Governors to fired federal workers: We're hiring
In light of the thousands of federal job cuts doled out by President Donald Trump and billionaire adviser Elon Musk via the Department of Government Efficiency, a growing number of governors, mostly Democrats, have begun trying to woo those employees to apply for state government jobs. Others have promoted private sector opportunities and other resources available for those who are newly in the job market.
New York Gov. Kathy Hochul, a Democrat, launched a recruiting effort this week, dubbed the 'You're Hired' initiative, specifically targeting federal workers who have lost their jobs as a result of DOGE's cost-cutting efforts. Her office has assembled a job board of open New York state positions.
'The federal government might say, 'You're fired,' but here in New York, we say, 'You're hired,'' Hochul said in a Tuesday video announcing the initiative. 'We love federal workers. Whatever your skills, we value public service.'
Last week, Hawaii Gov. Josh Green, a Democrat, signed an executive order instituting an expedited hiring process for qualified federal workers who'd recently lost their jobs seeking employment in state government positions. The effort aims to provide such candidates who've applied for Hawaii jobs with a conditional job offer within two weeks of their application submission.
'As we witness the very quickly changing landscape of the federal government, federal workforce and federal policies, this order directs state agencies to review candidates and make a conditional job offer within 14 days of receiving an individual's application,' Green said in a statement announcing the initiative.
At least one Republican governor has gotten in on the effort, too, by trying to advertise private sector jobs to fired federal workers.
Gov. Glenn Youngkin of Virginia, where approximately 340,000 federal workers live, has praised the DOGE initiative while his administration has also launched a website effort to tout the 250,000 open positions across Virginia.
His administration's ' Federal Worker Resource Bundle,' also includes information about applying for unemployment benefits, preparing for a job search, and understanding health care options.
"Come work here," Youngkin said at a press conference this week. "Come experience those powerful words of 'you are hired.' Take advantage of the resources that will help you find your pathway to that career of your dreams."
Thousands of federal workers have been terminated from agencies and departments across the federal government as a result of DOGE, though the exact number is unclear.
Democratic governors in other states haven't gone as far as actively recruiting fired federal workers, but have launched programs designed to provide them with resources to ease their unemployment.
Maryland Gov. Wes Moore's administration, for instance, set up a ' Maryland Public Servants Resource Website ' earlier this month intended to serve a centralized location for fired federal workers to seek assistance.
The website includes information on unemployment insurance, job boards, and resources related to health insurance, housing, veterans' services and legal services. Maryland is home to at least 160,000 federal civilian jobs.
'The White House continues to take actions that jeopardize the livelihoods of our public servants and upend how the federal government can best serve the American people and advance our shared priorities,' Moore said in a statement announcing the site. 'We still hope we can move in partnership with this new administration to address common goals. But in light of recent actions that are hurting Marylanders, we must step up to defend our people.'
New Mexico Gov. Michelle Lujan Grisham launched a similar resource website for fired federal workers earlier this week.
The site includes job boards, career education, training and recruitment events for positions in both the public and private sectors, as well as resources regarding unemployment insurance.
'We are committed to ensuring that New Mexicans who have been abruptly dismissed from federal jobs have the resources and support they need to transition smoothly into new career opportunities,' Lujan Grisham said in a Monday statement announcing the effort.
Several other Democratic governors have spoken out in recent weeks about wanting to help fired federal workers in their states.
