Return-to-Office Orders — What's Legally Enforceable

I What actually changed in 2025-2026

The basic facts of the federal workforce shifted dramatically over fifteen months.

In January 2025, approximately 2.4 million federal civilian employees worked in the executive branch. About 10 percent were fully remote. About 40 percent teleworked at least part-time, with most in-office two days per pay period. Approximately 30 percent of the federal workforce was in-office full-time on any given day. The House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform, in its January 15, 2025 report, identified roughly $7 billion in annual federal lease costs while citing roughly half the workforce working from home regularly four years after the COVID-19 pandemic — the basis for the cost rationale that drove the subsequent mandate.

On January 20, 2025, the President issued a Presidential Memorandum directing department and agency heads to "take all necessary steps to terminate remote work arrangements and require employees to return to work in-person at their respective duty stations on a full-time basis, as soon as practicable." The memorandum included the qualification "consistent with applicable law" — language that became the central interpretive question in the legal disputes that followed.

Implementation rolled through 2025 in waves. Most agencies set February 2025 return dates for non-bargaining-unit employees, with longer phase-ins for represented employees pending CBA negotiations. By late spring 2025, the bulk of executive branch workers had returned to in-person work.

OPM Director Scott Kupor, in a January 2, 2026 blog post, reported approximately 90 percent of federal employees now working full-time on-site — up from roughly 30 percent before the mandate. Approximately 200,000 positions retain remote or telework status, primarily through:

• Reasonable accommodation under the Rehabilitation Act
• Military spouse workplace flexibility
• Surviving collective bargaining agreement protections
• Specific position categories that OPM identifies as appropriately remote (certain IT/cybersecurity, field engineering, project management on TDY status, certain administrative roles)

By early 2026, the legal landscape had crystallized. Arbitrators ruled in favor of unions at HHS (January 2026, Arbitrator Falvo), HUD (February 2026, Arbitrator Loconto, ~7,000 AFGE-represented employees), SSA (March 2026, Arbitrator Espinosa), and CMS — establishing that the Presidential Memorandum does not automatically override CBAs. OPM's December 2025 guidance update tightened the operational posture further, instructing agencies to use telework "sparingly," to verify in-office attendance, and to prohibit telework arrangements that "shorten" the workday.

II The legal architecture — five layers

The legal authority governing federal telework operates in five concentric layers. Each layer can constrain or be constrained by the others. Understanding which layer your specific situation hits is the entire question.

Layer 1 — Statute. The Telework Enhancement Act of 2010 (5 U.S.C. Chapter 65, sections 6501-6506) is the underlying federal statute. It requires agencies to establish telework policies, defines telework-eligible employees, and provides the framework for individual telework agreements. The statute remains in effect and has not been repealed. Significantly, the statute is permissive — it requires agencies to have a telework policy and to make telework available where appropriate — but it does not create individual employee rights to specific telework arrangements.

Layer 2 — Civil rights and disability statutes. The Rehabilitation Act of 1973 (29 U.S.C. 791) and the ADA Amendments Act create individual rights to reasonable accommodation, including telework as accommodation where appropriate. These statutes are independent of and superior to executive branch policy; they cannot be eliminated by Presidential Memorandum or OPM guidance. The Pregnant Workers Fairness Act (42 U.S.C. 2000gg) similarly creates accommodation rights for pregnancy-related conditions.

Layer 3 — Labor law. The Federal Service Labor-Management Relations Statute of 1978 (5 U.S.C. Chapter 71, sections 7101-7135), particularly the unfair labor practice provisions at 5 U.S.C. 7116, governs the relationship between federal agencies and unions. Where a CBA contains telework provisions, Section 7116 makes it an unfair labor practice for the agency to enforce a rule that conflicts with the CBA if the CBA was in effect before the rule was issued.

Layer 4 — Executive direction. The Presidential Memorandum of January 20, 2025 directs agencies but operates within the statutory framework. As the HHS arbitration explicitly held, citing FLRA precedent, "a presidential memorandum is not a governmentwide rule or regulation that the employer is obligated by law to implement immediately upon issuance" where it conflicts with binding agreements.

Layer 5 — Agency policy and individual agreements. Each agency has its own telework policy implementing the statute, the OPM guidance, and any CBA obligations. Individual telework agreements between specific employees and supervisors are the bottom layer — generally terminable by management unless protected by a higher layer.

