Trump Action Archive

Supporting reports

• Judge Susan Illston grants temporary restraining order blocking Trump's mass layoffs during government shutdown — On Wednesday (October 15, 2025), Judge Susan Illston of the US District Court's Northern District of California granted a temporary restraining order blocking Trump's latest mass layoffs from the government shutdown. The order represents a significant legal victory for unions battling the administration's workforce reduction efforts.
• Federal court rules Trump's federal worker layoffs during shutdown illegal — A federal court in San Francisco ruled that Trump's layoffs of federal workers during the government shutdown were illegal. The ruling represented a judicial check on executive action during the shutdown.
• Federal judge temporarily blocked firing of federal employees during shutdown — A federal judge temporarily blocked the Trump administration from firing federal employees during the government shutdown, saying the move appeared to be politically motivated and adding, "It's a human cost that cannot be tolerated."
• Federal judge issues temporary injunction blocking federal worker layoffs — A federal judge on October 16, 2025, issued a temporary injunction blocking the Trump administration's layoffs of more than 4,000 federal workers. The injunction halted the firings, though the administration signaled that additional cuts were planned and that the current layoffs represented only a partial reduction in the workforce.
• Judge Illston grants temporary injunction blocking Trump administration federal employee firings during shutdown — Federal Judge Susan Illston of the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California issued a temporary restraining order blocking the Trump administration's mass firings of federal employees during the government shutdown. The ruling came in response to a lawsuit filed by labor unions (AFGE and AFSCME) alleging that the Office of Management and Budget and Office of Personnel Management violated law by threatening and executing reductions in force during the shutdown. Judge Illston found evidence that OMB and OPM "took advantage of the lapse in government spending" and acted "arbitrarily and capriciously" in excess of authority.
• Trump administration lays off 4,000 federal workers; federal judge issues temporary injunction — The Trump administration laid off more than 4,000 federal government workers during the shutdown. On October 16, 2025, a federal judge issued a temporary injunction blocking the firings. The Office of Management and Budget director, Russ Vought, stated that the 4,000 layoffs were merely a "snapshot" and that the total number could exceed 10,000. The administration indicated further cuts were expected.

Supporting reports

• Federal agencies issue partisan shutdown blame statements in apparent Hatch Act violation — Multiple federal agencies (VA, HUD, HHS, Interior, Commerce, Labor, NLRB, National Archives, Patent Office, FTC) issued emails and public statements on September 30 blaming Democrats and the "radical left" for an impending government shutdown. The statements used identical or similar language across agencies and included partisan characterizations. Legal experts characterized the coordinated messaging as violating the Hatch Act, which restricts political activities by federal employees, and potentially violating federal law on lobbying with taxpayer funds.
• HUD website displays partisan shutdown message blaming "radical left" — The Department of Housing and Urban Development posted a large red banner on its homepage blaming the "radical left" for the looming government shutdown and stating the Trump administration wants to keep government open. The message appeared after Republican and Democratic leaders failed to reach a spending agreement by the Tuesday night deadline. HUD spokesperson Matthew Maley defended the banner as reporting on shutdown impacts, while critics characterized it as inappropriate partisan propaganda on a public agency website.
• Veterans Affairs spokesperson issues partisan shutdown statement — A Department of Veterans Affairs spokesperson issued a statement on Tuesday using charged political rhetoric, blaming "radical liberals in Congress" for attempting to shut down the government to achieve "open borders" and other partisan characterizations, while warning of impacts to veterans care and assistance programs.
• White House violated Hatch Act by using federal agencies to blame Democrats for shutdown — During the government shutdown crisis on September 30, the White House violated the Hatch Act—which prohibits use of government resources for partisan gain—by directing federal agencies to send emails to employees blaming Democrats for the shutdown. Agencies including the Social Security Administration, Small Business Administration, Department of Health and Human Services, and Department of Commerce sent emails stating Trump "opposes a government shutdown" but Democrats were "blocking this Continuing Resolution… due to unrelated policy demands." The Department of Housing and Urban Development posted a banner calling the "Radical Left" responsible for the shutdown. The Department of Veterans Affairs issued a statement blaming "Radical liberals in Congress" for attempting to shut down the government.
• HUD posted banner blaming "radical left" for shutdown — The Department of Housing and Urban Development posted a bright red banner on its website on September 30 blaming the "radical left" for the impending government shutdown. The banner read, "The Radical Left are going to shut down the government and inflict massive pain on the American people unless they get their $1.5 trillion wish list of demands. The Trump administration wants to keep the government open for the American people." The non-profit consumer advocacy group Public Citizen subsequently filed a complaint with the US Office of Special Counsel, calling the banner a "blatant violation" of the Hatch Act.
• White House threatens federal worker layoffs during government shutdown — The Trump administration warned that federal worker layoffs are imminent if the government shutdown continues. Vice President Vance stated the administration would "lay some people off" and take "extraordinary steps" to maintain essential services. Approximately 750,000 federal employees face furlough with pay withheld, while essential workers such as military and border agents may be forced to work without pay. OMB Director Russ Vought announced the White House is also pausing or canceling infrastructure and clean energy funding to Democratic-leaning states.
• Department of Education employees' email accounts manipulated with partisan talking points — NBC News reported that Department of Education employees who were furloughed discovered their email out-of-office messages had been altered to include partisan talking points blaming Democrats for the government shutdown. Five civil servants provided copies of their manipulated messages, which had been rewritten in the first person without their consent. Employees stated the alterations violated the Hatch Act, which prohibits federal employees from engaging in partisan political activity.
• Federal agencies deploy partisan messaging blaming Democrats for shutdown, potentially violating Hatch Act — Multiple federal agencies, including Treasury, Agriculture, Education, and at least a dozen others, have used official websites and employee out-of-office messages to blame Democrats for the government shutdown. The Department of Education altered employees' automated replies without their knowledge or approval. Legal experts and watchdog groups argue this constitutes a violation of the Hatch Act, which prohibits federal employees from engaging in partisan political activity. Public Citizen and the Democracy Defenders Fund have filed complaints with the GAO and Special Counsel's office.
• Department of Education changed furloughed employees' out-of-office messages to blame Democrats — During the government shutdown, the Department of Education changed automated out-of-office email replies for furloughed employees from generic messages to ones blaming Democrats for the shutdown. When employees changed the messages back to neutral language, the Department changed them again to blame Democrats. This represents use of government communications infrastructure to advance partisan messaging during a shutdown.
• Trump administration threatens mass firings of federal employees during shutdown — On Thursday morning, the Trump administration threatened to fire many employees at federal agencies across the nation, creating fear and uncertainty among furloughed workers. Some employees printed out furlough notices and pay stubs in preparation for potential unemployment. The threat occurred amid the ongoing government shutdown and the administration's use of the crisis to pursue policy goals, including cutting climate funding and freezing construction projects.
• Federal agencies post partisan messages blaming Democrats for shutdown operations curtailment — Several federal government departments posted partisan and potentially illegal messages stating that their operations were curtailed due to "the Radical Left Democrat shutdown." Sources at the Education Department reported that out-of-office email messages were changed without staff permission to use rhetoric blaming Democrats for the shutdown. The action represents an apparent coordinated effort to use government communications infrastructure for partisan messaging during the funding lapse.
• White House issues fact sheet attributing government shutdown economic impacts to Democratic opposition to funding restrictions on healthcare for undocumented immigrants — The White House published a fact sheet on October 3, 2025, presenting state-by-state economic projections attributed to a government shutdown. The document claims the Council of Economic Advisers warns of $15 billion in weekly GDP losses, projects 43,000+ additional unemployed Americans over a month-long shutdown, and lists estimated impacts on WIC recipients, SNAP beneficiaries, consumer spending, and gross state product by state. The fact sheet frames the shutdown as caused by Democratic demands to fund healthcare for undocumented immigrants.

