SUBSCRIBE TO OUR FREE NEWSLETTER
Daily news & progressive opinion—funded by the people, not the corporations—delivered straight to your inbox.
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
");background-position:center;background-size:19px 19px;background-repeat:no-repeat;background-color:var(--button-bg-color);padding:0;width:var(--form-elem-height);height:var(--form-elem-height);font-size:0;}:is(.js-newsletter-wrapper, .newsletter_bar.newsletter-wrapper) .widget__body:has(.response:not(:empty)) :is(.widget__headline, .widget__subheadline, #mc_embed_signup .mc-field-group, #mc_embed_signup input[type="submit"]){display:none;}:is(.grey_newsblock .newsletter-wrapper, .newsletter-wrapper) #mce-responses:has(.response:not(:empty)){grid-row:1 / -1;grid-column:1 / -1;}.newsletter-wrapper .widget__body > .snark-line:has(.response:not(:empty)){grid-column:1 / -1;}:is(.grey_newsblock .newsletter-wrapper, .newsletter-wrapper) :is(.newsletter-campaign:has(.response:not(:empty)), .newsletter-and-social:has(.response:not(:empty))){width:100%;}.newsletter-wrapper .newsletter_bar_col{display:flex;flex-wrap:wrap;justify-content:center;align-items:center;gap:8px 20px;margin:0 auto;}.newsletter-wrapper .newsletter_bar_col .text-element{display:flex;color:var(--shares-color);margin:0 !important;font-weight:400 !important;font-size:16px !important;}.newsletter-wrapper .newsletter_bar_col .whitebar_social{display:flex;gap:12px;width:auto;}.newsletter-wrapper .newsletter_bar_col a{margin:0;background-color:#0000;padding:0;width:32px;height:32px;}.newsletter-wrapper .social_icon:after{display:none;}.newsletter-wrapper .widget article:before, .newsletter-wrapper .widget article:after{display:none;}#sFollow_Block_0_0_2_0_0_0_1{margin:0;}#sSHARED_-_Social_Desktop_0_0_11_0_0_1.row-wrapper{margin:40px auto;}#sBoost_post_0_0_0_0_0_0_1_0{background-color:#000;color:#fff;}.boost-post{--article-direction:column;--min-height:none;--height:auto;--padding:24px;--titles-width:calc(100% - 84px);--image-fit:cover;--image-pos:right;--photo-caption-size:12px;--photo-caption-space:20px;--headline-size:23px;--headline-space:18px;--subheadline-size:13px;--text-size:12px;--oswald-font:"Oswald", Impact, "Franklin Gothic Bold", sans-serif;--cta-position:center;overflow:hidden;margin-bottom:0;--lora-font:"Lora", sans-serif !important;}.boost-post:not(:empty):has(.boost-post-article:not(:empty)){min-height:var(--min-height);}.boost-post *{box-sizing:border-box;float:none;}.boost-post .posts-custom .posts-wrapper:after{display:none !important;}.boost-post article:before, .boost-post article:after{display:none !important;}.boost-post article .row:before, .boost-post article .row:after{display:none !important;}.boost-post article .row .col:before, .boost-post article .row .col:after{display:none !important;}.boost-post .widget__body:before, .boost-post .widget__body:after{display:none !important;}.boost-post .photo-caption:after{content:"";width:100%;height:1px;background-color:#fff;}.boost-post .body:before, .boost-post .body:after{display:none !important;}.boost-post .body :before, .boost-post .body :after{display:none !important;}.boost-post__bottom{--article-direction:row;--titles-width:350px;--min-height:346px;--height:315px;--padding:24px 86px 24px 24px;--image-fit:contain;--image-pos:right;--headline-size:36px;--subheadline-size:15px;--text-size:12px;--cta-position:left;}.boost-post__sidebar:not(:empty):has(.boost-post-article:not(:empty)){margin-bottom:10px;}.boost-post__in-content:not(:empty):has(.boost-post-article:not(:empty)){margin-bottom:40px;}.boost-post__bottom:not(:empty):has(.boost-post-article:not(:empty)){margin-bottom:20px;}@media (min-width: 1024px){#sSHARED_-_Social_Desktop_0_0_11_0_0_1_1{padding-left:40px;}}.donation_banner{position:relative;background:#000;}.donation_banner .posts-custom *, .donation_banner .posts-custom :after, .donation_banner .posts-custom :before{margin:0;}.donation_banner .posts-custom .widget{position:absolute;inset:0;}.donation_banner__wrapper{position:relative;z-index:2;pointer-events:none;}.donation_banner .donate_btn{position:relative;z-index:2;}#sSHARED_-_Support_Block_0_0_14_0_0_3_1_0{color:#fff;}#sSHARED_-_Support_Block_0_0_14_0_0_3_1_1{font-weight:normal;}#sElement_Post_Layout_Press_Release__0_0_1_0_0_11{margin:100px 0;}.grey_newsblock .newsletter-wrapper, .newsletter-wrapper, .newsletter-wrapper.sidebar{background:linear-gradient(91deg, #005dc7 28%, #1d63b2 65%, #0353ae 85%);}.black_newsletter{background:linear-gradient(91deg, #005dc7 28%, #1d63b2 65%, #0353ae 85%);}.black_newsletter .newsletter_bar.newsletter-wrapper{background:none;}
To donate by check, phone, or other method, see our More Ways to Give page.
