logo
Trump's cuts to federal workers have taken their toll on Pa. More are coming

Trump's cuts to federal workers have taken their toll on Pa. More are coming

Yahoo17-03-2025

A statue at the Gettysburg National Military Park along the Union lines where Pickett's Charge was turned away on July 3, 1863. (Tim Lambert)
While he was preparing for work at the National Energy Technology Laboratory on Feb. 14, Kyle Buchheit opened an email he'd received around midnight.
'Per OPM instructions, DOE [the Department of Energy] finds that your further employment would not be in the public interest. For this reason, you are being removed from your position.'
It was a total surprise. The Pittsburgh-area research engineer knew President Donald Trump campaigned on cutting the federal workforce, but saw his work, conducting research that helps inform how grants are awarded in promising areas of fossil fuel development, as aligned with the administration's energy goals. And he didn't recognize himself or his colleagues in Trump's description of wasteful bureaucrats.
'I'm one of the quote unquote 'good federal employees.' I went to work every day in the office,' Buchheit said. 'I'm not a bureaucrat. I don't handle money. Our lab doesn't pass any kind of rules, regulations, none of that. We do research. We try to [help the development of] energy technology so electricity is cheap and affordable.'
Buchheit was one of hundreds of federal workers in Pennsylvania, and tens of thousands across the country, who have lost their jobs as a result of cost-cutting measures implemented by Trump and overseen by billionaire mega-donor Elon Musk. Mostly, they were probationary workers — meaning they were in their first year or so of employment, and didn't have the job protections of their more senior colleagues.
Before the layoffs, the commonwealth was home to around 75,000 federal workers, not including post office workers or military members, according to data provided by the state Department of Labor and Industry.
An analysis by the Capital-Star shows they come from all over.
But the landscape is changing rapidly.
In the last week, two federal judges have ruled many of the firings were illegal, and ordered probationary employees to be allowed to return to work. But those rulings left room for future job cuts, and the Trump administration has signaled their intention for even larger action.
Since Valentine's Day, the administration has told federal agencies to prepare for even more staff cuts, and a deadline has come and gone for agencies to submit plans for 'large-scale reductions in force,' though none have been made public yet. That puts thousands of federal workers living across the state at risk of losing their jobs, and those plans have not been made public.
For many of those federal employees, like Buchheit, the blow could be massive.
'I'm one of the quote unquote 'good federal employees.' I went to work every day in the office. I'm not a bureaucrat. I don't handle money. Our lab doesn't pass any kind of rules, regulations, none of that. We do research.
– Kyle Buchheit
For nine years, his life revolved around the NETL lab, the only one of its kind fully owned and operated by the U.S. government. After graduating in 2015, he took a postdoctoral fellowship at the branch in West Virginia. Four years later, he moved to Pennsylvania to work as a private contractor at the Pittsburgh-area location, where he bought a house and started his family. When he got a full-time federal job last year, it was exactly where he wanted to be.
'There's a running joke that everyone could make more money if they worked in the private sector,' Buccheit said. 'But if I worked in the private sector, my benefit goes to the company. If I work in the government, my benefit goes to the people.'
Buchheit comes from a long line of public servants. His grandfather on his mother's side served in the Pacific in World War II. And his paternal grandfather was the postmaster and mayor of a small Missouri town.
In his own way, he felt he was continuing that service to his country.
It's a sentiment shared by other federal workers, who are stung by questions and accusations by Musk and Republican lawmakers over their work ethic.
'A lot of people have bought into the concept of the D.C. bureaucrat, and I think that's a real problem,' said Philip Glover, the vice president of the American Federation of Government Employees third district. It covers Pennsylvania and Delaware. He estimates his union, the largest for federal employees in the commonwealth, represents about 30,000 Pennsylvanians.
Philip Glover, national vice president of AFGE District 3, addresses protesters outside of Rep. Scott Perry's office in Harrisburg on Feb. 20 (Capital-Star photo by Ian Karbal)