Supporting reports

• Trump signed Executive Order 14343 excluding additional federal agencies from labor-management relations protections. — President Trump signed Executive Order 14343 on August 28, 2025, further amending Executive Order 12171 to exclude additional federal agencies and subdivisions from Chapter 71 of title 5, United States Code (the Federal Labor-Management Relations Statute). The order determines that the Bureau of Reclamation hydropower units, International Trade Administration, Patent and Trademark Office, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration subdivisions (National Environmental Satellite, Data, and Information Service and National Weather Service), National Aeronautics and Space Administration, and United States Agency for Global Media have primary national security functions and cannot be subject to federal labor-management relations requirements. The order also extended the deadline for Defense and Veterans Affairs exclusion orders issued under Executive Order 14251.
• Trump issues executive order expanding exclusions from federal labor-management relations protections — President Trump issued Executive Order "Further Exclusions From the Federal Labor-Management Relations Program" on August 28, 2025, amending Executive Order 12171 to exclude additional federal agencies and subdivisions from Chapter 71 labor protections. The order designates units in the Bureau of Reclamation (hydropower facilities), the International Trade Administration, Patent and Trademark Office, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration subdivisions, NASA, and the U.S. Agency for Global Media as having primary national security functions, thereby removing collective bargaining rights protections. The order also extends a deadline for Defense and Veterans Affairs secretaries to issue related orders by 15 days.
• Trump signed executive order excluding additional federal agencies from labor-management relations protections — President Trump signed an executive order on August 28, 2025, further amending Executive Order 12171 to exclude additional federal agencies and subdivisions from Chapter 71 of title 5, United States Code (the Federal Labor-Management Relations Statute). The order designates units in the Bureau of Reclamation managing hydropower facilities, subdivisions of the Department of Commerce (International Trade Administration, Patent and Trademark Office, and specified NOAA divisions), NASA, and the United States Agency for Global Media as having primary national security functions and therefore exempt from federal labor-management relations requirements. The order also extends a deadline for Defense and Veterans Affairs orders under a prior March 2025 exclusion order.
• White House issues fact sheet on executive order exempting national security agencies from federal collective bargaining — The White House published a fact sheet on August 28, 2025, describing an executive order signed by President Trump that exempts six federal agencies with national security missions from collective bargaining requirements under the Civil Service Reform Act of 1978. The agencies named are: Bureau of Reclamation (hydropower facilities), NASA, NOAA (National Weather Service and NESDIS), Patent and Trademark Office, and U.S. Agency for Global Media. The fact sheet states the order aims to enable these agencies to implement policies swiftly without delays caused by union bargaining procedures.

Supporting reports

• DOJ extends Bill Essayli's term as interim U.S. attorney for Los Angeles — The DOJ extended the tenure of Bill Essayli as temporary U.S. attorney for Los Angeles. Essayli, a former assistant U.S. attorney and twice-elected Republican California assemblyman, has used his position to carry out Trump's mass deportations and the president's response to protests and civil unrest in the Los Angeles area. He has charged labor leaders and pursued cases aligned with Trump's political agenda despite warnings of insufficient evidence.
• DOJ extends John Sarcone's term as interim U.S. attorney for Northern District of New York — John Sarcone III's term as interim U.S. attorney for the Northern District of New York was set to expire in July 2025 after federal judges declined to permanently appoint him. Days after judges rejected him, the DOJ redesignated his title and named him as a special attorney, extending his tenure. Sarcone, a former Trump campaign attorney with no prior prosecutorial experience, had used his four-month interim role to publicly denounce Albany Police Department leadership, feud with local journalists, and criticize former President Biden's immigration policies. He also publicly confirmed a DOJ probe into New York Attorney General Letitia James, one of Trump's foremost political adversaries.
• DOJ extends Sigal Chattah's term as interim U.S. attorney for Nevada — The DOJ extended the tenure of Sigal Chattah as temporary U.S. attorney for Nevada before courts could weigh in on her permanent appointment. Hundreds of federal and state judges had asked courts to reject Chattah's permanent appointment based on her long history of racially charged and violence-tinged statements against political opponents and elected officials. Chattah, a former Republican National Committee member, has shown partisan bias while in her temporary role, targeting Nevada's Democratic U.S. senators Catherine Cortez-Masto and Jacky Rosen.

