Several federal agencies give employees another chance to resign with little time to decide
The employees don't have long to make a decision either. Depending on the agency, some must decide by April 8 while others have until April 18.
The departments of Agriculture, Defense and Energy, as well as the General Services Administration, have reopened the controversial deferred resignation program as part of the Trump administration's effort to shrink the federal workforce. It comes as agencies are preparing large-scale reductions in force, or RIFs.
The original program was offered to about 2 million federal employees, who had to accept by mid-February. Roughly 75,000 participants signed up. Workers were notified about the initial offer in a mass email from the Office of Personnel Management with the subject line of 'Fork in the Road,' the same subject line billionaire Elon Musk used when culling employees at Twitter after he purchased it.
This time, the email offers are coming from the agencies themselves.
The USDA is offering the deferred resignation incentive to permanent and term employees, including those in probationary status, although it noted that not all positions will be eligible to participate.
The agency warned in an email to staff that it is reducing the size of the workforce; relocating employees away from the Washington, DC, metropolitan area; eliminating management layers; minimizing the office footprint; and consolidating duplicative functions. USDA employees have until April 8 to decide and must leave by the end of the month.
'At this time, we cannot give you full assurance regarding which positions will remain – or where they will be located – after USDA's restructuring,' said the email, which CNN has viewed.
The agency mistakenly included the personal email addresses of nearly 400 USDA probationary workers in the email informing them of the offer, which allowed the entire group to see every recipient's email address.
A USDA spokesperson confirmed the mistake in an email to CNN on Tuesday evening, adding that the message had been recalled.
Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth on Friday announced that the deferred resignation program is being reopened for nearly all of the agency's civilian workforce, which numbers almost 900,000.
'Exemptions should be rare,' Hegseth said in the memo he signed. 'My intent is to maximize participation so that we can minimize the number of involuntary actions that may be required to achieve the strategic objectives.'
Similarly, Energy Secretary Chris Wright told staffers in a message this week that he is instituting a deferred resignation program, 'which allows for employees to take needed time for future planning while continuing to be paid through the designated period.' They have until April 8 to decide, though certain public safety, national security, law enforcement or other essential workers may not be eligible.
Wright's message, which CNN has viewed, also warned of the coming layoffs.
'This is a difficult but necessary effort to make government more efficient and accountable,' it said.
Meanwhile, GSA employees have through April 18 to opt into the deferred resignation program, which is being offered to all eligible GSA staffers, an agency spokesperson told CNN.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Forbes
4 minutes ago
- Forbes
The Behavioral Economics Battle Lurking In EPA's Endangerment Finding Repeal
The EPA's 2009 Endangerment Finding was the agency's formal determination that greenhouse gases endanger public health and welfare. Ever since, it has served as the legal foundation for EPA climate regulations. Without this finding, EPA lacks Clean Air Act authority to regulate greenhouse gas emissions. The Trump administration's EPA has now proposed to repeal the Endangerment Finding, along with the agency's greenhouse gas standards for light, medium, and heavy-duty vehicles that depend on it. In the agency's announcement, EPA justifies the repeal by citing the severe economic burdens of its existing rules, including over $1 trillion in compliance costs. As the agency moves to dismantle the Endangerment Finding, another battleground has opened up that has received less attention. That fight is about whether regulators should trust consumers' preferences or instead attempt to 'correct' them. The outcome of this debate could swing the measured benefits of climate rules by trillions of dollars. The Role of Regulatory Impact Analysis Because repealing the Endangerment Finding would also remove the legal basis for existing greenhouse gas standards for cars and trucks, EPA is required under longstanding executive orders to analyze the economic effects of that policy change. This requires the agency to tally the costs avoided and the benefits forgone from the action. To comply with these requirements, agencies prepare a regulatory impact analysis (RIA) whenever a rule or policy change is expected to have an annual economic effect of $100 million or more. RIA is a framework for identifying the expected consequences of a regulation, quantifying them where possible, and monetizing them when the data and methods allow. In the case of the Endangerment Finding repeal, that means examining how vehicle technology, fuel use, air pollution, and consumer welfare would differ with and without the greenhouse gas standards, and then converting any differences into dollar terms. In its draft RIA for the repeal action, EPA's core engineering-model estimate finds the repeal would yield net costs of roughly $260 billion (at a 3% discount rate, over the