III The Presidential Memorandum and its limits

The January 20, 2025 Presidential Memorandum titled "Return to In-Person Work" is the foundation of the RTO mandate. Its operative language directs heads of all departments and agencies to "take all necessary steps to terminate remote work arrangements and require employees to return to work in-person at their respective duty stations on a full-time basis, as soon as practicable, provided that the department and agency heads shall make exemptions they deem necessary."

The "consistent with applicable law" qualification appears at the end of the operative paragraph. This language has been the focal point of every arbitration ruling. The HHS, HUD, SSA, and CMS arbitrators all reasoned similarly: "consistent with applicable law" means consistent with the Federal Service Labor-Management Relations Statute, which protects pre-existing CBAs from unilateral abrogation. The memorandum does not override the FSLMRS; it operates within it.

What the memorandum can and cannot do:

Can do: Direct agency policy. Set the default expectation across the executive branch. Authorize and prioritize the termination of non-CBA-protected telework arrangements. Trigger agency-specific implementation policies. Reach all employees not protected by a higher-layer right.

Cannot do: Override the Rehabilitation Act's reasonable accommodation requirements. Override pre-existing CBA telework protections without the negotiation required by 5 U.S.C. 7106 and 7117. Modify Telework Enhancement Act statutory categories without congressional action. Eliminate the right to file MSPB appeals or EEO complaints. Compel an employee with a valid reasonable accommodation to return to a worksite that fails to provide that accommodation.

The memorandum's strength is in its breadth — it covers all employees not protected by a higher-layer right. Approximately 90 percent of federal employees fall into that category, which is why on-site rates climbed so dramatically in 2025. Its weakness is that the protected populations — disability accommodation, CBA-covered with pre-existing protections, certain statutory categories — are large enough that 200,000 positions remain in non-traditional arrangements.

IV OPM's December 2025 telework guidance

OPM's revised telework guidance, issued in December 2025, formalizes the new default posture. The guidance is not a regulation under the Administrative Procedure Act and does not have the force of law on its own — but it sets expectations that agencies are required to implement.

Key provisions of the December 2025 guidance:

• Default expectation. Federal employees should generally be "working full-time, in-person." Telework should be used "sparingly."
• Verification procedures. Agencies should have procedures for verifying that employees are working on-site full-time, unless given an exemption.
• Performance evaluation for permitted telework. In limited cases where employees are teleworking, agencies should have a process to determine whether teleworking is "successful" or should be revoked.
• Anti-circumvention. Remote work cannot be used to help employees "avoid working full-time, in-person from an agency worksite on a regular and recurring basis."
• No workday shortening. Telework may not be used to "shorten" the workday — eliminating the common practice of working compressed hours from home one day per week.
• Agency consistency. The guidance aims to create telework and remote work policies that are "consistent across the federal government."

The guidance preserves several specific exemption categories: reasonable accommodation under disability law, military spouse flexibility, situational and ad-hoc telework (used sparingly and not as a regular pattern), and specific position categories with operational justification. The exemption categories are real but narrower than they were before the mandate.

The 40 percent of the federal workforce who teleworked at least part-time before the mandate — about 1 million employees — has dropped to roughly the 10 percent currently exempted. The compression has fallen disproportionately on knowledge workers in DC-area headquarters offices, where pre-mandate telework was most common.

For the underlying telework framework before the 2025 changes, see Topic 26 on Telework Agreements and the distinction between situational and routine telework. For how this intersects with locality pay, see Career & Pay Topic 21 on Telework, Remote Work & Locality Pay.

V Collective bargaining agreements and the FSLMRS

The single most important legal principle established in 2026 is that pre-existing collective bargaining agreements supersede the Presidential Memorandum where they contain binding telework protections. This is the basis for every successful arbitration ruling, and it operates through 5 U.S.C. 7116(a)(7).

Section 7116(a)(7) makes it an unfair labor practice for an agency "to enforce any rule or regulation… which is in conflict with any applicable collective bargaining agreement if the agreement was in effect before the date the rule or regulation was prescribed."

The legal logic is straightforward. A CBA is a binding agreement between the federal government and the union covering the employees. Both parties negotiated its terms, including any telework provisions, and both parties are obligated to comply until the agreement expires or is properly renegotiated. A Presidential Memorandum issued after the CBA took effect cannot unilaterally override its terms — it can only direct agency policy in areas the CBA does not control or in matters that arise after the CBA expires.

FLRA precedent has consistently held that presidential memoranda are not "governmentwide rules or regulations" of the type that automatically supersede CBAs. The arbitrators in HHS, HUD, SSA, and CMS all relied on this precedent. The HHS arbitrator explicitly addressed the agency's argument that "the president is our chief, and if he directs that employees return to offices in person, the agency is required to do so" — concluding that the FSLMRS imposes obligations the agency must meet regardless of executive direction.

