Federal Judges Order Reinstatement of Thousands of Fired Probationary Workers; Trump Administration Complies Under Protest
The Trump administration, following a series of unfavorable rulings from federal judges, has begun the process of reinstating approximately 24,500 probationary employees who were recently terminated. The mass firings, driven by what the article mockingly calls “Elon Musk’s Department of Government Efficiency,” aimed to significantly reduce the size of the federal workforce. However, legal challenges argued, and two federal judges ultimately agreed, that the dismissals were unlawful.
The Justice Department, in a filing submitted to a federal court in Maryland, detailed the reinstatement efforts across 18 different departments. This filing was in response to a court order requiring the administration to provide a report on its progress in bringing back the terminated employees. The departments are scrambling to comply with court orders, and this compliance is providing the most comprehensive public record to date regarding the controversial firings.
The Treasury Department bears the largest burden of reinstatement, with 7,613 employees being brought back. The Internal Revenue Service (IRS), a division of the Treasury, accounts for the vast majority of these reinstated employees, numbering 7,315. Following the Treasury Department, the Department of Agriculture is tasked with reinstating 5,714 workers, and the Department of Health and Human Services is bringing back 3,248.
The reinstatements are occurring in direct response to an order from U.S. District Judge James K. Bredar in Maryland. Judge Bredar established a strict deadline for the reinstatements, acting on a case brought by the attorneys general of 19 states and the District of Columbia. Judge Bredar found the Trump administration had failed to adhere to proper procedures in the firings, specifically citing the lack of proper notification to the states regarding the layoffs. He also cast doubt on the administration’s claim that the terminations were based on employee performance, suggesting this justification was not truthful.
While some human resource officials reported they had fully reinstated the probationary employees, others indicated they were still in the process of doing so. The probationary workers impacted by the firings were generally hired or promoted within the last year.
Despite complying with the court orders, Trump administration officials expressed concerns about the consequences of the reinstatements. In court declarations, they argued that the process could cause "significant confusion and turmoil" for both the employees and the agencies. The officials suggest that these recently reinstated workers could be fired again should a higher court overturn the judges rulings on appeal. They also emphasized the "substantial burdens" the reinstatement process is placing on the agencies and their employees.
The officials stated that all employees offered reinstatement would need to be fully re-onboarded, a process that involves retraining, completing human resources paperwork, obtaining new security badges, reenrolling in benefits programs, reinstituting security clearances, and receiving government-furnished equipment.
The reinstated workers will also receive back pay. However, the officials suggest that this creates administrative difficulties. "The tremendous uncertainty associated with this confusion and these administrative burdens impede supervisors from appropriately managing their workforce," argued Mark Green, an assistant secretary of the Interior Department, which has reinstated 1,710 fired workers. "Work schedules and assignments are effectively being tied to hearing and briefing schedules set by the courts. It will be extremely difficult to assign new work to reinstated individuals in light of the uncertainty over their future status."
In a separate but related case, U.S. District Judge William Alsup in San Francisco issued an order demanding the reinstatement of thousands of other probationary workers at six agencies: the Defense, Veterans Affairs, Agriculture, Energy, Interior, and Treasury departments. Judge Alsup determined that the U.S. Office of Personnel Management (OPM) lacked the legal authority to order the firings and had acted unlawfully. Unlike the Maryland case, federal departments have not been required to provide updates to the California federal court regarding their reinstatement efforts.
The Trump administration has appealed both court decisions.
The White House has vehemently criticized the judges decisions, accusing them of "attempting to unconstitutionally seize the power of hiring and firing from the executive branch." President Trump himself characterized the rulings as "absolutely ridiculous" and suggested they represented a dangerous overreach by the judiciary. "Its a judge thats putting himself in the position of the president of the United States, who was elected by close to 80 million votes. Youre having more and more of that. Its a very, very dangerous thing for our country." Trump indicated he anticipates the issue will ultimately be decided by the Supreme Court.
Amidst the legal battles over the probationary employee firings, the federal departments submitted plans to the White House for further "reductions in force." These plans outline a second wave of terminations that would target career employees, going beyond the initial probationary workforce. The judges orders do not apply to these planned terminations.
The list of reinstated probationary workers is topped by the Treasury Department (7,613), followed by the Department of Agriculture (5,714), the Department of Health and Human Services (3,248), the Interior Department (1,710), and others. The actual tallies might have changed by now, due to the speed of the developments.
