Proposed SERVICE Act Forces Federal Agencies to Wait 7 Months Before Making Major Layoffs

The newly proposed SERVICE Act (Stopping to Efficiently Review Varying Impacts of Cuts to Employment Act) is designed to hit the pause button hard on federal agency layoffs. Specifically, any agency planning to reduce its total workforce by more than 5% must first file a massive report with Congress and the Government Accountability Office (GAO). The kicker? They can’t actually make those cuts for 210 days after filing the report.

The Bureaucratic Speed Bump

This bill essentially builds a mandatory seven-month waiting period into the layoff process. Why? To force agencies to do their homework first. When an agency submits its report, it has to break down the financial impact in detail. This includes estimating the net change in costs, factoring in the severance and administrative costs of the layoffs, and even estimating new contracting costs if they plan to hire outside consultants or firms to pick up the slack. Think of it as a mandatory, detailed cost-benefit analysis that must be completed before the pink slips can go out.

What Happens to the Work?

Beyond the money, the agency must also explain how the cuts will affect its actual mission and the services it provides to the public. They need to detail exactly which job functions, offices, and services will be impacted, especially if any single office loses more than 5% of its staff. This must include performance data and an analysis of how service availability, timeliness, and the customer experience will change. For example, if the Department of Veterans Affairs planned a 6% cut, they would have to quantify how much longer veterans might wait for appointments or how much slower claim processing would become. This is the bill’s attempt to prevent cuts that look good on paper but wreck essential services.

The GAO’s 180-Day Fact Check

Once the agency submits its detailed plan, the GAO, which acts as Congress’s independent auditing arm, steps in. The Comptroller General has 180 days to review the report. The GAO’s job isn't to say whether the cuts are a good idea, but to confirm whether the agency’s analysis is complete and whether the estimated financial and mission impacts are based on information that is “reasonably complete and credible.” In other words, the GAO checks the agency’s math and methodology. After the review, the GAO’s findings must be posted publicly online, adding a layer of transparency to the whole process.

Real-World Friction: Flexibility vs. Transparency

For federal employees facing potential layoffs, this bill offers a huge benefit: stability and notice. They get at least seven months of certainty while the process plays out. For the public, the benefit is transparency—we get to see the true estimated costs and service impacts of cuts before they happen. However, there’s a cost to this delay. If an agency needs to pivot quickly due to a sudden budget change or an urgent shift in mission, this bill ties their hands. The total review and waiting period could easily stretch up to 390 days (210-day moratorium plus 180-day review). This long delay could mean higher administrative costs and slower implementation of necessary efficiencies, potentially frustrating taxpayers who expect the government to be nimble when needed. It’s a classic trade-off: more oversight and transparency, but at the expense of speed and managerial flexibility.