Is anyone hearing about probie AUSAs being fired? Forum

[Anonymous User]

Self-explanatory title based on latest OPM news. Not sure if DOJ is exempt or not following guidance.

[Anonymous User]

Probationary AUSA names were sent along with the other agencies’ names a few weeks ago. Nothing since then, so we are all in the dark here.

[Anonymous User]

There is an exception to the "fire probationers" dictate for positions relating to law enforcement, public safety and immigration enforcement. AUSAs on probation are hoping they are deemed to fall into one or more of those categories.

[Anonymous User]

There is an exception to the "fire probationers" dictate for positions relating to law enforcement, public safety and immigration enforcement. AUSAs on probation are hoping they are deemed to fall into one or more of those categories.

I would like to see what the “exception” looks like, since it’s not an EO written down anywhere. And AUSAs aren’t part of immigration enforcement (prosecuting immigration crimes isn’t part of what “immigration enforcement” means in the federal government, although such prosecutions certainly make anti-immigration hardliners happy).

That said, I haven’t heard of any probationary AUSAs getting fired, and I think they’re less at risk than in other agencies, with the obvious exception of the Jan 6 DC prosecutors (RIP their jobs). But in theory it could vary by office (mine is very small).

[Anonymous User]

There is an exception to the "fire probationers" dictate for positions relating to law enforcement, public safety and immigration enforcement. AUSAs on probation are hoping they are deemed to fall into one or more of those categories.

I would like to see what the “exception” looks like, since it’s not an EO written down anywhere. And AUSAs aren’t part of immigration enforcement (prosecuting immigration crimes isn’t part of what “immigration enforcement” means in the federal government, although such prosecutions certainly make anti-immigration hardliners happy).

That said, I haven’t heard of any probationary AUSAs getting fired, and I think they’re less at risk than in other agencies, with the obvious exception of the Jan 6 DC prosecutors (RIP their jobs). But in theory it could vary by office (mine is very small).

https://www.whitehouse.gov/presidential ... nitiative/

(f) “Law enforcement” means:
(i) engagement in or supervision of the prevention, detection, investigation, or prosecution of, or the incarceration of any person for, any violation of law; or

[Anonymous User]

There is an exception to the "fire probationers" dictate for positions relating to law enforcement, public safety and immigration enforcement. AUSAs on probation are hoping they are deemed to fall into one or more of those categories.

I would like to see what the “exception” looks like, since it’s not an EO written down anywhere. And AUSAs aren’t part of immigration enforcement (prosecuting immigration crimes isn’t part of what “immigration enforcement” means in the federal government, although such prosecutions certainly make anti-immigration hardliners happy).

That said, I haven’t heard of any probationary AUSAs getting fired, and I think they’re less at risk than in other agencies, with the obvious exception of the Jan 6 DC prosecutors (RIP their jobs). But in theory it could vary by office (mine is very small).

https://www.whitehouse.gov/presidential ... nitiative/

(f) “Law enforcement” means:
(i) engagement in or supervision of the prevention, detection, investigation, or prosecution of, or the incarceration of any person for, any violation of law; or

Oh, sorry, I thought you meant there was a written “fire probationers” dictate that had a law enforcement exception, not the more generic “reduce the size of the workforce” EO. Yes, USAOs count as law enforcement/public safety. But that EO is specifically talking about the hiring ratio:

The Plan shall require that each agency hire no more than one employee for every four employees that depart, consistent with the plan and any applicable exemptions and details provided for in the Plan… This ratio shall not apply to functions related to public safety, immigration enforcement, or law enforcement.

So that’s not specifically saying that law enforcement etc. is exempt from being cut at all (including probationers), just to having that ratio apply.

To be clear, I don’t think AUSAs are the most likely targets, but my office doesn’t know yet if they’ll lose any probationary employees and certainly isn’t assuming anything.

[Anonymous User]

There is an exception to the "fire probationers" dictate for positions relating to law enforcement, public safety and immigration enforcement. AUSAs on probation are hoping they are deemed to fall into one or more of those categories.

I would like to see what the “exception” looks like, since it’s not an EO written down anywhere. And AUSAs aren’t part of immigration enforcement (prosecuting immigration crimes isn’t part of what “immigration enforcement” means in the federal government, although such prosecutions certainly make anti-immigration hardliners happy).

That said, I haven’t heard of any probationary AUSAs getting fired, and I think they’re less at risk than in other agencies, with the obvious exception of the Jan 6 DC prosecutors (RIP their jobs). But in theory it could vary by office (mine is very small).

https://www.whitehouse.gov/presidential ... nitiative/

(f) “Law enforcement” means:
(i) engagement in or supervision of the prevention, detection, investigation, or prosecution of, or the incarceration of any person for, any violation of law; or

Oh, sorry, I thought you meant there was a written “fire probationers” dictate that had a law enforcement exception, not the more generic “reduce the size of the workforce” EO. Yes, USAOs count as law enforcement/public safety. But that EO is specifically talking about the hiring ratio:

The Plan shall require that each agency hire no more than one employee for every four employees that depart, consistent with the plan and any applicable exemptions and details provided for in the Plan… This ratio shall not apply to functions related to public safety, immigration enforcement, or law enforcement.

So that’s not specifically saying that law enforcement etc. is exempt from being cut at all (including probationers), just to having that ratio apply.

To be clear, I don’t think AUSAs are the most likely targets, but my office doesn’t know yet if they’ll lose any probationary employees and certainly isn’t assuming anything.

FWIW, the RIF provision also doesn’t apply to “law enforcement,” which seems to include AUSAs.