Judge extends block on Trump's mass layoffs at several agencies
A federal judge said late Thursday that she will continue to halt President Donald Trump's orders for mass terminations at several agencies, handing down a preliminary injunction that follows up the temporary restraining order she issued earlier this month.
The new order is set to escalate a legal fight that the Justice Department has took to the Supreme Court, in an aggressive maneuver last week that has not yet prompted a response from the high court.
The latest ruling from Senior Judge Susan Illston in San Francisco also goes further than the temporary restraining order because she is ordering the reinstatement of employees on administrative leave, although, she has paused that aspect of her order so it can be appealed.
The case is a major roadblock in the president's efforts to drastically shrink the federal bureaucracy. Tens of thousands of federal employees have been placed on administrative leave under the actions challenged in the lawsuit, but those terminations will not be finalized while IIlston's order is in effect. The latest order will likely jumpstart the appellate battle over Trump's power to, without Congress's authorization, gut the workforces of agencies across the government.
The administration's emergency appeals of her earlier temporary restraining order are pending both at the Supreme Court and the 9th US Circuit Court of Appeals. However, those appeals courts may have been waiting for a preliminary injunction to intervene, as TROs are only appealable in limited circumstances.
Illston, an appointee of former President Bill Clinton , said in the Thursday opinion that the, 'President has the authority to seek changes to executive branch agencies, but he must do so in lawful ways and, in the case of large-scale reorganizations, with the cooperation of the legislative branch.'
She foreshadowed her conclusions at a Thursday hearing, telling the lawyers she was likely to grant the order, as the evidence 'strongly suggests' that the executive branch 'usurped the constitutional powers of Congress.'
CNN has reached out to the White House for comment on the order.
The case revolves around a February executive order from Trump that seeks to conduct a 'critical transformation of the Federal bureaucracy' and directives from the Office of Personnel Management and Office of Management and Budget that stemmed from it. Those directives instructed government agencies to submit plans for approval by the offices for mass terminations, known as reductions in force.
The challengers in the case – unions, local governments, and outside groups – also targeted the involvement of the Department of Government Efficiency. They argued that the top-down decisions by DOGE, OMB and OPM demanding extensive layoffs and crippling the agencies' operations were unlawful.
'With every move this President is making, we are holding him accountable in court, and seeing judges of all stripes recognize and defend the rule of law,' said Skye Perryman, President & CEO of lead co-counsel Democracy Forward, one of the plaintiffs in the case. 'We will continue to lawyer up and level up to protect the American people and our democracy.'
An attorney for the Justice Department argued the plans were just preparatory documents and that the agencies were given discretion to determine how far the cuts could go without interfering with their statutory functions.
Danielle Leonard, an attorney for the challengers, countered, 'we don't live in the hypothetical world that government counsel wants to live in.' She pointed to evidence in the case suggesting that OPM and OMB were rejecting proposals from agencies that would have staved off drastic cuts.
'They have taken the decision-making away from the agencies,' she said.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Los Angeles Times
4 minutes ago
- Los Angeles Times
What ‘China shock'? Trade didn't wreck the U.S. economy
When Donald Trump first campaigned in 2016, he capitalized on a potent narrative: that China's rise gutted American manufacturing, leaving countless blue-collar communities devastated. Known now as the 'China shock,' that idea paved the way for a dramatic resurgence in protectionism, culminating in sweeping tariffs including Trump's controversial 'Liberation Day' duties. Yet we continue to learn just how shaky the theory's foundations are. Pioneered by economists David Autor, David Dorn and Gordon Hanson, the China shock trope suggests that American regions heavily exposed to Chinese imports suffered significantly greater job losses than did less-exposed areas. Populists seized upon it to argue that China's 2001 accession to the World Trade Organization caused millions of job losses in the U.S. and social disintegration. But a theory's easy and outsized application to policy does not settle questions about its accuracy. That's what American Enterprise Institute scholar Scott Winship wanted to determine in a recent comprehensive review that set out to prove whether the China shock reduced American manufacturing employment. By examining alternative studies and methodological adjustments, Winship contends that the negative effects of trade with China have been significantly exaggerated and that populist narratives blaming this trade for U.S. economic decline aren't supported by rigorous evidence. The originators of China shock examined how Chinese imports affected certain U.S. locales compared with others — not with the entire country — based on initial industry composition and employment size. By these metrics, areas heavily exposed to Chinese imports showed disproportionately worse manufacturing job losses. However, Winship points out that even if we accept these estimates, the findings suggest only relatively modest employment effects. To put things in perspective, Winship gives the example of two hypothetical commuting zones with 200,000 working-age residents and 20,000 manufacturing workers. Data from the theory's proponents indicate that moving from low (10th percentile) to high (90th percentile) exposure to Chinese imports would result in a loss of roughly 2,700 manufacturing jobs — just a 1.4 percentage point drop in overall manufacturing employment. While significant, this does not convincingly explain the community decline, social disruption, and populist backlash often blamed specifically on Chinese trade. In addition, Winship flags multiple methodological issues. Once other economists revised the proponents' methods, the estimated negative impact shrank dramatically. Various follow-up studies found the China shock effect on manufacturing employment to be 50% smaller than initially claimed. Further research revealed that job losses in exposed areas were often offset or even outweighed by employment gains in other sectors. One detailed Census Bureau study even found that firms with greater Chinese import exposure increased manufacturing employment, reallocating jobs to more efficient domestic production lines enabled by cheaper imports. Moreover, the steady decline in U.S. manufacturing employment began decades before China's WTO entry. Between the