Trump Plans to put Americans in El Salvador's Mega-Prison & Trump Moves To Kill Education Department
PDS Published 02/04/2025
-
PART 1: EPA
We gotta talk about Donald Trump’s latest efforts to remake or – depending on who you ask – break the federal government.
And with that, today, we’re focusing on the Environmental Protection Agency, the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, and the Department of Education.
Right, starting with the EPA, where you have more than 1,000 employees getting an ominous message that they may be fired at any time.
With an email going mostly to staff members hired within the past year saying:
“As a probationary/trial period employee, the agency has the right to immediately terminate you.”
“The process for probationary removal is that you receive a notice of termination, and your employment is ended immediately.”[]
And as far as who exactly is getting this email?
Well, it's meant to be people who have worked at the agency less than a year, but the number reportedly includes experienced federal workers who had simply taken new assignments within the agency.
It also reportedly includes many employees who were hired under the Biden administration to rebuild the agency following Trump’s first term in office. []
And with that, many had reportedly been hired to work on programs created by Congress relatively recently –
Including replacing lead pipes, remediating toxic sites, and funding clean energy projects aimed at reducing greenhouse gas emissions.[]
And with all that, you have leaders from the American Federation of Government Employees, which represents about 8,000 EPA employees, reportedly describing this as just the beginning.
With Marie Owens-Powell, the head of AFGE Council 238, telling NBC News:
“The list is definitely flawed. Some folks with much more than a year of federal service received the email”
And adding that, for EPA leaders, “this was an exercise in correcting their list.”[]
But with that, you also have her explaining that even though probationary employees are easier to fire, they still have rights, telling the New York Times:
“There has to be cause, and the cause can’t be because you’re a Democrat and it’s a Republican administration.”
And with that, saying the union is consulting lawyers about whether the administration can fire workers based on a simple declaration of a change in agency priorities. []
The EPA, for its part, has a spokesperson saying in a statement that “[it’s] goal is to be transparent.”
Notably, however, according to The New York Times, the spokesperson declined to answer questions about the email –
Including whether the agency’s new administrator intended to terminate employees and, if so, for what reason.[]
But one thing’s for sure, we’re in uncharted territory.
Nicole Cantello, for example, another union leader, saying:
“Probationary employees are usually let go because they don’t perform well or were disciplined. We’ve never had a probationary mass firing in the 33 years I’ve been at EPA. This is unprecedented in scope and scale.”
And then, Michelle Roos(rhymes with loose), who heads a group of agency alumni, calling it the “the most chaotic and vindictive transition in the history of the Environmental Protection Agency.”[]
And adding:
“E.P.A. is at the center of the bullseye for President Trump’s vindictive purge of public servants.”[]
And with that, for example, EPA employees were among those who received the offer to receive about eight months pay if they resign by February 6th.
With two of them telling the Times they had initially dismissed that offer as untrustworthy but are now considering it. []
And then, beyond that, the Trump administration has reportedly already placed about 15 EPA employees working on DEI on administrative leave.
With Owens-Powell, the union leader, claiming the next employees to be targeted will likely be those working on environmental justice –
Or programs to help marginalized communities suffering from disproportionate levels of air and water pollution.[]
And then, of course, this goes way beyond the EPA.
Right, EPA workers may seemingly be the first to receive notice that they may be immediately dismissed –
But other federal agencies have been directed by the Office of Personnel Management to submit lists of probationary employees.[]
And with that, you have CNN reporting that the same warning will be sent to other agency workforces.
With the potential impact across the US government being massive, with the latest data showing there are more than 220,000 employees with probationary status.[]
PART 2:
And some among the most likely to be targeted?
Probably those working for the Department of Education.
Right, with Trump reportedly now getting ready to make good on his pledge to shut down the Department –
With his administration reportedly prepping an executive order that will ultimately aim to do so, but in the meantime, will be focused on basically weakening the Department as much as possible.
And there, I will say, the draft order reportedly acknowledges that only Congress has the authority to shut down the department –
Instead directing the agency to begin to, quote, “diminish” itself. []
Beyond that, it’s unclear how detailed the order will be, but it may direct the agency to try and move various functions to other federal departments.