The CBAs that protect telework

Not all CBAs contain meaningful telework protections. The variations matter:

Strong CBA protection. The CBA explicitly establishes telework as an entitlement for eligible employees, sets specific telework days per pay period, and limits termination to specified causes (emergency situations, performance falling below "fully satisfactory"). The HHS-NTEU 2023-2028 contract is in this category. Employees covered by such CBAs have the strongest legal claim to restoration if telework was unilaterally terminated.

Moderate CBA protection. The CBA contains telework provisions but with broader management discretion or weaker enforcement language. Termination is still subject to grievance and arbitration but the substantive standard for management decisions is more deferential.

Weak or no CBA protection. The CBA contains general telework language without specific entitlements, or no telework provisions at all. In these cases the agency's discretion is largely intact and the Presidential Memorandum is enforceable.

The March 2025 Executive Order on national security exemptions

Complicating the CBA pathway is the March 2025 Executive Order that expanded the categories of federal agencies excluded from collective bargaining on national security grounds. Approximately 20 agencies were affected. NASA, EPA (in part), and others had their bargaining unit status modified or eliminated. Litigation challenging this expansion is ongoing — a federal judge in Washington, D.C. issued a preliminary injunction in fall 2025, which an appeals court subsequently stayed. The matter remains unresolved as of early 2026.

For employees in agencies affected by the March 2025 EO, the CBA pathway may not be available or may be in litigation. The reasonable accommodation pathway and any direct statutory protections remain.

For broader coverage of union representation rights and the unfair labor practice framework, see Topic 06 on Union Rights & Collective Bargaining. For the grievance pathway specifically, see Topic 07 on Grievance Procedures.

VI The 2026 arbitration rulings

Four major arbitration rulings in 2026 have shaped the legal landscape. Each followed a similar pattern: union grievance, agency defense citing the Presidential Memorandum, arbitrator application of the FSLMRS, ruling for the union.

HHS (Falvo, January 2026)

Arbitrator Michael J. Falvo ruled that HHS must rescind its return-to-office directive and immediately reinstate remote work and telework agreements for members of the National Treasury Employees Union. The ruling rested on the 2023-2028 NTEU-HHS CBA, which permitted termination of telework agreements only "for cause" — including emergency situations and performance below "fully satisfactory." HHS's blanket termination did not meet that standard.

Falvo specifically addressed the agency's argument that the Presidential Memorandum overrode the CBA. Drawing on prior FLRA decisions, he concluded that "a presidential memorandum is not a governmentwide rule or regulation that the employer is obligated by law to implement immediately upon issuance." The agency had committed an unfair labor practice by unilaterally terminating telework without compliance with the CBA's "for cause" standard.

HUD (Loconto, February 2026)

Arbitrator Michael T. Loconto applied similar reasoning to HUD's return-to-office directive, ordering restoration of telework for approximately 7,000 employees represented by AFGE Council 222. HUD had argued that telework was not an entitlement, that flexible arrangements remained available at "management's discretion," and that the agency had provided four weeks' notice. Loconto rejected each defense.

The HUD ruling notably found that the agency's actions amounted to a "prohibited personnel practice" — escalating beyond an unfair labor practice to invoke the personnel practice framework at 5 U.S.C. 2302. This is a more serious finding than ULP alone and creates additional procedural exposure for the agency.

SSA (Espinosa, March 2026)

Arbitrator Sarah Miller Espinosa ruled that SSA had violated its 2019 National Agreement with AFGE when it indefinitely suspended telework for AFGE-represented employees in March 2025. The order required SSA to restore telework to pre-March 2025 levels — generally about two days per week. AFGE characterized telework as essential to preventing attrition at SSA, an agency facing severe staffing shortfalls.

CMS

A separate arbitrator ordered the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services to meet with AFGE to discuss exemptions to the return-to-office mandate. While narrower in remedy, the ruling reinforced the principle that blanket termination without bargaining is impermissible.

What the arbitration wins do — and don't — accomplish

The rulings do establish that union-protected employees with binding pre-mandate telework provisions have legal recourse, that the Presidential Memorandum does not override the FSLMRS, and that arbitrators are willing to apply the statutory framework as written. They have created precedent that other unions and arbitrators are following.

