Media Becomes More Unhinged as Trump Continues to Fire Government Workers
Media drama ensures after Trump admin fires 8 EPA employees over “letter of dissent.”
I recently reported that Health and Human Services Secretary Robert F. Kennedy, Jr. fired the newly appointed director of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC).
What I left out of my analysis was the ginned-up hysteria from the mainstream media over the news. As noted by many on social media at the time, the press and our public health officials lost a great deal of trust by the poor choices they made (like appointing a BDSM-practicing, gay-orgy-going, LGBT advocate to the position of monkeypox czar).
Poor choices have consequences now, in this FAFO world.
The elite media have lost their power to persuade Americans on any subject, especially one touching upon the personal medical choices made by American citizens.
This brings me to the latest attempts to induce panic in its readership, as the Trump administration has fired individuals who are not aligned with its policy visions. Legal Insurrection recalls that over the July 4th holiday, I reported that the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) placed 144 staffers on paid leave and launched an inquiry into their participation in signing a letter that accused the Trump administration of politicizing the agency.
It turns out eight of them are enjoying the “FO” phase of the FAFO cycle.
The Environmental Protection Agency on Friday fired at least eight employees who signed a letter criticizing the agency’s leadership under Administrator Lee Zeldin and President Donald Trump.
“Following a thorough internal investigation, EPA supervisors made decisions on an individualized basis,’’ an EPA spokeswoman said Friday in a statement.
The so-called declaration of dissent, signed by more than 170 employees in late June, “contains inaccurate information designed to mislead the public about agency business,’’ spokeswoman Molly Vaseliou said. “Thankfully, this represents a small fraction of the thousands of hard-working, dedicated EPA employees who are not trying to mislead and scare the American public.”
The EPA “has a zero-tolerance policy for career officials using their agency position and title to unlawfully undermine, sabotage and undercut the will of the American public that was clearly expressed at the ballot box last November,’’ she added.
I suspect that the eight ex-staffers were the blue-haired, tattoo-bearing, big-glass-wearing environmental justice warriors who were the main instigators in this fiasco. The Trump team is more compassionate than I would have been: I’d have canned all 144.
Now the elite media is trotting out a whole cast of supporting characters to assert these firings were “unfair” and “intimidation”.
“The Trump administration and EPA’s retaliatory actions against these workers was clearly an assault on labor and free speech rights,” Justin Chen, president of AFGE Council 238, said in a statement to the Post.
“It is clear that the actions taken by management were baseless and meant to punish any modicum of dissent identifying potential harm to the American Public and violation of the Agency’s mission.”
Another AFGE president said the move was meant to intimidate fellow employees from speaking out against the current administration and agency heads.
“They are trying to intimidate employees into doing the agency’s bidding and making sure that they don’t go public when there is a time that the agency is not looking after human health and the environment,” Nicole Cantello, president of AFGE Local 704, which represents 1,000 EPA workers in Chicago, told the Post.
Most Americans are unmoved by this ill-conceived argument, which is devoid of logic, reason, and grounding in recent political history.
FOFA ? How many employers would tolerate the employees going public with “dissent” from the company policies? Some do. Most employees would never dream of it.
Trump officials fire EPA employees for signing dissent letter https://t.co/lPofCcONea
— Bo Snerdley (@BoSnerdley) August 30, 2025
Resistance cleansing: Trump rightly EPA fires “resistance” employees who sign a “dissent letter.”
I’m old enough to remember when the Obama administration engaged in “scientific cleansing,” targeting climate skeptics at NOAA for merely thinking the “wrong” thing.… pic.twitter.com/UAJr8fteK0
— Steve Milloy (@JunkScience) August 30, 2025
Meanwhile, EPA Administrator Lee Zeldin continues to roll back destructive Obama-Biden era policies.
The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has proposed to disapprove California’s latest attempt to regulate heavy-duty vehicles, specifically its Inspection and Maintenance (I/M) requirements for out-of-state and out-of-country trucks.
The EPA argues that this move, which seeks to apply California’s standards to any heavy-duty vehicle driven within its borders, is an unconstitutional “power grab.”
In a strong statement, EPA Administrator Lee Zeldin asserted that California’s actions violate both the U.S. Constitution’s Commerce Clause and Section 110 of the Clean Air Act.
“California was not, and has never been, duly elected by the American people to run our great country,” Zeldin said. He further claimed the state’s policies are part of an “extreme climate ideology” that drives up costs for American consumers who rely on truck drivers for goods.
The EPA’s disapproval also addresses concerns about California’s attempt to regulate foreign vehicles, stating that powers related to foreign affairs are exclusively vested in the federal government. The agency maintains that California’s approach is a “yet another attack on truck drivers and engine manufacturers” and threatens to eliminate affordable transportation options.
Big win for AZ! @epa Administrator Lee Zeldin @leezeldin just blocked California’s unfair truck rules that would’ve jacked up prices on food & goods we all rely on. This backs our AZ lawsuit & my push to Congress to stop CA’s overreach. We’re keeping costs down & our economy… pic.twitter.com/qfWy1HhCZA
— Warren Petersen (@votewarren) August 25, 2025
One day, our press will realize it is no longer relevant to Americans in its current form. But clearly, based on all the angst and drama in these reports, today is not that day.
