Federal Employees Play “DOGE” ball with Elon Musk's Cuts as President Trump Fulfils His Campaign Promises

As we close in on Trump’s first 100 days, he’s has cut through the Washington quagmire like General Sherman's march through Georgia. With Elon Musk leading the charge through “DOGE” (Department of Government Efficiency), over 200,000 federal employees in 18 agencies have had their employment come to an end, not to mention 75,000 who have accepted buyouts.

 That number includes 2,400 Veterans Administration employees, 1,700 workers from the consumer watchdog agency, Consumer Financial Protection Bureau,  2,000 from the Department of Energy, and 2000 from the Department of the Interior, including 800 from the Bureau of Land management.

The IRS has seen 6,000 employees terminated and 5,400 probationary workers from the Department of Defense with an estimated 70,000 who may be let go by the time it’s over. 700 workers at the Centers for Disease Control have fired along 388 employees from the Environmental Protection Agency.  

The Department of Homeland Security has seen a reduction of 400 individuals, of which half were from FEMA, the Federal Emergency Management Agency. The Small Business Administration has seen a reduction of 20% of its workforce.

 Lastly, 10,000 individuals from the U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID) have been placed on indefinite leave. The move is estimated to reduce government “bloat” and save billions in taxpayers dollars.

Meanwhile, some 530,000 immigrants have seen their temporary legal status revoked while some 27,000 illegal immigrants have been deported back to their country of origin as the Pentagon has announced the deployment of some 10,000 active duty and National Guard personnel to our southern border while so-called “sanctuary cities” are facing the possible loss of the  federal funding which keeps them afloat.

So, what do Americans think of the Trump-Musk blitz on the Status Quo? Are all the cuts and reductions justified or is this another example of government going too far? 48% of Americans surveyed by a Pew poll see illegal immigration as problem, so there’s presumably happy with President Trump’s handling of the problem.

As for the mass layoffs, 57% of those polled though the budget deficit was a serious issue, so the reduction in the federal work force would presumably be a good thing. While the layoffs have little or nothing to do with the corruption, 72% believe money in politics is problem. Perhaps Trump can take steps to reduce the control Wall Street has on Washington, such as overturing Citizens United, term limits, and honest to goodness campaign finance reform.

But for that to happen, we’d have to have a level of bipartisan cooperation that we haven’t seen in decades. The divisiveness in today’s politics borders on political turmoil or even a possible civil war. Maybe that’s why 56% of respondents are concerned about the failure of the two corporate owned parties to work together. 48% are worried about the failure of our political system itself and why not?

Afterall, given our “winner-take-all” system, the majority of voters have no representation. Only those whose side wins have any form of representation, while the losing side is out of luck, and when you consider that the largest percentage of voters are Independents, that means that no more than 28% or 29%  of voters (the respective size of the two parties by registration) can claim to have a voice in politics. Of course, when we consider that Washington serves Wall Street and gives Main Street lip service at best, a pretty good argument can be made that voters have little real representation at all.

One issue which has come to the forefront lately is the Trump-Musk duumvirate cutting social services like Welfare, food stamps, Social Security, and  Veteran’s benefits. Supposedly, these cuts will affect just the administrative staff of these agencies and have little impact on benefits. 47% of those polled said they were concerned about the financial solvency of the Social Security and Medicare while 67% are worried about the cost of healthcare.

Of course, cutting back the staff will certainly impact wait times. As anyone who’s applied for Social Security or Veteran benefits already knows, it can sometimes take weeks or months before they receive benefits, which can seem like an eternity when you’re needing the money.

Nevertheless, the reductions are designed to improved the financial stability of safety net programs like Medicare and Medicaid, so that they’ll be available for future generations. One change which will likely occur is changing the minimum age requirement to receive benefits to 70, which makes sense.  For instance, when Social Security was introduced by President Roosevelt in 1933, an applicant had to be at least 65 years of age. That was ten years beyond the average male life expectancy. Today the average life expectancy is 78 years old.

Another possible change is allowing individuals the option of allowing future recipients to invest a portion of their SSN payments themselves into something like an IRA account. Currently the federal government handles all that. Some people may prefer a more aggressive strategy. Of course, should their investments not live up to their expectations,  they could end up receiving a smaller social security check at an age when they need the money most and then what?

In a related area,  63% of those surveyed are concerned about the impact of inflation. It seems that every time we go out to eat or go to the grocery store, food prices have skyrocketed. From 2020 through 2024, food prices have jumped 24%. Egg prices are up 37.5%. thanks in large part to another round of Bird Flu. The average price for a dozen regular size eggs is $5.90. Drought and feed prices has resulted in a reduction of cattle for consumption to the lowest level in 70 years, resulting in 5% increase in the price of beef. Chicken has seen comparable increases in price.  

