Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Under what legal authority is this happening?

I cannot understand how you can legally lay off 97% of an agency that is created from statute by Congress, has statutory obligations to fulfill, and currently has appropriated funding.

Explain it like I’m five.

None. Absolutely none. The money for these programs has been appropriated. It is mathematically impossible to carry out the statutory duties of the agency with 3% of the staff.

This is Trump’s second impoundment test case after the funding freeze last week.

The money has not been appropriated. They are operating under a CR that expires March 14.

A continuing resolution means they have money from the temp stop gap provided by Congress at previous appropriation levels. They have money, they have statutory obligations to meet, they are open for business.

In what world does a CR mean the POTUS can lay off an agency?

Anonymous wrote:there will be lawsuit, no way this is happening.

+10000

there will be lawsuit, no way this is happening.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Under what legal authority is this happening?

I cannot understand how you can legally lay off 97% of an agency that is created from statute by Congress, has statutory obligations to fulfill, and currently has appropriated funding.

Explain it like I’m five.

None. Absolutely none. The money for these programs has been appropriated. It is mathematically impossible to carry out the statutory duties of the agency with 3% of the staff.

This is Trump’s second impoundment test case after the funding freeze last week.

The money has not been appropriated. They are operating under a CR that expires March 14.

A CR means it was appropriated.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Under what legal authority is this happening?

I cannot understand how you can legally lay off 97% of an agency that is created from statute by Congress, has statutory obligations to fulfill, and currently has appropriated funding.

Explain it like I’m five.

None. Absolutely none. The money for these programs has been appropriated. It is mathematically impossible to carry out the statutory duties of the agency with 3% of the staff.

This is Trump’s second impoundment test case after the funding freeze last week.

The money has not been appropriated. They are operating under a CR that expires March 14.

Anonymous wrote:Under what legal authority is this happening?

I cannot understand how you can legally lay off 97% of an agency that is created from statute by Congress, has statutory obligations to fulfill, and currently has appropriated funding.

Explain it like I’m five.

None. Absolutely none. The money for these programs has been appropriated. It is mathematically impossible to carry out the statutory duties of the agency with 3% of the staff.

This is Trump’s second impoundment test case after the funding freeze last week.

Under what legal authority is this happening?

I cannot understand how you can legally lay off 97% of an agency that is created from statute by Congress, has statutory obligations to fulfill, and currently has appropriated funding.

Explain it like I’m five.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Seems less like this belongs in "jobs and careers" and more like this belongs in "political discussion".

Oh really?? A discussion of over 10,000 losing their jobs belong in “political discussion”? GTFO Muskion.

There are several discussions on the subject.

Anonymous wrote:Only 294 employees will be retained. Out of 14,000. Only 12 left in Africa.



https://x.com/Atul_Gawande/status/1887605173255630915

And it's not 12 left in Africa. It's 12 covering the region total. Of those 12, it's FOUR left temporarily to "draw down" overseas operations.

In the LAC region, four Mission Directors have been chosen to draw down operations in the region, and four staff will be in Washington to draw down from there (closing contracts, etc.).

Notice very few technical or others bureaus will have anyone to even shut off the lights: DRG, CPS, IPI, PLR, etc.

Source: I'm a USAID staff member with friends in some of these conversations.

Anonymous wrote:I’m sorry to my USAID colleagues. I’ve worked with many of you in the past and you all were examples of true commitment to public service. And that is unfortunately why you are being targeted. These people know nothing of service to others. I hope a suit is filed soon.

Yes, I echo this. My husband worked in international relief for over a decade and the people are just the best people. So passionate about helping those less fortunate around the world respond to devastating natural disasters and other crises. My father worked with the Ford Foundation alongside the very first group of Peace Corps volunteers in India in the 1960s. It is not a glamorous life anymore.

Does anyone know what will happen to the Peace Corps? Is it in the State Dept? My daughter is heading to college next year and was hoping to become a PCV afterwards.

I’m sorry to my USAID colleagues. I’ve worked with many of you in the past and you all were examples of true commitment to public service. And that is unfortunately why you are being targeted. These people know nothing of service to others. I hope a suit is filed soon.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Yes it will be shut down. We have seen the internal lists. It is being completely shut down.

You’ve seen random lists of grants you think are “stupid.” This is not a scandal.

No, I mean internal lists of employees being RIFed. Its over.

Are they following RIF procedures? That would be amazing given their contempt for the law.

Almost certainly not given that RIFs are complicated and require advance notice to employees and opportunity to update resumes to see where in the agency they could land. You cannot RIF an entire agency. Not legally. They may use the term RIF but they mean something else. Outright termination of jobs, many of which have statutory notice and response protections.

The administrative and civil lawsuits will be epic.

Anonymous wrote:Seems less like this belongs in "jobs and careers" and more like this belongs in "political discussion".

No, MAGA, you can't hide what you voted for. These ARE people's jobs, many of whom are our friends and neighbors.

Anonymous wrote:Seems less like this belongs in "jobs and careers" and more like this belongs in "political discussion".

Oh really?? A discussion of over 10,000 losing their jobs belong in “political discussion”? GTFO Muskion.

Seems less like this belongs in "jobs and careers" and more like this belongs in "political discussion".