Trump’s Executive Order HALTED — Who’s Behind It?

Red Make America Great Again hat on person's head

A federal judge’s restraining order has temporarily halted President Trump’s executive order aimed at cutting 130,000 federal bureaucrats, dealing a setback to one of his key domestic initiatives to drain the swamp in Washington.

Key Takeaways

  • The Trump administration has withdrawn its Supreme Court appeal challenging a lower court’s order blocking mass federal workforce cuts, pivoting to the Ninth Circuit Court instead.
  • Judge Susan Illston ruled that large-scale federal reorganizations require congressional authorization, not just executive action, calling Trump’s plans “hastily constructed and likely unconstitutional.”
  • The injunction affects numerous federal departments, including Agriculture, Commerce, and Energy, preventing the administration from executing its plan to eliminate approximately 130,000 positions.
  • The legal battle pits the administration’s position that agencies have statutory authority to conduct reductions in force against the court’s view that the executive branch can’t unilaterally overhaul federal agencies.
  • Despite the setback, the administration remains committed to reducing the federal bureaucracy, with OMB Director Russ Vought predicting eventual success in court.

Trump Administration Shifts Legal Strategy After Judicial Blockade

President Trump’s administration has withdrawn its emergency application to the Supreme Court that sought to lift a lower court’s restraining order preventing widespread federal workforce reductions. The move signals a strategic shift rather than an abandonment of the administration’s workforce reduction goals, as officials have redirected their efforts to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit. The case, formally titled Trump v. AFGE, U.S., No. 24A1106, represents a significant legal battle over presidential authority to reshape the federal bureaucracy without explicit congressional approval.

“Congress authorized agencies to conduct RIFs [reductions in force], and the President may tell agencies to use their statutory authorities to accomplish policy goals. No statutory text supports the court’s suggestion that agencies may not conduct RIFs at a large scale, and plaintiffs’ speculation that agencies may violate their organic statutes in reducing their workforces provides no basis for the injunction,” said John Sauer, U.S. Solicitor General

The legal challenge began after President Trump issued an executive order on February 11 directing federal agencies to “promptly undertake preparations to initiate large-scale reductions in force (RIFs), consistent with applicable law.” This directive aimed to fulfill one of Trump’s central campaign promises to substantially reduce what his supporters view as a bloated and inefficient federal bureaucracy. Administration officials estimate the planned cuts would affect approximately 130,000 federal employees through layoffs, buyouts, and early retirements.

Judge Rules Presidential Authority Has Limits

Senior U.S. District Judge Susan Illston of the Northern District of California first issued a temporary restraining order against the administration’s workforce reduction plans, which she later extended to a preliminary injunction. Her ruling emphasized the constitutional separation of powers, arguing that while presidents have the authority to set policy priorities, they cannot unilaterally reorganize federal agencies without congressional involvement. The judge’s decision affects numerous departments, including Agriculture, Commerce, Energy, and several other major federal agencies.

“Presidents may set policy priorities for the executive branch, and agency heads may implement them. This much is undisputed. But Congress creates federal agencies, funds them, and gives them duties that — by statute — they must carry out,” according to Judge Susan Illston

In her ruling, Judge Illston further emphasized: “It is the prerogative of presidents to pursue new policy priorities and to imprint their stamp on the federal government, but to make large-scale overhauls of federal agencies, any president must enlist the help of his co-equal branch and partner, the Congress.” This judicial determination that the executive branch requires congressional partnership for major agency reorganizations represents a significant constraint on presidential power to reform the administrative state, a cornerstone of President Trump’s agenda to reduce government overreach.

Coalition of Opposition Forces Challenges Executive Action

The legal challenge to Trump’s workforce reduction plan was brought by an alliance of unions, advocacy groups, and several Democratic-led cities, states, and counties. This coalition argued that the administration’s approach was “hastily constructed and likely unconstitutional” and claimed it has “thrown agencies into chaos, disrupting critical services provided across our nation.” Their lawsuit represents a coordinated effort by left-leaning organizations and government entities to preserve the federal bureaucracy that conservatives have long criticized as bloated and inefficient.

“The Trump administration’s unlawful attempt to reorganize the federal government has thrown agencies into chaos, disrupting critical services provided across our nation.” – The coalition of unions, nonprofits, and several states

In response, the Trump administration has maintained that its actions are legally justified and necessary to improve government efficiency. Office of Management and Budget Director Russ Vought defended the administration’s approach, characterizing the reductions as careful and strategic rather than reckless. “They’ve been an effort to scale down the federal workforce with care, with wisdom about what’s necessary to statutorily conduct and operate agencies,” Vought stated, while expressing confidence that the administration would eventually prevail in court despite the current setback.

Constitutional Showdown Over Executive Authority

At its core, this legal battle represents a fundamental constitutional question about the limits of presidential authority to reform the federal bureaucracy. The Trump administration argues that existing statutes already authorize agencies to conduct reductions in force, and the president is merely directing them to use these existing authorities. U.S. Solicitor General John Sauer has emphasized that federal employment was never intended to guarantee lifetime positions “whether there was work for them to do or not.”

“Neither Congress nor the Executive Branch has ever intended to make federal bureaucrats ‘a class with lifetime employment, whether there was work for them to do or not.'” – U.S. Solicitor General John Sauer

The administration has also argued that Judge Illston’s order has “caused mass confusion throughout the Executive Branch” and represents an “end-run” around statutory provisions that generally prohibit direct challenges to reductions in force in federal courts. By withdrawing its Supreme Court appeal and focusing on the Ninth Circuit, the administration appears to be recalibrating its legal strategy while maintaining its commitment to ultimately implementing the workforce reductions that many conservative voters have demanded as part of draining the Washington swamp.