Almost half of layoffs this year driven by DOGE: Report
Nearly half of all layoffs so far in 2025 have been driven by cuts related to the Department of Government Efficiency's (DOGE) efforts to slash government funding and reduce the size of the federal workforce, according to a new report from outplacement firm Challenger, Gray and Christmas.
The report shows that 'DOGE Actions' led to 283,172 job cuts in the first four months of 2025, and 'DOGE Downstream Impact' was cited as the reason for another 6,945 job losses, which the report indicates largely come from non-profits and education organizations.
Together, that accounts for 48 percent of all job cuts announced so far this year.
The vast majority of job cuts related to 'DOGE Actions' occurred in March, which saw 216,670 positions cut. Government job cuts last month also accounted for the vast majority of layoffs across all sectors, which totaled 275,240 in March.
In April, job cuts attributed to DOGE plummeted, with just 2,919 announced cuts attributed to the government cost-cutting initiative spearheaded by tech billionaire Elon Musk.
But April still saw a high number of job cuts — 105,441 — the highest level since April 2020, which was the highest month ever recorded by the outplacement firm, which began reporting on job cuts in 1989.
Reasons given for April cuts include 'Market/Economic Conditions' and tariffs and restructuring.
'Though the Government cuts are front and center, we saw job cuts across sectors last month. Generally, companies are citing the economy and new technology,' said Andrew Challenger, the firm's senior vice president. 'Employers are slow to hire and limiting hiring plans as they wait and see what will happen with trade, supply chain, and consumer spending.'
Gross domestic product shrank during the first quarter of 2025 as a surge of imports ahead of President Trump's tariffs, which he announced in March and later delayed for 90-days, hit economic growth calculations.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
CNBC
an hour ago
- CNBC
Tesla faces protests in Austin over Musk's robotaxi plans
With Elon Musk looking to June 22 as his tentative start date for Tesla's pilot robotaxi service in Austin, Texas, protesters are voicing their opposition. Public safety advocates and political protesters, upset with Musk's work with the Trump administration, joined together in downtown Austin on Thursday to express their concerns about the robotaxi launch. Members of the Dawn Project, Tesla Takedown and Resist Austin say that Tesla's partially automated driving systems have safety problems. Tesla sells its cars with a standard Autopilot package, or a premium Full Self-Driving option (also known as FSD or FSD supervised), in the U.S. Automobiles with these systems, which include features like automatic lane keeping, steering and parking, have been involved in dozens of collisions, some fatal, according to data tracked by the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration. Tesla's robotaxis, which Musk showed off in a video clip on X earlier this week, are new versions of the company's popular Model Y vehicles, equipped with a future release of Tesla's FSD software. That "unsupervised" FSD, or robotaxi technology, is not yet available to the public. Tesla critics with The Dawn Project, which calls itself a tech-safety and security education business, brought a version of Model Y with relatively recent FSD software (version 2025.14.9) to show residents of Austin how it works. In their demonstration on Thursday, they showed how a Tesla with FSD engaged zoomed past a school bus with a stop sign held out and ran over a child-sized mannequin that they put in front of the vehicle. Dawn Project CEO Dan O'Dowd also runs Green Hills Software, which sells technology to Tesla competitors, including Ford and Toyota. Stephanie Gomez, who attended the demonstration, told CNBC that she didn't like the role Musk had been playing in the government. Additionally, she said she has no confidence in Tesla's safety standards and said there's been a lack of transparency from Tesla regarding how its robotaxis will work. Another protester, Silvia Revelis, said she also opposed Musk's political activity, but that safety is the biggest concern. "Citizens have not been able to get safety testing results," she said. "Musk believes he's above the law." Tesla didn't immediately respond to a request for comment.
Yahoo
3 hours ago
- Yahoo
Fewer Republicans have ‘very favorable' views of Musk: Survey
Republican attitudes toward tech billionaire Elon Musk appear to have cooled after his bitter public row with President Trump last week, as a new poll found fewer respondents saying they have 'very favorable' views of the former head of the White House's Department of Government Efficiency compared to April. About a fourth of Republicans surveyed in the latest Associated Press-NORC Center for Public Affairs Research poll said they have 'very favorable' views of Musk — down from 38 percent of those surveyed in April. But many of them appear to have shifted to a 'somewhat favorable' opinion of Musk, suggesting GOP supporters haven't completely rebuffed the world's wealthiest man. The AP poll found that while 29 percent of Republicans in April voiced mild support for Musk, the number climbed to 38 percent in June. Combined, the 'somewhat' and 'very' favorable opinions remained high and nearly unchanged — 64 percent this month versus 67 percent in April. Ten percent of Republicans said they had 'very unfavorable' views of Musk in both polls; and 'somewhat unfavorable' ratings shifted by just 3 percentage points, from 15 percent in April to 18 percent in June. Musk was a top ally and campaign donor to Trump until a messy falling out rocked the White House, starting with Musk's criticism of the tax and spending megabill that carries much of Trump's domestic policy agenda. Trump and Musk's feud erupted with blistering public digs last Thursday. Both have appeared to tone down the tension, with Musk issuing a mea culpa days after their relationship imploded. 'I regret some of my posts about President [Trump] last week. They went too far,' Musk wrote Wednesday on his social platform X. Similar to Republicans, overall and Democratic views of Musk also showed little change, with majorities continuing to view him unfavorably. About a third of all adults surveyed this month said they have 'very' or 'somewhat' favorable opinions of Musk, while 32 percent held favorable opinions in April. Ten percent of Democrats surveyed said they had 'very' or 'somewhat' favorable views of Musk in June, compared to 9 percent in April. The AP poll was conducted June 5-9 and included results from 1,158 adults across all 50 states and Washington, D.C. The margin of error is 4 percentage points. Copyright 2025 Nexstar Media, Inc. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.
