The United States is at a crossroads on remote work policy, and a recent report from Britain's House of Lords provides a clear path forward: stop treating telework as either a perk to defend or a problem to eliminate. The real task is determining what arrangement best enables public servants to perform effectively, serve citizens well, and stay in jobs that government increasingly struggles to fill.
The report's key insight is its rejection of one-size-fits-all rules. Home-based and hybrid work can boost recruitment, retention, disability inclusion, caregiving support, and regional economic opportunity. But it can also undermine mentoring, collaboration, onboarding, and workplace culture when managers fail to design it carefully. That balanced assessment is exactly what U.S. federal and state governments need right now.
Washington has moved aggressively toward return-to-office requirements. President Trump's 2025 memorandum directed federal agencies to end most remote-work arrangements and bring employees back to duty stations full-time, with limited exceptions. Several states have followed suit. Ohio, for instance, ordered many state employees back to offices via executive order. California set a default expectation of four in-office days per week for many state workers.
Some in-person work is undeniably essential. Government needs secure collaboration, public-facing services, emergency response, mentoring, and institutional culture. But office mandates should not pretend that physical presence automatically equals accountability. The better standard is performance: case backlogs, response times, service quality, staff retention, recruitment speed, employee engagement, office utilization, and citizen satisfaction.
The U.K. report also underscores that remote work is not just a convenience issue but a labor-force issue. A National Bureau of Economic Research paper on disability employment found that increased working from home explained a substantial share of the post-pandemic rise in full-time employment among people with physical disabilities. That should matter to every governor and agency head trying to fill public-sector vacancies. Remote and hybrid options can help government compete for talent, retain experienced workers, and expand access for those facing commuting, health, caregiving, or geographic barriers.
The U.S. should not simply copy Britain's approach but improve on it. Federal agencies and state governments should classify roles by function: site-required, hybrid-eligible, or remote-eligible. They should require managers to justify why location matters for specific tasks, not rely on blanket assumptions. They should train supervisors to manage hybrid teams, onboard new hires, coordinate anchor days, protect boundaries, and measure outcomes. A serious state telework policy should be transparent, auditable, and tied to public-service results.
The U.S. also needs better remote work data. Agencies should track what hybrid work does to productivity, equity, disability accommodations, real estate costs, cybersecurity, turnover, and service delivery. States must also address complications Britain does not face in the same way, especially interstate taxation, payroll, workers' compensation, and licensing. The National Conference of State Legislatures has warned that remote work can create complex state and local tax issues when employees work across borders.
The lesson from Britain is not that everyone should work from home. It is that serious governments should stop governing by slogan. The next stage of remote work reform should be evidence-based, role-specific, and focused on public value. Presence matters when the work demands it. Flexibility matters when it improves hiring, retention, inclusion, and performance. The governments that learn to tell the difference will serve citizens better than those that confuse office attendance with productivity.
As the U.S. grapples with broader challenges like crises of unchecked power and climate-driven interstate moves, getting remote work right could strengthen public trust and government effectiveness. Past debates over evidence have shown the dangers of ignoring data. This time, policymakers have a chance to lead with facts, not slogans.
