Senator Joni Ernst recently claimed that only 6% of federal employees work in person full-time while nearly a third work remotely on a full-time basis. The claim has become a talking point for congressional pressure to end remote work across federal agencies.
There is one problem with the talking point. It is not true.
What the OMB Actually Found
The Office of Management and Budget, which tracks federal workforce data directly, tells a different story. In 2022, 22% of federal employees worked remotely, compared to 25% in private firms. Sixty-one percent of eligible hours were already spent in person. Only 10% of federal employees worked fully remotely.
Federal workers were already spending less time remote than their private-sector counterparts. The congressional oversight, in other words, was based on a misconception.
The Cost of Getting It Wrong
The pressure matters because the federal government is the nation's largest employer. When Congress pushes agencies to end remote work, it sets a precedent that ripples through state and local governments, contractors, and the private sector.
The OMB and individual federal agencies have been consistent in their message: hybrid flexibility, where employees spend some time in the office and some time at home, improves efficiency and productivity. It reduces costs by optimizing federal office buildings. It enhances recruitment by offering flexibility that private-sector competitors already provide. It reduces turnover.
Forcing a full return to the office would not fix a problem that the data says does not exist. It would create new problems: higher attrition, reduced applicant pools, and wasted real estate spending.
What a Better Model Looks Like
The argument is not that every federal employee should work remotely. The argument is that agencies need autonomy to tailor work arrangements to their mission objectives.
Some agencies need more in-person presence. Others function effectively with hybrid models. The OMB data suggests that agencies are already calibrating this correctly. What they need is not a congressional mandate to end remote work. It is the technology and policy infrastructure to manage hybrid work at scale.
That infrastructure includes clear scheduling, consistent presence verification, and data-driven decisions about office utilization. It does not include blanket bans based on inaccurate statistics.
The Bottom Line
Congress has a legitimate interest in ensuring federal employees are productive and accountable. But oversight based on bad data produces bad policy.
The OMB numbers are clear. Federal agencies are not the out-of-control remote-work experiment that some members of Congress describe. They are organizations that have found a balance between in-person mission needs and the flexibility that modern work requires.
The better model for remote work is not a mandate to end it. It is a system that verifies it, manages it, and ensures it serves the mission.