And notably there, Project 2025? It detailed where different pieces of the department might end up if it were closed.[]
For example, recommending that the student loan program move to the Treasury Department and civil rights enforcement shift to the Justice Department.[]
Though, notably, Trump is already reversing a lot of the DOJ’s civil rights policies.
But in any case, even just shuffling things up like that would require Congressional approval.
And with that, just last week, a bill was actually introduced to abolish the Education Department by the end of 2026.
With Republican Thomas Massie saying:
“Unelected bureaucrats in Washington, D.C., should not be in charge of our children’s intellectual and moral development.”[]
But with that, according to one recent poll, 61% of registered voters opposed getting rid of the department. []
And getting it passed by Congress seems like a real stretch.
And so you have people like Michael Petrilli (Puh-trill-e), the head of a conservative think tank, saying as with a lot of Trump’s actions, it may be about testing the limits of presidential power.
With him also pointing to the way Trump has effectively shut down much of USAID without congressional approval and adding:
“He can’t do this on his own. He can’t actually dismantle the Department of Education. But boy, everything feels up in the air right now. … It’s been a disorienting couple of days, so who knows?”[]
And with that, you have some Trump supporters suggesting he should take action with or without congressional backing.
People like Jonathan Butcher, a researcher from the Heritage Foundation, which is behind Project 2025, telling Fox News:
Of course, in any case, we can expect to see pushback.
And in fact, you have advocacy groups like the National Student Legal Defense Network already getting ready to challenge any effort to dismantle the agency.
With the group’s president saying in a statement:
“Effectively shutting down the Department of Education through Executive Order or mass firings is a recipe for chaos that will disrupt the lives of students across the country.”
“Trying to do so without Congress is not only shortsighted but illegal and unconstitutional.” []
Though, all that said, even while we’re waiting for the executive order, the work on this is already underway.
For example, at least 74 non-management staff have reportedly been put on paid administrative leave in recent days.[]
And then, roughly 20 people with Elon Musk’s “Department of Government Efficiency” have reportedly begun working in the Education Department, looking to cut spending and staff. []
And notably, we’re reportedly again seeing DOGE employees getting access to multiple sensitive internal systems, –
Including a financial aid dataset that contains the personal information for millions of students enrolled in the federal student aid program.[]
But while we wait to see what happens with all that, we gotta keep moving.
And to finish this whole remaking/breaking the government segment, I wanna talk about Trump’s attack on a newer and lesser known agency in the government.
And that’s the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, or CFPB.
Right, it was actually only created in 2010 as a response to the Great Recession.
With the idea being to protect consumers from financial institutions and help prevent another crisis.
Many Republicans, however, have criticized the CFPB for its aggressive approach to regulating the financial services industry.
And in fact, more recently, Elon Musk calling on Congress to “delete” the bureau entirely.
With last week Ted Cruz actually unveiling the latest bill to pull its funding -
Describing it as an “unelected, unaccountable bureaucratic agency.”[]
And in the meantime, of course, Trump is again seeing what he can do without Congress.
Right, Scott Bessent, who was confirmed as Treasury secretary last week?
With one of his first actions there being giving Elon Musk and DOGE access to the department’s payment systems?
He’s now been named acting director of the CFPB.
He’s replacing Rohit Chopra (Roe-hit Cho-pruh), who was fired on Saturday, and who had served as the director since 2021 –
In that role issuing a number of regulations taking on big banks – including limiting overdraft fees, capping credit card late fees, and banning medical debt from appearing on credit reports.
As well as taking legal action against Capital One, Walmart, and Zelle and its parent banks.
Bessent, on the other hand?
He’s telling employees to stop working.
And specifically, ordering a freeze on activities including crafting regulations, enforcing rules, conducting probes or providing, quote, “public communications of any type.”[]
As well as ordering CFPB lawyers to cease defending their existing regulations in court, except to seek a delay in ongoing trials. []
And with that, while big business and Republicans may be celebrating, we’re seeing massive backlash from consumer advocates.
