USA TODAY Trump, joined by Musk in Oval Office, orders up big cuts in federal workforce Joey Garrison, USA TODAY Tue, February 11, 2025 at 1:37 PM PST5 min read 13.8k Videos cannot play due to a network issue. Please check your Internet connection and try again. Error Code: 400-750 Session Id: m26j65bs (Pls: 1b746780-01d4-4cad-8d1c-aa5f0910a66f) WASHINGTON ― Joined by Elon Musk in the Oval Office, President Donald Trump signed an executive order Tuesday that seeks to significantly reduce the size of government by instructing heads of federal departments and agencies to undertake plans for "large-scale reductions in force." Trump's newest order directs the federal government to implement a "workforce optimization initiative" created by Musk's Department of Government Efficiency, which has been moving rapidly from one department to another to slash spending and gut programs. "It's not optional to reduce federal expenses, it's essential," Musk, wearing a black MAGA hat and joined by his son, X, said in remarks standing next to Trump, who was seated behind the Resolute Desk. Musk called the federal bureaucracy an "unelected, fourth, unconstitutional branch of government" that must be held accountable. More: 5 ways Elon Musk is working to dismantle the federal government "The people voted for major government reform and that’s what the people are going to get,” Musk said, responding to detractors who call DOGE's involvement a hostile takeover. “That’s what democracy is all about.” Tesla and SpaceX CEO Elon Musk joins U.S. President Donald Trump during an executive order signing in the Oval Office at the White House on February 11, 2025 in Washington, DC. Tesla and SpaceX CEO Elon Musk joins U.S. President Donald Trump during an executive order signing in the Oval Office at the White House on February 11, 2025 in Washington, DC. Agency heads are ordered to "coordinate and consult with DOGE to shrink the size of the federal workforce and limit hiring to essential positions," the White House said in a summary of the order. "Agency heads shall promptly undertake preparations to initiate large-scale reductions in force, consistent with applicable law," the order reads. It states that "all offices that perform functions not mandated by statute or other law" should be prioritized in the cuts. Musk vows transparency, wants to 'right-size' workforce Trump did not sign the order while reporters were present inside the Oval Office but did so after media members were escorted out, the White House confirmed. "We've already found billions of dollars of abuse incompetence and corruption," Trump said of DOGE's efforts to find wasteful spending, which both Trump and Musk repeatedly called "fraud" during a more than 30-minute exchange with reporters. Their joint appearance marked the first time the billionaire SpaceX CEO has taken questions from reporters in a public setting since he's assumed power in Trump's second term. Musk took several questions from reporters, defending DOGE's accountability and insisting he won't engage in work that poses potential conflicts of interest. Through SpaceX, Musk has billions of dollars in contacts with the Pentagon. "All are actions are fully public," Musk said, adding that observers won't hesitate about flagging conflicts. "It's not like people are going to be shy about saying that. They'll say it immediately." U.S. President Donald Trump speaks as Elon Musk carries his son X on his shoulders in the Oval Office of the White House in Washington, D.C., U.S., February 11, 2025. U.S. President Donald Trump speaks as Elon Musk carries his son X on his shoulders in the Oval Office of the White House in Washington, D.C., U.S., February 11, 2025. The new order comes as Trump's administration has offered buyouts to nearly all 2.3 million federal employees in a push to drastically reduce the federal workforce. But the offer, which would pay employees through September if they agree to resign, is currently held up in court after a federal judge in Massachusetts extended a pause Monday to hear arguments from both sides in a legal challenge brought by federal employees unions.
-
-
-
Nobody is telling you how FUCKED every military on Earth just became. Everyone is watching the war. The missiles flying. The explosions. Nobody is talking about the fact that Israel just made missiles OBSOLETE. The Iron Beam. A 100-kilowatt laser. Deployed in LIVE COMBAT for the first time in human history. Not a test. Not a prototype. Real war. Real Iranian missiles. Destroyed in mid-air. By a beam of light. → Cost per Iron Dome interceptor: $50,000 → Cost per Iron Beam shot: $2 → That is not a typo. Two. Dollars. Iran spent $20,000 building a drone. Israel deleted it with $2 of electricity. Iran fires 100 drones in a swarm attack. Cost to Iran: $2,000,000. Cost to Israel: $200. 💀 Here's what nobody is explaining to you: This doesn't just change THIS war. This changes ALL war. Forever. → Every missile Iran has ever built is now worthless scrap metal → Russia's entire missile stockpile? Obsolete overnight. → China's "carrier killer" ballistic missiles? The ones they spent $50,000,000,000 developing? Junk. → North Korea's only leverage — its missile program? Gone. → The Iron Beam never runs out of ammo. It runs on ELECTRICITY. → It fires at the speed of light. Nothing can dodge it. → It's silent. No explosion. The missile just vanishes. → Every country that invested in missiles just watched decades of military spending become worthless in real time. The US spent $200,000,000,000 on missile defense over 40 years. Israel just replaced it with a laser that costs less than a coffee per shot. This is not an upgrade. This is the end of an era. The age of missiles just died on live television and nobody is talking about it. Bookmark this. You're watching the biggest shift in military history since the atomic bomb.