The rulings do not establish a general right to telework for federal employees. They apply only to specific bargaining units with specific CBA language. They are subject to appeal — agencies can file exceptions to the FLRA, and the Authority's review can take 12-18 months. They do not bind agencies whose CBAs do not contain similar protections, and they do not affect non-bargaining-unit employees at all.

VII The four pathways to keep teleworking

For federal employees who want to maintain telework or remote work in the current environment, four primary pathways exist. Each has different requirements, success rates, and durability.

Pathway 1 — Reasonable accommodation under disability law

The strongest individual pathway. The Rehabilitation Act of 1973 and the ADA Amendments Act create individual rights to reasonable accommodation that cannot be eliminated by executive order or OPM guidance. Telework remains a recognized form of accommodation where it would address the limitations of a qualifying disability without imposing undue hardship on the agency.

Realistic success factors: a documented diagnosis from a qualified medical provider, a clearly explained connection between the disability and the requested accommodation (telework), and evidence the position can be performed remotely without undue hardship. The standard is fact-specific and agencies can deny accommodations where in-person work is essential to the position's core duties.

Several agencies — notably HHS — have tightened their accommodation processes in 2025-2026 by centralizing approval at senior levels and requiring more substantial documentation. Approval is not guaranteed and may take 60-120 days. See Topic 30 on Reasonable Accommodation in the Federal Workplace for the full process.

Pathway 2 — Collective bargaining agreement protection

Available only to bargaining-unit employees whose CBA contains binding telework provisions in effect before January 20, 2025. The pathway runs through union grievance procedures and arbitration. Recent arbitration outcomes establish strong precedent for bargaining units with explicit telework entitlements and "for cause" termination standards.

This pathway requires action by the union, not the individual. If your union has not filed a grievance, individual employees can pursue agency grievance procedures and request representation, but the systemic remedy comes through union-level action.

Pathway 3 — Categorical exemption preserved by OPM

OPM's December 2025 guidance preserves several categorical exemptions:

• Military spouse workplace flexibility — formal program for relocating military families
• Specific position categories — IT/cybersecurity in some agencies, project management on TDY status, field engineers, certain administrative positions, certain technical writers
• Geographic infeasibility — positions that legitimately cannot be performed at any agency worksite (rare)
• Domestic Employees Teleworking Overseas (DETO) — Foreign Service-related positions

Eligibility for these categorical exemptions is determined by the agency, not by the employee's request. If your position falls into a recognized exemption category, the agency may continue the prior arrangement. The exemptions are operationally narrow.

Pathway 4 — Negotiate within agency discretion

For employees outside the first three pathways, the only remaining option is to negotiate within the agency's discretion. Compressed work schedules (4/10 or 5-4/9), alternative work schedules, and ad-hoc situational telework remain permissible under OPM guidance, with significant variation in agency willingness to grant them.

This pathway requires demonstrating clear operational benefit, willingness to come on-site for the majority of work hours, and a track record of strong performance. It is the weakest pathway in terms of legal protection but the most accessible. See Topic 29 on Alternative Work Schedules for the AWS framework specifically.

VIII Reasonable accommodation as RTO exemption

For employees whose disability or medical condition makes in-person work materially harder or impossible, reasonable accommodation under the Rehabilitation Act is the primary pathway. The accommodation framework operates entirely independently of the RTO mandate.

The interactive process

The accommodation process is governed by the EEOC's regulations at 29 CFR 1614.203 and agency procedures. The general flow:

1. Request. The employee initiates by notifying the agency of a need for accommodation. The request can be informal initially but is typically formalized in writing through the agency's Office of Disability Employment Programs or equivalent.
2. Documentation. The agency requests medical documentation establishing the disability and the need for the requested accommodation. This includes a diagnosis, functional limitations, and the connection between the limitation and the proposed accommodation.
3. Interactive process. The agency engages with the employee to identify effective accommodations. Telework is one possible accommodation; alternatives may be considered (modified work hours, equipment, task restructuring).
4. Determination. The agency approves, denies, or modifies the request. Approval is documented in writing. Denial requires explanation of the basis.
5. Periodic review. Approved accommodations are typically reviewed periodically. Documentation is required to maintain the accommodation.

What's changed in 2025-2026

Several agencies have tightened the accommodation process in response to increased demand following the RTO mandate. The HHS reform in late 2025 is illustrative: approval authority that previously rested with the employee's direct supervisor was elevated to the assistant secretary level, adding significant processing time and reducing local discretion. Some agencies have also restricted "interim" telework while accommodation requests are pending — a practice that left employees with disabilities working in-person under conditions they had specifically requested accommodation to avoid.

