Trump Sue Filed by Unions Against OPM Shutdown Layoffs

As a looming government shutdown threatens federal operations, the Trump administration faces intensified legal resistance from major federal employee unions. The American Federation of Government Employees (AFGE) and the American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees (AFSCME) have filed a lawsuit against the administration challenging its directive to proceed with reductions in force (RIFs) during the funding lapse. This dispute highlights a critical clash over legal authority, union protections, and the future of federal workforce management under President Trump.

‍

Trump, OPM, and Shutdown RIF Plans

‍

The current controversy revolves around guidance issued by the Office of Personnel Management (OPM) and the Office of Management and Budget (OMB), which authorized federal agencies to prepare for and carry out RIFs even while the government is shut down due to a lapse in appropriations. This marks a significant departure from traditional shutdown protocols where agencies implement furloughs to temporarily suspend nonessential work without eliminating positions.

‍

According to the unions, the administration's position is legally indefensible. The union lawsuit asserts that the Antideficiency Act, which governs federal shutdowns, permits temporary furloughs but does not grant authority for permanent workforce reductions amid a funding lapse. Nor do the RIF statutes provide agencies with the power to initiate layoffs during a shutdown; they serve only as procedural rules if a RIF is authorized through proper channels.

‍

Unions Push Back Against Trump OPM Directions

‍

The AFGE and AFSCME lawsuit claims the Trump administration engaged in an "arbitrary and capricious" abuse of power by directing agencies to utilize the shutdown to cut federal jobs. The unions argue that OPM’s updated policies encouraging agencies to prepare decisional documents for RIFs and issue RIF notices during the shutdown contradict federal law and established employee protections.

‍

They emphasize that all federal employees impacted by a shutdown whether furloughed or excepted are entitled to back pay once appropriations restart, a right incompatible with terminating jobs outright under the guise of RIFs.

‍

AFGE National President Everett Kelley sharply criticized the administration's approach, declaring, “Announcing plans to fire potentially tens of thousands of federal employees simply because Congress and the administration are at odds on funding the government... is not only illegal it’s immoral and unconscionable.” Kelley highlighted that a substantial portion of federal employees are military veterans, underscoring the administration’s actions as disrespectful to career public servants.

‍

Trump and Unions: An Ongoing Battle

‍

This legal challenge represents the latest chapter in the ongoing conflict between President Trump and federal employee unions. Since taking office, the Trump administration has been frequently at odds with unions over policies perceived as weakening job security, collective bargaining rights, and working conditions for government workers.

‍

President Trump himself heightened tensions during a press briefing by warning Democrats that the White House could make "irreversible" cuts if Congress failed to pass a continuing resolution to fund the government through the next fiscal period. He suggested that shutdown conditions could be leveraged to enact deep reductions in staff and programs that the opposition supports.

‍

Such rhetoric has stoked deep anxiety among union members and policymakers alike, raising questions about the limits of executive authority in labor and budget disputes.

‍

You must read - us government shutdown

who controls the senate right now

‍

Legal and Ethical Implications of Shutdown RIFs

‍

The legal foundation for the unions’ challenge rests heavily on interpreting the Antideficiency Act and the statutes governing RIFs. The Antideficiency Act mandates that agencies halt operations and furlough employees whose roles are not essential to "protect life and property" during funding gaps. At no point does it authorize permanent layoffs or restructuring.

‍

Conversely, RIF statutes (particularly under 5 U.S.C.) outline how layoffs should be managed but do not grant permission to conduct RIFs without legislative approval or adequate funding. This means that the administration cannot simply invoke RIF procedures during a shutdown to eliminate federal positions.

‍

Allowing such actions sets a troubling precedent where an executive branch could use shutdowns normally temporary and politically motivated fiscal blocks as cover to make unilateral, permanent changes to the federal workforce. The union lawsuit seeks to prevent this, emphasizing that shutdown furlough regulations and RIF procedures should not be conflated.

‍

EMA RIF and Its Role in the Controversy

‍

The term EMA RIF (Emergency Management Agency Reduction in Force) often arises in discussions about shutdown layoffs. While not a formal title in this lawsuit, it relates to the broader issue of agencies, including emergency and essential services, contemplating workforce cuts under the guise of emergency resolutions during funding lapses.

‍

The unions fear that similar orders across various federal agencies, including emergency management divisions, could strip federal employees of hard-earned rights and protections without statutory authorization, especially in the absence of congressional funding.

What’s Next for Federal Employees

‍

The unions have asked the court to issue a preliminary injunction blocking OMB and OPM from continuing to implement or encourage shutdown RIFs. A ruling in favor of the unions would reaffirm critical limitations on executive branch authority during funding gaps and protect thousands of federal employees from losing their jobs prematurely.

‍

For now, federal workers remain in limbo, uncertain about whether they can expect furlough or layoff notices and what rights they have if RIFs proceed. The outcome of this case will significantly impact the dynamics of federal labor relations and budget enforcement going forward.

‍

Conclusion

‍

The Trump administration’s attempt to push through shutdown RIFs via OPM guidance has ignited a potent legal and political backlash from federal unions. As the dispute continues, it sharpens the spotlight on the balance of power between the executive branch, Congress, and the rights of federal employees.

‍

For federal workers, union advocates, and policymakers, this lawsuit represents a critical test of whether shutdowns remain limited to temporary operational halts or become instruments for permanent workforce transformation without legislative oversight.

‍

‍

DESCLAIMER -

This article provides a summary and analysis of current events, legal challenges, and public statements regarding federal workforce reductions during the 2025 government shutdown. It is intended for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice, official government guidance, or union endorsement. The situation described is evolving, and readers should consult qualified legal professionals, official agency releases, or reputable news sources for the most accurate and up-to-date accounts. No affiliation or approval by government agencies, unions, or any political authority is implied.

‍

Reference - Federal news network