-
-
-
-
-
When people lose a political battle do they historicaly turn into angry yelling people as to deal with the loss Searching the web 48 results Yes, historically and psychologically, people (and groups) who lose a major political battle often respond with heightened anger, vocal outrage, yelling/protesting, resentment, and sometimes radicalization. This isn't universal—some accept defeat gracefully and move on—but it's a very common pattern across time, cultures, and ideologies. It's not just "sore losing"; it's a mix of emotional coping, group dynamics, and strategic behavior.Why this happensPsychological mechanisms: Political loss threatens identity, status, and worldview. Anger serves as a defense— it masks grief, fear, or helplessness, provides a sense of agency ("I'm fighting back!"), and bonds the "losers" together against the "winners." Resentment can feel empowering; it turns passive defeat into active narrative of injustice or betrayal. Scapegoating opponents (or "elites," "traitors," etc.) is classic. Contempt and rage can even be enjoyable in the short term as they elevate the self above the "enemy." Group polarization: In defeat, factions often radicalize. Moderates get sidelined, while louder, angrier voices dominate the conversation. This creates echo chambers where outrage is rewarded with attention, loyalty, and status within the group. "Radical loser" dynamic: Some thinkers describe how those who feel like societal or political "losers" adopt aggression as identity—lashing out to reclaim dignity or visibility. This shows up in both left- and right-wing movements after defeats. Historical examplesAncient & early modern: After military or political defeats (e.g., Athens condemning leaders like Phocion post-losses), losers often turned to bitter recriminations, purges, or mob anger. Grievance-fueled rebellions like Bacon's Rebellion (1676 Virginia) started with angry colonists feeling unprotected and ignored by authorities—leading to violence and burning the capital. U.S. history: The 1790s were full of rage—Whiskey Rebellion mobs tarred-and-feathered tax collectors; partisan newspapers accused opponents of betraying the Revolution. Post-Civil War, defeated Southern ex-Confederates channeled anger into Democratic Party resurgence, voter suppression, and Jim Crow. William Jennings Bryan's 1896 loss (and the Populist movement's collapse) saw agrarian "losers" fuel fiery rhetoric against "eastern elites," influencing later movements. 20th-century labor strikes or civil rights setbacks often involved angry protests turning confrontational. Recent patterns: Losers of elections frequently enter a "wilderness" phase of internal anger and finger-pointing. Examples include post-2016 progressive/Democratic infighting (some turning to strident resistance or identity-focused outrage), or post-2020 Trump supporters embracing "stolen election" narratives that fueled protests and threats. On the other side, losses have led to accusations of fascism or betrayal, with vocal media and street anger. Both sides show extremists using more negative, angry language than moderates. This pattern appears across the spectrum—left after economic/globalization "losses," right after cultural or foreign policy shifts, populists feeling like "globalization losers," etc. Anger often drives participation (protests, voting, organizing) but can also lead to violence, conspiracy thinking, or long-term bitterness if unresolved.Not always "yelling" foreverMany groups eventually adapt: they regroup, moderate, learn lessons, or win future battles. The U.S. survived the angry 1790s and became a stable nation. Populist energy from 1890s "losers" reshaped parties without destroying democracy. But unchecked, it can deepen polarization, erode trust, or spawn extremism.In short, yes—turning to loud, angry expressions is a frequent historical response to political loss. It helps process the pain and rally the faithful, but it risks becoming performative or destructive if it replaces constructive strategy. Humans are tribal; defeat stings, and yelling is one way we cope and signal we're not done fighting. The healthier paths (reflection, adaptation, bridge-building) exist but are harder in polarized times.
-
-
No comments:
Post a Comment