The NPR Politics Podcast - Friday Roundup: Trump's Efforts To Overhaul Bureaucracy, FBI

Episode Date: February 7, 2025

The Trump administration's offer for federal employees to resign now and keep their pay and benefits through September has been paused for now. What happens next with the so-called fork in the road. Then, FBI agents who were involved with January 6th cases have sued their bosses at the Department of Justice. This episode: White House correspondent Tamara Keith, labor correspondent Andrea Hsu, political correspondent Susan Davis, and justice correspondent Carrie Johnson. The podcast is produced by Bria Suggs & Kelli Wessinger, and edited by Casey Morell. Our executive producer is Muthoni Muturi.Listen to every episode of the NPR Politics Podcast sponsor-free, unlock access to bonus episodes with more from the NPR Politics team, and support public media when you sign up for The NPR Politics Podcast+ at plus.npr.org/politics.Learn more about sponsor message choices: podcastchoices.com/adchoicesNPR Privacy Policy

This is Andre from Vermont. I've just checked off one of my bucket list items by riding a motorcycle to the Arctic Circle on the world famous Dalton Highway in Alaska. This podcast was recorded at 12, 13 p.m. Eastern Time on Friday, February 7th. Things will likely have changed when you hear this, but you can be sure that I'll be back in the saddle attacking my bucket list while driving through Alaska, the Yukon, British Columbia, and ending in Portland, Oregon in two weeks. Enjoy the show. That is so cool. That is spectacular. Also sounds kind of cold. It does sound cold and also I think, yeah, the saddle. Just thinking that. I'm going to have to suggest this. My brother does these long motorcycle rides. It's done

down to the Keys and throughout Palatia and coast to coast. He hasn't done the Arctic Circle. I'm gonna text him after this pod and tell him he's got his next trip. There you go. Hey there, it's the NPR Politics podcast. I'm Tamara Keith. I cover the White House. I'm Susan Davis.

I cover politics. And today we are joined by Labor correspondent Andrea Shue. Andrea, thank you for coming on the pod. Hey, thanks for having me again. Yes. Well, we have you here because there is a lot to talk about. So the Trump administration gave an offer to federal employees to resign now and keep their pay and benefits through September. That fork in the road is at least for now paused. Until Monday.

So, Andrea, tell us what happened in court yesterday. Andrea McAllister Yeah. So, it was a virtual hearing. The judge, George O'Toole, he's a Clinton appointee. He was in his courtroom in Massachusetts. And he started by saying, this is going to be really quick. He was basically issuing this pause on the deadline, pushing the deadline for federal workers to accept this fork in the road offer until Monday. And the reason was because the government had just filed a brief and he wanted to give the plaintiffs of the labor unions that sued to block this until today, Friday, to reply. So on Monday, he scheduled another hearing

at 2 p.m. and that one's going to be in person in Boston and he's going to hear the merits of this case. And then he did order the government to inform all the 2.3 million federal workers that this went to that this deadline has been paused. And those people started getting those emails around five o'clock yesterday afternoon. So let's go back one step, which is these labor unions that sued the government, what do they want in the end? Yeah, what they're asking for, they want Judge Atul to find that this whole thing, they're calling it the fork directive, this offer to federal employees that you can resign

from your jobs and keep your pay through the end of September. They want the judge to find that unlawful and they want the judge to suspend this until the government comes up with a version that they say is in accordance with the law. And I'll quote from the court doc here, until the defendants can provide adequate legal justification for this fork directive and adequate legal assurance of its terms. And that's really a nod to how much confusion there has been. There have been multiple versions that employees have gotten about what they're actually agreeing to. And then the labor unions are asking that after the government comes up with this new version that is in accordance

with the law, that people are given 60 days because they said, you know, people were given originally given nine days to decide whether to leave their government jobs. And that's just a really big decision to make in a short amount of time. Although I think, Andrew, it's worth noting that for a lot of federal workers, this might actually be a really good deal. Eight months, full pay, full benefits is about a good buyout offer as you can get from any American employer today. And the White House said that yesterday. I mean, I think the White House actually said, well, good. Now, federal workers have a few extra days to decide whether to take this once-in-a-lifetime

