In Washington, a federal judge issued a temporary halt on the Trump administration’s recent executive order that raised alarms over the potential revocation of collective bargaining rights for countless federal employees. This significant decision was handed down by U.S. District Judge Paul Friedman, impacting a major aspect of President Donald Trump’s March 27 order. This ruling applies to approximately three dozen federal agencies and departments where employees are represented by the National Treasury Employees Union (NTEU).
The union, which serves as the voice for nearly 160,000 federal workers, initiated legal action against Trump’s directive. The union warned that without judicial intervention, it would face severe financial losses, potentially forfeiting more than half its revenue and over two-thirds of its membership. Judge Friedman, while acknowledging this critical juncture, plans to provide a detailed opinion soon, elaborating on his two-page directive. Though not a conclusive judgment in the case, he set a deadline of May 2 for attorneys to propose the subsequent legal steps.
Doreen Greenwald, the union president, hailed the judge’s intervention as a triumph for both the federal workforce and their union rights, as well as for the American public they serve. “The preliminary injunction requested by NTEU ensures that federal employees’ collective bargaining rights are safeguarded, thwarting the administration’s unlawful attempt to diminish the influence of federal employees and dismantle unions,” Greenwald stated.
While certain entities, like the FBI, are not required by law to engage in collective bargaining, the statute typically mandates negotiations between federal agencies and unions. This exemption can be invoked for departments chiefly involved in intelligence, counterintelligence, or national security tasks. However, NTEU pointed out that Trump is pioneering an unprecedented application of the national security exemption in this context, aiming to exclude entire cabinet-level agencies from bargaining obligations, a move perceived as enabling mass layoffs and retaliatory actions against federal unions that challenge his policies. “The President’s use of the national security exemption clearly contradicts Congress’s intentions concerning the Statute,” argued union attorneys.
The government contended that blocking the executive order undermines the president’s responsibility to ensure that federal employees can effectively support national security endeavors. “For agencies focused on national security, responsiveness and accountability to the public are critical,” stated Justice Department lawyers. This controversy particularly affects the IRS, a substantial bargaining group under the NTEU. Following Trump’s signing of the order, the administration filed suit against a Kentucky union chapter, aiming to nullify the IRS’s collective bargaining agreement.
The union insisted that the federal administration implicitly acknowledged its members’ roles as non-essential to national security. Affected by the order are personnel from several key departments, including Health and Human Services, Energy, Environmental Protection, and the Federal Communications Commission. The union faces potential financial distress, with projections of $25 million in lost dues over the coming year. Agencies have reportedly ceased automatic union dues deductions from wages.
Union representatives feared that significant reductions in funding could jeopardize NTEU’s capacity to robustly advocate for federal workers. Meanwhile, government lawyers underscored that traditionally, the courts maintain deference to the president’s discretion, particularly concerning national security issues. They argued, “Executive actions regarded as legally valid fall within the executive’s lawful mandate and deserve a standard presumption of validity.”