Category: Federal Budget

NASA Cuts Over 20% Workforce Amid Trump’s Large Budget Slash

NASA is undertaking significant workforce reductions, with plans to cut over 20% of its staff in alignment with President Trump’s strategy to downsize the federal government. Nearly 4,000 employees have opted to leave the agency, responding to a deferred resignation program that closed its application window recently. This mass departure will reduce NASA’s workforce from approximately 18,000 to around 14,000.

The downsizing includes about 870 employees who applied in the initial round, along with an additional 3,000 in the second round. This reduction, exacerbated by the 500 workers lost through normal attrition, poses serious challenges to NASA’s operational capabilities. Workers have expressed concerns that these cuts threaten safety, scientific progress, and the effective use of public resources.

A budget proposal from the Trump administration threatens to decrease NASA’s overall budget by 24%, reducing it from $24 billion to $18 billion. Over 360 NASA employees have publicly urged against these proposed cuts, stating they are arbitrary and disregard established congressional appropriations laws. Their letter highlights the potential “dire” consequences of these reductions on NASA’s mission.

The initiative to downsize stems from the Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE), created during Trump’s term, aimed at reducing waste and the size of the federal workforce. This plan raises alarms within the scientific community about the potential erosion of decades of progress in research and inclusivity, particularly as funding cuts threaten ongoing missions to the Moon and Mars.

Earlier this year, NASA experienced internal instability as Trump’s initial nominee for NASA administrator, Jared Isaacman, was withdrawn prior to a confirmation vote. Following this setback, Trump appointed Sean Duffy as the interim administrator, a move seen as indicative of Trump’s ongoing efforts to influence NASA’s direction amid substantial operational challenges.

(h/t: https://thehill.com/homenews/administration/5421675-nasa-workforce-20-percent-cuts/)

Trump’s Plan to Tackle National Debt: Asking Citizens to Fix $7.8 Trillion Deficit Caused by His Policies

The Trump administration has devised a controversial scheme to address the burgeoning national debt, now totaling around $36.7 trillion, by soliciting donations from citizens via digital payment platforms like Venmo and PayPal. This initiative comes as Trump’s “Big, Beautiful Bill” threatens to exacerbate the already staggering debt by an estimated $3.4 trillion over the next decade, according to the Congressional Budget Office. While this bill includes substantial funding for military expenditures and Trump’s mass deportation agenda, it simultaneously slashes vital social programs such as Medicaid and SNAP.

The Pay.gov website, an official U.S. Treasury program, has been updated to allow Americans the option to contribute financially towards the public debt, a move that raises significant ethical concerns about fiscal responsibility. Historically, the “Gifts to Reduce the Public Debt” program has garnered only $67.3 million in donations since its inception in 1996, highlighting the absurdity of asking average citizens to rectify the financial mismanagement perpetuated by the administration.

The administration’s messaging around this initiative attempts to frame it as a positive step towards reducing the financial burden on future generations. However, the stark reality is that the administration continues to pile on new debts rather than addressing the root causes of fiscal irresponsibility. The press release from the White House emphasized that the “Big, Beautiful Bill” would purportedly enhance economic growth and reduce debt—a narrative that contradicts tangible evidence of the impending financial crisis.

In stark contrast to this narrative, reputable analyses indicate that the national debt is significantly on the rise due to short-term tax cuts favored by the administration, leaving a grim outlook for working-class Americans who now face the prospect of financially supporting the consequences of reckless fiscal policies. The messaging appears more aimed at diverting accountability than offering genuine solutions to the debt crisis.

This unsustainable approach indicates not just a failure in responsible governance but highlights a troubling willingness to exploit vulnerable American citizens to mitigate the repercussions of the administration’s own fiscal failures. The reliance on donations to manage national debt underscores the administration’s flawed economic policies and its disregard for equitable financial stewardship.

