The federal workforce is an important part of the American labor force, with an estimated 3 million individuals employed directly by federal agencies and 5.22 million individuals working as federal contractors. The “blended” nature of the federal workforce, with its combination of government and private sector employees, makes it a difficult group to study. Even basic questions such as “how many veterans are in the federal workforce?” and “what are their characteristics?” are difficult questions to answer.
These basic questions are important, however, because policy issues about the federal workforce involve not just economics, but also politics. As evidenced by recent controversies surrounding the Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE), treatment of federal employees with prior military service is politically sensitive. Recent firings involving veterans triggered a substantial backlash in Congress.
The language used by policymakers in discussing the DOGE-driven firings illustrates the sensitivity around veterans. Senator Patty Murray, vice-chair of the Senate Appropriations Committee, said President Trump and Elon Musk “heartlessly” fired “thousands who’ve served in uniform.” Speaker of the House Mike Johnson was put on the defensive and told reporters “we have to take care of our veterans” and that he had spoken “personally” to Elon Musk about the issue. The sensitivity of lawmakers to issues facing veterans is partly due to the political clout of the group, but more generally reflects the American public’s "overwhelmingly positive" perceptions of military veterans.
Beyond shrinking the number of federal employees, DOGE has a significant focus on terminating federal contracts. Federal policy has encouraged the hiring of veterans as contract workers and DOGE initiatives will likely drive concerns by Congress on that part of the federal workforce as well.
This article culls data from a variety of sources to provide a baseline portrait of veterans in the two parts of the federal workforce: employees and contract workers. This portrait should help policymakers and labor market analysts better understand the size and characteristics of the federal workforce with prior military service, which in turn can inform discussions of federal personnel and labor market policy.
The veteran footprint in federal employment is extensive. Based on data from the Office of Personnel and Management and the Postal Service, there are 716,000 veterans directly employed by the government. Thus, about 24 percent of federal employees have prior military service. By way of comparison, tabulations from a household survey focused on veterans reveal that fewer than 5 percent of private sector workers are military veterans.
Further, many federal employees with veteran status are in politically-sensitive groups. Based on the household survey data, 53.3 percent of these employees served in combat or war zones and 39.6 percent have service-connected disabilities (rated 30% disabled or higher). About 1 of every 10 federal employees has a serious disability connected to military service (the number for the private sector is about 1 in 100).
Data on the makeup of federal contract workers is harder to come by, even though contract workers outnumber workers directly employed by federal agencies and the postal service. Based on a comparison of household survey estimates with published estimates using personnel data, some federal contract workers appear to report in surveys that they are employees of the federal government. Among these contract workers, I estimate 16.3 percent have prior military service.
Using the 16.3 percent figure and a separate estimate of the total number of federal contract workers (5.22 million), a ballpark estimate of the number of federal contract workers with prior military service is 851,000. Veterans in the overall federal workforce, therefore, total about 1.6 million individuals, with a somewhat even division between employees and contractors. This implies about 1 in every 5 employed veterans in the country is in the federal workforce.
Congress is likely to be surprised, even blind-sided, by future DOGE efforts. Elon Musk, almost as a foundational principle, said DOGE will move “fast” and therefore “make mistakes.” Extensive employment protections for some groups of veterans in the federal workforce may well be ignored in practice or policy. Additionally, the “young engineer” culture of DOGE is very unlikely to be socialized or sensitive to the experiences of many Americans during the post-9/11 conflicts in Iraq and Afghanistan. Household survey data indicate that about 26 percent of federal employees with veteran status served “in country” in Iraq or Afghanistan.
Congress should also be aware that the DOGE approach to reducing the federal workforce includes both formal and irregular approaches. The irregular approaches are best reflected in words by Russell Vought, head of the Office of Management and Budget, who has talked of “traumatizing” the federal workforce and recently referred to it as "corrupt." These words reflect an overarching strategy of making federal workers uncomfortable in the workplace with the hope they simply leave. But, this type of language from a top official in government, when implemented at lower levels in a variety of ways, could easily lead to scandals that catch Congress off guard.
This article uses data from a variety of sources to provide a portrait of veterans in the federal workforce, but more and better data would help Congress rationally think through federal workforce policy. In particular, because of DOGE’s stated goal to move “fast,” Congress should require the executive branch to provide real-time data about exits from federal employment. Further, because of DOGE’s irregular approaches to shrinking the federal workforce, Congress needs data on all exits from the workforce, not just formal terminations. The old ways of congressional oversight – waiting months for a congressional agency to issue a report on activities of the executive branch – are ill-suited for DOGE oversight. Real-time and comprehensive reporting to Congress would allow lawmakers to quickly react to emerging problems.
There is also a pressing need for more data on federal contractors with prior military service. This article has provided estimates for the size of this group, but little is known about the characteristics of these veterans. Congress may well get caught flat-footed if politically-sensitive groups are laid off due to DOGE cancellation of federal contracts.
Not only should Congress require more data from the executive branch, but it should make that data publicly available. This would allow for better forecasts of the effects of federal personnel policy on the broader labor market and economy. Published data would also allow the private sector, perhaps in conjunction with government, to develop programs to assist federal workers transitioning to other parts of the workforce. Such programs may be particularly important for some groups, such as disabled veterans, who have, in the past, very disproportionately relied on federal opportunities for employment.
Comment
Show comments
Hide Comments
