Veterans Affairs Reverses Course on Large-Scale Layoffs
In a news release, VA said that it was on pace to reduce its total staff by nearly 30,000 employees by the end of this fiscal year, a push that the department said eliminates the need for a 'large-scale reduction-in-force.' The announcement marks a significant reversal for the Trump administration, which had planned for months to cut VA by roughly 83,000 employees, according to plans revealed in an internal memo circulated to agency staffers in March. At the time, VA Secretary Douglas A. Collins said in remarks shared to social media that the cuts were tough but necessary.
'We'll be making major changes, so get used to it now,' Collins said at the time. The White House argued that the downsizing would make a 'bloated' VA more efficient and transparent.
But the proposed staff-slashing quickly drew backlash from veterans and their advocates, who warned that the quality of VA service would decline. Morale plummeted among employees, spurring many to leave their jobs.
VA's decision not to cut more of its workforce through an RIF comes after blowback from several veterans' groups, Congress and VA staffers who warned that an agency with less manpower and fewer resources would negatively impact veterans. Veterans, who make up a disproportionate share of the federal workforce, felt the brunt of the rapid push to shrink that workforce, stirring ire in a reliable political base for Republicans.
Continuing to pursue deep cuts to the VA workforce could have carried major political risks for President Donald Trump, who is highly popular among veterans and who has repeatedly said he would not order cuts to their VA benefits.
In a statement Monday, VA said its original plan to conduct department-wide RIFs to reduce its staff levels by up to 15 percent was avoided after employees left the agency through retirements, normal attrition and deferred resignations. Additionally, a federal hiring freeze helped reduce the number of employment slots, the agency said in the statement. In January, VA recorded roughly 484,000 employees. By June, there were 467,000 staffers left – a loss of nearly 17,000 workers, according to agency numbers. The agency expects that between July and September nearly 12,000 additional staffers will exit through normal attrition, voluntary early retirement, or the deferred resignation program.
In an email VA staffers received Monday, Collins said that 'after nearly four months of careful study, analysis, and action, I am pleased to report to you that VA is headed in the right direction – both in terms of staff levels and customer service.' Collins insisted that even though the agency is expected to lose a total of 30,000 staffers 'performance continues to improve.'
'These improvements include huge drops in the number of Veterans waiting for disability benefits, sizable increases in claims processing productivity, and extraordinary progress regarding our electronic health record modernization,' Collins wrote in the email.
In the statement Monday, VA said it had established 'multiple safeguards in place to ensure these staff reductions do not impact Veteran care or benefits.' Mission-critical jobs, the agency wrote, are exempt from the deferred retirement and early retirement offers. Additionally, 350,000 jobs in the agency are exempt from the federal hiring freeze.
VA, which provides medical care for millions of veterans and their families and is among the largest employers of federal workers, had already seen cuts under the second Trump administration, losing 2,400 workers to layoffs in February. Facing the threat of further cuts, thousands more VA workers opted this spring for an early retirement offered by Trump, The Washington Post reported.
Frustrations began to build this summer over the diminishment of the agency. In June, thousands of veterans rallied in Washington against further reductions, and similar veteran-led protests unfolded at hundreds of locations across dozens of other states.
The reversal may also reflect yet another decline in the power and influence of billionaire Elon Musk and the DOGE team he previously led, which stormed into government in January determined to slash staff and spending. After a few months of frenzied cutting – some of it halted by court challenges – Musk and Trump fell out in a highly public spat over the merits of the president's tax and spending cuts bill. Musk left Washington in a huff, soon followed by some top aides who had been detailed to DOGE.
Other DOGE team members remain ensconced in government and are working toward various Trump policy goals, including revising or canceling dozens of rules and gun restrictions at the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives. Still, DOGE's clout has diminished in other ways. Last month, for example, the team lost its power to control the government's process for awarding billions of dollars in federal funds.
In his email Monday, Collins told the remaining VA staff that they are 'an important part' of the administration's efforts to revamp the agency.
'I thank you for your hard work and dedication to our vital mission,' he wrote.