Government Executive reporting from January 2026 documented multiple cases of approved accommodations being rescinded, denials of previously-approved arrangements, and substantial barriers to obtaining new accommodations. The pattern suggests that even where the accommodation pathway exists in principle, individual employees face increasingly difficult execution.

The undue hardship analysis

Agencies can deny accommodation if granting it would impose "undue hardship" on agency operations. Undue hardship is fact-specific and requires showing significant difficulty or expense. Common grounds for undue hardship denials include:

• Position requires in-person presence for security or operational reasons
• Position requires direct supervision of others on-site
• Position involves classified information that cannot be handled remotely
• Position requires access to specialized equipment available only on-site

For positions that do not have these characteristics — most general administrative, analytical, and policy positions — the undue hardship defense is weaker, and denials must be supported by specific operational reasoning. Position description language matters: positions described as "fully sedentary" or "primarily computer-based" face higher scrutiny when telework accommodation is denied.

For the complete reasonable accommodation framework, see Topic 30 on Reasonable Accommodation in the Federal Workplace.

IX Duty station, locality pay, and PCS implications

Returning to in-person work has cascading implications beyond the daily commute. The most significant are duty station and locality pay.

Duty station mechanics

Your "official duty station" is the designation on your SF-50 (Notification of Personnel Action). It determines your locality pay area, your eligibility for various pay differentials, and the geographic boundary of your position. For the great majority of federal employees, duty station and physical work location are the same. For pre-mandate teleworkers, duty station typically remained at the original office even when the employee worked from home most days. For pre-mandate fully remote employees, duty station was often the home location or a regional office.

What changes with RTO

Three patterns are common:

(1) Telework converts to full-time at same duty station. The most common case. The employee was teleworking but the official duty station was already at the office. Returning to in-person work changes the daily commute but no formal personnel action is required. Locality pay does not change.

(2) Remote work converts to in-person at agency-designated duty station. The employee was fully remote with duty station at home or at a regional office. The agency designates a specific in-person worksite, which becomes the new duty station. This is a formal personnel action, documented on a new SF-50. Locality pay changes if the new duty station is in a different locality area. PCS entitlements may apply if the change requires relocation.

(3) RTO refusal leads to duty station change followed by separation. If the employee cannot or will not relocate to the new duty station, the agency may offer reassignment, vacancy notice, or in some cases initiate adverse action. CTAP and ICTAP rights may attach. See Topic 24 on Priority Placement Programs.

Locality pay impact

Locality pay under 5 U.S.C. 5304 is determined by the duty station, not the home address. Returning to in-person work at the same duty station preserves locality pay. Reassignment to a different duty station moves the employee into the new locality area. The 2026 GS Pay Calculator at Tools 01 models the dollar impact of any duty station change.

For the complete duty station and pay impact framework, see Career & Pay Topic 21, Topic 22 on Duty Station Changes, and Topic 24 on RTO Pay Impact.

X RTO Compliance & Options Analyzer

Select your situation and the tool returns your enforceability tier and the available pathways. This is triage based on the legal architecture above — written guidance from a federal employment attorney, your union representative, or your agency's ethics official is the controlling authority.

XI If you refuse to comply — adverse action exposure

The default rule for federal employees is "obey now, grieve later." If your supervisor issues an order you believe is unlawful, you generally must comply with the order while pursuing the legal challenge through proper channels. The exceptions to this principle are extremely narrow — typically limited to orders that would require you to commit a crime, expose yourself to serious physical harm, or violate a clear constitutional right.

Refusing to report to your assigned worksite is generally insubordination. Insubordination is a Chapter 75 adverse action ground under 5 U.S.C. 7513. The progression is typically:

1. Verbal counseling or written warning. First instance of non-compliance generally produces an informal warning.
2. Letter of reprimand. Formal written record. Not appealable to MSPB but enters personnel file.
3. Suspension. Suspensions of 14 days or less are generally not MSPB-appealable. Suspensions over 14 days are. See Topic 15 on Adverse Actions.
4. Removal proposal. Continued non-compliance triggers a proposed removal under 5 CFR Part 752, with notice and opportunity to reply. See Topic 16 on Responding to a Proposed Removal.
5. Removal. Final removal action. Appealable to MSPB.

The Douglas factors govern proportionality of discipline. Mitigating considerations include long service, prior good record, the nature of the order being refused, the employee's reasons for non-compliance, and the agency's procedural compliance with its own rules. But Douglas factors do not eliminate the underlying obligation to comply.

