Federal workers told offer to get paid through September if they resign is ‘valid,’ ‘lawful’
J. David Ake/Getty Images
(WASHINGTON) — Federal workers across the government on Friday received emails from top officials at their agencies informing them that the resignation offers they received earlier this week are “valid, lawful, and will be honored.”
The White House’s Office of Personnel Management had told government workers in an email Tuesday that if they quit by Feb. 6, they would still get paid through Sept. 30.
Employment lawyers questioned whether such an offer was lawful because Congress, not the White House, is responsible for authorizing workers’ paychecks. Many agencies are expected to run out of money this spring, with the federal government only funded through March, raising questions about how the Trump administration can promise those who take the buyouts would still get paid if the executive branch doesn’t control spending.
Many federal workers also wondered whether the memo, titled “A Fork in the Road,” was a phishing scam, prompting OPM to release a new memo assuring workers they are “most welcome [to] stay at home and relax or to travel to your dream destination. Whatever you would like.”
On Friday morning, senior officials at the various agencies sent memos to staffers assuring them the offers were indeed real.
“On behalf of the United States Department of Agriculture (USDA), I am informing you that the offer is valid, lawful, and will be honored by USDA,” said one such memo signed by Kailee Tkacz Buller, chief of staff at the Department of Agriculture.
“If you accept the deferred resignation offer, you will receive pay and benefits through September 30, 2025, and will not be subject to a reduction-in-force or other premature separation,” she wrote.
However, Max Alonzo, the national secretary-treasurer for the National Federation of Federal Employees, a labor union that represents 110,000 federal workers, said his union is advising federal workers not to respond to the email.
In part, he said, the union is worried about the lack of clarity and specifics in the offer email. He pointed to the lack of a contract and the fact that Congress has not allocated funds for large-scale federal buyouts, and he worried people might offer to resign but not actually be paid in the end or may have their benefits stripped.
“Absolutely do not resign. There is nothing that says that the day that you resign, that they can’t just let you go,” he said. “They don’t have to pay you — there’s nothing that says they have to pay you till Sept. 30. This is nothing that has been done before. This is not in our regulations. There’s no regs about it. We’re not even sure if it’s actually legal. So, yeah, absolutely do not resign.”
The buyout offers come as President Donald Trump has pushed for federal employees to return to working in person, signing an executive order on his first day in office calling for an end to teleworking.
(WASHINGTON) — Transgender U.S. service members will be separated from the military unless they receive an exemption, according to a new Pentagon policy disclosed in a court filing on Wednesday.
According to the memo, the Pentagon must create a procedure to identify troops who are transgender by March 26 and orders that the separation of individuals diagnosed with gender dysphoria must be completed by June 25.
Those to be separated from the military will include service members receiving some form of treatment or hormones for that diagnosis of gender dysphoria or who have gone through a gender-affirming surgery.
The new policy was included as an exhibit in the federal case of Talbott v. Trump, a federal lawsuit challenging President Donald Trump’s Jan. 27 executive order that rolled back the previous policy allowing transgender service members to serve in the military.
“Military service by Service members and applicants for military service who have a current diagnosis or history of, or exhibit symptoms consistent with, gender dysphoria is incompatible with military service,” the memo said.
“Service by these individuals is not in the best interests of the Military Services and is not clearly consistent with the interests of national security,” said the memo.
“Individuals who have a current diagnosis or history of, or exhibit symptoms consistent with, gender dysphoria are no longer eligible for military service,” it added.
The service members who will be separated will receive honorable discharges unless their record indicates they should receive a lower-level discharge. Receiving an honorable discharge means they would be able to receive benefits from the Department of Veterans Affairs.
“The Department only recognizes two sexes: male and female. An individual’s sex is immutable, unchanging during a person’s life. All Service members will only serve in accordance with their sex,” according to the memo.
The new policy will allow certain exemptions from separation or allow enlistment on a case-by-case basis separation if they can provide that “there is a compelling Government interest in retaining the Service member that directly supports warfighting capabilities.”
Current service members can also apply for an exemption if they can prove that they have been stable in their sex for three months “without clinically significant distress or impairment in social, occupational, or other important areas of functioning,” and that they never attempted to transition to another sex; and will adhere to all standards for the service member’s sex.
On Feb. 7, Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth issued a memo that lifted the Pentagon’s previous policy on transgender service and said the U.S. military would no longer allow transgender individuals to join and would stop performing or facilitating procedures associated with gender dysphoria. He also set a timeline for the Pentagon to develop an implementation plan for the new policy.