offer. And I have heard from some people, I've talked to one person who is taking this offer because they're really close to retirement. They were not about to retire. And the offer is actually that you can do both. You can resign now and still get your full retirement. So there are people like that who've said, yeah, this is a pretty good deal. There are people who are working remotely. Maybe they were even hired to work for a remote job. Now Trump has ordered all federal workers

to work from the office full time, and they maybe don't even live near an office. So for them, this might also be an okay option. And then there are, of course, people who just don't like their jobs and they've been looking anyway. So I think it's a really personal decision. And I think those who are willing to take some risk, there's some uncertainty about what the terms are and whether the government's going to honor them. If your risk tolerance is moderate to high, maybe this is an okay option. Yeah. I mean, it's a really great offer if you actually get what they say that you would get. And as you say, Andrea, there has been sort of a lack of clarity there. There have

been multiple descriptions of what the deal actually is. Yeah. And even as to whether you have to work or not, the original email that went out wasn't at all clear that you were going to be put on leave. I think it just said you wouldn't have to come into the office. It was only when an FAQ was added to the page that said, oh, you know, there's no expectation that you're going to have to work. And then some people have gotten these sample contract agreements that now say, oh, actually, you have to work until the end of February. And then IRS workers actually got something that said, no, actually, you have to work through May 15th, of course, past tax filing season.

The confusion around this is why I think that part of the reason why the administration hasn't hit the numbers they were hoping to hit, they wanted 10% of the workforce, that's 2.4 million people, to take that. So it would have been 240,000. I think the best numbers we have now, about 65,000 have raised their hands.

That's about 3%. Yeah, they're not quite there. But I think you could argue that more people might be willing to take this offer if they felt that it was legally sound. But it raises so many legal questions. And I think you can understand the worker anxiety of taking a buyout package that might be then taken away from you. And then you're out the severance payments and you're out of a job. And why the unions are telling their members like actually this isn't a buyout because

there's nothing about this is guaranteed. Yeah. And going through that frequently asked questions document, there was a question, can you take another job while you're in this period? And they're like, yeah, sure. Yeah, the answer, I'll read it from the FAQ actually. The wording is absolutely with an exclamation point. We encourage you to find a job in the private sector as soon as you would like to

do so. The way to greater American prosperity is encouraging people to move from lower productivity jobs in the public sector to higher productivity jobs in that FAQ- For double-dipping? And written by unknown legal advisors saying, of course you can do this thing that millions of federal workers have signed ethics pledges saying they would not double-dip as a federal worker. So that is just, I think, highlights a very good example of why you might be hesitant to take an offer that might seem legally dubious. Yeah.

And I think the other point to make here is that a lot of the conversation about this has been focused on federal workers in Washington, D.C. who don't want to go to the office. And the reality is very different. Oh, yeah. Something like 80% of the federal workforce is outside the D.C., Maryland, Virginia area. They're all over the country. They're keeping the water safe, processing social security checks. There are IRS employees who are in communities.

They go to the library. They go to community centers to help people with their taxes. These people work all over the country. I also think it was very interesting that this week, so far, this has been pitched to the public as a budget-saving measure, right? We're going to reduce the size of the workforce. We're going to streamline government. But then, Tam, this week, the White House,

the spokeswoman for the White House, Caroline Levitt, introduced this idea that actually the Trump administration might then rehire for some of these roles, which I think also raises questions about whether this is actually a budget saving measure or really just want to purge people out of the government that don't support the Trump administration. We know for a fact that this administration wants to purge the deep state and replace

federal workers with people who will not resist Trump's plans and policies. But we don't actually know if this is part of that plan or not. And I will note in the original OPM fork in the road email that went out to people, they laid out all the changes that were going to come to the federal government. And one of them is enhanced standards of conduct. And in this section, they have this language that says the federal workforce should be comprised of employees who are reliable, loyal, trustworthy. And the word loyal in particular there has some people really troubled because federal workers take an oath to be loyal to the US Constitution, not to any president or administration?

