More than one way to slice a workforce: How Trump's cuts differ from Clinton's

USA Today

21-02-2025

Hear this story
In the wake of mass layoffs under President Donald Trump's new administration, some have compared the government-shrinking initiative to a 1990s effort under President Bill Clinton, when about 400,000 jobs were cut from the federal workforce.
"Sounds familiar," Elon Musk said in a post on X above a video compilation of Clinton and then-Vice President Al Gore talking about efforts to cut federal government spending. Musk is serving as a White House aide and regularly posts about efforts by the Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE) – which Trump at one point said Musk would run – to cut costs.
However, Elaine Kamarck, who led the Clinton administration review as assistant to the president, told USA TODAY that effort was very different in important respects from Trump's recent actions. While Trump has focused on making the federal government cost less, the Clinton's "National Performance Review" was also focused on making it work better, she said.
"(Trump officials) are really highly at risk for things blowing up in their faces. Whether it's a terrorist attack because they don't have enough spies at CIA, or it's a terrible, food-borne illness because they don't have enough people at CDC, there's a lot of places where things could blow up," Kamarck said.
Already, the Trump administration has had to walk back major job cuts to departments, including scrambling to rehire hundreds of nuclear security workers as well as several Department of Agriculture workers who focus on the avian bird flu. The bird flu has wreaked havoc in the farming industry over the past year, leading to millions of dead birds and egg-price hikes.
Kamarck anticipates even more job-cut reversals as the Trump efforts continue to unfold.
"We were very careful to try and cut fat, not muscle, and they clearly are cutting muscle," Kamarck told USA TODAY.
The White House didn't respond to a request for comment, but in a Feb. 11 news release it said the federal workforce exceeds 2.4 million and, in fiscal year 2022, cost nearly $300 billion in yearly compensation for civilian employees. The president "is committed to reducing the size and scope of the federal government," it said.
In the 2024 fiscal year, the total federal budget was $6.75 trillion. The most expensive programs include Social Security, Medicare, the Department of Defense, and interest payments on the national debt.
In a Dec. 12 interview with TIME Magazine, Trump said the country was bloated with "with rules, regulations and with, frankly, people that are unnecessary" and would be more productive in private sector jobs.
More recently on the Sean Hannity Show, Trump characterized Musk as a businessman who would help him get things done.
"(Musk) said, 'You know, when you sign these executive orders, a lot of them don't get done, and maybe the most important ones,' and he would take that executive order that I'd signed, and he would have those people go to whatever agency it was — 'When are you doing it? Get it done. Get it done,'" Trump said.
Hasty Trump process could heighten legal obstacles
While there is no official figure on the total number of job cuts since Trump took office Jan. 20, it could surpass 100,000 workers already.
About 75,000 federal employees accepted a buyout offer from Trump, according to White House Press Secretary Karoline Leavitt. Several thousand more workers have been fired from various government branches, including the Department of Veterans Affairs, the U.S. Forest Service, the CDC, the Department of Interior, and the Department of Energy. Many of those workers were on probation because they were hired in the past year.
On Feb. 11, Trump signed an executive order for heads of federal departments and agencies to make plans for "large-scale reductions in force."
The swift job cuts contrast with a slower effort to shrink federal spending under Clinton's administration, which included a mixture of buyouts, layoffs, and hiring freezes. Clinton announced the National Performance Review more than a month into his first presidential term, creating a six-month deadline for his vice president and about 250 career civil servants who staffed the review to report back.
"This stuff is never easy. Nobody had ever come at the federal workforce the way we had with goals of cutting personnel," Kamarck said. "But it's not like this, because it was not as quick and the numbers weren't as big, and we generally had it in the context of a plan."
One of the biggest differences with the Clinton review, Kamarck said, is it was staffed by people who had worked in the federal government "for a fair amount of time," and was rooted in considerations about what the government should be doing.
The Clinton administration also sought new legislative authority for certain efforts, including a "buyout bill" that authorized paying up to $25,000 to selected employees who voluntarily left the government.
The Trump administration offered a buyout deal – which expired Feb. 12 – that at least in many cases exceeds the Clinton-era financial limit, even when adjusted for inflation. However, Trump didn't secure new legislative authority. Trump offered about eight months' pay to the workers.
After a workers union sued, a federal judge temporarily halted the offer, but later ruled the union hadn't demonstrated it was injured in a way that allowed it to sue. The union could appeal, and workers or other organizations may try to sue.
That lawsuit is one of several the Trump administration has faced in its early days over trying to fire federal workers and more.
"In the short run, the president looks strong. He looks in charge," Kamarck said. "In the medium term, and in the long run, he's going to suffer a lot of problems from it, because essentially, he's going to lose some lawsuits, and he will find himself in a situation where they're having to go back and fix things over and over."