Or maybe a better question is, how far do you want to go?
And how fast do you want to get there?
Now we're getting somewhere.
So let's go.
Let's go faster.
Let's go further.
Let's go beyond.
MIDCO supports C-SPAN as a public service, along with these other television providers, giving you a front-row seat to democracy.
This coming Wednesday, Homeland Security Secretary Alejandro Mayorkis, FBI Director Christopher Wray, and National Counterterrorism Center Acting Director Brett Holmgren will testify on homeland security threats.
This before the House Homeland Security Committee.
It gets underway live at 10 a.m. Eastern on C-SPAN 3.
They are also scheduled to testify on the same topic before the Senate Homeland Security Committee, which will be live on Thursday at 10 a.m. Eastern on C-SPAN 3.
You can also watch these hearings on our free mobile video app, C-SPANNO, and online at c-SPAN.org.
Welcome back to Washington Journal.
We're joined now by Eric Katz.
He's senior correspondent for government executive.
We're talking about the future of the federal workforce in the next Trump administration.
Eric, welcome.
Thanks for having me.
So just tell us about your publication, Government Executive, and what you cover.
So we cover the management and oversight of federal agencies.
We cover what federal agencies are actually doing and how that infects their employees.
We can cover congressional oversight of federal agencies.
And yeah, we're read all over Washington.
Well, let's hop right in.
Your article has the headline, Trump vows to, quote, dismantle the federal bureaucracy and restructure agencies with new Musk-led Commission.
First, talk about how President-elect Trump is talking about the federal bureaucracy and what his plans are.
So he's coming in with a promise to shrink the size of the federal government and the employees who work for it.
He did something.
He talked similarly in 2016 after being elected.
He actually oversaw a slight growth in the federal workforce, although most agencies saw their employees actually shed employees.
So what he's talking about now is slashing the agency budgets, slashing regulations, slashing what agencies actually carry out in doing and so doing, you know, eliminating many federal jobs.
So has he talked about actually cutting programs or is there a plan as to how many federal workers he wants to cut?
It's not really precise.
You know, he hasn't talked about too many programs he wants to eliminate.
He's talked about getting rid of the Department of Education.
That would require act of Congress, so unclear whether that would actually happen.
And let's talk about that a little bit because Vikwan Ramaswamy did say that entire agencies could get deleted.
That was his word.
But if they wanted to close down an agency and that money's already been allocated by Congress, what would happen to that funding?
Or like talk us through that process.
So if the funding is there from congressional appropriation, that money, the president doesn't have that much discretion in revoking that.
The president-elect has talked about using the Empoundment Act, which is a decades-old law that would give the president more flexibility in withholding funds, and maybe he could use that, but the legal capacity there is a little bit murky.
So, you know, if once Congress provides the money and authorizes these things, it's not really up to the president to say that we're getting rid of this agency.
That requires an act of Congress.
And when he was president last time, he tried this on a smaller scale with these small independent agencies.
And even those, Congress said, no, no, we're keeping them.
And they outlasted.
Well, let's play a very short portion of Vivek Ramaswamy from this Sunday on Fox News Sunday talking about the plans for reducing government.
Are you expecting to close down entire agencies?
Like President Trump has talked about the Department of Education, for example.
Are you going to be closing down departments?
We expect mass reductions.
We expect certain agencies to be deleted outright.
We expect mass reductions in force in areas of the federal government that are bloated.
We expect massive cuts among federal contractors and others who are overbilling the federal government.
So yes, we expect all of the above.
And I think people will be surprised by, I think, how quickly we're able to move with some of those changes, given the legal backdrop the Supreme Court has given us.
He said people are going to be surprised at how quickly we can move.
What is he talking about?
Well, so he has this, when he was running for president, he also talked about this.
And his proposal was instead of to, so federal employees are protected by certain legal protections that allow them certain guarantees before they can just be fired.
You know, that's to protect us from having a spoil system where a president comes in and just installs loyalists.
Instead, we have a merit-based civil service made up of experts who can manage the functioning of government.
He can get around that by just having massive widespread layoffs.
That's what the term reductions in force is referring to there.
So he says he can come in quickly, say, all these agencies, you're too bloated and we're laying people off.
Or another thing he's talked about is randomizing it and saying, if your Social Security number ends in an odd number, you're laid off.
Now, whether that would actually, whether that's an effective way to manage our government is very questionable.
You're talking about laying off, if this is evenly distributed, half of the doctors who care for veterans and half of the air traffic controllers and the civilians who support the armed services.
So that's something that I don't think would be very practical or that Congress would allow that to go through.
But they do have some ability to try to implement these layoffs.
It won't be as quick as he talks about because federal employees have the ability to appeal those and bog down the system a little bit, but he could do it.
And there are unions within the federal government.
Talk about how that works and what their role might be in this.
Yeah, so they're obviously going to fight this.
They have, in most cases, collective bargaining agreements in place.
They have contracts that in some ways dictate whether these the course by which these layoffs must take place.
And they protect things like flexible work schedules.
So Ramaswamy has also talked about eliminating telework.
Most federal employees do not telework at all.
who do spend most of their time in on-site but for those who but Ramaswamy was saying that most of them are teleworking and that they're not actually working Right.
So according to the most recent data we have, that's not true.
And of course, those who are, when you telework, it doesn't mean you're not working.
Just means you're not working from the office.
So even that is, in many cases, needs to be negotiated through labor agreements.
They could try to override that and press that through labor authorities or in court.
But it'll be a challenge for them to just sort of unilaterally try to put that in place.
I want to read you this quote by the American Federation of Government Employees, Everett Kelly, and get your reaction.
Who says, But make no mistake, our union will not stand by and let any political leader, regardless of their political affiliation, run roughshod over the Constitution and our laws.