Daily news & progressive opinion—funded by the people, not the corporations—delivered straight to your inbox.
Christine Mbithi
Email: christine.mbithi@350.org
Today at COP26, more than 20 countries and institutions, including the United States, Canada, Mali and Costa Rica, launched a joint statement committing to end direct international public finance for unabated coal, oil and gas by the end of 2022 and prioritize clean energy finance. After a wave of commitments to end international coal finance this year, this is the first international political commitment that also addresses public finance for oil and gas. If implemented effectively this initiative could directly shift more than USD 15 billion a year of preferential, government-backed support out of fossil fuels and into clean energy -- and much more if initial signatories are successful in convincing their peers to join.
Shifting public finance for energy out of all fossil fuels and into clean energy is an urgent task. The International Energy Agency (IEA) says that to limit global warming to 1.5degC, 2021 needs to mark the end of new investments in not just coal, but also new oil and gas supply.
Yet, new research by Oil Change International and Friends of the Earth US shows that between 2018 and 2020, G20 countries' international public finance institutions and Multilateral Development Banks (MDBs) still backed at least $188 billion in fossil fuels abroad. This was 2.5 times more than G20 and MDB support for renewable energy, which averaged $26 billion per year. Public finance for clean energy has stagnated since 2014, despite the need for it to grow exponentially to ensure universal access to clean energy and to stay below the 1.5degC limit. The IEA finds that annual public and private investments into clean energy should reach nearly $4 trillion by 2030.
The joint statement unites some of the largest historic providers of public finance for fossil fuels -- Canada, the United States, the UK and the European Investment Bank (EIB). However, other large financiers have yet to join them.
Laggards include Japan ($10.9 bn/yr), Korea ($10.6 bn/yr), and China ($7.6 bn/yr), which are the largest providers of international public fossil fuel finance in the G20 and together account for 46% of G20 and MDB finance for fossil fuels. Italy ($2.8 bn/yr) and Spain ($1.9 bn/yr), some of the biggest EU fossil fuel financiers, are also missing.
But campaigners hope that the joint statement can help raise pressure on these countries that are lagging behind, similar to the momentum in place on ending coal finance. On the same morning of the statement launch, activists took to the streets of Glasgow in inflatable Pikachus to urge Japan to stop funding fossil fuels.
The EIB has signed the statement and the civil society coalition, Big Shift Global, is urging the other MDBs to also get on board, including the World Bank Group, the African Development Bank, the European Bank for Reconstruction and Development, the Asian Development Bank, and the Asian Infrastructure Investment Bank. Collectively the MDBs still provided at least $6.3 billion each year to fossil fuel projects between 2018 and 2020. Earlier this week the MDBs provided an update on their joint Paris alignment efforts in which they confirmed their framework will have no exclusions for oil and gas projects.
The combination of big polluters and low-income countries signing the statement is positive, and challenges the assumption that developing country signatories want or need investments in fossil fuels to achieve their development objectives. Alongside fulfilling their stated goal of "prioritizing support fully towards the clean energy transition", campaigners remind signatories that the ability of this initiative to support a just and 1.5degC-aligned global energy transition will also hinge on avoiding loopholes allowing for a dash for gas, acting on debt relief, increasing grant-based climate finance, and securing a growing number of signatories to the statement.
