Current news on the government efficiency and reform front concerns the near-miss of a government shutdown last week (the budget would have lapsed at midnight on March 14, 2025). One reason some cited against allowing a shutdown to occur is how it might encourage or otherwise aid in attempts to eliminate positions if they were deemed “essential” or not. As one who has gone through the “who is essential” exercise in a senior management position at the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), here are some general thoughts.

The distinction between the two categories of essential versus non-essential can have very different meanings: is the function important, significant, or necessary? The most significant might be the senior executive charged with making decisions, relying on input from the important senior scientist with the subject-area expertise, and neither can get into the building or work at their desk unless someone lower in the hierarchy opens the doors or turns on the operations of the computer system. In this example, all positions might be “essential” to allowing the organization to function.

Notwithstanding the ego impact of being called essential, in shutdowns the distinction can be difficult to understand. The analyst may be non-essential while the security guard is essential. The senior executive is essential but cannot perform the job if the staff is not there to pass the work or decisions up the chain. During a shutdown, senior executives mostly deal with responding to inquiries from staff and the media, along with missives from upper management monitoring the shutdown and passing along what should or could happen next.

There may seem to be little rhyme or reason to the designations. Senior management at the National Park Service may be at work, yet no rangers are present to let visitors in. (This is also sometimes intentional if the administration in charge is making a point of illustrating the many functions of government.)

In past shutdowns, some of which have extended for more than a few days, some considered the non-essential staff lucky, since it was essentially a day off with the expectation that you would be paid retroactively, after the politics of the moment quieted. Now, fear that such guarantees may be a thing of the past has added to the foreboding tone of current government employee relations. In the past, even “lucky” federal employees tend to realize that such a “day off” will only mean more work — whatever the task — to be completed once the shutdown ends.

The recent potential shutdown was averted, but the essential/non-essential distinction will have little meaningful impact on workforce planning. Federal agencies have long had plans for a possible shutdown, especially in recent years, distinguishing who or what positions were needed if the budget was not authorized in time. These designations are already made, so if the categorization was useful as some kind of autonomous decision mechanism to make personnel decisions, shutdown or no shutdown would not make a difference.

Given the chaotic or at least unpredictable roll-out of personnel decisions so far, being designated “essential” seems to be of little value. Probationary status as a federal employee and Administration priorities are of greater importance. In the latest announcements, the Administration has included language stating that established procedures for budget cuts and staff reductions (“reduction in force” or RIF) will be followed. That process is much more elaborate and opaque, and will have a much greater impact on individual employees deemed essential or otherwise.