The Trump administration has been ordered by a California judge to halt significant downsizing efforts of federal workers. Judge Susan Illston, based in San Francisco, issued an emergency order in response to a lawsuit by labor unions and cities. This lawsuit is one of several legal challenges against President Donald Trump’s initiatives aimed at reducing the federal government, which he criticizes as overly large and costly.
In her order, Judge Illston indicated that the President may need to collaborate with Congress to execute such changes and, therefore, issued a temporary restraining order to stop extensive workforce reductions for the time being. The temporary order prevents various federal agencies from executing the President’s workforce executive order signed in February, as well as a subsequent memo from the Department of Government Efficiency and the Office of Personnel Management.
This restraining order, effective for 14 days, does not require that departments rehire terminated employees. However, the plaintiffs have requested a delay in implementing any agency actions and halting the enforcement of the executive order, especially in departments where dismantlement processes are either underway or imminent. These include the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, which planned layoffs of 10,000 workers to centralize operations.
Judge Illston, appointed by former President Bill Clinton, a Democrat, observed during a Friday hearing that while the President can propose changes within executive departments and agencies established by Congress, such actions must align with lawful procedures and involve Congressional partnership.
Trump has expressed that his electoral success provided a mandate for federal government restructuring and appointed Elon Musk to lead the effort through the Department of Government Efficiency. The downsizing actions have resulted in tens of thousands being fired, accepting deferred resignation, or being put on leave, although no exact figures exist, with estimates suggesting at least 75,000 resigned and numerous probationary staff dismissed.
In illustrating the downsizing impact, Judge Illston mentioned instances such as a health research union predicting the loss of nearly all staff in its Pittsburgh office, delayed property inspections restricting farmer disaster aid in Vermont, and increased wait times due to a reduced Social Security Administration staff.
Government lawyers defended the personnel reduction policies as general guidelines for agencies, encouraging legislative dialogue. Eric Hamilton, a deputy assistant attorney general, described the memo as setting guidance and inviting comments. Conversely, Danielle Leonard, representing the plaintiffs, argued that the administration overstepped its authority, failing to engage or wait for agency feedback.
This restraining order affects departments including Agriculture, Energy, Labor, Interior, State, Treasury, and Veterans Affairs. It also extends to entities such as the National Science Foundation, Small Business Association, Social Security Administration, and Environmental Protection Agency.
Labor unions, cities like San Francisco, Chicago, Baltimore, and nonprofit organizations are plaintiffs in this and another related suit, against mass firings of probationary employees. Previously, Judge William Alsup’s order to reinstate these workers was blocked by the U.S. Supreme Court. Plaintiffs in these cases include the American Federation of Government Employees, Alliance for Retired Americans, Center for Taxpayer Rights, and Coalition to Protect America’s National Parks.