Supporting reports

• Supreme Court ruled Trump can proceed with federal workforce reduction — The Supreme Court ruled that Trump can proceed with his plan to reduce the federal workforce through mass layoffs. In her dissent, Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson panned the ruling, writing, "This was the wrong decision at the wrong moment, especially given what little this Court knows about what is actually happening on the ground."
• US Supreme Court lifts stay on Trump federal workforce reductions — The US Supreme Court issued an unsigned order on Tuesday lifting a lower court freeze on Trump administration "reductions in force" (mass federal layoffs). The decision reversed San Francisco District Judge Susan Illston's 22 May ruling that had blocked agencies from carrying out mass layoffs and ordered reinstatement of fired workers. The Court found Trump's executive order and implementing memorandum "likely to succeed" on lawfulness grounds. Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson dissented, warning the decision would result in hundreds of thousands of job losses across agriculture, commerce, health, state, treasury, veterans affairs, and other agencies.
• Preliminary injunction ruling — American Federation Of Government Employees, AFL-CIO v. Trump (N.D. Cal.) 3:25-cv-03698 — In an 8-1 decision, the Supreme Court stayed a preliminary injunction which had blocked the administration from implementing widespread Reduction in Forces (RIFs) and agency reorganizations across 22 agencies. The majority noted that the Executive Order 14210 and related memorandum are likely to be lawful, and found the district court had based its injunction on those directives rather than individual agency plans. They declined to opine as to whether any specific RIFs or reorganization plans may be lawful. Justice Sotomayor concurred to emphasize that the lower court may still review individual agency plans on a case-by-case basis. Justice Jackson dissented.
• Supreme Court stays preliminary injunction in case challenging Trump's executive order — On July 8, 2025, the Supreme Court granted a stay on a preliminary injunction that had been issued by the United States District Court for the Northern District of California. The injunction had temporarily blocked the implementation of President Donald Trump's executive order titled "Department of Government Efficiency" Workforce Optimization Initiative, which aimed to enact a hiring freeze and large-scale reductions in force across federal agencies. The Supreme Court's decision allows the federal government to proceed with the order while the legal challenge continues. Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson dissented in the 8-1 decision.
• Supreme Court stays preliminary injunction on Trump's workforce optimization order — On July 8, 2025, the Supreme Court granted a stay on a preliminary injunction that had been issued by the United States District Court for the Northern District of California. The injunction had temporarily blocked the implementation of President Donald Trump's executive order titled "Department of Government Efficiency" Workforce Optimization Initiative, which aimed to enforce a hiring freeze and large-scale reductions in force across federal agencies. The Supreme Court's decision allows the federal government to proceed with the order while the legal challenge continues. Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson dissented in the 8-1 decision.
• Supreme Court Grants Stay in Trump v. American Federation of Government Employees — On July 8, 2025, the Supreme Court granted the federal government's request for a stay in the case of Donald J. Trump, President of the United States, et al. v. American Federation of Government Employees, et al. This decision allows the Trump administration to proceed with implementing an executive order that enacts a hiring freeze and large-scale reductions in force across federal agencies. The order had been previously blocked by a preliminary injunction issued by Judge Susan Illston of the United States District Court for the Northern District of California. The Supreme Court's decision was made in an 8-1 vote, with Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson dissenting.

