SUBSCRIBE TO OUR FREE NEWSLETTER
Daily news & progressive opinion—funded by the people, not the corporations—delivered straight to your inbox.
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
office of government ethics
'None of This Is About Saving Money': Fury Over Trump-Musk Purge of Federal Workers
The "mass firing spree," said one union leader, is "about gutting the federal government, silencing workers, and forcing agencies into submission to a radical agenda that prioritizes cronyism over competence."
Feb 14, 2025
The Trump administration intensified its large-scale purge of the federal government on Thursday by moving to fire potentially hundreds of thousands of probationary employees, an effort that one leading union condemned as a power grab aimed at forcing agencies to capitulate to the whims of a lawless president.
The new flurry of terminations impacted workers across at least seven federal agencies, from the Department of Veterans Affairs—which said it fired 1,000 employees—to the Forest Service, Department of Education, Office of Personnel Management (OPM), and Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB).
Everett Kelley, national president of the American Federation of Government Employees—a union that represents more than 750,000 federal workers—said no one should fall for the Trump administration's claim that the mass firings are about federal employees' performance or enhancing government "efficiency."
"This administration has abused the probationary period to conduct a politically driven mass firing spree, targeting employees not because of performance, but because they were hired before Trump took office," Kelley said in a statement Thursday. "These firings are not about poor performance—there is no evidence these employees were anything but dedicated public servants. They are about power. They are about gutting the federal government, silencing workers, and forcing agencies into submission to a radical agenda that prioritizes cronyism over competence."
Vowing to "fight these firings every step of the way," Kelley said terminated employees were "given no notice, no due process, and no opportunity to defend themselves in a blatant violation of the principles of fairness and merit that are supposed to govern federal employment."
"We will stand with every impacted employee, pursue every legal challenge available, and hold this administration accountable for its reckless actions," said Kelley. "Federal employees are not disposable, and we will not allow the government to treat them as such."
"None of this is about saving money, it is about Musk and Trump enriching themselves and their wealthy friends while making huge cuts to services Americans depend on."
The new purge targeting more recently hired government employees marks the latest salvo in the Trump administration's far-reaching assault on federal agencies, an effort spearheaded by unelected billionaire Elon Musk and his so-called Department of Government Efficiency, or DOGE. President Donald Trump has given the advisory commission unprecedented authority over federal hiring, effectively installing Musk as the leader of a shadow government in Washington, D.C.
The Washington Post noted that "the latest data shows there were more than 220,000 federal employees within their one-year probationary period as of last March."
"These workers typically have little protection from being fired without cause," the Post observed.
In addition to firing rank-and-file workers, Trump has removed independent inspectors general, top federal prosecutors, National Labor Relations Board officials, and the head of the Office of Government Ethics, among others.
The new administration's sweeping attacks on the federal workforce, which have drawn union-led legal challenges, have left career civil servants confused, demoralized, and fearful of the future—music to the ears of far-right officials like Office of Management and Budget Director Russell Vought, who has expressed his desire to leave government employees "traumatically affected."
An anonymous OPM employee wrote for Slate last week that agency workers "are just as frustrated, confused, and traumatized as the rest of America."
"When I started my job at OPM, I swore an oath to the Constitution, and to defend it against all enemies foreign and domestic, making it especially awful that the threat to our government is coming from inside my own office building," the worker wrote. "The villains here aren't the civil servants working to serve the American people."
A purge of the federal workforce and wholesale dismantling of government departments were central goals of the far-right Project 2025 agenda authored by Vought and others in Trump's orbit. The playbook called on the new administration to disempower career civil servants and "fill its ranks with political appointees."
In addition to leading OMB, Vought is serving as acting director of the CFPB, an agency hit particularly hard by Thursday's purge. Reuters reported that "a new category of employees" at the consumer agency "received termination notices on Thursday... in a sign that the Trump administration was going beyond probationary employees as it looks to fire federal staff."