The price of coffee has increased 1.9%. Orange juice and other frozen juices have spiked 17.2%. The reason is primarily because of weather conditions. Brazil, which is responsible for 30% of our orange juice, has just face one of the worse harvest its had in decades thanks to flooding (due to hurricanes) in some regions and drought in others, as well as a citrus greening disease.  Analysts, reflecting the opinions of 41% of those polled, said climate change may be the culprit.  As a result, don’t expect to see prices go down anytime soon.

Rising prices and taxes coupled with stagnant or declining wages are fostering concerns about the poverty rate. 53% of those polled were worried about the declining middle class and the growing number of individuals slipping into poverty.  As of 2023, 11.5% or 37.9 million Americans were living at or below the national poverty level.

44% of those polled admitted being concerned about natural disasters, which are usually handled by FEMA.   Last year, in 2024, there were 27 weather or climate related disasters in the United States according to the National Centers for Environmental Information, with each exceeding $1 billion dollars in damage and a total of 588 deaths.

In 2024, there were 90 declared “major disasters” according to FEMA. That’s roughly a declared disaster every four days. 41% or 137 million individuals lived in an area affected by a natural disaster. Also in 2024, there was 64,897 wildfires reported. That’s up from 56,580 in 2023. 8,924,884 acres were destroyed compared to 2,693,910 acres in 2023.

California by far experienced the most damage, followed by Alaska, Mew Mexico, Texas, and Oregon (together, they accounted for 46% of all fires).  The cost in terms of private property and economic impact to the affected areas was between $ 250 and $275 billion dollars.

Aside from natural disasters, crime and violence is another area where America’s are concerned. 48% said they were worried about gun violence while 47% were the rise in violent crime. The District of Columbia, New Mexico, Louisiana, Mississippi, and Alabama had the highest number of gun related deaths.

The Department of Homeland Security reports that gang related violence is on the rise thanks to the expansion of ultra-violent gangs from South and Central America and the growth of the fentanyl market.

 Most of the violence is occurring in inner cities, which is sparking fear among city leaders that their city will turn into gang controlled “narco-cities”.  51% of respondents said the drug problem is our biggest concern. 50% said declining morals and values are a contributing factor.

Will Trump’s crusade help ease the concerns of Americans or will it backfire? According to an NBC News Poll conducted in March by the Hart Research Associates/Public Opinion Strategies, 46% of those surveyed thought DOGE was a good idea. 40% didn’t while 14% had no opinion. However, the numbers flipped when asked about Trump appointee, Elon Musk, who is leading DOGE. 51% disapproved the billionaire tech president. While just 39% actually approved.

However, in another poll conducted by Quinnipiac, 54% of their respondents said the DOGE was actually hurting the country. 60% disapproved of how DOGE dealt with federal employees while just 36% approved. The poll also indicated that 50% of those polled did not approved of how Trump handled the termination of the federal employees. 82% of Republicans thought Trump was doing a good job when it came to DOGE. 94% of Democrats disagreed.  

The polling results shouldn’t come as a great surprise. They go to show the extent of our divide. It’s also another case of “NIBY” or “Not in my back yard”. Many Americans appear to want to cut the size and scope of the federal government, but not if it adversely affects them.  

We’ve become too dependent on the government. It’s a sense of entitlement. We’ve come to expect it as normal. We want everything but we don’t want to pay for it. Unfortunately, life doesn’t work that way. There’s a cost to everything. President Trump campaigned on what large numbers of Americans said they wanted, and in keeping with his promises, he is acting on them. But, as the American People are coming to realize, the consequences of having often doesn't match the anticipation wanting.

 

Thank you for reading "Another Opinion", the Op/Ed blog page for the "militant middle".  Here at "A/O" we truly value our readers. At A/O we seek the facts as they exist, not partisan talking points.  We hope you find our articles informative and engaging. Comments are welcome, provided they are not vulgar, insulting or demeaning.  Another Opinion is offered without charge and is directed toward all independent and free-thinking individuals. We ask, however, that you "like" us on whatever platform you found us on in order to keep our articles available for free to others. Lastly, in order to keep costs down, we depend on passive marketing, and therefore, depend on our readers to please forward our posts along. Below you will find links to the sources we used in writing this article. Thank you. 

