US politics

Subterms

    More stories

    • 125 Shares140 Views

      in US Politics

      Apple shareholders vote against ending DEI program amid Trump crackdown

      by

      Apple shareholders voted down an attempt to pressure the technology company into yielding to Donald Trump’s push to scrub corporate programs designed to diversify its workforce.A proposal drafted by the National Center for Public Policy Research – a self-described conservative thinktank – urged Apple to follow a litany of high-profile companies that have retreated from diversity, equity and inclusion (DEI) initiatives currently in the Trump administration’s crosshairs.After a brief presentation about the anti-DEI proposal, Apple announced shareholders had rejected it without disclosing the vote tally. The preliminary results will be outlined in a regulatory filing later on Tuesday.The outcome vindicated Apple management’s decision to stand behind its diversity commitment even though Trump asked the US Department of Justice to look into whether these types of programs have discriminated against employees whose race or gender are not aligned with the initiatives’ goals.But Apple’s CEO, Tim Cook, has maintained a cordial relationship with Trump since his first term in office, an alliance that so far has helped the company skirt tariffs on its iPhones made in China. After Cook and Trump met last week, Apple on Monday announced it would invest $500bn in the US and create 20,000 more jobs during the next five years – a commitment applauded by the president.Tuesday’s shareholder vote came a month after the same group presented a similar proposal during Costco’s annual meeting, only to have it overwhelmingly rejected.That snub did not discourage the National Center for Public Policy Research from confronting Apple about its DEI program in a pre-recorded presentation by Stefan Padfield, executive director of the thinktank’s Free Enterprise Project, who asserted “forced diversity is bad for business”.In the presentation, Padfield attacked Apple’s diversity commitments for being out of line with recent court rulings and said the programs expose the Cupertino, California, company to an onslaught of potential lawsuits for alleged discrimination. He cited the Trump administration as one of Apple’s potential legal adversaries.“The vibe shift is clear: DEI is out and merit is in,” Padfield said in the presentation.The specter of potential legal trouble was magnified last week when the Florida attorney general, James Uthmeier, filed a federal lawsuit against Target for allegedly failing to properly disclose the financial risks of its DEI programs to stakeholders.skip past newsletter promotionafter newsletter promotionBut Cook conceded Apple may have to make some adjustments to its diversity program “as the legal landscape changes” while still striving to maintain a culture that has helped elevate the company to its current market value of $3.7tn – greater than any other business in the world.“We will continue to create a culture of belonging,” Cook told shareholders during the meeting.In its last diversity and inclusion report issued in 2022, Apple disclosed that nearly three-fourths of its global workforce consisted of white and Asian employees. Nearly two-thirds of its employees were men.Other major technology companies for years have reported employing mostly white and Asian men, especially in high-paid engineering jobs – a tendency that spurred the industry to pursue largely unsuccessful efforts to diversify. More