The head of a corruption watchdog called Accountable.US, for example, saying in a statement:
"While [Trump] parades a crowd of corporate lobbyists, billionaire donors, and Wall Street insiders like Scott Bessent to lead our country, we're looking at the end of basic protections for American consumers."[]
And then, Democratic politicians like Senator Elizabeth Warren, who actually had a key role in forming the CFPB, slamming Bessent, saying in a statement:
"Shutting down CFPB enforcement actions that are on the verge of delivering money into the pockets of working people is at odds with President Trump's claim that he wants to lower costs for families.”[]
But that’s where we are right now.
We’ll have to wait and see where all this ends up, but of course, more of this type of stuff is just gonna keep coming.
-
Looks like there could be a new reason fights break out in Waffle House.
Because the restaurant just announced it is temporarily placing a surcharge on every egg it sells in response to the shortage and increased prices.
That charge will be fifty cents per egg, which is notably its most popular item, right.[]
According to Waffle House’s website, the chain serves 272 million eggs a year, which is actually over double the amount of waffles it sells. []
With the company adding that:
“While we hope these price fluctuations will be short-lived, we cannot predict how long this shortage will last.”[]
And this issue is one you have likely noticed if you have been to the grocery store lately.
In some cases you might have found empty shelves, but if you got your hands on a dozen eggs, the average price in December 2024 was $4.15, compared to just $2.51 at the end of 2023.[]
Now, these prices have notably not hit the peak they did back in late 2022, but we could get there, as the Agriculture Department predicts egg prices will go up another 20% this year. []
In fact, NBC News even reported that during one week in mid-January, a dozen eggs were $5.29.[]
With these pricetags soaring as a result of a resurgence in the bird flu.
Over 13 million hens have been lost or slaughtered because of the outbreak just since December.
And right now, it does not look like the bird flu is going anywhere, with Emily Metz, the CEO of the American Egg Board telling CNN:
“Not to be the bearer of bad news, but we’re in this for a while. Until we have time without a detection, unfortunately this very, very tight egg supply is going to continue.”[]
And Waffle House is not the only restaurant in America struggling right now.
Eater just did a report noting tons of restaurants across the country are either raising prices or adapting their menus or recipes to use less eggs. []
Others using cheaper eggs, with the CEO of the southern chain Biscuit Belly telling Bloomberg that he is turning to liquid eggs to avoid having to charge people more, adding:[]
“We know the consumer is fed up with high prices. We’re just going to hold off for now and just watch it.”
And this comes as the price of eggs and groceries in general has become a polarized political issue.
Right, on the campaign trail, Trump blamed these issues on Biden and promised to lower costs on his first day in office. []
And while on Meet the Press in December, he even kind of acknowledged that this helped beat Kamala Harris, saying:
“When you buy apples, when you buy bacon, when you buy eggs, they would double and triple the price over a short period of time, and I won an election based on that. We’re going to bring those prices way down.”
And even though he has only been in the White House for a short time, people have been quick to see these headlines about egg prices and Waffle House and point the finger back at him. [][]
Though, you did previously have someone who tracks egg prices telling Axios that it would be unlikely Trump could solve this issue in a matter of weeks, especially amid the bird flu outbreak.[]
And for his administration’s part, his press secretary has continued to blame egg prices on Biden.
But Democrats are still saying Trump should take some responsibility.
Last week, Senator Elizabeth Warren and Rep. Jim McGovern from Massachusetts led a letter from several members of Congress that condemned Trump for not immediately focusing on food prices as promised.
Writing that:[]
“during your first week of office you have instead focused on mass deportations and pardoning January 6 attackers, including those who assaulted Capitol police officers. Your sole action on costs was an executive order that contained only the barest mention of food prices, and not a single specific policy to reduce them.”
And then encouraging him to act and outline a plan to lower grocery costs.
So as egg prices are only expected to rise, it is unlikely that this political blame game and back and forth will be going anywhere.
And I would just love to know your thoughts, whether it be on egg prices in general, restaurants like Waffle House responding, or how political this subject has become.
-
Over the last few months, things have gone poorly for Ukraine as it tries to get more weapons from allies amid Russian advancements in the East and continued strikes on Ukrainian cities… but President Donald Trump might be giving them a lifeline.
