The White House issued a memo Tuesday offering to pay federal workers who don’t want to return to the office through Sept. 30, as long as they resign by Feb. 6.
Why it matters: The action, first reported by Axios, marks an acceleration in President Trump’s already unprecedented purge of the federal workforce.
Driving the news: The Office of Personnel Management described the offer as administrative leave with pay and benefits.
More information was shared by OPM later on Tuesday online in a memo titled, “A Fork in the Road.”
State of play: Employees who wish to resign were told: “1) Select “Reply” to this email. You must reply from your government account. A reply from an account other than your .gov or .mil account will not be accepted. 2)Type the word “Resign” into the body of this reply email. Hit “Send.”
The subject line, and some of the wording, echoed an email Elon Musk sent to Twitter employees in 2022 giving them a similar ultimatum: to either leave, or stay and become “hardcore,” The Verge points out.
Musk himself appeared to acknowledge this in a post on X Tuesday evening.
Zoom in: “The government-wide email being sent today is to make sure that all federal workers are on board with the new administration’s plan to have federal employees in office and adhering to higher standards. We’re five years past COVID and just 6 percent of federal employees work full-time in office. That is unacceptable,” a senior administration official tells Axios.
The White House expects 5% to 10% of federal employees to accept the offer, which would potentially mean hundreds of thousands of people.
The administration projects the buyouts could ultimately save taxpayers up to $100 billion a year.
The offer applies to all full-time federal employees, except for military personnel, the Postal Service, and those working in immigration enforcement or national security.
By the authority vested in me as President by the Constitution and the laws of the United States of America, it is hereby ordered:
Section 1. Policy and Purpose. Across the country today, medical professionals are maiming and sterilizing a growing number of impressionable children under the radical and false claim that adults can change a child’s sex through a series of irreversible medical interventions. This dangerous trend will be a stain on our Nation’s history, and it must end.
Countless children soon regret that they have been mutilated and begin to grasp the horrifying tragedy that they will never be able to conceive children of their own or nurture their children through breastfeeding. Moreover, these vulnerable youths’ medical bills may rise throughout their lifetimes, as they are often trapped with lifelong medical complications, a losing war with their own bodies, and, tragically, sterilization.
Accordingly, it is the policy of the United States that it will not fund, sponsor, promote, assist, or support the so-called “transition” of a child from one sex to another, and it will rigorously enforce all laws that prohibit or limit these destructive and life-altering procedures.
Sec. 2. Definitions. For the purposes of this order:
(a) The term “child” or “children” means an individual or individuals under 19 years of age.
(b) The term “pediatric” means relating to the medical care of a child.
(c) The phrase “chemical and surgical mutilation” means the use of puberty blockers, including GnRH agonists and other interventions, to delay the onset or progression of normally timed puberty in an individual who does not identify as his or her sex; the use of sex hormones, such as androgen blockers, estrogen, progesterone, or testosterone, to align an individual’s physical appearance with an identity that differs from his or her sex; and surgical procedures that attempt to transform an individual’s physical appearance to align with an identity that differs from his or her sex or that attempt to alter or remove an individual’s sexual organs to minimize or destroy their natural biological functions. This phrase sometimes is referred to as “gender affirming care.”
The Office of Management and Budget (OMB) directed federal agencies, in a Jan. 27 memorandum, to suspend the distribution of grants, loans, and other financial assistance while the programs are under review.
A memo, from OMB Acting Director Matthew Vaeth, directs federal agencies to conduct a comprehensive analysis of all financial assistance programs to determine whether they are aligned with the executive orders signed by President Donald Trump after his inauguration on Jan. 20.
“In the interim, to the extent permissible under applicable law, Federal agencies must temporarily pause all activities related to obligation or disbursement of all Federal financial assistance, and other relevant agency activities that may be implicated by the executive orders, including, but not limited to, financial assistance for foreign aid, nongovernmental organizations, DEI, woke gender ideology, and the green new deal,” it stated.
Vaeth stated in his memo that the pause will allow the government more time to review agency programs and determine the best uses of funding for those programs consistent with the law and Trump’s priorities.
Miller is an example of how likeable Jews can be when they are on our side, or vociferously appear to be. I do not fully understand why Jews do not take a (real) Miller approach as displayed above and also do it across the board. Support the America you have tried to destroy rather than continue destroying it. I am serious, people would love you for it. ABN
The opposite side of the country from California and twenty years ‘behind’, yet Maine is racing down the same slippery slope of bogus morality coupled with graft and corruption as California. Politicians who believe they are ‘leaders’ rather than representatives are mesmerized by their own delusions (and personal greed). ABN
There is nothing reconcilable about American Liberty when contrast with a looming surveillance state. There is no facet of American values, the essential core of what we define as Americanism, that can exist without true liberty.
While the Declaration of Independence is long regarded as the greatest written declaration of purpose, the latter created Bill of Rights, the first Ten original amendments to the U.S. Constitution, is just as important. The first declared our intent; the second defined how our founders intended to retain the intent during our collective assembly. Together they outline what set the course to make America great.
We have allowed the foundational intent of both sets of documents to be compromised, because, well, simply we were lazy and complacent. Now we are engaged in a time of great consequence that will determine whether or not the purpose of our assembly can continue.
We are, in factual reality, now deep inside a debate carried out in the world of politics. The stakes have never been higher.
In nine days, President Donald J Trump is scheduled to be sworn in as President of the United States. In my non-pretending world, this is likely to be the last time in our lifetime to drag the conversation of how we define liberty into the American psyche. All of my research in the past two decades indicates this likelihood is not hyperbole. We have one shot at this, and our time is now.
Liberty, the fundamental decision to retain it or lose it, is the context for all other contexts that have preceded it. The principles of liberty that we have defined for generations cannot exist in an American surveillance state. Thus, the secretive courts, the unlawful usurpation of the 4th Amendment, the short-sighted ramifications of the Patriot Act, the weaponization of our federal law enforcement and police agencies, all of it, must be reviewed through this fundamental core issue, Liberty.
I have traveled throughout the East and West to gain perspective on what makes us different, and what I can assert with clarity is that if we lose the Liberty argument, then the ideological representatives behind Barack Obama will have succeeded, the fundamental transformation will be irreversible.
This frames the cornerstone of my viewpoints on all of the characters in politics. It is not a matter of debate that on these core issues of Liberty and the stopping of the Surveillance State, everything else is a downstream consequence. The tiered system of constitutional protections for particular categories of personage must be rebuked. On this matter there cannot be compromise, because every outcome that impedes our way of life is a derivative of this value.
I will oppose all interests who refuse to confront the Surveillance State. I will draw bold attention to those who are willingly creating it, and I promise you I will call out every operational interest that is willfully blind to its creation.
Thirty years ago when I was working in Japan, a bunch of Japanese friends brought up David Duke. I hit the roof about what a racist POS he was and how people like that should be ostracized and paid no attention to. My friends were all visibly taken aback. ‘But he’s on your side. He’s trying to help your people.’ I went on yada yada with the normal programming, but I also never forgot their very sincere reactions. Years later I read a little bit of Duke and watched a few of his videos. I just checked and see that I posted two items on Duke on ABN. I even told the story above eight years ago using many of the same words. We have so much more information today than ever before, the deep mind-control slurs on people like Duke don’t work anymore. Once you see the slurs for what they are, you peel away another level of mind-control programming like the one I displayed in Japan 30 years ago. ABN
American Buddhist Net 