Illinois Gov. JB Pritzker, for example, quickly issued statements and information for fired workers this month alerting them to their legal rights and the legal and financial resources available to them within days of DOGE's first termination efforts.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Daily Mail
24 minutes ago
- Daily Mail
Former Fox News host Jeanine Pirro's brutal snub to Kash Patel before joining Trump administration
Former Fox News host Jeanine Pirro refused a job working under Kash Patel as Deputy Director of the FBI before she landed the role of Attorney for Washington D.C. The firebrand judge risked drawing President Trump's ire late last year when she snubbed the role because she had 'no interest' in working for Patel, two administration sources told The New York Times. Patel was appointed to the top job despite his limited legal experience and outspoken distrust of the FBI, drawing widespread criticism and raising questions about whether he was equipped for the job. The role Pirro turned down ultimately went to Dan Bongino, a podcaster and former Secret Service agent who has been a leading proponent in voicing several MAGA conspiracy theories. Then in May, Pirro was asked to step in as interim United States Attorney for the District of Columbia after Trump's first pick for the role - longtime conservative activist, podcast host, and recent defender of January 6th rioters Ed Martin - failed to secure support from enough Senate Republicans to proceed with his confirmation. By August 3 she had been sworn into the role on a permanent basis. In the meantime, Patel and Bongino have been under immense pressure following a decision by Attorney General Pam Bondi to not release the Epstein files and mass departures at the agency. Pirro has worked tirelessly to bring to life Trump's crime crackdown in the capitol. Pirro celebrated Trump's recent decision to deploy the National Guard and federalize D.C. police, noting crime in the city is 'out of control.' 'I see too much violent crime being committed by young punks who think they can get together in gangs and crews and beat the hell out of you,' Pirro said alongside Trump this week. Trump announced plans to take over D.C. after a young man who was working for DOGE was 'very badly hurt' and 'beat up by a bunch of thugs in D.C.' The identity of the 19-year-old man involved in the reported incident was Edward Coristine, famously nicknamed 'Big Balls' by his peers. 'Here's what the president is going to do. He's going to make a difference. We're going to change the laws,' Pirro told Fox this week. 'We've got liberal judges, we've got liberal laws - everything's gonna change.' Pirro's jurisdiction encompasses the headquarters of most government agencies, which makes her role one of the most influential in the country. Cases brought before her division may include ones of national security and public corruption, as well as violent crimes and drug trafficking. Republicans, including Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Chuck Grassley, praised Trump's selection for the role, while doing their best to fend off attacks on Pirro from their Democrat counterparts. 'You may hear my Democrat colleagues criticize Ms. Pirro for some of her colorful remarks during her time as a TV personality,' Grassley, stated on the Senate floor ahead of Saturday's vote, adding that 'yes, she has a larger-than-life personality.' However, Grassley added that, 'she has [a] decades [long] distinguished record as a prosecutor and judge. D.C. is fortunate that the president nominated her to serve as its U.S. attorney. Her job in the interim role, where she is stationed now, has been heralded.' Pirro began her career as a fierce young lawyer in New York City, primarily targeting sexual offenses against women and children. She climbed through the ranks as a political moderate and went on to be elected Westchester County district attorney in 1993 as a Republican. From there, she jumped across to Fox News as a commentator and panelist, earning as much as $3million per year on The Five. But in 2019 she was suspended by the network after suggesting politician Ilhan Omar's decision to wear a hijab was un-American.
Times
an hour ago
- Times
Trump's cynical bluster has echoes of Vietnam
In Anchorage on Friday, the president of the United States was confronted with the truth of an old superpower adage: it is easier to bully allies than to bend enemies. Since January, Donald Trump has enjoyed remarkable success in causing formerly friendly countries to submit without retaliation to his tariffs and insults. They have thus far preferred this course to an escalation of hostilities — and hostilities are what tariffs represent — with the most powerful nation on earth. America has become widely disliked and feared, especially in Europe and Canada. Most national leaders nonetheless continue to abase themselves before Trump, though Sir Keir Starmer may already regret his gushingly enthusiastic weekend remarks about the Alaska summit. Russia's president, Vladimir Putin, is an utterly different proposition. He is pursuing a nationalist agenda, to the point of obsession. He has no interest in compromise over Ukraine. He is bent upon victory. He seeks to recreate what some would call a sphere of influence but which we should recognise as a sphere of coercion, extending from Georgia through Ukraine and Belarus, and thereafter beyond. • Putin demands Ukraine surrender the Donbas as price of peace He is convinced that he can achieve this because he continues to command support among his own people. Sanctions are porous and his armed forces are slowly