While speaking from the Oval Office yesterday, Trump answered some questions about Ukraine aid.
During that, he made it clear he was tired of Europe giving Ukraine far less aid than the US.
BUT he didn’t say aid would be cut off, instead he went on to say:
“So we’re looking to do a deal with Ukraine where they’re going to secure what we’re giving them with their Rare Earth and their ‘other’ things.” @24:41
We’ve talked about them in the past, but as a recap, rare earth minerals are things like lithium, titanium, graphite, and uranium: all of which are vital for modern tech or weapons.
As the name implies they’re pretty rare, making large deposits of them worth a fortune.
In Ukraine’s case, it’s believed they might be sitting atop trillions of dollars of the stuff -- and that’s just what they know of so far. []
There are active efforts to see if Ukraine is sitting on even more deposits.
This isn’t a completely new idea as a group of Republican Senators floated the idea back in 2024.
It even looked like it was going to go through for a while there under the Biden administration, but Ukrainian sources claim Zelensky held off in order to have a bargaining chip with Trump.
Not to mention that he’s openly proposed sharing Ukraine’s natural wealth with allies as part of his “victory plan.”[]
Regardless, the fact Ukraine is even considering giving up rights to rare earth minerals is a big deal because it could jeopardize its economy in the long-term.
It’s why many countries are hesitant to allow foreign companies to mine their resources.
Any potential deal is still in the early stages, but even the possibility that the US is still going to support Ukraine has angered Russia.
While speaking to reporters, the Kremlin’s senior spokesperson highlighted that this wasn’t an aid deal per se, and instead a “commercial” one before adding:
"It would be better of course for the assistance to not be provided at all, as that would contribute to the end of this conflict.”
Obviously Russia doesn’t want Ukraine getting any aid for any reason.
But this deal actually provides allies with a big incentive to continuously give Ukraine aid until it can reclaim territories either by force or through negotiation.
While it’s likely Trump’s “deal” will be received well by Ukraine, Zelensky hasn’t responded yet.
And that’s probably because he has his hands full with other issues right now.
Notably, Russia continues to make progress in the East, including notable progress in strategic cities.
There are a ton of reasons for this, ranging from a lack of weapons to a low morale among Ukrainian troops.
Right, newly formed units are being sent to the front with little experience or training… all of which leads to poor performance and high desertion rates.
On top of these setbacks, Russia continues to pummel Ukrainian cities.
The most recent missile strikes hit Iz-yoom early this morning and hit the city council buildings as well as apartments, as can be seen in footage Zelensky shared on Facebook.
And as of recording he also said that “twenty people have been injured. Tragically, five people have died.”
He went on to write:
“This brutality cannot be tolerated. Maximum pressure must be applied to Russia – through military force, sanctions, and diplomacy – to stop the terror and protect lives.”
Possibly the only bits of good news Ukraine has on the front lines is in Kursk, where North Korean troops have reportedly pulled away from the front, as well as its successful drone strikes on key Russian industries.
It’s likely all of this will remain extremely fluid, especially because Trump’s negotiating tactics are… unorthodox.
So we’ll have to wait and see and in the meantime I want to ask:
Do you think giving aid to Ukraine is worth it on its own as it helps US defense companies and thus American jobs?
Or is getting some rare earth minerals out of it a fair compromise or just exploiting Ukraine when it has little other choices?
Go to Vessi for 15% off your first order.
-
The newly appointed Secretary of State Marco Rubio has been busy the past few days with trips across Latin America and giving us a taste of what Trump's foreign policy will look like.
For starters, Rubio’s trip to Panama certainly didn’t lower tensions between the US and Panama.
In a summary of the meeting, the State Department repeated Trump’s claim that China is taking over the canal and added that:
“Secretary Rubio made clear that this status quo is unacceptable and that absent immediate changes, it would require the United States to take measures necessary to protect its rights under the treaty.”
However Panama had a slightly different version of what happened and instead made it seem like the conversation was pretty chill and that the US wouldn’t actually take the canal back. []
Those hopes were probably dashed after Trump said on Sunday that “we’re going to take it back, or something very powerful is going to happen.”
This is all in line with Trump’s repeated claims that China “operates” the American-built canal… which just isn’t true.