I also think we should note that yes, this by-law severance offer is happening, but the White House has also made clear that firings are on the horizon. And there's a lot of classes of federal workers that you can fire without recourse, thinking specifically of people who are hired and are on one or two-year probationary periods, which is pretty typical across the federal government. And those folks can be fired and they don't have union protections or recourse. So I also think that's one thing that we're all watching. And Andrea, we are going to let you go. Thank you so much for bringing your reporting to the pod. Oh, thanks for having me. And we're going to take a quick break when we get back.

What's going on over at the FBI and Justice Department? And we're back and we are joined now by justice correspondent, Carrie Johnson. Hey Carrie. Hey, Tam. All right, you've been busy. It's been a crazy period. Yeah. FBI agents have sued their bosses at the Department of Justice.

That sounds surprising, but Carrie, what's going on there? Yeah, certainly doesn't happen every day. What's been going on is the second in command at the Justice Department demanded from the FBI a list of employees who worked on all those January 6 cases. We think the list includes like 5,000 people. These are agents, investigators, intelligence analysts, and other people. And the acting out director of the FBI did not want to turn it over. You know, there's a lot of concern

about safety to these agents and employees because the January 6th people have been pardoned. Many of them have been making threats on social media and elsewhere against the people who investigated them. And it got so rough that two sets of FBI agents filed lawsuits to try to prevent this list from becoming public. Those lawsuits are getting hearing in court almost as we speak. Nothing's been resolved yet. But the fear is that somehow those names could become public and it could result in really bad consequences for the employees.

I also think it's a point worth making, especially for our listeners to understand, that FBI agents don't get to decide the cases they work on. This is like so many professions, your boss tells you to do something and you do it and then suggesting that you could be fired or punished for that seems kind of crazy. Absolutely. And in fact, things got so hot that the number two at the Justice Department actually sent out a memo saying no FBI employees would be fired or punished for following orders. But it hasn't given many of those agents much comfort, in part because they've seen so many people get fired at the Justice

Department already. The remaining lawyers who work with Special Counsel Jack Smith, many of them were fired. Other lawyers who worked at the U.S. Attorney's Office on January 6 cases and had still been on probationary status, they've been fired. And then senior employees who worked on things like the environment and national security and extraditions at the Justice Department, they've been reassigned to a sanctuary city office and some of them have quit. So it's been just two and a half weeks of real turmoil and upheaval at the DOJ. I mean, is some of this just like, you know, new priorities?

Some of it is new priorities, but we've had an example, and this is according to the FBI Agents Association, where one FBI employee actually left the recovery operation on the Potomac River for the people who died in the collision between the airplane and the helicopter. This employee had been working all day on recovery efforts and he had to go back to the office to fill out this survey the Justice Department demanded the FBI agents complete about what their role was in January 6. And you know, was that a good use of people's time? I'm not sure. The FBI didn't think so. Well, and the fact of this list, the fact of this survey, certainly it would seem like

this could lead to consequences for them. This is all in the context of President Trump's executive order about weaponization of the government. And we know that the new Attorney General, Pam Bondi, who's just been on the job for a couple of days, she signed a weaponization memo too. And she has pledged to basically investigate the people who investigated Trump, people in New York City, people in Georgia, and people in Washington, D.C.

And so there's really a climate of fear. It's gotten so rough that I talked this week with a lawyer named Stacy Young. She spent 18 years at the Justice Department. She just left last month to create a group called Justice Connection to try to help people who are in bad situations in the DOJ and the FBI now? I think that what's happening at the FBI unto itself is pretty spectacular, but it's not happening in a vacuum.

