Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:At the very end: “ This order shall be implemented consistent with applicable law and subject to the availability of appropriations.”

Translation: they can’t do 99% of what they propose.

wink wink. They’ll try but they’ll fail in court bc of this little thing call the Constitution.

In the end, it's possible, but when they tell you you are RIFed, lock you out of your office, block access to your computer/system, and don't pay you, will it really matter?

That’s not how RIFs work. Moreover, you honestly think they’re going to try to fire to 80% of the federal workforce? The federal government, unlike Twitter/X does things people actually care about. If those things go away, it’s going to be very bad.

Elon is beyond grandiose. That doesn’t mean he can do all the things he fantasizes about.

yeah I don’t get it. I literally had industry in my office yesterday complaining how short staffed we are. We perform a story function but are not “essential” in a shut down.

The whole “we’re going to RIF everyone who’s not essential in a shutdown” is more of their BS. Good luck with that. Elon’s delulu, as the youth say.

I'm a little confused -- the EO doesn't quite say RIF everyone who is not essential in a shutdown. It states that the RIF plans should include such people. But aside from that, I don't quite get why the sentiment is that 70-90% of Feds at some agencies will be RIFd (700K across all agencies per the Biden guidance preparing for possible lapse in 2023).

All indications from the budget framework in Congress is that they are looking for 2T in spending reductions over 10 years. That is a modest 200B/year. Most of these will come from discretionary spending (Medicaid, food stamps, IRA provisions, student loans, Medicare site neutral payments etc.). The gimmick in this math is that Republicans want to use current policy as the baseline (i.e. TCJA is current policy and extending it doesn't change the current baseline nor add to the deficit). The 2T in spending cuts will offset the other tax cuts the Republicans want to enact, i.e. resetting SALT deductions to pre-2017 levels and the SS and tipped wage tax exemptions. There will be a more modest trimming of other discretionary spending but likely not more than 10% of current levels, because no committee chair wants to preside over a committee that appropriates any money.

So, if most discretionary programs maybe see a 10% cut (about the same size as sequestration, for those who remember), then the agencies will still need staff to administer the programs. Yes, some of this work might flow to contractors, but contractors will take time to set up and implement systems. There is already talk of Wall Street administering some of USAID programs.

So something doesn't add up. I am not going Chicken Little yet.

""appropriates any money."" - appropriates NO money

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Read the definition of “law enforcement” in the EO. It’s very very broad. Encompasses everyone from doj to sec/ftc.

Easier to ask which agencies the RIFs DO apply to!! Ie, which agencies have absolutely no law enforcement functions (as defined by this EO)?

Doesn’t matter how it could be interpreted. It matters how OPM is going to interpret it. And the answer is, not as broadly as you hope.

Does the overturning of Chevron deference take away power from OPM/DOGE to interpret the law and do what they want? Would it now be up to the judge to do that? - (Obviously) not a lawyer

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Read the definition of “law enforcement” in the EO. It’s very very broad. Encompasses everyone from doj to sec/ftc.

Easier to ask which agencies the RIFs DO apply to!! Ie, which agencies have absolutely no law enforcement functions (as defined by this EO)?

That’s not how I read it and I’d be willing to bet a lot of money that the guidance/pressure to come from DOGE and OPM isn’t reading it that way.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:At the very end: “ This order shall be implemented consistent with applicable law and subject to the availability of appropriations.”

Translation: they can’t do 99% of what they propose.

wink wink. They’ll try but they’ll fail in court bc of this little thing call the Constitution.

In the end, it's possible, but when they tell you you are RIFed, lock you out of your office, block access to your computer/system, and don't pay you, will it really matter?

That’s not how RIFs work. Moreover, you honestly think they’re going to try to fire to 80% of the federal workforce? The federal government, unlike Twitter/X does things people actually care about. If those things go away, it’s going to be very bad.

Elon is beyond grandiose. That doesn’t mean he can do all the things he fantasizes about.

yeah I don’t get it. I literally had industry in my office yesterday complaining how short staffed we are. We perform a story function but are not “essential” in a shut down.

The whole “we’re going to RIF everyone who’s not essential in a shutdown” is more of their BS. Good luck with that. Elon’s delulu, as the youth say.

I'm a little confused -- the EO doesn't quite say RIF everyone who is not essential in a shutdown. It states that the RIF plans should include such people. But aside from that, I don't quite get why the sentiment is that 70-90% of Feds at some agencies will be RIFd (700K across all agencies per the Biden guidance preparing for possible lapse in 2023).