An employee who believes the RTO order is unlawful has multiple avenues for challenging it without refusing to comply: a CBA grievance, an unfair labor practice charge with the FLRA, a reasonable accommodation request, an EEO complaint if the order has a discriminatory effect, or an MSPB appeal of any adverse action that follows. Each of these is a real pathway that does not require placing your employment at risk through refusal.

XII Your options if you believe the order is unlawful

The realistic options for federal employees who believe the RTO order does not legally apply to them, in rough order of practical effectiveness:

1. Reasonable accommodation request

For employees with qualifying disabilities, this is the strongest individual pathway. Filing an accommodation request preserves the legal posture and may justify continued telework while the request is pending (subject to recent agency tightening). Document the disability with medical evidence, identify the specific functional limitation that telework addresses, and submit through your agency's reasonable accommodation procedure. See Topic 30.

2. CBA grievance (bargaining unit employees)

If you are in a bargaining unit with telework provisions, file a grievance through your union. The arbitration outcomes at HHS, HUD, SSA, and CMS provide strong precedent. Individual grievances may be combined into class actions. Even if your individual grievance is unsuccessful, the union-level pursuit creates pressure and precedent.

3. Unfair labor practice charge with FLRA

For situations where the agency has unilaterally terminated CBA-protected telework without proper bargaining, a ULP charge with the FLRA is available under 5 U.S.C. 7116. ULP charges are typically filed by the union, but individuals may file in some circumstances. Processing time is 12-18 months at the regional level, longer if appealed.

4. EEO complaint (if discriminatory effect)

If the RTO order has a disparate impact on a protected class (disability, pregnancy, age, sex), an EEO complaint may be available. The 45-day counselor contact requirement is strict. See Topic 04 on EEO Complaints.

5. MSPB appeal of any adverse action

If the agency takes an adverse action against you for non-compliance, the MSPB appeal pathway is available for actions of more than 14 days suspension or for removal. The MSPB does not have jurisdiction over the underlying RTO policy decision but does review the procedural and substantive validity of the specific adverse action. See Topic 02 on MSPB Appeals.

6. Whistleblower disclosure (if applicable)

If your refusal involves disclosure of waste, fraud, abuse, or violations of law in the implementation, the Whistleblower Protection Act may provide protection. This is narrow and fact-specific. See Topic 05 on Whistleblower Protections.

7. Negotiated voluntary separation

If continued employment is not viable for personal reasons (cannot relocate, cannot return to in-person work), negotiated voluntary separation through deferred resignation, VSIP, or VERA programs may be available. See Topic 23 on VERA & VSIP.

What not to do

• Do not refuse to report to the worksite without filing a formal accommodation request or grievance first.
• Do not assume your individual situation will be the test case. Most challenges fail on procedural grounds.
• Do not rely on social media advice over written guidance from your union representative or agency ethics official.
• Do not delay action — every deadline (45 days for EEO, 30 days for MSPB, agency-specific for grievances) starts running on the date of the agency action.
• Do not retaliate or escalate informally. The federal workforce has multiple formal channels; informal escalation usually generates more discipline rather than less.

XIII Agency-by-agency variation — what we know

Implementation has varied substantially by agency. The following pattern has emerged through 2025-2026:

Most aggressive RTO implementation: HHS, HUD, SSA, CMS, IRS, Treasury bureaus, OPM. These agencies pushed for rapid blanket termination of telework and have generated the bulk of arbitration disputes.

Moderate implementation with retained flexibility: DoD components (variable by service), DOJ (with significant variation by component), USDA, Department of Education. These agencies generally implemented full RTO but retained more flexibility for specific position categories or kept some accommodation pathways more accessible.

Limited or delayed implementation: USPTO (which had decades of remote work and significant operational dependence on it), some scientific agencies, certain field-based positions. Implementation in these agencies has been slower, sometimes contested in court.

Excluded by March 2025 EO: NASA, EPA (in part), and approximately 18 other agencies had bargaining unit status modified, removing the CBA pathway entirely. Litigation challenging this remains ongoing.

Within any agency, individual component or office implementation has varied based on local leadership, position composition, and union pressure. Two employees in the same agency at the same grade level may face very different RTO implementation depending on their specific position, supervisor, and bargaining unit status.

The practical implication: do not assume your situation matches what you read about another agency. Verify your specific agency's policy, your specific CBA's provisions, and your specific position's status. Agency ethics officials, union representatives, and Office of Disability Employment Programs offices are the authoritative local sources.

Related Workplace Topics