this post was submitted on 21 Jan 2026
149 points (99.3% liked)

politics

28943 readers
1794 users here now

Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!

Rules:

  1. Post only links to articles, Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.

Links must be to the original source, not an aggregator like Google Amp, MSN, or Yahoo.

Example:

  1. Articles must be relevant to politics. Links must be to quality and original content. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and rehosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
  2. Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
  3. No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive. Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.
  4. Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
  5. No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in a ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be banned without warning

We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.

All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.

That's all the rules!

Civic Links

Register To Vote

Citizenship Resource Center

Congressional Awards Program

Federal Government Agencies

Library of Congress Legislative Resources

The White House

U.S. House of Representatives

U.S. Senate

Partnered Communities:

News

World News

Business News

Political Discussion

Ask Politics

Military News

Global Politics

Moderate Politics

Progressive Politics

UK Politics

Canadian Politics

Australian Politics

New Zealand Politics

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
 

President Trump on Tuesday touted shedding nearly 300,000 employees from the federal payroll during his first year back in the White House as part of a rambling address to reporters largely devoted to defending his administration’s crackdown on immigrant communities and dissent and threatened expansionism.

The comments on the federal workforce came during a more than hour-long presentation at the start of a briefing with reporters aimed at highlighting the administration’s first-year accomplishments. Trump read prepared remarks noting that the federal payroll has fallen by 270,000 workers since his inauguration last January, though he quickly inflated that figure to “millions.” The Office of Personnel Management has estimated federal job losses to the tune of 317,000 during fiscal 2025.

Trump then defended the purge of federal civil servants, claiming, again without evidence, that those who left government were now making upwards of triple what they made from their “boring federal job” in the private sector.

top 6 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] jof@lemmy.world 17 points 1 month ago

Very interesting. DOGE was supposed to get rid of these types of jobs with his campaign promise, and now they’re necessary? Huh.

Administration must be on the beach the way they flip flop.

[–] reddig33@lemmy.world 13 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago) (1 children)

I wonder how many he’s already had to rehire? (Likely at a salary increase)

[–] arrow74@lemmy.zip 5 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago) (1 children)

Likely not at a salary increase as federal hiring has very strict regulations on pay. To rehire someone at higher position to increase their pay one would need to be available or the organization chart for that office would need to be updated which takes a lot of approval even in normal times. Not to mention their position would have to be one that allows merit promotion. Otherwise they would have to go through the application porccess for the higher position. If someone came back it would be at the same level and grade.

Unless you meant they were rehired as government contractors. Then they probably make more and their firm makes a nice profit off the federal government. Then we get less work for more money.

[–] reddig33@lemmy.world 1 points 1 month ago

I meant — some of these people have already found other jobs. I know i wouldn’t return if I knew i had something else lined up. It’s not worth working for this schizo administration, especially without a bump in pay.

[–] C1pher@lemmy.world 10 points 1 month ago

Ahh yes, the jobs he promised to create… technically he did accomplish that.

[–] duckCityComplex@lemmy.world 3 points 1 month ago

Sure, I have no doubt that a terminated NIH scientist will have no trouble finding a "factory job" that pays two or three times as much.

What world does this guy live in?