Quotes:
Tasneem Essop, Executive Director, Climate Action Network International, said:
"Shutting fossil fuels down is critical for tackling the climate crisis. This announcement is a step in the right direction but must be scaled up with more governments and public finance institutions, including the Multilateral Development Banks, committing to end finance for fossil fuels. This public money needs to be urgently redirected into a just energy transition that ensures clean universal energy access for communities in the global South and support for communities and coal, oil and gas workers without saddling countries with any further debt."
Laurie van der Burg, Global Public Finance Campaigns co-Manager at Oil Change International, said:
"The signatories of today's statement are doing what's most logical in a climate emergency: stop adding fuel to the fire and shift dirty finance to climate action. Only this way can we avoid the worst climate crisis scenarios. We need to see much more of this to help deliver and exceed climate finance promises and support real solutions that meet community needs - particularly in the Global South. Other countries and institutions must follow suit."
Kate DeAngelis, International Finance Program Manager, Friends of the Earth US, said:
"Last year at this time I would not have thought we would see countries commit to ending billions of dollars in support for international fossil fuel projects. While this is welcome progress, countries, especially the US, must hold firm to these commitments, shutting off the spigot to fossil fuel companies like Pemex and Exxon. Laggards like Japan and Korea must also step up and join this commitment to enhance its efficacy."
Lidy Nacpil, Asian's Peoples Movement for Debt and Development, said:
"We have been calling for an end to public financing of fossil fuels for so long, governments should have responded earlier. The world has no more space or time left to accommodate the expansion of fossil fuel energy. Instead governments must act immediately and decisively for a swift and just transition to 100% renewable and democratic energy systems. There should be no exceptions, no reliance on unproven and unreliable carbon capture and storage technologies that hide the lack of ambition and justify some level of continued GHG emissions. Governments must also compel the private sector to stop funding new fossil fuel projects. We call on all countries, public financial institutions, and private financiers to commit and disclose concrete plans to end all support and financing, direct and indirect, for all fossil fuels -- coal, gas and oil. Anything less will not be enough to limit global temperature rise to 1.5degC."
Ayumi Fukakusa, Friends of the Earth Japan, said:
"While world leaders commit to phasing out fossil fuel financing, Japan is the second largest public financier for fossil fuel and even still supports new coal projects both domestically and internationally. Japan, again failed to show its leadership for climate action. In addition to that, right before the COP26 started, a Japanese public financier decided to finance the LNG Canada project. The associate Coastal GasLink Pipeline is quite controversial. Next to being completely incompatible with climate goals, a UN Committee called out the lack of "Free prior, and informed consent (FPIC)" for the project. This is unacceptable."
Joojin Kim, Solutions for Our Climate, said:
"While the commitment represents a step forward in the global response to climate change, it is disappointing to find that major fossil fuel financing countries like South Korea have not joined the announcement. When it comes to public financing of fossil fuels, Asian economies like South Korea and Japan are among the largest contributors in the world. The world must know that the amount of fossil fuel public financing provided by these countries is several times (in the case of South Korea, thirteen times) higher than the amount they have provided for coal power project financing. These nations should immediately end public fossil fuel financing, instead of contributing to the build up of stranded assets around the world."
Daniel Willis, climate campaigner at Global Justice Now, said:
"This joint statement is welcome and necessary progress in the struggle to shift public finances away from fossil fuels, but that should not distract us from the challenges ahead. Just last week, MPs in the UK condemned the British development bank CDC Group's failure to stop funding gas infrastructure. When it comes to the climate crisis, every investment in fossil fuel infrastructure is like pouring petrol on a house fire. Hopefully we will now see the UK government get its own house in order by ending trade and development finance for gas power and rescinding licenses for North Sea oil exploration."
Paul Cook, Head of Advocacy, Tearfund, said:
"There is no room for new fossil fuels if we are to deliver climate justice for millions of the most vulnerable people around the world. This announcement is another nail in the coffin for the fossil fuel era as we seek to build a cleaner, safer and fairer world. We now urgently need others to join this commitment and go further by phasing out fossil fuels at home and abroad."