The closest thing it has to that is a Hong Kong-based company called CK Hutchison that operates ports at both ends of the canal.
However, Trump’s strong-arm negotiating tactics might just work, as there are multiple reports that Panama is considering canceling the deals with CK Hutchison rather than risk a confrontation with the US.
Although they might not have to act at all as a team of lawyers brought forth a lawsuit against CK Hutchinson, claiming that their contracts for the ports are unconstitutional.
While that’s all crazy enough, it’s hardly the most wild headline to come out of Rubio’s trip.
That honor goes to “Marco Rubio says El Salvador's president agrees to house US criminals in his country's jails.” []
And it really doesn’t seem like this is a situation where the headlines leave stuff out as El Salvador’s president Nah-yeeb Boo-keh-leh tweeted out:
“We have offered the United States of America the opportunity to outsource part of its prison system.
We are willing to take in only convicted criminals (including convicted U.S. citizens) into our mega-prison (CECOT) in exchange for a fee.
The fee would be relatively low for the U.S. but significant for us, making our entire prison system sustainable.” []
Rubio echoed that the deal would INCLUDE American citizens and called the deal “an act of extraordinary friendship.” []
He went on to say, “ ”
Details still need to be worked out, but to say this deal is controversial is an understatement.
First off is the fact that El Salvador’s prisons are notoriously overcrowded and brutal.
And I don’t mean in the “they beat you everyday” kind of way (although there are reports of that happening), but more along the lines of they take away your humanity.
It’s all part of Boo-keh-leh’s plan to heavily crack down on gang violence in the country.
Which has been effective with El Salvador going from the murder capital of the world to having the lowest homicide rate in the Western Hemisphere.
But many argue it’s come at the cost of civil rights, with reports that thousands have been arrested and held without charges or trials in his mega prisons.
Then there is the issue of whether this is actually constitutional within the US.
Many online don’t think it is, and the biggest hurdle is probably the Eighth Amendment, which bars “cruel and unusual punishments.”
Some argue that sending people abroad to be held in prisons amounts to “exile,” and further contend that exile is barred under the Amendment. []
Others went straight to claiming this if allowed:
“US citizens will be sent to El Salvador for their political dissent.
Stop defending these monsters.
Americans will die in El Salvadoran prisons for their speech.
America is so incredibly cooked and yet half of America will defend this.” []
However others praised the idea and said things like:
“Let's see how the thugs of Chicago, Atlanta, New York, LA, etc, enjoy the vacation there.” []
The reality though is that we have little details about the deal, which Rubio said would be “forthcoming.” []
In the meantime, it’s hard to call anything "unconstitutional" considering the Supreme Court right now and its willingness to upend precedents.
(Also in far less crazy news, Rubio also signed a civil nuclear cooperation memorandum with El Salvador, which is meant to help developing countries expand their nuclear power capabilities).
So instead of focusing on that, do you think it’s RIGHT to send people to foreign prisons regardless of their crimes?
Or do you think only Americans should get protections from being sent abroad?
-
We have some major news from Capitol Hill today.
First, RFK Jr. has just taken a huge step toward becoming the next health secretary.
With the Senate Finance Committee officially voting 13 to 14 along party lines to advance his nomination for a full floor vote.
And that’s actually really major because his approval by the committee was not at all a sure thing — especially after his controversial, high-profile hearings last week.
Right, because the panel is split 13 Democrats to 14 Republicans, just one GOP senator needed to flip in order to block the nomination.
With all eyes on the committee’s chairman, Sen. Bill Cassidy — a doctor who openly said he was unsure if he could vote for Kennedy because of his outspoken vaccine skepticism.
But he ultimately decided to back the controversial nominee, writing on X just before the vote:
“I’ve had very intense conversations with Bobby and the White House over the weekend and even this morning. I want to thank VP JD specifically for his honest counsel. With the serious commitments I’ve received from the administration and the opportunity to make progress on the issues we agree on like healthy foods and a pro-American agenda, I will vote yes.”[]
But his decision also comes after a massive push for Cassidy to fall in line and back Trump’s pick to lead HHS.
