| Submit your comments on this article | |
| Government Corruption | |
| A 5-D strategy to dismantle to overweening bureaucratic state? | |
| 2025-02-01 | |
President Trump’s federal workforce policy is beginning to look, even to his enemies, like 5-D chess. I’ll explain it in two stories. First, yesterday Newsweek ran a defiant story under the headline, “Former USDA inspector general defies Trump order, escorted from her office.” As you probably recall, President Trump fired 17 of 74 Inspectors General (IGs). The 17 former highly-paid inspectors, who are now disgruntled ex-employees, got together over soy latte and explored their options. Sue? File a grievance? Call the Union? The ex-IGs, well acquainted with technical legal arguments, dithered over the validity of their own termination notices and wondered whether Trump had “legally fired” them. Of the 17, only former USDA Inspector General Phyllis Fong (fake name alert) has decided to hashtag-Resist. FAFO, Phyllis. Ms. Fong’s War was not quite the heroic standoff that media has painted. It seems more like she just waited for security to come get her from her office. Nevertheless, a handful of corporate media articles about Fong’s departure tried to paint the 22-year bureaucrat as “apolitical” and super-effective since she once requested a listeria investigation or something. … Now let’s look at that second article. The President’s enemies are beginning to awaken to the formidible possibility that Trump knows exactly what he is doing and is setting traps for them to fall into. The New York Times covered the story yesterday under the headline, “Trump’s Firings Could Bring Court Cases That Expand His Power.” (The article even mentioned our beloved Ms. Fong.) Over the past several days, the President has “abruptly fired dozens of officials,” if not hundreds of them. The Times, at least, is beginning to detect a figure of rationality emerging from the fog of administrative war. It claims to have uncovered a pattern among Trump’s firings of powerful federal actors who thought they were safe. These included the 17 aforementioned Inspector Generals (including high-heeled rebel Fong), plus cemented-in officials from agencies like the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB), the Privacy and Civil Liberties Oversight Board, and the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC). Note that all four categories include officials appointed by the President and confirmed by the Senate. Astonishingly, Trump’s mass firings of top-level commissioners from the NLRB, the Privacy Board, and the EEOC, were thought to be illegal and impossible. But even more historic and astonishing, Trump has fired so many it leaves those agencies without quora. They are dead in the water. These now-paralyzed agencies literally cannot undermine Trump’s agenda, even if they wanted to, for the practical reason that there simply aren’t enough commissioners left to vote on anything. They’re frozen. I don’t know Ms. Fong. But I’ll go out on a limb here. If the President fires you and then you refuse to leave the office, forcing a security showdown, that sort of proves the point of why you were fired in the first place. Inspectors General are classified as Executive Level III or IV, with an annual salary of around $200,000, plus generous benefits. Because they criticize other officials, Inspectors General are expected to be among the most professional and ethical employees in the federal government. If Ms. Fong thought her dismissal was wrong, she could have professionally challenged it in several legal and procedural ways. There was no reason to stage an embarrassing spectacle. The way media tells it, Phyllis was a brave Resister. But when security arrived, Phyllis folded like a cheap pair of LuluLemon knock offs. She just walked out. She didn’t chain herself to her desk. She didn’t make them arrest her. Phyllis clearly isn’t martyr material. Consider this: What made you think most partisan federal workers were any braver than Phyllis Fong? Was it media narratives? In other words, the radical “Resistance” the plagued Trump’s first term was always a 2-dimensional branding exercise, a cheap cardboard cutout. It was never an actual movement. Bacteria-like, the Resistance only thrived in a temperature-controlled culture of anonymity where defiance was cost-free—where brave bureaucrats could slow-roll policies, leak fake news to the press, and quietly sabotage the Trump 1.0 Administration