Office of Consumer Advocate Building – Iowa Utilities Commission (.gov)

Report on U.S. Federal Workforce Reductions and Implications for Sustainable Development Goals

Executive Summary: Institutional Capacity and Sustainable Development

A series of executive orders and administrative actions have initiated mass reductions in force (RIFs) across the United States federal government. These actions, aimed at the “maximum elimination” of functions not explicitly required by law, present significant challenges to the nation’s ability to achieve the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs). The widespread layoffs undermine SDG 16 (Peace, Justice and Strong Institutions) by systematically weakening the capacity of federal agencies to perform their core missions. Furthermore, the loss of an estimated 700,000 federal positions directly contravenes the principles of SDG 8 (Decent Work and Economic Growth). This report details the departmental impacts of these workforce reductions, analyzing their specific implications for various SDGs.

Departmental Impact Analysis

• Agriculture Department (USDA)

  The planned relocation of 2,600 headquarters staff and the separation of 15,000 employees threaten the stability of programs essential for SDG 2 (Zero Hunger) and SDG 15 (Life on Land). The reduction in institutional knowledge and operational capacity may compromise food safety, agricultural research, and conservation efforts.

• Commerce Department

  RIF notices issued to 600 employees, including at the Census Bureau and Minority Business Development Agency, directly impact SDG 10 (Reduced Inequalities). These cuts risk impairing the collection of vital demographic data and diminishing support for minority-owned enterprises, both crucial for equitable economic development.

• Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB)

  Initial RIFs targeting 1,500 personnel, or 88% of the workforce, represent a severe threat to the institution’s ability to protect consumers. This weakening of regulatory oversight undermines progress toward SDG 8 (Decent Work and Economic Growth) and SDG 10 by leaving citizens vulnerable to predatory financial practices.

• Education Department

  The layoff of approximately one-third of the workforce (1,300 employees), with an additional 465 RIF notices issued, compromises the federal government’s role in ensuring equitable access to education. This reduction in capacity directly hinders the advancement of SDG 4 (Quality Education).

• Energy Department

  Targeted RIFs in the Office of State and Community Energy Programs and the Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy directly impede efforts related to SDG 7 (Affordable and Clean Energy) and SDG 13 (Climate Action). These cuts reduce the government’s capacity to promote sustainable energy solutions.

• Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)

  The elimination of the Office of Environmental Justice, the Office of Inclusive Excellence, and the Office of Research and Development constitutes a significant setback for multiple SDGs. These actions weaken the institutional framework (SDG 16) necessary to address climate change (SDG 13), ensure healthy lives (SDG 3), and reduce environmental inequalities (SDG 10).

• Health and Human Services Department (HHS)

  The elimination of 20,000 jobs, including 10,000 through RIFs, severely damages the nation’s public health infrastructure. Cuts at the CDC, FDA, and NIH, and the shuttering of offices focused on cancer research and opioid abuse, directly compromise the ability to achieve SDG 3 (Good Health and Well-being).

• Homeland Security Department (DHS)

  The elimination of the Office of Civil Rights and Civil Liberties and planned reductions at the Office of Intelligence and Analysis weaken accountability and oversight, undermining SDG 16 (Peace, Justice and Strong Institutions). Cuts to the Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency also pose a risk to SDG 9 (Industry, Innovation and Infrastructure).

• Housing and Urban Development Department (HUD)

  RIFs in the Office of Field Policy and Management and the Office of Community Planning and Development threaten programs vital for SDG 1 (No Poverty) and SDG 11 (Sustainable Cities and Communities). These reductions may impair efforts to provide safe, affordable housing and promote equitable community development.

• Interior Department (DOI)

  Sweeping RIFs, with 2,000 planned layoffs specified, threaten the department’s ability to manage public lands and natural resources. This erosion of capacity directly impacts the conservation goals of SDG 14 (Life Below Water) and SDG 15 (Life on Land).

• State Department & U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID)

  The layoff of 1,350 State Department employees and the effective absorption of USAID into the State Department represent a significant retreat from global engagement. These actions severely undermine SDG 17 (Partnerships for the Goals) by diminishing U.S. capacity for diplomacy, foreign aid, and international cooperation on sustainable development.

• Treasury Department

  Workforce reductions of 25% at the IRS, including layoffs in the Office of Civil Rights and Compliance, and cuts to the Community Development Financial Institutions Fund, impact SDG 10 (Reduced Inequalities) and SDG 16 (Strong Institutions). These changes risk weakening fair tax administration and reducing investment in underserved communities.

• Veterans Affairs Department (VA)

  While widespread RIFs were averted, the planned reduction of 30,000 employees through attrition could strain the agency’s ability to provide services. This has implications for SDG 3 (Good Health and Well-being) and SDG 8 (Decent Work) for the nation’s veteran population.

• Small Agencies

  The executive order to eliminate seven small agencies, including the U.S. Interagency Council on Homelessness and the Institute of Museum and Library Services, erodes the institutional fabric supporting key societal functions. These eliminations represent a direct loss of capacity for achieving SDG 1 (No Poverty), SDG 4 (Quality Education), and SDG 11 (Sustainable Cities and Communities).