In a statement to The Washington Post, Sen. Richard Blumenthal (Connecticut), the top Democrat in the Senate Veterans' Affairs Committee, said Monday's announcement 'makes clear VA is bleeding employees across the board at an unsustainable rate because of the toxic work environment created by this Administration and DOGE's slash and trash policies.'
'This is not 'natural' attrition, it is not strategic, and it will inevitably impact veterans' care and benefits – no matter what blanket assurances the VA Secretary hides behind,' Blumenthal said.
Senate Veterans' Affairs Committee Chairman Jerry Moran (R-Kansas) struck a more celebratory tone, saying he spoke with Collins about the change in plan earlier Monday. Moran said he appreciated Collins's 'efforts to make certain veterans are at the center of any changes at the VA.'
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Japan Times
3 hours ago
- Japan Times
The real nuclear moonshot is here on Earth
In America in 2025 it's tough to know which we will see first, the Epstein files or a nuclear power plant on the moon. The Trump administration certainly seems more committed to the latter. Transportation Secretary and acting head of NASA Sean Duffy wants a lunar-ready reactor by 2030. This is certainly one way of pushing more federal funding toward advanced reactor research. It also magnifies, through a fantastical lens, the broader hype around new nuclear power — and the daunting challenge of getting it deployed to meet our more immediate needs for carbon-free power back here at home. Developing extraterrestrial nuclear power is a worthy research project. If we are to someday establish permanent settlements on the moon, they will require a lot of energy for melting ice, growing food, mining crypto and whatnot. Nuclear power offers the benefit of requiring relatively little fuel for high output and, unlike solar power, could keep running through the roughly two-weeklong lunar night. NASA already has an ongoing effort to develop a 40 kilowatt reactor design, the Fission Surface Power project. A typical nuclear plant is one gigawatt, or 25,000 times that, and even so-called small modular reactor, or SMR, designs usually aim for tens of megawatts. Duffy is aiming for a 100 kilowatt unit. The U.S. has certainly designed nuclear reactors for demanding environments before, like beneath the Greenland ice cap or inside submarines sailing the ocean depths. But developing one that can operate safely in the face of the moon's ultraextreme temperatures, low gravity and exposure to solar radiation, to cite a few wrinkles, is far beyond that. It would also have to be carried almost a quarter-of-a-million miles through space and deposited gently on the lunar surface. The transport cost alone would be literally astronomical. NASA has previously targeted a reactor weight of under six metric tons. Even assuming that could be met, before taking into account the cost of designing and building the thing, shipping it skyward could cost $7 billion alone — or, on a per kilowatt basis, roughly 6,000 times the estimated cost of building a regular nuclear plant on Earth. Putting dollars towards this when ordinary household power bills are taking off possibly doesn't present the best optics. Conceivably, Space Exploration Technologies, or SpaceX, might eventually cut that shipping cost dramatically. But this rather assumes we are all happy putting fissile material on rockets that have sometimes spontaneously disassembled in spectacular fashion as well as U.S. President Donald Trump allowing such a contract to go to one of Elon Musk's companies in the first place. You don't go to the moon to save money, though. The bigger problem here is the five-year goal. True, the U.S. crushed that 1960s end-of-decade space deadline. But the U.S. nuclear power industry's track record is less inspiring. One of the main pitches for SMRs is that they offer a solution to the time and cost overruns that have plagued conventional plants. As of today, however, only one developer, NuScale Power, has received approval from the Nuclear Regulatory Commission for its reactor, and there are no commercial reactors under construction. Trump has signed several executive orders to reinvigorate the U.S. nuclear sector by streamlining approvals and directing national laboratories and the military to pitch in, calling for 10 gigawatts of new capacity to get under way by the end of this decade. Strategic considerations mean the ambition is laudable enough and there are signs of growing interest in nuclear power, from Silicon Valley's hyperscalers to New York's governor. But interest does not a nuclear renaissance make — and certainly not one that delivers at scale this side of 2030. The inherent risks and higher costs involved in first-of-a-kind deployments of new nuclear capacity mean potential customers would rather see someone else take the plunge first. Even the hyperscalers, with their deep pockets and power-hungry AI ambitions, remain long on intent and short on binding commitments. There is much government push but less in the way of market pull, as Bloomberg NEF's Chris Gadomski summed up in a recent report. Yet you wouldn't know that from looking at the stocks of SMR startups, which have launched early. Duffy's lunar ambitions will no doubt add to the enthusiasm. But for the SMR darlings, delivering on such high-priced expectations, just for here on plain old planet Earth, is a moonshot already. Liam Denning is a Bloomberg Opinion columnist covering energy.
