DOGE dismantles the job security of federal work
Why it matters: Millions of federal workers are now feeling the same kind of job anxiety more familiar to those in corporate America, including the tech sector, where Elon Musk's firing playbook is far more common.
What they're saying: "This is not the same government it was a month ago," a longtime federal employee told Axios, requesting anonymity because they've accepted the administration's "deferred resignation" offer and don't want to jeopardize it.
"The mentality that federal workers have — that their jobs are protected — none of that exists anymore," they said.
Yes, but: The White House said it's within its rights to fire probationary workers, who don't have the same kinds of protections as longer-term employees.
"The probationary period is a continuation of the job application process, not an entitlement for permanent employment," per policy guidelines shared by an administration official.
"Agencies are taking independent action in line with the recent hiring freeze and the President's broader efforts to restructure and streamline the federal government," per the guidance, which notes agencies should focus on retaining the highest-performing employees.
Not all workers who've been fired were probationary, including those at USAID and terminated inspectors general.
Others had previously received strong performance reviews but were told they were being fired for performance reasons anyway.
Zoom out: To understand why civil service jobs differ from private sector jobs, you need to go back to the 19th century, when the U.S. government was staffed by a " spoils system" in which people were hired based on connections or even because they paid for the job.
After President Garfield was assassinated in 1881 by a man who was upset he didn't get a government gig, Congress enacted a civil service law called the Pendleton Act, to ensure folks were hired based on merit and skill.
Today, most federal jobs are handled in this system. Only a few thousand positions are held by political appointees.
How it works: Government workers have a lot more job protections than those in the private sector.
A provision in federal law states that government workers can't be discriminated against based on their political activity.
Layoffs aren't supposed to be random, and there's a process that's supposed to determine who is fired first.
Job listings must be posted, including those involving promotions, so everyone has a chance to apply and be judged by an impartial panel.
Pay scales are public, and that's why for years gender and racial pay gaps in the federal government have been lower than in the private sector.
By the numbers: Federal workers also have far more union protections. 30% of public sector federal government employees are represented by unions, compared to 7% in the private sector, according to federal data.
All of this "gives people a lot of security to work hard, do their jobs and not worry about playing personality politics," said David Super, a professor at Georgetown Law, whose research focuses on administrative law.
For the record: "President Trump returned to Washington with a mandate from the American people to bring about unprecedented change in our federal government to uproot waste, fraud, and abuse," White House principal deputy press secretary Harrison Fields said in a statement.
"This isn't easy to do in a broken system entrenched in bureaucracy and bloat, but it's a task long overdue."
The bottom line: Until recently, taking a job with the federal government meant accepting lower pay in order to reap the rewards of job security.
Now the rewards haven't changed, but the risks are skyrocketing.
Are you a federal employee with a tip? You can reach Emily Peck confidentially on Signal @emilyrpeck.71.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Axios
18 minutes ago
- Axios
Minneapolis mayor makes high-stakes pitch for budget trims, tax hike
Mayor Jacob Frey is asking Minneapolis to tighten its belt. Why it matters: The mayor proposed Wednesday to increase the city's property tax levy by 7.8% next year — Minneapolis' largest levy hike since 2010, if enacted — though the increase could've been higher without $23 million in cuts the mayor has suggested. He contends the budget proposal shields taxpayers from a flood of rising costs without employee layoffs or deep cuts to core services like road repairs or police. What they're saying:"This was not an easy budget year. But it's also not a crisis budget. This is a disciplined budget," Frey is expected to say in his budget address Wednesday morning, according to draft text shared with Axios. Zoom in: If Minneapolis made no major budget changes, city officials would've needed a much larger levy increase next year — as much as 13% — to keep up with rising costs, mostly for salaries, benefits and construction expenses. By eliminating two dozen vacant positions and making other money-saving accounting moves, city officials were able to reduce next year's levy increase. Minneapolis would also save $3.6 million by eliminating "double-time" overtime pay for police officers. (The department has spent record amounts on OT amid a staffing shortage, per the Star Tribune.) The big picture: The mayor now has to sell the $2 billion budget proposal to the City Council — which is controlled by Frey critics — during an election year, as even some of the mayor's council allies are pleading for limits to the levy increase. Friction points: The mayor's budget saves money by ending or reorganizing programs that the council funded, but were deemed "untested or unsustainable." For example, instead of four Open Streets festivals, the mayor proposes to fund only three — and Frey has already faced criticism for stifling the event. The city would also continue a sidewalk-shoveling partnership with neighborhood groups, but abandon other efforts to explore city-run sidewalk clearing programs that have intrigued council members. What we're watching: How the council — which makes most final budget decisions — responds. Last year, Frey's council critics banded together to reshape the budget, and ultimately overrode the mayor's veto of their rewritten spending plan. What's next: The city's Board of Estimate and Taxation will set the maximum levy amounts later this fall, though the council can always approve smaller tax increases.
