Postal Service signs cost-cutting deal with DOGE
The United States Postal Service said it has signed a deal with the Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE) to cut costs at the agency.
Postmaster General Louis DeJoy told congressional leaders in a letter that he had signed an agreement with Elon Musk's DOGE to cut jobs and spending at the agency that has long since lost money.
DeJoy said the organization has spent the last four years transforming from a 'battered government bureaucracy' that experienced financial losses into a higher quality service, but it is still not achieving its goals.
'Last night I signed an agreement with the General Services Administration and DOGE representatives to assist us in identifying and achieving further efficiencies,' DeJoy said. 'This is an effort aligned with our efforts, as while we have accomplished a great deal, there is much more to be done. We are happy to have others assist us in our worthwhile cause.'
The Postal Service is an independent agency that has remained untouched by DOGE's presence in other departments, until now.
The postmaster general said the service plans to reduce its workforce by 10,000 workers within the next month through a voluntary early retirement program.
DeJoy said the DOGE team asked about the big problems facing the Postal Service. He cited various issues including miscalculations and mismanagement over its retirement plans that have several billion dollars of 'burdensome' funds, mismanagement of its Workers' Compensation Program, unfunded mandates as a result of legislation that require the service to participate in 'costly activities, and 'burdensome regulatory requirements' that restrict normal practices.
He noted that these services are housed within other departments, including the Office of Personnel Management, the Treasury Department, the Labor Department and Congress.
'I ask that you please engage with the Postal Service, our DOGE representatives, and the Federal agencies that need to adapt to the critically necessary changes involved and to correct for the deficiencies of the past that can and must be corrected,' DeJoy wrote to the members of Congress.
Rep. Gerry Connolly (D-Va.), the ranking member of the Oversight and Government Reform Committee, replied to DeJoy's letter criticizing the decision to team up with DOGE.
'The only thing worse for the Postal Service than DeJoy's 'Delivering for America' plan is turning the service over to Elon Musk and DOGE so they can undermine it, privatize it, and then profit off Americans' loss,' Connolly said in a statement. 'This capitulation will have catastrophic consequences for all Americans – especially those in rural and hard to reach areas – who rely on the Postal Service every day to deliver mail, medications, ballots, and more.'
DeJoy's agreement and letter follow his announcement in February that he would be stepping down from his leadership position. He was appointed during President Trump's first term and said he wanted to begin the process of finding a successor.
He said it was important to provide enough notice and time for the Postal Service to bring in a new postmaster general who can carry on the cost-cutting and efficiency work he began.
Copyright 2025 Nexstar Media, Inc. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
30 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Supreme Court allows DOGE staffers to access Social Security data
June 7 (UPI) -- The U.S. Supreme Court is allowing members of the Trump administration's Department of Government Efficiency to access personal Social Security Administration data. On Friday, the Court's six conservatives granted an emergency application filed by the Trump administration to lift an injunction issued by a federal judge in Maryland. Opposing the injunction were the three liberal justices: Sonia Sotomayor, Elena Kagan and Ketanji Brown Jackson. There are 69 million retirees, disabled workers, dependents and survivors who receive Social Security benefits, representing 28.75% of the U.S. population. In a separate two-page order issued Friday, the Supreme Court allowed the Trump administration for now to shield DOGE from freedom of information requests seeking thousands of pages of material. This vote also was 6-3 with no written dissenting opinions. In the two-page unsigned order on access, the court said: "We conclude that, under the present circumstances, SSA may proceed to afford members of the SSA DOGE Team access to the agency records in question in order for those members to do their work." The conservatives are Chief Justice John Roberts, and Associate Justices Clarence Thomas, Samuel Alito, Neil Gorsuch, Brett Kavanaugh and Amy Coney Barrett. Three of them were nominated by President Donald Trump during his first term. U.S. District Judge Ellen Hollander, appointed by President Barack Obama, had ruled that DOGE staffers had no need to access the specific data. The 4th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, based in Virginia, declined to block Hollander's decision. The lawsuit was filed by progressive group Democracy Forward on behalf of two unions, the American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees, and the American Federation of Teachers, as well as the Alliance for Retired Americans. They alleged broader access to personal information would violate a federal law, the Privacy Act and the Administrative Procedure Act. "This is a sad day for our democracy and a scary day for millions of people," the groups said in a statement. "This ruling will enable President Trump and DOGE's affiliates to steal Americans' private and personal data. Elon Musk may have left Washington, D.C., but his impact continues to harm millions of people. We will continue to use every legal tool at our disposal to keep unelected bureaucrats from misusing the public's most sensitive data as this case moves forward." Social Security Works posted on X: "No one in history -- no commissioner, no president, no one -- has ever had the access that these DOGE minions have." White House spokesperson Liz Huston after the ruling told NBC News that "the Supreme Court allowing the Trump Administration to carry out commonsense efforts to eliminate waste, fraud, and abuse and modernize government information systems is a huge victory for the rule of law." Brown