Connect with us

Business

America will see its largest mass resignation in history as 100,000 federal workers are set to quit their jobs today

Published

on



Today, America will experience its largest mass resignation in history, as 100,000 federal workers are set to formally quit their jobs. It’s a result of the Trump administration’s “fork in the road” Deferred Resignation Program (DRP) that staffers have taken up over previous months, who were allowed to transfer their workload and go on administrative leave until the official end date of federal service on September 30 2025. 

The Office of Personnel Management (OPM) tells Fortune that about 154,000 federal workers in total took the deal, with the majority leaving today and others exiting by the end of year. 

It claims that the large-scale cut will save about $28 billion annually by lowering long-term spending. OPM spokesperson McLaurine Pinover tells Fortune that the administration delivered on its end of the employment bargain, and that no previous administration has been “even close to saving American taxpayers this amount of money in such a short amount of time.” A Senate analysis from July reports that the DRP program was set to cost $14.8 billion to pay the wages and benefits of around 200,000 federal workers taking up to eight months of leave.

“Ultimately, the deferred resignation program was not only legal, it provided over 150,000 civil servants a dignified and generous departure from the federal government. It also delivered incredible relief to the American taxpayer,” Pinover says. 

The resignations are taking effect as Congress faces a deadline today to authorize more funding, or risk a U.S. government shutdown. If no deal is reached, then the White House has instructed federal agencies—already rocked by Elon Musk’s DOGE layoffs since January—to make way for even larger cuts. 

This year’s decline of 300,000 federal workers—a stark contrast to white-collar employees ‘job-hugging’

The U.S. federal workforce has been shrinking since President Trump retook office this January. His administration has been adamant on reducing inefficiencies, setting up the Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE) helmed by Tesla CEO Musk, which originally promised to oversee an elimination of $2 trillion in government waste, fraud, and abuse. Musk later reassessed his estimate down to $150 billion. 

In February, two million U.S. government employees received an email from OPM detailing options for them to resign. The message was titled “a fork in the road”—a term tied to the DRP plan; The same subject line Musk sent out to workers when he took over the social media platform Twitter, now called “X.” The message to federal staffers offered employees the option to step down and receive payment through the end of September, when the resignation goes into effect. In the meantime, virtually all USAID employees were laid off, after thousands had already been let go due to the administration’s foreign aid freeze. 

But USAID wasn’t the only government agency that was hit by layoffs. Workers in DEI-related roles were also put on paid leave to eventually be let go, and Musk also targeted the Treasury Department. The Partnership of Public Service estimated that DOGE could cost taxpayers roughly $135 billion to fire, re-hire, and put employees on leave. In just the first five months of this year, the federal government was slimmed down by about 59,000 employees, and there’s a collective estimate that there will be about 300,000 fewer government workers by the end of this year. It’s the biggest federal workforce reduction in a single year since WWII. This includes a combination of laid-off employees, probationary staffers, alongside those who took the resignation deal. 

The mass resignation is in stark contrast to white-collar employees “job-hugging,” but their willingness to leave may be in part to the corroding work atmosphere at federal agencies. Since DOGE’s swift job cuts, government staffers have described an environment of “fear” and “madness,” with one employee at the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) telling The Guardian that the buyout emails were “clearly designed to disturb and scare people, among all of the things they actually say, which are clear threats.” For some, choosing to resign was an option to not prolong the anxiety of a probable firing, while being able to take advantage of the deal and look for private-sector work.

“I am concerned we will all be mass fired,” a U.S. Department of Transportation staffer, who was put on a probationary term appointment, told The Guardian in February. “Teams would be hobbled and gutted. It would be like closing your eyes and randomly throwing acid on a flower garden. You would just have dead spots, and no planning for which ones.”

Fortune Global Forum returns Oct. 26–27, 2025 in Riyadh. CEOs and global leaders will gather for a dynamic, invitation-only event shaping the future of business. Apply for an invitation.



Source link

Continue Reading

Business

‘Godmother of AI’ says degrees are less important than ‘how quickly can you superpower yourself’

Published

on



Founders and AI startups in Silicon Valley are valuing degrees less and are seeking out candidates who can work quickly, adapt and build AI models.

Fei-Fei Li, a Stanford professor and CEO of the AI startup World Labs, is known as the “Godmother of AI” for her work building a large-scale database of labeled images, which changed the way computers comprehend digital images and videos.

Li, also the founding co-director of Stanford’s Human-Centered AI Institute, said she values candidates’ experience and relationship with AI tools more than their educational background.

“When we interview a software engineer, I personally feel the degree they have matters less to us now,” Li said of the talent search process for her AI startup in an interview on The Tim Ferriss Show this week.

