Summary

House Speaker Mike Johnson plans to cut 75% of federal agencies, reducing them from 428 to 99, in collaboration with Elon Musk’s “Department of Government Efficiency” (DOGE), led by Vivek Ramaswamy.

Johnson’s agenda includes defunding PBS, Planned Parenthood, and curbing the “administrative state” through legislation and executive orders under Donald Trump.

Critics warn such cuts would impact jobs, healthcare, and essential services.

Backed by recent Supreme Court rulings limiting agency authority, Johnson and DOGE aim to reduce federal regulations, sparking significant debate over these drastic proposals.

  • TachyonTele@lemm.ee
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    107
    ·
    7 days ago

    It just blows my mind how evil these people are. They put all this destructive effort into everything they can think of 24/7, with little to no creation of anything with benefits.

    They’re little evil toddlers just smashing everything they can get thier mitts on.

  • ThePowerOfGeek@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    94
    ·
    edit-2
    7 days ago

    You know how people look back at history and go “the situation back then wasn’t perfect, but the idiotic way some in power tried to fix it just made it soooo much worse!”…

    Yeah, this is the next step up in the current cycle of this. In centuries to come anyone who is about able to reflect on things will not look at Johnson et al at all favorably.

  • GoofSchmoofer@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    35
    ·
    6 days ago

    If this happens there would be a blue wave that took over and would spend the next 4+ years trying to reduce the bleeding which is long enough for many non politically engaged people to forget it was the republicans that started it, who would then blame the Democrats for screwing up the economy .

  • NatakuNox@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    50
    ·
    7 days ago

    Isn’t that like several hundred thousands of employees? Suddenly unemployment will be sky high and you think health care CEOs are going to be looking over their shoulders now? Just wait. Mike will need his own presidential security detail to just look outside.

    • AlbertSpangler@lemmings.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      18
      ·
      6 days ago

      You won’t have any agency recording unemployment levels, so there will be no details about it. All you need to know citizen is that the Trump leadership is flourishing as it enters its 6th term, and all your problems that you experience are because of minorities.

    • Frozengyro@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      5
      ·
      6 days ago

      There are roughly 2 million US government employees. So 1.5 million people unemployed? Which wouldn’t send unemployment sky high, but pretty high.

      • hedgehogging_the_bed@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        18
        ·
        6 days ago

        1.5 million in direct unemployment, but consider the knock on unemployment for all the services those workers won’t need. Coffee shops, dry cleaners, parking lots, Uber/Lift drivers, childcare, etc. Employed people pay for services while employed that are directly tied to that employment and those businesses will also layoff their workers when these jobs disappear

      • MehBlah@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        13
        ·
        6 days ago

        1.5 million people who know how the system works hell bent on fucking over one shitty human.

      • Madison420@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        6 days ago

        You gotta add the state agencies who are supported by federal agencies. So like 50 -100k for every red state.

          • bitchkat@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            2
            ·
            6 days ago

            I think it’s privitazion that will be their preferred option. The government workers will be offered jobs in the private sector at less pay while the privatized company will charge more.

            They’ll probably even have another company that will manage leasing office space. The We Work guy is probably waiting for his comeback.

            • CheeseNoodle@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              2
              ·
              5 days ago

              Could always do the UK model (Currently being used on the NHS) The workers keep their jobs and the state/public still pay for everything but the workers are now magically actually employed by a private company that extracts profit by charging the government for stuff it was already doing without providing anything whatsoever.

              • bitchkat@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                3
                ·
                5 days ago

                That is basically what I was saying. It’s just a means to transfer money from the federal government to private corps.

            • NatakuNox@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              3
              ·
              6 days ago

              The private sector is not equipped to absorb millions of people. Most of these government workers are highly educated and highly specialized. These people aren’t going to just replace the millions of jobs Trump is planning to deport from the labor force.

              • bitchkat@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                2
                ·
                6 days ago

                You know that, I know that and I’m sure the people calling for these cuts know it. The difference is they don’t care.

  • BigDanishGuy@sh.itjust.works
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    12
    ·
    5 days ago

    Seeing as how there’s a growing dissent toward politicians and health-care CEOs, maybe bringing up axes isn’t the smartest thing right now?

    Of course I’m joking, but 75%? Why not an equally plausible number like 120% of federal agencies?

