Connect with us

World

Fact check: Did Clinton set the precedent for mass federal worker buyouts?

Published

on

Fact check: Did Clinton set the precedent for mass federal worker buyouts?

As unions and Democrats denounced the Trump administration’s effort to slash the federal workforce through worker buyouts, some social media users have said the president’s actions parallel those of former President Bill Clinton.

“To all you Democrats freaking out over President Trump’s buyout programme, I present to you a piece of history,” LD Basler, a retired federal law enforcement officer, wrote on X. His post quoted a 1995 statement Clinton made a year after he signed the Federal Workforce Restructuring Act.

“I guess Clinton didn’t have the authority either, when he did it in the 90s? (Because) the precedent was set BY DEMOCRATS,” another X user wrote.

Is that true?

Under Clinton, the government offered mass buyouts. But there’s a key difference with what’s happening under President Donald Trump: a bipartisan Congress overwhelmingly approved Clinton’s programme following months of review.

Advertisement

By contrast, Trump’s “deferred resignation” offer, conversationally known as a buyout, emerged within a week of his inauguration, with lots of uncertainty about the terms.

“We spent six months, involved several hundred federal workers, and made hundreds of recommendations to Clinton and Gore, some of which they accepted, some they didn’t,” said David Osborne, an adviser to the Clinton-era review that preceded the buyouts.

The status and legality of Trump’s programme remains unclear. The administration set a midnight February 6 deadline for workers to accept the offer, but a federal judge in Massachusetts blocked that deadline and set a hearing for February 10.

Federal unions sued and wrote that the administration “has offered no statutory basis for its unprecedented offer”. The lawsuit questions whether the federal government will honour the commitment to pay participants through September 30.

The US Office of Personnel Management said 40,000 employees as of February 5 have taken the offer.

Advertisement

Buyouts under Clinton stemmed from a review and act by Congress

A few weeks into his presidency in February 1993, Clinton issued an executive order telling each government department or agency with more than 100 employees to cut at least 4 percent of its civilian positions over three years through attrition or “early out programmes”.

Congress paved the way for buyouts. In March 1994, Clinton signed HR 3345, the Federal Workforce Restructuring Act of 1994. The legislation passed by wide, bipartisan margins: 391-17 in the House and 99-1 in the Senate.

The legislation authorised buyouts of up to $25,000 for selected groups of employees in the executive and judicial branches except employees of the Department of Defense, Central Intelligence Agency or the General Accounting Office (now called the Government Accountability Office). The law set an April 1, 1995, deadline.

Clinton said the plan would enable the “reduction of employment” by 273,000 people by the end of 1999.

Advertisement

“After all the rhetoric about cutting the size and cost of Government, our administration has done the hard work and made the tough choices,” Clinton said in a statement. “I believe the economy will be stronger, and the lives of middle class people will be better, as we drive down the deficit with legislation like this.”

The legislation was an outgrowth of Clinton’s National Performance Review, which launched in March 1993 with the slogan “Make Government Work Better and Cost Less”. Clinton appointed Vice President Al Gore to lead the review and issue a report within six months.

About 250 career civil servants worked on the review and created recommendations with agency employees.

Not everyone agreed with the Clinton-Gore initiative.

“There was opposition,” but union leaders supported reducing the power of middle managers, the target of most of the reductions, and the increased role of unions in bargaining, “so they felt this was an acceptable trade-off”, John M Kamensky, National Performance Review deputy director, told PolitiFact.

Advertisement

Gore visited “federal offices for what are billed as ‘town meetings’ but are more like group therapy sessions that allow workers to air their feelings about their jobs”, The Chicago Tribune wrote in June 1993.

Gore’s September 1993 report made hundreds of recommendations including buyouts. Gore went on David Letterman’s late-night television show to promote the plan.

“So, have you fixed the government?” Letterman asked.

“We found a lot of really ridiculous things that cost way too much money,” Gore said.

Gore brought up government-purchased ashtrays and read the federal regulations about how the ashtrays must break when dropped. Wearing safety goggles, Gore cracked the ashtray with a hammer.

Advertisement

Clinton had a “very deep commitment to change, but it was not hostile”, Paul Light, New York University professor emeritus of public service, said.