Dean Bhebhe, African Climate Reality Project, said:
"The African Development Bank and other Development Financial Institutions need to prioritize the development and implementation of a fossil fuel finance exclusion policy that will not fund, provide financial services, or capacity support to any coal, gas, or oil project or related infrastructure project that is carbon intensive on the African continent by 2022. At the least, establish an immediate ban on any new fossil fuel projects and publish a roadmap for phasing out all fossil fuel development financing to advance the just transition in line with the Paris Agreement. The policy should guide a managed and equitable phase-out, taking into account principles of equity and justice for those most affected. We need real climate action now."
Bronwen Tucker, Canada Lead at Oil Change International, said:
"This is one of the only climate commitments from Trudeau that has concretely addressed the oil and gas sector, and hopefully the beginning of many more. It means Canada will face lower risk of economic shocks from our overexposure to this sunsetting industry and that this influential financial support can be redirected to just transition and renewable energy globally instead. Today's announcement is a credit to the climate movement and Indigenous land defenders that have been pushing Trudeau to take real climate action since the day he took office. But the federal government should also hear loud and clear that they must keep their election promise and extend this commitment to cover Export Development Canada's closely related domestic finance for oil and gas as well."
Nick Bryer, European Campaigns Director, 350.org, said:
"Every cent that goes into fossil fuels is taking us further in the wrong direction. It's shocking that public money is still going into coal, oil and gas, when we so desperately need to keep fossil fuels in the ground, and invest in real solutions instead. It's hypocritical for any country to call themselves a climate champion if they're still helping to bankroll the fossil fuel industry."
Jon Sward, Environment Project Manager, Bretton Woods Project, said:
"The statement is an important first step in building international consensus that ending finance for fossil fuels and increasing support for a just energy transition in low- and middle-income countries are key aspects of achieving the goals of the Paris Agreement. It is disappointing that the World Bank - and many of its MDB counterparts - has chosen not to sign on to the statement. The UK, US, and other government signatories to the statement must continue to push for the World Bank and other international financial institutions to end support for fossil fuels while scaling up their support for clean energy systems that ensure a just transition for workers and communities."
Robin Mace-Snaith, Policy Lead - Climate and Energy, CAFOD, said:
"This statement is a start, but we urgently need more countries on board. Public finance shouldn't be anywhere near fossil fuels if we want any chance of keeping within 1.5degC. We challenge all signatories to ensure that the limited and clearly defined circumstances they reference are not just loopholes to continue supporting the fossil fuel sector. What's needed is a just energy transition, bringing electricity to the over 750 million people without and ensuring no community is left behind as a result. For many communities on the frontline of climate change, time has already run out, we must consign all fossil fuels to history now."
Lisa Fischer, Programme Leader Climate Neutral Energy Systems, E3G, said:
"This statement is a powerful signal to policy makers and investors alike that high climate and investment risks are an inherent part of oil and gas finance, and that no investment in new oil and gas supply is needed. It shows growing confidence that employment and revenue opportunities are strongest in the clean energy sector. Every cent of public finance should be used to open these opportunities for nations across the globe."
Maria Marta Di Paola - Research area director, Fundacion Ambiente y Recursos Naturales (FARN), said:
"While Global North countries and institutions are signing pledges on climate finance, they are still investing millions in extractive projects in Global South countries. For example, between 2016 and 2020, 88% of the World Bank Group investments in the energy sector in Argentina went to fossil fuels and the rest to renewables.
Global North countries should play a lead role in the transition to zero carbon economies coping with the singularities and needs of the Global South. This statement could be a clear sign of the risk associated with relying on fossil fuels to develop in the Global South."
Lucile Dufour, Senior Policy Advisor, International Institute for Sustainable Development, said:
"Shortly after the world's largest economies have ruled out overseas finance for coal, this statement shows that a much bigger shift is underway: one that could soon mark the end of not just coal, but also oil and gas finance. The science is clear that public support must be directed towards clean energy to avoid locking countries into high-carbon pathways, imperiling economies, and the global climate. Signatories should deliver boldly on their commitment and continue building momentum after COP26, to ensure other governments and institutions follow suit."