Bloomberg
18 minutes ago
- Bloomberg
Trump to Ask Congress for DC-Specific Crime Bill, Funding
President Donald Trump said he would ask Congress to approve a crime bill that would allow him greater authority over Washington, DC's police department as well as new spending to fund beautification projects, days after announcing he was taking control of law enforcement in the capital. 'We're going to be going to Congress for a relatively small amount of money,' Trump said during an event at the Kennedy Center on Wednesday, adding that he expected his Republican allies to approve the spending.
Atlantic
19 minutes ago
- Atlantic
Trump Has a New Definition of Human Rights
For nearly half a century, the State Department has reported annually on human-rights conditions in countries around the world. The purpose of this exercise is not to cast aspersions, but to collect and disseminate reliable information. Congress mandated the reports back in 1977, and since then, legislators and diplomats have used them to shape decisions about sanctions, foreign aid, immigration, and political asylum. Because the reports were perceived as relatively impartial, because they tried to reflect well-articulated standards—'internationally recognized individual, civil, political, and worker rights, as set forth in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights'—and because they were composed by professionals reporting from the ground, the annual documents became a gold standard, widely used by people around the world, cited in court cases and political campaigns. Year in and year out, one former official told me, they have been the most downloaded items on the State Department website. Quite a few people will also read the 2024 reports, published yesterday. But they will do so for very different reasons. The original drafts were ready in January, before the Biden administration left office, following the usual practice. In past years, the reports were published in March or April. But this year they were delayed for several months while President Donald Trump's political appointees, including Michael Anton, the MAGA intellectual who is now the State Department's director of policy planning, rewrote the drafts. Some of the changes affect the whole collection of documents, as entire categories of interest were removed. The Obama administration had previously put a strong focus on corruption, on the grounds that kleptocracy and autocracy are deeply linked, and it started collecting information on the persecution of sexual minorities. Over the past few weeks, as the new reports were being prepared, I spoke with former officials who had seen early versions, or who had worked on the reports in the past. As many of them expected, the latest reports do not address systemic discrimination against gay or trans people, and they remove observations about rape and violence against women. But the revisions also go much further than expected, dropping references to corruption, restrictions on free and fair elections, rights to a fair trial, and the harassment of human-rights organizations. Threats to freedom of assembly are no longer considered sufficiently important to mention. In a number of instances, criticism of Israel is classified, crudely, as 'antisemitism.' Brazilian President Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva's use of the word genocide to describe the war in Gaza, for example, is listed as an act of 'antisemitism and antisemitic incitement,' even though that term, however disputable or controversial, has also been used by Israelis and in any case violates no international human-rights norms at all. Jonathan Chait: The pro-Israel right is shifting the definition of anti-Semitism Along with the category changes, entries for 20 countries were also flagged for special consideration. These were sent for review to Samuel Samson, a political appointee in the Bureau of Democracy, Human Rights, and Labor. Dozens of professionals have been fired or removed from that office, widely known as DRL; Samson—who is, according to NPR, a recent college graduate and an alumnus of a program designed to put conservative activists into government jobs—remains. The end result of his and others' efforts are reports that contain harsh and surprising assessments of democratic U.S. allies, including the U.K., Romania, Germany, and Brazil, and softer depictions of some dictatorships and other countries favored by Trump or his entourage. El Salvador and Israel, I was told, required so much rewriting that these two entries help explain the long delay in the reports' publication. Reading the results, you can see why. The new Israel report is simply far shorter than the original draft, with no significant discussion of the humanitarian crisis or high death toll in Gaza. El Salvador is a blatant whitewash. 