(h/t: https://people.com/trump-administration-accepting-venmo-payments-reduce-national-debt-11779514?utm_campaign=peoplemagazine&utm_content=photo&utm_medium=social&utm_source=facebook.com&utm_term=68840bbdf679720001e43aeb&fbclid=IwZXh0bgNhZW0CMTEAAR7wCfgY0RLLhYrMO6bgKyErrSdQJcB5SRDByfI3VJiGvx1PzKaB72rQZb6Jug_aem_wdlHwOwR-QdBrJUFlSd6jQ)

Trump Administration Orders Incineration of Lifesaving Food Aid

In a shocking move, the Trump administration has ordered the incineration of 500 tons of emergency food aid, enough to feed 1.5 million children for one week, instead of delivering it to those in need. These high-energy biscuits, which were meant for vulnerable children in Afghanistan and Pakistan, will go to waste due to the administration’s drastic cuts to foreign aid programs. The food, purchased for approximately $800,000, is set to expire soon as the administration has halted almost all foreign assistance since January.

Current and former USAID employees revealed that requests to ship the food to its intended recipients were ignored by the newly appointed heads of foreign assistance. The transfer and distribution of the biscuits depended on bureaucratic approval from political appointees like Pete Marocco and Jeremy Lewin, both closely aligned with the Trump administration. Despite promises from Secretary of State Marco Rubio to facilitate aid delivery, the decision to destroy the food had already been made.

The aid effectively represents the increasing neglect of humanitarian responsibilities under the Trump administration, raising questions about its commitment to global welfare. In addition to Afghanistan, other regions like Sudan, suffering from extreme famine, could have benefited from the aid; however, the administration’s rationale for ceasing support is fundamentally flawed, linking it to unfounded claims about aiding terrorist groups.

As a consequence of the logistical breakdown, numerous other food supplies are now languishing in American warehouses, threatening to meet the same fate. Current estimates suggest that at least 60,000 metric tons of food—which includes vital staples—are collecting dust, with only limited shipments being dispatched recently. This represents a significant failure of the administration whose actions could lead to severe repercussions for millions globally facing starvation.

Moreover, this ongoing crisis highlights the broader implications of the Trump administration’s approach to foreign policy and humanitarian aid, sharply contrasting with America’s historical role as a leader in global assistance. With more food aid potentially on the verge of expiration, the lack of effective management and commitment raises red flags about the administration’s values, turning a blind eye to the vulnerability of those in dire need.

(h/t: https://www.theatlantic.com/health/archive/2025/07/usaid-emergency-food-incinerate-trump/683532/)

Trump’s $4 Billion High-Speed Rail Funding Cut Sparks Outrage in California

The Trump administration’s recent decision to withdraw $4 billion in funding for California’s high-speed rail project has triggered widespread condemnation from state leaders, who argue that the move is “illegal.” This decision was made following a federal compliance review that alleged “no viable path forward” for the high-speed rail plan, which was once envisioned as a transformative transportation project. Governor Gavin Newsom and Ian Choudri, the chief executive of the California High-Speed Rail Authority, have vehemently criticized the administration’s actions, emphasizing the administration’s failure to recognize previously binding commitments.

In the wake of this decision, California state officials have asserted that the Trump administration’s conclusions regarding the project are based on outdated information and flawed assessments. They point out the economic and logistical benefits that the high-speed rail project could bring to the Central Valley, including thousands of jobs, in stark contrast to Trump’s portrayal of the project as a misguided waste of federal funds. The funding, which the state has indicated was a legally binding agreement, is crucial for continuing construction efforts.

Transportation Secretary Sean Duffy assigned blame to California’s leadership, suggesting that “mismanagement” had plagued the project’s progress. He called for a review of other grants related to the endeavor and characterized the California High-Speed Rail Authority as incapable of delivering on its promises. In this cutthroat political framing, Duffy accused state leaders of fostering incompetence and possibly corruption in managing the high-speed rail initiative.

