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

IDF eliminates terrorist in ‘another ceasefire violation’ in Gaza

Published

on

IDF eliminates terrorist in ‘another ceasefire violation’ in Gaza

NEWYou can now listen to Fox News articles!

The Israel Defense Forces (IDF) announced Tuesday that it had thwarted “another ceasefire violation” in the Gaza Strip after a “terrorist” crossed the “yellow line” that separates control of the territory.

The incident is the second of its kind to have been reported over the last two days. The ceasefire between Israel and Hamas went into effect on Oct. 10.

“IDF troops eliminated a terrorist who was identified crossing the yellow line and approaching IDF troops in southern Gaza, which posed an immediate threat to them,” the Israeli military wrote on X on Tuesday.

“The IDF must remain deployed, in accordance with the ceasefire agreement, to continue to operate to remove any immediate threat to the State of Israel,” it added.

Advertisement

ISRAEL DEFENSE FORCES ANNOUNCES RESUMPTION OF CEASEFIRE FOLLOWING STRIKES

Israeli soldiers are seen near tanks at the border with the Gaza Strip on Oct. 29, 2025, in southern Israel. (Amir Levy/Getty Images)

On Monday, the IDF said, “Two terrorists were identified crossing the yellow line and approaching IDF troops in southern Gaza, posing an immediate threat to them.”

“Following the identification, the IDF struck and eliminated the terrorists in order to remove the threat,” it continued.

In a statement to Fox News Digital on Tuesday, Israel’s Ambassador to the U.N. Danny Danon said, “Israel has always been committed to the terms of the ceasefire agreement and has been equally ready to enforce the ceasefire when Hamas repeatedly violates those terms.”

Advertisement

“The terrorist organization was forced to accept this agreement following the IDF’s significant military achievements and the tremendous diplomatic efforts by President Trump and Prime Minister Netanyahu — and Israel will do whatever is necessary to bring the remaining hostages home and prevent Hamas from re-arming,” he added.

TWO IDF SOLDIERS KILLED AMID ‘SEVERE’ CEASEFIRE VIOLATION, ‘IT’S NOT THE LAST,’ ANALYST SAYS

An Israeli soldier takes position at an army post during an army-organized tour for journalists in the Shijaiya neighborhood of Gaza City, on Nov. 5, 2025.  (Ohad Zwigenberg/AP)

Brig. Gen. (res.) Amir Avivi, founder and chairman of IDSF (Israel’s Defense and Security Forum), previously told Fox News Digital that Israeli forces had controlled nearly 80% of the Gaza Strip before their pullback to the designated “yellow line” — a position, he said, that helped compel Hamas to agree to the ceasefire.

“The withdrawal enables Israel to maintain control over 53% of the Gaza Strip, including the Philadelphi Corridor, most of Rafah, half of Khan Younis, and sections of northern Gaza,” Avivi said. “Israel holds the high ground overlooking the coastal area, allowing the IDF to best protect Israeli towns.”

Advertisement

Israel Defense Forces (IDF) personnel gather near military vehicles along the border with Gaza, as seen from the Israeli side, on Sept. 3, 2025.  (Ammar Awad/Reuters)

CLICK HERE TO DOWNLOAD THE FOX NEWS APP

He added that Hamas’ ability to smuggle weapons through the Egyptian border has been significantly curtailed.

Fox News’ Amelie Botbol contributed to this report.

Advertisement
Continue Reading

World

Asylum seekers will be relocated from Spain, Italy, Greece and Cyprus

Published

on

Asylum seekers will be relocated from Spain, Italy, Greece and Cyprus

Spain, Italy, Greece, and Cyprus have been considered “under migratory pressure” by the European Commission in its first Annual Asylum and Migration Report, unveiled on Tuesday.

These countries were interested last year in a “disproportionate level” of migrant arrivals, including those rescued at sea.

Spain, Italy, Greece and Cyprus will therefore benefit in 2026 from the solidarity of other EU member states, which could be expressed by relocating asylum seekers over their territory or by financial contribution.

Together with this assessment, the Commission proposed to the EU 27 member states the Annual Solidarity Pool, a mechanism to determine the total number of asylum seekers to be relocated and the amount each country should allocate, or to compensate for by paying.

The pool’s proposal is not public. It will be discussed by the EU member states, which are set to decide the size and the solidarity share for each country by the end of the year.

Advertisement

Each member state – excepting the ones under migratory pressure – has to contribute in proportion to its population and total GDP, and could choose among three options to meet the needs outlined in the solidarity pool: relocating a certain number of asylum seekers to their own territory, pay €20,000 per person they do not relocate, or finance operational support in member states under migratory pressure.

The final decision will be taken by EU countries by a vote at qualified majority, with the minimum size for the solidarity pool set by law at 30,000 relocations and €600 million in financial contributions.

