back to article White House asks millions of govt workers if they would be so kind as to fork right off

More than two million US federal civilian employees have been invited to resign as of September 30, 2025, with incentives promised for those who agree to quit by February 6, 2025. The sweeping offer comes from the White House’s Office of Personnel Management (OPM) as part of the Trump administration's plan to drastically …

  1. beast666 Silver badge

    Sounds good.

    1. Sorry that handle is already taken. Silver badge

      The country is going to grind to a halt without a properly resourced public service. But I suppose that was always the plan.

      1. Anonymous Coward
        Anonymous Coward

        Should make it cheap to buy up distressed assets Then the next pre-election stimulus package makes them valuable again for a quick profit.

      2. Anonymous Coward
        Anonymous Coward

        Putin’s plan.

      3. Andrew Scott Bronze badge

        They (politicians) want a return to the "spoils" system, replacing merit based jobs with patronage. There have been complaints since the first trump session about "non-elected people" working for the government.

    2. Khaptain Silver badge

      There area lot of Governments elsewhere in the world that need to start doing the same thing.

      A healthy government is good for its people. Lazy Government brings only a sea of bad choices, low GDP and low moral.

      1. BartyFartsLast Silver badge

        You got the low moral bit close I guess, the Trump regime has no morals

      2. Jou (Mxyzptlk) Silver badge

        Name examples. And show them on a map.

        1. Khaptain Silver badge

          United Kingdom, France, I can at least cite these as I am European...

          1. Jou (Mxyzptlk) Silver badge

            Which European country are your from? If UK: European ? ?? ?

            1. John Robson Silver badge

              Yes the UK is still part of Europe.

              Bozo the clown didn't install a giant outboard motor.

              1. Jou (Mxyzptlk) Silver badge

                Yea, but Mr. upturned-leek-hairdo would have loved to do so, just to prove "I am right and you are wrong". And after the destruction the typical political interpretation of "taking responsibility": Run away and let others deal with the outcome. A really historically sad catastrophe which happened to Britain. And as usual: The youngest generation has to suffer most.

                Oh, BTW, the German FDP politician Patrik Lindner does the improved version of "taking responsibility": He lets others "take responsibility" for him, i.e. let them leave for the mess he is responsible for.

                Result: Will be out of parliament with the next election 'cause they won't manage the "minimum votes of at least 5%" hurdle. From 11.4% down to 3.9% (current prognosis). He did too much a*licking of Porsche, for example with that embarrassing e-fuel nonsense in EU-parliament. E-fuels themselves are fine for end-of-the-world places, like mid-jungle, somewhere up high mountains, antarctic and so on, but not generally in Europe.

          2. James Hughes 1

            The UK had Austerity, which is similar. And that has proven to be disastrous, with the government now trying to recover from years of underinvestment in the NHS, roads, and many other other public services. And there is no money to actually fix it.

            1. codejunky Silver badge

              @James Hughes 1

              "The UK had Austerity"

              When? We had increased spending beyond Browns years, just a bit less of an increase than Labour planned. That is not austerity.

              "And there is no money to actually fix it."

              Of course not, the government has a huge debt and large deficit as well as taxing more and more which reduces growth. But the only way to pay off this through is through growth and not spending like a drunken sailor.

              1. heyrick Silver badge

                Re: @James Hughes 1

                When? A forever of public sector pay freezes (except MPs of course). An equal forever of continually cutting back local and regional council budgets. Austerity has been pretty much the Tory catchphrase since around the time of John Major. We little people all have to tighten our belts and pay more so the government can offer attractive tax breaks to the parts of society that don't pay their fair share.

                And now? Infrastructure is in a deplorable mess, privatised infrastructure (looking at you Thames Water) is in a deplorable mess. There is so much that needs fixing that it isn't even a bad joke, and guess what - no money. It's been far too austere for far too long, I'm not sure if some of the things are fixable now...

                1. codejunky Silver badge

                  Re: @James Hughes 1

                  @heyrick

                  "It's been far too austere for far too long, I'm not sure if some of the things are fixable now..."

                  And yet government has been spending more and more and the 'austerity' was increased government spending. Remember that Labour spending on things like the NHS were blowout investments where they made bad contracts, sold gold and simply borrowed for this unsustainable 'investment' they made. And spending has increased since then. The government portion of GDP is still well above what was 'normal' under Labour before the 2008 crash-

                  https://www.statista.com/statistics/298478/public-sector-expenditure-as-share-of-gdp-united-kingdom-uk/

                  https://fullfact.org/health/spending-english-nhs/

                  "We little people all have to tighten our belts and pay more so the government can offer attractive tax breaks to the parts of society that don't pay their fair share"

                  Is this where the recent crying over rich people leaving because of the disproportionately large portion of the tax contribution they make? Reeves doing a great job at stalling the economy by increasing this 'fair share' taxation which is going to put more burden on we little people and force us to tighten our belts?

