If President Donald Trump was not elected with a national mandate, no one has bothered to tell him (or, if they have, he’s decided not to listen). With just over a week under its belt, the administration’s latest haymaker was directed at the entire federal workforce. Offering more than two million federal workers a buyout has been portrayed by the administration as an effort to improve productivity, coerce workers back into the office and otherwise eliminate duplicative duties.

There are two forces at play here. The first is political. Trump is clearly acting on his deep-seated belief that federal workers are lazy, not interested in working five full days every week in an office setting (spoiler alert: private companies’ employees also don’t love that idea), redundant or simply inefficient on multiple levels. He has pointed to anecdotal evidence in support of these beliefs.

While it is a stretch to say that most federal workers aren’t working efficiently, Trump does have some evidence to support his beliefs. The Government Accountability Office and other agency inspectors general offices have reports documenting abuses of time (though, it should be said, wasting time on companies’ dimes exists in the private sector, as well).

But let’s be clear, offering a blanket severance to every individual in the federal workforce is pure symbolism, and captures the essence of frustration many Americans have felt about their local post offices, records centers or passport agencies, among other government service offices.

The second force at play is practical, and must be weighed and measured carefully. Practically speaking, can the nation afford to simply see a quarter, third, half of its federal workforce diminish in eight months? Is that smart?

Most likely not.

Supporters of the president may retort that the private sector would easily step in and perform the services vacated by those who took the buyouts. Yet keep in mind that 71% of the federal workforce is defense or national-security related, according to the Partnership for Public Service. That includes the Department of Veterans Affairs and their work to serve millions of veterans throughout the nation. Are those jobs easily filled with private civilians? How about those with the top-secret security clearances? Are we ready to train a new fighting force, prepared to defend freedom’s call at a time when so many nations would love to see our demise? These federal workers are critically important.

That two-million workforce includes a healthy contingent in Maryland, as well. What would be the economic fallout if suddenly tens of thousands in the greater Baltimore area simply resigned? Does the city have the services to handle such a new classification of citizens? Is there enough work in city and state government to absorb them?

Maryland is dependent on this massive federal workforce existing, and it is critical to our economy that these jobs continue to support workers in Maryland.

Regardless of the industry, any time an organization — public or private — wants to turn over its entire human capital base, there will be a ripple effect. In fact, we’re not sure something with this scope has even been attempted before.

It’s always wise to ask hard questions when taxpayers are footing the bill, and the president is attempting to deliver on a campaign promise to improve government efficiency. But with big challenges come big consequences, and the administration needs to think more carefully about the far-reaching — and potentially devastating — consequences this decision will have.