"Notices to dozens of so-called 'term employees,' full-time workers on contracts with end dates, began arriving Thursday evening, letting them know they were being terminated the same day," Reuters reported. "Some staff discovered they had lost access to the agency's IT systems before receiving their termination letters."
The sloppy and chaotic nature of the purge underscored what critics say is a reckless evisceration of government in service of a far-right ideological project.
The Post reported that the Small Business Association (SBA) "listed a paralegal phone number for laid-off employees to appeal their terminations. The number was an automated line for an apartment building."
According to Axios, one SBA worker "received two different firing emails with attachments... each with a different reason they were being let go."
"The first one said they were being let go because 'you have failed to demonstrate fitness for continued federal employment," Axios reported. "The second one hedged on the reason: '[Y]ou are not fit for continued employment because your ability, knowledge, and skills do not fit the agency's current needs and/or your performance has not been adequate to justify further employment at the agency."
Wired reported that workers at the CFPB "were informed that they had been fired with a frenetic email" in which "some affected employees were addressed as [EmployeeFirstName][EmployeeLastName], [Job Title], [Division]."
Rep. Don Beyer (D-Va.), who represents a large swath of federal workers, said in a statement earlier this week that "the Musk-Trump administration's purge of the federal civil service is illegal, terrible for the country, and paves the way for increased corruption."
"While Musk and Trump are distracting their followers with supposed 'savings' from these mass layoffs, which my Republican colleagues correctly note are a tiny fraction of all federal spending, they are preparing to enact tax cuts that will shower hundreds of times as much money on the rich," said Beyer. "None of this is about saving money, it is about Musk and Trump enriching themselves and their wealthy friends while making huge cuts to services Americans depend on."
Keep ReadingShow Less
'A Clear Violation': Eight Inspectors General Sue Trump Over Illegal Firings
"President Trump's attempt to eliminate a crucial and long-standing source of impartial, nonpartisan oversight of his administration is contrary to the rule of law."
Feb 12, 2025
Eight of at least 17 inspectors general recently fired by U.S. President Donald Trump jointly filed a federal lawsuit on Wednesday in hopes of returning to their roles as watchdogs "ensuring the effective and efficient operation" of government agencies.
Inspectors general (IGs) do their jobs "by auditing and investigating their agencies' operations and personnel in order to detect and prevent waste, fraud, and abuse, and by making recommendations for improved agency operations," explains the complaint, filed in the District of Columbia.
"Over the years," the document notes, "IGs' nonpartisan work has saved American taxpayers billions of dollars; helped safeguard U.S. national security; stopped fraud (and helped to both recover the fruits of such fraud and put fraudsters in prison); helped to end mistreatment of some of the nation's most vulnerable citizens; and ensured that veterans, farmers, senior citizens, disaster victims, and other Americans receive the support and services to which they are entitled by law."
The complaint argues that "the purported firings violated unambiguous federal statutes—each enacted by bipartisan majorities in Congress and signed into law by the president—to protect inspector generals from precisely this sort of interference with the discharge of their critical, non-partisan oversight duties."
The plaintiffs are:
- Phyllis K. Fong, Department of Agriculture;
- Robert P. Storch, Department of Defense;
- Sandra D. Bruce, Department of Education;
- Christi A. Grimm, Department of Health and Human Services;
- Larry D. Turner, Department of Labor;
- Cardell K. Richardson, Department of State; and
- Michael J. Missal, Department of Veterans Affairs; and
- Hannibal "Mike" Ware, Small Business Administration.
In addition to Trump, their complaint names as defendants the acting or Senate-confirmed leaders of each agency.
"President Trump is wrong to claim these actions were 'common' or 'standard.' To the contrary, since 1980, there has been a bipartisan consensus that it is improper for a new presidential administration to remove IGs en masse," the filing says. "President Trump's attempt to eliminate a crucial and long-standing source of impartial, nonpartisan oversight of his administration is contrary to the rule of law."