Supporting reports

• Appeal filed — American Association of University Professors v. United States Department of Justice (S.D.N.Y.) 1:25-cv-02429 — Judge Mary Kay Vyskocil dismissed the case. That day, the Plaintiffs appealed to the Second Circuit.
• Appeal filed — Boyle v. Trump (D. Md.) 8:25-cv-01628 — Defendants appealed Judge Maddox's summary judgment order to the Fourth Circuit.
• Case update — American Federation of Teachers, AFL-CIO v. Goldstein (S.D.N.Y.) 1:25-cv-03072 — Plaintiffs filed their second amended complaint .
• Case update — Carter v. Department of Education (D.D.C.) 1:25-cv-00744 — The court stayed the case pending the status of appeals in State of New York v. McMahon , Civil Action No. 25-10601 (D. Mass.) and Somerville Public Schools v. Trump , Civil Action No. 25-10677 (D. Mass.).
• Case update — City of Chicago v. United States Department of Homeland Security (N.D. Ill.) 1:25-cv-05462 — Plaintiffs filed an amended complaint , adding Boston, Denver, San Francisco, and Seattle as plaintiffs. The amended filing described each city's reliance on the Securing the Cities program and the harms from DHS's freeze on 2025 reimbursements and failure to release approved 2024 funds, shifted emphasis from primarily APA claims to a stronger Appropriations Clause theory challenging DHS's withholding of congressionally allocated funds, and stressed the need to restore funding before major events requiring heightened security, including political conventions and national holidays.
• Case update — City of New York v. Trump et al. (S.D.N.Y.) 1:25-cv-01510 — Plaintiff filed their second amended complaint (redline here ).
• Case update — J.G.G. v. Trump (D.D.C.) 1:25-cv-00766 — Plaintiffs/Appellees filed their opposition in the D.C. Circuit to the Defendants'/Appellants' emergency motion seeking a stay of Judge Boasberg's June 4 order pending appeal.
• Case update — Northern Alaska Environmental Center v. Trump (D. Alaska) 3:25-cv-00038 — Plaintiffs filed an amended complaint , which added the Conservation Law Foundation as a plaintiff.
• Motion granted — Democracy Forward Foundation v. Department of Education (D.D.C.) 1:25-cv-00940 — DOE answered Plaintiff's complaint, arguing that Plaintiff failed to state a claim for which relief can be granted, that the court lacks subject matter jurisdiction to grant relief authorized under FOIA, and that Plaintiff is not entitled to compel the release of records properly withheld under FOIA exclusions or exemptions, among other defenses.
• Preliminary injunction ruling — Schiff v. U.S. Office of Personnel Management (D. Mass.) 1:25-cv-10595 — Defendants filed a motion to dismiss , arguing that Plaintiffs' claims are moot in light of Defendants' compliance with the preliminary injunction order issued on May 23.
• House Judiciary Report on Trump Pardons — Democrats on the House Judiciary Committee released a report estimating that Trump's pardons have cost taxpayers over $1.3 billion in fines and restitution. The report highlights the financial impact of presidential pardons.
• R Kelly's Lawyers File Court Documents Alleging Overdose in Prison — Lawyers for R Kelly have filed new court documents alleging that the singer, who is serving a prison sentence for sex trafficking, was rushed to the hospital after overdosing on medication provided by prison staff. The filing claims that Kelly was placed in solitary confinement on June 10 and given medication with instructions to take it, leading to an overdose on June 13. The documents also allege a plot by Bureau of Prisons officials to have Kelly killed by another inmate, prompting a request for his release to home detention, which federal prosecutors have opposed.
• Case update — Project on Government Oversight, Inc. v. Trump (D.D.C.) 1:25-cv-00527 — Defendants filed an unopposed motion before Judge Boasberg seeking clarification or, alternatively, a stay of further proceedings. They argued that under 28 U.S.C. § 2243, no responsive pleading (return) is due in habeas proceedings until the court issues a writ or show-cause order, and that the preliminary-injunction briefing had already served that function. In the alternative, they requested that any requirement to file a return or dispositive motion be stayed until after the D.C. Circuit resolves the appeal of the June 4 order.
• Motion granted — Northern Alaska Environmental Center v. Trump (D. Alaska) 3:25-cv-00038 — Defendants moved to dismiss the complaint or stay proceedings in the alternative.
• Preliminary injunction ruling — Harris County Texas v. Robert F Kennedy Jr (D.D.C.) 1:25-cv-01275 — The court granted State of Alaska's motion to intervene . Judge Sharon Gleason ordered that the State of Alaska be admitted into the case as an intervenor-defendant.
• Preliminary injunction ruling — Project on Government Oversight, Inc. v. Trump (D.D.C.) 1:25-cv-00527 — Judge Christopher Cooper issued a memorandum opinion that granted in part and denied in part Plaintiffs' motion for a preliminary injunction. Judge Cooper granted relief to some of the grants held by four local-government plaintiffs (Harris County, Texas; Columbus, Ohio; Davidson County and Nashville, Tennessee; and Kansas City, Missouri) and decided against granting relief to all terminated grants nationwide. Defendants are enjoined from enforcing or otherwise giving effect to the March 2025 terminations of grants issued directly or indirectly to these four plaintiffs under the Coronavirus Preparedness and Response Supplemental Appropriations Act of 2020, the CARES Act, and the CRRSAA.
• Temporary restraining order ruling — Association of American Universities v. Department of Defense (D. Mass.) 1:25-cv-11740 — Judge James E. Boasberg denied Plaintiff's preliminary injunction motion. In the supporting memorandum , Judge Boasberg noted Plaintiff failed to show a likelihood of irreparable harm absent a preliminary injunction.
• Temporary restraining order ruling — National Job Corps Association v. Department of Labor (S.D.N.Y.) 1:25-cv-04641 — The Court granted Plaintiffs' motion for a temporary restraining order, prohibiting the DOD from enforcing the Rate Cap Policy.
• Case update — Association for Education Finance and Policy Inc. v. McMahon (D.D.C.) 1:25-cv-00999 — Judge Carter extended the temporary restraining order through June 25.
• Case update — CREW v. DOGE (D.D.C.) 1:25-cv-00511 — Plaintiffs filed an amended complaint . In this amended complaint, plaintiffs removed their ultra vires and Impoundment Act claims. Plaintiffs also added counts specifying the IES terminations and their associated alleged APA violation.
• Case update — Democracy Forward Foundation v. U.S. Department of the Treasury (D.D.C.) 1:25-cv-00684 — CREW filed a motion for summary disposition with the D.C. Circuit following the Supreme Court's Jun. 6 order.
• Complaint filed — EA T-B v. Bostock — Democracy Forward and the Department of the Treasury filed a joint status report to note the identification of 5,807 potentially responsive documents and the parties' efforts to further narrow Plaintiff's FOIA request to alleviate processing burdens and allow for a more expeditious processing of documents.
• Motion denied — Democracy Forward Foundation v. U.S. Department of Justice (D.D.C.) 1:25-cv-01535 — Defendants/Appellants filed their reply in support of their emergency motion in the D.C. Circuit to stay Judge Boasberg's June 4 order pending appeal.
• Preliminary injunction ruling — San Francisco Unified School District v. AmeriCorps, a.k.a. the Corporation for National and Community Service (N.D. Cal.) 3:25 — A complaint was filed in the Western District of Washington under the case caption EA T-B v. Bostock, docket number 2:25-cv-01192. The case involves legal challenges related to actions taken by the Trump administration. Further details about the case are forthcoming.
• Preliminary injunction ruling — W.J.C.C. v. Trump (W.D. Pa.) 3:25-cv-00153 — DOJ, DHS, and State Department (Agency Defendants) answered Plaintiff's complaint. The Agency Defendants admitted they received the FOIA requests but denied improperly withholding records from Plaintiff under FOIA.
