11 Jul 2025

Trump’s “Big Beautiful Bill”: A declaration of war on healthcare

Benjamin Mateus


When President Trump signed the “One Big Beautiful Bill” act on July 4, 2025, he set into motion legislation that will have severe consequences for Americans, particularly the working class. Not only does this act effect the largest redistribution of wealth from the poorest to the wealthiest by making permanent $3.8 trillion in tax cuts overwhelmingly benefiting the rich, it also begins the wholesale destruction of the healthcare infrastructure through the slashing of Medicaid and the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP), and by extension Medicare.

A car enters the drive at Day Kimball Hospital, July 18, 2022 in Putnam, Connecticut. [AP Photo/Susan Haigh]

An open letter to the public titled, “A Message of Concern from the Nation’s Health Professionals,” with more than 6,000 signatories, warned:

We are doctors, nurses, researchers, and other health professionals alerting you that your health is in danger. The Trump Administration has taken an axe to most of the agencies and programs that protect medical care and public health in our country. It has slashed funding for health care, public health protections, and research. It has fired dedicated experts, removed health and safety regulations, and threatened medical training and scientific research. It is abandoning support for veterans, children, families, and the elderly. It is rolling back protections of the food we eat, the air we breathe, and the water we drink. The administration claims to want to “Make America Healthy Again,” but these actions will do the opposite.

That these draconian attacks have come on the heels of the dismantling of public health programs during the COVID pandemic only confirms that the “Public Health Emergency of International Concern” was a trigger event in history, which has not only unearthed all the contradictions of late-stage capitalism, but also exposed the utter savagery and disdain the financial oligarchs has for working class populations across the world.

Following the COVID pandemic that saw 1.4 million Americans needlessly perish due to malign neglect, the signing of Trump’s bill only confirms the malicious intent of the ruling elites to completely dismantle all democratic norms and make a mockery of the Constitution. It is no exaggeration to say that this bill will deliberately kill people who are the most vulnerable and disenfranchised. Andrew Stokes, associate professor of global health at the Boston University School of Public Health, told JAMA Health Forum, “These deaths reflect not individual choices, but policy neglect and deep-rooted social and health system failures.”

The bill pairs trillions in tax cuts for corporations and the wealthy with deep cuts to vital health and social programs. The legislation slashes federal spending on Medicaid by well over $900 billion over the next decade. This figure represents approximately 15 percent of total federal Medicaid spending over that period. The cuts are rooted in provisions like mandatory work and reporting requirements for Medicaid recipients, repealing rules that simplified eligibility and renewal.

Beyond Medicaid, the bill targets Affordable Care Act (ACA) subsidies, with roughly $125 billion in cuts. Compounding this, the bill fails to extend enhanced ACA premium tax credits, which are set to expire at the end of 2025. These enhanced subsidies currently reduce premium payments by an estimated $705 per year for enrollees. Furthermore, SNAP, commonly known as food stamps, faces substantial reductions of nearly $300 billion over a decade, by increasing red tape and shifting costs to states.

Analysts have also noted that the policy changes will have detrimental effects on Medicare as well, affecting both its financial stability and the access and affordability of care for its beneficiaries. The extensive tax cuts for corporations and the wealthy proposed in the bill are not fully offset by spending reductions, leading to a projected increase in the federal deficit by an estimated $3.3 trillion over 10 years. This fiscal imbalance, under federal “pay-as-you-go” rules, is expected to trigger automatic funding cuts to Medicare totaling nearly $500 billion from 2026 to 2034. These will result in huge across-the-board reductions in future Medicare payments.

The most direct and immediate consequence of these cuts will be a dramatic increase in the number of uninsured Americans. Presently, the sixty-year-old Medicaid program covers one in five Americans, or more than 70 million people, including 40 percent of US children and 60 percent of US nursing home residents. The Congressional Budget Office (CBO) estimates that the bill will directly cause 10.9 million people to lose their health insurance through its Medicaid and ACA provisions. When factoring in the expiration of enhanced ACA subsidies, this number swells to an estimated 16 to 17 million additional uninsured people by 2034. As the Kaiser Family Foundation noted recently, this represents “the biggest rollback of health insurance coverage ever due to federal policy changes.”