During President Trump's first term, his administration attempted to gut many of our negotiated union contracts, downsize and relocate federal agencies at great disruption and cost to taxpayers, and replace tens of thousands of nonpartisan civil servants with political appointees who would blindly do his bidding.
Yeah, a couple points there.
The Trump administration really butted heads with federal employee unions in his first term.
They tried to kick them out of their office space that they have and reduce the amount of time that employees could spend doing union activity.
And they thought that I expect those executive orders to come back into place very quickly upon Trump taking office.
And in terms of the last point, that's a reference to something an executive order President Trump signed right before he left office called Schedule F, which made employees, federal employees at will to take away what we were just talking about with the merit-based civil service.
Instead, employees could be fired because they weren't loyal enough to the president.
And that was met with a lot of backlash.
It never ended up going through, but Trump has promised to bring it back.
And so we'll see where that winds up.
We'll take your calls up until the end of the program at 10 a.m. when the House comes and gavels in.
The numbers are Democrats 202-748-8,000, Republicans 202-748-8,001, and Independents 202-748-8002.
We have a line set aside for federal employees.
You can call 202-748-8003 if you work for the federal government.
In that clip that I showed you, Ramaswamy did mention contractors who were overbilling the government.
Of course, contractors are a big part of the federal budget.
How would that work?
Has he said anything more about going after contracts?
And of course, interestingly, Elon Musk, of course, who's working with him on this same efficiency department, is a big recipient of government contracts.
Yeah, I think that's estimated to be his contracts are estimated to be worth billions of dollars per year.
And there's some concerns about a conflict of interest there.
In terms of going after the contracts, I mean, these things are constantly being re-bid and renegotiated.
So, you know, any administration has the ability to try to work out better deals for the government.
Trump talked a little bit about that in his first term.
And the federal government has enormous buying power, obviously, because the scale at which they're operating.
So you could definitely see some of these contracts be reworked, reshaped.
I think every administration tries to do that.
So it depends what they're willing to go after, what services they're willing to shed, if that's up for debate.
But they will have opportunities to press federal contractors on what they're billing the government.
And past administrations have attempted to reduce the size of government before.
Can you talk about those previous attempts and what came of them?
Yeah, I mean, it's honestly one of the oldest tricks in the Washington playbook is to come in and say, we have this blue ribbon committee that's going to reduce the size of government and get rid of waste, fraud, and abuse.
Almost every president comes in with some sort of task force to do that.
There were, well, first of all, President Trump in his first term had this big reorganization plan that was aimed at making government more efficient.
They came up with, that was internal to government, whereas the Musk Ramaswamy thing will be outside of government.
That came up with some ideas that never really went anywhere.
Some big initiatives happened under President Clinton and President Reagan that were sort of similarly like bringing outsiders from government to come up with these proposals and were really going to make government more efficient.
They had some success.
President Clinton really did actually reduce the size of the federal workforce.
But some of these proposals, they never really went anywhere.
They required congressional action.
And they weren't just like, oh, here's some waste.
It was real policy proposals that they were coming up with.
And there wasn't always an appetite to implement those.
Richard sent us on X who wanting to know about the numbers.
So what is the percentage of America's workforce that's employed by the federal government?
So it depends what you count.
There's about 2 million, 2.1 million federal career civil servants.
There's another 600,000 or so that work for the Postal Service, and then there's active duty military.
So it's a pretty, it's a fairly small percentage of the overall workforce in America, but it's not nothing.
I mean, if you're talking about widespread layoffs of these people, and Ramaswamy has talked about 75%, you know, that's a major economic impact.
You're talking about laying off over a million people.
And let's go to the phones now to Sean in Blacksburg, New York.
Democrat, good morning.
Yes, hello.
I just wanted some clarification.
Actually, I'm not really Democrat or Republican.
I think I might have said Republican, just more independent.
But clarification, you mentioned that President, the law that he passed before he left the last time, basically made it sound as though he would fire people that weren't loyal to him.
As I understand it, it would give the ability to fire a federal employee, basically, that weren't doing their job.
So the law, or it's not a law, it was an executive order, and he would apply this new firing capacity to any federal employee who worked in a policy position.
It was very loosely defined, and there was concern that this could be applied on an extremely widespread basis.
And what I was referring to is what the administration actually talked about there, which was we have federal employees that are entrenched in these agencies, and they're standing in the way of the president accomplishing his goals.
So when I talk about loyalty, what I mean is they view much of the federal workforce as adversarial to what they're trying to accomplish.
And anyone who stands in their way, this will make it easy to get rid of them.
Jika on X said Project 2025 said to privatize as much as possible.
Can you explain the key risks and benefits of hiring employees versus contracting services?
Sure.
So first of all, there's many things that are defined in federal law as inherently governmental.
It's actually quite difficult to contract those out unless Congress were to rewrite those laws.
Federal contractors generally bill at a higher rate than federal employees, but there's a little bit more flexibility there, which is why agencies often turn to them because they don't have to go through the same hiring processes and they don't have to be responsible for their lifelong pension or health care benefits as career employees who serve a certain amount of time.
They are responsible for that.
So there's a little bit more flexibility with contractors, but it sort of depends what you're working on and what you need, what you're looking for.
Clarence in North Carolina, Independent.
Good morning, Clarence.
Good morning.
How are you doing?
I was a federal worker for 43 years, and my problem with union, and I was a soft steward, you have too much authority in the union because you have a program like the union I was in.
You can self-work two days without getting a doctor's excuse and come back the third day.
Nothing can be saved to you.
You can't fire nobody.
What Trump did with the VA, I'm a veteran.
He made it hard, made it for if you're not doing your job, you can get fired.