There are currently 4,240 active-duty, Guard and Reserve service members who have been diagnosed with gender dysphoria, according to a defense official.
Since 2014, the total number of diagnoses for gender dysphoria was 5,773 with 1,000 of those having gone through gender-affirming surgery. The total costs for treatments, hormones and surgeries during that time frame was $52 million, said the official.
There are about 2.1 million service members in the U.S. military — and about 1.3 million of them are on active duty.
Special counsel Jack Smith’s final report lays out in no uncertain terms federal prosecutors’ position that Donald Trump — who is set to be inaugurated president in less than a week — would have been convicted on multiple felonies for his alleged efforts to unlawfully overturn the results of the 2020 election, had voters not decided to send him back to the White House in the 2024 election.
That was one of the primary conclusions included in Smith’s final report on his election interference investigation, which the Justice Department released early Tuesday morning after a federal judge, late Monday night, cleared the way for the report’s release.
The report lays out the probe that resulted in Trump being charged in 2023 with four felony counts of undertaking a “criminal scheme” to overturn the results of the 2020 election in an effort to subvert democracy and remain in power. Trump pleaded not guilty to all charges.
The case, as well as Smith’s classified documents case against Trump, was dropped following Trump’s reelection in November due to a longstanding Justice Department policy prohibiting the prosecution of a sitting president.
“The Department’s view that the Constitution prohibits the continued indictment and prosecution of a President is categorical and does not turn on the gravity of the crimes charged, the strength of the Government’s proof, or the merits of the prosecution, which the Office stands fully behind,” the report said. “Indeed, but for Mr. Trump’s election and imminent return to the Presidency, the Office assessed that the admissible evidence was sufficient to obtain and sustain a conviction at trial.”
After conducting interviews with 250 witnesses voluntarily, calling 55 people to testify before the grand jury, executing dozens of subpoenas and search warrants, and sifting through a terabyte of publicly accessible data, Smith’s team concluded they could convince a jury beyond a reasonable doubt that Trump committed multiple federal crimes when he attempted to overturn the election, the report said.
“The throughline of all of Mr. Trump’s criminal efforts was deceit — knowingly false claims of election fraud — and the evidence shows that Mr. Trump used these lies as a weapon to defeat a federal government function foundational to the United States’ democratic process,” the report said.
For the first time, the report shed light on the internal deliberations of the prosecutors who sought to prove that Trump “engaged in an unprecedented criminal effort” while navigating the uncharted legal territory of charging a former president.
While prosecutors considered charging Trump with violating the Insurrection Act, Smith wrote that he opted against the approach because of the “litigation risk that would be presented by employing this long-dormant statute.” According to the report, prosecutors worried that Trump’s actions did not amount to an insurrection because he was already in power — rather than challenging a sitting government — when the riot took place. Smith also noted that his office did not obtain “direct evidence” of Trump’s “intent to cause the full scope of the violence that occurred on January 6.”
Smith also noted that the case against Trump presented unique challenges, including Trump’s “ability and willingness” to use social media to target witnesses, courts, and prosecutors with “threats and harassment.” Like any other case involving a conspiracy, prosecutors also expressed concerns about convincing witnesses to cooperate while the defendant still exerted influence and command over his alleged co-conspirators.
“That dynamic was amplified in this case given Mr. Trump’s political and financial status, and the prospect of his future election to the presidency,” the report said.
Despite those concerns, Smith’s report laid out how prosecutors planned to rebut Trump’s expected arguments to secure a conviction, laying out a play-by-play for how a trial would have proceeded had Trump lost the election.
If the former president argued that he acted in good faith when he claimed there was election fraud, prosecutors would present “strong proof” that Trump himself knew his claims of fraud were false. The report noted that Trump repeatedly noted in private how he lost the election, including berating Vice President Mike Pence for being “too honest” to challenge the results, telling his family “you still have to fight like hell” even if he lost the election, and remarking to a staffer, “Can you believe I lost to this f’ing guy?” after seeing Biden on television.
“This was not a case in which Mr. Trump merely misstated a fact or two in a handful of isolated instances. On a repeated basis, he and co-conspirators used specific and knowingly false claims of election fraud,” the report said.
If Trump argued he was following the advice of his lawyers, prosecutors planned to present evidence showing that his lawyers were acting as accomplices to the crime, preventing Trump from legally being able to employ the argument.