• Summary judgment ruling — Grundmann v. Trump et al . (D.D.C.) 1:25-cv-00425 — The court granted Plaintiffs' motion for a preliminary injunction, thereby enjoining Defendants from imposing and enforcing new conditions on Plaintiffs' AmeriCorps grants during the pendency of the lawsuit.
• Temporary restraining order ruling — Dvortsin as Next Friend of Hayam El Gamal et al., Petitioner, v. Noem (W.D. Tex.) 5:25-cv-00664 — Judge Stephanie Haines restated her holding in A.S.R. v. Trump , No. 3:25-cv-00113, that the presidential proclamation is a valid exercise of the AEA. Judge Haines, however, granted a preliminary injunction in favor of W.J.C.C., rejecting the government's claim that it could apply shortened notice akin to expedited removal procedures. The court held that the petitioner was entitled to: “(1) twenty-one (21) days' notice and an "opportunity to be heard," (2) notice that clearly articulates the fact that he is subject to removal under the Proclamation and the AEA, (3) notice in English and Spanish, the language of the one sought to be expelled, and if needed, Spanish-to-English interpreters shall be provided for any necessary hearings, and (4) notice of all of the foregoing to his counsel.” The court denied the petitioner's request for a preliminary injunction that would have barred the government from transferring him out of the district.
• Federal Appeals Court Rejects DOJ Representation for Trump — The D.C. Circuit issued an administrative stay of Judge Sparkle's March 12 order granting Plaintiff's motion for summary judgment .
• Federal Judge Blocks Education Department Firings — Judge Orlando Garcia granted a motion to extend the previous temporary restraining order blocking the removal of the family from the district or the United States.
• Federal Judge Blocks EPA Grant Cancellations — A federal appeals court rejected President Trump's request to have Justice Department lawyers represent him in his appeal of E. Jean Carroll's defamation case. The decision maintains the separation between personal and official legal matters.
• Case update — ACLU v. United States Social Security Administration (D.D.C.) 1:25-cv-01217 — A federal judge temporarily blocked the Trump administration from executing mass firings at the Department of Education's Office of Civil Rights. The decision prevents potential disruptions to civil rights enforcement.
• Stay pending appeal decided — Newsom v. Trump (N.D. Cal.) 3:25-cv-04870 — A federal judge blocked the EPA's cancellation of $600 million in environmental justice grants issued during the Biden administration. The ruling protects funding for underserved communities.
• Federal Judge Blocks Transportation Grant Conditions — Defendant Agencies answered Plaintiff's complaint. These agencies admitted that they failed to respond to Plaintiff's FOIA request, but provided several defenses to Plaintiff's action, including alleging Plaintiff is not entitled to compel the production of records under FOIA, the court lacks subject matter jurisdiction over Plaintiff's requests, and that they did not improperly withhold the records Plaintiff requested under FOIA.
• Appeal filed — Mahmoud Khalil v. William P. Joyce et al. (D.N.J.) 2:25-cv-01963 — The Ninth Circuit granted the federal government a stay pending appeal .
• Motion denied — Darwin Antonio Arevalo Millan v. Trump (C.D. Cal.) 5:25-cv-01207 — A federal judge temporarily blocked the Trump administration from tying federal transportation grant funding to immigration enforcement cooperation. The ruling protects states' rights to manage their own policies.
• Motion granted — J.G.G. v. Trump (D.D.C.) 1:25-cv-00766 — Judge Farbiarz ordered Mahmoud Khalil, who is currently detained by federal immigration authorities in Louisiana, be released from custody. On that same day, the government appealed Judge Farbiarz's June 11 order granting a preliminary injunction to the Third Circuit. Note: Mahmoud Khalil submitted a notice of claim under the Federal Tort Claims Act, seeking $20 million in damages from the administration for his detention. The notice alleges that Khalil's arrest and prolonged confinement were the result of discriminatory intent by Secretary Rubio, and that his treatment-including prolonged solitary confinement and denial of medical care-constituted multiple tortious acts by federal officers.
• Preliminary injunction ruling — American Federation of Government Employees, et al. v. Office of Personnel Management et al (S.D.N.Y.) 1:25-cv-01237 — Judge Holcomb denied petitioners' ex parte application for a writ of habeas corpus, noting petitioner's detention remains permissible under the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA) because of the government's intention to appeal the grant of relief in petitioner's removal proceedings (since petitioners can remain in custody pending such appeals).
• Preliminary injunction ruling — American Foreign Service Association v. Trump (D.D.C.) 1:25-cv-01030 — Judge Boasberg granted the Defendants unopposed motion for clarification, confirming that the Defendants does not need to take further action in the district court until the D.C. Circuit issues its mandate in the appeal of his June 4 order.
• Preliminary injunction ruling — American Oversight v. Hegseth (D.D.C.) 1:25-cv-00883 — In connection with the June 9 preliminary injunction order, Judge Cote ordered OPM to file a report within two weeks describing the procedures put in place since March 6, to ensure adherence to the requirements of the Privacy Act with respect to new grant of access permissions by OPM to records containing Plaintiffs' personally identifiable information (PII). Judge Cote also ordered OPM to file a report within four weeks concerning OPM's grant of access permissions to any records containing Plaintiffs' PII made to DOGE personnel.
• Preliminary injunction ruling — Open Technology Fund v. Kari Lake (D.D.C.) 1:25-cv-00840 — The D.C. Circuit en banc stayed the preliminary injunction order pending appeal.
• Preliminary injunction ruling — President and Fellows of Harvard College v. Department of Homeland Security (D. Mass.) 1:25-cv-11472 — Judge Boasberg granted in part and denied in part the Plaintiff's motion for a preliminary injunction, granting a narrower relief by requiring that Defendants perform their mandatory notification and referral obligations, as explained in its accompanying memorandum opinion .
• Stay motion decided — State of New York v. United States Department of Education (S.D.N.Y.) 1:25-cv-02990 — Judge Royce Lamberth granted Plaintiff's preliminary injunction motion, thereby enjoining Defendants from withholding congressionally appropriated funds under the grant agreement for Fiscal Year 2024 between USAGM and OTF.
• Summary judgment ruling — Association of American Universities v. National Science Foundation (D. Mass.) 1:25-cv-11231 — Judge Burroughs issued a preliminary injunction barring that administration from banning Harvard from participating in the State Department's Student and Visitor Exchange Program.
• Federal Judge Blocks Harvard Student Ban — The Second Circuit denied Defendants' motion to stay the district court's order, finding DOE's actions likely arbitrary and capricious under the APA-without any particularized assessment and insufficiently attentive to reliance interests-and concluding that a stay would substantially injure the plaintiff States.
• Federal Judge Orders Release of Mahmoud Khalil — The court granted Plaintiffs' motion for summary judgment. Implementation of the 15% Indirect Cost Rate is vacated and declared invalid, arbitrary and capricious, and contrary to law. The court further ordered that within 72 hours of entry of this order, Defendants provide written notice of the order to all funding recipients affected by the 15% Indirect Cost Rate.
• — A federal judge temporarily blocked the Trump administration from prohibiting Harvard University from admitting international students. The ruling prevents the implementation of a plan to remove the school from the Student and Visitor Exchange Program.
• — A federal judge ordered the release of Mahmoud Khalil from ICE detention on bail, citing concerns that his detention was used as punishment for his activism. Khalil is a Palestinian green card holder involved in student protests.