                  1. localzuk

                    Re: @James Hughes 1

                    Your post is misleading at least, dishonest at worst. Comparing public sector spending against GDP is near enough a worthless measure, as GDP doesn't consistently increase - we had many years of GDP contraction during the last decade.

                    Spending has gone up, but so has tax income, and so has population side, not to mention so have costs. The NHS budget *in real terms* has not increased all that much, yet the population of the country has increased by around 7 million since 2011. When you take population growth into effect? The NHS budget hasn't increased really at all. Yet we've got crumbling buildings, a massive shortage of staff etc...

                    1. codejunky Silver badge

                      Re: @James Hughes 1

                      @localzuk

                      "Your post is misleading at least, dishonest at worst. Comparing public sector spending against GDP is near enough a worthless measure, as GDP doesn't consistently increase - we had many years of GDP contraction during the last decade."

                      Actually it is about the best measure we have. GDP being the measured flow of money through the economy and with its rise or fall changes the amount of taxable money flowing through the economy. If it is private money then it is tax money that goes into these services. If it is public money it is tax money and government borrowing flowing into the economy that gets taxed. The more public money the more is lost.

                      Spending more = spending more, it doesnt matter what the excuses are. Austerity is spending less. If you want to blame population growth (valid) then you need to look at the drivers of that not being productive enough to cover their costs or how to limit such growth.

                    2. Jellied Eel Silver badge

                      Re: @James Hughes 1

                      The NHS budget *in real terms* has not increased all that much, yet the population of the country has increased by around 7 million since 2011

                      Problem with that is.. what exactly do you mean by 'real terms'? Which is why per-capita metrics might be more useful. But then there are exceptions, like the cost of dealing with Covid. Or that not all population are equal, ie if there's been an influx of a couple of million needing or wanting healthcare, that would create a cost increase. Or related spend like providing translators, or just new treatments becoming available.

                      People aren't widgets, so setting budgets isn't as simple as running a factory. In the old days, hospitals used to keep 'winter wards' closed most of the year, but could be opened up when winter hit, and especially if there was a bad flu season. Then came 'efficiency savings' and layers of manglement that could produce spreadsheets showing bed occupancy rates and decide wards could be closed, or reallocated, and if you got sick outside of their planned times, that's too bad, join the waiting list. Or just die. Especially when population growth exceeds hospital capacity, meaning there's even less of a chance to deal with any 'unexpected' demand, even though increased winter demand is entirely predictable, just not necessarily quantifiable.

              2. collinsl Silver badge

                Re: @James Hughes 1

                We may well have had increased spending since 2008, however we also have a larger population than in 2008. Raw figures are useless unless you interpret them correctly.

                Spending per head of population is what matters here and that went down under the Conservatives - it's a common political trick to use absolute numbers to state a position or refute the position of your opposition, rather than using useful numbers which actually reflect the situation per person or per unit of whatever.

                1. codejunky Silver badge

                  Re: @James Hughes 1

                  @collinsl

                  "We may well have had increased spending since 2008, however we also have a larger population than in 2008. Raw figures are useless unless you interpret them correctly."

                  That is a great argument for effective border and immigration enforcement but doesnt change the facts of forever increasing spending not being austerity no matter how you play with the figures. You cannot spend more and say you are spending less without lying.

                  As we are spending too much and generating too little then the obvious solution is less spending and more productivity which is as I said.

                  1. localzuk

                    Re: @James Hughes 1

                    You literally can say you are spending less... Per person. Which is what matters. Not the total amount. Not to mention, immigrants generally pay more tax than native Brits, so immigration arguments are demonstrably incorrect.

                    The problem with spending less is it reduces confidence - so people spend even less themselves, meaning businesses then invest less and hire less staff. You end up with a downwards spiral. Its why the entire idea of "balancing the budget" in government is delusional.

                    1. codejunky Silver badge

                      Re: @James Hughes 1

                      @localzuk

                      "You literally can say you are spending less... Per person."

                      Well done, you need to add a qualifier to make the lie the truth. So we are spending more (not less).

                      "Which is what matters. Not the total amount"

                      You try it. Add someone elses bills to yours and then pay more, but tell me you are paying less. You can even call it austerity because your money has to stretch further.

                      "Not to mention, immigrants generally pay more tax than native Brits, so immigration arguments are demonstrably incorrect."

                      Fantastic so that means your population growth argument doesnt work as they will all be paying more and government spending into the economy will be less than private? No?

                      "The problem with spending less is it reduces confidence"

                      Fantastic, so you spend your wage, max out your credit card, take out loans and see how confident you feel. Again I guess no.

                      "so people spend even less themselves"

                      Keeping up with the Joneses is a certain way to go broke.

                      "meaning businesses then invest less and hire less staff"

                      Or as reality is hitting Reeves at the moment- tax the balls off the economy and you get less investment and less hiring.

