The federal government's chaotic efforts to fire tens of thousands of workers are taking an outsized toll on military veterans, who comprise nearly a third of the government’s more than two million civilian employees.
That percentage is so high because former service members have long enjoyed hiring preferences for federal jobs — a policy that dates back more than a hundred years.
Illinois Democratic Senator Tammy Duckworth estimates 6,000 veterans have been fired so far.
"It's a middle finger to our heroes," Duckworth said. "It's a slap in the face to the sacrifices our veterans have made. It's BS, frankly, and every one of us who has served should feel insulted."
Duckworth, a former National Guard lieutenant colonel, is co-sponsoring a bill to force the Trump Administration to reinstate the fired veterans. Democrats have also introduced a companion bill in the House.
Meanwhile, a federal judge has ordered the Trump Administration to reinstate thousands of workers for the Departments of Agriculture, Defense, Energy, Interior, Treasury and Veterans Affairs. U.S. District Court Judge William Alsup ruled the employees were fired improperly by the Office of Personnel Management. But the ruling also said the workers could be laid off again if the individual agencies follow a more formal procedure.
Neither the Office of Personnel Management nor the Department of Labor responded to requests for interviews. But Trump advisor Alina Habba recently addressed the firings while talking to reporters outside the White House.
"We have a fiscal responsibility to use taxpayer dollars to pay people that actually work," she said. "That doesn’t mean that we forget our veterans by any means. We are going to care for them in the right way, but perhaps they’re not fit to have a job at this moment or not willing to come to work."
There’s little evidence, though, that most of those being fired have exhibited low performance or haven't showed up for work.
The layoffs mainly have targeted workers listed as "probationary," typically meaning they're relatively new to a job or recently promoted.
Coast Guard veteran Trace Stauble was a student trainee in a U.S. Forest Service program that involved getting a master's degree then working to maintain federal lands used by cattle ranchers. Then he got an email similar to ones thousands of other federal workers have received in recent days.
"… the agency finds, based on your performance, that you have not demonstrated that your further employment at the agency would be of public interest," it said.
But, like many who received such emails, Stauble - a Department of Agriculture employee - said his performance reviews had been uniformly good.
"If I felt like they had done a good job vetting these federal positions, and I was reached out to and told that, like, 'Hey, you know, your position was determined not to be necessary,' and it was just like that, I would have felt 100 percent better,” he said. "But being fired for under-performance when I have positive performance reviews is just a punch in the chest."
Respect for veterans is the reason the government has long given them an edge for federal jobs.
"The idea of a preference for military veterans was around during the Revolutionary era," said Willamette University Management Professor Tim Johnson, who has researched veterans hiring preferences.
The government gave a modest type of preference for Revolutionary War veterans for at least a couple of jobs. George Washington himself turned down some direct requests for such help but also endorsed at least one measure that was essentially an informal type of preference.
At the end of the Civil War, Congress formalized the practice. And during World War II, Congress passed a detailed law giving preferences to honorably discharged veterans who served during periods of war or in notable military campaigns.
The law also gave a boost to veterans with service-connected disabilities, the wives of disabled veterans, the widows of veterans, and the mothers of veterans. It also provided some layoff protections.
By 1955, so many World War II veterans had taken advantage of the law that veterans made up half the federal work force.
"Throughout the 20th century, there were high rates of military veterans in civilian roles in the federal government, and the range would bump up after large scale conflicts, and then would moderate to some degree," Johnson said.
His research found evidence that veterans in federal jobs perform at similar levels to non-veterans - undermining the argument that preferences lead to less qualified workers.
"Veteran status can be a measure of merit," Johnson said. "It indicates somebody's ability to succeed in a very challenging environment, learn a set of skills, perform well in the military portion of the government."
Stauble, the fired Coast Guard veteran, said he probably would have made less money in the Forest Service than in the private sector, but he found public service work rewarding and considered a federal job to be more stable.
"If you take the stability out of it, there’s not many benefits to working for the federal government," Stauble said. "I feel like generations to come, when it comes to federal jobs, they see they're going to have to take a pay cut, they're not going to want to work for the federal government anymore."
This story was produced by the American Homefront Project, a public media collaboration that reports on American military life and veterans.