Glover said people should realize that federal workers do not conform to a stereotype. They work white collar and blue collar jobs, and have a variety of political views. Nationwide, roughly 85% of the federal workforce lives outside of the nation's capital. And about one third are veterans.
'They'd come out and recruit us for these jobs,' said Glover, an Army veteran. 'They came to Fort Bragg to recruit me into the Federal Bureau of Prisons. I was an MP. Now, [they say] 'You're not really worth anything.''
On Feb. 20, Glover joined dozens of people in a field outside Rep. Scott Perry's office in Harrisburg, despite the sub-freezing temperature. They were protesting the termination of federal workers and proposed cuts by Congressional Republicans to federal funding and social safety nets like Medicaid.
'It's crazy what's going on here,' Glover said in a speech. 'This is not running (the) government, and [Perry] is not saying a word about any of it.'
Perry's 10th District in southcentral Pennsylvania has the highest proportion of federal workers of any congressional district in the state. Around 3.22% of the workforce is employed by federal agencies — or roughly 13,000 people, according to data compiled by the Congressional Research Office last year, not including post office employees and active duty military members,
The lawmaker, who was involved in efforts to keep Trump in office following his loss in the 2020 election, wasn't at his office during the protest, and did not respond to questions from the Capital-Star. But he has praised Musk and the Department of Government Efficiency.
Glover was joined by Mark Cochran, the president of the local AFGE union that represents National Park Service workers at the Gettysburg National Military Park and Eisenhower National Historic Site. He is also president of AFGE Council 270, which represents National Park Service employees in the northeast part of the country.
The staff at the two sites has been hit hard by Musk's team and an executive order freezing new hires. First, they learned seasonal workers, who make up about 75 percent of the Gettysburg workforce during the busy tourist months, couldn't be hired back in the spring, according to Cochran. Five probationary workers were also cut.
That means some parts of the Civil War battlefield, one of the most popular tourist sites in the state, and Eisenhower farm will be left to go to nature, which can create hazards for visitors and, ultimately, will take much more time and money to restore than if they'd kept up with the work at their previous pace.
'We're working these typically lower-paying jobs, because we're passionate about the work that we're doing,' Cochran said. 'Working here at Gettysburg, we're preserving one of the turning points of our country's history for future generations. You can't ask for a better job than that, and these folks, they just want to work.'
Republicans like Perry represent the three Pennsylvania congressional districts with the highest proportion of federal workers. That's according to data collected by the Congressional Research Office.
They include Reps. Rob Bresnahan (R-8th District) and John Joyce (R-13th District). Federal workers make up 2.9% and 2.8% of the total workforce in their districts, respectively.
Neither congressman responded to questions from the Capital-Star about their views on the workforce cuts.
Are you a federal employee in Pennsylvania, or have you been impacted by federal workforce cuts? You can reach out to Ian Karbal by email at ikarbal@penncapital-star.com or by call/text/Signal at 847-946-9191 to share your stories or help inform our future reporting on the subject
According to data provided by the Pennsylvania Department of Labor and Industry, many of the parts of the state most dependent on federal labor supported Trump in the 2024 election.
Federal workers made up 6.8% of the workforce in Union County as of last September, more than any other in the commonwealth. Sixty one percent of voters there cast ballots for Trump in 2024.
In Lebanon County, where 64% of voters supported Trump in November, 6.2% of the workforce is employed by the federal government. The federal workforce there is largely employed by the Department of Veterans Affairs, which runs the Lebanon VA Medical Center, where an undisclosed number of probationary federal workers have already been laid off.
Douglas Etter, a spokesperson for the VA Medical Center said the cuts 'will have no negative effect on veteran health care, benefits or other services and will allow VA to focus more effectively on its core mission of serving veterans, families, caregivers and survivors.'
Monroe County, which had the third highest rate of federal employment at 4.7% of the workforce, went for Trump by less than a single percent in November. The Dept. of Defense is the largest civilian federal employer, and Secretary Pete Hegseth has said he'd like to cut the Pentagon's budget for nonlethal programs by 8% over each of the next five years, while reprioritizing spending on border security, drones, missile defense and more.