                      "Its why the entire idea of "balancing the budget" in government is delusional."

                      Nope, its sense. As Reeves is finding out currently with bond yields and over taxing hitting limits in what people want to lend to the UK government who is overspending and underperforming.

                    2. Jellied Eel Silver badge

                      Re: @James Hughes 1

                      You literally can say you are spending less... Per person. Which is what matters.

                      Nope. You might be spending less because treatments are better, patients are cured, or able to be treated more easily/cheaply and not require expensive inpatient care.

                      Or one of my favourites, because fagflation is about to increase everyone's water bills. So tobacco duty rates get massive increases, allegedly because of the cost to the NHS. As a result, there are far fewer smokers, so cost to the NHS should have been falling.. Which it doesn't seem to be. If the policy has been a success, then the portion of the NHS budget allocated to deal with smoking related illnesss should be reduced. Which is also true of a lot of other supposed 'Public Health' initiatives. If those actually worked, then costs and thus budgets could be lowered. If there are constant demands for more money for the NHS, then clearly those initiatives have failed, and the people responsible fired and rehired as hospital porters where they might do less harm.

                      1. Jou (Mxyzptlk) Silver badge

                        Re: @James Hughes 1

                        Regarding your smoker example: Tell the non-UK-lers here what time frame you talk about. Less smokers = less cancer take about 40 years to really manifest at NHS level with considerable lower cancer rate - maybe even more. And when i look at Germany: A surprisingly large percentage of smokers here, especially in IT. Chain smokers mostly died away (looking at my parents, which both could still live...), but "a few cigs per day" are still high in number compared to other countries like USA.

                        1. Jellied Eel Silver badge

                          Re: @James Hughes 1

                          Regarding your smoker example: Tell the non-UK-lers here what time frame you talk about. Less smokers = less cancer take about 40 years to really manifest at NHS level with considerable lower cancer rate - maybe even more.

                          But does it? So cancers are basically faulty error correction. Cells have a limited lifespan, so need continuous replacement. If transcription errors occur, the wrong kind of cell might be produced. If our error correction processes can't detect that, cells may continue to grow and we get a cancer. Which is also why they're so hard to treat because they're often a healthy cell, just growing in the wrong place. Then there's the stuff that might increase the risk of mutations, so actual or potential carcinogens.

                          There are some fun ones around that. So anti-smoking FUD often picks up on tobacco smoke containing polonium, especially after the death of Litvinenko. He was murded by polonium poisoning, tobacco contains polonium, FUD time..

                          https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polonium-210

                          Once inside the body, 210Po concentrates in soft tissues (especially in the reticuloendothelial system) and the bloodstream. Its biological half-life is approximately 50 days... In particular, 210Po attaches to, and concentrates in, tobacco leaves.

                          Or pretty much any leaf. Or vegetable. Which is one of those science vs FUD issues. So 210Po is found in soil, and organic fertilsers, exists as a decay product of radon, so if you're a vegan living in Cornwall growing your own organic veg, maybe you should't also take up smoking.

                          But then back to correlation and causation. You say '40 years', but why would this be the case? So I quit smoking. I've removed the causative agents. My cells are continually being replaced, and the half-life of stuff like 210Po is reducing rapidly to the point where it's very unlikely to be in any way dangerous. But plucking a number out of the air. Suppose smoking is responsible for 50% of lung cancers. If smoking rates drop by 50%, at some point, I'd expect to see that reflected in a fall in cancer rates.. But the correlation isn't really there. But then there are a whole slew of other environmental factors, like particulates from EVs and roads, all the solvents and potions & lotions we spread around our homes to make them smell 'fresh' etc etc.

                          Or just assorted solutions that cost money and might be rather ineffective. So my GP referred me to a 'smoking cessation' service, which was basically a table plonked in a shopping mall, that gave me a couple of leaflets and told me to come back next week and let them know if I'd quit or not. The NHS paid for that garbage.

                          Which is why making bold claims about funding, or lack of funding can gloss over a lot of waste, or mismanagement. Smokers were an easy target because a lot of people don't like smoke.. Which then got amplified by all the PR that was intentionally aimed at ostracising smokers, even though smoking is still legal. Point out the problems and costs of obesity due to dietary and lifestyle choices, and you'll get shouted down for 'fat shaming'.. But first, they came for the smokers and all that.

                          One of my relatives is a medical statistician working for the MRC, so I get to have some interesting chats about the challenges in producing public health guidance, and sorting out correlation vs causation, or misinformation from lobbying. They gave an example of lactose intolerance, which on a per-capita basis is increasing. Is this because of some environmental factor causing people to become lactose intolerant, or because of demographic shifts that mean we just have more naturally lactose intolerant people living in the UK now? Some conditions are more prevalent in some ethnicities than others.. All of which have to be factored into NHS budgets, spending priorities, research etc.. Along with wading through the FUD from drug dealers who use 'relative risk' to hype their latest wonder drug, that may cost the NHS a lot of money and not be very effective.