The fired federal workers are asking the district court to void their ousters, "so they remain the duly appointed IGs of their respective agencies, unless and until the president lawfully removes them" with a 30-day notice to Congress that details the reason for removal. In addition to getting their jobs back, they aim to block the named agency leaders, "or anyone working in concert with them, from impeding the lawful exercise of the duties of their offices."
Missal told multiple media outlets that their firings were "a clear violation of the law" and "the IGs are bringing this action for reinstatement so that they can go back to work fighting fraud, waste, and abuse on behalf of the American people."
The lawsuit came a day after nine civil society groups pressured the Senate to "act now to reaffirm its oversight role and demand full explanations from President Trump as to why each inspector general was removed, as mandated by law."
The IG firings are part of a broader effort by Trump and billionaire Elon Musk, chair of the president's so-called Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE), to purge the federal workforce and slash spending.
As USA Today noted Wednesday:
The Justice Department and FBI told top officials who investigated Trump and the Capitol attack on January 6, 2021, to resign or be fired.
Trump tried to fire the head of the Federal Elections Commission, but she refused to leave. Trump tried to fire the head of the Office of Government Ethics, but a federal judge temporarily reinstated Hampton Dellinger, who argued he was removed unlawfully, while the case is litigated.
Citing an unnamed source, the newspaper also reported that the White House on Tuesday night fired Paul K. Martin, inspector general at the U.S. Agency for International Development, after he "issued a
scathing report saying staff cuts and funding pauses at the agency put more than $489 million in food assistance around the world at risk of spoiling."
Keep ReadingShow Less
'The Trump Swamp Is Growing': President Fires Ethics Chief
"Nothing says corruption like firing the top ethics cop on the beat," said Public Citizen co-president Lisa Gilbert.
Feb 11, 2025
U.S. President Donald Trump on Monday fired the director of the Office of Government Ethics as his administration—packed with billionaires and riddled with conflicts of interest—abandons even the pretense of opposing corruption and lawlessness, a course underscored by the Justice Department's push to drop bribery charges against New York City Mayor Eric Adams.
The removal of OGE chief David Huitema was announced in a brief statement on the office's website, which was inaccessible as of Tuesday morning.
Huitema, who was confirmed by the Senate at the tail-end of former President Joe Biden's term, "has been heavily involved in resolving conflicts of interest with Trump's nominees," Government Executive's Eric Katz reported Monday.
"Nothing says corruption like firing the top ethics cop on the beat," Public Citizen co-president Lisa Gilbert said in a statement Monday. "Consistent with the corporate conflicts, massive wealth, and Big Tech bro connections, the incoming administration continues to exploit all avenues to increase their ability to profit off of public service."
"The administration has halted foreign corrupt practices enforcement, is operating without a strong ethics executive order to rein in the revolving door, rolled back disclosure of lobbying by foreign agents, and has now removed a qualified ethics leader," Gilbert added. "The Trump swamp is growing."
"By all indications, Trump is planning to run a lawless administration and these unprecedented moves are an alarming first step to put those plans into action."
The OGE director was the latest victim of Trump's firing spree, which has targeted independent inspectors general, labor board officials, and the head of an office tasked with protecting whistleblowers. Some of the officials Trump has removed or attempted to remove are refusing to comply or fighting back in court, citing federal legal protections.
Donald Sherman, executive director and chief counsel of Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington (CREW), said in a statement that "by firing the head of the Office of Government Ethics, President Trump is continuing his purge of any independent officials tasked with holding him and his administration accountable to the law and ethical standards."
"This follows his firing of the head of the Office of Special Counsel and 17 inspectors general," said Sherman. "Together, these actions will streamline any efforts he and his administration make to personally profit, install loyalists, and avoid oversight of corruption and waste. By all indications, Trump is planning to run a lawless administration and these unprecedented moves are an alarming first step to put those plans into action."