'A lot of my co-workers, they voted for Trump, and very proudly voted for Trump,' Cochran said. 'Now they're seeing their people they've worked side by side with for years — suddenly they're not here. And they're like, 'What's going on?''
While many of the areas in the state with the highest proportion of federal employees in their workforce are more rural and suburban, cities like Philadelphia and Pittsburgh have tens of thousands of federal workers between them,
Roughly one-third of federal workers in the commonwealth, or over 25,000, lived in Philadelphia County as of September 2024. That's 3.6% of the county's workforce.
Alex Berman, vice president of a Philadelphia branch of the National Treasury Employees Union, represents thousands of workers on the Philadelphia campus for the Internal Revenue Service. He says that roughly 400 IRS employees in the city have been laid off since Trump took office.
'They're in shock. They're hurting,' Berman said. 'They're understandably feeling betrayed. It's hard to sit here and be part of the union and say, 'We're working on it.''
Berman is also an IRS employee, and said the layoffs could result in more people paying more fees and taxes than they should. He estimates 90% of the workers that were cut were responsible for helping people who feel they were taxed more than they owed, or need to set up a payment plan, or other issues after they receive their tax bills.
And, according to Berman, those agents are often recruited as volunteers by the Federal Emergency Management Agency to take calls from people impacted by natural disasters.
'What happens if there is a terrible hurricane coming this season, or another round of wildfires in another area of California or Texas, and those people need to get their claims heard, filed or claimed quickly? There's not gonna be many of us,' Berman said.
For Kyle Buchheit, the Department of Energy researcher, there's hope though. While it hasn't happened yet, he's been told to expect a formal letter reinstating him.
This past Thursday, a federal judge ruled the termination of probationary federal employees, including his, were illegal. Still, the ruling left room for future workforce cuts, and there's the 'massive' reduction plans that Trump has ordered but not yet announced.
'I'm gonna get my job back, but it's not guaranteed I'm gonna stay there' Buccheit said. 'RIFs [reductions in force] are next and I'm going to keep preparing.'
While he's excited to return to work, he plans to keep sending out resumes. It's a big mindset shift from mere weeks ago, when he had hoped to retire from the lab.
'A lot of people have bought into the concept of the D.C. bureaucrat, and I think that's a real problem.
– Philip Glover, the vice president of the American Federation of Government Employee's third district.
And his wife plans to keep the third job she got at their child's daycare so they can save as much as they can – just in case.
Going back to work will also mean returning to a changed workplace.
Federal workers still on the job in Pennsylvania have struggled with felt the impact of the layoffs too. Beyond having to make up for a reduced staff, some feel their workplace has become hostile and unpredictable.
'Every day I go to work, I feel like I could be fired,' said a Department of Energy employee who works at the same lab Buchheit did. She was granted anonymity because of fears of retaliation.
Buchheit's colleague was also a probationary employee, and can't see any reason why he was laid off and she wasn't. Both had excellent performance reviews.
'Everybody was coming up with these theories,' she said. 'It was brilliantly executed, if the goal was to cause people a lot of stress.'
She said the communications her colleagues have received from Musk's team — from the early 'fork in the road' buyout offer that called them less productive than private sector workers, to requests they justify their positions by describing what they did that week — are demoralizing and antagonistic.
SUPPORT: YOU MAKE OUR WORK POSSIBLE
And there's the sword of Damocles. So far, her supervisors haven't told her anything about what the reduction in force plans might mean for the lab. It's been particularly unnerving because they've otherwise been quick to respond to new developments as they appear in the news or in their inboxes. It's unclear to her if that's because her bosses don't know or don't want to say.
'I took a pay cut to get this job,' she said. 'At a fossil energy lab, you have a lot of people who you might imagine could be making a lot more money working in the oil and gas industry … They actively made a choice not to go cash in because they believed in the mission.'