Specific breakdowns paint an even starker picture:

  • Medicaid: Between 4.6 million and 5.2 million adults could lose Medicaid in 2026 alone if work requirements are imposed. The CBO projects a total of 7 to 10 million fewer people on Medicaid by 2034.
  • ACA marketplaces: At least 3 million current marketplace enrollees are expected to lose coverage directly because of the bill’s changes. If enhanced subsidies expire, ACA enrollment is projected to drop from 22.8 million in 2025 to 18.9 million in 2026 and to 15.4 million by 2030. For example, Pennsylvania’s ACA marketplace director, Devon Trolley, warned of a 30 to 50 percent enrollment loss in the individual market. On the absurd pretense of preventing fraud, the stricter verification rules and the expiration of subsidies could push four to six million eligible people out of marketplace plans, leading to a surge in the uninsured.
  • Low-income Medicare beneficiaries: Nearly 1.4 million low-income individuals with Medicare (dually enrolled Medicare-Medicaid beneficiaries) are expected to lose their Medicare Savings Program (MSP) coverage due to the rollback of simplifications. This will also increase their prescription drug costs by making them ineligible for the Part D Low-Income Subsidy (LIS)/Extra Help.

The more immediate repercussion will be felt across the entire healthcare sector, particularly emergency departments and local economies. The job losses and rising costs will only exacerbate the social misery that hundreds of millions are confronting.

As millions lose coverage, hospitals and emergency physician groups anticipate surges of uninsured patients flooding already overburdened emergency departments (EDs). This will lead to more crowded waiting rooms, longer treatment delays, and increased patient suffering.

EDs will face more severe cases, as patients without primary care delay treatment until conditions worsen. This “hidden tax” on the healthcare system will elevate uncompensated care costs for hospitals, forcing them to absorb the financial burden or pass it on to privately insured patients through higher premiums. The American Hospital Association (AHA) warns that these cuts will “strain emergency departments as they become the family doctor to millions of newly uninsured people,” impacting everyone in the community.

The massive funding cuts translate directly into job losses across the healthcare sector. Analysts project between 322,000 and 449,000 jobs will be lost in 2026 alone, with nearly half of these directly in healthcare. Hospitals and nursing facilities, anticipating steep revenue declines, are already planning hiring freezes and job cuts. For instance, the AHA estimates that for every $1 billion in Medicaid cuts, Pennsylvania alone could lose approximately 13,352 jobs, resulting in 54,670 hospital jobs lost over a decade under current legislation. Overall, the healthcare sector could shed nearly 500,000 jobs nationwide by 2029.

For those who retain coverage, the ACA marketplace will become significantly more expensive and difficult to navigate. If enhanced subsidies expire, enrollees’ premium payments are expected to increase by over 75 percent on average in 2026. The bill also codifies stricter rules, including ending automatic re-enrollment and requiring annual re-verification for tax credit eligibility, imposing significant administrative burdens.

The longer-term impact will lead to a growing number of health deserts, broader economic decline and widening disparities. Worse, the changes brought by the bill will become structural, reshaping the US healthcare landscape and exacerbating social and economic inequities. The cuts will be particularly devastating for rural communities, which already face an acute healthcare crisis. Rural hospitals, many of which are anchors of their local economies, operate on thin margins and rely heavily on Medicaid and Medicare payments.

A study by the University of North Carolina Sheps Center for Health Services Research found that 338 rural hospitals nationwide are at risk of imminent closure under the bill’s Medicaid cuts. The National Rural Health Association predicts “deep harm” to rural patients, with many areas potentially losing their only hospital or emergency department. When a rural hospital closes, residents face average additional travel distances of 20 miles for common care and 40 miles for specialized care, significantly increasing mortality rates for time-sensitive conditions. The bill will result in large “ER deserts” across the country.

