It's a reorganization. That shit happens all the time in organizations everywhere. Of course the people losing their jobs are unhappy, and it's their right to complain about it, but not necessarily a bad thing that the DoD is now in charge of White House security.
I'm curious if I'm being downvoted because something about my comment was wrong, or simply because "orange man bad." Maybe share some insight about the right chain of command for government IT security operations? I'm not saying that the reorganization is a good thing, only that there is insufficient evidence provided to conclude that it's a bad thing.
You consider this a re-org?
Yea that's a re-org. That's how you fire someone in government because it's so convoluted to outright terminate people.
[Note] since I posted this, the original article link was updated from an Ars Technica link to an Axios article with even _less_ analysis. This is kind of absurd.
Options are limited. One idea would be to relocate their offices to central Alaska. Another idea is rotating shift work.
If this were normal at-will employment, then they would quickly be replaced.
[...]
"It is my express opinion that the remaining incumbent OCISO staff is being systematically targeted for removal from the Office of Administration," departing White House network defense branch chief Dimitrios Vastakis wrote in the memo. The security team had seen incentive pay revoked, scope of duties cut, and access to systems and facilities reduced, Vastakis noted. Staffers' "positions with strategic and tactical decision making authorities" had also been revoked. "In addition, habitually being hostile to incumbent OCISO staff has become a staple tactic for the new leadership... it has forced the majority of [senior civil servant] OCISO staff to resign."
This is the story.