Administration under Trump's leadership resists complying with the court-ordered list of records (RIF)
In a significant ruling on July 8, 2025, the U.S. Supreme Court allowed the Trump administration to proceed with its planned large-scale reductions in the federal workforce and agency reorganizations. This decision overturned a lower court injunction that had temporarily blocked President Trump's Executive Order (EO) 14210, which directed significant workforce cuts under the Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE) initiative.
The 8-1 decision in the case *Trump v. American Federation of Government Employees (AFGE)* did not comment on the legality of specific agency reorganizations or reductions, emphasizing that it only addressed the lawfulness of the executive order and its memorandum, not individual agency actions.
Following the ruling, federal agencies have resumed mass layoffs, with reports indicating that the federal government has shed approximately 59,000 jobs since January 2025, including 22,000 in May alone. The administration's restructuring efforts are aimed at significantly reducing the size of the federal government by cutting jobs and possibly consolidating or eliminating certain agency components.
However, the Trump administration has refused to disclose details about agencies' planned staffing reductions and opted not to submit the court-ordered list of Reduction-in-Force (RIF) actions. Noah Peters, a senior adviser at the Office of Personnel Management, stated that the 40 RIFs across 17 agencies were numbers from an early stage of RIF planning. Peters also mentioned that several agencies have walked back their initial RIF plans.
The union's lawsuit alleges that the Trump administration's actions violate the Administrative Procedure Act. The union's attorneys argue that the Agency Reduction and Reorganization Plans (ARRPs) and related documents are highly relevant to assessing the legality of agency plans and whether they are engaging in reasoned decision-making.
The Trump administration maintains that agencies' RIFs are only "potential plans," which "may or may not materialize." The administration says any released details of agency ARRPs should be for the agencies mentioned in the Supreme Court case or sensitive portions should be redacted.
The Department of Veterans Affairs is still on track to reduce its headcount by 30,000 employees by the end of the year through separations, retirements, and the deferred resignation program, but is no longer planning to conduct a RIF.
In addition, the Trump administration has approved 70 waivers for conducting RIF actions across 19 agencies. The government plans to file a motion to dismiss the case within the next week.
This Supreme Court ruling is a pivotal development enabling the administration's restructuring agenda to move forward despite ongoing legal challenges. The current status of agency reorganization and staff reduction plans under the Trump administration is that large-scale layoffs are underway, with tens of thousands of federal employees already impacted. The Court’s decision cleared a major legal hurdle but left open ongoing litigation on the merits of specific restructuring plans. The initiative is viewed as a key part of the administration’s goal to downsize the federal government substantially.
- The ongoing restructuring of federal agencies, as per the Trump administration's Executive Order 14210, is a significant component of the broader policy-and-legislation landscape, as it involves substantial changes in the landscape of government employment through politics-driven sequence of massive layoffs, agency reorganizations, and potential consolidations or eliminations of certain components.
- In the midst of contentious politics and general news, the federal government's staff reduction plans, especially the Agency Reduction and Reorganization Plans (ARRPs), continue to face legal scrutiny, with the American Federation of Government Employees (AFGE) arguing that the plans violate the Administrative Procedure Act, emphasizing the need for transparency in the decision-making process regarding agency restructuring.
){kind=link}