Recent shifts in federal and state policies are reshaping the regulatory landscape of remote and hybrid work, raising significant implications for workplace equity. The adoption of remote work, accelerated by the COVID-19 pandemic, initially expanded flexibility in work arrangements. By 2022, 78% of employees in remote-capable jobs worked from home at least some of the time (Wigert & Agrawal, Reference Wigert and Agrawal2025). However, recent executive orders, employment regulations, and return-to-office (RTO) mandates have been reversing this trend. These shifts raise important questions about their implications for career advancement, employee well-being, and workplace policies.
This paper critically examines how recent and pending regulatory changes in remote work policies influence workplace inequality. Whereas some proposals, such as the Telework Reform Act of 2024, aim to institutionalize remote work protections, others, such as the RTO mandate, restrict telework opportunities, particularly within the federal workforce. These restrictions exacerbate existing workplace inequalities by limiting access to remote work opportunities, which disproportionately affects women, caregivers, employees with disabilities, and low-wage workers. By analyzing both restrictive and enabling remote work policies, this paper offers insights for industrial-organizational (I-O) researchers, policymakers, and organizational leaders seeking to develop equitable evidence-based approaches to remote and hybrid work considering these shifting regulations.
The pre-2025 landscape: the evolution of remote and hybrid work policies
The landscape of remote and hybrid work policies in the United States has evolved significantly, particularly within the federal workforce. To contextualize the policy shifts of 2025, it is essential to examine how remote and hybrid work policies evolved before these new regulations, both prior to and following the COVID-19 pandemic.
Prior to 2020, remote and hybrid work in the federal sector was limited. Although the Telework Enhancement Act of 2010 laid the foundation by requiring federal agencies to establish telework policies, its impact was constrained by inconsistent implementations, leading to limited adoption. As a result, telework rates gradually increased from 14% in 2012 to 22% in 2019, but accessibility varied greatly across agencies, job functions, and seniority levels (Dalton & Groen, Reference Dalton and Groen2022). For instance, in 2019, only two agencies, the Department of Veterans Affairs and the Department of the Treasury, reported that at least 50% of their employees’ hours were worked remotely. The uneven implementation of policies across agencies created a fragmented landscape, where remote work remained at the discretion of individual agencies, leaving many employees with limited or no access to remote work.
The COVID-19 pandemic drastically accelerated the adoption of remote work in the federal workforce. For example, emergency telework policies, introduced in response to the pandemic, allowed 45% of federal employees to work remotely by the end of 2020, with 90% of eligible employees taking advantage of these telework opportunities (Egan, Reference Egan2023). However, these policies, designed as temporary measures, were not intended to ensure equal access or prioritize employees’ long-term well-being, and lacked mechanisms to provide all workers with equal opportunities for flexible work options. Once pandemic restrictions eased, many federal employees returned to the office, and by 2024, despite expanded eligibility, telework participation declined to 43%, signaling a shift back toward in-person work (Christenson, Reference Christenson2025). This illustrates the temporary nature of the federal government’s remote work response, which failed to expand remote work access in a sustainable and comprehensive manner.
The private sector mirrored the federal government’s rapid transition to remote work, influenced by public health guidelines in response to the pandemic. By 2022, over 50% of employees in IT and data services worked remotely, with substantial increases in fields like professional services and finance (Pabilonia & Redmond, Reference Pabilonia and Redmond2024). However, sectors that require on-site presence, such as transportation, construction, and food services, remained less flexible, with less than 10% of employees working remotely (Pabilonia & Redmond, Reference Pabilonia and Redmond2024). The lack of a unified federal policy on remote work meant that companies, like federal agencies, were left to create their own remote work guidelines. Many companies adopted hybrid or flexible work models, with policies ranging from full remote work to limiting it to a few days per week or requiring office days (Smite et al., Reference Smite, Moe, Hildrum, Gonzalez-Huerta and Mendez2023).