                2. notyetanotherid

                  Re: @James Hughes 1

                  Indeed.

                  Real-terms (adjusted for inflation) spending across the Osborne austerity years was pretty much flat overall, falling slightly over the coalition years before rising again once out of coalition. Heath and pensions spending rose slightly across the period, education and welfare spending fell, etc.

                  Per-capita spending at 2019 prices in 2011 (first full year of Cameron coalition) was £13,908 and in 2019 was £12965.

              3. ChodeMonkey Bronze badge
                Go

                Re: @James Hughes 1

                I've earned more pay every single year that I worked.

                Austerity? I see no austerity!

                1. codejunky Silver badge
                  Happy

                  Re: @James Hughes 1

                  @ChodeMonkey

                  "I've earned more pay every single year that I worked."

                  Good for you, not sure what that has to do with the topic.

                  "Austerity? I see no austerity!"

                  I am not surprised. There was no austerity.

                  1. ChodeMonkey Bronze badge

                    Re: @James Hughes 1

                    Agreed. When it doesn't affect you you don't see it! Life is gooood!

                    1. codejunky Silver badge

                      Re: @James Hughes 1

                      @ChodeMonkey

                      "Agreed. When it doesn't affect you you don't see it! Life is gooood!"

                      Then you are very privileged. Well done. But before you arrived we were talking facts and figures of increased government spending

                      1. ChodeMonkey Bronze badge
                        Thumb Up

                        Re: @James Hughes 1

                        Privilege. Yes, that's the word. Thank you.

                2. teebie

                  Re: @James Hughes 1

                  "Austerity? I see no austerity!"

                  Then go and look at the state of the roads.

                  1. Jou (Mxyzptlk) Silver badge

                    Re: @James Hughes 1

                    > "Then go and look at the state of the roads."

                    German here: Roads? You mean your wide hike trails? Those Fallout-style "roads", why most Americans HAVE to drive a pickup with tires bigger than our cars, else they don't survive what you call "roads"...

                  2. ChodeMonkey Bronze badge
                    Stop

                    Re: @James Hughes 1

                    "Then go and look at the state of the roads."

                    That because of immigrants. Or the EU. Or woke.

          3. heyrick Silver badge

            As a person living in France, the problem isn't the number of public sector employees, it's the fact that right hand seems totally unaware that left hand exists, never mind knowing what it is doing.

            For a very good demonstration, look at the shitshow that is the CAF.

            Fewer people won't fix that, the entire process is wrong, not the headcount. Maybe, maybe, the headcount can be reduced - later on, when things actually work. But to say "big government bad, everybody piss off" is just going to take a bad situation and make it infinitely worse to the point where nothing gets done.

            1. Jellied Eel Silver badge

              Fewer people won't fix that, the entire process is wrong, not the headcount. Maybe, maybe, the headcount can be reduced - later on, when things actually work.

              This seems to be the plan, and the intent behind DoGE. So making government more efficient and 'rightsizing' the business. But as you say, you can't really do that without analysing the processes to identify inefficiencies, overlaps etc. Plus government is a bit special compared to other businesses, ie entities like FEMA become more of a warm-body problem, when there are emergencies to manage. But when those occur, flying in 1,000 FEMA staff might not be a very efficient solution, or manage an emergency very effectively.

              But the idea seems to be staff can opt for a generous (by pretty much any standard) redundancy package now, or wait and roll the dice until after reviews have been conducted and their positions are RIF'd anyway. Which then risks the usual problem when businesses wave the RIF-stick and the best staff take the deal, knowing that they can probably walk right in to another job.

              I also don't quite get why people are objecting to this bit-

              Among those directives, the President required that employees return to in-person work, restored accountability for employees who have policy-making authority, restored accountability for senior career executives, and reformed the federal hiring process to focus on merit.

              A good thing, surely? And pretty much what every other business does, or should be doing. Employees should be accountable, whether they're public or private sector. I don't entirely agree with banning WFH. I think that's often an indication that employers just don't have the right staff, processes or procedures to manage home workers effectively because in many cases, bums on seats is just overhead. Especially when the WFH bans often come from tech companies that flog remote working and collaboration systems. The only thing that should matter is whether work is being done and objectives met, and if businesses (including government) can't measure those, then they have much bigger problems.

              (Which also includes fun stuff, like those systems that can identify employees that get the work done fast & reliably, and then maybe 'slack' for the rest of the time because those are probably the best/most efficient staff. Not the ones constantly running around offices, or holding meetings that look busy, but often aren't achieving anything other than disruption.)