This including members from his own Louisiana delegation pushing him to support RFK Jr., with one posting on social media: “We're watching.”
There were also a lot of threats that Cassidy — who is up for election in the midterms — would be primaried.
Including from a new Trump-aligned group that was literally formed just to pressure Senators to vote for RFK, and which vowed that “all uncommitted Republican Senators will be targeted.”
With Kennedy’s former running mate also threatening to fund primary challenges against any senators who voted against his nomination.
And you also had Trump himself chiming in on Truth Social today, seemingly implying that vaccines give people autism and adding: “We need BOBBY!!!”[]
But on the note of pressure campaigns for Republican senators to back controversial Trump appointees, we also saw a very public push around Tulsi Gabbard's nomination as director of national intelligence.
Which is set to be voted on by the Senate Intelligence Committee later this afternoon.
Right, there was a lot of speculation about whether she’d make it out of committee because of her controversial past stances and actions, which have raised concerns among many Republicans.
But after two closely-watched GOP Senators announced they would be supporting her, we saw pressure really ramping up for Sen. Todd Young — widely viewed as the final holdout — to do the same.
This including from some very powerful conservative voices like Meghan McCain, who posted on X:
“@SenToddYoung is the new Liz Cheney. Do the people of Indiana who voted for him know he is actively trying to stop @TulsiGabbard from getting her job she earned?”[]
We also saw Elon Musk chiming in, posting a now-deleted tweet calling Young a “deep state puppet.”
Though he seemed to change his tune after deleting the post, writing another where he said he had just “an excellent conversation” with the Senator and adding:
“I stand corrected. Senator Young will be a great ally in restoring power to the people from the vast, unelected bureaucracy.”[]
Right, and from that last post, it was pretty clear that Young had indicated to Musk that he would back Gabbard.
With the Senator officially confirming his support this morning, saying on X that he would be backing her after receiving the necessary commitments, which were outlined in a letter she sent him that he shared in his posts. [][]
So, as far as what happens next, nominees approved by committees go to the full Senate for a vote, and the big question here will be whether there will be enough Republican defections to tank the confirmations.
Right, nominees can only lose three Republicans if all Democrats vote against them.
And there are some notable holdouts that could block both RFK Jr. and Gabbard.
For Kennedy, all eyes are on Senators Susan Collins and Lisa Murkowski, who have been known to vote against Trump nominees before.
Then there’s also a secret third thing: Mitch McConnell.
Right, he is a polio survivor who has spoken firmly in favor of the vaccine and issued a strongly-worded statement about how vital it is last month when the media was reporting heavily on RFK Jr.’s skepticism of that immunization.
With that widely viewed as a rebuke of Kennedy.
But that’s only three Senators, and unless they get one more, Vice President JD Vance can break a tie — which is exactly what he did for Pete Hegseth’s confirmation when those same three Senators voted against Trump’s pick to lead the DoD.
And to that point, there also has been speculation that the Collins, Murkowski, McConnell trio could vote against Gabbard as well.
But it seems like Collins is out now because she announced yesterday that she would be voting to advance Gabbard’s nomination through the Intelligence Committee.
Now, that said, there are others who have spoken against her, but again, it’s unclear if there will be enough members to actually tank the confirmation vote.
Especially given the pressure campaigns we’ve been seeing against Republicans who dare to vote against even some of Trump’s picks.
But that’s where we are with this one for now, and we’ll just have to wait and see how all this plays out.
-
Trump’s federal buyout has gotten insane.
Right, we’ve touched on the buyout before but, like everything these days, there has been a bunch of updates and confusion since then.
If you don’t remember, last week, the Office of Personnel Management sent out an email to federal workers titled “Fork in the Road.”
Which detailed a program that would allow eligible federal workers to voluntarily resign from their positions and continue to receive their full salary and benefits through September 30th. []c
With the idea being to cut down the size of the federal government fast by incentivizing employees to leave their posts with 8 months of pay. []
Now, even in the initial memo, there were some parts that caused concern - like the fact that those who decide to stay reportedly aren’t offered any guarantees.