Trump has publicly defended his administration’s decision to terminate the funding, arguing that it saves taxpayers from pouring money into what he has dubbed “California’s disastrously overpriced ‘high-speed train to nowhere.’” His rhetoric plays into a broader narrative of controlling governmental spending while disregarding the significant investment already made into the project and the potential benefits it could yield.

In response to this funding withdrawal, state officials are considering alternative funding methods, including potential public-private partnerships. They remain steadfast in their commitment to the project, which has already sparked significant state investment and community planning. As such, the clash over the high-speed rail project underscores the significant divide between federal and local priorities, further complicating infrastructure development in California amid the contentious political landscape fostered by the Trump administration.

Trump Administration Targets Hospitals with Cost-Cutting Proposals

The Trump administration has launched a direct attack on hospitals with a proposed rule that undermines the Medicare reimbursement structure. This plan, aimed at equalizing payment rates for outpatient services across various medical settings, threatens the financial stability of hospitals, particularly affecting those that serve vulnerable populations. The Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) has proposed to cut payments for outpatient drugs provided in hospitals, positioning it as a move to save taxpayers millions, but at the expense of healthcare providers.

This initiative reflects a trend within the Trump administration to prioritize budget cuts over patient care, a stance that disregards the complexities of healthcare delivery. Hospitals have expressed their concerns that the new policy penalizes facilities that treat higher-acuity patients, particularly in rural or impoverished areas. They argue that this reallocation of funds harms Medicare beneficiaries who may already be facing significant health challenges and require more comprehensive care.

The financial implications of this policy shift are stark. CMS estimates that the proposed site-neutral payment structure could save Medicare $210 million while simultaneously reducing costs for beneficiaries by $70 million. While proponents argue this policy will standardize care costs, critics underscore that it ignores the reality that hospital outpatient departments often cater to a sicker, more disadvantaged patient demographic than independent offices.

This policy proposal follows a trend of avoiding substantive discussions about healthcare reform, with the recent bipartisan attempts in Congress failing to yield results. The pushback from the American Hospital Association highlights the pitfalls of the administration’s approach, which prioritizes cost-cutting measures over the need for equitable healthcare access. As hospitals brace for the fallout, the long-term consequences of such policies could further exacerbate disparities in healthcare access and outcomes.

The ongoing attempts by the Trump administration to regulate healthcare through stringent fiscal policies reveal an alarming trend towards undermining hospitals that serve essential roles in their communities. Ultimately, this undercuts the fundamental principles of healthcare accessibility and equity, pushing the system closer to a crisis where those who are the most in need face increased barriers to vital medical services.

(h/t: https://thehill.com/newsletters/health-care/5405321-trump-administration-takes-shot-at-hospitals/)

Trump Demands Powell’s Resignation Amid Accusations of Misleading Congress

Former President Donald Trump has escalated his ongoing feud with Federal Reserve Chair Jerome Powell, calling for Powell to resign immediately. This call comes on the heels of accusations from Bill Pulte, Director of the Federal Housing Finance Agency (FHFA), who alleges Powell provided misleading testimony to Congress regarding renovations at the Federal Reserve’s headquarters.

In a post on Truth Social, Trump, referring to Powell by the nickname “Too Late,” echoed the sentiments of Pulte, who claimed Powell’s statements during a Senate Banking Committee hearing were deceptive. Pulte specifically criticized Powell for his comments about a $2.5 billion renovation plan, suggesting it was indicative of serious misconduct warranting Powell’s dismissal.

This recent turmoil highlights Trump’s persistent frustration with Powell’s leadership. Since he appointed Powell in 2017, Trump has repeatedly criticized the Fed’s monetary policy decisions, particularly its reluctance to implement aggressive interest rate cuts, which he believes would stimulate the economy.

Trump’s demands for Powell’s resignation reflect broader tensions regarding the independence of the Federal Reserve in managing economic policies free from political influence. Critics argue that Trump’s insistence on controlling the Fed’s actions represents a significant threat to its autonomy, an essential feature for maintaining economic stability.