    • 150 Shares140 Views

      in US Politics

      House Republicans to vote on spending deal that could slash Medicaid funding

      by

      House Republicans are planning to vote on Tuesday on a spending blueprint central to Donald Trump’s agenda, but the package faces potential derailment over nearly $1tn in Medicaid cuts that could fracture their slim majority.The fiscal year 2025 proposal includes approximately $4.5tn in tax cuts alongside increased spending for defense and border security. To offset these costs, the plan tasks congressional committees with finding about $2tn in spending reductions over the next decade.But some lawmakers are warning that the budget could include an estimated $800bn in potential cuts from Medicaid, a federal program providing healthcare coverage to more than 72 million Americans. Though the resolution doesn’t explicitly target Medicaid, skeptical lawmakers warn there are few alternatives to achieve the $880bn in cuts assigned to the energy and commerce committee.If the budget measure doesn’t pass by the 14 March deadline, the government faces a shutdown – and Democrats are committed to not voting it through.“Let me be clear, House Democrats will not provide a single vote to this reckless Republican budget,” said the House minority leader, Hakeem Jeffries, from the steps of the US Capitol on Tuesday surrounded by Democratic lawmakers and advocates protesting the vote. “Not one, not one, not one.”With Democrats united in opposition, House speaker Mike Johnson’s slim Republican majority cannot afford more than one defection. Several moderate Republicans from vulnerable districts have expressed concerns, particularly those with constituents heavily reliant on Medicaid.Eight House Republicans, including the California representative David Valadao and the New York representative Nicole Malliotakis, warned in a letter to Johnson last week that “slashing Medicaid would have serious consequences, particularly in rural and predominantly Hispanic communities”.The Nebraska Republican Don Bacon, representing a district that backed Kamala Harris as the Democratic presidential candidate in November, has demanded leadership to prove the proposal “won’t overly cut Medicaid”.Opposition to the House budget resolution has been steadily building over the last few weeks. During last week’s recess, constituent anger over Republicans’ proposed cuts to Medicaid and other social safety net programs as well as Elon Musk’s efforts to dismantle the federal government boiled over at town halls and congressional offices across the country.At an earlier Capitol Hill rally on Tuesday, Senator Chris Murphy assailed the Republican budget bill as the “most massive transfer of wealth and resources from poor people and the middle class to the billionaires and corporations in the history of this country”.skip past newsletter promotionafter newsletter promotionHe continued: “You’re talking about $880bn of cuts to Medicaid … That means that sick kids die in this country. That means that hospitals in depressed communities and rural communities close their doors, right? That means that drug and addiction treatment centers disappear all across this country.”The vote comes after the Senate passed its own budget bill last week – a less contentious one that Trump does not support as much as the House’s. House leadership must now navigate competing demands within their caucus: some members want deeper tax cuts while others seek steeper spending reductions or protection for social programs.“There may be more than one [defector], but we’ll get there,” Johnson said on Monday. “We’re going to get everybody there. This is a prayer request. Just pray this through for us because it is very high stakes, and everybody knows that.” More

    • 225 Shares82 Views

      in US Politics

      The Guardian view on Starmer’s aid cuts: they won’t buy security, but they will undermine it | Editorial

      by

      Politics is about choices. Some are forced on governments by circumstance. Others are self‑imposed. Labour’s decision to cut the aid budget to “pay” for increased defence spending is firmly in the latter category. It is also wrong – forcing the world’s poor to pay for Britain’s safety. This is a false economy. Cutting aid will make the world more unstable, not less. The very crises that fuel conflict – poverty, failed states, climate disasters and mass displacement – will only worsen with less development funding. Labour’s logic is self‑defeating: diverting money from aid to defence does not buy security; it undermines it.The numbers tell the story. Despite government attempts to inflate the amounts involved, the extra £5bn‑£6bn for defence is tiny relative to Britain’s GDP. The UK could easily absorb this through borrowing – especially in a global financial system where sterling is heavily traded – or, if the government prefers, through a modest wealth tax. Yet Sir Keir Starmer has chosen to frame this as a zero-sum game, where aid must give way to security. Why? Because this is not about economic necessity – it’s about political positioning. Labour wants to prove that it can be fiscally disciplined even when the numbers don’t demand it. It wants to neutralise Tory attacks, even when the real battle is over priorities, not affordability.It is also a move that aligns with Donald Trump’s worldview. The US president wants to close down the US government’s main overseas aid agency, treating it as an expensive indulgence rather than a pillar of foreign policy. Sir Keir is set to go to Washington this week. A UK prime minister that echoes Mr Trump’s “America first” instincts on defence and aid may find the meeting more congenial. If so, Sir Keir may be taking the idea that “the meek shall inherit the earth” a little too literally.Labour doesn’t just believe in fiscal discipline, it believes that it must believe in fiscal discipline and it constructs a justification for that belief. The problem is this: by accepting Conservative trade‑offs, Labour locks itself into an orthodoxy that it may later need to break. In a volatile world, Britain – outside the EU – must boost high-value exports and cut reliance on fragile supply chains. Even under Joe Biden, the UK was kept out of the US-EU Trade and Technology Council, which strengthened transatlantic industrial policy. Yet when does Downing Street admit Britain’s real limit is productive capacity – not budget deficits?Britain’s fiscal constraint is artificial, but its resource constraints are real. Energy, food and manufacturing are matters of national security, not just market functions. Without investment, dependence on key imports makes Britain vulnerable to supply-chain shocks and price inflation. That should make the announcements by Labour’s Ed Miliband and Steve Reed matter. If every pound spent requires a cut elsewhere, neither would have had much to say.Sir Keir often presents himself as a pragmatist rather than an ideologue – claiming to be adapting to circumstances rather than adhering to dogma. But such pragmatism is itself a belief system, one that treats capitalism’s rules as unchangeable, markets as beyond politics, and history as a one‑way street where past mistakes justify permanent, crippling caution. In doing so, he isn’t just rejecting alternatives – he’s rewriting history to suggest they were never an option to begin with.Do you have an opinion on the issues raised in this article? If you would like to submit a response of up to 300 words by email to be considered for publication in our letters section, please click here. More