The economic stagnation brought on by these cuts will lead to a significant contraction in the healthcare sector, which accounts for one-fifth of US GDP. A recent New York Times article reports that over the past 30 to 40 years the healthcare industry has become the dominant sector for employment. The healthcare industry has consistently grown, becoming the nation’s top employer, expanding from 9 percent of the total workforce in 2000 to 13 percent by July 2025. This growth has been particularly notable in the past year, accounting for about one-third of all employment growth. The trend is expected to continue due to the aging population requiring more care.

The cuts to Medicaid and SNAP are projected to reduce state-level gross domestic product (GDP) by $154 billion in 2029, a decline 18 percent greater than the federal budget savings from those cuts. This will translate into a loss of 1.22 million jobs nationwide by 2029, with roughly 40 percent of all jobs lost due to the bill.

The job losses are equivalent to a 0.8 percentage-point increase in the US unemployment rate by 2029. The impact will not be uniform. States with larger low-income populations, such as New Mexico, Louisiana, Mississippi, West Virginia, Kentucky and Arizona, are projected to experience much sharper employment declines (1.3 - 1.7 percent of their entire workforce). Local and state tax revenues are also expected to plummet by $12.2 billion in 2029 alone.

Furthermore, the bill will exacerbate existing healthcare labor shortages, particularly for nurses, primary care physicians, and direct care workers. Medicaid cuts will worsen workforce recruitment and retention challenges in every state, potentially causing many direct care workers (nearly a third of whom rely on Medicaid themselves) to leave the field due to stagnant wages or loss of their own benefits.

Joseph R. Betancourt, Commonwealth Fund president, states that, “The ripple effect will hit the entire health care system and impact everyone—not just those with Medicaid—driving more people to emergency rooms and further straining an already overburdened system.” This will significantly reduce the healthcare system’s capacity to deliver services. Analysts anticipate a wave of hospital, clinic and nursing home closures. The remaining providers will be stretched thinner, leading to higher patient-to-staff ratios, longer ER wait times, and reduced access to critical services like preventive care, obstetrics and mental health.

In a June 25 report, the American Prospect wrote:

The suffering from these cuts will be concentrated among the poor and working class, including perhaps 51,000 preventable deaths per year, according to researchers from Yale and the University of Pennsylvania. That makes this bill considerably worse than Trump’s previous attempt to repeal the ACA during his first term, which would have caused “only” an estimated 24,000 to 46,000 deaths annually.

The cuts to these social programs are not isolated, but are part of the ongoing wrecking operation that has seen Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) cut over $9.5 billion in approved grants, many for research on cardiovascular diseases, cancer treatments, Alzheimer’s and HIV. The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention is facing a $5.8 billion cut that will end programs on chronic diseases, lead poisoning, drug overdose reduction, and maternal and childhood health.

The mortality gap has widened between Americans according to their socioeconomic status in the last two decades, underscoring the importance of public health in providing well-being and meaning to the lives of the working class. That life expectancy for many states has stagnated in the last 50 years simply demonstrates that the attack on healthcare has been at the forefront of the decades-long claw-back by the financial elite of the gains made by working people. The “Big Beautiful Bill” is an open declaration of war on the population.

New Zealand government attacks workplace health and safety law

John Braddock


New Zealand’s Workplace Relations and Safety Minister, Brooke van Velden, recently announced a sweeping regressive change to the country’s workplace health and safety laws and procedures. The Health and Safety at Work Reform Bill is to be introduced later this year.

New Zealand Workplace Relations Minister Brooke Van Velden [Photo: Facebook/Brooke Van Velden]

Van Velden is deputy leader of the far-right ACT party, which is part of the ruling coalition including the National Party and NZ First. The libertarian ACT is a mouthpiece for big business, committed to “small government,” eliminating “red tape,” sweeping privatisations and market liberalisation. Despite gaining just 8.6 percent of the popular vote at the 2023 election, it is spearheading many of the government’s extreme anti-working-class measures.