As Trump’s public animosity towards Powell continues, the implications for U.S. monetary policy and market stability grow increasingly worrisome. Lawmakers, including Representative Jim Jordan of Ohio, have indicated they may pursue an investigation into Powell, further entrenching the political turmoil surrounding this critical economic institution.

Trump’s Illegal Suspension of $6 Billion for Education Disrupts Schools and Hurts Students

The Trump administration is suspending over $6 billion in federal funding designated for crucial education programs as the new school year approaches. This decision, which comes without the normal approval process, reflects the administration’s ongoing attempts to dismantle the Department of Education and disrupt established funding protocols in clear defiance of legal norms.

A memo from the Department of Education indicated that decisions regarding funding for after-school programs, teacher training, and English language assistance have been postponed, creating uncertainty for many schools. Educators and administrators are now left scrambling in a funding landscape marked by severe shortages and pressing needs.

Missy Testerman, the 2024 National Teacher of the Year, lamented the potential impacts of losing these funds, emphasizing that schools already face tight budgets and that withholding authorized funds could lead to budget cuts that directly affect students. This sentiment was echoed by Rep. Bobby Scott, who deemed the halt of these essential funds a violation of federal law, asserting it would negatively impact students, teachers, and educational quality.

State attorneys general and parent advocacy groups plan to challenge the administration’s decision through lawsuits, emphasizing the detrimental effects on low-income and rural school districts. National Education Association President Becky Pringle condemned the decision as a betrayal of public education, warning that it exacerbates the existing teacher shortages and resource gaps.

The White House claims the funding pause is part of a review process, suggesting that many programs allegedly misused funds to advance a radical agenda. This rationale only further demonstrates the administration’s long-term objective to undermine the educational infrastructure that supports millions of students and families across the country.

Trump Installed Fed Officials Parrot His Wishes

Recent statements from Federal Reserve officials reveal troubling alignments with President Donald Trump’s agenda, particularly in advocating for lower interest rates, which contradicts previously cautious stances. Fed Vice Chair for Supervision Michelle Bowman has openly suggested that adjustments to the policy rate may be necessary soon, downplaying the risks associated with Trump’s tariffs and emphasizing the need to maintain a healthy labor market.

This shift signifies a worrying trend where appointees of Trump—who demands unwavering loyalty from his officials—begin to echo his economic policies. Earlier, Fed Governor Christopher Waller also indicated support for rate decreases, focusing on the idea that inflationary impacts from tariffs might be minor. The suggestions from Bowman and Waller clash with the traditional reluctance of the Federal Reserve to alter rates based on political pressure rather than economic fundamentals.

Despite some Fed officials still favoring a cautious approach, sentiments are changing. Chicago Fed President Austan Goolsbee acknowledged the potential for rate cuts if inflation remains stable in light of recent tariff increases. This indicates an unsettling readiness among certain Fed members to prioritize political concerns over the broader economic picture, which is concerning in light of the escalating Israel-Iran conflict and its possible repercussions on global energy prices.

Trump has repeatedly criticized Fed Chair Jerome Powell for failing to comply with his calls for lower rates, labeling him with derogatory terms. This aggressive rhetoric reflects Trump’s broader strategy to undermine independent institutions, revealing an alarming trend where critical economic decisions may be swayed by political allegiance rather than objective analysis.

As political pressures mount and Fed officials appear to be bending to Trump’s demands, the potential for compromised economic integrity grows. Allowing political influence to dictate monetary policy threatens to destabilize not only financial markets but also the broader economy, ultimately serving the interests of wealthy elites while neglecting the working class.

(h/t: https://edition.cnn.com/2025/06/23/economy/fed-july-rate-cut-trump)

Trump Administration’s Plan to Weaken FEMA Threatens Disaster Response for Vulnerable Communities

A recently leaked memo reveals that the Trump administration is actively seeking to dismantle the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA), the vital agency responsible for disaster response. Directed by Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem, the memo outlines plans to limit FEMA’s role, including terminating aid for smaller disasters and cutting essential housing funds for survivors. This approach reflects a disturbing trend within the Republican leadership to undermine critical government functions that protect vulnerable communities.

