World
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.
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.
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.
“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.
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.
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.
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.
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.”

World
Syria's new regime hits Hezbollah targets in Lebanon over claims its fighters were executed

Fighting along the Syrian-Lebanese border intensified on Monday as deadly clashes erupted between the Syrian military and Hezbollah-aligned forces.
The escalation follows accusations from Syria’s interim government that Hezbollah terrorists crossed into Syrian territory, kidnapped three soldiers and executed them on Lebanese soil. In response, the Syrian army launched artillery strikes on Hezbollah positions, targeting what it called “gatherings” of fighters responsible for the killings. Hezbollah has denied involvement.
The Lebanese newspaper Al-Akhbar, which is affiliated with Hezbollah, reported that the Syrian army successfully captured the village of Hawsh al-Sayyid Ali on the Syria-Lebanon border during the confrontations. Currently, most of the fighting is near the village of Al-Qasr.
Earlier this morning, the Saudi-owned Al Arabiya reported intermittent clashes between the Syrian army and Hezbollah forces along the border. The report also claimed that a Hezbollah ammunition depot in Lebanon was destroyed by Syrian artillery fire.
ISRAEL FACES NEW SYRIA CHALLENGE AS IT ADJUSTS TO NEW STRATEGY AMID REGIONAL POWER STRUGGLE FOR INFLUENCE
The Syrian Defense Ministry dispatched reinforcement convoys after the alleged killing of three Syrian soldiers by Hezbollah to the border with Lebanon in Homs, Syria, on March 17, 2025. (Ebu Bekr Sakka/Anadolu via Getty Images)
Lebanese President Joseph Aoun addressed the escalating violence, saying, “What is happening on the eastern and northeastern border cannot continue, and we will not accept its continuation. I have instructed the Lebanese army to respond to the sources of fire.”
According to the Syrian Observatory for Human Rights, at least five additional Syrian soldiers were killed during the clashes. Civilians, including families with young children, were seen fleeing toward the Syrian village of Hermel as violence spread across the border region.
The newly established Syrian government, led by Ahmad al-Sharaa of the U.S.-sanctioned terrorist group Hayat Tahrir al-Sham, issued a rare statement vowing retaliation against Hezbollah.
“They took them to Lebanese territory and killed them. The Ministry of Defense will take all necessary measures in response to this escalation by Hezbollah,” the statement reads.
The conflict reflects deeper sectarian and ideological divisions. HTS, a Sunni terrorist group with roots in Syria’s jihadist insurgency and former ties to al Qaeda, and Hezbollah, a Shiite terrorist force backed by Iran, represent opposing factions in the ongoing struggle for regional dominance.

Hezbollah fighters attend the funeral of their commander, Wissam al-Tawil, in the village of Khirbet Selm, Lebanon, on Jan. 9, 2024. (AP Photo/Hussein Malla)
“Hezbollah is trying to take advantage of the new government’s weakness in Syria, but the group itself is in a precarious position. It has suffered major setbacks from Israeli strikes, the fall of Assad, and now new adversaries in Syria,” Javed Ali, a professor at the University of Michigan’s Ford School of Public Policy and former senior director at the National Security Council, told Fox News Digital.
The collapse of President Bashar Assad’s government in December marked a major turning point, as Hezbollah had spent 14 years backing him alongside Russia and Iran’s pro-Shiite militias. However, in late November, Syrian rebels launched a surprise offensive against Assad’s forces, just as a ceasefire was announced in northern Gaza, leading to the final collapse of his rule.
EVANGELICAL LEADER SAYS US MUST PROTECT SYRIAN CHRISTIANS FROM ATTACKS BY JIHADI TERRORISTS

Newly elected Lebanese President Joseph Aoun is shown in Beirut on Jan. 9, 2025. (AP Photo/Hussein Malla)
Now in power, HTS has pledged to crack down on weapons and drug smuggling along the border, a move that directly threatens Hezbollah’s operations. The new Syrian government has already begun military deployments to secure its borders, further restricting Hezbollah’s ability to maneuver.
“Hezbollah is facing a confluence of threats unlike any time in its history,” said Ali. “With HTS consolidating control in Syria, Hezbollah’s overland weapons supply route from Iran has been severely compromised. This disruption could significantly degrade its operational capabilities.”
The rise of HTS as a governing force in Syria has also drawn U.S. attention. While Washington has designated HTS as a terrorist organization, analysts suggest that al-Sharaa’s pragmatic approach should be assessed cautiously.
“The U.S. is navigating a complex landscape in Syria, and while it does not officially recognize HTS, there are strategic interests in seeing Hezbollah and Iranian influence further weakened,” Ali noted.
HTS has attempted to rebrand itself from its extremist origins, portraying itself as a nationalist Islamist movement opposed to Iranian influence and Hezbollah’s expansion in Syria. While skepticism remains, the group’s control over key Syrian territory disrupts Iran’s ability to maintain a direct supply corridor to Hezbollah in Lebanon.