      3. SolidSquid

        I mean, the problem here is they aren't singling out people based on performance, it's just across the board redundancies. And as one of the unions pointed out, the number of government workers should really be expected to grow as a proportion of population (since they'd have more data to manage), but the actual numbers haven't shown that. To some extent this could be explained by more efficient processes with computers replacing actual sheets of paper, but 55 years without growth is a long time

        Also, if you're just wanting to cut dead weight, why would the dead weight take the redundancy package when they could stay in their cushy govt job until they retire? The ones who'll leave are the ones willing to work at a new position and think the benefits of a govt post don't outweigh the downsides anymore

        1. Jellied Eel Silver badge

          Also, if you're just wanting to cut dead weight, why would the dead weight take the redundancy package when they could stay in their cushy govt job until they retire?

          Because they should hopefully find their weight being measured, and they're made redundant anyway on less generous terms.. But in business, it often doesn't work quite as intended.

    3. Steve Davies 3 Silver badge
      Mushroom

      Sounds good

      For whom exactly?

      Perhaps you own stock in the VC's that will come in, buy stuff, asset strip and leave. All that remains will be a debt ridden shell that is doomed to to TITSUP.

      Come on now Beat666 tell us who is going to benefit from this chaos?

      If you can't then please go [see icon]

    4. Casca Silver badge

      Good maga bot

  2. Jou (Mxyzptlk) Silver badge

    The deferred resignation offer does not apply to postal service?

    What? After he tried everything to sabotage it faive yearghs ago, it gets protection? (Though I don't know whether protection is the right word - maybe it is a "deny right to resign" policy in the background)

    1. Strahd Ivarius Silver badge
      Coat

      Re: The deferred resignation offer does not apply to postal service?

      They need the postal service to deliver emails, perhaps?

      1. Jou (Mxyzptlk) Silver badge

        Re: The deferred resignation offer does not apply to postal service?

        and telegram...

    2. Gene Cash Silver badge

      Re: The deferred resignation offer does not apply to postal service?

      Actually, the USPS is not an arm of the American government anymore, technically.

      That's why its website is usps.com instead of usps.gov

      1. Jou (Mxyzptlk) Silver badge

        Re: The deferred resignation offer does not apply to postal service?

        Actually it is both and neither... A weird construct. Maybe created to always have an excuse.

      2. parlei

        Re: The deferred resignation offer does not apply to postal service?

        Sweden went that path. Split off services as wholly state owned companies -- which had to show a profit, and did not have the pesky rules governing public services -- and then a few years later sell them off their pal the asset stripper VC.

  3. Dan 55 Silver badge

    X barely breaking even

    It doesn't matter, it's a propaganda tool and as such Musk sees any loss as an investment. If he talks about profit or revenue then it's just for appearance's sake.

    1. DS999 Silver badge

      Re: X barely breaking even

      Even if he ends up losing the entire $44 billion "investment", it bought him a president. His personal wealth increased by much more just from the Tesla stock price increases as the market expects it to get special treatment for his robotaxis - maybe the federal government dictating that all states have to allow them and burying any investigation / blocking lawsuits when they kill people.

      1. Flocke Kroes Silver badge

        Joined up government

        Among other stupid things the US government has been barred from buying zero-emissions vehicles.

        /s: Luckily Musk has completely transitioned Tesla out of the EV business and is currently supplying their wildly successful AI driven household robots. There is no need for shareholders to sell in a panic.

        1. Anonymous Coward
          Anonymous Coward

          Re: Joined up government

          Tone the sarcasm down a bit please. You as well as the rest of us that it is not Musk's fault that just as he was about to mass produce the robots, they've had to re-engineer them to run off two stroke motors to give people more choice.

      2. BartyFartsLast Silver badge

        Re: X barely breaking even

        It bought Musk and the middle eastern investors who bankrolled it a president.

        1. phuzz Silver badge
          Meh

          Re: X barely breaking even

          More billionaires, donated more money, to the Democrats. So whichever way the result went, the election was already bought.

      3. Ian Johnston Silver badge

        Re: X barely breaking even

        On the other hand, Tesla is a meme stock the astonishing current price of which bears no relation to the underlying fundamentals of the business. When it crashes, as it will, Musk is going to be a lot less rich. Though of course that's a comparative term.

        1. James Hughes 1

          Re: X barely breaking even

          People have been saying its going to crash for years. Why hasn't it already done so?

          1. Jellied Eel Silver badge

            Re: X barely breaking even

            People have been saying its going to crash for years. Why hasn't it already done so?

            Because markets and people are often irrational. I have no idea why it hasn't crashed already, but luckily never tried shorting it. I don't think the valuation comes close to the fundamentals, and less so now that competition is heating up, and governments are slowly starting to realise that banning ICEs might not be such a great idea.

