging, adaptive, and family-friendly future – all while continuing to serve the American people effectively, no matter where the work gets done.
Key Takeaways
The federal government’s Work From Anywhere journey has been complex, swinging from full telework to hybrid flexibility and now back to mandated office presence. These shifts highlight both the potential and the pitfalls of remote work at scale.
- Flexibility works: Remote and hybrid models helped agencies maintain services, boost employee satisfaction, and attract more applicants to federal jobs.
- Policy swings are disruptive: The shift from full telework to hybrid and now back to mandated office attendance has caused confusion, morale issues, and logistical challenges.
- Not all roles are equal: Agencies struggle with equity between frontline staff who must be in person (e.g. healthcare, security) and headquarters staff who could work remotely.
- Recruitment advantage is real: Remote-eligible roles consistently draw far more applicants, widening the federal talent pool across the country.
- Politics shape the debate: Congressional scrutiny, union pushback, and public perception all influence how far WFA can realistically go in government.
- Balance is the future: A purely remote or purely in-office model is unlikely to last. The most sustainable path will be data-driven hybrid policies tailored to each agency’s mission.
In short, Work From Anywhere in government has proven valuable but politically contested. The next phase will depend on how agencies strike a balance between flexibility, fairness, and mission delivery.
Interested in learning more about EOR compliance?
Donal Brady is Co-Founder and Head of Product at Work From Anywhere, a platform to help companies execute a successful workation policy. He has deep expertise and experience in the world of remote work having spent nearly twenty years working in finance leadership roles with global multinationals like PwC, before entering the world of global mobility with International SOS and then pivoting into the software industry with Accel-KKR backed Smart Communications. He walks the walk with Work From Anywhere, speaking 5 languages, having travelled to 65+ countries and worked in 10.