while still cashing their taxpayer-funded paychecks with ironclad job security. As we will see, those assumptions are now in doubt. But in 2017, the stakes were low and there were no real risks, not with any real consequences. So partisan federal workers boldly cast themselves as brave warriors for democracy wielding jiu-jitsu-like weapons of bureaucracy. But Trump 2.0 flipped the script. Now there are real consequences. People are getting fired. There’s real accountability—Trump’s Team seems to know who they are. This time, there’s no guarantee the Resisters can ride out another four years unscathed. The big blue wall is cracking. Now that they’re forced to stand on their principles and take tangible risks, it looks more like a cowardly, disorganized retreat than steely-eyed defiance. … Haha! Can you see it now? The sheer brilliance of Trump’s plan? If they do sue him, then Trump is likely to grow even more powerful. Their only other option to just take it. | |
| Posted by:Omoluger Ulising2352 |
| #9 That was me. |
| Posted by: Super Hose 2025-02-01 12:57 |
| #8 TW, I am not connected but have looked at the buyout stuff while I was a GM employee. There is usually a target demographic and a percentage that they are after. To me this looks like a lure for young people that are not doing appreciable work or have been doing low level activism on company time. It also might be an arbitration strategy for negotiating whatever grievance results from the housecleaning. If your sister is already working with HR regarding her retirement it seems OK to point out that she received an email that lacked enough info to evaluate it. It sounds like the idea has been presented without details because the brainstorming is still in progress |
| Posted by: Clegum Ebbolumble3473 2025-02-01 12:55 |
| #7 /\ Not knowing any "buy out" facts, I'd be holding out for the 2nd quarter retirement. |
| Posted by: Besoeker 2025-02-01 11:05 |
| #6 My sister-in-law, who works at the VA, got the buy-out offer email, and doesn’t know what to do. She was previously scheduled to retire in the second quarter of this year, and now needs to figure out whether taking the buy-out and functionally leaving immediately would be better — or even an option — but unfortunately the FAQs she was given don’t answer any of her specific questions. So if any of the DOGE crew happen to read Rantburg, or if there’s a Rantburger who has a connection there, any guidance would be gratefully received. Jo is actually one of the good ones — always cheerful and upbeat, bright, hardworking, professional… and quietly a conservative Trump voter from the beginning. |
| Posted by: trailing wife 2025-02-01 11:02 |
| #5 The Bobs have arrived for the Feds. |
| Posted by: Super Hose 2025-02-01 10:22 |
| #4 About that career Treasury officer: Scott Adams @ScottAdamsSays We are entering the "WTF" discovery phase of DOGE. Quote Elon Musk @elonmusk · 7h The @DOGE team discovered, among other things, that payment approval officers at Treasury were instructed always to approve payments, even to known fraudulent or terrorist groups. They literally never denied a payment in their entire career. Not even once. x.com/robbystarbuck/… Show more … Not even once. Quote Robby Starbuck @robbystarbuck · 15h The highest ranking Treasury official, David A Lebryk, is resigning rather than complying with a request by @DOGE for access to audit where they’ve spent trillions of dollars a year. Why would career bureaucrats fear an audit by @elonmusk and @doge to see where we can save money? |
| Posted by: trailing wife 2025-02-01 10:06 |
| #3 He's going nuclear. The Constitution says advise and consent, it says nothing about firing. He'll take it to SCOTUS on 'separation of powers'. Congress doesn't determine who gets selected or or kept or fired for the law clerks in the judiciary. That's all within one branch's prerogative. He'll argue the same applies to the executive branch. That places SCOTUS in the proverbial horns of a dilemma. |
| Posted by: Procopius2k 2025-02-01 07:48 |
| #2 Lawyers are expensive and courtroom discovery can be a bitc*. |
| Posted by: Besoeker 2025-02-01 03:54 |
| #1 Here's What Caused a Career Treasury Official to Quit After a Run-in With Elon Musk's Allies The highest-ranking career official at the Treasury Department left the agency after a clash with allies of billionaire Elon Musk over access to sensitive payment systems |
| Posted by: Grom the Affective 2025-02-01 02:37 |