          2. DS999 Silver badge

            Re: X barely breaking even

            There are always enough suckers to keep the price afloat. For a while it was based on Tesla's sales continuing to grow as they displaced the big automakers. The sales have stalled which is why Musk is constantly talking about "AI" in relation to Tesla, so now it is being held afloat by AI. If that stops working Musk will move on to something else to hype instead like robots. There are enough stupid people who believe he is some sort of once in a generation genius who can do no wrong to keep that price afloat.

            The large post election Tesla stock price gains which are based on Musk having Trump's ear however could evaporate in a nanosecond if there's a falling out between Trump and Musk. Something which seems inevitable when you have two people with egos so large they can't fit inside a football stadium.

  4. IGotOut Silver badge

    I wonder....

    ... how many Trump voters affected will go "sure I voted for this, so I'll happily go"

    1. ecofeco Silver badge

      Re: I wonder....

      From my daily tours around the web, their response has been... none of them will. In fact, many of them are saying this isn't what they voted for.

      Yes, I knew yours was a rhetorical questions, but I could not resist gloating about their faces being eaten by the leopard.

      1. Anonymous Coward
        Anonymous Coward

        Re: I wonder....

        It can't be healthy for those leopards, all those obese US faces to eat

    2. DS999 Silver badge

      Re: I wonder....

      There are three classes of Trump voter:

      1) the diehard MAGA enthusiast who has been with him since 2015. That's maybe 25% of those who voted last November

      2) the diehard republican who wouldn't vote for a democrat if Jesus himself returned and ran under the democratic ticket. That's another 15-20% (there's overlap between them and #1 of course, the 15% refers to those who support him because the guy the republican party nominated not because of who he is)

      3) swing voters who might vote for either side but voted for Trump this time because of inflation or immigration or Biden was too old/Harris too black or whatever. That's 5-10%.

      He'll lose those swing voters quickly (in fact polls show he ALREADY is) so he'll quickly see his approval drop to the low 40s - where it was most of his first term. If he starts doing too many un-republican things he could see it drop down much further - it was in the low to mid 30s after Jan 6th - but that 25% or so that love him would support him even if he threw the US into another Great Depression. They'd blame it on whoever he said was to blame, never him. They would never admit they were wrong to support him, even if Trump came and personally burned down their house they'd accept it as somehow necessary to make America great again.

  5. Boris the Cockroach Silver badge
    Big Brother

    Coming soon

    You chance to sit for loyalty tests, you fail the test you are fired.

    After that comes the change to the oath, instead of swearing to uphold the constitution of the United States, it will become "I pledge allegience to Donald Tramp, and I will faithfully follow all orders unto death".

    Then again the camps are already being built to detain today's enemy, and for all you who dont care today , how long before you become tommorrow's enemy?.......

    1. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      Re: Coming soon

      Pro Tip: Always wear a brown shirt to your loyalty interviews. It never goes out of style.

      1. Casca Silver badge

        Re: Coming soon

        Accessory with an arm band for the extra flair.

        1. SnailFerrous

          Re: Coming soon

          Arm bands are so twentieth century. It's MAGA caps now to show your loyalty to the regime.

      2. Kane
        Alert

        Re: Coming soon

        "Pro Tip: Always wear a brown shirt to your loyalty interviews. It never goes out of style."

        And the trousers. Just so no-one can tell when you've shit yourself.

      3. collinsl Silver badge

        Re: Coming soon

        Silver in the USA

        More info

        1. Anonymous Coward
          Anonymous Coward

          Re: Coming soon

          "a government that would combine the principles of fascism, theocracy, and socialism, "

          What more could a man ask for? Count me in!

          Ah shit.

          I've got plenty of black and tan shirts, but I always thought silver muscle shirts were a bit faggy. Oh well, needs must I suppose.

    2. Fr. Ted Crilly Silver badge

      Re: Coming soon

      Thus.

      Ich schwöre: Ich werde dem Führer des Amerika Reiches und Volkes

      Donald J Trump treu und gehorsam sein, die Gesetze beachten,

      und meine Amtspflichten gewissenhaft erfüllen, so wahr mir Gott helfe.

  6. Doctor Syntax Silver badge

    Fire first and ask questions afterwards.

    1. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      Or just fire first.

      No point bothering with questions, especially if you've fired enough such that there's nobody left to ask them.

  7. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    Rule 1 of paying people to quit...

    ...people who are good and can easily find another job will take it.

    Leaving people who... ...ahem.

    1. DJO Silver badge

      Re: Rule 1 of paying people to quit...

      Where?

      In a collapsing economy (which is inevitable if Trump continues the way he started) American companies will stop recruiting and anyway there are not that many positions former career civil servants are suitable for.

      Maybe 5% to 10% will employment where they can use their skills, the rest will have problems finding much - there are only so many burger flipper positions available.

      Some, those who are smart anyway, will sort out a new job before they accept the "offer", and as you suggest, they will be the very people you would want to retain.