The shift to remote work offered substantial benefits to employees, such as improved work–life balance (Charalampous et al, Reference Charalampous, Grant, Tramontano and Michailidis2019), higher job satisfaction, and enhanced performance (Antunes et al., Reference Antunes, Bridi, Santos and Fischer2023). Employers also benefitted from reduced overhead costs and improved retention and productivity (Gajendran et al., Reference Gajendran, Ponnapalli, Wang and Javalagi2024). However, access to these benefits was unequal, with disparities emerging during and after the pandemic. For example, in 2021, 60% of high-wage professional workers had remote work options, compared to less than 10% of low-wage workers (Dalton & Groen, Reference Dalton and Groen2022). These disparities were even more pronounced when considering race, with White and Asian workers more likely to hold office-based jobs that allow for remote work, whereas Black and Hispanic workers were more likely to work in sectors that require in-person attendance (Casselman et al., Reference Casselman, Goldberg and Koeze2024). Although federal policies had the potential to introduce regulations to incentivize or mandate broader remote work adoption, such measures were never implemented, leaving these inequities largely unaddressed.
2025 policy shifts: the return to in-office work
As of 2025, significant shifts in remote and hybrid work policies are underway, particularly in the public sector, reflecting a broader trend back to traditional office-based work. These policy changes mark a sharp reversal of the widespread adoption of remote work that began during the COVID-19 pandemic. The Telework Reform Act of 2024 marked the beginning of a policy shift away from remote work in the federal sector. The act rescinded several telework agreements for federal employees, signaling a reversal of policies established during the pandemic. This was followed by the Telework Transparency Act of 2024, which imposed stricter regulations on telework eligibility and reimbursement for work-related expenses, as well as required monitoring of remote work activities. On January 7, 2025, additional legislative moves, such as the introduction of the Federal Employee Return to Work Act and the Requiring Effective Management and Oversight of Teleworking Employees (REMOTE) Act, further exemplify this shifting landscape. The former proposes removing locality pay for employees who telework at least one day a week, whereas the latter mandates the use of monitoring software to track remote work and its impact on employee performance. Together, these changes represent a broader reversal to pre-2020 telework policies, shifting away from flexible arrangements toward more traditional office-based work.
In addition to these legislative actions, executive orders from the new Trump administration are also driving the shift to full-time in-person work. On January 20, 2025, a new Executive Order mandated that federal agencies end remote work and return to the office "as soon as practicable," with exceptions for employees with unique circumstances (Sahadi, Reference Sahadi2025). In response, the Environmental Protection Agency was one of the first agencies to implement this mandate, rescinding all remote work agreements with exceptions for certain employees (Heckman, Reference Heckman2025). Following suit, the General Services Administration and the Department of Health and Human Services set deadlines for March and April 2025, respectively, whereas the State Department targets 100% in-office attendance by July 2025 (Heckman, Reference Heckman2025).
Although the policy shifts in the public sector have been particularly pronounced, the private sector is also experiencing a similar trend. Many large organizations, including Amazon, AT&T, Boeing, Dell, and Walmart (Business Insider, 2025), have enforced full-time office attendance in line with the federal government’s policy changes. This trend is also reflected in a recent survey where nearly 80% of CEOs indicated they expect their hybrid employees to be back in the office full time by 2027 (Knopp, 2024). However, not all private sector organizations are following this path. Smaller companies, which often cannot compete on salary alone, are increasingly embracing remote work flexibility to attract and retain top talent (Lindzon, Reference Lindzon2024). This growing divide between larger organizations that enforce rigid RTO policies and smaller firms that offer flexible work arrangements further highlights the policy-driven disparities in access to remote work across industries.
The shifting policies around remote work in the federal and private sectors also inspire legislative movements addressing workers’ rights in the context of remote work. For example, several states such as New York and California, have proposed Right to Disconnect laws, which aim to limit employers’ expectations regarding after-hour digital availability (Jockims, Reference Jockims2024). These proposals follow similar laws enacted by several European countries, including France in 2017, Spain in 2018, and most recently, Ireland in 2021, where such laws are already in place (Hopkins, Reference Hopkins2024). These laws address growing concerns about employee burnout and work–life balance, particularly in remote work settings (Hopkins, Reference Hopkins2024). However, experts suggest that executive orders requiring full-time, in-person attendance may face legal challenges. For example, the executive order does not override legal protections such as the Rehabilitation Act, which allows federal employees with disabilities to request accommodation, including continued teleworking (Temin, Reference Temin2025). Moreover, collective bargaining agreements could protect telework rights and offer flexibility (Wiessner, Reference Wiessner2025), further complicating efforts to enforce mandatory in-person attendance.