Like, if you step back and look at collectively the actions that the Trump administration is taking, offering buyouts to everybody that works at the CIA, the NSA, and the DNI, the Director of National Intelligence Office, there's been hiring freezes on people that do cybersecurity efforts. There is this sense of that the national security apparatus writ large is rotten to the core, right? That there's something in this that needs to be rooted out and dramatically changed. But politically speaking, it is just fascinating to me that the modern infrastructure was born out of the 9-11 attack, right? And legislation was passed and government was reorganized and that was an organization led by the Republican Party. And the same party 20 years later is essentially trying to dismantle it. And I will say like

it's some of it is with cause. There has been a lot of criticism of the national security apparatus from conservative to liberal thinkers. There's been reforms. There's not that there's nothing there there, but it is pretty profound what is happening now, especially when you think of counterterrorism and how dangerous the world still is. I mean, literally, there was just a terror-inspired incident in New Orleans on January 1st. Like, these are real threats that exist. But I do think, Sue, that what you're talking about is rooted in how President Trump feels about the intelligence apparatus, how he feels about the FBI, and all of that is based on how he feels he was

treated. Very early in his first administration, he was saying that he was being spied on by Obama. He believes that all of this has been weaponized against him going back years. His supporters believe this. And all of this is, as you say, rooted in getting rid of all of this that they believe is corrupt. Two points. One, he was not in fact spied on by Obama. And two, okay, you want to repopulate these agencies, that's fine.

But to hire and train a new FBI agent and a new intelligence officer will take a really long time. And in the meantime, in this high threat environment from overseas and even domestically, who's going to be doing that job protecting the American people? That's the question on a lot of people's minds these days. Well, let's turn to the FBI director. While all of this was going on, Democrats on Capitol Hill have been raising alarms about President Trump's pick to be FBI director

Cash Patel. He already had a Senate hearing. They wanted another one after new information came to light. The chairman of that committee, Chuck Grassley, said, uh-uh, not going to do that. And we're expecting Cash Patel to get a vote soon, right? Yeah, Cash Patel scheduled for a vote in the Senate Judiciary Committee next week, Thursday. The issue here is that at his hearing, he pledged to look forward and not backward. He talked about not wanting to engage in vengeance or being vindictive. And in his answers, his written answers to senators after his hearing, he basically said, listen, I'm going to take steps to follow up on President Trump's executive

order to root out corrupt elements of the government, and I'm full bore in on this weaponization effort. That is a kind of a conflict. And so many Democrats and even some Republicans outside the Congress want to know more. In fact, this week, William Webster, who's the only person who have run both the FBI and the CIA, sent Chuck Grassley a letter saying if Cash Patel gets to run the FBI, the FBI as we know it is over. And we're going to find out next week where the Senate stands on this. The thing I think is interesting about Patelel and I think this goes across Donald Trump's

nominees is he's clearly made loyalty a number one litmus test for all these appointees. But also I'd say this, it does kind of tell you that they are in somewhat figureheads because all of this upheaval at the CIA and at the FBI, a lot of this is happening before Cash Patel is even in place. Like if they're not even allowing their people to get in place to make it look like they're in charge. And I think that's important for people to remember that this is all being driven by Donald Trump and the Cash Patels and everybody else are there to execute the whims of the White House. And so the idea that, yes, Patel has been a provocateur, many of his opponents raise legitimate questions, but it's hard for me to see him as an independent operator versus someone who is going to do exactly

what Donald Trump tells him to do. Yeah. All right. Well, we are going to take one more break and then it's time for Can't Let It Go. And we're back and it's time for Can't Let It Go. That's the part of the show where we talk about the things from the week that we just cannot stop thinking about politics or otherwise. Sue, let's start with you. The thing I can't let go is I think that the universe has been speaking to me in the past week about the Eagles winning the Super Bowl.

Hear me. Hear me. I have three completely unrelated points to prove it, to prove my thesis. The first being that Beyonce won album of the year for Cowboy Carter. What does that have to do with anything, you might ask. Reasonable question. I do ask, yes. I think considering that category she was up against Taylor Swift who lost for Tortured Poets Department which arguably was a better album and I'm a Beyonce stan but Cowboy

Carter was not her best work but she had never won that before. We'll set that aside. That's a different can't let it go. I think that tells me that the universe is shifting away from Taylor Swift and everything going her way. Eres tours over, her boyfriend's in for the Super Bowl. The universe is saying, look, you've had your share. And she is from Pennsylvania. And she's also from Pennsylvania and was originally an Eagles fan.

Second point, I took an Uber this week. Okay. When I got out of the Uber and they send you the notification, it was for $33.33. Do you know what that is? The street address of my grandmother's house in the city of Philadelphia.

