Over 100,000 Federal Employees Expected to Quit Tuesday Amid Government Shutdown — Largest Exodus in U.S. History as Trump Moves to Finally Drain the Swamp
September 30, 2025
(Official White House Photo by Tia Dufour)
Over 100,000 federal employees are expected to resign imminently under the Trump administration’s sweeping “deferred resignation” program.
This mass exodus is essential to finally draining the swamp and reasserting presidential control over a bloated, unaccountable federal machine.
Late last week, the Office of Personnel Management (OPM) reportedly circulated internal guidance to agencies, warning them to prepare for waves of deferred resignations and reductions in force should Congress fail to approve full appropriations, according to the New York Post.
Agencies were told to begin drafting Separation and Reduction in Force (RIF) plans targeting nonessential positions.
On January 28, 2025, the Office of Personnel Management (OPM) issued a memo to the entire federal civil service titled “Fork in the Road,” offering employees a deferred resignation option.
The offer promised continued salary and benefits through September 30 if workers left voluntarily, but only if they signed away legal rights and accepted the exit by a looming deadline.
By mid-February, approximately 75,000 federal employees had signed the exit agreement.
Now, as the Trump White House prepares for a new wave, more than 100,000 additional workers are expected to depart as of Tuesday, making this breakaway the largest one-day drop in federal workforce history, according to The Guardian.
The news outlet reported:
Workers preparing to leave government as part of the resignation program – one of several pillars of Donald Trump’s sweeping cuts to the federal workforce – have described how months of “fear and intimidation” left them feeling like they had no choice but to depart.
“Federal workers stay for the mission. When that mission is taken away, when they’re scapegoated, when their job security is uncertain, and when their tiny semblance of work-life balance is stripped away, they leave,” a longtime employee at the Federal Emergency Management Agency (Fema) told the Guardian. “That’s why I left.”
[…]
The total number of expected departures through the delayed resignation and voluntary separation programs, attrition, and early retirement programs is about 275,000 employees, the spokesman said.
Several thousands of additional federal workers have been fired as part of reduction in force mandates ordered by the administration. The mass exodus is the largest single-year decline in civilian federal employment since the second world war.
Federal employees who took the deferred resignation offer requested to speak anonymously in hopes of returning to the federal government in the future and to protect future job prospects.
Trump’s agenda has long centered on shrinking the size and influence of the federal bureaucracy. In early 2025, he formally instructed agencies to prepare for deep cuts and reorganizations aimed at eliminating “waste, bloat, and corruption.”
Already, early moves have targeted traditionally liberal or expansive agencies. The U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID) has seen nearly all its Washington-based staff placed on leave, with office access revoked and operations severely curtailed.
As speculation swirls over why generals and flag officers from around the world were summoned, Trump insisted the purpose was celebratory.
“It’s really just a very nice meeting talking about how well we’re doing militarily, talking about being in great shape, talking about a lot of good, positive things. It’s just a good message,” Trump told NBC News.
“We have some great people coming in, and it’s just an ‘esprit de corps.’ You know the expression ‘esprit de corps’? That’s all it’s about. We’re talking about what we’re doing, what they’re doing, and how we’re doing.”
Hundreds of generals, admirals and their senior enlisted leaders — ranked one star and above — were ordered last week to attend the meeting with War Secretary Pete Hegseth.
The invitation offered no stated reason, fueling speculation it could herald mass cuts consistent with Hegseth’s push to shrink the general officer corps.
The President is scheduled to speak at 9:00 am ET.
10-Year-Old Girl and Jiu-Jitsu Fighter Calls Out Boys Competing in Girls Sports… by Fighting Them
September 30, 2025
Enrique Tarrio, Barry Ramey, Zoe, and David Szura.
Every so often it takes the innocence of a child to remind us how insane our world can be. As adults, we can over-complicate life but did you ever imagine we’d be wrestling with the concept that there are only two genders during this lifetime?