    • 213 Shares82 Views

      in US Politics

      The Guardian view on Trump’s realignment: the geopolitical plates are moving. Brace for further shocks | Editorial

      by

      The rumblings prompted by Donald Trump’s re-election soon gathered force. First came tariffs and threats of territorial annexation; then the greater shocks of JD Vance’s Valentine’s Day massacre of European values and Mr Trump’s enthusiastic amplification of Kremlin lines on Ukraine.On Monday came another seismic moment. For more than a decade, the UN security council has been largely paralysed by the split between the five permanent members – Russia and China on one side; the US, France and Britain on the other. This time, when the US brought a resolution calling for an end to the war in Ukraine on the third anniversary of Russia’s invasion, it did not criticise Moscow, demand its withdrawal or back Ukraine’s sovereignty and territorial integrity. The result was that China and Russia backed the resolution – while the UK and France, having failed to temper it, abstained.Earlier, even Beijing had chosen to abstain rather than reject a UN general assembly resolution condemning Moscow as the aggressor in Ukraine. It was passed overwhelmingly, with the backing of 93 states. Yet the US joined Russia in voting against it – along with Belarus, North Korea, Syria and a handful of others. “These are not our friends,” the Republican senator John Curtis wrote on X.The post-1945 order is beyond repair while Mr Trump occupies the White House. Emmanuel Macron’s charm and deftness papered over the problems somewhat when he became the first European leader to meet the US president since his re-election. (Sir Keir Starmer, not noted for his nimbleness or charisma, is likely to find the task somewhat harder this week.) The French president was adroit in flattering Mr Trump even as he told the truth. But it is not surprising that he failed to make any real progress in closing the gap. These are not cracks in the transatlantic relationship, but a chasm.A committed Atlanticist such as Friedrich Merz, on course to shortly become the German chancellor, is compelled to urge independence from the US because “the Americans, at any case the Americans in this administration, do not care much about the fate of Europe”. He warned that European leaders might not be able to talk about Nato in its current form by June. The problem is not only what Mr Trump may do but what he may not. Nato is built on the conviction that countries will stand by the commitments they make. That confidence cannot exist while Mr Trump is president.When Sir Keir told MPs on Tuesday that “Here we are, in a world where everything has changed”, he was commenting on Russian aggression, but everyone understood the real shift underlying his remarks. To note, as he did, that the US-British alliance has survived countless external challenges was not quite a vote of confidence. It tacitly acknowledged that the threat this time is internal.The ground is rocking beneath Europe’s feet. It must brace itself for further shocks. In place of the post-second world war order, Mr Trump envisages a world where alliances are no more than empty words and great powers bluff and bully their way through. Bilateral meetings have their purpose – they may offer minimal respite and buy a little time – but it will require common will to defend the interests of European states. The Polish prime minister, Donald Tusk, suggested that European leaders would be meeting in London at the weekend to discuss security. Their best hope of standing firm is by standing together.Do you have an opinion on the issues raised in this article? If you would like to submit a response of up to 300 words by email to be considered for publication in our letters section, please click here. More