Van Velden announced in April that WorkSafe, the government’s work and safety regulator, will be required to shift its priorities from enforcement to “advice.” She said that this will address concerns about underfunding and a “culture of fear” among employers about regulations.

Making the pro-business agenda crystal clear, van Velden declared: “I want to see a shift from a regulator that has a safety at all cost mentality, to a regulator that focuses on helping duty-holders do what is proportionate to the risks, including rooting out over-compliance.”

This means, she said, cutting through “the unnecessary red tape holding these businesses back.” Initial changes will exempt small, purportedly “low-risk businesses” from general Health and Safety at Work Act requirements. They will only need to manage “critical risks” and provide “basic facilities” for workers’ welfare.

Van Velden claimed: “A culture where the regulator is feared for its punitive actions rather than appreciated for its ability to provide clear and consistent guidance is not conducive to positive outcomes in the workplace.” Employers will be invited to draft their own codes of conduct for approval by the minister, which will then make up the majority of new codes.

WorkSafe’s remaining enforcement and prosecution decisions will focus, according to van Velden, on being “even handed.” This includes “strengthening its approach to worker breaches of duty”—that is, blaming workers for safety incidents.

Van Velden said the legislation will also be changed to ensure the “day to day management of health and safety risks” is left to managers so directors and boards are “freed up” from direct obligations. Feedback from consultations indicated, she said, that “there is overcompliance as many directors think they need to do more than they should.”

A major restructuring of the agency is already under way. The government has reduced funding from $NZ141.1million to $138.9 million since 2023. WorkSafe has cut 170 jobs, including the disestablishment of a key health team which focused on preventing health-related harm and workplace deaths.

New Zealand already has one of the worst occupational health and safety records, per head of population, among OECD nations. Fatalities average about 70 per year. Workers are killed at the staggering rate of nearly 1.5 every week. Figures for the past six years are extraordinarily high: 110 deaths in 2019, 69 in 2020, 64 in 2021, 59 in 2022, 67 in 2023 and 70 last year.

Workers also die from long-term exposure to harmful substances 10 times more often than from “accidents.” According to WorkSafe, work-related health deaths are estimated at 750–900 a year.

Last week a South Island court considered a case of two workers who were overcome by hydrogen sulphide fumes and collapsed while digging a pit in 2023. One still suffers flashbacks after being trapped and unable to breathe. The judge said the employers had demonstrated a “near-complete failure” to identify and address the site’s dangers.

The entire political establishment, including the trade unions, support the let-it-rip COVID-19 policy that is setting the stage for the resurgence of COVID-19 and other serious infectious diseases. Otago University health researchers have warned since 2023 about the “unacceptable” lack of COVID-19 protections in schools, describing them as high-risk settings with teachers’ safety significantly compromised.

New Zealand has so far recorded over 2,274,370 cases of COVID-19—in a population of just 5.2 million—and over 3,000 deaths. The teachers have the highest rates of infection of any occupational group.

While industrial action on health and safety is still lawful under the highly restrictive Employment Relations Act, passed by the Labour-Alliance government in 2000, strikes led by the unions have been few and far between.

The deadliest industries are agriculture including forestry, transport and warehousing, manufacturing and construction—which alone had 226,600 injury claims in 2023. Common causes of fatalities involve vehicles, falling objects and being trapped in moving machinery—all of which are preventable.

Forestry had the highest fatality rate in 2024, with 16.58 deaths per 100,000 workers. Forestry workers are 70 times more likely to be killed on the job than the average NZ worker. The industry’s death rate is 34 times higher than Britain’s and seven times that in Australia.

In 2014, in the wake of a spate of deaths, a Forestry Industry Safety Council (FISC) was formed, including business leaders, WorkSafe and trade union officials. The latter hailed the body as a model of union-company collaboration, claiming it would improve safety. It has done nothing of the sort—between 2013 and 2023, 51 forestry workers died on the job.