years 2027 to 2055). This traditional government approach counts fuel savings as a benefit to consumers, making the repeal appear costly since those savings would be lost. However, Appendix B of the RIA includes an alternative 'revealed preference' analysis that estimates net benefits of the repeal ranging from $3.05 trillion to $8.18 trillion. This set of estimates assumes that if consumers aren't voluntarily choosing more fuel-efficient vehicles, then forcing them to do so through regulations actually harms them. Any estimated savings, in that case, were pure fiction. By extension, so were many of the benefits of regulation. The Assumption of Revealed Preference Cost-benefit analysis aims to tally up the monetized social gains and losses from a policy. An economist adds up the 'private benefits' to particular individuals to arrive at a cumulative "social benefit" estimate for society as a whole. 'Revealed preference' is a concept central to this endeavor. By examining what people buy and how much they are willing to pay for different items and features, economists can estimate dollar values for different types of benefits and costs. This approach assumes that the observed willingness to pay of an individual reflects the value of a benefit to that person. This method has a major advantage in that it respects people's choices and doesn't involve analysts judging whether people's choices are good or bad; they merely accept that the choice made was what the individual preferred. The downside of this approach is that people don't always make decisions that accord with their own interests, or that of society. Fuel Savings Violate Revealed Preference For years, agencies writing fuel economy and energy efficiency rules have counted fuel and energy savings as a benefit of those rulemakings. When a consumer buys a more fuel-efficient car or appliance, they save money on gas or their utility bill. The government counts that as a significant benefit of a regulatory action phasing out less-efficient devices. This approach is valid if consumers genuinely underappreciate those savings when they buy a car or appliance. But if they already weigh fuel economy and energy efficiency against other attributes of a product before making a purchase, the savings are not a windfall benefit of the rulemaking. They're the flip side of losing other features the consumers value more. Appendix B of EPA's regulatory analysis relies on exactly that logic. If a consumer picks a gas-powered truck knowing it'll burn more fuel, they've made a trade they prefer. Forcing them into an EV to 'save' fuel costs is a net loss to them. Yet for many years, the government has treated this as a benefit. Behavioral Economics and the "Energy Efficiency Gap" Economists use the term 'energy efficiency gap' to describe the puzzling difference between the level of energy efficiency that appears cost-effective in theory and the lower level people actually choose in real life. For example, engineering calculations might show that spending $1,000 on better insulation, more efficient appliances, or a higher-MPG vehicle would pay for itself in a few years through lower utility or fuel bills. Yet, many consumers routinely forgo those investments. What explains the gap? One interpretation is that buyers are making biased, short-sighted decisions. This is the classic territory of "behavioral economics," a field focused on how real-world decisions often deviate from the assumptions of rational, optimizing behavior found in economists' models. Cognitive biases like hyperbolic discounting (placing too much weight on present rewards relative to future ones) or inattention (failing to notice or process fuel cost information) could lead people to under-invest in efficiency and leave money on the table. This perspective justifies counting the full value of 'missed' fuel savings as a regulatory benefit to the consumer, because the regulation is correcting their mistake. But there's another possibility, which is that the gap isn't a sign of bias at all, but instead a reflection of genuine trade-offs. A consumer might choose the lower-MPG car because they care more about acceleration, cargo space, style, or any number of attributes that are not captured in the fuel-savings calculations. An analyst who misinterprets the gap as a bias, when in fact the choice was based on a rational calculation, could force consumers into a less-preferred option and make them worse off. What's at Stake Separating bias from legitimate preferences is exceedingly difficult, and some would argue impossible. From the outside, the decision looks the same whether it's the product of error or preference. If we can't reliably distinguish between bias and preference, then the case for 'correcting' consumer choices becomes more about paternalism than empiricism. The stakes in this debate go beyond the Endangerment Finding. In many energy-efficiency rulemakings, 80 to 90 percent of the total monetized benefits come from the government's calculations of consumers' avoided energy costs. Environmental benefits to Americans are often in the low single-digit percentages. This means the overwhelming majority of the official benefit calculation hinges on the assumption that regulators can improve consumer welfare by steering people toward more efficient—and more expensive—products, even when buyers themselves would freely choose otherwise if left to decide on their own. This leaves economists in a quandary. Do they assume that observed market behavior is the best available measure of welfare, even if it sometimes