All indications from the budget framework in Congress is that they are looking for 2T in spending reductions over 10 years. That is a modest 200B/year. Most of these will come from discretionary spending (Medicaid, food stamps, IRA provisions, student loans, Medicare site neutral payments etc.). The gimmick in this math is that Republicans want to use current policy as the baseline (i.e. TCJA is current policy and extending it doesn't change the current baseline nor add to the deficit). The 2T in spending cuts will offset the other tax cuts the Republicans want to enact, i.e. resetting SALT deductions to pre-2017 levels and the SS and tipped wage tax exemptions. There will be a more modest trimming of other discretionary spending but likely not more than 10% of current levels, because no committee chair wants to preside over a committee that appropriates any money.

So, if most discretionary programs maybe see a 10% cut (about the same size as sequestration, for those who remember), then the agencies will still need staff to administer the programs. Yes, some of this work might flow to contractors, but contractors will take time to set up and implement systems. There is already talk of Wall Street administering some of USAID programs.

So something doesn't add up. I am not going Chicken Little yet.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:At the very end: “ This order shall be implemented consistent with applicable law and subject to the availability of appropriations.”

Translation: they can’t do 99% of what they propose.

wink wink. They’ll try but they’ll fail in court bc of this little thing call the Constitution.

In the end, it's possible, but when they tell you you are RIFed, lock you out of your office, block access to your computer/system, and don't pay you, will it really matter?

That’s not how RIFs work. Moreover, you honestly think they’re going to try to fire to 80% of the federal workforce? The federal government, unlike Twitter/X does things people actually care about. If those things go away, it’s going to be very bad.

Elon is beyond grandiose. That doesn’t mean he can do all the things he fantasizes about.

yeah I don’t get it. I literally had industry in my office yesterday complaining how short staffed we are. We perform a story function but are not “essential” in a shut down.

The whole “we’re going to RIF everyone who’s not essential in a shutdown” is more of their BS. Good luck with that. Elon’s delulu, as the youth say.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:At the very end: “ This order shall be implemented consistent with applicable law and subject to the availability of appropriations.”

Translation: they can’t do 99% of what they propose.

wink wink. They’ll try but they’ll fail in court bc of this little thing call the Constitution.

In the end, it's possible, but when they tell you you are RIFed, lock you out of your office, block access to your computer/system, and don't pay you, will it really matter?

That’s not how RIFs work. Moreover, you honestly think they’re going to try to fire to 80% of the federal workforce? The federal government, unlike Twitter/X does things people actually care about. If those things go away, it’s going to be very bad.

Elon is beyond grandiose. That doesn’t mean he can do all the things he fantasizes about.

yeah I don’t get it. I literally had industry in my office yesterday complaining how short staffed we are. We perform a story function but are not “essential” in a shut down.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:At the very end: “ This order shall be implemented consistent with applicable law and subject to the availability of appropriations.”

Translation: they can’t do 99% of what they propose.

wink wink. They’ll try but they’ll fail in court bc of this little thing call the Constitution.

In the end, it's possible, but when they tell you you are RIFed, lock you out of your office, block access to your computer/system, and don't pay you, will it really matter?

That’s not how RIFs work. Moreover, you honestly think they’re going to try to fire to 80% of the federal workforce? The federal government, unlike Twitter/X does things people actually care about. If those things go away, it’s going to be very bad.

Elon is beyond grandiose. That doesn’t mean he can do all the things he fantasizes about.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It seems that these cuts would put the economy into a recession. Everything has a ripple effect. Consumer spending would contract. So everyone/everything the workers spend money on would be affected. Mortgage defaults would increase. And all this would happen at a time when prices will increase because of tariffs. As others noted, most of the federal workforce is outside DMV. This would have ripple effects for the entire nation.

This will undoubtedly have a great impact on the DMV. However, it’s unlikely to impact other localities to even close to the same degree.

It definitely would. There is a huge federal government presence in Kansas City, for one. Huntsville, AL, too. There are FBI field offices across the country. Federal courthouses. The national parks and their tourism $$$. The list goes on and on.

There was just an article that the federal govt is the largest employer by far in Kansas City.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Meh only Congress can RIF. Waiting for the court ruling in 3,2,1…

Yes, RIFs are governed by specific statutes. They don’t just happen because a President arbitrarily orders them.