Supporting reports

• Trump signs Executive Order 14251 excluding federal agencies from labor-management relations coverage — President Trump signed Executive Order 14251 on March 27, 2025, excluding numerous federal agencies and subdivisions from coverage under the Federal Service Labor-Management Relations Statute (Chapter 71, Title 5, U.S.C.) and the Foreign Service Labor-Management Relations Statute (Subchapter X, Chapter 52, Title 22, U.S.C.). The order amends Executive Order 12171 and designates agencies including State, Defense, Treasury, Veterans Affairs, Justice, HHS, DHS, Interior, Energy, Agriculture, EPA, USAID, NRC, NSF, USITC, FCC, and GSA as having primary national security functions incompatible with collective bargaining. It delegates authority to the Secretaries of Defense, Veterans Affairs, and Transportation to issue further exclusions or suspensions. The order requires agency heads to reassign affected employees and terminate pending grievance proceedings upon collective bargaining agreement termination.
• Office of Personnel Management issues guidance implementing union elimination order — Following Trump's executive order, the Office of Personnel Management issued a memo providing guidance to federal departments and subdivisions on implementation, which includes terminating existing collective bargaining agreements and ending voluntary union dues collection through payroll systems. The directive applies across multiple agencies affecting hundreds of thousands of federal workers.
• Trump administration issues executive order stripping collective bargaining rights from federal workers — On 27 March, President Trump issued an executive order citing national security to exempt collective bargaining at several federal departments, affecting more than 1 million federal workers. The order was accompanied by lawsuits filed by the Trump administration against federal unions, including the American Federation of Government Employees and the National Treasury Employees Union, in Texas and Kentucky courts. Unions have filed motions to dismiss and counter-lawsuits, and bipartisan legislation has been introduced in the House to restore bargaining rights. A federal judge in Washington DC granted a preliminary injunction blocking the order on 25 April.
• Trump signs executive order eliminating collective bargaining for federal workers — President Trump signed an executive order on Thursday that attempts to eliminate collective bargaining rights for hundreds of thousands of federal workers across more than 30 agencies. The Office of Personnel Management issued guidance directing departments to terminate collective bargaining agreements and end voluntary union dues collection. The Trump administration subsequently filed a lawsuit in Texas court seeking declaratory relief to rescind or repudiate collective bargaining agreements, citing national security and personnel policy constraints. Union leaders representing approximately 1.2 million federal workers have condemned the order as union-busting and retaliatory, vowing immediate legal action.
• Trump issues executive order excluding major federal agencies from labor-management relations protections — President Trump signed an executive order on March 27, 2025, excluding numerous federal agencies and subdivisions from coverage under the Federal Service Labor-Management Relations Statute (Chapter 71, Title 5, U.S.C.) and the Foreign Service Labor-Management Relations Statute (Subchapter X, Chapter 52, Title 22, U.S.C.). The order designates State, Defense, Treasury, Veterans Affairs, Justice, HHS, DHS, Interior, Energy, Agriculture, Commerce, EPA, USAID, NRC, NSF, USITC, FCC, GSA, and other agencies as having primary national security functions, thereby removing collective bargaining protections from thousands of federal employees. Secretaries of Defense and Veterans Affairs retain limited authority to restore coverage for specific subdivisions if they certify national security compatibility; the Secretary of Transportation gains broad discretion to exclude DOT and FAA subdivisions.
• Trump signed Executive Order 14251 excluding major federal agencies from labor-management relations protections — President Trump signed Executive Order 14251 on March 27, 2025, excluding numerous federal agencies and subdivisions from coverage under the Federal Service Labor-Management Relations Statute (Chapter 71 of title 5, U.S.C.) and related foreign service labor protections. The order claims national security justification and removes collective bargaining rights from employees in the State Department, Defense Department, Treasury, Veterans Affairs, Justice Department, HHS (including CDC and FDA), DHS (including USCIS, ICE, and FEMA), Interior, Energy, Agriculture, Commerce, EPA, USAID, NRC, NSF, ITC, FCC, GSA, and numerous other agencies. The order delegates authority to the Secretaries of Defense, Veterans Affairs, and Transportation to issue further exclusions or suspensions.
• White House issues fact sheet on executive order exempting national security agencies from federal collective bargaining — The White House published a fact sheet on March 27, 2025, describing an executive order signed by President Trump that exempts agencies with national security missions from federal collective bargaining requirements under the Civil Service Reform Act of 1978. The order applies to specified components of the Department of Defense, Veterans Affairs, Department of Homeland Security, Department of State, Department of Energy, Department of Health and Human Services, Department of Justice, Department of Treasury, Department of Commerce, and other agencies. The fact sheet states the order aims to prevent union obstruction of agency management and policy implementation.
• Trump administration files lawsuit to rescind federal worker collective bargaining agreements — The Trump administration filed a lawsuit in a Texas court seeking declaratory relief to confirm its legal authority to rescind or repudiate collective bargaining agreements (CBAs) with federal workers. The lawsuit claims CBAs "significantly constrain" the executive branch and that rescinding them is necessary to protect national security and develop personnel policies otherwise precluded by the agreements. The filing seeks legal certainty before implementing the executive order's directive to eliminate collective bargaining.
• Department of Justice filed declaratory judgment lawsuit against American Federation of Government Employees affiliates — The Department of Justice announced it filed a lawsuit in the Western District of Texas on March 27, 2025, on behalf of eight federal agencies against locals, councils, and Division 10 of the American Federation of Government Employees. The suit seeks a declaratory judgment confirming the agencies' legal right to terminate collective bargaining agreements (CBAs) with the union. The filing followed a presidential Executive Order titled "Exclusions from Federal Labor-Management Relations Programs" that determined certain agencies performing investigative and national security work need not collectively bargain. The agencies argue CBAs impede national security missions and workforce accountability.