The current Health and Safety at Work Act (2015) was enacted in response to the devastating explosion at the Pike River mine in 2010 in which 29 miners were killed. The Act was passed by the National Party government and endorsed by the Labour Party and the trade unions, ostensibly to strengthen workplace safety. However, it only requires employers to identify risks and do what was deemed “reasonably practicable” to eliminate or manage them. It introduced fines of up to $600,000.

Institute of Safety Management board chair Mike Cosman, a work safety expert, told Radio NZ in April that the current system is “dysfunctional” and responsible for “killing about 1,000 Kiwis a year” from all causes, including accidents and work-related illnesses.

Cosman said the industry faced far-reaching funding cuts and restructuring. “Our ratio of WorkSafe inspectors to employees is about two-thirds of what the International Labour Organisation recommends and two-thirds of what they have in Australia,” he said. “This is what we saw before Pike River.”

There is now just one safety inspector for every 14,482 workers. Cosman dismissed van Velden’s plans as doing nothing to address “critical risks.”

The current system operates on occasional inspections and advice. In several cases, WorkSafe has refused to prosecute companies over deaths. Safety prosecutions are farcical, with fines imposed well below what could be deemed proportionate to injuries.

“Discounts” regularly reduce nominal fines by tens of thousands of dollars. A kitchen supplier is currently paying off a $75,000 fine in monthly instalments of $1,250 after being granted a 50 percent reduction on the initial fine. Another company has had a $325,000 fine cut to just $40,000 due to its “financial incapacity.”

Nearly 15 years after the Pike River disaster, some of the families are still fighting to expose the truth about an unlawful back-room deal to drop charges against Pike River Coal’s chief executive Peter Whittall. A hearing was held at the Wellington High Court last month challenging WorkSafe over charges that were dropped in exchange for an unsolicited payment of $3.41 million to the families.

A 2012 Royal Commission of Inquiry revealed that the mine was a disaster waiting to happen. Management, the trade union bureaucracy and government regulators all knew about the life-threatening conditions but did not stop its operations. Not one person has been held accountable for creating the conditions that led to 29 avoidable deaths.

Van Velden’s claim that employers operate in “fear” of regulations is an absurd lie, used to justify the eradication of basic protections. The government is engaged in the systematic dismantling of whatever remains of workers’ rights to enable the domination of employer prerogatives, production speedups and the removal of all impediments to profit making. The escalation of workplace injuries, long-term health problems and avoidable deaths is inevitable.

Microsoft announces another round of AI-related layoffs, targeting gaming and engineering workers

Jonathan Burleigh



A Microsoft sign and logo are pictured at the company's headquarters, Friday, April 4, 2025, in Redmond, Washington. [AP Photo/Jason Redmond]

On July 2, Microsoft expanded a long run of layoffs by announcing a workforce reduction of up to 4 percent, or about 9,100 jobs. These add to the over 8,000 layoffs this year at the company, including about 6,000 layoffs in May. In total, this year’s layoffs have hit over 7 percent of its global workforce.

Most of the specific cuts to be made in this latest round have yet to be identified. Company executives have emphasized an aim to “remove layers of management to increase agility and effectiveness.” So far this year, although the layoffs have affected product managers and program managers, over 40 percent of the job cuts have been in software engineering. Jobs in Microsoft’s home state of Washington have been hardest hit, but the layoffs affect its global workforce more generally, including layoffs in California, as well as in Europe, Australia and New Zealand.

Most of the workers to be laid off are apparently not unionized. A minority of impacted gaming workers, however, are organized by the Communication Workers of America (CWA). The CWA has issued a statement expressing that it is “deeply disappointed in Microsoft’s decision to lay off thousands more workers, including union-represented CWA members, at a time when the company is prospering. ... We will be bargaining with the company over these layoffs.”

A popular Reddit comment responded to the CWA statement:

It needs to made clear that this statement is really all any union can do about “restructuring.”

