166
Trump administration races to fix a big mistake: DOGE fired too many people
(www.washingtonpost.com)
this post was submitted on 06 Jun 2025
166 points (99.4% liked)
politics
23948 readers
2570 users here now
Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!
Rules:
- Post only links to articles, Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.
Links must be to the original source, not an aggregator like Google Amp, MSN, or Yahoo.
Example:
- Articles must be relevant to politics. Links must be to quality and original content. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and rehosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
- Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
- No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive. Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.
- Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
- No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in a ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be banned without warning
We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.
All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.
That's all the rules!
Civic Links
• Congressional Awards Program
• Library of Congress Legislative Resources
• U.S. House of Representatives
Partnered Communities:
• News
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
Huh, weird. Nearly any normal American could have told them beforehand.
They did exactly what they set out to do. Bust everything and then have a fuck up to serve as the fall guy.
There was no mistake. The damage he's done to the US has been fully intentional. He's a domestic enemy of the US carrying out attacks on our nation, not just a clueless politician blundering his way from mishap to another.
It's almost like putting the guy who famously, thoughtlessly fired way too many important people when he took over Twitter... In charge of doing the same thing to illegally fire people from government agencies was a bad idea.
Remember, Trump wanted this. Don't blame Elon Musk when you should be blaming all of them together, and especially the president who had control.
That's too many words. What are you, woke? Just tell me if it's going to make America great again.
Short answer no, Long answer noooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo
No, but now it's Musk's fault we aren't great.
The Washington Bezos headline is barf-inducing in it's soft-pedaling trumps role in the fuckup it's now "trying to 'fix'". I feel dirty linking to them. That shop is really fucked up.
It's curious to see people call Trump Putin's bitch while a guy like Bezos - who has utterly supplicated himself to Trump at every opportunity - gets such light treatment.
Also... by the transitive property of bitchness... is Amazon working for the Russians?
I know people in charge of staffing various departments at various military bases, and they have hundreds of open positions they can't fill because the people who took the buyout are still technically in those positions.
So they're double fucked. These are critical positions like medical and mechanical.
and they have hundreds of open positions they can’t fill because the people who took the buyout are still technically in those positions.
Even after DRP, we get the spots back at a 4:1 ratio...
So if 12 took it, 3 can be hired
yeah, it's a pretty shitty deal all around for the people trying to keep shit functioning.
On a long enough timeline this is just a speed bump
No matter what trump tries, he won't match the number of separations under Clinton, and we won't end up with a lower number after
They're both pretty much the same, coincidentally enough we had just gotten back up to pre-Clinton number of feds, so the comparison is easy.
But because a Republican did it instead of a Dem, we're likely to bounce back much faster this time.
What a bunch of false nonsense.
Who knows, maybe you have more decades of federal service than me which incentivized you to learn more about past events affecting the federal workforce...
But I'm often right about this stuff.
Quick edit:
In case youre out righting doubting the Clinton reduction and made the comment instead of googling:
According to testimony from Elaine Karmarck, the director of Clinton's initiative, it eliminated 426,200 federal roles between January 1993 and September 2000.
https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/clinton-trump-federal-workers/
trump won't match those numbers, because Feds trusted the programs under Clinton. No one left in the Fed trusts trump to hold up his end of any programs.
There's a shit ton of nuance that you're leaving out. According to the article you posted, it took 6 months just for the review process to see what could be done. Then years later for that number to be reached. Even states in the article that both aren't similar.
It's not that you're wrong, it's that you're presenting it poorly.
According to the article you posted, it took 6 months just for the review process to see what could be done. Then years later for that number to be reached. Even states in the article that both aren’t similar.
The purpose isn't just similar, it's exactly the same: reduce the federal workforce.
Your "argument" is that Clinton did it better, which is literally what I just said:
trump won’t match those numbers, because Feds trusted the programs under Clinton. No one left in the Fed trusts trump to hold up his end of any programs.
Under trump it's been an absolute shit show with no one having any idea what is going on. Under Clinton it was expansion of existing programs after investigating the situation.
Like, you're saying I'm wrong but you're agreeing with me and claiming I'm explaining it poorly?
I don't think that's what happening here. So I'm going to take steps from it happening again later.
Think about all the money the government is saving, though.
How much more money are we going to spend re-hiring for these roles? I refuse to think they’ve “saved” us anything.
Oh absolutely not. We’ve been thrown into a huge pit.
What many in the admin may want to do is auction which parts they keep. Have all the interested parties give funds to officials to keep that particular vital part up and running. Top 100 wins their department back.
What I suspect is this may be happening behind the scenes; I imagine some newly reinstated departments will have sponsors?
Department of Agriculture now brought to you by Monsanto! You’re growing them, but they’re our IP!
Grow a pear….we dare you!
Tonight's mail delivery is brought to you by Splurtbix! Ask your bartender if Splurtbix is right for you!