reflects mistakes? Or do they override those choices based on models of what they think people should want if they made careful choices using all the available information? Or do they seek a middle ground, acknowledging that their models are often accurate but may also ignore important context-specific trade-offs? The answer to these questions determines whether a regulation's calculated benefits can be trusted. Private vs. Social Benefits Another complication relates to the difference between private and social benefits. Even when consumers make perfectly rational choices, what is in the interests of an individual doesn't always benefit society as a whole. When one person's gain imposes external costs on others, this can reduce, or even reverse, the net benefit for society. One obvious group affected by our purchasing decisions is future generations. It is easy to imagine future people might prefer that today's consumers forgo some luxuries in favor of greater savings and investment, which would improve living standards in the long run. But those intergenerational considerations are typically not reflected in market prices or, similarly, in economists' measures of revealed preference. In the context of energy and fuel economy, a dollar saved at the pump can be invested elsewhere in the economy, compounding to boost growth and future welfare. The enjoyment from a car feature like more horsepower or a panoramic sunroof can't be reinvested in the same way. So while a consumer may be better off paying more for those amenities, future generations probably will not be. From society's perspective, fuel and energy savings likely do represent social benefits for this reason, even when they don't compensate for their drawbacks from an individual's standpoint. A Rulemaking Worth Watching EPA's Endangerment Finding RIA pushes this debate forward by putting the revealed preference framework front-and-center, challenging the government's conventional inclusion of full lifetime fuel savings as a benefit. Whether that approach gains traction will matter well beyond this rulemaking. It's a core issue for how government evaluates climate and energy efficiency regulations generally. And it's another reason to watch closely how this already-high-stakes rulemaking unfolds.
Yahoo
32 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Stock market today: Dow, S&P 500, Nasdaq futures steady with Wall Street looking for more records
Stock futures rose on Monday, kicking off the week in search of more records as Wall Street looked to continue its furious bull run. Dow Jones Industrial Average futures (YM=F) rose 0.2%, while futures tied to the S&P 500 (ES=F) and those on the tech-heavy Nasdaq (NQ=F) hovered above the flatline. Wall Street is coming off a week that saw the Nasdaq Composite (^IXIC) notch two consecutive records at its end. The S&P 500 (^GSPC), meanwhile, just missed a record close on Friday. Tech stocks overperformed as Apple (AAPL) posted its best week since 2020 on the heels of its White House spotlight with President Trump. Nvidia (NVDA) also closed Friday at a fresh record amid signals from Trump that Big Tech companies could avoid looming chip tariffs. Read more: The latest on Trump's tariffs Trump claimed that his tariffs are having a "huge positive impact on the stock market," though Wall Street is still navigating the twists and turns in his trade policy. His sweeping duties on dozens of trade partners went into effect last week. Now, investors are turning their attention to his previewed sectoral duties on semiconductor and pharmaceutical imports, as well as a looming Tuesday deadline to extend a tariff pause with China. Wall Street will get another glimpse this week into how those tariffs are affecting price pressures in the US. The Consumer Price Index is set for release on Tuesday, followed by the Producer Price Index on Thursday and retail sales data on Friday. Inflation reaccelerated in June, and economists have warned that the tariffs will likely continue to seep into price data in the coming months. Meanwhile, gold futures (GC=F) fell in New York on Monday as traders waited for clarification from the White House over its tariff policy, after a US government agency ruled that 100-ounce and one-kilogram bullion bars would be subject to tariffs. Read more: Live coverage of earnings season The inflation data will be closely watched by the Fed, which is in focus after Trump nominated ally Stephen Miran to a seat on the central bank's board. Investors are pricing in around a 90% chance the Fed cuts rates in September, and a plurality have priced in the equivalent of three cuts by the end of the year. US gold futures fall as traders await clarification on tariffs US gold futures (GC=F) in New York fell 2% as traders waited for the White House to clarify its tariff policy. Last week, the US Customs and Border agency surprised the market by ruling that 100oz and 1kg gold bars would face tariffs. Bloomberg News reports: Read more here. Target still in the bear camp Good WSJ story this morning on Target (TGT) and its many challenges, one of them finding its next CEO. I wrote more on this a couple months ago. I would expect an abysmal quarter (another one) from Target when it reports second quarter earnings on August 20. The company is not only dealing with operational challenges, but it has totally lost the value perception battle with Walmart. I don't see these dynamics changing this year, and maybe not until deep into 2026 provided an outside CEO is brought in to run a full assessment of the business. Bitcoin at a