'There were no credible reports of significant human rights abuses,' the latest report claims. By contrast, the previous report spoke of 'significant human rights issues' and specifically mentioned harsh, even lethal prison conditions. An Amnesty International report also covering 2024 speaks of 'arbitrary detentions and human rights violations' in El Salvador, as well as 'serious failings in the judicial system.' In overcrowded prisons, 'detention conditions were inhumane, with reports of torture and other ill-treatment.'Here, the State Department's motivation is not hard to guess. Because the Trump administration is sending prisoners to El Salvador, the department massaged the report to avoid the glaring truth: The U.S. is endangering people by sending them to Salvadorean prisons. The report on Germany, a highly functional democracy, is equally strange. The State report speaks of 'significant human rights issues,' including 'restrictions on freedom of expression.' One specific example: German law 'required internet companies, including U.S. internet platforms, to take down hate speech within 24 hours or face stiff fines.' Germans, in other words, are being called human-rights abusers because they continue to outlaw Nazi propaganda, as they have done since 1945. The Trump administration's motives are clear here too. The goal is to please U.S. tech companies, notably X, that find it convenient or profitable to spread Nazi propaganda, and perhaps to help the Alternative for Germany, the far-right party publicly praised and courted by J. D. Vance. But the details of the reports are less important than the overall impact. Several former officials pointed out that the U.S. has not only abandoned internationally accepted definitions of what is meant by rights, but also any objectivity or consistency. Original reporting from embassies has been removed, replaced with language clearly—and in a few cases ludicrously—manipulated by political appointees. This is very bad for human-rights defenders in places like Cuba or China, where activists in the past used U.S. language and reporting to make arguments to their own governments or to international institutions. From the May 2025 issue: America's future is Hungary None of them can now claim that the State Department Human Rights Report has any factual standing, or indeed that any U.S.-government document on human rights is an objective measure of anything. 'This essentially says the United States is no longer your ally, that the United States doesn't see clearly beyond the rhetoric of your regime,' one former official who still has relationships with DRL told me. 'And I think that's really, really tragic.' In truth, some of the changes seem designed not so much to shape U.S. foreign policy as to shape U.S. domestic policy. Christopher Le Mon, a former DRL official, told me he thinks that 'the domestic political agenda is really the organizing principle here.' He might be right. The administration is saying, after all, that it no longer finds electoral cheating or manipulation to be a problem; it doesn't think the harassment of civic groups is a bad thing; it doesn't object to discrimination against women or sexual minorities; and it will never demand transparency or accountability from the providers of internet algorithms, no matter what they choose to amplify or promote. The reports' authors, who include some of the most ideological people in the administration, are also telling Americans what they think of the standards that both Republicans and Democrats have held up for years. Now, says Le Mon, 'they're making it that much easier to just erase human rights from what has been a long-standing, relatively bipartisan history in U.S. foreign policy.' Ironically, this shift in American language puts the U.S. directly in alliance with China, whose diplomats have been campaigning for years to change the diplomatic discourse about human rights. Christopher Walker, a co-author of an influential paper on Chinese influence campaigns, which he calls 'sharp power,' told me that the Chinese Communist Party has been seeking to 'neuter or muddy the waters' around international discussions of fundamental human rights. 'From Beijing's point of view, the more such language is emasculated, the greater the CCP's competitive advantage,' he said. Russians, North Koreans, Iranians, Cubans, and others will also find this shift an immense relief. We knew this was coming. In a speech in Riyadh earlier this year, Trump flagged America's new indifference to human rights, promising the Saudis and other Middle Eastern monarchs that America would stop 'giving you lectures on how to live and how to govern your own affairs.' That made it sound like the administration would be somehow neutral. But as Walker pointed out, in a world of intense ideological competition, there is no such thing as neutrality. Debates about the definition of human rights will continue. The U.S. will simply play a different role in them. Tom Malinowski, a former congressman who once ran the DRL bureau, puts it best. The reports, he told me, show that the 'U.S. still has a values-based foreign policy, but with twisted values.' Americans are giving plenty of lectures to other people on how to live, but to different people and with a different result.
