Since taking office in January 2025, President Trump has issued a series of unlawful executive orders and taken other unlawful actions seeking to shut down congressionally mandated agencies, fire and displace federal workers, outlaw their unions, and gut merit systems protections. In response, AFGE and its allies have filed more than a dozen federal lawsuits challenging these actions. AFGE and its partners have secured multiple preliminary injunctions, reversing actions and stopping plans that would harm federal employees. While some of AFGE's injunctions have been paused by higher courts, AFGE's successes have resulted in potentially hundreds of thousands of jobs being saved.
AFGE's efforts, and those of its partners and other organizations fighting for federal employees, have only been possible because of our members, leaders, and activists. Members not only help fund and fuel the litigation but provide essential information and stories that show the courts and the American people how egregious and unlawful this administration's actions have been. Together, AFGE members have been fighting, and will continue to fight, for all federal employees' rights and for all Americans.
Stay connected: Follow these cases closely and sign up for AFGE action alerts for updates.
AFGE v. Trump, No. 3:25-cv-03070 (N.D. Cal.)
On March 27, 2025, President Trump signed Executive Order 14251, "Exclusions from Federal Labor-Management Relations Programs," frivolously designating over a dozen federal agencies as performing "intelligence, counterintelligence, investigative, or national security work" and stripping collective bargaining rights from over 950,000 federal employees. Affected agencies include the Environmental Protection Agency, Department of Veterans Affairs, and Department of Justice, among many others. On August 28, 2025, Trump extended the order to NASA, NOAA, the National Weather Service, and the U.S. Agency for Global Media. OPM later issued guidance directing covered agencies to cease participating in negotiated grievance procedures and terminate collective bargaining agreements.
AFGE and five other national unions—AFSCME, NAGE-SEIU, NFFE-IAM, NNU, and SEIU—sued on April 3, 2025, arguing the order constitutes First Amendment retaliation, viewpoint discrimination, ultra vires action exceeding the President's narrow national-security exclusion authority under 5 U.S.C. § 7103(b)(1), and Fifth Amendment due process violations. Major case updates include:
In related litigation, less than two hours before the original order was signed, the administration preemptively sued several AFGE affiliates in Texas, seeking to have a Trump-appointed judge greenlight the union ban before it could be challenged. AFGE obtained dismissal of the Texas suit on July 23, 2025.
Current Status:
The preliminary injunction has been dissolved. The Ninth Circuit's jurisdictional ruling remains a precedent-setting victory that preserves district court access for these challenges. AFGE is returning to the district court to litigate the merits with a fully developed factual record.
AFGE v. Noem, No. 2:25-cv-00451 (W.D. Wash.)
On February 27, 2025, DHS Secretary Kristi Noem rescinded the 2024 CBA between AFGE and TSA—a seven-year contract covering approximately 47,000 Transportation Security Officers at over 400 airports—claiming collective bargaining was "incompatible" with TSA's national security mission, despite the agency having held the opposite view for more than a decade. AFGE and allied unions sued, arguing First Amendment retaliation, Fifth Amendment due process, and APA violations.
Current Status:
The 2024 CBA remains in full force. The government filed a renewed motion to dismiss and to dissolve the PI, which remains pending.
AFGE NVAC v. U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs, No. 1:25-cv-00583 (D.R.I.)
On August 6, 2025, VA Secretary Doug Collins unilaterally terminated the Master CBA covering more than 300,000 VA employees. Collins exempted seven specific unions that had not challenged the administration, while stripping rights from AFGE, creating a two-tier system at the same VA facilities. This contradicted OPM's own guidance directing agencies not to terminate CBAs until litigation concluded.
AFGE's NVAC and Local 2305 filed suit on November 4, 2025, arguing APA violations, First Amendment retaliation, Fifth Amendment due process and equal protection, and non-compliance with EO 14251 itself. NVAC filed for a preliminary injunction on November 25, 2025.
Current Status:
The preliminary injunction remains in effect. The VA's underlying appeal from the March 13 preliminary injunction remains pending in the First Circuit.
PEER v. Trump, No. 8:25-cv-00260 (D. Md.)
On Inauguration Day, Trump signed Executive Order 14171, reviving "Schedule F" under the new name Schedule Policy/Career. The order directs OPM to reclassify tens of thousands of career employees in "policy-influencing" positions into an excepted-service category, making them at-will employees stripped of civil service protections, MSPB appeal rights, and due process.
On February 5–6, 2026, OPM finalized and published the Schedule Policy/Career rule in the Federal Register, with an effective date of approximately March 8, 2026. AFGE joined the lead case in Maryland after voluntarily dismissing its original D.D.C. suit.
Current Status:
On March 4, 2026, AFGE, AFSCME, the AFL-CIO, PEER, and Democracy Forward filed a Second Amended Complaint expanding the challenge to target the entire Schedule Policy/Career framework: the underlying executive order, OPM's final rule, and the broader reclassification effort.