fresh record Bitcoin looks to be breaking out of its recent trading range, hitting a fresh record this morning. There doesn't appear to be a clear catalyst for the pop today, though this Sunday X post from bitcoin evangelist Michael Saylor may have stoked the bulls. It suggests he will continue to be a buyer of bitcoin — perhaps no surprise, but the crypto market likes to be coddled. "If you don't stop buying Bitcoin, you won't stop making Money," Saylor wrote. crashing Shares of (AI) are getting crushed pre-market to the tune of 30%. And the rout is 100% deserved. Late Friday the company said it sees preliminary first fiscal quarter revenue of $70.2 million to $70.4 million, about 33% below the mid-point of its prior guidance for $100 million to $109 million. Sales would be down 19% from the prior year. The adjusted operating loss will be $57.7 million to $59.9 million, roughly twice the $23.5 million to $33.5 million loss that it had expected. I don't think there is anything to read into the AI trade here — this seems very company specific, and tied to a sales reorg the company under US gold futures fall as traders await clarification on tariffs US gold futures (GC=F) in New York fell 2% as traders waited for the White House to clarify its tariff policy. Last week, the US Customs and Border agency surprised the market by ruling that 100oz and 1kg gold bars would face tariffs. Bloomberg News reports: Read more here. US gold futures (GC=F) in New York fell 2% as traders waited for the White House to clarify its tariff policy. Last week, the US Customs and Border agency surprised the market by ruling that 100oz and 1kg gold bars would face tariffs. Bloomberg News reports: Read more here. Target still in the bear camp Good WSJ story this morning on Target (TGT) and its many challenges, one of them finding its next CEO. I wrote more on this a couple months ago. I would expect an abysmal quarter (another one) from Target when it reports second quarter earnings on August 20. The company is not only dealing with operational challenges, but it has totally lost the value perception battle with Walmart. I don't see these dynamics changing this year, and maybe not until deep into 2026 provided an outside CEO is brought in to run a full assessment of the business. Good WSJ story this morning on Target (TGT) and its many challenges, one of them finding its next CEO. I wrote more on this a couple months ago. I would expect an abysmal quarter (another one) from Target when it reports second quarter earnings on August 20. The company is not only dealing with operational challenges, but it has totally lost the value perception battle with Walmart. I don't see these dynamics changing this year, and maybe not until deep into 2026 provided an outside CEO is brought in to run a full assessment of the business. Bitcoin at a fresh record Bitcoin looks to be breaking out of its recent trading range, hitting a fresh record this morning. There doesn't appear to be a clear catalyst for the pop today, though this Sunday X post from bitcoin evangelist Michael Saylor may have stoked the bulls. It suggests he will continue to be a buyer of bitcoin — perhaps no surprise, but the crypto market likes to be coddled. "If you don't stop buying Bitcoin, you won't stop making Money," Saylor wrote. Bitcoin looks to be breaking out of its recent trading range, hitting a fresh record this morning. There doesn't appear to be a clear catalyst for the pop today, though this Sunday X post from bitcoin evangelist Michael Saylor may have stoked the bulls. It suggests he will continue to be a buyer of bitcoin — perhaps no surprise, but the crypto market likes to be coddled. "If you don't stop buying Bitcoin, you won't stop making Money," Saylor wrote. crashing Shares of (AI) are getting crushed pre-market to the tune of 30%. And the rout is 100% deserved. Late Friday the company said it sees preliminary first fiscal quarter revenue of $70.2 million to $70.4 million, about 33% below the mid-point of its prior guidance for $100 million to $109 million. Sales would be down 19% from the prior year. The adjusted operating loss will be $57.7 million to $59.9 million, roughly twice the $23.5 million to $33.5 million loss that it had expected. I don't think there is anything to read into the AI trade here — this seems very company specific, and tied to a sales reorg the company under Shares of (AI) are getting crushed pre-market to the tune of 30%. And the rout is 100% deserved. Late Friday the company said it sees preliminary first fiscal quarter revenue of $70.2 million to $70.4 million, about 33% below the mid-point of its prior guidance for $100 million to $109 million. Sales would be down 19% from the prior year. The adjusted operating loss will be $57.7 million to $59.9 million, roughly twice the $23.5 million to $33.5 million loss that it had expected. I don't think there is anything to read into the AI trade here — this seems very company specific, and tied to a sales reorg the company under
The Hill
34 minutes ago
- The Hill
Trump and California: Court to decide legality of National Guard deployment to Los Angeles