Supporting reports

• SSA commissioner threatens agency shutdown — Acting Social Security Administration Commissioner Leland Dudek threatened to shut down the agency in response to a restraining order issued by Judge Hollander. Dudek claimed that the order could apply to all SSA employees and expressed concerns about the implications for the agency's operations and the distribution of benefits to millions of Americans.
• Leland Dudek revealed he secretly cooperated with DOGE to undermine SSA leadership — Acting Social Security Administration Commissioner Leland Dudek, a mid-level staffer who won his position by secretly cooperating with DOGE's demands, publicly confessed on LinkedIn to his role in circumventing agency leadership. He wrote: "I confess. I bullied agency executives, shared executive contact information, and circumvented the chain of command to connect DOGE with the people who get stuff done." Dudek had worked to undermine SSA's former head, Michelle King, who had stood in the way of DOGE's access to sensitive records.
• Judge Ellen Lipton Hollander reprimanded Social Security Commissioner Lee Dudek for misrepresenting court orders — Judge Ellen Lipton Hollander reprimanded Social Security Administration Commissioner Lee Dudek for making false statements in media interviews about her court order denying DOGE employees access to Social Security data. Dudek falsely claimed the order applied to "almost all SSA employees" when it expressly applied only to SSA employees working on the DOGE agenda. Judge Hollander stated Dudek's claims were "inaccurate" and "patently incorrect" and noted she may have been misled by government counsel. Dudek subsequently issued a statement admitting his media claims were wrong but blamed the judge for being unclear.

Supporting reports

• Federal judge orders reinstatement of fired probationary staff — A federal judge in California, William H. Alsup, issued a preliminary injunction to reinstate thousands of probationary federal employees who were fired from six federal agencies. The ruling is part of a lawsuit filed by the American Federation of Government Employees. The judge criticized the Trump administration's justification for the firings, stating that claims of poor performance were false. The order affects employees from the Departments of Defense, Veterans Affairs, Agriculture, Energy, Interior, and Treasury. The judge also restricted the Office of Personnel Management from advising agencies on terminations.
• Judge orders Musk to comply with lawsuit — U.S. District Judge Tanya Chutkan ordered Elon Musk and the Department of Government Efficiency to turn over their records and answer questions in response to a lawsuit filed by 14 attorneys general from Democratic-dominated states. They are required to comply within three weeks.
• Judge orders rehiring of federal employees — Judge William Alsup ordered the Trump administration to immediately rehire tens of thousands of federal employees from various departments who were terminated due to Elon Musk's DOGE cuts. The judge criticized the administration for allegedly firing employees under false pretenses of performance issues, calling it a lie and expressing frustration over the lack of transparency in the process.
• Federal judge reinstates fired probationary workers — On March 13, 2025, a federal judge in California granted a preliminary injunction to reinstate thousands of fired probationary workers at federal agencies. This decision was part of a lawsuit filed by the American Federation of Government Employees. The ruling applies to employees from several departments, including Defense and Veterans Affairs, who were dismissed under claims of poor performance. The judge criticized these claims as false and prohibited the Office of Personnel Management from advising on terminations.
• Federal judges rule against Musk's firings — Two federal judges issued rulings against Elon Musk's "department of government efficiency" (Doge) regarding the firing of probationary employees. Judge William H. Alsup in California ruled that fired employees must be offered their jobs back, criticizing the process as a "sham." In Maryland, Judge James Bredar issued a temporary restraining order blocking further firings at 18 federal agencies. These rulings challenge Musk's cost-cutting measures, which have faced public disapproval and legal scrutiny.
• Judge orders reinstatement of federal workers — U.S. District Judge William Alsup ruled that federal agencies must immediately offer jobs back to thousands of probationary workers who were purged from the government early in President Trump's administration. The judge stated that the mass firings did not follow legal protocols. Additionally, Judge James Bredar ordered the reinstatement of these workers across multiple federal departments, indicating that the government likely engaged in an illegal scheme regarding the firings.
• Judge rules against mass firings — U.S. District Judge William Alsup ruled that the mass firings of probationary workers from various federal departments did not comply with legal requirements. The judge expressed skepticism about the government's claims regarding the firings and criticized the lack of transparency in the process.

Supporting reports

• Department of Education offers misleading buyout — The US Department of Education sent an email to its employees offering a buyout of up to $25,000 for voluntary resignation or retirement. The offer, described by employees as misleading, would provide the lesser amount between the buyout and severance pay. Employees noted that severance and unused leave compensation would be significantly higher than the buyout. The email was initially retracted and then resent, with a deadline for acceptance by the end of the following Monday. The offer also includes a stipulation requiring repayment if the employee returns to federal employment within five years.