Some people on the internet, who have never been in a union themselves and sure as hell aren’t getting off their asses to unionize their own work place, love telling other folks to unionize when they have no idea what a union actually is. Unions are not an answer to mass layoffs.

Possible solutions include wildcat work stoppage (which is illegal for unions to do), and abolishing capitalism instead of pretending it can be saved.

Another popular Reddit comment in a separate thread described work at Microsoft:

There is a perpetual climate of fear inside the company. Instead of ripping the band aid off and being done it’s a continuous parade of monthly layoffs causing many to be fearful. I have seen a regression towards the old way of teams fighting each other instead of working towards a common goal.

The secrecy is the worst. Layoffs in my group happened and they won’t tell us who is gone from the people I work with and rely on. The work didn’t go away though. It was just added onto the backs of those who remain.

The cost cutting isn’t limited to people. They took away the post it notes and pads of paper in the supply rooms in my building.

In January this year, Microsoft terminated about 2,000 workers in ostensible “performance-based” cuts. In May, it laid off about 6,000, with vague references to “efficiency” and “business priorities” being the reasons given. In June, it laid off hundreds more, once again in ostensible “performance-based” cuts.

Workers subject to the “performance-based” cuts lose healthcare insurance coverage immediately, and are denied severance pay. The company has imposed a two-year rehiring ban on workers cut under the pretext of poor performance, and has deemed the cuts to be “good attrition,” suggesting that company management intends to incorporate layoff targets for specified divisions as a regular feature of its business plans. These measures replicate similar ones taken in recent years by other tech giants like Amazon and Meta.

Online commenters, apparently tech workers or those with personal relations to tech workers, have disputed the company’s claims that layoffs in January and June were truly “performance-based.” For example, another popular Reddit comment reads:

I know people personally who were affected. None of them had any indication of “low performance.” They received annual bonuses and positive reviews. One even asked for specific performance metrics for promotions and was given vague responses stating they were on a promotion track and to keep doing what they were doing. In the end, this is a callous layoff under the guise of “low performances” so they can justify culling thousands of people with no severance and leaving them without insurance or a high amount of earned stock set to divest [sic] again in two weeks.

Other online commenters have confirmed the practices described above. Very apparently, the comment refers to a practice of terminating workers shortly before a scheduled vesting event for their equity compensation, which, at large tech companies, commonly comprises 50 percent or more of workers’ income. Such a practice would enable the company to deprive workers of very large amounts of equity compensation which they had worked toward for months and years, under a pretext of allegedly poor performance.

Notably, the “performance-based” cuts in January and June affected primarily workers in Microsoft’s gaming divisions, including Xbox. Xbox and other Microsoft gaming divisions have again been targeted in the latest round of much larger layoffs (which are not “performance-based”). It is cutting jobs from divisions that produce the games Candy Crush and Forza Motorsport. It is canceling entirely the popular Perfect Dark and Everwild games, as well as several unannounced projects.

In an X post made in reference to the layoffs, Matt Turnbull, executive producer at Xbox Game Studios Publishing, demonstrated the pervasive indifference of the capitalist class toward the workers it exploits. The post condescendingly explains, “I’ve been experimenting with ways to use LLM Al tools (like ChatGPT or Copilot) to help reduce the emotional and cognitive load that comes with job loss.” He goes on to suggest “some prompt ideas and use cases that might help if you’re feeling overwhelmed,” i.e., that laid-off workers should use AI chatbots to help them with career planning, job seeking, networking, as well as the emotional impact of their job loss.

Thus far, Microsoft company management has not admitted openly to any connection between the layoffs this year and the introduction and development of generative AI technologies. However, media observers, analysts and online commenters generally take it as a given that the job cuts are part of a large-scale restructuring of the tech industry related to AI. The company plans to invest $80 billion in AI-related development in fiscal year 2025 alone.

At the Build industry conference in May, Microsoft CEO Satya Nadella demonstrated AI software tools that could, with relatively very little human direction, very quickly perform tasks previously carried about by entire teams of engineers. At present, about 30 percent of software coding work at Microsoft is done by AI.