Clinton’s effort to reduce the federal workforce stemmed from his campaign platform as a “new Democrat” who said the era of big government was over, said Elaine Kamarck, who helped lead the Clinton-Gore review and is now director of the Brookings Institution’s Centre for Effective Public Management.

“We had a tech revolution going on that did not require as many layers of management as the old days,” Kamarck said.

How the Trump administration wants to cut jobs

The Clinton approach sought to be surgical in determining which employees could be eased out without compromising the government’s overall mission.

Advertisement

The Trump approach, so far, involves buyouts and firings, without a review period or congressional action. On January 28,  the Office of Personnel Management emailed federal employees about the “fork in the road”. (Elon Musk, who heads Trump’s new Department of Government Efficiency, used the same phrase in an all-staff message in 2022 after buying Twitter.)

The email said remote workers must return to work five days a week and offered “deferred resignation”. Employees had until February 6 to resign and be paid through September 30 (until the February 6 court intervention). The email hinted that layoffs were possible.

About two million employees received the offer. The civilian federal workforce is about 2.4 million, setting aside US Postal Service workers, according to the Pew Research Center. The average annual pay is about $106,000.

Some workers were exempt from the offers, including the military, Postal Service employees and workers in immigration enforcement, national security and public safety.

Trump’s programme is more generous than Clinton’s, Rachel Greszler, a senior research fellow at the Heritage Foundation, a conservative think tank, told PolitiFact. Clinton’s $25,000 offer is about $55,000 in today’s dollars. Trump’s plan says it will pay people over about eight months, so factoring in the average federal worker salary, that’s higher.

Advertisement

Democratic attorneys general said the payments may not be guaranteed and urged unionised workers to follow the guidance of their union officials. Democratic senators raised similar concerns about the short window for employees to decide and Trump’s authority to do this.

Trump issued an order to reclassify workers so he can more easily fire them – another subject of lawsuits. An order to end federal diversity, equity and inclusion (DEI) programmes led to workers being placed on paid leave.

A reporter asked White House Press Secretary Karoline Leavitt whether the programme was a way to purge the government of people who disagree with the president.

“That’s absolutely false,” Leavitt said. “This is a suggestion to federal workers that they have to return to work. And if they don’t, then they have the option to resign. And this administration is very generously offering to pay them for eight months.”

Advertisement

World

Inside the Bondi Beach Attack at a Hanukkah Event in Australia: Maps and Videos

Published

on

Inside the Bondi Beach Attack at a Hanukkah Event in Australia: Maps and Videos

Witness accounts and videos verified by The New York Times show how gunmen killed at least 15 people on Sunday at a Jewish celebration at Bondi Beach in Sydney in what the authorities called a terrorist attack.

Two suspects opened fire from a footbridge at hundreds of people who had gathered for a Hanukkah celebration. At one point, after one of the shooters walked down from the bridge, a bystander grabbed the gunman from behind and wrested his gun away before pointing it back at him, according to videos and witness accounts.

Advertisement

Police arrived and opened fire at the gunmen, videos show. One of the shooters was killed, the police said, and the other was wounded and in custody.

When the gunmen arrived, they emerged from a small silver hatchback parked by the footbridge. They fired on people nearby and killed at least two, according to a witness who tried to help the victims.

Advertisement

The gunmen then proceeded to the high ground of the bridge with three long guns, visible in several videos, and fired into the crowd in the park.

After about a minute, one gunman wearing white pants descended from the bridge, videos and witnesses confirmed. He continued shooting as he walked toward the crowd gathered for the Hanukkah celebration, which featured free donuts and music.

Advertisement

The gunman on the bridge wearing black pants kept firing. He waved away beachgoers swearing at him, telling them to go, witnesses said, as he shot at the crowd that had gathered for the holiday festival.

A man who had been sheltering between parked cars is seen in one video rushing toward the gunman with the white pants, who continued to draw nearer to the Hanukkah event. The man wrestled the rifle from him and aimed it at the gunman, who retreated to the bridge.

Advertisement

Shortly afterward, the police began to fire at the gunmen. In videos, they can be seen ducking to avoid incoming fire before the man in white pants appears to be hit, and collapses.