Orange background

Try Our AI Features

Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:

Comments

No comments yet...

Related Articles

Why Donald Trump soured on some of his own judges
Why Donald Trump soured on some of his own judges

Vox

time10 minutes ago

  • Vox

Why Donald Trump soured on some of his own judges

Late last month, approximately 1 billion news cycles ago, an obscure federal court made President Donald Trump very, very mad. The US Court of International Trade ruled unanimously on May 28 that the massive tariffs Trump imposed after taking office again are illegal. That ruling was suspended the next day by the US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, and the tariffs will be allowed to remain in effect pending a ruling (arguments are scheduled for late July). But the appellate court's decision didn't soothe Trump. He took to Truth Social on May 29 to post a 510-word screed attacking the judges on the Court of International Trade, before turning his ire toward a more surprising candidate — Leonard Leo, the most important person in the conservative legal movement. 'I was new to Washington, and it was suggested that I use The Federalist Society as a recommending source on Judges,' Trump wrote, reminiscing about his first term. 'I did so, openly and freely, but then realized that they were under the thumb of a real 'sleazebag' named Leonard Leo, a bad person who, in his own way, probably hates America, and obviously has his own separate ambitions.' This breakup surprised many commentators. But not David French. 'If you're familiar with how the conservative legal movement has interacted with MAGA, you have seen this coming for a while,' French, a New York Times columnist, lawyer, and onetime member of the Federalist Society, told Today, Explained co-host Sean Rameswaram. 'You knew this was coming after 2020. Because in 2020, after Trump had really stocked the federal judiciary with an awful lot of FedSoc judges and justices…none of them, zero of them, helped him try to steal the election.' French spoke with Today, Explained about the origins of the (other) big, beautiful breakup and what it means for the Trump administration and the future of the federal judiciary. Below is an excerpt of the conversation, edited for length and clarity. There's much more in the full podcast, so listen to Today, Explained wherever you get podcasts, including Apple Podcasts, Pandora, and Spotify. Are you now or have you ever been a member of the Federalist Society? I am not now, but I have been a member of the Federalist Society. I was a member of the Federalist Society either all three years of law school or the first two years of law school. But it was also a very different time. I think the Federalist Society at the law school at that time, when we would have meetings, maybe 10 or 12 people would show up. Things have changed. One of the most conspicuous changes is that FedSoc has become an enemy of the president of the United States. From [2020] forward, you began to see this drifting apart between FedSoc and MAGA. When Trump comes back into office and he doubles down on being Donald Trump, all of this became very, very predictable. Because if the Trump administration's argument dovetailed with their originalist legal philosophy, they would rule for it. But if it was just simply Trump's lawless demands, they were going to reject it. And Trump is baffled by this distinction. He's baffled by it because congressional Republicans haven't drawn this line at all. When Trump's demands conflict with conservative principles, they will yield to Trump's demands every time. And the judges and justices have taken the opposite tack to such an extent that Republican-nominated judges have ruled against Trump about 72 percent of the time, which is remarkably close to about the 80 percent or so of the time that Democratic-appointed judges have ruled against Trump. You mentioned a whole host of issues where FedSoc judges have perhaps not given Trump what he wanted. Does the one that finally tips Trump off to go for it on Truth Social surprise you? It doesn't, because what really set him off was striking down tariffs. To the extent that Trump loves a policy, he loves tariffs. The Court of International Trade struck it down, and it was pointed out to him that one of the judges on the Court of International Trade that struck down the tariffs was appointed by him. He had been ranting about judges in general. Now he got specific with Leonard Leo; he got specific with the FedSoc. People like me who'd been watching this for a very long time were not wondering if this was going to happen. We were just wondering what was going to be the tipping point: Was it going to be a Supreme Court case? Was it going to be an appellate court? It turns out it was the Court of International Trade that brought us to this moment. Leonard Leo did not author a decision from this court. Why is he mad at Leonard Leo? Leonard Leo has long been a key figure in the Federalist Society and was very much a part of the first Trump administration, working closely with the administration to put forward judges. For a long time, Trump looked at his judicial nominations and waved them like a flag to the American conservative public saying, look what I did. But the more the American conservative public started loving Trump as Trump, versus Trump as what policy wins he could deliver, the less he started waving these other ideological flags, and the more it became all about him. And so this meant that this marriage was going to be temporary almost from the beginning, unless FedSoc capitulated. And if you know anything about FedSoc and the people who belong to it, and the people who've come up as judges, I knew they weren't going to capitulate. It's a very different culture from political conservatism. Do you think Donald Trump didn't realize that? I don't think he realized that at all. He's had this entire history politically of when Republicans disagree with him, they either fall in line or they're steamrolled. And so it's so interesting to me that he actually began that Truth Social rant that lacerated Leonard Leo and the FedSoc with this question: What's going on? Why is this happening? And I totally understand his bafflement. Because all of the political people had surrendered, or almost all of them. And so when he turns around and these judges and justices just keep ruling against him, you can understand why he would take that as, 'What's going on here? I don't get this. I don't understand this. I've been assured that these were good judges.' And so that's where you get to that real tension. Do you think this rift with the Federalist Society will affect how he appoints judges going forward? The short answer to that question is yes. The longer answer to that question is heck yes. A lot of people were worried about this because they were thinking, Okay, Trump 1.0: He has General Mattis as his secretary of defense. Trump 2.0: He has Pete Hegseth. You can do this all day long. The Trump 1.0 early nominations — sound, serious, establishment conservatives. Trump 2.0 — often MAGA crazies. The question was, 'Is this same pattern going to establish itself in Trump 2.0 on judges?' And then he appointed to the Third Circuit Emil Bove, this DOJ enforcer of his who was responsible for the effort to dismiss the Eric Adams case. He's nominated him for the Third Circuit, and a lot of people are now saying, 'Oh, now that's your harbinger right there.'