Katharina Rall, Senior Environment Researcher, Human Rights Watch said:
"This commitment to end international public finance for fossil fuels by 2022, if followed by effective implementation, will be an important step toward governments meeting their human rights obligations to address the climate crisis. All governments need to urgently end all support for fossil fuels and ensure a just transition to affordable clean energy to help prevent catastrophic climate impacts on human rights. Countries that choose not to sign on--including Japan, South Korea, Italy -- are signaling a lack of regard for their human rights obligations and for the rights of communities around the world already facing a mounting toll from climate impacts."
350 is building a future that's just, prosperous, equitable and safe from the effects of the climate crisis. We're an international movement of ordinary people working to end the age of fossil fuels and build a world of community-led renewable energy for all.
"This order will kill kids, there's no other way to say it," asserted one critic.
In his administration's latest attack on LGBTQ+ Americans, Republican U.S. President Donald Trump on Tuesday issued an executive order banning the federal government from supporting a wide range of gender-affirming healthcare for transgender youth.
Trump's order—titled "Protecting Children From Chemical and Surgical Mutilation"—states that the federal government "will not fund, sponsor, promote, assist, or support the so-called 'transition' of a child from one sex to another, and it will rigorously enforce all laws that prohibit or limit these destructive and life-altering procedures."
"Child" is defined in the order as anyone younger than 19—including 18-year-old adults. The directive covers treatments and procedures including gender-affirming surgeries, puberty blockers, and hormone replacement therapy. The ban will adversely affect people who rely upon federal programs including Medicare, Medicaid, and TRICARE, through which the Department of Defense provides health coverage for nearly 2 million youth dependents.
This order will kill kids, there's no other way to say it. It's the government forcibly taking control of the bodies of thousands of children.
[image or embed]
— Katelyn Burns (@katelynburns.com) January 28, 2025 at 3:19 PM
Furthermore, the order—which is almost certain to be challenged in court—places hospitals, clinics, and other providers of gender-affirming care at risk of losing federal funding.
"This executive order is a brazen attempt to put politicians in between people and their doctors, preventing them from accessing evidence-based healthcare supported by every major medical association in the country," Kelly Robinson, president of the LGBTQ+ advocacy group Human Rights Campaign, said in a statement. "It is deeply unfair to play politics with people's lives and strip transgender young people, their families, and their providers of the freedom to make necessary healthcare decisions."
"Questions about this care should be answered by doctors—not politicians—and decisions must rest with families, doctors, and the patient," Robinson added. "Everyone deserves the freedom to make deeply personal healthcare decisions for themselves and their families—no matter your income, zip code, or health coverage."
Trump made opposing rights for transgender people—especially children—a major part of his 2024 campaign, as it was during his first term.
The president's executive order claims that "medical professionals are maiming and sterilizing a growing number of impressionable children under the radical and false claim that adults can change a child's sex through a series of irreversible medical interventions."
"This dangerous trend will be a stain on our nation's history, and it must end," asserts the directive, which dubiously claims that "countless children soon regret that they have been mutilated and begin to grasp the horrifying tragedy that they will never be able to conceive children of their own or nurture their children through breastfeeding."
However, trans advocate Erin Reed pushed back, noting on social media that "detransition is rare, 1-4% in most studies, and regret even lower."
Furthermore, many doctors and medical experts agree that gender-affirming care saves the lives of trans youth, who are at higher risk of suicide and other self-harm, partly due to discrimination, bullying, and other societal pressures.
Trans people and their allies are already fighting back against Trump's policies. On Tuesday, half a dozen active-duty transgender U.S. troops and two people seeking to join the military sued to block a revival of the president's first-term ban on trans people enlisting in the armed forces.
The previous day, a transgender woman inmate in a federal women's prison sued the Trump administration over a recent executive order narrowly defining sex, arguing it is motivated by hate, violates the Constitution's ban on cruel and unusual punishment, and places her in mortal danger if she is transferred to a men's facility as ordered by the government.
In stark contrast with the direction in which Trump is steering the U.S., health officials in Thailand—which last year became the first nation in Southeast Asia to legalize same-sex marriage equality—this week announced a multimillion-dollar initiative to provide gender-affirming care for 200,000 transgender people in the country.
Thai Prime Minister Paetongtarn Shinawatra said last week that the marriage equality law, which went into effect this month, "marks the beginning of Thai society's greater awareness of gender diversity, and our embrace of everyone regardless of sexual orientation, race, or religion—our affirmation that everyone is entitled to equal rights and dignity."
