Federal Judge Amy Berman Jackson has issued a temporary pause on layoffs at the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB), which were set to affect a significant portion of the agency’s workforce. The decision comes in light of concerns that the recent Reduction in Force (RIF) notices delivered to over 1,400 CFPB employees may have breached a court order that restricts removals within the agency.
In her ruling, Judge Berman Jackson noted, “There is reason to believe that the defendants simply spent the days immediately following the Circuit’s relaxation of the Order dressing their RIF in new clothes, and that they are thumbing their nose at both this Court and the Court of Appeals.” This statement underscores the seriousness of the allegations against the CFPB and its management.
On March 28, Judge Berman Jackson had primarily blocked the Trump administration from proceeding with layoffs at the CFPB. However, a circuit court ruling on April 11 partially lifted this order, permitting RIFs under the condition that officials conduct individual assessments to determine the necessity of each employee in fulfilling the agency's statutory responsibilities.
A hearing regarding this matter is scheduled for April 28, which could further clarify the legal standing of the layoffs.
On the same day that the judge issued her ruling, an anonymous member of the CFPB RIF team came forward with serious allegations regarding the internal processes leading to the layoffs. This individual submitted a declaration under penalty of perjury, claiming that Gavin Kliger, an official from the Department of Government Efficiency, pressured staff to work continuously for 36 hours to ensure the RIF notices were dispatched on schedule.
The declaration described Kliger as having “screamed at people he did not believe were working fast enough,” labeling them as incompetent. Kliger, who graduated from college in 2020 and has been reported to have connections with extremist views, has raised significant concerns among his colleagues.
The whistleblower also indicated that staff were instructed to disregard the individual assessment requirement mandated by the court, raising further questions about the legality and ethicality of the RIF process.
In response to the unfolding situation, the National Treasury Employees Union formally requested that the Trump administration demonstrate compliance with the court order. The union's attorneys emphasized the absurdity of cutting the Bureau's staff by 90 percent within a mere 24 hours without adequate notice, arguing that such drastic measures would undoubtedly “interfere with the performance” of the agency’s statutory duties.
Additionally, they pointed out the implausibility of the defendants having conducted a “particularized assessment” of each employee’s role in just three and a half business days since the court of appeals imposed the requirement.
This story will continue to evolve as new information comes to light, particularly during the upcoming hearing on April 28, which could have significant implications for the future of the CFPB and its employees.