The Mainichi
3 hours ago
- The Mainichi
Zelenskyy to visit Berlin for meetings ahead of Trump-Putin summit
BERLIN (AP) -- Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy will visit Berlin on Wednesday to join German Chancellor Friedrich Merz for talks with European and U.S. leaders ahead of the Trump-Putin summit later this week, the German government said. Merz has convened a series of virtual meetings on Wednesday in an attempt to have the voice of European and Ukraine's leaders heard ahead of a summit that they have been sidelined from. Zelenskyy is due to meet with European leaders first, to prepare for a virtual call with U.S. President Donald Trump and Vice President JD Vance about an hour later. A call between leaders involved in the "coalition of the willing" countries prepared to help police any future peace agreement will take place last. Trump has said he wants to see whether Russian President Vladimir Putin is serious about ending the war, now in its fourth year. Trump has disappointed allies in Europe by saying Ukraine will have to give up some Russian-held territory. He also said Russia must accept land swaps, although it was unclear what Putin might be expected to surrender. The Europeans and Ukraine are wary that Putin, who has waged the biggest land war in Europe since 1945 and used Russia's energy might to try to intimidate the EU, might secure favorable concessions and set the outlines of a peace deal without them. European countries' overarching fear is that Putin will set his sights on one of them next if he wins in Ukraine. Zelenskyy said Tuesday that Putin wants Ukraine to withdraw from the remaining 30% of the Donetsk region that still it controls as part of a ceasefire deal, a proposal the leader categorically rejected. Zelenskyy reiterated that Ukraine would not give up any territory it controls, saying that would be unconstitutional and would serve only as a springboard for a future Russian invasion. He said diplomatic discussions led by the U.S. focusing on ending the war have not addressed key Ukrainian demands, including security guarantees to prevent future Russian aggression and including Europe in negotiations. Three weeks after Trump returned to office, his administration took the leverage of Ukraine's NATO membership off the table -- something that Putin has demanded -- and signaled that the EU and Ukraine must handle security in Europe now while America focuses its attention elsewhere. Trump has also routinely threatened and cajoled his NATO allies over defense spending, and has shown little mercy in trade talks by hiking tariffs on most EU imports to 5%, ostensibly for U.S. national security reasons. Senior EU officials believe that Trump may be satisfied with simply securing a ceasefire in Ukraine, and is probably more interested in broader U.S. geostrategic interests and great power politics, aiming to ramp up business with Russia and rehabilitate Putin.
The Mainichi
4 hours ago
- The Mainichi
US eyes high-level trade talks with China in fall: Treasury chief
WASHINGTON (Kyodo) -- The United States is eyeing high-level trade talks with China "within the next two or three months," Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent said on a television program aired Tuesday. "China is like a multilevel chess game," the point man on tariff issues in President Donald Trump's administration said on the Fox Business channel, adding the United States is trying to deal with "several variables" because China is "our biggest economic rival, and our biggest military rival." "What we are trying to do is to get to more balanced trade," he said. On Monday, Trump signed an executive order extending a tariff truce with China for 90 days, until Nov. 10, with the Chinese government also announcing the extension. In the order, the president said that through discussions with the United States, China "continues to take significant steps toward remedying non-reciprocal trade arrangements," among other things. Without the extension, an additional tariff rate of 24 percent on Chinese goods imported to the United States would have taken effect early Tuesday, renewing trade tensions between the world's two largest economies. In May, the United States and China backed away from their respective triple-digit tariff rates imposed during a trade war launched by Trump. Since then, the truce, agreed to by both countries in Geneva during their first round of trade talks, has remained in place. The United States and China have held two more rounds of high-level trade talks, the most recent in Stockholm in July. Trump has suggested an in-person meeting with Chinese President Xi Jinping could take place by the end of this year if an agreement on trade issues can be reached.
