Federal job cuts and broken promises: A call for thoughtful action

On Tuesday, Gazette staff learned firsthand how the Trump administration’s budget cuts were affecting Nebraska. A friend of the publication, working with an economic development organization in another community, faced the loss of grant funds that had already been awarded. Plans and obligations made in reliance on that funding were now in question. Debts incurred with the expectation of those funds may soon be in default. Jobs could be lost, and the organization itself faces uncertainty.

Later that afternoon, we received a call from a person who preferred to remain anonymous—a request we will honor. The caller informed us that the administration’s workforce reductions had reached McCook. According to their account, three employees—out of approximately thirty—at our local Bureau of Reclamation office had been notified that their jobs were being eliminated.

This kind of news is never easy to hear.

In a town of 8,000 people, the fine line between neighbors and extended family is often thin. When changes hit close to home, they aren’t just headlines or policy shifts—they’re personal.

Realistically, most of us understand that federal budget cuts, sooner or later, will touch programs we care about. When that occurs, it’s a reality check. It may or may not happen when expected, but we adapt. Some programs may be better managed at the state or local level, privately administered, or perhaps even unnecessary.

Watching our neighbors face job loss, financial instability, and uncertain futures is different. It’s a gut punch. If moments like this don’t make us pause and question our convictions, something would be deeply wrong. We can’t help but feel for those affected. We want them to be okay.

At the same time, we remember our long-held belief that the federal government has expanded beyond what the nation’s founders would recognize. Not long ago, we envisioned a day when the government would abide by the 10th Amendment, which reminds us: “The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.”

So how do we reconcile these conflicting thoughts and emotions? We do so by calling on our government for measured, responsible action.

Government obligations—whether in the form of grants, loan guarantees, or contracts—must be honored. Promises already made can be kept while still limiting future commitments.

We can also ask that job reductions be carried out with greater awareness of the human cost. Governor Pillen’s decision to eliminate state jobs that had been vacant for more than 90 days is a perfect example of a way to eliminate jobs without eliminating people. The Trump administration’s 1:4 hiring rule, allowing only one hire for every four employees reduced through attrition, achieves the same objective.

Frankly, we’re perplexed by the resistance to the administration’s voluntary buyout offer, which includes eight months’ severance. We would rather see our neighbors given that option than endure the sudden shock delivered by the proverbial pink slip.

In the end, some will double down on their beliefs and equate harsh realities with long-overdue justice. Others will dust off their megaphones and take to the streets in protest. We have respected friends at both extremes, and emotions are as raw as the weather– but we must demand that our government do what we demand of ourselves: We must face the challenge of retaining our mutual care for humanity, balancing pragmatism with compassion as we focus on the greater good.