DONATE
Donations tax deductible
to the full extent allowed by law.
Comments
Not until there is a major house cleaning.
That’s not a house cleaning. It’s a MAJOR toilet flush. A colon blow, a massive dump of Obama that leaves a stain on the porcelain.
There’s a subtle but very real distinction that the Dems are trying to blur.
It is unconstitutional for a government entity to fire an employee simply for expressing a political opinion, no matter how offensive the employer finds it. A state or local government can’t fire an employee for saying that she hates the president and hopes he’s assassinated.
But it is expected that an agency’s employees are willing to act in accord with the agency’s policy, and to support it at least in public. Any dissent from the policy should be expressed in private, and the employee has to accept that whether she likes the policy or not she has to implement it faithfully, as if she liked it. She can’t undermine or sabotage it. And the agency can always reasonably say that given how strongly she objects to the policy it can’t trust her to implement it faithfully.
And that’s what these employees did, and what they’re being punished for. And that is completely in accord with the constitution.
It’s in accord with the constitution and what i voted for.
Yep. Thou shalt not;
1. Refuse the lawful directives of the employer
2. Undermine the goals of the employer
3. Publicly dissent or seek to embarrass the employer
Doubly so when using official position/title to lend presumed authority to the dissent. They can quit in protest if they wish but if they don’t then anything less than cheerful and enthusiastic implementation of the policy agenda/directives from the elected President through his appointed Dept/Agency head isn’t allowed.
The Hatch Act is covered in yearly training that every Federal employee, appointee or civil service, has to take. You are *specifically* forbidden from expressing a political opinion on your own, endorsing a political candidate, or promoting a commercial product by using your official title in conjunction with your name. It’s a firing offense (but normally treated with a brisk smack upside the head for the first offense.) Express a desire online that the Executive be killed and you’re going to be unemployed in short order, and talking with the FBI. First offense or not, it’s your last offense.
The Hatch Act does not prohibit expressing personal political opinions, let alone opinions on policy, which is what these employees did. It only prohibits partisan political activity.
That is not true. It’s protected speech, and while private employers can fire you for it, government entities can’t.
Though you’ve thrown in the word “online”, which wasn’t the topic but doesn’t really change much, provided it remains the private opinion of an individual, not one associated with the employer. The original case was about an opinion expressed in the office, and so only heard by her fellow employees. The employer had to reinstate her with back pay.
IANL, but it seems logical that if they act as an agent of the agency, which they do, directly or indirectly, by “wearing the uniform” or stating their position in the agency while making their statements, it should be actionable by the agency. If they made their positions/statements as ordinary citizens, with no agency associations, then free speech applies.
When Dems fire or refuse to hire Republicans, or dismiss R’s at the pleasure of the president or autopen, there is no uproar, but the reverse is NEVER true. When a whistle blower acts in the interests of the Dems, it is fine, but when a whistle blower acts against them, they are redefined as “leakers.”
Two tiers, as usual.
Enough already with the media. Personally I think conservative sites give too much publicity to the MSM and all those nut cases out there. I long ago boycotted the MSM as a useless pool of misinformation. Notice how almost all the MSM have neglected to cover the recent horrible murder of a young Ukrainian girl. That was truly the last straw.
Coverage of the MSM falls into the category of “know your enemy.”
I can read articles like this and know what’s being said and done by our political opponents without having to consume their product. I believe this is a major difference between conservative outlets and liberal – liberal outlets don’t dare transmit to their consumers exactly what Trump and other conservatives are actually saying and doing. They are kept from seeing outside the bubble.
Articles like this help keep us aware of what’s going on within our own bubble. Don’t fool yourself, we are in a bubble too, but ours is translucent (if not transparent) while the libs’ bubble is opaque (and purposefully so).
more please
I just hope we’re right in thinking Americans are seeing through all of the destructive behavior of federal agencies, mostly starting with O. MSM may
not have its clout anymore but that’s questionable. Then there’s the decades of “fixing” elections – most actions done by Ds. Remember, President Johnson had dead people voting.
This day, MN’s SOS has refused DOJ’s request for voter roles. NOW, will anyone pay???? MN SOS legislature stopped the requirement of a home/livable address b/c the homeless didn’t have one. Our voting has been controlled for a minimum of 20 years – Rs don’t take on this behavior.
if congress wont do the good peoples work and defund the waste
then the good people must rise up and continue to vote in djt like policies or just flat out do what blmplo has taught us on how to change the landscape
Dissent in private and then either buckle down and do your job or leave.
Dissent in public -> immediately fired for cause.
BTW Regarding the title. It is impossible for the media to become more unhinged then they already are.
““California was not, and has never been, duly elected by the American people to run our great country,” Zeldin said. He further claimed the state’s policies are part of an “extreme climate ideology” that drives up costs for American consumers who rely on truck drivers for goods.”
Absolutely, and “run” should be spelled “ruin.” The problem is that many politically challenged states like MA adopt the environmental rules of CA, even though the environmental conditions are completely different, likely because they just want to and they can cite some sort of precedent. Unfortunately, we have to endure the onerous emissions controls and restrictions on buying vehicles we want, like Diesels and used cars.
To paraphrase King Arthur in MP’s “Holy Grail” flick, “CA is a silly place. Let’s not go there.”