AFGE v. OMB, No. 3:25-cv-08302 (N.D. Cal.)
Shortly before the longest government shutdown in history, the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) directed agencies to conduct mass RIFs based on the shutdown. Approximately 4,100 federal workers received RIF notices. Led by AFGE, eight unions sued, arguing the directives violated the Antideficiency Act, federal RIF procedures, and the APA.
Current Status:
The preliminary injunctions remain in force and proceedings are ongoing.
AFGE v. Trump, No. 3:25-cv-03698 (N.D. Cal.)
AFGE leads a coalition of unions and other plaintiffs challenging Executive Order 14210, which directed agencies to eliminate or consolidate programs and initiate large-scale RIFs. HHS planned to cut 10,000+ positions; DOE proposed 50%+ workforce cuts; CDC faced 93% cuts to some offices. By May 2025, dozens of RIFs were planned at agencies across the government. While AFGE's PI was eventually stayed by the Supreme Court, the block on RIFs from AFGE's PI resulted in the administration rescinding or failing to proceed with thousands of RIFs.
Current Status:
A partial summary judgment hearing on the FEMA claim is scheduled for September 1, 2026. Discovery and briefing on the remaining claims continue.
AFGE v. OPM, No. 3:25-cv-01780 (N.D. Cal.)
OPM directed six agencies to mass-terminate probationary employees using standardized notices falsely claiming performance issues. Thousands received identical termination letters that their supervisors had never written or approved. AFGE and a coalition of plaintiffs challenged OPM's actions.
The TRO and PI resulted in the reinstatement of thousands of probationary employees who had been summarily fired; many returned to their jobs and were not subsequently terminated.
Current Status:
Hearing over the government’s appeal of Judge Alsup’s decision is scheduled for August 28, 2026, before the Ninth Circuit.
AFGE v. Ezell, No. 1:25-cv-10276 (D. Mass.)
AFGE challenged OPM's mass "resign or be fired" deferred resignation program under the APA, arguing OPM should have issued regulations before implementing the offer.
Current Status:
On September 24, 2025, the district court dismissed the case. AFGE appealed to the First Circuit. AFGE's appellate brief was filed in early February 2026. The appeal is scheduled for argument in July of 2026.
Widakuswara v. Lake, (D.D.C.)
Current Status:
Summary judgment stands. The D.C. Circuit's stay of the return-to-work order is in effect while the appeal is briefed. The underlying voiding of Lake's actions has not been disturbed.
AFSCME & AFGE v. Trump, No. 1:25-cv-03306 (D.D.C.)
On August 28, 2025, Trump added USAGM (VOA's parent) to the national-security bargaining exclusions. USAGM terminated its CBAs with AFGE and other unions the next day.
Current Status:
The preliminary injunction remains in force. Reinstatement has been implemented. The appeal remains in abeyance.
NCPL/AFGE v. Federal Bureau of Prisons, No. 3:25-cv-01907 (D. Conn.)
On September 25, 2025, BOP Director William Marshall terminated the CBA covering more than 30,000 workers, admitting the termination was not about national security but because the union "slowed or prevented changes." AFGE's Council of Prison Locals (CPL-33) filed suit on November 13, 2025.
Current Status:
The motion for a preliminary injunction remains under advisement following the April 30 hearing. Regardless of the PI outcome, the denial of the motion to dismiss ensures the case proceeds to summary judgment on the merits.
AFGE v. Kupor, No. 1:25-cv-13305 (D. Mass.)
AFGE, AFSCME, and NAGE challenged the administration's "Loyalty Question"—an essay prompt asking federal job applicants how they would advance the President's executive orders and policy priorities—arguing First Amendment, Privacy Act, and APA violations. The question appeared in more than 5,800 postings at the time of filing.
Current Status:
The preliminary injunction motion remains under advisement in the district court.
AFGE is a plaintiff in multiple cases challenging DOGE's access to sensitive federal personnel and payment data, including the Treasury system access case (D.D.C.); the OPM data breach case (S.D.N.Y., where Judge Denise Cote ordered OPM to halt disclosures to DOGE); and cases involving DOL, HHS, and other agencies.
Current Status:
Related DOGE access cases involving Treasury, DOL, HHS, and other agencies remain pending; AFGE has requested further discovery in the OPM administrative record proceedings and continues to oppose the government's motions to dismiss.
AFGE and the American Foreign Service Association (AFSA) filed suit on February 6, 2025, challenging the illegal shutdown of the U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID) under Executive Order 14169. The administration placed thousands of USAID employees on administrative leave, canceled programs, and began absorbing USAID into the State Department without congressional authorization. The court initially granted a limited TRO reinstating overseas personnel but denied the PI request on February 21, 2025.
Current Status:
The appeal remains under submission to the D.C. Circuit following the April 23, 2026 argument. A decision is pending.
