A significant coalition comprising labor unions, nonprofits, and local governments—including major cities like Chicago, Baltimore, and Harris County, Texas—has initiated the most extensive legal challenge to date against President Trump's sweeping reforms of the federal government. The lawsuit, filed late Monday, contends that the actions taken by President Trump, along with Elon Musk and leaders of nearly two dozen federal agencies, to drastically reduce the federal workforce, violate the Constitution due to a lack of Congressional authorization.
The legal complaint argues that three months into Trump's administration, there is clear evidence that the affected federal agencies are operating under directives from the President. The lawsuit specifically mentions DOGE (the Department of Government Efficiency), the Office of Management and Budget (OMB), and the Office of Personnel Management (OPM). It states that newly appointed agency heads have repeatedly indicated they are reorganizing and eliminating programs and jobs based on instructions from the President and guidance from DOGE regarding the extent of these reductions.
The plaintiffs in this lawsuit include several of the same unions and nonprofits that previously challenged the Trump administration in a federal court in San Francisco over the mass termination of probationary employees. In that earlier case, U.S. District Judge William Alsup determined that OPM had illegally directed six federal agencies to dismiss recent hires and newly promoted employees. Although the Supreme Court later vacated the reinstatement order for over 16,000 workers, it has yet to rule on the legality of those firings.
This new complaint escalates the legal confrontation by asserting that Trump's executive order from February 11, which implements the 'Department of Government Efficiency' Workforce Optimization Initiative, oversteps Congress's constitutional authority. The plaintiffs argue that since the nation’s inception, federal courts have acknowledged that federal agencies are established by Congress, not the President, who lacks the authority to mandate such extensive changes.
Despite the ongoing firings of federal employees, the shutdown of government programs, and the closure of federal buildings, Congress—led by Trump’s Republican allies—has largely remained silent. Trump has defended these actions as a means of restoring accountability within the government, claiming that the American electorate granted him a mandate through the upcoming 2024 election to eradicate waste, fraud, and inefficiency within federal operations.
Citing the potential for irreparable harm, the plaintiffs are requesting the court to annul Trump's executive order as well as the related memos issued by OMB and OPM detailing how to implement the order. They also seek to invalidate the agencies' reduction-in-force (RIF) plans, arguing that the expedited timeline imposed by the Trump administration for submitting these plans did not provide adequate time for compliance with necessary statutory and regulatory protocols.
The lawsuit explicitly challenges Musk's DOGE, which is tasked with placing representatives in various federal agencies to oversee workforce reductions. The plaintiffs assert that unlike OMB and OPM, Congress has not conferred any statutory authority on DOGE, stating, "DOGE has no authority whatsoever to dictate staffing cuts or spending reductions in agencies established and governed by Congress."
The White House has not yet responded to inquiries from NPR regarding this significant lawsuit, which raises critical questions about the balance of power between the executive branch and Congress in the context of federal workforce management.