Supporting reports

• Judge temporarily blocks Trump’s mass firings at federal agencies — A federal judge in California, William Alsup, has temporarily blocked the Trump administration from executing mass firings of federal employees, including probationary workers, across various agencies. The judge ruled that the Office of Personnel Management (OPM) lacked the authority to order such firings. The decision came after a lawsuit filed by labor unions and non-profit organizations. The judge ordered the OPM to rescind emails directing agencies to identify employees for termination. The ruling highlights concerns about the potential widespread harm of these firings on government services.
• Judge blocks Trump's mass firings at federal agencies — A federal judge in California has temporarily blocked the Trump administration from proceeding with mass firings at the Department of Defense and other federal agencies. This judicial intervention halts the administration's plans to significantly reduce the federal workforce, which had been criticized for potentially undermining the functioning of essential government services.
• Judge orders rescission of mass firings at federal agencies — U.S. District Judge William Alsup ordered the Office of Personnel Management to rescind the mass firings of probationary government workers, ruling that such actions were likely illegal and undermined agency operations.

Supporting reports

• Judge allows Trump administration to continue mass firings of federal workers — A federal judge, Christopher Cooper, ruled that the Trump administration can continue its mass firings of federal employees, rejecting a bid by labor unions to halt the downsizing. The unions had sought to block the administration from firing hundreds of thousands of federal workers and granting buyouts to those who quit voluntarily. The judge stated that the court likely lacks jurisdiction over the claims, suggesting the unions file complaints with the Federal Labor Relations Authority instead. This ruling is temporary while litigation continues.
• Judge rules Trump administration can continue mass firings — A federal judge ruled that the Trump administration can proceed with mass firings of federal employees, rejecting a bid by labor unions to halt the downsizing of the federal workforce. The decision affects approximately 2.3 million federal workers, with the IRS beginning layoffs of around 7,000 employees. The ruling allows the administration to continue its efforts to reduce the size of the federal government, despite opposition from labor unions representing affected workers.
• Trump administration conducts mass firings of federal workers — The Trump administration has initiated mass firings of federal workers, citing "poor performance" as the reason. However, many of the terminated employees, including those with positive performance reviews, claim the firings are unjustified. The administration's actions have led to legal challenges, with a federal judge ruling against a restraining order to halt the firings. The firings have affected thousands of probationary employees and have raised concerns about potential legal and financial repercussions for the government.

Supporting reports

• Federal judge blocks federal employee buyout plan — A federal judge temporarily blocked the Trump administration and DOGE/Musk from implementing a federal employee buyout plan. Judge George O'Toole Jr. set a hearing to consider further blocking the offer, which unions argue is unlawful and harmful to federal operations. The plan's legality and impact on civil service stability are under scrutiny.
• Trump administration restricts DOGE access to Treasury systems — Following a lawsuit by government employee unions, the Trump administration filed a proposed order to temporarily restrict DOGE officials' access to sensitive Treasury payment systems. The order allows two DOGE employees to read data without further access. This move likely preempted a judicial restraining order, and its acceptance by the judge or plaintiffs remains uncertain.
• Judge temporarily blocks Trump’s buyout deadline for federal employees — A federal judge, George O’Toole, temporarily blocked the Trump administration's deadline for federal employees to decide on a buyout offer. The deadline, initially set for February 6, 2025, was extended to allow time for legal briefs before a hearing. The buyout offer involved severance pay and benefits for those leaving their jobs, with new reforms for those staying. The judge's decision provides time for further legal examination without indicating the final ruling outcome.
• Case update — American Federation of Gov’t Employees, AFL-CIO v. Ezell (D. Mass.) 1:25-cv-10276 — Judge George O'Toole issued an order to pause the program and extend the deadline until Monday when a hearing is scheduled.

Supporting reports

• Trump administration offers federal workers resignation deal — On January 27, the Trump administration sent an email titled “Fork in the Road” to federal workers, offering them the option to resign while keeping their pay until September. This move is seen as an attempt to clear positions for loyalists within the federal workforce.
• Trump administration offers buyouts to federal workers — The Trump administration has offered buyouts to nearly all federal employees, encouraging them to resign by February 6, 2025. This move, communicated via an email from the Office of Personnel Management, is part of an effort to significantly reduce the federal workforce. The email outlined new standards for employee conduct and warned of agency downsizing. The offer includes more than seven months' salary for those who choose to resign. Unions and some politicians have criticized the move, arguing it pressures workers to leave and could disrupt federal programs.
• Trump administration offers mass resignation to federal workers — The Trump administration, through the US Office of Personnel Management (OPM), sent an email to nearly 3 million federal employees offering them "deferred resignations" effective at the end of September. The email warned that those who choose to stay might face layoffs or reassignment. This move, linked to efforts by Elon Musk to downsize federal agencies, has been criticized for its potential impact on government services and its questionable legality. The offer excludes postal and military service members and those in immigration enforcement and national security roles.
• Trump administration issues "deferred resignation" offer to federal employees — The Trump administration has issued a "deferred resignation" offer to 2 million federal employees, allowing them to resign effective September 30, 2025, while remaining exempt from in-person work requirements until then. This offer is not a "buyout," as it does not guarantee a lump sum payment. Instead, employees may be placed on paid administrative leave, but this is not assured. The offer has been criticized for potentially violating federal law, which caps voluntary resignation incentives at $25,000, and for misleadingly being described as a severance offer by Elon Musk.
• Trump proposes buyout for federal employees — The Trump administration proposed an inducement for federal employees to resign, which was reportedly sent without approval from the White House, leading to confusion and frustration among federal workers.

Supporting reports

• Trump administration sued over Schedule F executive order — The National Treasury Employees Union (NTEU) filed a lawsuit against the Trump administration following the reinstatement of Schedule F, an executive order that reclassifies thousands of federal workers as political hires, making them easier to fire. The lawsuit seeks injunctive relief, arguing that the order deprives federal workers of due process rights and wrongly applies political appointee rules to career staff. The executive order has been criticized by various labor unions as an attack on federal employees and a return to a political spoils system.