The man in black pants kept firing at the police for another minute, videos show and witnesses confirmed, shooting from both sides of the bridge before he appears to be shot as well.

Advertisement

“He’s down, he’s down,” a witness yelled in a video that captured most of the incident.

In the area where the Hanukkah festivities were held, several victims could be seen in witness video lying on the ground, apparently lifeless. Witnesses described a scene of sadness and sudden triage. Civilians, security guards for the Hanukkah event and lifeguards administered CPR as ambulances carried away those who had been killed and wounded.

Advertisement
Continue Reading

World

US and Ukraine target 1,000-vessel ‘dark fleet’ smuggling sanctioned oil worldwide

Published

on

US and Ukraine target 1,000-vessel ‘dark fleet’ smuggling sanctioned oil worldwide

Join Fox News for access to this content

You have reached your maximum number of articles. Log in or create an account FREE of charge to continue reading.

By entering your email and pushing continue, you are agreeing to Fox News’ Terms of Use and Privacy Policy, which includes our Notice of Financial Incentive.

Please enter a valid email address.

Having trouble? Click here.

NEWYou can now listen to Fox News articles!

A 1,000-strong “dark fleet” of rogue oil tankers skirting sanctions has emerged as a new target for the U.S. and Ukraine, a senior maritime intelligence analyst claims.

Advertisement

Michelle Wiese Bockmann warned the aging fleet poses geopolitical risks and threats of $1 billion oil spills, with the recent U.S. seizures in Venezuela and Ukrainian drone strikes in the Black Sea marking a turning point for both nations in their efforts.

“There are about 1,000 vessels worldwide that are trading sanctioned crude tankers containing sanctioned Iranian, Venezuelan and Russian oil,” Bockmann told Fox News Digital.

“These vessels are a lifeline for these regimes, because they’re used for shipping oil to fund the war in Ukraine, and also give money to the illicit Maduro regime,” she added.

IRAN BACKS MADURO TO KEEP LATIN AMERICA FOOTHOLD AS TRUMP INCREASES PRESSURE ON VENEZUELA

U.S. seized the Skipper, a Venezuelan oil tanker.  ( Planet Labs PBC/Reuters)

Advertisement

“This is a brand-new problem for the U.S., and now Ukraine has signaled they are going to target these vessels the same way,” she said. “There is a new strategy to deal with this dark fleet, which is the lifeline of sanctioned oil revenues, and now under attack by the U.S. and Ukraine. The strategy is all to counter what we call gray-zone aggression.”

US ESCALATION WITH MADURO HALTS DEPORTATION FLIGHTS TO VENEZUELA

White House press secretary Karoline Leavitt was questioned about the U.S. seizing an oil tanker off the coast of Venezuela. (Planet Labs PBC/Handout via Reuters )

Recent Ukrainian naval drone strikes have disabled several tankers in the Black Sea, including the Dashan, part of Russia’s so-called shadow fleet that Ukraine says helps Moscow export oil in defiance of sanctions, according to Reuters.

“It is dangerous and could be interpreted as a form of gray-zone aggression in order to continue to keep oil revenue flowing,” Bockmann said.

Advertisement

“This is all a billion-dollar oil spill catastrophe waiting to happen,” she added, pointing to the environmental and navigational risks posed by poorly maintained, uninsured ships.

VENEZUELA MOBILIZES TROOPS, WEAPONS IN RESPONSE TO US WARSHIP BUILDUP IN CARIBBEAN

Footage of the Dashan tanker, purportedly part of the Russian shadow fleet hit by Ukraine. (Security Service Official/Handout via Reuters)

She said a subset of “about 350 to 400 vessels at any one time are not only sanctioned but falsely flying flags, which is dangerous,” because false registration leaves vessels stateless and uninsured, putting crews at risk.

“This is a huge issue for maritime safety, it’s a menace to the environment, and it entails crew welfare,” Bockmann said.

Advertisement

These vessels, she said, are typically “elderly” and used solely for sanctioned oil trades. Many also “manipulate AIS” to show they are in one place when they are actually elsewhere.