    • 263 Shares131 Views

      in US Politics

      Trump pits immigrants against other working people. But we have a common enemy | Alejandra Gomez and Greisa Martínez Rosas

      by

      Over the last few years, we have witnessed some leaders of the Democratic party retreat from delivering bold policies that would address people’s struggles and aspirations, from a pathway to citizenship for all to a higher federal minimum wage, in favor of Republican-light talking points about the border and those seeking asylum – which only eroded trust with the American people.Right now, 60% of the country is living paycheck to paycheck. Families are drowning in debt, whether it be from trying to pay for unaffordable childcare, exorbitant student loans, costly medical bills or months of missed rent payments. Homelessness has skyrocketed. Millions are struggling to survive another day and are penny-pinching to be able to afford rent and groceries, while billions of our taxpayer dollars are being spent on turbocharging mass abductions of our neighbors through raids and deportations, all in service of filling detention centers that make the CEOs of companies like GeoGroup and CoreCivic richer by the minute.Barely a month into the Trump administration and already we have seen senators from both parties support the Laken Riley Act, a highly exploitative, anti-immigrant bill that Trump signed into law, opening the floodgates to his mass detention and deportation agenda. As we speak, Congress is pushing forward a massive budget resolution that would gut billions in funding for vital resources such as education, healthcare and food assistance programs like Snap, while pouring $350bn towards targeting immigrants.As immigrants and as organizers, our obligation at this moment is to radically shift the public’s consciousness in such a way that centers our interdependence as working people – immigrants and non-immigrants alike. We must wield our collective power against our common enemy and recognize that we have never been in competition with one another, despite what corporations, billionaires and some elected officials would like us to believe. Rather, our fights are the same.Progressive young leaders and organizations like ours are working to bring together a vast multiracial coalition of workers across the country who recognize immigrants cannot be left behind. Trump’s crusade is an opportunity we cannot miss to come together stronger than ever before. We have a shared enemy in the billionaire forces who have bought their way into our government and Trump’s good graces and whose interests elected officials on both sides of the aisle protect over ours.It’s time to get real about the fact that the wealthiest 1% in this country has kicked their feet up and watched the vast majority of people suffer and fight over breadcrumbs. They have planted and watered hateful seeds of division and individualism to sell communities the lie that we should only look out for ourselves and that our neighbors, especially immigrants, are not our comrades.Take, for instance, the myth that Trump and rightwing billionaires have sown that American workers are losing at the expense of undocumented workers. The issue is not a lack of jobs in this country or that undocumented people came to the US in search of an overall better life. Past crackdowns on immigrants are proof that this has never resulted in more jobs for US-born workers; it hasn’t made life better or easier. In fact, it’s made life more expensive for everyone.Agriculture, for example, is an industry in which about 70% of crop workers were born outside the United States and at least 40% are undocumented. Mass deportations would assuredly result in supply chain breakdowns and soaring food prices. But rich corporations benefit from letting animosity brew between working-class communities; they benefit from keeping immigrant workers and US-born workers in contention with one another. If they can continue to exploit millions of undocumented people who are desperate to survive, they will also be able to underpay their US-born workers who are demanding higher wages by simply showing that there are desperate people willing to work for less. At the end of the day, executives have chosen to make a buck at the expense of all their workers, undocumented and otherwise.The real solution is to level the playing field for all workers and families in the US and to grow our collective labor power. Undocumented workers don’t want to be exploited. They have shared dreams with US-born workers: to make a dignified living, provide for their families, and improve their quality of life. A high minimum wage for all workers, in conjunction with a pathway to citizenship, ensures that companies cannot massively underpay and exploit undocumented people and cut jobs and wages to natural-born citizens at the same time.As organizations led by Black, brown, immigrant young people, our commitment is to represent our members and build political power to counter that of Super Pacs and billionaire donors. To advance this work requires deeper community organizing and relationship building to bridge the trust gap between American workers, everyday people and undocumented communities. Together, we must build a shared understanding that we need each other. Immigrants have always been key to breakthroughs in climate justice, housing justice, labor power, LGBTQ+ justice and so much more.The only way forward is for masses of everyday people across race, age, gender and geography to rise up together in a shared fight; whether we are fighting for a pathway to citizenship, higher wages or affordable housing, we cannot win any of these on our own.This vision – our movement’s vision – is not just for immigrants. It is for everyone.