    • Bakkoda@sh.itjust.works
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      5 days ago

      This is typical melee weapon escalation. First they came for my axe. Then they came for my zweihänder. Finally they came for my quarter staff.

  • blarth@thelemmy.club
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    6
    ·
    5 days ago

    Mike Johnson and the boys about to break things they don’t understand to look cool for mouth breathers, making the rest of us suffer for decades.

  • Nine@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    7
    ·
    5 days ago

    It’s a libertarian wet dream…. That will fuck over regular people for decades…

      • TransplantedSconie@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        14
        ·
        7 days ago

        I don’t know, man. There are a LOT of guns floating around out there to be making people desperate.

        Just ask the United Healthcare CEO about making decisions that affect people’s lives negatively.

        Oh wait…

  • LovingHippieCat@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    30
    ·
    7 days ago

    Ah yes the old “government so small they can drown it in a bathtub” plan. They want all this cut. But also want to police abortion and trans people. Small but only in the areas they want.

    • GraniteM@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      5 days ago

      There are people who, disturbed by “big government” today and its tendency to curb the advantages they might gain if their competitiveness were allowed free flow, demand “less govern- ment.” Alas, there is no such thing as less government, merely changes in government. If the libertarians had their way, the distant bureaucracy would vanish and the local bully would be in charge. Personally, I prefer the distant bureaucracy, which may not find me, over the local bully, who certainly will. And all historical precedent shows a change to localism to be for the worse.

      —Isaac Asimov, Nice Guys Finish First, collected in The Sun Shines Bright, 1981

  • acargitz@lemmy.ca
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    15
    ·
    edit-2
    6 days ago

    As an outsider looking in, I am wondering whether this might mean that the Republican party has a vision for a weaker federal government, such that the states would have more, well, rights. I.e., if the federal government gets very scaled down, is that at the same time emptying up the regulatory space for individual states to go in all sorts of different directions, or does it come with some kind of libertarian straightjacket?

    The majority of the US population lives in wealthy blue states. If the regressive rural states can’t stomach the kind of extensive welfare state that makes sense in more urbanized places, fine. Like a “two speed Europe”, they can choose to stay behind, so long as California, Massachusetts, NY etc get the freedom to experiment with social democratic policies.

    Edit: this kind of more decoupled federalism also exists eg in Canada. Quebec gets to pretend it’s France while Alberta gets to pretend it’s Texas.

    • NotBillMurray@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      22
      ·
      6 days ago

      In effect they want states to be able to do what they want, as long as it aligns with Republican ideals. All you need to do is look at their rhetoric towards sanctuary cities for the “states rights” argument to fall apart.

      Conservatism consists of exactly one proposition, to wit: there must be in-groups whom the law protects but does not bind, alongside out-groups whom the law binds but does not protect.

      -Frank Wilhoit

      • admin@maple.social
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        11
        ·
        6 days ago

        Conservatism consists of exactly one proposition, to wit: there must be in-groups whom the law protects but does not bind, alongside out-groups whom the law binds but does not protect.

        -Frank Wilhoit “The modern conservative is engaged in one of man’s oldest exercises in moral philosophy; that is, the search for a superior moral justification for selfishness.” ― John Kenneth Galbraith

    • Croquette@sh.itjust.works
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      5
      ·
      6 days ago

      Our dumbfucks fucks here in Quebec are increasingly leaning towards the Americanization of Canada.

      I’ve seen so many people talking about how it would be cool to be the 51st state when he met Trudeau.

      • RubberElectrons@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        6
        ·
        6 days ago

        As an American, I urge you to fight that effort, in a serious way. America rocks, but also sucks in several major fuckin’ ways.

        Good luck, stay Canadian and keep up the mutual love.

    • Maggoty@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      3
      ·
      edit-2
      6 days ago

      Oh no. It’s entirely so they can do stupid shit. They’ll happily ax 75% of agencies and set the DOJ to making sure Blue States don’t just do it on their own. We’ve seen this play out in some red states already where they forfeit any regulation on a subject and then ban the blue cities from doing it themselves.

    • Dkarma@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      6 days ago

      Wait until the override the posse comatatus act. The. It will be clear. They plan to make money slaves out of blue states.

  • scripthook@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    11
    ·
    6 days ago

    Easier said than done. Dems can use the fillibuster and a lot of gutting of federal agencies require going through a budget committee as well. Things move slow in congress and they have 2 years to slash everything…