Anonymous wrote:50,000 is way too low. We could make 87% of them disappear outside of DHS and the Military and not a single working American citizen would notice.

Tell us you have no vets, seniors, or developmentally disabled relatives in your life without telling us….

Anonymous wrote:Didn't read the article, but does it mean it will be easier to remove people from the federal workforce for incompetence or consistently not showing up to work?

Like Kash Patel?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Didn't read the article, but does it mean it will be easier to remove people from the federal workforce for incompetence or consistently not showing up to work?

Where do you work where this is permitted?

St. Petersburg probably.

Anonymous wrote:Didn't read the article, but does it mean it will be easier to remove people from the federal workforce for incompetence or consistently not showing up to work?

Where do you work where this is permitted?

Anonymous wrote:Didn't read the article, but does it mean it will be easier to remove people from the federal workforce for incompetence or consistently not showing up to work?

It's already easy to do if you follow the rules. Both agencies I've worked at had very active unions and employee populations who knew their rights and filed a lot of lawsuits for HR-related claims. They almost always lost. And, ftr, we suspending, disciplined, and fired lots of people. The idea that that doesn't happen is a myth.

I was litigation counsel on these cases, so I have first had experience over the last 25 years and can speak to this directly.

I retired after Trump was re-elected.

50,000 is way too low. We could make 87% of them disappear outside of DHS and the Military and not a single working American citizen would notice.

Anonymous wrote:Didn't read the article, but does it mean it will be easier to remove people from the federal workforce for incompetence or consistently not showing up to work?

Possibly...but that's not even the stated reason for doing it. The stated reason is to ensure better alignment to "President Trump's agenda". This is not the reason we have career civil service!

Anonymous wrote:Didn't read the article, but does it mean it will be easier to remove people from the federal workforce for incompetence or consistently not showing up to work?

No.

Didn't read the article, but does it mean it will be easier to remove people from the federal workforce for incompetence or consistently not showing up to work?

Tax season this year will be interesting because the IRS is pulling HR staff to cover tax help lines. Not qualified? They don’t care.

Anonymous wrote:Americans do not care about federal workers. They have been painted as the enemy.

This is somewhat true...but Americans will find out quickly what it means not to have independent, career government workers.

Anonymous wrote:Americans do not care about federal workers. They have been painted as the enemy.

Wrong.

Americans do not care about federal workers. They have been painted as the enemy.

Okay, one comment:

He added: “This rule preserves merit-based hiring, veterans’ preference and whistle-blower protections while ensuring senior career officials responsible for advancing President Trump’s agenda can be held to the same performance expectations that exist throughout much of the American work force.”

That's not the job of a career official!!!

Gift link from NYT: https://www.nytimes.com/live/2026/02/05/us/trump-news?unlocked_article_code=1.J1A.JFUH.vMBsRtcJo8Aq&smid=url-share

The Trump administration finalized a new policy on Thursday that would strip job protections from up to 50,000 federal workers, a move that would make it easier for President Trump to remove or discipline them, in his latest effort to dismantle the federal work force.

As a former fed, I can't even bring myself to comment on this I'm so upset to see they've finally done it.