TRUMP SENDS WORLD’S MOST POWERFUL WARSHIP TO LATIN AMERICA — HISTORIC ECHOES OF REGIME CHANGE

Dashan, a tanker from Russia’s shadow fleet, transits the Bosphorus en route to the Black Sea in Istanbul. (Yoruk Isik/Reuters)

“They use false flagging, but also, spoofing and manipulating its AIS to show it’s in one place when it’s not. These vessels have also gone to fraudulent registries that don’t exist, which means they have no insurance,” she said. “Their certificates of seaworthiness are invalid, and they have relied on international maritime conventions to have what’s called the right of innocent passage so they can’t get intercepted.”

Bockmann said U.S. forces have used legal tools including Article 110 of the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea, which allows boarding of stateless vessels, to stop these ships.

Advertisement

“It’s my belief that they used Article 110, and they got on board that vessel, and they were absolutely entitled to remove that vessel from global trade,” she said.

VENEZUELA ACCUSES US OF ‘PIRACY’ AFTER SEIZING MASSIVE OIL TANKER

Attorney General Pam Bondi speaks during a roundtable meeting on Antifa with President Donald Trump in the State Dining Room at the White House, on Wednesday, Oct. 8, 2025, in Washington, D.C. (Evan Vucci/AP)

In the Caribbean, U.S. forces recently seized the tanker Skipper, sanctioned in 2022 and found to be masking its location, under a federal warrant as part of a broader campaign to disrupt illicit oil shipping.

“The recent Venezuelan tanker was carrying 1.8 million barrels of oil uninsured, so that’s a billion-dollar maritime disaster waiting to happen,” Bockmann said.

Advertisement

As reported by Fox News Digital, Dec. 12 saw Attorney General Pam Bondi frame the U.S. seizure of a Venezuelan crude tanker as a sanctions-enforcement action rooted in a federal court warrant.

Meanwhile, in the Black Sea, Ukraine targeted multiple alleged “shadow fleet” tankers with sea drones, according to Reuters.

CLICK HERE TO DOWNLOAD THE FOX NEWS APP

“The three tankers that have been targeted by Ukraine are all in ballast, which means that they weren’t carrying oil,” Bockmann said.

“That was carefully chosen, and they were also falsely flagged, just like in the recent case of the three tankers attacked in Ukraine. That flag was Gambia. In the U.S. case of Skipper, the flag was Guyana,” Bockmann said.

Advertisement

Fox News Digital’s Morgan Phillips contributed to this report.

Continue Reading

World

Analysis: Trump’s policies set to widen EU-US innovation gap

Published

on

Analysis: Trump’s policies set to widen EU-US innovation gap

As the curtain falls on 2025, policymakers in Brussels have yet to decisively counter the negative economic impacts of two major developments: the trade deal struck between the European Union and the United States this summer, and President Trump’s so-called “Big Beautiful Bill”, a mammoth piece of domestic legislation with global economic implications.

The EU’s slow progress toward improving relative business conditions at such a volatile moment has left investors frustrated and looking elsewhere.

According to a report published this week by the European Round Table for Industry, the leaders of the bloc’s industrial giants are “alarmed at the lack of urgency in delivering on Draghi and Letta’s bold reforms to restore the business case for investing in Europe.”

The report also points to a survey of CEOs conducted in October, which shows that only 55% expect to stick to their investment plans. Even worse, a mere 8% intend to invest more in Europe than they planned to six months prior, in contrast with the 38% who will either invest less than previously intended or have put decisions on hold.

And most tellingly, the US now attracts more investment than originally planned by 45% of respondents.

Advertisement

The ‘carrot-and-stick’ approach

The Trump administration’s combination of supply-side economics and protectionism has converted the necessity of avoiding US tariffs into a massive financial incentive for foreign companies and multinationals to invest in the United States directly.

The Big Beautiful Bill, which Trump signed into law in July, formalised huge tax breaks and effectively guaranteed incentives to shift investments across the Atlantic. Namely, the 100% bonus depreciation for new machinery and factories, as well as the 100% immediate expensing of domestic research and development (R&D) costs, mitigating the expenses of moving production and innovation to the US.

Companies have until 1 January 2026 to finalize their decisions and collect retroactive benefits for capital deployed in 2025, but the conditions will remain the same next year.