Gizmodo
4 hours ago
- Gizmodo
The Manosphere Is at War With Itself Over Israel's Strike on Iran
From the outside, the manosphere often appears monolithic: a band of hyper-online masculinity influencers united in their war against feminism, political correctness, and what they see as the softening of Western civilization. Whether it's red-pillers, tradCons, incels, nationalists, or so-called alpha gurus, their message is usually loud, synchronized, and singular. But beneath the surface, the ecosystem is messy and fragmented. These men can't even agree on what a 'true alpha' is, other than to claim, for self-serving and brand-conscious reasons, that Donald Trump and Elon Musk are the ideal masculine archetypes. Now, a geopolitical crisis has cracked the whole thing wide open. For months, speculation swirled that Israel would launch a preventive strike on Iran. Inside the manosphere, this prospect was a source of simmering tension. Some influencers warned of a coming World War 3. Others tried to keep their feeds focused on fitness, feminism, and Western decline. But when Israel launched a large-scale airstrike on Iranian nuclear facilities late Thursday night, June 12, the fallout across the online masculinity space was immediate and brutal. The strike has exposed a bitter ideological rift. On one side are those rallying behind Israel, defending what they see as the values of Western civilization and Judeo-Christian supremacy. On the other flank are anti-interventionists, neo-traditionalists, and Muslim influencers who either support Iran or reject the idea of U.S. involvement in yet another Middle East conflict. What's unfolding is an identity crisis for a movement built on certainty and dominance. Ben Shapiro, co-founder of The Daily Wire, is leading the charge on the pro-Israel front. A longtime vocal supporter of Israel, Shapiro went live on YouTube shortly after the strike, streaming for over an hour to explain 'Why Israel was 100% right to do it.' His post on X and Daily Wire's live feed have been viewed by hundreds of thousands of users. Shapiro, who is Jewish, has since flooded his feed with support for Israel and shared any coverage that reinforces the idea that Trump and other global powers are backing the attack. To his 7.8 million followers, the message is clear: Israel isn't alone. But while Shapiro affirms Israel's role in defending the West, most of the manosphere's power players are sounding the alarm, and they are not on his side. Tucker Carlson, with 16.3 million followers on X, used his newsletter to blast the Trump administration's response, particularly that of Secretary of State Marco Rubio. Rubio said the U.S. was not involved in the attack, a claim Carlson flatly rejects. 'The U.S. says it was 'not involved.' That's not true,' Carlson wrote on June 13. 'This could be the final newsletter before an all-out war.' He warned that Iran's threat to retaliate will escalate and that American citizens may be the ones paying the price. Charlie Kirk echoed the warning. With 5 million followers, Kirk warned that Iran could strike American military bases more easily than Israeli targets and argued that involvement in this conflict would be catastrophic. 'Dragging America into this war might be irrational and suicidal,' he wrote, comparing the situation to Ukraine. 'In any drawn-out war with Iran, America loses—even if we win.' Andrew Tate, the controversial influencer and recent Muslim convert, took a more ironic route. He reposted a thread skewering the language used to defend Israeli military actions. The post satirically lists 'rules' for discussing Israeli wars, including: 'Rule 1: Israel is never the aggressor' and 'Rule 14: The U.S. government has never lied about anything, ever.' Here's the thread he reposted. Myron Gaines, a fellow Muslim and co-host of Fresh & Fit, was more direct. 'I hope Trump doesn't make the same mistake Bush did and tarnish his legacy with more foreign wars in the Middle East that do NOTHING for the United States,' he wrote. Just hours before the strike, Matt Walsh, another Daily Wire personality, warned his 5 million followers that Iran poses no credible threat to the U.S. 'We do not need to get involved in yet another war in the Middle East for reasons that have nothing to do with defending our own nation,' he declared to his 3.7 million followers on X. The fallout is even more complex because many of these figures are stalwart Trump supporters. Now, they find themselves in opposition to Trump's foreign policy, or at least to the narratives being pushed by those closest to him. It's a splintering that no one in the movement seems to know how to manage. The divide is between entire ideological tribes that make up the masculinity ecosystem. The Christian nationalists find themselves at odds with pro-Muslim influencers. The Western traditionalists now clash with isolationist libertarians. The common ground that once united them—feminism bad, Trump good—is no longer enough. More fringe figures, like Nick Fuentes, are also weighing in, using the moment to amplify their openly anti-Israel stance. This rift matters. If Israel's strike escalates into a wider conflict, or if U.S. troops are drawn in, the fracture in the manosphere may become permanent. Influencers who have built empires on the illusion of ideological clarity are being forced to confront contradictions they'd rather ignore. Christian nationalists are struggling to square support for Israel with growing resentment among their base. Muslim influencers can no longer co-sign Western dominance while denouncing Western intervention. And libertarians are finding themselves surrounded by warhawks in their own movement. This is a test of what the manosphere really stands for when the stakes are higher than culture wars. What began as a fight about masculinity is now a battle over war, empire, and whose lives are worth defending. The grift is straining. The alliances are buckling. And no matter who wins this war, the brand may never be the same.