In a move widely recognized as part of an AI-related strategic shift, Microsoft cut 10,000 jobs in early 2023. In 2024, it cut an undisclosed number of jobs, probably around 3,500-4,500 total. Business analysts, including Gil Luria, have suggested that Microsoft’s increased investments will necessitate annual workforce reductions of about 10,000.

According to the World Economic Forum’s annual Future of Jobs Report published in January, 41 percent of employers surveyed internationally “foresee staff reductions due to skills obsolescence” related to the implementation of AI technologies. International companies that underwent AI-related layoffs this year include Adidas, Ally, Automattic (parent company of Tumblr and WordPress), Block, Blue Origin, Boeing, BP, Bridgewater, Bumble, Burberry, Chevron, CNN, Coty, CrowdStrike, Disney, Dropbox, Estée Lauder, Geico, GrubHub, Hewlett Packard Enterprise, Intel, Johns Hopkins University, Kohl’s, Meta, Microchip Technology, Morgan Stanley, Nissan, Panasonic, Paramount, Porsche, PwC, Salesforce, Sonos, Southwest Airlines, Starbucks, Stripe, UPS, the Washington Post, Wayfair, and Workday.

Business Insider report published in March explains bluntly:

Across tech, the tables have turned for employees as performance pressure and proclamations of “efficiency” and “intensity” replace perks and pampering. Sweeping layoffs have become the norm in an industry that, in recent memory, enjoyed job security. The pressure to dominate in AI has created intense competition, as companies use the technology to do more with fewer workers. Already hard-driving workplaces have become even harder.

DesignWhine reports, “The Microsoft layoffs of 2025 mark not just a corporate restructuring but a fundamental shift in how technology companies view human capital in an AI-dominated future.”

Amazon CEO Andy Jassy has also spoken bluntly about the connection between workforce reductions and AI. He explained in a message June 17 on aboutamazon.com:

As we roll out more Generative AI and agents, it should change the way our work is done. We will need fewer people doing some of the jobs that are being done today, and more people doing other types of jobs. It’s hard to know exactly where this nets out over time, but in the next few years, we expect that this will reduce our total corporate workforce as we get efficiency gains from using AI extensively across the company.

So far this year, Amazon has introduced new return-to-office and performance review policies that will intensify job performance pressures on workers while their compensation stagnates and even falls, primarily through cuts to equity and bonus pay.

An Amazon tech worker told the WSWS:

The so-called “performance-based” layoffs are not really performance-based. This has happened at Amazon, too. We’ve also had layoffs carefully planned by management to come shortly before RSU [restricted stock unit: a common type of equity compensation] vesting for large numbers of workers. It happens at pretty much every tech company. Historically, Google had not followed such practices. However, recently, even Google has been adapting, also because of AI. I’ve heard that they haven’t been making generous hiring offers anymore. They’ve taken away some of the perks. For example, Google used to have free meal services and onsite laundry. I heard they took most of it away. There are no longer any employers offering generous conditions to tech workers anymore.

University of Washington professor Margaret O’Mara told the Seattle Times that, in the context of business history, the Microsoft layoffs are very unusual: “When you see thousands of workers laid off, it’s been deindustrialization or companies in crisis, but these tech companies are the most valuable in human history.” In fact, Microsoft reported nearly $26 billion in profits in the first quarter of 2025, one of the best ever for the company.

The major shifts in the computer gaming industry—coupled with the Trump administration’s economic warfare against the entire world—have recently led to massive price hikes for games. Last month, a 10-month strike of video game performers, members of the Screen Actors Guild-American Federation of Television and Radio Artists (SAG-AFTRA), was suspended after the union announced a tentative agreement.

JacobinLabor Notes, and other pseudo-left publications have remained silent so far about the Microsoft layoffs.

In a related development, an online petition “Stop Killing Games” has gathered over 1.2 million signatures. It is a consumer-based initiative aimed at pressuring governments to enact laws that would restrict tech companies from canceling popular computer games.