Federal judge thwarts Trump administration's attempt to restrict union rights within federal agencies, raising valid concerns over potential retaliation.
President Donald Trump's March 27, 2025, executive order restricting collective bargaining rights for federal employees has been met with legal challenges and ongoing debates. The order, which targets specific unions in what has been deemed as "retaliation for protected speech," has been temporarily blocked by a federal judge in San Francisco.
The executive order, initially barring unions from representing employees at agencies primarily focused on national defense, foreign relations, cybersecurity, border security, and public safety, has raised concerns about the violation of labor unions' rights. The American Federation of Government Employees, the lead plaintiff in the case, argued that the selective enforcement of the order amounted to unconstitutional retaliation.
In a ruling on June 25, 2025, Judge James Donato granted a preliminary injunction, stating that the Trump administration had a hard time justifying how some agencies, like the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases, should primarily be considered as having a national security mission. Donato also noted that the fact sheet accompanying the executive order expressed a clear point of view that was hostile to federal labor unions and their First Amendment activities.
Despite the preliminary injunction, a federal appellate court allowed the executive order to remain in effect during the legal challenge. This decision, made on July 17, 2025, enables the order to continue while the case proceeds.
In response to the executive order, a bipartisan bill, the Protect America’s Workforce Act (H.R. 2550), was introduced in Congress to overturn the order. As of July 17, 2025, there are enough votes to pass the bill in the House of Representatives, and supporters are urging legislators to sign a discharge petition to bring the bill to a vote.
The preliminary injunction is meant to preserve the status quo of collective bargaining rights for federal employees who work at agencies not primarily focused on national defense, foreign relations, cybersecurity, border security, and public safety. However, the State Department's Passport Services agency and the Agriculture Department's Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service agency have terminated collective bargaining agreements with their unions.
The Trump administration has stated that it wouldn't end collective bargaining agreements while the case makes its way through the courts, but the Office of Personnel Management (OPM) has advised agencies to "cease participating" in grievance procedures and follow reduction-in-force provisions outlined in collective bargaining agreements.
The legal battle continues, with Judge Donato not specifying a timeline for when the case would be fully resolved. The situation remains complex and evolving, with ongoing legal challenges and legislative efforts to restore collective bargaining rights for federal employees.
- The ongoing legal challenges against President Donald Trump's executive order restricting collective bargaining rights for federal employees have led to debates about policy-and-legislation and politics.
- In response to the executive order, a bipartisan bill, the Protect America’s Workforce Act (H.R. 2550), has been introduced in Congress to overturn the order, with enough votes to pass the bill in the House of Representatives.
- Despite the preliminary injunction, the executive order has caused complications for federal labor unions, with the State Department's Passport Services agency and the Agriculture Department's Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service agency terminating collective bargaining agreements with their unions, and the Office of Personnel Management (OPM) advising agencies to "cease participating" in grievance procedures and follow reduction-in-force provisions outlined in collective bargaining agreements.
