The commenter, identifying as a private citizen, opposes the proposed rule because it expands executive discretion and risks undermining the merit-based, nonpartisan principles of the career civil service. They argue that the rule could be used to sideline career employees during reorganizations and urge the OPM to withdraw or substantially revise the proposal to protect civil service independence.

The commenter, identifying as a private citizen, opposes the proposed rule because they believe it retroactively legitimizes a costly and ineffective deferred resignation program that lacks proper oversight. They argue that existing statutory tools like VERA and VSIP are superior for workforce reduction and criticize the rule for unfairly restricting employees' ability to withdraw resignations and prohibiting administrative leave for poll work.

The commenter argues that the proposed rule could be used as a tool for permanent downsizing and the loss of specialized expertise in critical fields like epidemiology and maternal health. They request that OPM clarify that administrative leave should not be a routine workforce reduction strategy and that agencies must prove mission requirements can still be met.

The commenter argues that workforce reductions will have negative consequences on essential public health services. They highlight specific risks to outbreak response, laboratory capacity, and maternal and infant health.

The commenter opposes the use of administrative leave as a tool for workforce realignment. They argue that expanding the use of administrative leave for workforce reduction undermines its original purpose and advocates for maintaining transparent, established civil service procedures for restructuring.

The commenter, identifying as a federal employee and member of the public, opposes the proposed rule because it allows administrative leave to bypass established reduction-in-force (RIF) regulations and codifies a wasteful program that has already caused operational paralysis. They argue that the rule ignores the significant economic multiplier effects of federal employees on local communities and request that OPM withdraw the rule and conduct a more comprehensive economic impact analysis.