Well, J6ers Barry Ramey & Enrique Tarrio had the luxury of interviewing Zoe Szura (a 10yr old Jiu-Jitsu fighter), alongside her father David (who served in the U.S. Marines) at WarBoys Studios and she has some strong words for the parents of boys pretending to be girls in Jiu-Jitsu.
At 4 years old Zoe started training and in a short 6 years has risen to #6 in the Nation, in her division. In 2025, she has 10 wins bearing 2 Gold, 2 Silver, and 3 Bronze medals and a victory video on Instagram. Her interview revealed how she’s been turning the tables to create a win for what’s turned into a career overnight. She’s had to fight boys otherwise have no shot at rising up.
To Zoe, it’s clear. There are only two genders. She clearly sees that boys living in a delusion and competing against a girl, as a fellow girl, is complete insanity. When asked what message she has for parents of boys pretending to be girls competing in girls sports she said, “stop pretending for your boy, stop pretending they’re a girl. Put them in the boys bracket or you could put them in the girls bracket just don’t have them act and pretend to be a girl.” Zoe’s intelligence shines through as it’s obvious that a two-parent household is instilling not only American Values but common sense.
Zoe and her father David Szura.
The difference for Zoe is, she chooses to fight boys because it’s the only way for her to rise to the number 1 spot where her heart is set on being a UFC Fighter in her adult career. She knows when she’s fighting a boy, she’s getting herself into a situation with an opponent who is most likely physically stronger than her and it has led to her success.
And now, her mother and father turn to the American people for support to help push Zoe through every grueling session and set her dreams soaring. Your contribution on Zoe’s fundraiser helps cover travel costs, buy necessary gear, and even supports her academic excellence—because for them, the whole journey is about an investment in a little girl’s dream to conquer the world through Jiu-Jitsu.
America has an obligation to support the youth who are being brought up the right way. Simply because there is so much working against them. (It takes a village) So many in our younger generations are glorified for negative behavior. It is up We the People to promote the children that will carry the American torch further into a prosperous future with strong American values.
Foreign Countries Forget That They Have No Say in US Policies
September 30, 2025
Photo courtesy of the US Consulate in Italy
President Trump recently delivered a scathing address at the United Nations, criticizing Europe for allowing unbridled immigration and warning it would lead to the continent’s destruction. He contrasted this with his own record, noting his policies had reduced illegal entries into the United States to about 5 percent of the level under Biden.
Trump was criticized in Europe and elsewhere for his immigration policies, even though they were clearly better for the US and despite data showing how immigration is destabilizing Europe. Many world leaders not only rejected Trump’s recommendations but also wanted him to reverse US immigration policies, reopen the borders, and allow 20 million illegal immigrants to remain in the country. Global reactions to his speech reflected the broader belief that foreign governments should have a say in American domestic policies such as immigration.
On the first day of his first administration, in January 2017, Trump withdrew the US from the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP), a 12-nation trade deal. He argued it was a bad agreement that would harm American workers while benefiting special interests.
Trump declared that his administration’s policy would be to prioritize the financial well-being of Americans in all negotiations and to create fair, economically beneficial agreements that served their interests. He emphasized his intention to negotiate directly with individual countries on a one-on-one basis rather than through large multilateral deals.
Critics around the world accused him of undermining global trade, but his decision effectively ended the TPP, which was largely scrapped after the U.S. withdrawal. During the campaign, Trump had been blunt, calling the TPP “another disaster done and pushed by special interests” and “a continuing rape of our country.”
Also, during his first term, Trump was sharply criticized for withdrawing the US from the World Health Organization. Opponents claimed the move would damage the WHO’s credibility and weaken compliance among member states.
Trump defended the decision by citing the organization’s mishandling of the COVID-19 pandemic that began in Wuhan, its bias toward China, and its lack of independence from political pressure. He also argued the WHO demanded unfairly high payments from the US, while China, with a population more than four times larger, contributed nearly 90 percent less.