Jackson wrote a nine-page dissenting opinion that the "Government fails to substantiate its stay request by showing that it or the public will suffer irreparable harm absent this Court's intervention. In essence, the 'urgency' underlying the government's stay application is the mere fact that it cannot be bothered to wait for the litigation process to play out before proceeding as it wishes." She concluded her dissent by writing: "The Court opts instead to relieve the Government of the standard obligations, jettisoning careful judicial decisionmaking and creates grave privacy risks for millions of Americans in the process." Kathleen Romig, who worked as a senior adviser at the agency during the Biden administration, told CNN that Americans should be concerned about how DOGE has handled highly sensitive data so far. She said the personal data runs "from cradle to grave." "While the appeals court considers whether DOGE is violating the law, its operatives will have 'God-level' access to Social Security numbers, earnings records, bank routing numbers, mental and reproductive health records and much more," Romig, who now is director of Social Security and disability policy at the left-leaning Center on Budget and Policy Priorities. When Trump became president again on Jan. 20, he signed an executive order establishing DOGE with the goal of "modernizing Federal technology and software to maximize governmental efficiency and productivity." Nearly a dozen DOGE members have been installed at the agency, according to court filings. In all, there are about 90 DOGE workers. DOGE, which was run by billionaire Elon Musk until he left the White House one week ago, wants to modernize systems and detect waste and fraud at the agency. "These teams have a business need to access the data at their assigned agency and subject the government's records to much-needed scrutiny," Solicitor General D. John Sauer wrote in the court motion. The data includes Social Security numbers, date and place of birth, gender, addresses, marital and parental status, parents' names, lifetime earnings, bank account information, immigration and work authorization status, health conditions for disability benefits and use of Medicare. SSA also has data-sharing agreements with the IRS and the Department of Health and Human Services. The plaintiffs wrote: "The agency is obligated by the Privacy Act and its own regulations, practices, and procedures to keep that information secure -- and not to share it beyond the circle of those who truly need it." Social Security Administration Commissioner Frank Bisignano, who was sworn in to the post on May 7, said in a statement: that"The Supreme Court's ruling is a major victory for American taxpayers. The Social Security Administration will continue driving forward modernization efforts, streamlining government systems, and ensuring improved service and outcomes for our beneficiaries." On May 23, Roberts temporarily put lower court decisions on hold while the Supreme Court considered what next steps to take. Musk called Social Security "the biggest Ponzi scheme of all time" during an interview with Joe Rogan on Feb. 28. The Social Security system, which started in 1935, transfers current workers' payroll tax payments to people who are already retired. The payroll tax is a mandatory tax paid by employees and employers. The total current tax rate is 12.4%. There is a separate 2.9% tax for Medicare.
Yahoo
31 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Musk jokes about reconsidering stance on Big Beautiful Bill after Schiff's praise
Elon Musk appeared to jokingly reconsider his stance on the Big Beautiful Bill after a California Democrat came to his defense. Sen. Adam Schiff, D-Calif., wrote on X that "I can't believe I'm saying this – but [Elon Musk] is right." However, that seems to be the last point on which the two agree. They both object to the Big Beautiful Bill, viewing it as full of pork. Musk opposes the bill because he believes it raises government spending too much, while Schiff objects to what he calls its "far-right" content, which he describes as "dangerous." Republican Lawmakers Stand Firm Against Musk's 'Kill The Bill' Assault On Trump's Agenda Musk fired off a response rejecting Schiff's alleged praise of the tech billionaire's position on the bill. "Hmm, few things could convince me to reconsider my position more than Adam Schiff agreeing with me!" On May 30, Musk's time with the administration came to an end, and he seemed to leave things on good terms. President Donald Trump thanked Musk for his work with the Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE) and gave him a symbolic "key to the White House" as a parting gift. Read On The Fox News App Following his departure from the White House, Musk said he was looking forward "to continuing to be a friend and adviser to the president." However, things took a sharp turn as a feud between Trump and Musk quickly heated up after the Tesla founder began publicly criticizing the Big Beautiful Bill. Inside The Musk-trump Fallout After the legislation passed the House, Musk said that the "massive, outrageous, pork-filled Congressional spending bill is a disgusting abomination. "Shame on those who voted for it: you know you did wrong. You know it." Musk's criticisms received mixed reactions from Republicans, with some — such as Sen. Mike Lee, R-Utah, and Sen. Rand Paul, R-Ky. — agreeing with him. Meanwhile, House Speaker Mike Johnson said he was "surprised" by Musk's reaction and claimed the two of them had a good discussion about the bill. Trump and Musk then began slugging it out on their respective social media platforms — X and Truth Social — as well as TV. The president told reporters in the Oval Office that he was "very disappointed" with Musk and claimed that the former DOGE head knew what was in the bill, something that Musk denied. Trump Not Interested In Talking To Musk: 'Elon's Totally Lost It' The heated exchange led to two explosive tweets, both of which were later deleted. In one post, Musk claimed Trump was mentioned in files relating to Jeffrey Epstein, the deceased sex offender and disgraced financier. In his other post, Musk endorsed a message that called for Trump's impeachment and said that Vice President J.D. Vance should take over. While it's unclear whether Trump and Musk will reconcile, for now it seems unlikely. Trump told Fox News chief political anchor Bret Baier that he was not interested in talking to Musk and that "Elon's totally lost it."Original article source: Musk jokes about reconsidering stance on Big Beautiful Bill after Schiff's praise