 

Americans Continue to View Several Economic Issues as TopNational Problems

Here are all the federal agencies where workers are beingfired

NCEI: Billion Dollar Weather and Climate Disasters  

As Trump Works to cut FEMA, data shows there was a major disaster every four days in 2024

National Poverty In America Awareness Month: January 2025

Food Prices are on the rise again. What’s behind theincrease

Trump’s early immigration enforcement record, by the numbers

Poll: Voters like the idea of DOGE, but Elon Musk and hisearly results raise red flags

 

Voters frustrated with Elon Musk ‘s DOGE cuts, new pollfinds

How the Trump Administration Could Leave Families Hungary: Potential Cuts to SNAP in 2025 and Beyond

Playing Chicken With the American Public: The Ongoing Government Shutdown

Everyone knows about the game of "playing chicken". The concept is actually quite simple. Two or more parties agree to undertake some action or actions with increasing levels of risk or danger until there is only one person remaining. Most of these games, which are designed at testing one's courage or daring, are pretty harmless and meant just for fun. However, other games of chicken can be much more dangerous or even fatal, especially when those games include a car, motorcycle, or weapon. In Washington (and state capitals as well as city halls all around America), the game of chicken is played on an entirely different level. While lives aren't directly at risk, livelihoods most certainly are and the outcomes can be as equally traumatic.

Right now, there is a game of chicken being played out between Republican President Donald Trump and members of Congress, led by Speaker of the House, Nancy Pelosi (D-CA), and Senator Chuck Schumer (D-NY). At stake is the direction the country takes over border security, the issue of illegal immigration, and the funding for a wall along the Mexico-US border, all wrapped up in what has become the longest lasting government shutdown in US history.

On one side, is President Trump who, true to his campaign promise, has demanded that funding---approximately $5.6 billion dollars---be included in the budget to build a wall along our southern border with Mexico to stymie individuals and groups, among which include some very powerful and dangerous drug cartels, from illegally entering the US. On the other side, led by Pelosi, Schumer, and many of the Democrats (and a few Republicans) who want to press forward with a budget absent any funding for the wall, or for the that matter, taking any additional steps to halt illegal immigration or the drug cartels. It should be noted that some of the individuals, like Pelosi, represent states and/or districts which defy US immigration laws and promote so-called "sanctuary" status.

What does that mean exactly? Simply this. It means that states or other municipalities will not cooperate with federal authorizes in helping to identify, locate, arrest, or detention of illegal immigrates. In some cases, state and local authorities have allowed illegals with criminal records and/or felony warrants to be released with alerting federal law enforcement agencies. This means even those who are known gang members or pedophiles. It means that illegals are afforded the same privileges that ordinary citizens have, such as voting in local elections and being issued driver's licenses, access to taxpayer funded programs including housing and medical care. Meanwhile, individuals who've applied to enter this country legally are, in some cases, denied these very opportunities. Compared to the $116 billion dollars illegal immigration cost US taxpayers annually. the $5.6 billion for the wall looks pretty cheap.

In 1982, the Anti-Deficiency Act (ADA) was passed by Congress and signed into law by President Ronald Reagan. This Act, which was enacted under Article One for the Constitution, Section 9, Clause 7 (aka "the power of the purse"), mandated that the federal government shutter or curtail all non-essential agencies and furlough individuals categorized as "non-essential". Excluded were agencies which involve national security. While this Act directs agencies to reduce or cease operation as well as to furlough without pay federal employees, it also directs the essential employees must still show up to work without pay and continue to do their jobs. As an aside, while employees understand this is a condition of their employment and willingly accept it as such, they must still cope with no money from their jobs coming in, which can obviously cause a great deal of stress and financial hardship, especially since they are not entitled to unemployment (the few who are must repay it when they return to work). Of course, they do receive their back pay when the budget crisis is over, it doesn't help with the here and now of daily life.

It should be noted that while President Reagan signed this Act into law, under his administration there were eight government shutdowns, both before and afterwards, which lasted a total of 14 days. Of course, there were earlier shutdowns as well, extending by to President Gerald Ford in 1976 which lasted ten days while there were five under President Jimmy Carter which lasted a total of 57 days. President George W.H. Bush had just one, lasting three days. President Bill Clinton had two which lasted a total of 26 days. President George W. Bush had none ("miss me now?") while President Barack Obama had just one lasting 16 days. Meanwhile, President Trump has had two previous shutdowns lasting a total of 4 days and there's no telling how long this current one will last.

Another aspect seldom considered is that government shutdowns affect not just agencies and federal employees, it also affects individuals and corporations who do business with the government; they don't get paid either, yet they have to continue to fulfill their contracts with the government in order to keep their contracts. That affects their employees, who may end up facing reduced or delayed paychecks or even layoffs (of course, for them, most are entitled to unemployment checks. However, those checks are only a percentage of what they earned and they don't last long). In addition, we forget about the billions the government pumps back into the economy in the way of services which are curtailed or stopped. That could include everything from funding of roads and bridges to subsidized school lunches, WIC, and after school care programs. In fact, 52% of the Department of Health and Human Services has been furloughed.