Similar criticism resurfaced in 2025 when RFK Jr. urged the US to reject new global health agreements, calling the WHO “moribund.” That May, 124 countries voted for the WHO Pandemic Accord, with only 11 abstentions, but RFK Jr. urged states to reject it. In September, he dismissed a UN declaration on non-communicable diseases, declaring the United States would “walk away” from the agreement.
On May 8, 2018, the United States withdrew from the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA), the Iran nuclear deal. Trump argued that the agreement, negotiated under Obama, ultimately allowed Iran to continue developing its nuclear weapons program. Global leaders condemned the move, claiming it made the world less safe, but Trump countered that the real danger was a nuclear-armed Iran, and that the JCPOA enabled exactly that outcome.
Trump withdrew the United States from the Paris Climate Agreement in June 2017, arguing that it imposed unfair burdens on the American economy. World leaders objected, warning the move would encourage other countries to refuse compliance, but Trump insisted the agreement was “the latest example of Washington entering into an agreement that disadvantages the United States to the exclusive benefit of other countries.”
He said it left American workers and taxpayers to absorb the cost in the form of lost jobs, lower wages, shuttered factories, and diminished production. Trump claimed compliance could cost as many as 2.7 million American jobs by 2025, while allowing some of the world’s worst polluters to benefit. He singled out China, the world’s largest polluter, for being permitted to increase emissions even as the US and Europe were pressured to reduce theirs.
Biden rejoined the agreement in 2021, but Trump again withdrew in 2025, calling it “the unfair, one-sided Paris climate accord rip-off” and declaring, “The United States will not sabotage our own industries while China pollutes with impunity.”
Complaints about tariffs were another case where the world was angry that Trump acted in America’s best interest. Beyond concerns about reduced trade with the US, world leaders claimed that higher American tariffs would encourage other countries to raise tariffs against one another. However, every nation retains full autonomy to set its own trade policies—Trump did not force anyone to act.
In a similar vein, many economists in the US and abroad argued that Trump’s tariffs would fail because they would “force” foreign countries to raise tariffs against the United States. This is false. American tariffs do not compel other nations to act; they are intended to bring foreign governments to the negotiating table and strengthen the US bargaining position. They do not obligate other countries to offer the US worse deals.
Now, nine months into the administration, both the US and its trading partners have adjusted, proving that Trump’s policy was the right one for America regardless of foreign objections. The United States is a sovereign nation, and the responsibility of the American president is to make decisions that serve American interests, regardless of whether other countries or international bodies approve.
The ACLU wrote that human rights groups, international law experts, and policy analysts have raised concerns that some of Donald Trump’s immigration policies and rhetoric enable authoritarianism and create conditions that could lead to mass atrocities, though there is debate over the use of the term “genocide.” According to the ACLU, critics argue that Trump’s policies are not isolated but part of a broader pattern that weakens democratic institutions and endangers vulnerable populations around the world.
Examining this criticism, legal experts have no authority over “rhetoric” unless that rhetoric violates the law, and the criticism does not claim that Trump’s words are illegal. The same logic applies to policies. International law experts may comment on the legality of US policies, but in this case the claim is not that the policies themselves are unlawful; rather, the argument is that they might inspire negative behavior by leaders in other countries. In addition to being a spurious claim, it does not constitute a violation of the law.
The Asia Times, a staunchly pro-CCP publication that hates Trump and hates the US, wrote that Trump’s rhetoric and immigration policies “provide new fuel for Myanmar’s Rohingya genocide.” Unlike the ACLU’s broad assertion that Trump’s policies “enable” authoritarianism, Asia Times linked them to a specific genocide, one that began under Obama, continues today, and which Trump has never mentioned, referenced, or alluded to.
By this logic, President Trump should reopen the southern border and allow unbridled illegal immigration in order to prevent a genocide in Myanmar. And if liberals truly believe this reasoning, then why did the genocide continue under the open-border policies of Obama and Biden?