The regulatory landscape of remote and hybrid work in the United States has experienced a profound shift in 2025, with the federal government leading the way in ending remote work options. These shifts have significant implications for employee well-being, career advancement, and workplace equity. The policies enacted at the federal level are influencing the private sector’s decisions to enforce RTO mandates, further intensifying disparities in access to flexible work arrangements. As these changes unfold, I-O psychologists have a vital role in studying and addressing the psychological and organizational impacts of these policies, ensuring that evidence-based practices guide the future of remote and hybrid work in both public and private sectors.
Implications for I-O psychology
The federal government’s 2025 shift toward in-office work marks a pivotal moment in the evolution of remote and hybrid work. This transition presents unique challenges and opportunities for both organizations and employees, and highlights the critical role of I-O psychologists in understanding and navigating these changes. As organizations grapple with RTO mandates, I-O psychologists must not only inform organizational practice but also guide future research to examine the psychological, organizational, and equity-related implications for these policies, ensuring they are evidence based and mindful of both employee well-being and organizational effectiveness.
Employee satisfaction and retention
One of the most immediate implications of RTO mandates is their potential negative impact on employee satisfaction and retention. Research has consistently shown that flexible work arrangements, such as remote and hybrid work, are linked to increased job satisfaction (Araki & Rappleye, Reference Araki and Rappleye2024). The forced return to in-person work, however, risks reversing these gains and could contribute to increased stress (Bloom et al., Reference Bloom, Barrero, Davis, Meyer and Mihaylov2023; Pandita, Gupta, & Vapiwala, Reference Pandita, Gupta and Vapiwala2024). As employees develop implicit expectations about workplace flexibility (Deas & Coetzee, Reference Deas and Coetzee2022), sudden changes to strict in-office policies could be perceived as a breach of this psychological contract, eroding trust and commitment to the organization. This, in turn, could contribute to disengagement and higher turnover rates, especially among employees who prioritize flexibility (Zamarro & Prados, Reference Zamarro and Prados2021).
In response to these challenges, future research could examine the impact of strict RTO policies on employees who have become accustomed to the flexibility of remote work. Studies could explore how trust, loyalty, and resentment evolve when these policies are implemented and how they affect employee morale and retention. Given that research shows that granting employees control over their work arrangements leads to higher motivation and job satisfaction (Deci & Ryan, Reference Deci and Ryan2000), I-O psychologists can advocate for strategies that balance in-office presence with flexible work options. In practice, organizations may consider adopting hybrid work models that offer employees some autonomy over their work arrangements, such as flexible hybrid policies that require in-office days but allow autonomy over scheduling. By developing evidence-based policies, organizations can ensure that flexibility is effectively leveraged to drive employee engagement and long-term commitment, fostering a more supportive and sustainable work environment.
Employee well-being
RTO mandates threaten employee well-being. Remote work has been shown to improve work-life balance and reduce stress (Hill et al., Reference Hill, Axtell, Raghuram and Nurmi2024). However, mandatory RTO policies could increase burnout and stress, particularly for employees with caregiving responsibilities (Jesus et al., Reference Jesus, Landry and Jacobs2020). As organizations consider implementing full-time RTO policies, it is crucial to examine how this shift may impact long-term employee well-being.
Future research should investigate the psychological impact of mandatory office presence on mental health, stress, and burnout, particularly for those who have previously benefited from flexible work. Additionally, future research could explore the differential impacts of these policies on marginalized groups, such as women, employees with caregiving responsibilities, and people with disabilities. This research would offer valuable insights into how organizations can implement inclusive work policies. Additionally, incorporating autonomy-supportive leadership (Yong et al., Reference Yong, Roche and Sutton2023) can help managers create a work environment that prioritizes work–life balance. Because existing studies often focus on short-term outcomes of remote work policies, future research could also investigate the long-term psychological effects of RTO policies.
In practice, organizations may consider implementing mental health programs or employee support resources to mitigate the potential negative effects of mandatory office attendance. Providing access to remote therapy services, burnout prevention workshops, and wellness initiatives can support employees during this transition. However, I-O psychologists should provide recommendations on these interventions based on evidence of their effectiveness to help organizations maintain a focus on employee well-being while balancing organizational needs.