      Alejandra Gomez is executive director of Living United for Change in Arizona (Lucha). Greisa Martínez Rosas is executive director of United We Dream Action. More

    • 313 Shares107 Views

      in US Politics

      Is a Trump backlash on its way? Well, eggs are as expensive as ever – and you can’t eat the culture wars | Arwa Mahdawi

      by

      Each new morn, new widows howl, new orphans cry and Donald Trump passes a wild executive order. To liberally paraphrase Macbeth, every day seems to bring some new reason to scream into the void. The good news, however, is that even diehard Trumpers seem to be getting sick of all the chaos. A month into Trump’s second act, there are signs that the honeymoon is over and a backlash may be brewing. For certain Republican voters, regret may be setting in.First, the polling. A Harvard CAPS/Harris survey published on Monday gave Trump a 52% approval rating. Meanwhile, three national polls show a decline in support for the president, with most Americans saying he hasn’t done enough to lower prices and has overstepped his presidential powers. A CNN poll published on Thursday found that 47% of Americans approve of Trump’s performance while 52% disapprove – and the numbers are trending downwards.There are also signs of growing disillusionment at town halls across the country. Various outlets have reported recently that Republicans holding community events are facing hostile crowds, angry about the mass firing of government workers that Elon Musk’s Department of Government Efficiency is carrying out. Disgruntled voters are also venting online: social media is full of viral posts from Trumpers who have been caught in Musk’s bloodbath or whose family members have been fired. These posts haven’t garnered much sympathy, I should add. Rather, there have been a lot of references to the Leopards Eating People’s Faces party meme.Is Trump in trouble? Judging by the number of headlines centred on the president’s problems – along with the plummeting popularity rates of his mate Musk – a lot of people sure hope so. Some Democrats are already rubbing their hands together in glee and prophesying that the Trump ship is about to go down. On Sunday, for example, the Democratic strategist James Carville, who helped Bill Clinton win in 1992, told Mediaite that he reckons the Trump White House will suffer a “massive collapse” in “less than 30 days”.While this is certainly a tantalising prospect – and one that has had a lot of airtime on liberal cable news – I wouldn’t get too excited. These days, being a “Democratic strategist” tends to mean that everything you say will immediately be proved dramatically wrong. In fact, it’s probably best not to get too excited by any of the chatter around the Trump slump. As we all know, the 78-year-old president is the ultimate comeback kid. A few middling poll numbers and angry town halls are nothing for a guy who has shrugged off being found liable for sexual abuse and who was charged with 88 felony counts across four criminal cases.Trump is certainly taking all this bad press in his stride – by which I mean he has been busy posting on social media that he is the best president the world has ever seen and everyone loves him. On Friday, Trump wrote on Truth Social that he has “the best polling numbers I’ve ever had”. He added: “The Democrats, run by broken down losers like James Carville, whose [sic] weak of mind and body, are going crazy, and just don’t know what to do. They have lost their confidence and spirit – They have lost their minds!”Trump isn’t entirely wrong. Along with many other people, I am losing my mind – at the constant stream of inanity, cruelty and straight-up illegal nonsense coming out of Washington. One of the latest examples is Trump referring to himself as a “king” and boasting that he might stay in the Oval Office after his second term ends in 2028. There is a reason so many people are hyping up reports that Trump is losing popularity: I think it’s what the extremely online call “copium” and what others call “desperately clutching at straws”.Still, here is a straw for us all to clutch: while Trump may have an uncanny ability to bounce back from scandals and bad press, he is not a king and he is certainly not a god. He is still a mere mortal – and he is digging himself into a hole out of which even he may not be able to clamber. Consumer sentiment has slumped while prices continue to rise. Trump campaigned relentlessly on the cost of living and made a big (and unrealistic) promise to bring down food prices on day one of his term. Now, it’s clear he has no realistic plan to lower the cost of groceries; eventually, even his most devoted followers are going to figure out that you can’t eat the culture wars. To riff on Macbeth again: all the perfumes of Arabia will not sweeten the astronomical price of eggs. More