Following news of Huitema's firing, Trump's Justice Department—led by a former corporate lobbyist—ordered federal prosecutors to drop their corruption case against Adams, a Democrat who was charged late last year with wire fraud, bribery, and soliciting illegal foreign campaign donations.
As The Associated Press reported, the Justice Department claimed the case against Adams was interfering with his "ability to aid" Trump's anti-immigrant agenda.
"Rather than restricting cooperation with Immigration and Customs Enforcement, as Adams once promised, he has expressed a willingness to roll back the city's so-called sanctuary policies and pledged not to publicly criticize a president whose policies he once described as 'abusive,'" AP noted.
The move to drop federal charges against Adams comes after Trump signed an executive order instructing the Justice Department to halt enforcement of a decades-old law barring U.S. companies from bribing foreign officials.
"Don't let this get swept under the rug," CREW said in response to the order.
Keep ReadingShow Less
'New Year's Eve Ethics Massacre': House Panel Quietly Drops Campaign Finance Probes
One analyst said the House Ethics Committee has "effectively legalized the conversion of campaign funds for personal use."
Jan 02, 2025
The bipartisan House Ethics Committee announced earlier this week that it unanimously opted to close several investigations involving alleged campaign finance violations by three Republicans and one Democrat, a move that one expert characterized as a "New Year's Eve Ethics Massacre."
The decision to close the investigations into Reps. Sanford Bishop (D-Ga.), Wesley Hunt (R-Texas), Ronny Jackson (R-Texas), and Alex Mooney (R-W.Va.) was made public in a vaguely worded press release published the day before New Year's Eve.
The panel, composed of five Republicans and five Democrats, said while "there was evidence" that lawmakers who were under investigation "did not fully comply with the applicable standards relating to personal use of campaign funds," the committee determined there wasn't proof that "any member intentionally misused campaign funds for their personal benefit."
The committee also criticized Federal Election Commission (FEC) rules pertaining to personal use of campaign funds as "often ambiguous" and issued its own updated guidance for House members.
Additionally, the committee said it dropped "other confidential matters that have been under review," without offering specifics.
The committee said its only action in response to its findings was contacting the lawmakers to provide them with the updated campaign finance guidance "as well as specific findings and recommendations with respect to that member's campaign activity."
"The New Year's Eve Ethics Massacre is a repudiation of the Ethics Committee's job to hold members of Congress to account for their wrongdoing."
Daniel Schuman, executive director of the American Governance Institute, argued that the panel's decision "effectively legalized the conversion of campaign funds for personal use by members of the House of Representatives" by establishing "a new weak standard" and ignoring evidence of wrongdoing provided by the Office of Congressional Ethics (OCE).
"They can now take dollars from donors and put them in their pocket," Schuman wrote in his newsletter. "It's not what they said they did, but under the cover of the New Year's holiday, Ethics Committee Democrats and Republicans pulled a fast one, legalizing a money laundry so blatantly corrupt it would embarrass Walter White. They also made many other allegations of wrongdoing disappear."
Schuman noted that the committee's probes into Bishop, Mooney, Hunt, and Jackson stemmed from OCE reports on each of the lawmakers dating back to 2020. Republicans have repeatedly targeted the OCE and are currently trying to drop "ethics" from its name.
In the case of Mooney, Schuman wrote, the OCE found in October 2021 that he "used campaign funds to purchase more than $17,000 in gift cards in violation of FEC rules and had the effect of concealing the ultimate recipient of those funds (which may have been Rep. Mooney's pocket)."
The West Virginia Republican said in a statement that he was "grateful" for the House Ethics Committee's decision and dismissed allegations of misconduct as "driven by politically motivated actors on the extreme left."
As for Bishop—the lone Democrat among the four lawmakers who faced House Ethics Committee probes—the OCE found on February 10, 2020 that he "may have improperly disbursed campaign funds for personal use and improperly spent his official member funds for annual holiday parties in the district," Schuman noted.