Performance and career advancement
As office interactions have long been vital for networking, mentorship, and growth opportunities (Hughes et al., Reference Hughes, Niu and Greer2025), RTO policies raise concerns about employee career advancement. Research suggests that remote work limits career opportunities, particularly for women (Lafkas et al., Reference Lafkas, Christensen and Madsen2023). Limited access to mentorship and informal learning can prevent remote employees from gaining the same career opportunities as their in-office peers. This reinforces proximity bias, where employees who are physically present in the office receive greater visibility and more career advancement opportunities (Tsipursky, Reference Tsipursky2022), leading to disengagement among remote workers (Williamson et al., Reference Williamson, Jogulu, Lundy and Taylor2024). These issues disproportionately affect underrepresented groups, such as women with caregiving responsibilities (Zamarro & Prados, Reference Zamarro and Prados2021) and employees with disabilities (Jesus et al., Reference Jesus, Landry and Jacobs2020).
Although RTO policies often claim to improve organizational productivity or financial performance, research suggests that remote or hybrid models can be equally, if not more, effective, especially for high performers (Elliott, Reference Elliott2024). In contrast, organizations that have enforced rigid RTO policies have seen a decline in employee morale (Brodersen, Reference Brodersen2024). This highlights the need for future studies to examine the impact of RTO policies on career advancement, particularly among employees in hybrid or fully remote settings. For example, studies examining the effectiveness of remote mentorship programs and their role in career progression are particularly needed.
To mitigate proximity bias and ensure fair performance evaluations, I-O psychologists can advise organizations to adopt transparent evaluation criteria that minimize bias and promote equitable career advancement opportunities for all employees. Additionally, they can advocate for the implementation of inclusive performance evaluation systems that prioritize results. Such systems would assess employees based on their contributions and key performance indicators (KPIs), regardless of their physical work location. By focusing on inclusive, performance-based evaluation practices, I-O psychologists can help reduce disparities in career advancement and contribute to a more equitable and supportive work environments.
Organizational culture and ethical concerns
RTO mandates raise ethical concerns regarding employee privacy, equity, and trust, particularly with the increasing use of AI-driven monitoring tools to track digital activities (Manheim & Kaplan, Reference Manheim and Kaplan2019). These surveillance practices, such as screen time or keystrokes, can erode trust, increase stress, and reduce engagement (Mantello & Ho, Reference Mantello and Ho2024), especially among remote workers. Excessive monitoring not only creates a sense of constant scrutiny but also negatively impacts performance and engagement (Ball, Reference Ball2022).
I-O psychologists can contribute valuable research on the psychological effects of monitoring, comparing employee perceptions of fairness in organizations with different tracking approaches. This research can guide the design of performance management systems that balance employee trust and productivity. Additionally, I-O psychologists can assist in adopting transparent monitoring practices that focus on results and contributions, ensuring fair assessments that are independent of the time spent online. This is particularly important for remote workers, who may be disadvantaged by biased performance assessments (Zamarro & Prados, Reference Zamarro and Prados2021).
RTO policies also affect organizational culture, particularly in areas such as communication, collaboration, and trust. A poorly executed RTO mandate can reinforce proximity bias and create a two-tiered workplace. To mitigate these challenges, I-O psychologists can advocate for hybrid work models or flexible schedules that foster an inclusive culture. They can also guide transparent communication about RTO policies to reduce uncertainty and build trust (Dirks & Ferrin, Reference Dirks and Ferrin2002), helping organizations involve employees in decision making. Furthermore, I-O psychologists can help organizations navigate the ethical implications of AI-driven monitoring. By prioritizing work outcomes rather than excessive surveillance of employee behavior, I-O psychologists can support the development of ethical, evidence-based policies that promote fairness and foster positive workplace relationships.
Conclusion
The evolving landscape of remote and hybrid work presents both opportunities and challenges. RTO mandates aim to restore traditional work models but risk exacerbating existing workplace inequities. As organizations and policymakers navigate these changes, it is essential to prioritize flexibility and inclusivity in future policy frameworks to mitigate these risks.
Researchers and practitioners must actively engage in developing evidence-based solutions that consider the long-term effects of these policies on employee satisfaction, career advancement, and well-being. They must advocate for fair, flexible work models that provide equal access to opportunities for all employees. As the future of work continues to evolve, the path forward must be one where both policy and practice align with the needs of a diverse workforce.
Open access