“Now, it’s more about what have you learned, what tools do you use, how quickly can you superpower yourself in using these tools — and a lot of these are AI tools,” she added. “What’s your mindset toward using these tools matter more to me.”

When discussing the broader impacts of AI on education and the labor market, Li said assessing qualified workers used to rely on which school job candidates graduated from and the degree they earned. But “that will be changing with AI being at the fingertip of so many people,” she said.

For her own talent acquisition, Li added that she wouldn’t hire software engineers who don’t “embrace AI collaborative software tools.” She explained this requirement is not because she believes AI software tools are perfect, but because she believes they show a person’s ability to grow with fast-moving technologies and them being able to use AI to their own benefit.

Li’s view of AI skills and their value proposition compared to college degrees echoes a similar sentiment from other leaders in the industry.

In October, Mark Zuckerberg, a Harvard dropout, said skills outweigh a flashy college degree when hiring for Meta—but he noted that entry-level roles at his company still require a bachelor’s.

Palantir CEO Alex Karp has even challenged the value of a college education by recently launching a four-year paid internship for young entrepreneurs not enrolled in college to instead learn by doing and to “skip the debt, skip the indoctrination.” 

As more tech leaders look for AI-fluent candidates, Li looks for candidates that can help realize her company’s mission.

World Labs aims to build AI that can process and replicate the three-dimensional world through spatial reasoning—a feat that would revolutionize the tech all over again. Li bootstrapped the startup into a more than $1 billion valuation after only four months, according to the Financial Times.

As she works towards the next AI breakthrough, Li said during the Fortune Most Powerful Women Summit in 2024 that AI could change the world, and that “everyone who cares” should have a place in the technological shift.

“It’s so important that people from all backgrounds feel they have a role,” Li said.



Source link

Continue Reading

Business

40% of Stanford undergrads receive disability accommodations—but it’s become a college-wide phenomenon as Gen Z try to succeed in the current climate

Published

on



The pandemic has shaken up college life for good: Since then, social media and AI have revolutionized classroom expectations, and the bar for landing a job after graduation has become impossibly high. Many are now questioning whether getting a degree was even worth it.

The ripple effect of those strains is already showing in campus accessibility offices,  where diagnoses of ADHD, anxiety, and depression are rising—and so are requests for extended time on coursework.

At Harvard, 21% of undergraduates received disability accommodations last year, an increase of more than 15% over the past decade, according to data published by the National Center for Education Statistics analyzed by the Harvard Crimson. Top schools like Brown, Cornell, and Yale reported similar numbers, roughly in line with national trends. But the increase is more pronounced at other institutions: 34% of students at UMass Amherst and 38% at Stanford are registered as disabled, according to The Atlantic

In the 2011-12 school year, the number of undergraduates with a disability was about 11%, based on U.S. Department of Education data—highlighting just how much of a dramatic shift this phenomenon has become.

One founder says students are trying to get a leg up in today’s tough job market

Experts note that many students have medical conditions that merit accommodations, and the increase is in part linked to broader access to mental-health care and reduced stigma around seeking support.

The rise has nonetheless drawn national attention, with some critics arguing that students are abusing the system to secure lighter workloads or an edge in hypercompetitive classrooms.

Derek Thompson, author of the recent bestseller Abundance called the numbers “mind-boggling,” arguing that colleges may be overcorrecting after years of underrecognizing disability. 

“America used to stigmatize disability too severely,” he wrote on X. “Now elite institutions reward it too liberally. It simply does not make any sense to have a policy that declares half of the students at Stanford cognitively disabled and in need of accommodations.”

Joe Lonsdale, a billionaire venture capitalist and Palantir cofounder, expressed similar concerns, suggesting some families are seeking diagnosis just to give students “a leg up.”

After all, the post-graduation job hunt has tightened into a numbers game few can win.

In 2023 and 2024, more than 1.2 million applications were submitted for just under 17,000 open graduate roles in the U.K., according to the Institute of Student Employers. And in the U.S., lawmakers warn the funnel is narrowing further. Sen. Mark Warner has warned that joblessness among recent graduates could hit 25% in the next two to three years, as AI reshapes entry-level work.

But in reality, there is no evidence of widespread misuse, and not all students registered with a disability receive accommodation in every class. Still, the scale of requests has raised questions among some faculty members about how accommodations intersect with academic expectations.

Faculty grapple with balancing support of students and avoidance of stigma

For instructors, the rise in accommodations can be challenging to navigate. Many say they want to support students with legitimate needs but worry that requesting clarification could be seen as insensitive or ableist.

One adjunct professor, posting to Reddit, said the number of students with accommodations has “increased exponentially” across the three schools where they teach.

