Janice R. Andrews
In a significant legal setback for the Trump administration, two federal judges have ordered the White House to reinstate thousands of probationary federal workers who were recently fired as part of mass layoffs across multiple government agencies. The rulings come as the administration demanded agencies submit plans for a second wave of budget cuts and layoffs this week.
The decisions, issued by judges in Maryland and California, found legal flaws in the way the mass terminations were carried out. Both judges ordered the affected employees to be temporarily reinstated, marking a major blow to President Donald Trump and Elon Musk’s Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE), which has targeted specific agencies for cuts.
What Did the Judges Rule?
District Judge James Bredar in Maryland ruled that 18 federal agencies violated regulations when they fired probationary employees en masse. His decision applies to agencies such as the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB), and the US Agency for International Development (USAID). Judge Bredar, appointed by former President Barack Obama, stated that the scale of the firings made it impossible to argue that each termination was based on individual performance issues.
“The sheer number of employees that were terminated in a matter of days belies any argument that these terminations were due to the employees’ individual unsatisfactory performance or conduct,” Bredar wrote.
Hours earlier, District Judge William Alsup in California ordered the reinstatement of probationary employees at six additional agencies, including the Department of Defense, Veterans Affairs, Agriculture, Energy, Interior, and Treasury. Judge Alsup, appointed by former President Bill Clinton, acknowledged the government’s right to reduce federal staff but emphasized that such actions must be justified and carried out properly.
“Congress itself has said you can have an agency do a reduction in force, if it’s done correctly under the law,” Alsup said. He criticized the Office of Personnel Management (OPM) for issuing unjustified termination orders, calling it a “sad day” when the government fires employees under false pretenses.
Why Were the Firings Controversial?
Probationary workers, who are either new hires or employees in new roles for less than a year, have fewer job protections than permanent federal workers. However, they can only be terminated for performance-related reasons. The Trump administration argued that the layoffs were based on individual performance reviews, but the judges found this claim unconvincing given the scale and speed of the firings.
The rulings highlight the ongoing tension between the Trump administration’s efforts to streamline the federal workforce and legal protections for government employees. The administration has defended the layoffs as lawful, stating that agencies individually reviewed probationary employees’ suitability for continued employment.
White House Reacts Strongly
The White House has vowed to fight the rulings, calling them an overreach of judicial power. White House press secretary Karoline Leavitt criticized the California decision as “absurd and unconstitutional,” arguing that it encroaches on the executive branch’s authority to manage federal employees.
“The president has the authority to exercise the power of the entire executive branch. Singular district court judges cannot abuse the power of the entire judiciary to thwart the president’s agenda,” Leavitt said in a statement.
Her remarks echo previous complaints from Trump and his allies, who have often accused Democrat-appointed judges of bias while praising rulings in their favor as impartial.
What’s Next?
The rulings are a significant obstacle to the Trump administration’s plans to reduce the federal workforce and cut budgets. With the judges ordering the reinstatement of fired workers, the administration faces an uphill battle to implement its agenda.
As the legal battle continues, the fate of thousands of federal employees hangs in the balance. The rulings also raise questions about the future of government efficiency initiatives led by figures like Elon Musk, whose DOGE has been particularly aggressive in targeting agencies for cuts.
For now, the judges’ decisions stand as a reminder of the checks and balances inherent in the US government, ensuring that even sweeping administrative actions are subject to legal scrutiny.
This breaking news story will be updated as more developments unfold. Stay tuned for further updates on this ongoing legal and political battle.