A three-day bench trial will begin Monday over whether President Trump's National Guard deployment to Los Angeles violated a general prohibition on using federal troops as civilian law enforcement. U.S. District Judge Charles Breyer will hear testimony from three military and immigration officials as the judge weighs whether sending in troops to combat immigration protests violated the Posse Comitatus Act. It marks a major legal confrontation between Trump and California Gov. Gavin Newsom (D), who has condemned the deployment as political theater and broadly framed himself as the face of resistance against the president's agenda. Only 300 of the nearly 5,000 guardsmen sent to Los Angeles in June remain, but the trial is moving ahead as Newsom urges Trump to send the remaining troops home. Marines were also deployed but were released last month. 'It reinforces the litigation strategy,' Newsom told reporters last week. 'Those things are not coincidental,' the governor continued. 'Had we not positioned ourselves, had we not postured with that litigation approach, we would not be in this position with that withdrawal.' Trial to focus on troops' operations Newsom sued Trump in June as he federalized the California National Guard to combat immigration protests in Los Angeles that sometimes turned violent. The California Democrat has emerged unsuccessful so far. Breyer ruled Trump illegally federalized the National Guard and ordered he hand back control to Newsom, but the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals quickly lifted the ruling until it resolves the administration's appeal. That decision is likely still months away. As the appeal over Trump's authority proceeds, it does not address what activities the guardsmen may engage in while on the ground. That's the subject of this week's trial. Newsom asserts the deployment violates the Posse Comitatus Act, an 1878 federal law that generally bars federal troops from participating in civilian law enforcement. Some of the troops have been stationed at several federal buildings in downtown Los Angeles, which is not at issue. But the state has taken aim at troops who've went elsewhere to accompany immigration agents, including during a violent raid at a cannabis farm last month that left one dead. The administration argues the Posse Comitatus Act provides no pathway for California to sue. Even if it did, the administration contends the law is superseded by another statute it argues expressly authorizes the guardsmen's efforts. 'Accompanying federal law enforcement officials for their protection as those officials enforce federal immigration laws does not mean that the troops are themselves engaging in law enforcement,' the administration wrote in court filings. But California warned that the position would give Trump unchecked power. 'It simply is not the law that Defendants may deploy standing armies to the streets of California while California is powerless to do anything about that clear violation of the most fundamental principles of our Nation's founding,' California wrote in court filings last week. ICE, military officials to testify The parties are expected to summon a total of three witnesses, court records show. Newsom plans to call Ernesto Santacruz, who leads Immigrations and Customs Enforcement's (ICE) Los Angeles field office. The state also intends to call William Harrington and Major General Scott Sherman, leaders of an Army task force that has tactical control over the deployed federalized guardsmen. The Trump administration also will call Sherman but did not list any other witness. The parties estimated the combined testimony will last upwards of eight hours, not including cross examination. Breyer has indicated he expects the witnesses to conclude by Tuesday. Then, the judge will then hear legal arguments from both sides. The Justice Department insists the trial is unnecessary. It asked Breyer to forego the proceedings and immediately toss Newsom's claims, but the judge declined to do so. 'Next week's trial is not cancelled. The Court expects to hear evidence beginning on Monday,' Breyer ruled last week. Among first trials challenging Trump policies This week's proceeding is one of the first full-fledged trials challenging one of Trump's actions since returning to the White House. His administration faces more than 300 lawsuits challenging major policies in total. But most plaintiffs have pressed their claims in truncated, emergency proceedings. Several judges have converted those emergency rulings into final judgments, sending the case to the appeals courts without going through an actual trial. Breyer's trial follows two others held this summer. Last month, a Boston-based federal judge conducted a bench trial challenging the Trump administration's arrests of pro-Palestinian activists on college campuses. He has not yet ruled. The same judge in June held a bench trial on Democratic states and health groups' bid to reinstate nearly $800 million in health grants the administration cancelled over links to diversity, equity and inclusion initiatives. The judge ruled for the plaintiffs, and the Justice Department has filed an emergency appeal at the Supreme Court, which could rule at any time. This week's trial will unfold in Breyer's courtroom in San Francisco. The Justice Department has criticized California for filing its lawsuit there 'hundreds of miles from the scene.' Breyer was appointed by former President Clinton and is the younger brother of retired Supreme Court Justice Stephen Breyer. The trial marks a major moment for California Attorney General Rob Bonta's (D) office, which is suing alongside Newsom. Bonta has taken pride in the barrage of litigation he has brought against Trump. Last week, Bonta touted that he is a plaintiff in 37 lawsuits against the administration and has restored over $168 billion in funding to California. 'The moment the Trump administration stops breaking the law and violating the Constitution, we'll stop suing. Simple,' Bonta told reporters last week.