"Between the flurry of anti-worker executive orders and policies, it is clear that the Trump administration's goal is to turn the federal government into a toxic environment where workers cannot stay even if they want to."
A union that represents over 800,000 employees of the federal and District of Columbia governments on Tuesday responded with alarm to U.S. President Donald Trump's effort to pressure some workers to leave their jobs.
"The number of civil servants hasn't meaningfully changed since 1970, but there are more Americans than ever who rely on government services," said American Federation of Government Employees national president Everett Kelley in a statement. "Purging the federal government of dedicated career federal employees will have vast, unintended consequences that will cause chaos for the Americans who depend on a functioning federal government."
"This offer should not be viewed as voluntary," Kelley added, referring to a memo emailed to federal employees on Tuesday. "Between the flurry of anti-worker executive orders and policies, it is clear that the Trump administration's goal is to turn the federal government into a toxic environment where workers cannot stay even if they want to."
Another labor group for federal workers, the National Treasury Employees Union, filed suit last week over one of those orders, which reinstated, with some amendments, the "Schedule F" measure that Trump implemented near the end of his first term.
In response to the administration's actions regarding the federal workforce, some critics have pointed to the Heritage Foundation-led Project 2025, from which the Republican president unsuccessfully tried to distance himself while on the campaign trail. As Common Dreamsreported earlier Tuesday, a U.S. tech researcher revealed that the authors of policies published by Trump's Office of Personnel Management (OPM) have ties to the far-right organization and its infamous initiative.
Congressman Gerry Connolly (D-Va.) said in a Tuesday night statement that "Donald Trump is trying every trick he and his Project 2025 cronies can think of to circumvent established civil service protections so they can purge the civil service of experts and replace them with political loyalists."
"The victims here, as is always the case with Donald Trump, are the American people who will see government services and benefits allocated not by nonpartisan civil servants, but by partisan hacks," added Connolly, ranking member of the House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform.
Once again, I was repeatedly told I was overreacting when predicting the implementation of the unitary executive theory—the main goal of Project 2025. www.axios.com/2025/01/28/t...
[image or embed]
— Derek Beres (@derekberes.bsky.social) January 28, 2025 at 6:07 PM
Connolly and Kelley's and comments on Tuesday came after a senior Trump official toldAxios that "the government-wide email being sent today is to make sure that all federal workers are on board with the new administration's plan to have federal employees in office and adhering to higher standards. We're five years past Covid and just 6% of federal employees work full-time in office. That is unacceptable."
While Axios broke the news of the "acceleration in President Trump's already unprecedented purge of the federal workforce," other media outlets also swiftly published related reports. Government Executivecalled out the debunked 6% figure, noting that "more than half of federal workers cannot telework because their duties are portable, and employees who telework spent around 60% of their work hours in person, per 2024 Office of Management and Budget data."
Many initial reports framed the message to federal workers as a "buyout" program, but after OPM posted the full memo on its website, experts including Alan Mygatt-Tauber, an adjust professor at Seattle University School of Law, emphasized that it "is absolutely NOT an early resignation offer with eight months severance pay."
Slate journalist Mark Joseph Stern similarly stressed that "this is NOT a buyout! Those who take the offer simply get permission to telework through September, at which point they lose their jobs. Media coverage of the details has been pretty misleading."
The OPM memo emailed to workers explains that the "reformed federal workforce" will be built around four pillars: a return to the office, performance culture, a more streamlined and flexible workforce, and enhanced standards of conduct.
The memo states:
If you choose to remain in your current position, we thank you for your renewed focus on serving the American people to the best of your abilities and look forward to working together as part of an improved federal workforce. At this time, we cannot give you full assurance regarding the certainty of your position or agency but should your position be eliminated you will be treated with dignity and will be afforded the protections in place for such positions.
If you choose not to continue in your current role in the federal workforce, we thank you for your service to your country and you will be provided with a dignified, fair departure from the federal government utilizing a deferred resignation program. This program begins effective January 28 and is available to all federal employees until February 6. If you resign under this program, you will retain all pay and benefits regardless of your daily workload and will be exempted from all applicable in-person work requirements until September 30, 2025 (or earlier if you choose to accelerate your resignation for any reason).
