Government bodies are disregarding legal restrictions during administrative leave periods, thus forcing taxpayers to foot the bill.
In the first four months of 2025, over 100,000 federal employees have been placed on paid administrative leave, a practice that has raised concerns about its extent and legality.
The Administrative Leave Act of 2016 was designed to impose a 10-workday annual cap on administrative leave and eliminate its misuse. The legislative history of the Act makes clear that the goal was to eliminate agency discretion over extended paid leave, regardless of the agency's rationale for such leave.
However, there is no available information in the provided search results about specific government agencies using administrative leave beyond the guidelines of the Act since February 2025. This raises questions about the compliance of these agencies with the Act's limitations.
The Office of Personnel Management (OPM) has defended the use of administrative leave as a lawful exercise of agency discretion. However, OPM's interpretation of the Act, which defines "placed" on administrative leave to apply only in investigative contexts, is under scrutiny. Critics argue that this interpretation is unlawful, as the Act was intended to apply its 10-day limit on administrative leave broadly, not just to investigations.
The OPM's implementing regulations also define the term "placed" on administrative leave to refer only to leave used "for the purpose of conducting an investigation," making the 10-day limit applicable only to investigations. This interpretation, if correct, would make the Act's cap irrelevant for all other cases, allowing agencies to provide extended administrative leave without breaching the Act.
All employees on paid administrative leave are collecting full salaries but are explicitly barred from doing any work. This raises concerns about the productivity and efficiency of federal agencies, especially given the large numbers of employees on leave.
The deferred resignation program (DRP) is one of the programs that include participants on paid administrative leave. Court-ordered-reinstated probationary employees are also on paid administrative leave. DEIA employees are among those on paid administrative leave, although the reasons for their leave remain unclear.
The Senate version of the bill excluded language that would limit administrative leave for misconduct issues. This suggests a broader use of administrative leave, potentially for reasons other than investigations or misconduct.
The Merit Systems Protection Board has struck down leave periods lasting months, reiterating that administrative leave must be brief and directed toward furthering, not frustrating, agency operations. Comptroller General decisions since the 1970s have consistently held that prolonged paid leave exceeds agencies' authority.
Internal policies attempting to systematically authorise such leaves were deemed "tantamount to legislating." Agencies lack the authority to place employees on extended paid leave for any reason, let alone for the explicit purpose of impairing their own operations.
The absence of an explicit prohibition does not confer authority on agencies to provide extended administrative leave. The ongoing situation of federal employees on extended administrative leave, therefore, appears to be in direct contravention of the legislative mandate and judicial precedents.
As the situation evolves, it is crucial for federal agencies to adhere to the spirit and letter of the Administrative Leave Act of 2016 to ensure fairness, efficiency, and accountability in the federal workforce.