The memo, dated March 25, elucidates how Trump and Noem have considered options to reduce FEMA’s capabilities significantly, pushing for a ‘re-branded’ and drastically smaller organization. Despite public statements by both Trump and Noem aimed at winding down FEMA, they have provided scant details, raising concerns about their commitment to upholding disaster response services vital for American citizens affected by emergencies.

These proposed cuts to disaster relief come amid rising tensions surrounding disaster preparedness, especially given the looming hurricane season. This suggests a troubling disconnect between Trump’s administration and the need for robust disaster management, risking further suffering for those impacted by natural disasters.

Significantly, only Congress possesses the authority to formally abolish FEMA. However, the fact that high-ranking officials in Trump’s administration are discussing how to strip down the agency indicates a blatant disregard for the established processes and a clear intent to prioritize ideological goals over public safety.

As Trump discourses around eliminating FEMA gain traction, Americans must confront the implications of such actions on the nation’s emergency response capabilities. A reduced FEMA could leave communities without much-needed support during crises, ultimately reinforcing the notion that the Trump administration is more aligned with promoting elite interests than safeguarding the American public.

(h/t: https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2025-06-17/-abolishing-fema-memo-outlines-ways-for-trump-to-scrap-agency)

EPA Drops Case Against GEO Group, Trump Donor’s Favor

The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has recently dropped a legal complaint against the GEO Group, a significant donor to President Donald Trump, over its improper use of a harmful disinfectant in an ICE facility. This complaint had been filed during the Biden administration and accused the GEO Group of misusing a disinfectant called Halt, which is known to cause serious harm, including irreversible eye damage and skin burns. The GEO Group reportedly failed to provide proper protection for its employees while using the substance on over 1,000 occasions in 2022 and 2023.

Despite the serious nature of the allegations, which included using inappropriate gloves that did not provide adequate protection, the EPA’s complaint was abruptly withdrawn. Gary Jonesi, a former EPA attorney, expressed concerns about potential political intervention, suggesting that withdrawing the case may be linked to the GEO Group’s long-standing financial ties to Trump and the Republican Party. The sociopolitical implications of this decision reveal systemic corruption at the heart of the current administration, echoing broader patterns of favoritism toward wealthy donors.

The GEO Group has extensive contracts exceeding $1 billion with the federal government for managing private prisons and detention facilities, which raises questions about the influence of money in politics. The group’s history of forking over millions to Trump’s campaign and other Republican candidates highlights an ongoing quid pro quo environment, where policy decisions may prioritize corporate profits over public health and safety.

Besides the dropped complaint, detainees at the Adelanto facility have also filed separate lawsuits alleging health issues from ongoing chemical exposure, further highlighting the organization’s negligence. Reports indicate that detainees experienced severe symptoms, including nosebleeds and respiratory issues from frequent aerosol exposure to strong disinfectants used in their living areas. These legal challenges underline a troubling safety record that seems to be overlooked by federal authorities following Trump’s election.

Overall, the EPA’s decision to dismiss the lawsuit against the GEO Group illustrates troubling trends in governance, where political maneuvering and financial interests of major donors compromise public safety and integrity of regulatory bodies. This situation emphasizes the urgent need for accountability and reform in the relationship between corporate influence and government oversight.

(h/t: https://www.propublica.org/article/epa-legal-complaint-geo-group-trump?utm_campaign=propublica-sprout&utm_content=1749910162&utm_medium=social&utm_source=facebook&fbclid=IwZXh0bgNhZW0CMTEAAR4KJROw7gS_RAsRS0YwgkS5vGD-45z_DLaVHHXiB5We8kMZW-0FRmrcfP0cbg_aem_UBxfwwcKs3t2OIn3SOFbxw)

1 2 3 … 7