Genocide Watch claimed that Trump’s mass deportation policies violated international law, stating: “President Trump’s order to arrest and deport millions of undocumented immigrants, including hundreds of thousands of refugees, violates US obligations under the 1967 Protocol on the Status of Refugees. The US Senate ratified that treaty unanimously in 1968. 147 nations are States Parties to the treaty.”
However, a closer reading of the report shows that the only possible legal challenge concerns the deportation of asylum seekers, not illegal aliens in general. The Convention defines who qualifies as a refugee and applies specifically to individuals granted asylum; it does not provide blanket protection to all undocumented immigrants.
The claim also contains other problems. While the Senate’s role is to approve or reject treaties, ratification itself is an executive act performed by the president, not the legislative branch. Furthermore, the 1967 Refugee Protocol has generally been regarded as non-self-executing in US law. This means it does not automatically have the force of law domestically and requires implementing legislation. US courts have consistently concluded that the Protocol is not self-executing, and both the president and the Senate believed that pre-existing domestic law governing refugees would be sufficient to implement it.
The bottom line is that the US president is chosen by the American people to do what is best for the United States. Since World War II, the US has often shouldered the burden of helping other nations, but President Trump is demanding a rebalancing of the system, one in which the US prioritizes its own interests and Europe takes greater responsibility for solving some of the world’s problems.
YouTube Bows to Trump in Censorship Lawsuit, Will Pay Millions to Avoid Court
September 30, 2025
And then there were none.
YouTube, a Google subsidiary, became the last of three tech titans to settle a lawsuit brought forth by President Donald Trump, according to a blistering report from The Wall Street Journal.
The video sharing platform agreed to pay a hefty $24.5 million to settle lawsuits brought forth by Trump in 2021.
At the time, the president’s YouTube account had been banned following the Jan. 6 incursion at the U.S. Capitol.
YouTube claimed that they had gone to those extraordinary lengths to remove Trump’s channel to nix potential videos that may incite violence.
(The channel was reinstated in March 2023.)
The YouTube settlement is the second-biggest of the lawsuits brought against various tech titans by Trump — and that appears to be intentional.
The biggest settlement Trump had was with Facebook parent company Meta Platforms, which was for $25 million.
“Google executives were eager to keep their settlement smaller than the one paid by rival Meta, according to people familiar with the matter,” The Wall Street Journal reported.
While $24.5 million does come in lower than the $25 million Meta paid, it’s more than double what X, formerly Twitter, paid Trump for a similar lawsuit, as the now-Elon Musk owned platform paid $10 million.
Interestingly, while Trump will “keep” most of this settlement money — $22 million — none of it will actually be going to him.
The Wall Street Journal noted that the money will be immediately rerouted to the nonprofit Trust for the National Mall, tasked with building a grand ballroom near the White House.
The other $2.5 million will be dispersed among various other plaintiffs. There is no mention of attorney fees.
This decision comes months after YouTube was apparently having “productive conversations” with the Trump administration in June, per The Hill.
We use technologies like cookies to store and/or access device information. We do this to improve browsing experience and to show (non-) personalized ads. Consenting to these technologies will allow us to process data such as browsing behavior or unique IDs on this site. Not consenting or withdrawing consent, may adversely affect certain features and functions.
Functional
Always active
The technical storage or access is strictly necessary for the legitimate purpose of enabling the use of a specific service explicitly requested by the subscriber or user, or for the sole purpose of carrying out the transmission of a communication over an electronic communications network.
Preferences
The technical storage or access is necessary for the legitimate purpose of storing preferences that are not requested by the subscriber or user.
Statistics
The technical storage or access that is used exclusively for statistical purposes.The technical storage or access that is used exclusively for anonymous statistical purposes. Without a subpoena, voluntary compliance on the part of your Internet Service Provider, or additional records from a third party, information stored or retrieved for this purpose alone cannot usually be used to identify you.
Marketing
The technical storage or access is required to create user profiles to send advertising, or to track the user on a website or across several websites for similar marketing purposes.