With the memo saying employees can’t be given, quote, “full assurance regarding the certainty of your position or agency” should they decide to stay. []
The email also adding that a lot of agencies will likely be downsized and that a lot of the workforce will be reclassified to an “at-will’ status or furloughed. []
Making them easier to fire.
And almost immediately after this memo went out, there was backlash.
With many, including the American Federation of Government Employees - which is the largest federal workforce union - questioning whether this is even legal.
Saying that the communication from the OPM is quote, “riddled with inconsistencies and uncertainties.” []
And adding,
“It is also unclear whether OPM has the legal authority to support the Program or its alleged benefits, and the eligibility criteria are vague.”
Even some Republicans are reportedly saying that this probably isn’t legal.
Though CBS says their sources say it’s unlikely any congressional Republicans are going to push back. []
Not to mention the dozen Democratic attorneys general issuing a statement calling this whole thing “misleading.” []
With Tish James, the AG for New York, saying in a statement,
"President Trump's so-called buyout offers are nothing more than the latest attack on federal workers and the services they provide. These supposed offers are not guaranteed. Federal employees should be cautious and follow the guidance of their unions to protect their rights." []
That lack of guarantee is a big area of concern for some - with attorneys, unions, and even members of Congress pointing out that pay and benefits after March can’t be promised because of government funding. []
Senator Patty Murray explaining in a statement,
"It's important you know that, right now, the federal government is only funded through March 14, 2025. At this point, there is no funding allocated to agencies to pay staff for this offer." []
And because of all of this and more, federal workers’ unions have also pushed back hard against this buyout plan - urging their members not to take the deal.
With Randy Erwin, the national president of the National Federation of Federal Employees, saying,
“Unlike structured programs that the federal government offered in the past to decrease the number of federal employees, this maneuver is intended to panic civil servants into accepting what seems like a sweet deal but is probably a scam.
“The offer is a scare tactic designed to pressure federal workers into quitting while promising under an illegal and unenforceable agreement to pay them until October.” []
Though the OPM has pushed back in turn - accusing the unions of “misinformation” and “using workers like political pawns.”
Saying,
"This is a rare, generous opportunity — one that was thoroughly vetted and intentionally designed to support employees through restructuring.” []
But the confusion doesn’t stop with legality - there have been a flood of new questions about the fine print of the deal.
Especially since several federal agencies have sent out sample contract agreements for this program and some of the language there reportedly doesn’t match up with OPM’s memo. []
Notably, some of the contracts reportedly require those who decide to resign through this program to work through February. []
And then be put on administrative leave by March 1st.
And NPR reports that this is the first mention of any dates and that there had previously not been clarity regarding administrative leave. []
Though the OPM’s frequently asked questions page notes that no one who accepts this buyout will be expected to work at their position during the deferred resignation period. []
But another big area of confusion has been whether workers can seek other employment.
With OPM's FAQ page saying that people are absolutely welcome to find another job in the private sector as soon as they’d like. []
But the new language says that employees have to adhere to ethics rules and at some agencies, that reportedly means getting prior approval for outside positions. []
And then NPR points out that another section of the sample contract asks employees to acknowledge that federal agencies can rescind the agreement but that employees won’t have a chance to appeal. []
Then there’s the section asking employees to waive their right to pursue judicial, administrative or any other action against their employer regarding their time working for the government or the deferred resignation. []
But even amid all this confusion, there have reportedly been a lot of people agreeing to leave.
With Axios reporting that a senior Trump official said that 20,000 federal workers accepted the buyout offer so far.
And while that seems like a lot of people, it’s only about 1% of the federal workforce.
Which is a far cry from the 5 to 10% the White House was reportedly aiming for. []
But there are still a couple of days before the window closes so we’ll have to see how that number changes.
In the meantime, though, I would love to know your thoughts about this.
Especially if you work in the public sector.
Let me know in those comments down below.
Go to MeUndies and use code philipdefranco for huge sitewide savings.
![[]](https://wgnradio.com/wp-content/uploads/sites/6/2020/04/Petrilli_Mike.jpg?w=1280){kind=link}
:max_bytes(150000):strip_icc():focal(764x299:766x301)/meghan-mccain-04050cca9a6a491e893778c76da4b7d0.jpg){kind=link}