    • 225 Shares82 Views

      in US Politics

      ‘We’re being treated as grifters or terrorists’: US federal workers on the fear and chaos of their firings

      by

      The Trump administration has fired at least 20,000 government employees in its first month, as Elon Musk’s so-called “department of government efficiency” (Doge) dramatically overhauls work at federal agencies. Some economists have speculated that these terminations, which could affect nearly 300,000 workers, will be the biggest job cuts in US history.Most of the workers cut were in probationary periods and lacked job protections that come with longer terms of employment. In social media spaces, especially the r/fednews subreddit, these workers described scenes of confusion and feelings of anger directed at Musk, an unelected billionaire dubbed a “special government employee” by the White House. Last week, unions for federal workers sued the Trump administration for unlawfully using probationary periods to cut staff.The mass firings appear far from over: this weekend, Musk demanded that all remaining workers detail their day-to-day duties in bullet points or face dismissal. (Several federal agencies told their employees not to respond to Musk’s email, and unions and advocacy groups moved to prevent retaliation against employees who did not comply.)Three recently terminated probationary workers told the Guardian about the effects on their lives and job prospects, and how the consequences will “trickle down” to all Americans. They requested anonymity due to fears of retaliation and the fact that they are currently looking for new jobs.‘Do I need to think about becoming a political refugee?’Scientist who works on food sustainability issues in the north-east USI was the third person hired in our unit, almost three years ago, to look at issues of access and fairness when it comes to food. Our probationary period for government scientists is three years. I was 10 weeks away from the end of this period; one of my colleagues who was also fired was only six weeks out.I went on maternity leave in August. When Trump was elected, I knew it would mess with my job. Specifically, I thought it would mess with telework, which I did half the time after I returned from maternity leave. I was concerned that I wouldn’t be able to have the time to breastfeed my baby at home or to manage the postpartum separation anxiety I’ve experienced. I decided to take a deferred resignation, because then I’d get severance.Six days after my resignation, when I was into the off-boarding process, my boss told me I was going to get a termination letter. It was a huge, emotional process to resign – I feel like I was basically bullied by Trump into doing so – but at least it was my decision to make. Now, I was getting fired. It’s been an insane rollercoaster of emotions.Government workers are real people with families who dedicated their lives and expertise to service. It feels like we’re being treated as grifters or terrorists, when we’re not. A lot of us have given up options for much higher incomes in order to do the work that we thought was going to help the world. This is a huge, huge loss for science, because now government researchers are going to shift into the private sector. There’s a lot of good work that the world won’t even know to miss, because we won’t get to do it.Now I’m wondering, do I need to think about becoming a political refugee? I have a big network in Europe and Canada, though I’d like to stay in the US. It’s hard these days to know what’s catastrophizing and what’s good planning. I think people are really hesitant to go to the worst-case scenario, but we know from history that things can get really bad. Some people see it coming, and some people don’t.It’s also been really, really disappointing and enraging for me to see the lack of effective resistance to Trump and Musk from Congress. There’s a lot of talk on the left about how this is all bad, but nothing’s really getting done. I understand the numbers, the majorities and minorities, but I just think this is not the time to be playing nice with the fascists.