      1. Fruit and Nutcase Silver badge

        Re: Rule 1 of paying people to quit...

        Burger flipper positions...

        I'd check McDonald's branches in Washington DC around the White House. They may be hiring due to increased demand for takeout

      2. Dagg Silver badge

        Re: Rule 1 of paying people to quit...

        ...people who are good and can easily find another job will take it.

        With the consulting companies. Her in Australia I used to work for one of the big 4 and every time we got a LNP (conservative) government in they started letting go the public service. The company I worked for would then hire the good ones of these people and when the gutted public service started engaging consultants to do the work of the people it no longer had we would just step in.

        Money, Money, Money...

  8. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    I’m guessing

    A bunch of these people clearly voted to get themselves sacked.

    “But, but how did that happen?….”

    1. SundogUK Silver badge

      Re: I’m guessing

      They are government workers so they all vote Democrat.

      1. codejunky Silver badge
        Coffee/keyboard

        Re: I’m guessing

        @SundogUK

        "They are government workers so they all vote Democrat."

        You owe me a new keyboard, and I need a new coffee too :)

        1. Jellied Eel Silver badge

          Re: I’m guessing

          They're also probably not the smartest Federal employees. It's not like this should come as any suprise given Trump made improving government efficiency and reducing spending a major part of his campaign.

  9. Mitoo Bobsworth

    Considering the Orange Oaf's track record with paying out...

    I wonder how many will still be gullible enough to take the offer.

    1. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      Re: Considering the Orange Oaf's track record with paying out...

      They don't need to trust Donald - this one comes from the shadow president himself.

      1. Fruit and Nutcase Silver badge
        Mushroom

        Re: Considering the Orange Oaf's track record with paying out...

        Who always pays his bills, right?

    2. Dagg Silver badge

      Re: Considering the Orange Oaf's track record with paying out...

      I wonder how many will still be gullible enough to take the offer.

      Take the money and run, you can always come back as a highly paid consultant and do the same job for more money. I've seen it here in Australia many times with a conservative government "cost cutting efforts"/"too many public servants" mandates.

  10. keithpeter Silver badge
    Windows

    Efficiency vs resilience

    If everything is running at maximum capacity all the time, what happens when something unusual happens? You know a touch of the Rumsfelds?

    Depends on your estimate of peak to mean ratio I suppose.

    A sovereign government has to backstop anything. We are not talking a couple of standard deviations. Literally no limit. You can't really outsource that. How would you draft the SLA?

    Best of luck.

    1. SundogUK Silver badge

      Re: Efficiency vs resilience

      "Literally no limit."

      So government should be infinitely large?

      1. keithpeter Silver badge
        Windows

        Re: Efficiency vs resilience

        Have you read the civil contingencies act?

        [ My point was that sometimes you might need some capacity in reserve ]

  11. graeme leggett Silver badge

    "employees will be subject to enhanced standards of suitability and conduct as we move forward"

    Where suitability = loyalty to Trump

    Conduct = anticipating the Great Leader's edicts

  12. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    RTO

    Do those commanded to return to the office have offices to return to?

    Our masters have commanded RTO but those below them sold off the office space over the last 5yr to get savings.

    Those at the top either don't know or don't understand that 100 people can't fit on 10 desks no matter how many fire safety rules you ignore.

    1. Flocke Kroes Silver badge

      Re: RTO

      I believe the secret service is not included in the executive orders but it is fun to imagine half of Trump's security detail resigning and the other half sitting in their office.

    2. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      Re: RTO

      > Those at the top either don't know or don't understand that 100 people can't fit on 10 desks

      ... or simply don't care. Not their problem up at the top, eh?

  13. Grunchy Silver badge

    Thunderf00t sez, Musk as head DOGE, had his role clarified as IT head of US government

    https://youtu.be/6UldI1xIb0E?t=1569

    "Agency heads shall ensure that DOGE Team Leads coordinate their work with USDS and advise their respective Agency Heads on implementing the President's DOGE Agenda. Sec. 4. Modernizing Federal Technology and Software to Maximize Efficiency and Productivity. (a) the USDS Administrator shall commence a Software Modernization Initiative to improve the quality and efficiency of government-wide software, network infrastructure, and information technology (IT) systems. Among other things, the USDS Administrator shall work with Agency Heads to promote inter-operability between agency networks and systems, ensure data integrity, and facilitate responsible data collection and synchronization."

    Seems like Musk gets to be IT administrator for the whole US government and work on synergies and what-all.

    I think all he has to do is text "resign" to the number provided and he can go away on Monday and still be paid out a full salary until Sept. 2025 without finding even a single synergy.

    Good deal for Musk!

    1. Flocke Kroes Silver badge

      Re: Thunderf00t sez, Musk as head DOGE, had his role clarified as IT head of US government

      When Musk invited Twitter employees to resign in return for severance payments Musk did not actually pay up and to the best of my knowledge still hasn't. This time it is different: it is not that Trump will not pay, he cannot pay without an act of congress or a successful self-coup. As with any deal involving Musk or Trump: only accept payment in advance.

