Anonymous wrote:CNN is reporting they want to fire 50,000 civilian employees at DOD. Which is insane.

The Defense Department has temporarily paused a plan to carry out mass firings of civilian probationary employees until Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth and the Pentagon’s Office of General Counsel can carry out a more thorough review of the impacts such firings could have on US military readiness, two defense officials familiar with the matter told CNN.

The pause comes after CNN reported on Wednesday that the mass terminations, which could affect over 50,000 civilian employees across the Pentagon, could run afoul of Title 10 section 129a of the US code. Following that report, Pentagon lawyers began reviewing the legality of the planned terminations more closely, the officials said.

That law says that the secretary of defense “may not reduce the civilian workforce programmed full-time equivalent levels unless the Secretary conducts an appropriate analysis” of how those firings could impact the US military’s lethality and readiness. The law also says that mitigating risk to US military readiness takes precedence over cost.

https://www.cnn.com/2025/02/21/politics/pentagon-firings-review/index.html

Anonymous wrote:CNN is reporting they want to fire 50,000 civilian employees at DOD. Which is insane.

The Defense Department has temporarily paused a plan to carry out mass firings of civilian probationary employees until Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth and the Pentagon’s Office of General Counsel can carry out a more thorough review of the impacts such firings could have on US military readiness, two defense officials familiar with the matter told CNN.

The pause comes after CNN reported on Wednesday that the mass terminations, which could affect over 50,000 civilian employees across the Pentagon, could run afoul of Title 10 section 129a of the US code. Following that report, Pentagon lawyers began reviewing the legality of the planned terminations more closely, the officials said.

That law says that the secretary of defense “may not reduce the civilian workforce programmed full-time equivalent levels unless the Secretary conducts an appropriate analysis” of how those firings could impact the US military’s lethality and readiness. The law also says that mitigating risk to US military readiness takes precedence over cost.

https://www.cnn.com/2025/02/21/politics/pentagon-firings-review/index.html

Anonymous wrote:CNN is reporting they want to fire 50,000 civilian employees at DOD. Which is insane.

The Defense Department has temporarily paused a plan to carry out mass firings of civilian probationary employees until Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth and the Pentagon’s Office of General Counsel can carry out a more thorough review of the impacts such firings could have on US military readiness, two defense officials familiar with the matter told CNN.

The pause comes after CNN reported on Wednesday that the mass terminations, which could affect over 50,000 civilian employees across the Pentagon, could run afoul of Title 10 section 129a of the US code. Following that report, Pentagon lawyers began reviewing the legality of the planned terminations more closely, the officials said.

That law says that the secretary of defense “may not reduce the civilian workforce programmed full-time equivalent levels unless the Secretary conducts an appropriate analysis” of how those firings could impact the US military’s lethality and readiness. The law also says that mitigating risk to US military readiness takes precedence over cost.

https://www.cnn.com/2025/02/21/politics/pentagon-firings-review/index.html

The Defense Department has temporarily paused a plan to carry out mass firings of civilian probationary employees until Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth and the Pentagon’s Office of General Counsel can carry out a more thorough review of the impacts such firings could have on US military readiness, two defense officials familiar with the matter told CNN.

The pause comes after CNN reported on Wednesday that the mass terminations, which could affect over 50,000 civilian employees across the Pentagon, could run afoul of Title 10 section 129a of the US code. Following that report, Pentagon lawyers began reviewing the legality of the planned terminations more closely, the officials said.

That law says that the secretary of defense “may not reduce the civilian workforce programmed full-time equivalent levels unless the Secretary conducts an appropriate analysis” of how those firings could impact the US military’s lethality and readiness. The law also says that mitigating risk to US military readiness takes precedence over cost.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Any insight on:
* DOD Contractors?
* FFRDCs (APL, MITRE, IDA, CNA etc)
Thank you.

RAND is a mess.

Anonymous wrote:Any insight on:
* DOD Contractors?
* FFRDCs (APL, MITRE, IDA, CNA etc)
Thank you.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Any insight on:
* DOD Contractors?
* FFRDCs (APL, MITRE, IDA, CNA etc)
Thank you.

I work for one of the “Big 5.” We haven’t gotten any terminations at all yet. We also have some contracts at civilian agencies and haven’t seen any impacts there either.

Most of these FFRDCs have a lot of bloat and need to get down. Look at a place like IDA, most of their time is spent on making reports on Govt dime that are not useful. This is to make them look good and just to spread their name around and their budget is $300M+/ year. Need to cut.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Any insight on:
* DOD Contractors?
* FFRDCs (APL, MITRE, IDA, CNA etc)
Thank you.

I work for one of the “Big 5.” We haven’t gotten any terminations at all yet. We also have some contracts at civilian agencies and haven’t seen any impacts there either.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:My DS recently graduated with a MS degree from CMU, undergrad from MIT, is scheduled to start as a Fed for the DoD on February 24th. He received an email last night that it will not happen. He turned down offers from Apple, Amazon, and an IB company to work for the DoD. This is a loss for the defense department.

He should reach out quietly to his government contact - not HR but the hiring manager - and see if they are able to hire him through a “body shop” contractor for now, then convert him to government later. This is quietly happening in some parts of DoD.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Word is they're going to cut promotional activities. Bands, parades, outreach to schools airshows. Which is funny because rhe MAGA types love those things. And it will definitely hurt recruiting.

Yeah, remember the flyovers Trump had on July 4 last time he was in office?

The bands are military people, though (not civilians, I think).

All those things are done by officers.

Military band is not officers. The conductor is an officer, but not the band members themselves.

but how much would they actually save by cutting army band etc.? or what kind of fraud waste abuse would there be? we're talking about bunch of musicians - artists basically, the least 'swamp-istique' part of the swamp...

Is that on the table? I thought they were just cutting civilians.

Anonymous wrote:Aren't people supposed to have a security clearance and drug tests before they work with sensitive government systems?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:were any dod probationary employees fired today?

Yes. 2 in my office. Civilians. Not at the Pentagon. One a vet but too highly ranked to qualify for vet protection.

If you retired from the military, you do not get a vet protection. Only disabled 40% or more vets do for RIF. I was told DoD firings to begin as soon as Friday evening. Probationary employee lists were due to DOGE either yesterday or by the end of day today, but services can apply for exemptions. Nuclear propulsion engineers are hard to find.

Firing the probationary employees is not a RIF.