Forbes
31 minutes ago
- Forbes
Musk Follows Harvard In Biting The Hand That Feeds
Elon Musk and Harvard Both Bite the Governmental Hand that Feeds Them From an early age, children are taught essential lessons: do not play with fire, do not pet strange dogs, and if one cannot swim, stay out of the deep end. Another timeless rule—often forgotten by those in positions of immense wealth and influence—is this: do not bite the hand that feeds you. This lesson, while simple, has profound implications in the real world. It applies just as readily to billionaires and institutions as it does to children on a playground. Yet recent actions by both Elon Musk and prominent academic institutions—most notably Harvard, but also Columbia, MIT, and others—suggest that even the most successful individuals and organizations are capable of ignoring foundational wisdom. Harvard set the tone. Amid growing political scrutiny and a shifting cultural landscape, the university has drawn intense criticism over its handling of campus protests, particularly those involving slogans such as 'from the river to the sea.' The administration's decision to defend even the most controversial speech—widely viewed by many as antisemitic—has triggered investigations and jeopardized billions in tax-exempt status and government research funding. This raises a critical question: is this truly the hill worth dying on? Is preserving the right to controversial protest slogans worth risking Harvard's institutional future? It is doubtful that most students and faculty would knowingly trade funding, grants, and prestige for this fight. Elon Musk, the world's richest man, has now followed suit—this time turning his attention toward President Donald Trump, with whom he has launched a high-profile and personal feud. What makes this move especially striking is that President Trump is not a distant figure or a fading influence. He is once again sitting in the White House, wielding executive authority over regulatory agencies, defense contracting, and infrastructure initiatives—all areas that directly affect Musk's companies. Tesla, SpaceX, and xAI have flourished in part because of government partnership. SpaceX alone holds multibillion-dollar contracts with NASA and the Department of Defense. Tesla has benefitted from years of energy subsidies and EV tax incentives. Picking a fight with the sitting president—regardless of personal conviction—puts this entire ecosystem at risk. And again the question must be asked: is this battle worth the damage? Whatever principle Musk may be defending, the consequences extend far beyond himself. Shareholders, employees, and retail investors—many of whom placed their trust and savings in his leadership—are the ones left exposed. The parallel between Harvard and Musk is striking: both have been immensely successful, aided in large part by government funding, favorable regulation, and public goodwill. And both have, for different reasons, chosen to confront the very institutions and leaders that have helped sustain their growth. There is precedent for how this ends. Jack Ma, once the most powerful entrepreneur in China, famously criticized the Chinese government. The backlash was immediate and absolute. His companies were dismantled. His IPO was cancelled. His wealth and influence evaporated almost overnight. Even in less authoritarian systems, the lesson holds: those who antagonize the systems that support them may not survive the consequences. While Musk's personal net worth has dropped from nearly $450 billion to approximately $300 billion, the impact is more symbolic than practical for him. But for millions of investors, employees, and stakeholders, these battles matter. Market volatility, regulatory backlash, and reputational risk all come with tangible financial costs—costs borne not just by Musk himself, but by those who have trusted and invested in his vision. The same applies to Harvard and peer institutions. Their leadership may believe they are standing on principle, but the price of alienating government agencies and key financial backers could reshape the long-term trajectory of these universities. The erosion of public trust, the loss of bipartisan support, and the potential withdrawal of federal funding pose existential threats. Leadership—whether in business or academia—requires more than conviction. It requires judgment, timing, and the discipline to separate personal ideology from institutional responsibility. Founder-led companies often outperform when leaders are focused, visionary, and measured. But when ego replaces strategy, the consequences can be swift and severe. No one is demanding absolute political alignment or silence in the face of controversy. No one is asking Elon Musk to wear a MAGA hat. But his recent actions have been so volatile, so self-destructive, that investors may soon be tempted to hand him something else entirely—a MEGA hat: Make Elon Great Again. In today's polarized environment, the margin for error has narrowed. And for those who owe much of their success to public support—whether in Silicon Valley or the Ivy League—biting the hand that feeds is not just unwise. It is unsustainable. ---------------------------------- Disclosure: Past performance is no guarantee of future results. Please refer to the following link for additional disclosures: Additional Disclosure Note: The author has an affiliation with ERShares and the XOVR ETF. The intent of this article is to provide objective information; however, readers should be aware that the author may have a financial interest in the subject matter discussed. As with all equity investments, investors should carefully evaluate all options with a qualified investment professional before making any investment decision. Private equity investments, such as those held in XOVR, may carry additional risks—including limited liquidity—compared to traditional publicly traded securities. It is important to consider these factors and consult a trained professional when assessing suitability and risk tolerance.