A protester holds a placard with a photo of Ahmad al-Sharaa and the words “It doesn’t matter if he wears a turban or a tie, a murderer is a murderer” during a demonstration on March 11, 2025. (Murat Kocabas/SOPA Images/LightRocket via Getty Images)
Beyond Syria, Hezbollah is also facing growing challenges in Lebanon. The group’s losses in recent confrontations with Israel have emboldened its domestic opponents, who now see an opportunity to weaken its grip on Lebanese politics.
Former Lebanese President Michel Aoun echoed these concerns, highlighting three major threats to Lebanon’s stability: ongoing Israeli attacks, Hezbollah’s involvement in cross-border violence, and the unresolved Syrian refugee crisis.
“Officials must take immediate action to protect the safety of the nation and its citizens,” he said.
Further complicating the situation, Mounir Shehadeh, a former Lebanese government coordinator with the United Nations Interim Force peacekeeping mission in Lebanon, said “there is no presence of Hezbollah in the northeastern Bekaa Valley, and this is known by the people and tribes in the region.” His statement contradicts reports of Hezbollah’s activity along the Lebanese-Syrian border, raising questions about the true extent of its control.
Analysts say the long-term implications of these developments remain uncertain, but Hezbollah’s regional position is rapidly deteriorating. While Lebanese and Syrian officials are working to contain the crisis, the risk of further escalation remains high.
World
Georgia ex-President Mikheil Saakashvili handed second prison sentence

Saakashvili was found guilty of illegal border crossing and given a second prison sentence of four and a half years on Monday, in addition to his existing sentence on charges of abuse of power and embezzlement.
A Georgian court sentenced former President Mikheil Saakashvili to another prison term on Monday, extending his imprisonment time to 12 and a half years.
Saakashvili, who served as Georgia’s president from 2004-2013, had previously been sentenced on charges of abuse of power and embezzlement that he and his defence have rejected as politically motivated.
Judge Badri Kochlamazashvili sentenced the 57-year-old ex-president to an extra four years and six months on charges of illegal border crossing, adding time to his existing sentence.
Speaking by videoconference, Saakashvili dismissed the verdict as an “absolutely illegal, unjust sentencing of me for crimes I have not committed.”
“They want to annihilate me in prison,” he said. “But no matter what, I will fight till the end,” he vowed.
According to his lawyer, Beka Basilaia, Monday’s verdict “again showed that Saakashvili is a political prisoner.”
Saakashvili, a controversial reformist
Saakashvili is also accused of repressing demonstrators who claimed that his fervour had turned into dictatorship.
The former president, who led the country in a more pro-Western direction, led the so-called Rose Revolution protests in 2003 that drove his predecessor out of office and enacted a series of ambitious reforms tackling official corruption.
In 2008, he oversaw a brief but intense war with Russia that ended with the humiliating loss of the remaining Georgian bases in two separatist territories.
His reign was brought to an end in the 2012 election when the then newly formed Georgian Dream Party defeated Saakashvili’s United National Movement party.
Saakashvili left for Ukraine in 2013 and became a citizen. From 2015 to 2016, he governed the southern Odesa region.
However, he was swiftly detained when he returned to Georgia in October 2021 in an attempt to strengthen opposition forces before the national municipal elections.
Georgian Dream accused of influencing verdict
Saakashvili’s lawyer on Monday accused the ruling Georgian Dream of influencing the latest extension of the ex-Georgian leader’s prison term.
“As long as Georgian Dream remains in power, the judiciary is a farce and will make whatever decision it is instructed to,” Basilaia said.
Since 2012, when Saakashvili was ousted from office, the Georgian Dream Party has remained in power and itself has recently been facing criticisms and popular protests on allegations of a crackdown on democratic freedoms.
The party is also accused of steering the country away from the path toward European Union membership and back into Russia’s sphere of influence.
After going on multiple hunger strikes, Saakashvili is currently being treated at the Vivamedi facility, where he is being monitored for a number of chronic illnesses, according to the clinic.
World
Thousands gather in Rio de Janeiro to demonstrate support for Bolsonaro

-
News1 week ago
Gene Hackman Lost His Wife and Caregiver, and Spent 7 Days Alone
-
Politics1 week ago
Republicans demand Trump cut American legal association out of nominee process
-
Politics1 week ago
Agriculture secretary cancels $600K grant for study on menstrual cycles in transgender men
-
News1 week ago
States sue Trump administration over mass firings of federal employees
-
News1 week ago
Trump Seeks to Bar Student Loan Relief to Workers Aiding Migrants and Trans Kids
-
Politics1 week ago
Kristi Noem says 2 leakers accused of disclosing ICE operations ID'd: 'Put law enforcement lives in jeopardy'
-
News6 days ago
Grieving Covid Losses, Five Years Later
-
World5 days ago
Ukraine accepts 30-day ceasefire in US talks: What it means for Russia war