What drove the tech right's — and Elon Musk's — big, failed bet on Trump
What drove the tech right's — and Elon Musk's — big, failed bet on Trump

Vox

time10 minutes ago

  • Vox

What drove the tech right's — and Elon Musk's — big, failed bet on Trump

is a senior writer at Future Perfect, Vox's effective altruism-inspired section on the world's biggest challenges. She explores wide-ranging topics like climate change, artificial intelligence, vaccine development, and factory farms, and also writes the Future Perfect newsletter. While tech has generally been very liberal in its political support and giving, there's been an emergence of a real and influential tech right over the last few years. Allison Robbert/AFP via Getty Images I live and work in the San Francisco Bay Area, and I don't know anyone who says they voted for Donald Trump in 2016 or 2020. I know, on the other hand, quite a few who voted for him in 2024, and quite a few more who — while they didn't vote for Trump because of his many crippling personal foibles, corruption, penchant for destroying the global economy, etc. — have thoroughly soured on the Democratic Party. Future Perfect Explore the big, complicated problems the world faces and the most efficient ways to solve them. Sent twice a week. Email (required) Sign Up By submitting your email, you agree to our Terms and Privacy Notice . This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply. It's not just my professional networks. While tech has generally been very liberal in its political support and giving, the last few years have seen the emergence of a real and influential tech right. Elon Musk, of course, is by far the most famous, but he didn't start the tech right by himself. And while his break with Trump — which Musk now seems to be backpedaling on — might have changed his role within the tech right, I don't think this shift will end with him. The rise of the tech right The Bay Area tech scene has always to my mind been best understood as left-libertarian — socially liberal, but suspicious of big government and excited about new things from cryptocurrency to charter cities to mosquito gene drives to genetically engineered superbabies to tooth bacteria. That array of attitudes sometimes puts them at odds with governments (and much of the public, which tends to be much less welcoming of new technology). The tech world valorizes founders and doers, and everyone knows two or three stories about a company that only succeeded because it was willing to break some city regulations. Lots of founders are immigrants; lots are LGBTQ+. For a long time, this set of commitments put tech firmly on the political left — and indeed tech employees overwhelmingly vote and donate to the Democratic Party. Related The AI that apparently wants Elon Musk to die But over the last 10 years, I think three things changed. The first was what Vox at the time called the Great Awokening — a sweeping adoption of what had been a bunch of niche liberal social justice ideas, from widespread acceptance of trans people to suspicion of any sex or race disparity in hiring to #MeToo awareness of sexual harassment in the workplace. A lot of this shift at tech companies was employee driven; again, tech employees are mostly on the left. And some of it was good! But some of it was illiberal — rejecting the idea that we can and should work with people we profoundly disagree with — and identitarian, in that it focused more on what demographic categories we belong to than our commonalities. We're now in the middle of a backlash, which I think is all the more intense in tech because the original woke movement was all the more intense in tech. The second thing that changed was the macroeconomic environment. When I first joined a tech company in 2017, interest rates were low and VC funding was incredibly easy to get. Startups were everywhere, and companies were desperately competing to hire employees. As a result, employees had a lot of power; CEOs were often scared of them. The third was a deliberate effort by many liberals to go after a tech scene they saw as their enemy. The Biden administration ended up staffed by a lot of people ideologically committed to Sen. Elizabeth Warren's view of the world, where big tech was the enemy of liberal democracy and the tools of antitrust should be used to break it up. Lina Khan's Federal Trade Commission acted on those convictions, going after big tech companies like Amazon. Whether you think this was the right call in economic terms — I mostly think it was not — it was decidedly self-destructive in political terms. So in 2024, some of tech (still not a majority, but a smaller minority than in the past two Trump elections) went right. The tech world watched with bated breath as Musk announced DOGE: Would the administration bring about the deregulation, tax cuts, and anti-woke wish list they believed that only the administration could? …and the immediate failure The answer so far has been no. (Many people on the tech right are still more optimistic than me, and point at a small handful of victories, but my assessment is that they're wearing rose-colored glasses to the point of outright blindness.) Some deregulation has happened, but any beneficial effects it would have had on investment have been more than canceled out by the tariffs' catastrophic effects on businesses' ability to plan for the future. They did at least get the tax cuts for the rich, if the 'big, beautiful bill' passes, but that's about all they got — and the ultra-rich will be poorer this year anyway thanks to the unsteady stock market. The Republicans, when out of power, had a critique of the Democrats which spoke to the tech right, the populist right, the white supremacists and moderate Black and Latino voters alike. But it's much easier to complain about Democrats in a way that all of those disparate interest groups find compelling than to govern in a way that keeps them all happy. Once the Trump administration actually had to choose, it chose basically none of the tech right's priorities. They took a bad bet — and I think it'd behoove the Democrats to think, as Trump's coalition fractures, about which of those voters can be won back.

DOWNLOAD THE APP

Get Started Now: Download the App

Ready to dive into the world of global news and events? Download our app today from your preferred app store and start exploring.
app-storeplay-store