The Commission’s report also identifies 12 states “at risk of migratory pressure”: Belgium, Bulgaria, Germany, Estonia, Ireland, France, Croatia, Latvia, Lithuania, the Netherlands, Poland and Finland.

These countries are required to provide solidarity to those under migratory pressure, but their situation will be reevaluated to avoid disproportionate obligations in the next year.

A third group of countries has been classified as “facing a significant migratory situation”: Bulgaria, Czechia, Estonia, Croatia, Austria, Poland. They are still required to provide solidarity, but can ask for an exemption to their quotas, which has to be certified by the Commission and approved by other member states.

Advertisement

The report and the solidarity pool are the basis for developing the system of “mandatory solidarity” envisaged in the Pact on Migration and Asylum, the major reform of migration policy adopted in 2024.

Some member states do not want to apply the rules

Some EU countries are still opposing the system envisaged by the Pact on Migration and Asylum.

Hungary’s Prime Minister Viktor Orbán, Poland’s Prime Minister Donald Tusk and Slovakia’s Prime Minister Robert Fico have already stated that they will not implement EU rules, as they do not want to contribute either financially or by accepting migrants from other countries.

“Poland will not be accepting migrants under the Migration Pact. Nor will we pay for it,” Tusk wrote on Twitter shortly after the presentation of the report.

Budapest and Warsaw have not even presented to the Commission their implementation plan for the Pact, EU Commissioners for Home Affairs Magnus Brunner admitted during a press conference.

Advertisement

Failing to contribute to the solidarity mechanism would be “a breach of obligations under EU law,” a senior EU official told Euronews.

This could lead to an infringement procedure towards the countries not willing to contribute when the regulation enters into force in June 2026. The first assessment of the EU’s new migration rules will happen next July, according to EU sources.

The only legal possibility to avoid the solidarity share is applying for an exemption, which could be done only by countries considered as “facing a significant migratory situation”: Bulgaria, Czechia, Estonia, Croatia, Austria and Poland.

If the exemption is accepted by the Commission and other member states, the country that asked for it is no longer obliged to accept asylum seekers, nor to compensate for it with financial contributions. That country’s share will not be redistributed among the other member states.

According to the Commission’s report, the general migratory situation in the EU has improved, with illegal border crossings down by 35%, during the reporting period (July 2024-June 2025)

Advertisement

At the same time, the Commission considers irregular arrivals, unauthorised movements of migrant people within the EU and weaponisation of migration by Russia and Belarus, among the challenges the EU has still to face.

Continue Reading

World

The deadly car explosion in New Delhi is being investigated under an anti-terrorism law

Published

on

The deadly car explosion in New Delhi is being investigated under an anti-terrorism law

NEW DELHI (AP) — Indian police were investigating the deadly car explosion in New Delhi under an anti-terrorism law, officials said Tuesday, as forensic experts worked to determine the cause of the blast.

The explosion occurred near the historic Red Fort late Monday, killing at least eight people and injuring several others.

Senior police officials told The Associated Press that a case was registered under the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, India’s main anti-terrorism law, which allows broader powers to investigating agencies to detain suspects. The officials spoke on condition of anonymity because of the sensitivity of the case.

Prime Minister Narendra Modi, who was on a scheduled visit to Bhutan on Tuesday, said investigators would “get to the bottom of this conspiracy.

“The conspirators won’t be spared and all those responsible will be brought to justice,” Modi said.

Advertisement

Police said the explosion was believed to have originated from a Hyundai i20 car that had stopped at a traffic signal. Nearby vehicles were badly damaged, and photos showed shattered windows, twisted metal and flames engulfing several cars.

Police were trying to trace the car’s owner. There was no immediate information about the occupants, who were believed to have been killed.

Stay up to date with the news and the best of AP by following our WhatsApp channel.

Follow on

Advertisement

Home Minister Amit Shah said Monday that “all angles” were being investigated and that security agencies would reach a conclusion soon. He said footage from cameras in the area would play a key role in the investigation.

Major train stations, including in Mumbai and in Uttar Pradesh state, which borders New Delhi, were put on security alert. The security force responsible for guarding key installations in the capital, including New Delhi’s international airport, metro system and major government buildings, said its personnel had also been placed on security alert.

A former imperial palace, the Red Fort is a sprawling Mughal-era complex and a major tourist attraction in the Old Delhi section of the city. Located about 6 kilometers (3.7 miles) from Parliament, the 17th-century monument is a symbolic location where Indian prime ministers deliver their Independence Day speeches on Aug. 15 each year.

The area around Red Fort is typically crowded, serving as a main route to the bustling bazaars of the old city.

Advertisement

Continue Reading

Trending