Is Trump’s Plan to Shake Up the Federal Workforce Even Legal?
Trump’s Federal Workforce Overhaul Faces Legal Scrutiny
President Trump has significant authority to reshape the federal workforce, but his administration’s aggressive actions are raising legal questions about the limits of his power.
Legal Challenges to Workforce Cuts
Controversy Over Buyouts
More than 60,000 federal employees have accepted buyouts, offering extended pay and benefits in exchange for resigning. However, can Trump legally uphold these promises?
The White House pledged eight months of pay for those who quit, but labor unions argue the deal isn’t guaranteed. They sued, claiming Congress has only funded the government through mid-March, making future payments uncertain. A Massachusetts federal judge dismissed the case, ruling that the unions lacked standing since the buyouts didn’t directly impact them.
Federal employment attorney Stephanie Rapp-Tully warns workers who resign are taking a gamble. “It’s not a severance agreement or a contract—there are no binding principles,” she said.
Government’s Response
The Office of Personnel Management (OPM) insists the buyouts are legally binding and not subject to court review. In a Feb. 4 memo, OPM assured employees that if the government reneges, they could request to rescind their resignation. It also stated that employees who resign would be eligible for back pay if a government shutdown occurs due to funding lapses.
Trump’s Federal Workforce Shakeup: Mass Layoffs and Job Protections Under Fire
Mass Layoffs Loom
The administration has warned that employees who don’t accept buyouts may face termination as part of a sweeping downsizing effort.
Under federal law, agencies can conduct mass layoffs—known as a Reduction in Force (RIF)—due to budget cuts or structural changes. However, RIF rules require 60 days’ notice and prohibit layoffs as a cover for replacing employees with preferred hires. “They have to abolish the job,” said Kevin Owen, a civil-service attorney.
Seniority, performance ratings, and veteran status could help some workers keep their positions or be reassigned within the agency. Employees who believe layoffs were mishandled can appeal to the Merit Systems Protection Board or follow grievance procedures under union agreements.
Workers affected by Trump’s crackdown on DEI (Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion) programs might have additional legal claims. Labor lawyers argue that if a laid-off DEI employee previously enforced anti-discrimination laws, they could sue for retaliation under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act.
Stripping Job Protections
On Day 1, Trump signed an executive order weakening job security for thousands of federal employees. The order reclassifies nonpolitical career roles with policy-related duties—potentially affecting 50,000 positions—allowing them to be hired outside the merit-based system and fired at will.
The new classification covers roles involved in reviewing regulations, executive orders, and policy proposals. Legal experts say this move ventures into untested legal waters.
Federal law requires personnel decisions to support “conditions of good administration,” a vague standard that typically applies to agency leaders. But whether it restricts direct presidential action is unclear.
Lawsuits argue that this change erodes merit-based hiring, enabling political favoritism and disrupting government stability during transitions. Legal challenges claim the move violates procedural rules requiring agencies to act reasonably and consider public input.
Trump’s Purge: Prosecutors, Watchdogs, and Independent Officials in the Crosshairs
Prosecutors Who Took on Trump and Jan. 6 Cases Face Fallout
Some prosecutors involved in cases against Trump have already been ousted, while Justice Department and FBI officials are under scrutiny for their roles in investigating the Jan. 6, 2021, Capitol attack.
While misconduct can justify termination, firing prosecutors or agents simply for doing their jobs could spark federal lawsuits. Justice Department employees have due-process rights under the Fifth Amendment, which courts have ruled can be violated if a dismissal causes unwarranted reputational harm.
The Privacy Act of 1974 may offer additional protections. FBI agents have cited the law in lawsuits to keep their names off government lists tied to Jan. 6 cases. The administration has since agreed not to disclose those identities. The law also bars the Justice Department from tracking employee political affiliations, donations, or public statements when making personnel decisions.
Acting Deputy Attorney General Emil Bove has stated that the administration isn’t targeting agents who “simply followed orders” or acted ethically.
Independent Agency Members Under Fire
Trump has broad power to remove political appointees but faces legal barriers when firing members of independent agencies. The law states that officials on boards like the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) can only be removed for “malfeasance” or “neglect of duty.”
Trump’s recent firing of Democratic-appointed NLRB member Gwynne Wilcox, citing her pro-union stance, is already being challenged in court. Wilcox argues her removal was illegal, setting up a constitutional showdown over presidential authority. If the case reaches the Supreme Court, it could challenge a 90-year-old precedent shielding independent agencies from direct presidential control.
Inspectors General Also in Trump’s Crosshairs
Trump has removed multiple inspectors general—government watchdogs responsible for internal oversight—despite federal laws requiring a 30-day notice to Congress before such dismissals.
Congress designed the rule to prevent political retaliation against inspectors who expose misconduct or criticize administration policies. While presidents can remove these officials, the law ensures transparency and accountability. Whether Trump’s moves will trigger legal battles remains to be seen.