grinding down Ukraine. Europe is weak — incapable of arming Volodymyr Zelensky if the US quits. Putin believes that Trump will give him what he wants. The evidence from Friday's summit suggests that he is right. The president cares nothing for Zelensky and his country but respects the master of the Kremlin. He likes dictators and clings to hopes of prising Russia apart from China, which he views as the only adversary that should matter to Americans. Incomprehensible though it seems to us, he is more eager to build a relationship with Putin than to stay friends with Europe. A precedent for Trump's clumsy and cynical attempts to end the war lies in America's diplomatic efforts to disengage from Vietnam, half a century ago. President Lyndon Johnson initiated talks with the North Vietnamese in Paris in 1968. These got nowhere, for the same reason that olive branches are wasted on Putin. Hanoi was interested only in victory. Meanwhile, just as Zelensky is cut out of Trump's conversations with the Russians, so during the Indochina wars no South Vietnamese was invited to attend a significant White House policy meeting, nor indeed the Paris peace talks. Trump should never have attempted a bilateral with Putin because he is too verbally incontinent to negotiate rationally with an iceman such as Putin. Henry Kissinger, though incomparably cleverer, suffered constant frustrations when he became US emissary facing the North Vietnamese in Paris. Only in October 1972, weeks before a presidential election in which Richard Nixon faced the Democrat George McGovern, did Kissinger finally agree draft terms with the communist diplomat Le Duc Tho. When he arrived back in Washington, he strode into the White House bursting with excitement. 'The deal we've got, Mr President,' he was taped telling his employer, 'is so far better than anything we dreamt of. I mean, it will absolutely, totally, wipe out McGovern.' • We are no closer to peace, say Ukrainian refugees in Britain That remark did no service to Kissinger's reputation, because it made explicit that he viewed escape from Vietnam principally as a partisan political coup. He told Nixon that, while the agreement could be billed as 'peace', it would empower Hanoi to seize the South after a decent interval. Eighteen months should be enough, said Kissinger: 'If we settle it, say, this October, by January '74 no one will give a damn.' Nixon was so delighted that at lunch he invited his surrender broker to share a Lafite Rothschild 1957, such as the president customarily indulged alone, serving Californian red to the help. A deal was finally signed in Paris in January 1973. The Americans went home. Two years later I was among the unhappy eyewitnesses as Hanoi's army swept south to Saigon. Vietnam was, of course, a war in which the US had become directly and bloodily involved, unlike Ukraine, where it is merely arming a sovereign, West-leaning state to defend itself. What the two conflicts have in common, however, is that by 1973 Nixon's nation desperately wanted out of Indochina; in 2025, only a minority of Americans care a fig for Ukraine. Trump has not yet borrowed Neville Chamberlain's 1938 line about Czechoslovakia — 'a quarrel in a faraway country between people of whom we know nothing' — but his vice-president JD Vance has come close. Matthew Whitaker, the US ambassador to Nato, told CNN last week that 'no big chunks' of Ukrainian territory would be 'just given' to Russia 'that haven't been fought for or earned on the battlefield'. That remark should send a shiver through every advocate of freedom, every opponent of permitting brute force to determine outcomes. The signature on Nixon's Vietnam peace deal was delayed for almost four months, chiefly by the resistance of the South's president, Nguyen Van Thieu. Nixon bullied him into acquiescence at a meeting during which he shouted: 'Without aid, you're finished! Understand?' Yes, the wretched Vietnamese was obliged to understand. That nasty conversation in the Oval Office has a contemporary resonance, does it not? Without American aid Ukraine, too, is finished. Kissinger shamelessly accepted a half-share of a Nobel peace prize which Le Duc Tho, his interlocutor, had the integrity to reject. Trump today makes plain his own ambition to secure this honour, plausibly for a similar shoddy betrayal, though Ukraine is an incomparably worthier cause than was South Vietnam. On Monday the president is expected to tell Zelensky, and the European leaders whom he has also summoned to make complicit in Ukraine's future, that to halt the Russian rape of his country he must surrender the east, renounce hopes of joining Nato or the EU and sign a deal that includes no credible security guarantee. Putin is determined to pull every string of a future puppet government in Kyiv. It is not too late for Donald Trump to change course, and we should cling to hopes that he will do so. The only rightful, statesmanlike response to Putin's murderous obduracy is for the US to boost arms supplies to Ukraine and escalate sanctions against Russia. If, instead, the president demands that Zelensky rolls over, we shall have cause to despair of his ever fulfilling the traditional role of successive US presidents, as the West's principal standard-bearers for freedom and justice. Next month's presidential state visit to London seems an ever more cringe-making prospect. There is malicious gossip in Washington that on the plane to Anchorage a triumphalist Putin and his acolytes ate chicken Kyiv. It will be a historic tragedy if Trump proves to have served it to them.
BBC News
an hour ago
- BBC News
Should Europe wean itself off US tech?