And if Trump argued that he was just using his First Amendment right when he challenged the election, prosecutors planned to highlight that Trump employed his statements to commit other crimes, including using false statements to defeat a government function, obstruct an official proceeding, and injure the right to vote.
“The Office was cognizant of Mr. Trump’s free speech rights during the investigation and would not have brought a prosecution if the evidence indicated he had engaged in mere political exaggeration or rough-and-tumble politics,” the report said. “The conduct of Mr. Trump and co-conspirators, however, went well beyond speaking their minds or contesting the election results through our legal system.”
In the report, Smith also detailed multiple interviews with various so-called “fake electors” who he said sought to cast votes for Trump — and admitted they would not have done so “had they known the true extent of co-conspirators’ plans.”
Smith told how investigators obtained Signal messages where “Co-Conspirator 4” — previously identified by ABC News as former DOJ official Jeffrey Clark — sent a message to Rep. Scott Perry saying he had received a highly classified briefing on foreign interference in the 2020 election that “yielded nothing” to support allegations of a stolen election.
“Bottom line is there is nothing helpful to P,” Clark’s message said, according to the report.
The report cites the handwritten notes of former Vice President Mike Pence that the special counsel obtained, about which Smith wrote, “In repeated conversations, day after day, Mr. Trump pressed Mr. Pence to use his ministerial position as President of the Senate to change the election outcome, often by citing false claims of election fraud as justification; he even falsely told Mr. Pence that the ‘Justice Department [was] finding major infractions.'”
Regarding the House select committee’s investigation into the Jan. 6 attack on the Capitol, the report said that probe only “comprised a small part of the Office’s investigative record, and any facts on which the Office relied to make a prosecution decision were developed or verified through independent interviews and other investigative steps.”
Volume One of Smith’s final report was released to the public early Tuesday after U.S. District Judge Aileen Cannon, following a weeklong court battle, ruled Monday that the Justice Department could release it.
Trump’s former co-defendants in his classified documents case, longtime aide Walt Nauta and staffer Carlos De Oliveira, had sought to block the release of both the classified documents volume and the Jan. 6 volume, but Cannon — who last year dismissed the classified documents case — allowed the public release of the Jan. 6 volume after determining that its contents have no bearing on the evidence or charges related Nauta and De Oliveira in their ongoing case.
After conferring with Smith, Garland determined that he would not publicly release Volume Two pertaining to the classified documents investigation because Nauta and De Oliveira’s cases were technically still on appeal.
In the classified documents case, Trump pleaded not guilty in 2023 to 40 criminal counts related to his handling of classified materials after leaving the White House, after prosecutors said he repeatedly refused to return hundreds of documents containing classified information. The former president, along with Nauta and De Oliveira, pleaded not guilty in a superseding indictment to allegedly attempting to delete surveillance footage at Trump’s Mar-a-Lago estate.
Smith resigned as special prosecutor on Friday after wrapping up the cases and submitting his report to Garland.
Julia Demaree Nikhinson/AP Photo/Bloomberg via Getty Images
(WASHINGTON) — As President Donald Trump was sworn in for his second term, a long list of political leaders, tech CEOs, celebrities and others were in attendance in the U.S. Capitol.
Former Vice President Mike Pence was seen in the Rotunda, as well as former President Barack Obama, former President Bill Clinton and former first lady Hillary Clinton. Former President George W. Bush and former first lady Laura Bush were also there.
Former first lady Michelle Obama — who has attended every inauguration since 2009, including Trump’s first swearing-in ceremony in 2017 — was not present.
Former President Joe Biden and first lady Jill Biden, as well as former Vice President Kamala Harris and second gentleman Doug Emhoff, were in attendance.
Several major tech CEOs were also there, including Elon Musk, Jeff Bezos, Mark Zuckerberg and Tim Cook. Joe Rogan, whose podcast Trump appeared on during the campaign, was seen in the Rotunda.
Chinese Vice President Han Zheng was also attending the event.
Many GOP leaders were seen in the Capitol, including former Republican leader Sen. Mitch McConnell, former U.S. Speaker of the House John Boehner, Sen. Marco Rubio, North Dakota Gov. Doug Burgum and Sen. Tom Cotton.
Numerous Democrats were also present, including New York Mayor Eric Adams, Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer, Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries, New Jersey Sen. Cory Booker and Minnesota Sen. Amy Klobuchar.
Spotted in the Emancipation Hall overflow room were YouTube celebs Jake and Logan Paul, UFC fighter Conor McGregor and podcaster Theo Von.