The basis for NO Reduction in Force (RIF) without a reduction in funding primarily stems from federal appropriations law and Office of Personnel Management (OPM) regulations governing RIF procedures. Here are the key legal foundations:

1. Appropriations Clause of the U.S. Constitution
• Article I, Section 9, Clause 7: “No Money shall be drawn from the Treasury, but in Consequence of Appropriations made by Law.”
• This means the Executive Branch cannot eliminate federally funded positions without congressional authorization unless the appropriated funds are insufficient to sustain them.

2. Federal Personnel and RIF Laws
• 5 U.S.C. § 3502 (Retention Preferences and RIF Regulations)
• Establishes the legal framework for RIFs, stating that they occur when there is a “lack of work, shortage of funds, or reorganization.”
• Without a shortage of funds, agencies cannot conduct RIFs simply for management convenience unless Congress authorizes a restructuring.
• 5 C.F.R. Part 351 (OPM RIF Regulations)
• Defines RIF procedures, specifying that an agency must justify the RIF based on lack of work, shortage of funds, reorganization, or the exercise of a reemployment right.
• Agencies must follow these regulations when separating, demoting, or reassigning employees.

3. Impoundment Control Act of 1974 (2 U.S.C. § 681 et seq.)
• Prevents the Executive Branch from withholding or delaying congressionally appropriated funds without approval from Congress.
• The White House cannot refuse to use allocated agency funds to force layoffs unless Congress explicitly rescinds or reduces those funds.

4. Antideficiency Act (31 U.S.C. § 1341)
• Prohibits government officials from making financial commitments exceeding available appropriations.
• If an agency is fully funded, ordering a RIF without a funding shortage could be seen as an unlawful refusal to execute appropriated funds.

5. Federal Vacancies Reform Act (5 U.S.C. §§ 3345–3349d)
• Limits the President’s ability to bypass Senate-confirmed leadership and appoint temporary officials who could otherwise attempt to execute mass layoffs without proper authority.

Bottom Line:
• RIFs require a legal basis—either a funding shortfall, reorganization, or lack of work.
• If Congress has fully funded an agency, the White House cannot unilaterally RIF employees unless:
1. Congress authorizes a reorganization (e.g., through specific legislation).
2. The agency faces a legitimate shortage of work (not just a preference for downsizing).
3. Funds are rescinded or restricted by law (requiring a congressional act).

In summary, a lack of reduced funding means an agency has no statutory basis to RIF employees unless Congress explicitly permits it.

I love you!

The lack of funding will come in the form of the President’s Budget which will come out around May timeframe. It will then need to be passed, which could be a problem. But trust that Mr Evil Vought will be planning that budget in the next few months with Mr Evil Musk and it will have the cuts to agency budgets. We gotta start connecting the dots people. Start connecting the dots!!!

Correct.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:At the very end: “ This order shall be implemented consistent with applicable law and subject to the availability of appropriations.”

Translation: they can’t do 99% of what they propose.

wink wink. They’ll try but they’ll fail in court bc of this little thing call the Constitution.

In the end, it's possible, but when they tell you you are RIFed, lock you out of your office, block access to your computer/system, and don't pay you, will it really matter?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Read the definition of “law enforcement” in the EO. It’s very very broad. Encompasses everyone from doj to sec/ftc.

Easier to ask which agencies the RIFs DO apply to!! Ie, which agencies have absolutely no law enforcement functions (as defined by this EO)?

That’s not how I read it and I’d be willing to bet a lot of money that the guidance/pressure to come from DOGE and OPM isn’t reading it that way.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Read the definition of “law enforcement” in the EO. It’s very very broad. Encompasses everyone from doj to sec/ftc.

Easier to ask which agencies the RIFs DO apply to!! Ie, which agencies have absolutely no law enforcement functions (as defined by this EO)?

Doesn’t matter how it could be interpreted. It matters how OPM is going to interpret it. And the answer is, not as broadly as you hope.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Read the definition of “law enforcement” in the EO. It’s very very broad. Encompasses everyone from doj to sec/ftc.

Easier to ask which agencies the RIFs DO apply to!! Ie, which agencies have absolutely no law enforcement functions (as defined by this EO)?

Doesn’t matter how it could be interpreted. It matters how OPM is going to interpret it. And the answer is, not as broadly as you hope.

Lol OPM. you mean DOGE.

Yes, DOGE is running OPM.

Anonymous wrote:Read the definition of “law enforcement” in the EO. It’s very very broad. Encompasses everyone from doj to sec/ftc.

Easier to ask which agencies the RIFs DO apply to!! Ie, which agencies have absolutely no law enforcement functions (as defined by this EO)?