To compound the EU’s growing inability to compete, the heavily criticised EU-US trade deal was agreed in the same month. The agreement de-escalated the transatlantic trade war of 2025 but it levied a 15% tariff on the vast majority of the EU’s industrial exports to the US, with an exemption from duties for most US-made goods bound for the EU market.

In addition, the EU committed to spending over €640 billion in US energy, investing more than €500 billion in the US economy and buying around €35 billion worth of US-made AI chips, until the end of President Trump’s mandate. Meanwhile, the United States made no similar pledges.

Advertisement

As for corporations, the choice became simple: relocate investment to the US, avoid the tariff and claim massive tax deductions.

The innovation gap in numbers

The R&D siphon is the most critical threat to Europe’s future competitiveness, as the Trump administration’s new incentives pull core innovation to the US.

In the most innovative industries, such as the AI and healthcare sectors, the numbers for 2025 already demonstrate the chasm between the EU and the US.

In the first three quarters of this year, private investment flowing into US AI companies exceeded €100 billion, with the US capturing over 80% of global AI funding. In contrast, the entire EU attracted just shy of €7 billion, according to the widely read State of AI Report 2025.

This severe 15-to-1 funding deficit means the technological future is being built and scaled primarily outside the EU, something that has been recognised by the European Parliament.

Advertisement

Likewise, the EU is aiming to achieve 20% market share in semiconductor manufacturing by 2030, as outlined in the Chips Act, but experts say such a goal is unlikely given that Europe is among the slowest growers in the sector year-on-year.

Furthermore, the EU is even falling behind on AI adoption among young users, according to a new survey by the Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development.

As for the pharmaceutical industry, CEOs sent a stark warning to President von der Leyen back in April that “unless Europe delivers rapid, radical policy change then pharmaceutical research, development and manufacturing is increasingly likely to be directed towards the US.”

In the following weeks, fuelled by the fear of the ongoing transatlantic trade war at the time and frustration with the European regulatory scene, the third largest company in Europe by market capitalization, the Swiss-based Roche, committed over €40 billion in US investment over the next five years. Likewise, the French multinational Sanofi announced an investment of €17 billion to expand manufacturing in the US through 2030.

In July, as the Big Beautiful Bill and the EU-US trade deal were being agreed, the British-Swedish company AstraZeneca also declared investing over €40 billion in the US over the next five years, including the construction of a chronic disease research centre in the state of Virginia, the company’s largest single investment in a facility to date.

Advertisement

In November, the White House announced a large-scale agreement between two pharmaceutical rivals, the American manufacturer Eli Lilly, and the Danish corporation Novo Nordisk, known for pioneering the prescription drug for type 2 diabetes, Ozempic, which has also been widely used off-label for weight loss.

The two companies agreed a strategy to reduce the prices of several medications for Americans and announced new investments in the US, with Novo Nordisk committing roughly €8.5 billion to expand US manufacturing capacity. In exchange, the Danish company is expected to receive a three-year exemption from US tariffs, among other benefits.

In total, the European pharmaceutical industry has pledged more than €100 billion for US expansion in 2025 alone with multi-year commitments.

The scramble to deregulate

The pressure applied by the US is evident as this year has seen the European Commission pivot to an aggressive deregulation agenda.

In response to a request from the European Council, six simplification proposals, referred to as “omnibuses”, have been presented since February covering energy, finance, agriculture, technology, defence and chemicals.

Advertisement

Notably, the so-called Digital Omnibus was introduced in November, and it includes delays to provisions of the AI Act and modifications to the GDPR.

These initiatives aim to rapidly cut red tape and reduce bureaucratic costs for European businesses in an attempt to stem the outflow of talent and capital. However, the proposed measures are still facing legislative scrutiny, as well as administrative oversight and political backlash from privacy and climate advocates, among others.

It was only this week that an agreement was finally reached on the first omnibus, another sign that the EU is still far from offering the immediate financial certainty of minimising or avoiding US tariffs while benefiting from President Trump’s policies where possible.

The numbers reveal the plain economic truth: while the EU debates the fine print of deregulation, the investment in innovation is already being decisively relocated.

Advertisement
Continue Reading

Trending