      1. graeme leggett Silver badge

        Re: Thunderf00t sez, Musk as head DOGE, had his role clarified as IT head of US government

        Not sure what a self-coup is but if something does happen, which Republican is taking the Ludwig Beck role?

        And history takes a different angle, which one is Doenitz?

  14. Rainer

    Well, the government did grow under Biden

    But I doubt it got more efficient.

    Cue the handful of fast-chargers that got built after spending 4 billion USD.

    And I actually believe Trump isn't to far off when he assumes that some of those who work remotely have other (online-) jobs they do in parallel.

    Growth is the easiest way to facilitate promotions.

    After all, you can't be a supervisor without people to supervise.

    1. cmdrklarg
      Meh

      Re: Well, the government did grow under Biden

      **** Cue the handful of fast-chargers that got built after spending 4 billion USD.

      Do you suppose that said fast chargers just blink into existence after the money is allocated? Or do you suppose that projects like those require a bit of planning and care?

      You know, time?

      **** And I actually believe Trump

      Ah, I see where you got that idea. Never mind, carry on!

  15. TVU

    White House asks millions of govt workers if they would be so kind as to fork right off

    That's all very well but those sacked employees are also voters who can also potentially deprive Trump of a majority in the lower House of Representatives and possibly in the Senate as well in the 2026 midterm elections.

    I should add that Republican Senators Susan Collins and Lisa Murkowski are practically Democrats plus Mitch McConnell is in his final Senate term so he doesn't care any more and so he has already voted against Trump nominees.

    1. Wang Cores

      Re: White House asks millions of govt workers if they would be so kind as to fork right off

      If Murkowski and Collins are "practically opposition/Democrats" because they studiously furrow their brows on strategically important matters to the party while playing the defector on foregones I'm starting to get why people hate democrats. I mean, talk about chickenshit opposition.

  16. Jimmy2Cows Silver badge

    The National Treasury Employees Union has urged its members not to accept

    Nah... every elligible worker should accept. The admin just to sort that out will bring the federal government to a grinding halt. The cost of the 8 months pay severance package will bankrupt the country, and it really will collapse when all federal employees quit en-masse in September.

    Of course they'll probably just pick people at random, rather than "waste" a load of time deciding who really should be dumped and who they really need to stay. Would still be funny to have his bluff called.

    1. Wang Cores

      Re: The National Treasury Employees Union has urged its members not to accept

      There's no legal guarantee. Honestly the union would be remiss to not advise its rank and file against signing against grievance based personnel actions because once you sign you're fucked, even as a fed worker.

  17. georgezilla

    So it took less then 2 weeks to reach the "Find Out" stage of FAFO. So who's actually surprised that it only took that long? Not me. I figured it out, oh say .............. 2015. When this moron was first elected.

    But hey, we tried to warn you. Yes we did.

  18. JamesTGrant Bronze badge

    So 2million people all hit the job market at about the same time. This is the sociopath billionaire’s playbook. - drive down wages by flooding the job market.

    Will it make government services better or worse? Worse - obviously. For a long time. This is over 2/3rds of the entire civilian federal workforce. It’d be chaos.

    I just don’t understand why the current US government Republican executive branch seem to actually hate their electorate and seem to want to (and are) doing things to make life worse for normal people. I mean - they could decide that it’s fun to make people’s lives better and work at doing that instead. They’d still be bajillionaires.

  19. O'Reg Inalsin

    Didn't Musk offer workers a Twitter a similar deal (resign now for some later reward) and then renege on the reward? Then this will be the same.

  20. nightflier

    Bad timing

    The day before the midair collision over the Potomac, Air Traffic Controllers were given the offer to resign. Must be too many of them.

    1. Jou (Mxyzptlk) Silver badge

      Re: Bad timing

      You deserve up AND down vote at the same time. But I am German. We are direct and blunt: Upvote it must be :D.

    2. Jellied Eel Silver badge

      Re: Bad timing

      The day before the midair collision over the Potomac, Air Traffic Controllers were given the offer to resign. Must be too many of them.

      Or not enough. Seems like a possible contributing factor was there should have been 4 controllers on duty, but there were only 2. Regardless of wibbles about DEI, that seems both short sighted and short staffed for very busy and sensitive airspace.

  21. Ashto5

    Dross left behind

    Those that can will take the offer and then get another job, so double pay for a few months.

    Those that cannot will stay and so the US gov will have more incompetent people than before

    Winning !!!

    Perhaps Mr T can redefine the word ?

POST COMMENT House rules

Not a member of The Register? Create a new account here.

  • Enter your comment

  • Add an icon

Anonymous cowards cannot choose their icon

Other stories you might like