AFGE v. Trump (Supplemental Complaint), No. 3:25-cv-03698 (N.D. Cal.)
USDA's Reorganization Plan would reduce the USDA workforce and forcibly relocate thousands of USDA employees hundreds of miles from their current worksites. USDA sought authorization for this restructuring through the fiscal year 2026 appropriations process, but Congress rejected that request and expressly directed USDA not to restructure or downsize without further congressional approval. USDA has not obtained that approval.
In late spring 2026, USDA nonetheless began implementing the Reorganization Plan. AFGE and a broad coalition—including AFSCME, SEIU, NFFE, nonprofits, and local governments—filed a supplemental complaint and motion for a preliminary injunction in the reorganization case pending before Judge Susan Illston in the Northern District of California. AFGE is the lead plaintiff; the coalition is represented by lead co-counsel Democracy Forward and Altshuler Berzon LLP, along with Protect Democracy, Public Rights Project, Democracy Defenders Fund, and counsel for local governments.
Current Status:
The preliminary injunction motion is pending before Judge Illston and scheduled for hearing September 1, 2026.
AFGE Local 1410 et al. v. U.S. Department of Defense, No. 1:26-cv-02653 (D. Md.)
On April 9, 2026, Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth issued a memorandum directing DoD components to terminate all collective bargaining agreements within 24 hours, with limited exceptions. Subordinate commands executed the directive over the following weeks. As a result of Hegseth's actions, tens of thousands of DoD civilian employees—many of whom are veterans and members of military families—lost union rights they had held for decades, with some contracts in place for more than fifty years.
On July 2, 2026, more than 20 AFGE locals and councils, together with three NFFE-IAM affiliates, filed a complaint in the U.S. District Court for the District of Maryland challenging Hegseth's memorandum and the resulting terminations. Plaintiffs are represented by Altshuler Berzon LLP and co-counsel. The case was assigned to Judge Stephanie A. Gallagher. Plaintiffs then moved for a preliminary injunction.
Current Status:
The complaint and PI motion are filed and pending before Judge Gallagher.
AFGE et al. v. U.S. Federal Labor Relations Authority, No. 1:26-cv-11747 (D. Mass.)
On March 24, 2026, the FLRA published an interim final rule (IFR) that revoked its Regional Directors' authority to decide representation matters and eliminated the appeals process for regional decisions in those proceedings. The FLRA gave no advance notice or opportunity to comment before issuing the IFR and offered almost no rationale for changing a delegation framework that had been in place for more than forty years.
AFGE, NTEU, NFFE-IAM, IFPTE, and other unions, represented by Bredhoff & Kaiser PLLC and in-house counsel, filed suit in the District of Massachusetts on April 15, 2026, arguing the IFR was invalid under the APA. Plaintiffs argued that the IFR was arbitrary and capricious because the FLRA failed to provide adequate reasoning for the change and failed to consider parties' substantial reliance interests in the existing delegation framework, and that the rushed effective date was separately arbitrary and capricious. The case was assigned to Judge Denise J. Casper.
Current Status:
The IFR remains vacated. The FLRA's motions for a stay and for reconsideration are pending, as is any decision on appeal.
AFGE, NTEU, NFFE-IAM, and IFPTE v. Federal Mediation and Conciliation Service, No. 1:26-cv-01676 (D.D.C.)
On April 22, 2026, the FMCS General Counsel issued a memorandum entitled "Aligning Federal Mediation and Conciliation's Arbitration Services with Executive Orders 14251 and 14343." The memorandum directs FMCS to withhold arbitration panels in disputes involving any federal agency covered by EO 14251 or EO 14343 unless the agency affirmatively consents. This reverses FMCS's longstanding practice, and its own regulations, under which "a panel request, whether joint or unilateral, will be honored," 29 C.F.R. § 1404.9(b), and impedes federal unions from enforcing their contractual grievance and arbitration rights against agencies listed in the Exclusion Orders.
AFGE, NTEU, NFFE-IAM, and IFPTE, represented by Bredhoff & Kaiser PLLC and in-house counsel, filed suit in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia on May 15, 2026. The case was assigned to Judge Randolph D. Moss.
Current Status:
The case is at the pleadings stage before Judge Moss. FMCS's response deadline and its request for an extension are pending; Plaintiffs' complaint remains the operative pleading.
Since taking office in January 2025, President Trump has issued a series of unlawful executive orders, and taken several unlawful actions, seeking to shut down congressionally mandated agencies, fire and displace federal workers, outlaw their unions, and gut merit systems protections.
Read More
The Trump administration’s push to expand the privatization of airport security screening functions ignores lessons learned from the Sept. 11 attacks and other airline tragedies and should concern every American,
Read More
Three weeks after filing a lawsuit challenging the termination of their contracts, more than 20 union affiliates from AFGE and (NFFE-IAM are asking the court to block implementation of the illegal action.
Read More
