Just assuming the new boss is going to be an illegal sleazebag is not a great thing to do but, at the same time, the realistic assessment should have been that it was a distinct possibility. So, probably stay on, at least until there were clear, explicit, written directives to do something hinky. Otherwise, much of their job would have been normal, necessary functions to keep things running.
And that seems to be what many did - stay and do their jobs until told to do something unsupportable, and then resign, often publicly, in protest. At least those who weren’t pre-emptively dismissed.
I don’t have much sympathy for anybody who is still there, though. It’s never easy looking for a job, but compared to immediately after the election (the inauguration was probably a better point though), at this point the argument that some good can still be done on the inside to fight the worst of the abuses wears rather thin.
But if you know that the person brought in to fill your spot will be a loyal sycophant, does quitting in protest make an impact or difference? I’d say the only ethical choice is to stay on and fight from within, but it’s obviously a personal choice.
Staying on to fight from within sounds a lot nobler than it ends up being in reality. That lawyer in Minnesota was one example. If her words were to be taken at face value, she ended up helping 1 or 2 ICE victims from within while directly enabling the abuse of hundreds if not thousands more. At that level, the line blurs or rather doesn’t even exist between subtle sabotage and delusional rationalization.
Also, the notion of a loyal sycophant ‘filling your spot’ ended up not even happening. The DOJ fired hundreds of lawyers without replacement and basically shuttered several divisions. Others they did replace but after firing them first, without giving them the chance to resign in protest. So, I’d say waiting until after the election (or rather after the inauguration) would have been about right. At that point, it was pretty clear what was going on and that sticking around to fight from the inside was not a tenable plan.
I think this is an important point. Staying on simply enables the machine to keep running, even if you attempt to throw a few sticks into the gears. If enough people leave, the machine simply stops, especially if there are not enough replacements to get it moving.
Or especially, especially if the incompetents in charge think they don’t need so many people to keep the machine running. They sabotage themselves without realizing it.
You stay and document the hell out of everything you are asked to do and asked not to do. That way, when you are finally fired, you can release the evidence. If you resign in protest, they will hire a lacky who will do exactly what they ask and hide the evidence.
I’ve been in that position before, so I know exactly what I would do.
I worked for a tribal government, where my bosses were an elected council. It was a great job until the wrong people got elected. Then it became a horrific nightmare. People around me getting fired left and right, a group of 6 people whittled down to a group of 2 in my particular department. My new direct supervisor was totally powerless to actually do anything to help me. Sound familiar? Very DOGE-like. But despite all the bullshit, I still had a job, and I stuck around and tried to keep things going as long as I could, even embroiled in an FBI investigation (I was a witness, not a suspect). It was when I realized that things were falling apart, I was being directed to do things that could put me in legal jeopardy, and I was being badly taken advantage of, that’s when I quit.
So yeah, having been in that situation myself, that’s exactly what I did. Stick around and try to do my job until they order me to do the wrong things, and then the only smart thing to do is get the fuck out of there.
I vaguely remember some MAGA-type posted that some time ago. I’ve often wondered: Did he mean ‘womp’ as ‘beating someone down’? Or was it a failed attempt at representing the ‘sad trombone’ sound (‘Wah, waaaaah’) in text?
This isn’t happening to Trump or his enablers per se, but I’m sure when he hears the news there will be ketchup spattering the lovely fake gold trim of whatever room Trump is in:
Interesting to see the cultural differences on display during these times. Some countries hold the powerful accountable, while here in the US we build entire institutions around the powerful, to protect them from responsibility.