‘I’m exploring legal options’Cultural resource specialist for the National Resources Conservation Services (NRCS), an agency of the US Department of Agriculture, in North DakotaI’m an archaeologist. Anytime the NRCS wants to provide support to private landowners such as ranchers or famers, they are legally required to have someone like me to do on-the-ground surveys and excavations of the site.I started on 30 December. I was let go on 13 February. I’d moved from California to North Dakota, and believe it or not I was given relocation expenses to help pay for my move. I came here with my wife and two dogs, and we spent a good amount of money to do so. I sold my Camry and bought a Subaru because I thought I needed a car that could handle the snow up here; now I have a new SUV and a car payment.They told me that if I didn’t work for the federal government for more than a year, I’d have to pay back those expenses. I don’t know if they’re going to come after me for that now.View image in fullscreenIt would be one thing if they’d sent me a personalized letter saying something like: “Your position is being cut.” Instead, I got this generic form letter that still said “template” in the document title. It told me I was being fired for performance-based reasons, but my boss and I were like, I haven’t even worked here long enough to get a performance review. How can they say that?I guess there’s camaraderie among the people who got cut, but more than that everyone just talks about how stupid it is. Are they really making the government more efficient if they’re getting rid of all these people who do things that are required by law? I get the impression that Musk’s treating this like he would a private company such as Twitter, where he fired a lot of people. He’s acting like a CEO, but it’s not his company. It’s the federal government.I’m exploring legal options with employment lawyers, who indicated I’ll have to go through a bigger class-action type thing. There are a couple of class-action lawsuits going around that I’ve submitted my information to. I’m also applying to jobs, and I have a couple of interviews set up. One is for a job that’s in this area, another is out of state. If something good comes up, I would take it and move. That wouldn’t be too hard – I’ve been here for such a short time that I haven’t even unpacked everything yet.‘I didn’t go into this because I wanted to make six figures’Educator at a national forest in OregonI’ve worked for the forest in one way or another since 2019, first as an intern and then in a seasonal position. I got my permanent position in July of last year. During Trump’s first week, they asked for a list of names of everyone who had been hired in the last year. That put me on edge.One day, I saw a bunch of people at the USDA posting on the subreddit for federal employees about getting fired. I was going to text my supervisor to ask: “Am I getting fired?” and then she called me to say that she didn’t have any details but it was probably going to happen. The next day, Valentine’s Day, she called with her definitive list. That was a Friday. It was not a good weekend.It’s overwhelming to know that all the work I put in during the past five years is completely wasted. I have a two-year-old, and my husband and I wanted to have another, but now we don’t know about that. Working in the natural resources field, I don’t know what positions are going to be available, and I’m not sure where my career will go. Do I just give up and go into accounting or something? It’s so uncertain.I feel like we’re being attacked. There have always been people who are anti-government, but now I feel like people see all government employees as villains. I really cared about the work I did, and I didn’t go into this because I wanted to make six figures. The forest or park services have always been very bipartisan, and it’s not something you can easily throw away.We do a lot of school field trips – those won’t happen any more without us. Kids, especially those who come from poorer communities, won’t have the opportunity to come out here and see the natural world. The forest is going to be in disarray, the bathrooms won’t be cleaned, anyone who comes here will have a terrible experience. Without people maintaining the forest, the wildlife will have a worse habitat. All of these things trickle down. The people who fired us are higher-ups who don’t work in the field; everyone who knows the day-to-day of how to take care of this place is gone. More