Imagine if US President Donald Trump could flip a switch and turn off Europe's may sound far-fetched, crazy even. But it's a scenario that has been seriously discussed in tech industry and policy circles in recent months, as tensions with Washington have escalated, and concerns about the EU's reliance on American technology have come to the the root of these concerns is the fact just three US giants - Google, Microsoft and Amazon - provide 70% of Europe's cloud-computing infrastructure, the scaffolding on which many online services some question whether an unpredictable US leader would weaponize the situation if relations seriously deteriorated - for example, by ordering those companies to turn off their services in Europe."Critical data would become inaccessible, websites would go dark, and essential state services like hospital IT systems would be thrown into chaos," says Robin Berjon, a digital governance specialist who advises EU believes that concerns over a so called US "kill switch" should be taken seriously. "It's hard to say how much trouble we would be in." Microsoft, Google and Amazon all say they offer "sovereign" cloud computing solutions that safeguard EU clients' data, and would prevent such a scenario ever occurring. The BBC has contacted the US Treasury department for truth, there have always been concerns about the lack of "digital sovereignty" in Europe, where US firms not only dominate the cloud-computing market, but also hardware, satellite internet and now artificial the region's main mobile operating systems - Apple and Android - and payment networks - Mastercard and Visa - are fears became urgent in May when it emerged that Karim Khan, the top prosecutor at the Netherlands-based International Criminal Court (ICC), had lost access to his Microsoft Outlook email account after being sanctioned by the White ICC has issued arrest warrants for top Israeli officials, including Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, over their roles in the Israel-Gaza war - something Mr Trump called "illegitimate".Khan has since temporarily stepped aside until a sexual misconduct probe against him is says that "at no point" did it cease or suspend its services to the ICC, although it was in touch with the ICC "throughout the process that resulted in the disconnection". Since then digital sovereignty has shot up the agenda in Brussels, while some public bodies are already seeking alternatives to US is it realistic to think they could wean themselves off US technology?Digital sovereignty is loosely defined as the ability of a governing body to control the data and technology systems within its problem faced by those pursuing it is the lack of comparable does have its own providers, such as France's OVHCloud, or Germany's Germany's T-Systems or Delos, in cloud they account for a fraction of the market, and don't have the same scale or range of capabilities, says Dario Maisto, a senior analyst covering digital sovereignty at global business consultancy open-source alternatives are available for common software packages like Office and Windows, but while proponents say they are more transparent and accessible, none is as comprehensive or well known. But while moving to sovereign alternatives wouldn't "happen overnight", it's a "myth" to think it's not possible, says Mr notes that the German state of Schleswig-Holstein is currently in the process of phasing out Microsoft products like Office 365 and Windows in favour of open-source solutions such as LibreOffice and Linux. Denmark's Ministry for Digitalisation is piloting a similar scheme."We sometimes overvalue the role of proprietary software in our organisations," Mr Maisto says, pointing out that for key services like word processing and email, open-source solutions work just fine."The main reasons organisations don't use open source are a lack of awareness and misplaced fears about cyber security," he adds."Our prediction is in the next five to 10 years, there will be an accelerated shift [to these solutions] because of this wake-up call." Benjamin Revcolevschi, boss of OVHCloud, tells the BBC that firms like his are ready to answer the sovereignty needs of public and private organisations in Europe."Only European cloud providers, whose headquarters are in the EU and with European governance, are able to offer immunity to non-European laws, to protect sensitive and personal data," he Microsoft, Amazon and Google say they already offer solutions that address concerns about digital sovereignty, solutions which store data on severs in the clients' country or region, not in the tells the BBC that it also partners with trusted local EU suppliers like T-Systems, granting them control over the encryption of client data, and giving customers "a technical veto over their data". The German Army is one of its Microsoft president Brad Smith has promised the firm would take legal action in the "exceedingly unlikely" event the US government ordered it to suspend services, and that it would include a clause in European contracts to that effect."We will continue to look for new ways to ensure the European Commission and our European customers have the options and assurances they need to operate with confidence," a Microsoft spokesman told the BBC. Zach Meyers, from the Brussels-based Centre on Regulation in Europe (CERRE) think tank, says it might make sense for Europe to develop its own limited sovereign cloud to protect critical government he adds that it's unrealistic to try to "get Americans out of the supply chain, or to ensure that there's Europeans in the supply chain at each point".He points to Gaia X - a scheme launched in 2020 to create a European-based alternative to large, centralised cloud platforms, which has faced significant criticism and delays."A lot of these [tech] markets are winner takes all, so once you're the first mover it's really hard for anyone else to catch up."Instead, Mr Meyers thinks Europe should focus on areas of technology where it might gain an edge."It could be the industrial use of AI, because Europe already has a much bigger, stronger industrial base than the US has," he says. "Or the next generation of chipmaking equipment, because one of the few areas where Europe has foothold is in photolithography - the machines that make the really top-end chips." So where does the digital sovereignty agenda go from here?Some believe nothing will change unless Europe brings in new regulations that force regional organisations and governments to buy local technology. But according to Mr Berjon, the EU has been dragging its feet."There is definitely political interest, but it's a question of turning it into a shared strategy."Matthias Bauer, director at the European Centre for International Political Economy, thinks the goal should be building up Europe's technology sector so it can compete with the US and a report on EU competitiveness in 2024, Mario Draghi, former head of the European Central Bank, noted Europe is "severely lagging behind" in new technologies, and that "only four of the world's top 50 tech companies are European"."It's currently much harder for a tech company based in the EU to scale across the bloc than it would be for the same company in the US," Mr Bauer says."You not only face different languages, but different contract law, labour market laws, tax laws, and also different sector-specific regulation."As for the theory that President Trump might flip a "kill switch" and turn off Europe's internet, he's highly sceptical."It would be a realistic scenario if we were close to a war, but I don't see that on the horizon."Yet Mr Maisto says organisations must take the risk seriously, however remote."Two years ago, we didn't think we would be talking about these topics in these terms in 2025. Now organisations want to get ready for what might happen."
