Politics
Trump Mass Layoffs Blocked by Judge Amid Program Closure Plans
Trump mass layoffs blocked
A federal judge issued a temporary two-week halt on Friday to the Trump administration’s proposed mass layoffs and closure of various federal programs. This order prevents approximately two dozen agencies from advancing with what was described as the administration’s most extensive reorganization to date—actions the judge declared unlawful without congressional approval.
Among the many legal challenges to President Trump’s initiative to significantly reduce the size and scope of the federal government, this particular case could have the widest implications. While most agencies have not yet disclosed their specific downsizing strategies, government employees nationwide have been bracing for announcements expected in recent weeks.
After holding an emergency hearing, Judge Susan Illston of the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California ruled that the administration’s plans posed an immediate threat to numerous essential public services.
According to Judge Illston, the Constitution grants Congress the authority over federal government restructuring, and any significant reorganization requires its consultation and approval. The plaintiffs—unions and advocacy organizations—argued that the president overstepped his legal authority by bypassing this process.
In her 42-page ruling, Judge Illston acknowledged that presidents have the right to introduce new policies and influence the structure of the federal government. However, she emphasized that major structural changes require cooperation with Congress.
The judge highlighted services at risk if certain agency functions were eliminated, such as disaster relief for farmers, Social Security support appointments, mine safety inspections, and kindergarten grant programs.
She referred to disruptions already experienced at the Department of Health and Human Services, where previous layoffs hindered programs assisting low-income families with heating bills and state efforts to track chronic illnesses and gun violence.
Although lawsuits have been filed against various federal employment decisions in the past, including mass firings of probationary staff earlier this year, this case marks the first instance of such a broad coalition uniting to challenge the administration. Plaintiffs included labor unions, nonprofit organizations, and officials from six major cities and counties—among them Baltimore, Chicago, San Francisco, and Harris County, Texas.
In a joint statement, the coalition criticized the administration’s plan, stating it has caused disorder within agencies and disrupted essential public services. They stressed that communities nationwide rely on these services and that arbitrary layoffs and reorganization are not the answer.
Filed just one week prior, the lawsuit outlines a pattern of agency reductions that, according to plaintiffs, have negatively impacted tens of thousands of federal workers and the residents they serve—particularly in areas such as health care, veterans’ benefits, environmental protection, and disaster assistance.
Central to the case are the proposed “reductions in force”—the largest component of the president’s downsizing initiative. The administration had already dismissed thousands of probationary employees earlier this year, and the next phase was expected to affect hundreds of thousands more.
Agencies were instructed earlier this year to submit their final reorganization plans to the Office of Personnel Management and the Office of Management and Budget. Although the deadline was April 14, some agencies had already begun implementing layoffs.
For example, the Department of Health and Human Services laid off 10,000 employees in early April. In several cases, entire offices were closed, and programs were discontinued. Affected employees were immediately placed on administrative leave and denied access to their work systems.
Other agencies have been silent about who will be impacted, adding to employee anxiety. To comply with the administration’s reduction goals, some agencies have offered buyouts and early retirement incentives. The scale of further cuts will depend on how many employees voluntarily leave.
As part of the case, attorneys submitted over 1,300 pages of sworn testimony from health workers, housing inspectors, first responders, and others who detailed the harm caused by federal program reductions.
During the hearing, Justice Department attorney Eric Hamilton argued that the plaintiffs represented unrelated groups—federal workers and the local entities affected by service cuts—and thus had no shared legal standing.
Hamilton also claimed that the president has broad authority to restructure federal agencies and that the executive orders in question fall outside judicial review.
In response, attorney Danielle Leonard, representing the plaintiffs, contended that the administration’s strategy undermines the role of Congress, which has authority over federal funding and operations. She said the government has not cited any specific law giving the president unilateral power to make such sweeping changes.
Leonard also noted that the administration has repeatedly offered inconsistent justifications for its actions. “It’s an ouroboros,” she said, “the snake eating its tail.”