“I had an increasingly large number of students at this particular school be given the accommodation to turn work in 48 hours late, and I got tired of constantly having to extend due dates for just them,” the professor wrote, noting that they themselves have ADHD and autism.

“The students I’ve had on this accommodation would use it pretty much every week since they were perpetually behind.”

Harry Lewis, former dean of Harvard College, expressed a related concern to the Harvard Crimson.

“The whole system of accommodations for things other than physical disabilities just seems badly mismatched with the educational purposes that students and faculty share,” he said.

However, Katy Washington, CEO of the Association of Higher Education and Disability, argued that students seeking accommodations are not “unfair burdens” on professors, and rather than questioning whether too many students qualify—which can perpetuate stereotypes—the focus should be on designing assessments that are inclusive for all learners.

“For decades, students with invisible disabilities were denied support because their struggles were dismissed as laziness or lack of effort,” Washington wrote in a letter to her organization’s members, shared with Fortune. “The rise in accommodations reflects a cultural shift toward acknowledging mental health, not a decline in academic integrity.”

A shifting skill-based job market could leave some students unprepared

For students, the increase in accommodations coincides with employers rethinking what actually matters in hiring. Fewer companies are prioritizing degrees, and more are evaluating on what they can do—through portfolio, projects, and real-world problem-solving.

Less than half of U.S. professionals at the director-level and above say a university degree is essential for getting ahead, according to LinkedIn. Moreover, nearly 1 in 5 job postings on the platform do not require a degree.

That shift could complicate the picture for students who’ve grown accustomed to extended deadlines or extra time. Whether a small number of students are abusing the system, workplace assessments typically don’t come with accommodations—and performance is often judged on speed, accuracy, and consistency.  Some Gen Zers have already faced the pink slip just months into the start of their career due to employers being unimpressed with some of their soft skills, like organization.

In other words: even as college becomes more flexible, the job market is moving in the opposite direction.



Source link

Continue Reading

Business

Black Lives Matter leader in Oklahoma City indicted on claims she used funds for vacations, groceries and real estate

Published

on



A federal grand jury indicted the leader of the Black Lives Matter movement in Oklahoma City over allegations that millions of dollars in grant funds were improperly spent on international trips, groceries and personal real estate, prosecutors announced Thursday.

Tashella Sheri Amore Dickerson, 52, was indicted earlier this month on 20 counts of wire fraud and five counts of money laundering, court records show.

Court records do not indicate the name of Dickerson’s attorney, and messages left Thursday at her mobile number and by email were not immediately returned.

According to the indictment, Dickerson served since at least 2016 as the executive director of Black Lives Matter OKC, which accepted charitable donations through its affiliation with the Arizona-based Alliance for Global Justice.

In total, BLM OKC raised more than $5.6 million dating back to 2020, largely from online donors and national bail funds that were supposed to be used to post bail for individuals arrested in connection with racial justice protests after the killing of George Floyd by a Minnesota police officer in 2020, the indictment alleges.

When those bail funds were returned to BLM OKC, the indictment alleges, Dickerson embezzled at least $3.15 million into her personal accounts and then used the money to pay for trips to Jamaica and the Dominican Republic, retail shopping, at least $50,000 in food and grocery deliveries for herself and her children, a personal vehicle, and six properties in Oklahoma City deeded to her or to a company she controlled.

The indictment also alleges she submitted false annual reports to the alliance stating that the funds were used only for tax-exempt purposes.

If convicted, Dickerson faces up to 20 years in federal prison and a fine of up to $250,000 for each count of wire fraud and 10 years in prison and fines for each count of money laundering.

In a live video posted on her Facebook page Thursday afternoon, Dickerson said she was not in custody and was “fine.”

“I cannot make an official comment about what transpired today,” she said. “I am home. I am safe. I have confidence in our team.”

“A lot of times when people come at you with these types of things … it’s evidence that you are doing the work,” she continued. “That is what I’m standing on.”

The Black Lives Matter movement first emerged in 2013 after the acquittal of George Zimmerman, the neighborhood watch volunteer who killed 17-year-old Trayvon Martin in Florida. But it was the 2014 death of Michael Brown at the hands of police in Ferguson, Missouri, that made the slogan “Black lives matter” a rallying cry for progressives and a favorite target of derision for conservatives.

The Associated Press reported in October that the Justice Department was investigating whether leaders in the Black Lives Matter movement defrauded donors who contributed tens of millions of dollars during racial justice protests in 2020. There was no immediate indication that Dickerson’s indictment is connected to that probe.



Source link

Continue Reading

Trending

Copyright © Miami Select.