The following article, 100,000 Resign? Or Just Another Blatant Leftist Lie, was first published on The Black Sphere.
The Left’s Latest Big Lie Backfires
Leftists who ushered in the government shutdown frothed at the mouth, breathless with drama, claiming “100,000 federal workers just quit on Trump’s first week of pressure!”
Cue the gasps, the op-eds, the late-night theatrics, as Leftists tried selling the narrative that these government workers “lost faith in their boss”. Their hatred of President Trump cause them to bolt en masse. It’s the kind of grip-it-by-the-throat story that makes lefty newsrooms salivate.
But like many Democrat-fueled narratives, the headline is true—but only in the loosest sense. The spin is where the rot lies.
Indeed, 100,000 federal workers formally left on September 30, 2025—but not because they suddenly decided, “I can’t work for Trump anymore.” They left because they’d already accepted a voluntary program months in advance. In other words: pre-ordained exits, not a rebellion.
Snopes unspooled it clearly:
“The workers agreed to resign months prior as part of a voluntary program initiated by President Donald Trump’s administration to reduce the federal workforce.”
There’s a meme-worthy difference between “they quit in protest” and “they followed a planned buyout program.” The Left? They banked on Americans skipping the fine print.
The Deferred Resignation Program (DRP): What It Really Is
Let’s get into the brass tacks, because here’s the part 90 % of cable news viewers missed.
In January 2025, the Office of Personnel Management sent a “Fork in the Road” memo to all federal civilian employees—about 2 million of them. The memo offered a Deferred Resignation Program (DRP). In short: you can take administrative leave (with pay and benefits) through September 30, 2025, then formally resign.
Workers who accepted would stop working but continue receiving full benefits until that date. Some could stay on the payroll even while on leave.
Fast forward: on September 30, tens of thousands of those participants—about 100,000 by many estimates—officially exited the federal workforce.
In fact, some outlets estimate the total federal workforce reduction in 2025 could reach 300,000, combining DRP resignations, retirements, removals, attrition, and other voluntary programs.
Let that sink in: instead of a meltdown, this is a managed slimming of government, not panic-fueled mass desertion.
Why the Left Lies About It (And How You Spot the Lie)
The media has a “narrative-first, facts-later” approach. They want the public to see “100,000 quitting on Trump” as a symbol—his administration is crumbling; people don’t want to work under him. That kind of iconic framing is more persuasive than nuance in their playbook.
Here’s how they try to trick you:
They bury the timeline. The 100,000 figure is real—but the decision was made months ago. They omit that step to make it look spontaneous.
They omit the voluntary nature. When it’s your choice (but incentivized), that’s not a mutiny.
They imply cowardice, or failure. The Left loves to portray departures as signs of collapse, rather than efficiency or strategy.
They gaslight about “mass exodus.” “Exodus” suggests panic, not a contractual arrangement.
So when you see that number being splashed everywhere, ask: resignation or prearranged exit?
Why Trump Wants Fewer Federal Bureaucrats
The Left often paints government reduction as heartless, reckless, or dangerous. The conservative angle, though, sees it as necessary: over decades, the federal bureaucracy grew like a weed, feeding on taxpayer dollars, inefficiency, cronyism, and inertia. Cutting it is like removing dead branches so the tree can live.
Some key arguments in favor:
Fiscal sanity. A bloated government is a fiscal black hole. Money paid to unnecessary bureaucrats comes from productivity in the private sector.
Responsibility, not largesse. Governments should do what only they can do; the rest should belong to individuals, states, private enterprise.
Incentive alignment. When government agencies are lean, more responsive, less shielded from accountability, they behave better.
Avoiding the “jobs in government for pal’s sake” trap. Past presidents inflated federal jobs when private sector lagged. That’s fraud by substitution.
If Trump ends 2025 with 300,000 fewer federal employees, that’s not shriveling democracy—it’s reining in its expansionist tendencies. If he pushes further cuts but ensures essential functions remain staffed, that’s governance sharpened, not gutted.
The Risks
I’m not blind to the landmines. Any major bureaucratic purge has dangers. A fair conservative must admit to some potential pitfalls:
“Brain drain.” When career experts leave, institutional memory walks out the door. Some functions require experience that takes years to build. But this should be balanced with the fact that many people get blinded by “one-way” ideologies. “We’ve always done it this way.” It’s time to consider other options when the government is both inefficient and ineffective
Service disruption. Vital services—especially in health, safety, and regulation—could lag or fail during transition. Frankly, this is a small price to pay for most Americans. By the time government helps, you’ve likely found another solution to your problem.
Legal challenges. Unions and left-leaning groups already sued over program legality. While this is the typical Leftist response, they will lose legally and morally with the public.
Morale collapse. Remaining workers may be fearful or demoralized, stunting productivity. I know, I laugh at the notion of stunting productivity in a bloated government where bureaucrats spend more time surfing the internet than doing their actual jobs.
Political backlash. Vulnerable citizens may feel personally harmed, giving Democrats ammunition. Clearly, the president’s team believe there will less political backlash, that Democrats believe. I’m inclined to agree.
Frankly, with proper oversight, transition plans, and selective retention—many of those risks can be mitigated.
What the Rest of the Media Won’t Tell You
Count not just exodus, but context. The Left loves sensationalism, not bookkeeping. They can headline “100,000 resign”. But why not tell you “300,000 projected cuts total?” Because the public would give President Trump and his team a standing ovation for cutting the size of government.
Leaves out saved dollars. According to one analyst, the 2025 cuts could save the government $28 billion annually, though they’ll cost ~$15 billion in transition.
Doesn’t highlight permanency. Most media frames this as a temporary disruption. But if cuts become permanent, that’s historic.
Omits agency-level detail. Some departments are hit harder: defense, Treasury/IRS, Agriculture account for significant share of reductions.
Avoids comparing precedents. For example, no modern president has ever shrunk the federal workforce this sharply. Trump will break that ceiling. As the above chart shows, the fed has never shrunk in the modern era. Do you know of any business who can say this that has been in operation for over 100 years?
The Ironic Outcome (Which Democrats Don’t Want You to Think About)
The Left tries to spin weakness. But this cut is strength disguised as chaos. If Trump successfully drains the swamp—by coaxing voluntary exits, eliminating redundancies, and downsizing bureaucracies—then the Left’s screaming about broken government is proof they’d rather see dysfunction than disciplined governance.
The Left relies on noise and crisis as features, not bugs, in their worldview.
What’s Really Going On
The “100,000 resignations” headline is half true, half smoke and mirrors. Those departures were not a revolt—they were a planned, voluntary exit under a deferred resignation program. The Left tried to weaponize it as a symbol of panic, but the deeper story is one of discipline, structure, and (dare I say) courage.
If by year’s end the federal workforce is trimmed by 300,000, that’s not a failure of Trump—it’s perhaps one of his proudest achievements. The Left will scream about “brain drain” and “broken services.” The serious skeptic, though, will ask: Which services? Which ones were waste? Because government agents aren’t all created equal—some are essential, many are not.
And the real question the press refuses to ask: Why didn’t we ever shrink government this way before?
Continue reading 100,000 Resign? Or Just Another Blatant Leftist Lie …
[H/T The Black Sphere]
Google Search