Want more? The majority of employees for the Center for Disease Control and Prevention have been sent home without pay---just in time for flu season, not to mention the dramatic increase in problems along with southern border with a rise in various diseases like TB, whooping cough, measles, and so forth resulting from the "migrants" seeking illegal entry. The Food and Drug Administration has furloughed 45% of its employees, which includes individuals who inspect our food. The Department of Homeland Security has furloughed a substantial number its employees (what could possibly go wrong there?) while over 80% of the Secret Service has been sent home along with almost 80% of the Coast Guard and Border and Customs Protection Agency (again I ask, what could possible go wrong there?), and a majority of the US Department of Immigration and Naturalization Services. Even the E-Verify system which enables companies to check on immigration status has been shutdown. And the list goes on and on. In total, some 800,000 federal employees have been impacted with 380,000 being sent home without pay.

Of course the "good news" is that Congress, which is the primary cause of problem to begin with, is largely unaffected. Everyone in Congress still gets paid, as does their staff (Congressional members have a wide leeway as to whom they consider "essential" or not), as does the President and his staff. So, we once again have a situation where the ruling elite have exempted themselves from the laws in which they impose on us. Meanwhile, like grade school children, they've begun a "tit-for-tat" game of insults and withholding common privileges that you expect of our so-called "leaders". For instance, Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi had previously invited President Trump to the Capital Building in order to address a joint session of the House and Senate ( as required by law, the House Speaker extends the invitation to the President). Now, however, Pelosi has withdrawn the invitation, citing a lack of security (which makes you wonder what this Anti-Second Amendment Speaker is afraid of). However, she wanted to use Air Force One to fly herself, her staff, and certain family members to Brussels, Egypt, and then on to Afghanistan on a "non-essential" flight (she said she wanted to avoid stops). President Trump, however, declined her request, and instead suggested she take a commercial flight (Pelosi had just returned from a "working vacation" in Hawaii on the public's dime).

It's unlikely this kindergarten behavior will be stopping anytime soon, and why should it? After all, never party has any "skin" in the game they created. They are exempt from the law which enabled them to send people home or not pay people who are require to work. Congress and the President, as well as their staffs, continue to not just get paid, but have access to their own healthcare coverage, not to mention security, planes, and so forth...all at our expense...and the millions for corporate lobbyists continue to pour in. Meanwhile, the approval rating for Congress stands at 17% as of January 18, 2019 according to Ballotpedia . In fact, Congress's approval rating has been dismal for decades now and nothing has changed. As for President Trump, his approval rating is hovering at 39% nationally, although among Republicans and conservatives, he's at 83% according to a NPR/PBS Marist Poll. That's a huge divide, which may reflect the deep and widening divide of the country more than the dislike of Trump himself or his policies.

As for the wall, according to a recent Pew Report, 58% of those polled opposed a wall (though not necessarily increasing border security). However, among Republicans and conservatives, 82% support the wall while only 6% of Democrats agree. Moderate Republicans support the wall with 69% compared to moderate Democrats, with 89% opposing it. Those are substantial folks. They clearly show the division this country is facing over something as basic as border security. We see the same thing when we look at race, with 46% of whites supporting the wall compared to 20% of blacks and 23% of Hispanics. if we look at age, we see a similar pattern; 48% of those 50 and older want the wall as do 36% of those between 30 and 40 and 25% of individuals between 18 and 29.

So, what's the answer---is there an answer? We are a deeply divided nation, and that divide is continuing to deepen and widen. It's more than partisan. It's racial and its age based. Of course, we already know that the Democrat and Republican parties are different wings of the same ruling Oligarchy; each reflecting the agenda of various competing (and cooperating) cliques. If the idea confuses you, think of them as just two competing mafia families fighting over resources with the Oligarchs acting as the "High Commission". As long as they get their cut and their interests are protected, they're happy.

Meanwhile, the people must remain divided. A divided populace is easier to control, intimidate, and manipulate. The only real question here is whether or not we are going to accept our chains willingly or are we going to fight back? If we acted together, we could end this shutdown. We could force Washington to do their jobs. We could required that the same laws passed for us apply equally to them. We could impose term limits, end gerrymandering and Citizens United, or dictate an equitable tax reform that benefits the working class for a change. We have the power, but do we have the courage to use it?


New FAIR Study: Illegal Immigration Costs 116 Billion Annually


Anti-Deficiency Act


What's open---what's not---during a partial government shutdown


From airport lines to food inspections, here are all the ways a partial closure affects average Americans


All 21 Government Shutdowns in US History