late 1970s and 2000, factory employment had already decreased substantially, mostly because of technological advances and shifting consumer demand. Notably, there was no sudden acceleration of this decline after China joined the WTO. The rate of manufacturing job losses remained consistent with earlier trends, undermining claims that Chinese trade uniquely devastated American manufacturing. Furthermore, former manufacturing workers generally did not face permanent unemployment. In fact, unemployment rates among this group were lower in recent years compared to the late 1990s, before the peak of Chinese imports. Many workers transitioned successfully into other sectors, belying the notion of an enduring displacement crisis. It's also worth noting that there are around a half of a million unfilled manufacturing jobs today. Despite these realities, the exaggerated narrative persists as a political force. Trump's tariffs — taxes on American consumers raising prices on everyday goods from cars to clothing — have greatly increased economic uncertainty. American manufacturers reliant on imported components face higher input costs, dampening their competitiveness and causing unintended layoffs. In fact, evidence from Trump's first term showed that his tariffs often hurt American firms more than their foreign competitors. With broader and higher tariffs, we can only fear the worst. Instead of doubling down on tariffs and isolation, we need to empower U.S. workers to adapt to economic changes, whether caused by trade or economic downturn. Economists have shown that to the extent that workers sometimes don't recover from shocks, it tends to be a failure to adjust because of obstacles erected by government. Winship's critical reassessment of the China shock clarifies the actual, limited role Chinese imports have played in manufacturing-employment trends. The real 'shock' America faces in 2025 is not from Chinese imports, but from a resurgence of misguided protectionism based on a misdiagnosed problem. The path forward harnesses trade's real benefits rather than chasing economic illusions. Veronique de Rugy is a senior research fellow at the Mercatus Center at George Mason University. This article was produced in collaboration with Creators Syndicate.
USA Today
4 minutes ago
- USA Today
Where is Trump's military parade taking place? See route, map
Where is Trump's military parade taking place? See route, map Show Caption Hide Caption White House plans parade for Trump's bday, Army's 250th anniversary The White House is planning a massive military parade to celebrate the Army's 250th anniversary and President Donald Trump's 79th birthday. President Donald Trump is getting the military parade he's long wanted this year, as the U.S. Army plans to mark its 250th anniversary with a pomp-filled procession through the streets of the nation's capital, a date coinciding with the president's birthday. "The event is designed not only to showcase the Army's modern capabilities but also to inspire a new generation to embrace the spirit of service, resilience, and leadership that defines the United States," according to a May 21 statement on event organizer's website. "The parade will trace the Army's evolution from the Revolutionary War through to the U.S. Army of Tomorrow." Here's what to know about the parade's route and when it takes place. When and where is the military parade? The military parade is slated for Saturday, June 14, in the heart of Washington, D.C., spanning six blocks and bisecting the National Mall. Celebrations and associated events are set to take place throughout the day, starting with a fitness competition at 9:30 a.m. ET, and an assortment of military demonstrations, equipment displays and live music performances throughout the day. Visitors can expect kid zones, more than 50 vendor and experience booths, and meet-and-greats with "Army soldiers, NFL players, influencers and celebrities," according to the U.S. Army event page. Army, Trump love a $40M parade. But nothing is planned for Navy, Marines. What does the parade commemorate? On June 14, 1775, the Second Continental Congress voted to establish the Continental Army, organizers say, marking the creation of America's first national military force more than a year before the Declaration of Independence. Trump, US Army throwing military parade: How to get tickets Where does the Grand Military Parade start and end? The parade will take place along Constitution Avenue NW, starting at 15th Street alongside the National Mall, near the National Museum of African American History and Culture. The procession will begin at 6:30 p.m. ET, cutting through the mall between the Washington Monument and German-American Friendship Garden on one side and the long grassy expanse of President's Park in front of the White House on the other. The parade will cross in front of Trump's viewing stand on Constitution Avenue south of the White House at about 6 p.m. It will continue in the direction of the Lincoln Memorial, passing by Constitution Gardens and the Vietnam Veterans Memorial before ending at 7:30 p.m. ET on Constitution Avenue NW and 23rd Street. A concert at the Ellipse is scheduled to start when the parade ends, and Army officials say a firework display will begin at 9:45 p.m. ET. Contributing: George Petras and Janet Loehrke, USA TODAY. Kathryn Palmer is a national trending news reporter for USA TODAY. You can reach her at kapalmer@ and on X @KathrynPlmr.
5 minutes ago
Trump directs DOJ, White House counsel to investigate Biden's mental state in office
President Donald Trump ordered Attorney General Pam Bondi to investigate whether former President Joe Biden's administration sought to conspire to cover up his mental state while in office, prompting a response from Biden. "Let me be clear: I made the decisions during my presidency," Biden said in a statement. "I made the decisions about the pardons, executive orders, legislation, and proclamations. Any suggestion that I didn't is ridiculous and false." The move by the White House represents a significant escalation from the White House, as it is a directive to the Justice Department to formally investigate. It goes beyond the review into Biden's last-minute pardons before leaving office Biden responded to Trump's memo to Bondi and the Department of Justice, calling an investigation "nothing more than a mere distraction" and defending his decision-making ability. In a statement he says any suggestion he was not in control is "ridiculous and false." "This is nothing more than a distraction by Donald Trump and Congressional Republicans who are working to push disastrous legislation that would cut essential programs like Medicaid and raise costs on American families, all to pay for tax breaks for the ultra-wealthy and big corporations," Biden said in a statement sent to ABC News. The president directed the U.S.'s top law enforcement official, in coordination with his White House counsel, to investigate "the circumstances surrounding Biden's supposed execution of numerous executive actions during his final years in office," according to a statement from the White House.
