Last month, President Donald Trump signed a sweeping executive order aimed at curbing collective bargaining rights for a large segment of federal employees. The order was issued pursuant to a national security exemption provision in the 1978 Civil Service Reform Act. Issued on March 27, 2025, the order cited national security concerns as justification for exempting dozens of federal agencies from union negotiations. Among the departments affected were the Departments of Defense, Treasury, Justice, and Health and Human Services, alongside several others. The Trump administration claims the move will make federal operations more efficient and responsive. Critics, however, view it as a calculated attempt to weaken union influence across the federal workforce—an action that could affect hundreds of thousands of employees.
The National Treasury Employees Union (NTEU), which represents workers in agencies such as the Internal Revenue Service, the Environmental Protection Agency, and the Federal Communications Commission, swiftly filed a lawsuit challenging the order. NTEU argued that the changes would drastically reduce its membership and revenue, undermining its ability to advocate effectively for federal workers. On April 25, U.S. District Judge Paul Friedman issued a preliminary injunction, halting key provisions of the executive order. In a brief two-page ruling, with a more detailed Memorandum Opinion issued on April 28, 2025, Judge Friedman found that the order unlawfully stripped collective bargaining rights from federal employees represented by the NTEU. He also expressed doubt about the administration’s stated national security rationale, suggesting it may have served as a pretext to dismantle union power—particularly unions critical of Trump’s agenda.
The injunction temporarily preserves union rights for approximately 160,000 federal employees across more than 30 agencies. While the ruling offers immediate relief for the NTEU and its members, the legal battle is far from over. Although federal agencies, following guidance from the Office of Personnel Management, have not yet formally terminated union contracts, they have stepped back from participating in bargaining negotiations and grievance procedures, along with stopping the automatic deduction of union dues from federal employees’ paychecks. In response to the injunction, the Trump administration is expected to pursue legal avenues to reinstate the executive order, as evidenced by the administration’s appeal which was filed with the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit on April 29, 2025. The administration may also consider revising the executive order to address legal concerns, possibly narrowing its scope or offering more specific justifications for the national security exemptions. Revising the order would mirror the approach the Trump administration took during his first term, when it would issue a series of revised executive orders in an effort to cure legal defects identified by courts.
The outcome of these legal maneuvers will have far-reaching implications—not only for federal labor relations but also for the broader debate over the role of unions in both public and private sectors. The court gave both parties until May 2, 2025, to propose how the case should proceed, setting the stage for what could be a prolonged legal showdown. As noted in the Joint Status Report filed by the parties on May 2, 2025, both sides will be submitting briefs to the court on their respective motions for summary judgment. As this case continues to unfold, federal employees and union advocates nationwide will be watching closely as it could have far-reaching implications for the relationship between unionized federal workers and the federal government.
Authors: Michael J. Shoenfelt, Rebecca L. Hill, Elijah J. Hardee