"Among the inappropriate costs incurred were golf club memberships, the purchase of golf clubs, brunch for family members, groceries, and so on," Schuman added.
"The ethics process is broken," he concluded. "There must be an independent ethics process where investigations and their recommendations are divorced from internal party politics and not designed to shield members from accountability for apparent wrongdoing. The New Year's Eve Ethics Massacre is a repudiation of the Ethics Committee's job to hold members of Congress to account for their wrongdoing and to be honest and forthright to the public about their behavior."
Craig Holman, government affairs lobbyist for the consumer advocacy group Public Citizen, echoed Schuman's assessment, arguing in a statement that by "summarily dismissing all charges of potential violations of ethics rules, the House Ethics Committee is shirking its responsibilities to both the House of Representatives and the American public."
"The press release from the Ethics Committee hinted that violations may have indeed occurred with personal use of campaign funds ('a gray area' and 'did not fully comply' with the rules, stated the release) and avoided any discussion of the other allegations, but dismissed the charges nonetheless," said Holman.
Lisa Gilbert, Public Citizen's co-president, added that the decision "is further evidence that the House Ethics Committee, on its own, is too embedded with members of Congress to adequately enforce ethics rules."
"A fair and impartial congressional ethics process needs the public awareness and oversight provided by the outside Office of Congressional Ethics," Gilbert said.
Keep ReadingShow Less
'Good News': As Trump Threat Looms, Senate Confirms Ethics Czar
"It's important that we'll have a government ethics chief in place who serves the American people, not Trump's wallet," said Sen. Elizabeth Warren.
Nov 14, 2024
As the clock winds down on Democratic control of the U.S. Senate, upper chamber lawmakers on Thursday confirmed President Joe Biden's nomination of David Huitema, head of the State Department's ethics program, to lead the Office of Government Ethics for a five-year term.
Senators voted 50-46 in favor of Huitema's confirmation to head the OGE through the duration of Republican President-elect Donald Trump's tenure, averting at least temporarily a scenario in which the winner of the 2024 election—who has refused to sign required transition-related ethics agreements and whose first term saw thousands of conflicts of interest—would be empowered to fill or stonewall the post.
The OGE has been without a director for more than a year, ever since the term of Trump appointee Emory Rounds expired. In September, Sen. Mike Lee (R-Utah) blocked Senate Democrats' attempt to confirm Huitema via unanimous consent until after the presidential election, alleging "political weaponization of the U.S. government against Donald Trump by the Biden-Harris administration."
As the consumer advocacy group Public Citizen said ahead of Huitema's confirmation:
One of the most important roles of the Office of Government Ethics is to oversee and advise the presidential transition process. The selection and nomination of most new administration officials takes place during the transition, in which OGE's vetting of pending nominees for conflicts of interest is most critical. The office needs to be fully staffed and operational during the course of the transition period.
However, Walter Shaub, who led the OGE during the Obama administration and resigned in 2017 after months of conflict with the Trump White House, warned in a Thursday interview with Government Executive that "it might be a hollow victory for government ethics if Trump fires Huitema after the inauguration."
"Even if Trump doesn't fire Huitema, OGE won't be able to prevent Trump's top appointees from retaining conflicting financial interests if the Senate grants Trump's request that lawmakers conspire in skirting or short-shrifting the constitutional confirmation process," Shaub added.
Still, ethics advocates cheered Huitema's confirmation, with the watchdog group Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington hailing what it called the "good news" and "an important step to safeguard ethics compliance ahead of a second Trump administration that threatens to be even more corrupt than the first."
As one Democratic strategist said on social media following his confirmation, "Buckle up, David Huitema."
Keep ReadingShow Less
See More
Most Popular
To inform. To inspire. To ignite change for the common good.
News & Opinion
Trending
Common Dreams, Inc. Founded 1997. Registered 501(c3) Non-Profit
Privacy Policy