Okay. The third thing, and we all know the universe speaks to you in threes. The third thing I would point to is there was a tragic plane crash in the city of Philadelphia this past week. And as part of that, there was a 10-year-old boy who was in the car with his family. And when the plane crashed, Shrapnel, you know, flew into the air and came into the car.

And he dove and covered his little sister up and saved her life. And metal went into his head and he had to go to Children's Hospital and they had to have a surgery and they thought he might not make it. And he woke up and he was like, Dad, did I miss the Super Bowl? Oh my God. And he's a huge Eagles fan. How does the universe not want that kid to have a Super Bowl win?

So look, it's not me. I just report the facts. You decide. But I think that the universe is making a very good case that the universe wants the Eagles to win the Super Bowl. I'm not going to argue with the Philly fan because I know that's dangerous. Well the great part is next week we can come back on the pod and find out whether the universe is really...

And we'll find out. Did I put it all on the line? Look, there's also a lot of Philly fans out there who probably want to throw their phones listening to me because Philly fans are notorious about jinx. Like you never get too confident about a win. But look, I need a little optimism in this world and every team needs people who believe. So I'm just going in, I'm believing. TAM, what's your click? Well, I can't let it go. There is a man who was a judge and he was called for jury duty to be on a grand jury. And he did not want to do jury duty.

Understood. And so he said he could not be impartial He said I know they are guilty. They would not be in front of me if they weren't guilty But what I've learned through this oh oh, he was dismissed from jury duty. He got out of that. And then a disciplinary panel was notified. And then he basically resigned. He was taken off the bench. Forever?

Yes. Like cost his entire career of it? Yeah. In his effort to get out of jury duty, he got himself out of a job as a judge. To be clear, he is a town justice in the tiny town of Petersburg, New York. It turns out, I had no idea about this, but in New York for sort of lower level town justices, you are elected to this post.

You need not be a lawyer. I was gonna say, did he actually go to law school? No, this man said when he was put on the bench, he was looking forward to learning about the law. So good. So good. And it turns out according to the New York Times in 2019 only about 700 of New York's roughly 1,830 town and village judges had attended law school. That's amazing. That's actually the better part of that story that there's all these judges who have no legal experience. He can just tell if they're guilty by looking at them.

What do you need a law degree for? Yeah, I mean, if they were brought to hand, they must be guilty. That's some rough justice. Let's not. Let's not do that. Yeah. Rough justice is a good name for a podcast. Carrie, what can't you let go of?

Okay. So we're all working long hours, right? We are. One of the things I like to do when I'm not working is look at people who are attending awards ceremonies. I'm like thinking about pictures of people who went to the Grammys. Oh yeah. Oh yeah.

Or the Golden Globes. And this week, in fact just yesterday, was the NFL Honors Awards. So I spent part of this morning before coming to work looking at pictures of the Buffalo Bills quarterback Josh Allen and his fiance, the actress Hailee Steinfeld. I spent part of this morning looking at pictures of Joe Burrow, the Cincinnati Bengals quarterback. I spent a lot of time looking at pictures of Joe Burrow. I'm just going to do a full disclosure. But the most time I spent this morning was looking at pictures of the former

New England coach Bill Belichick. Oh, I know where you're going. And his very young girlfriend, Jordan Hudson. And Jordan Hudson is wearing a very fashion forward outfit. And Bill Belichick is wearing a jacket that doesn't fit so well. And everyone should go, when they're done listening to the pod, look at this photo. Because you too may be diverted from whatever is on your mind into that new universe. Also, Total Flex, he just like has a fist full of Super Bowl rings.

As one does. I would too if I was him. All right, well that is it for today's episode. Our executive producer is Mithani Maturi, Casey Morell edits the podcast, our producers are Bria Suggs and Kelly Wessinger. Special thanks to Krishna Dev Kalimur. I'm Tamara Keith, I cover the White House. I'm Susan Davis, I cover politics. And I'm Carrie Johnson, I cover the Justice Department. And thank you for listening to the NPR Politics Podcast. Go Birds!