The offer "applies to all full-time federal employees, except for military personnel, the Postal Service, and those working in immigration enforcement or national security," Axios detailed. The White House expects 5-10% of workers will take the deal.
As NBC Newsnoted Tuesday:
Tech billionaire Elon Musk, who is now in charge of Trump's new Department of Government Efficiency, famously sent a similar email to employees shortly after he took over Twitter, which he renamed X, asking them to opt in to keep working at the company.
White House officials wouldn't say whether he was involved in the current effort. But the subject line of the email that will be sent to federal workers is: "A fork in the road."
Musk now has a post pinned on X of an art piece he commissioned called "A Fork in the Road."
Although "department" is in the name of the Musk-led entity, it is actually a presidential advisory commission—and although the billionaire initially suggested that it would lead the effort to cut $2 trillion in annual spending, he has since tempered expectations.
The commission and Musk, the world's richest person, have faced intense scrutiny from watchdog groups and progressive lawmakers, though some have also offered advice on how to pursue significant cuts without harming the lives of working people, including: ending privatized Medicare, reducing prescription drug prices, and slashing the Pentagon's massive budget.
This post was updated after the Office of Personnel Management memo was officially released to clarify the buyout language and add comment from Congressman Gerry Connolly.
"Trump has denied or downplayed links to Project 2025," said the researcher who exposed the memos' authors. "These documents show that implementation is well underway."
A U.S. tech researcher on Tuesday revealed that the authors of policies published by Republican President Donald Trump's Office of Personnel Management have links to the far-right Heritage Foundation and its most infamous initiative, Project 2025.
On her [citation needed] website, Molly White exposed Noah Peters as the true author of Office of Personnel Management (OPM) acting Director Charles Ezell's Tuesday memo providing guidance on policy strikingly similar to Schedule F—which White described as "an effort to enable Trump to purge civil servants and replace them with loyalists."
White also revealed that James Sherk wrote a pair of joint OMP/Office of Management and Budget memos forcing federal workers to return to in-person work and implementing a government-wide hiring freeze.
According to White:
As far back as 2023, the Heritage Foundation's Project 2025 was recommending Peters for a position in Trump's second administration. Peters had previously been appointed in 2019 as the solicitor at the Federal Labor Relations Authority (FLRA), where he "aided and defended Trump appointees' anti-union FLRA policies that went against decades of the agency's own precedents," according to Court Accountability Action and State Democracy Defenders Action. Peters returned to private practice in 2022, but recently quietly updated his LinkedIn profile to reflect a new title of "senior adviser" to the Office of Personnel Management. This appointment does not appear to have been announced anywhere else...
James Sherk was announced as assistant to the president for domestic policy on January 18. A White House official during Trump's first term, Sherk was a key figure in Trump's Schedule F endeavors. After [former Democratic President Joe] Biden was elected and he quickly repealed Schedule F, Sherk slunk off to the America First Policy Institute to continue efforts to advance Trump's policies. Prior to these positions, he was a staff member at the Heritage Foundation.
White pointed to an unverified Reddit post by someone claiming to be an OPM employee and federal worker for nearly 20 years as cause for alarm.
"I've never witnessed anything even remotely close to what's happening right now," the poster wrote. "In short, there's a hostile takeover of the civil service."
"Let me say this in no uncertain terms—OPM has been compromised and taken over... by outside politicals," the Reddit user continued. "In just five days, they managed to push aside dozens of nonpolitical, career civil servants who were there specifically to prevent the civil service from becoming the president's henchmen."
"The nonpolitical civil servants here at OPM are watching helplessly as our government is being systematically dismantled bit by bit," the poster warned. Even the [inspector generals] are being fired to prevent them from investigating the numerous whistleblower complaints we've filed."
Returning to the memos written by Peters and Sherk, White noted: "While Project 2025 and similar initiatives have been public about their plans to reshape the federal workforce, Trump and other figures in his administration have denied or downplayed links with the initiative. These documents provide further evidence that the implementation is already well underway, with designated personnel quietly drafting policies that were intended only to be publicly attributed to those in charge of the federal agencies."
At least 140 people who worked in Trump's first administration—including six former Cabinet secretaries—have been involved with Project 2025.
On Monday, the National Treasury Employees Union—which represents approximately 150,000 workers across 35 federal agencies—sued the Trump administration over its moves to politicize the civil service and disempower employees.