Analysis of Sustainable Development Goals in the Article

1. Which SDGs are addressed or connected to the issues highlighted in the article?

• SDG 8: Decent Work and Economic Growth

  The article’s central theme is the mass layoff of federal government employees, which directly relates to employment, job security, and economic stability. The “maximum elimination” of federal agency functions and the subsequent reductions in force (RIFs) across numerous departments undermine the principles of full and productive employment.

• SDG 16: Peace, Justice and Strong Institutions

  The article details the widespread elimination and consolidation of government offices and functions. This action weakens the capacity, effectiveness, and accountability of public institutions. For example, the shuttering of offices at the Social Security Administration, Environmental Protection Agency, and the Department of Homeland Security impacts their ability to perform their mandated duties, thereby affecting institutional strength.

• SDG 10: Reduced Inequalities

  Several of the eliminated or downsized offices were specifically tasked with addressing inequality and ensuring civil rights. The article mentions RIFs in the EPA’s “Office of Environmental Justice and External Civil Rights,” the DHS’s “Office of Civil Rights and Civil Liberties,” and the Treasury’s “Office of Civil Rights and Compliance” and “Office of Equity, Diversity and Inclusion.” These cuts directly hinder efforts to promote inclusion and protect vulnerable populations.

• SDG 3: Good Health and Well-being

  The extensive layoffs at the Health and Human Services (HHS) Department, including the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), National Institutes of Health (NIH), and the Food and Drug Administration (FDA), are directly connected to this goal. The article notes the elimination of offices responsible for “tracking cancer rates,” “collecting data on opioid on abuse,” and “researching infectious diseases,” which weakens the nation’s public health infrastructure and its capacity to manage health risks.

2. What specific targets under those SDGs can be identified based on the article’s content?

1. Target 8.5: Achieve full and productive employment and decent work for all.

   The article provides extensive evidence of actions that are contrary to this target. The narrative of “mass reductions in force,” the removal of “at least 25,000 workers,” and specific layoff numbers from nearly every major department (e.g., 61,000 at Defense, 20,000 at HHS, 30,000 at VA) illustrates a significant move away from achieving full and productive employment within the federal sector.

2. Target 16.6: Develop effective, accountable and transparent institutions at all levels.

   The article highlights the “maximum elimination of federal agency functions” and the shuttering of entire offices, such as the GSA eliminating “18F” and the State Department eliminating or consolidating “more than 300 offices.” These actions reduce the operational capacity and effectiveness of these institutions, directly impacting their ability to serve the public and be accountable.

3. Target 10.2: Empower and promote the social, economic and political inclusion of all.

   The dismantling of offices dedicated to civil rights and equity, as mentioned in the article, directly undermines this target. The RIFs at the Social Security Administration’s “Office of Civil Rights,” the Commerce Department’s “Minority Business Development Agency,” and the EPA’s “Office of Environmental Justice” remove institutional mechanisms designed to ensure inclusion and address systemic inequalities.

4. Target 3.d: Strengthen the capacity for early warning, risk reduction and management of national and global health risks.

   The layoffs at key public health agencies detailed in the article are a direct threat to this target. The cuts of “about 2,400 employees” at the CDC and over “1,200 workers” at the NIH, along with the elimination of offices “researching infectious diseases,” demonstrably weaken the country’s capacity to manage and respond to public health crises.

3. Are there any indicators mentioned or implied in the article that can be used to measure progress towards the identified targets?

• Number of employees laid off or separated from service.

  The article is replete with quantitative data on job losses, which serves as a direct indicator of negative progress toward Target 8.5. Examples include the Treasury Department’s workforce decreasing by “nearly 25,390 employees,” the Defense Department cutting “as many as 61,000 employees,” and the HHS eliminating “20,000 jobs.”

• Number of government offices, divisions, or functions eliminated or consolidated.

  This is a key indicator for measuring the weakening of institutional capacity under Target 16.6. The article specifies that the State Department is expected to have “more than 300 offices eliminated or consolidated,” the Social Security Administration “shuttered two offices,” and the EPA eliminated its “Office of Research and Development,” among many other examples.

• Number of staff or offices dedicated to civil rights, equity, and minority support that were reduced or eliminated.

  This indicator measures the erosion of institutional frameworks for promoting inclusion (Target 10.2). The article explicitly notes RIFs impacting the “Office of Civil Rights and Civil Liberties” at DHS, the “Office of Environmental Justice” at the EPA, and the “Minority Business Development Agency” at the Commerce Department.

• Reduction in workforce at key public health and scientific research agencies.

  This serves as an indicator for Target 3.d. The article provides specific numbers, such as the “Food and Drug Administration shed 3,500 employees” and the “Centers for Disease Control and Prevention cut about 2,400 employees,” which quantify the reduction in capacity for managing health risks.

4. Summary Table of SDGs, Targets, and Indicators

Source: govexec.com