Federal employees union sues over Trump move to block collective bargaining
President Trump last week signed an order that directed agencies to terminate already-signed collective bargaining agreements and to 'cease participating in grievance procedures.'
The Civil Service Reform Act that gives federal employees the right to unionize does have exceptions for national security, but in its suit the National Treasury Employees Union (NTEU) argues Trump went beyond authority that allows its use if an agency 'primarily does intelligence, counterintelligence, investigative, or national security work.'
'The President's sweeping Executive Order is inconsistent with this narrow authority. The Administration's own issuances show that the President's exclusions are not based on national security concerns, but instead a policy objective of making federal employees easier to fire and political animus against federal sector unions,' NTEU wrote in its suit.
While the order targets agencies it says have a national security mission, many of the departments don't have a strict national security connection.
In addition to agencies with clear national security ties, the order also covers the Treasury Department, all agencies within the Department of Health and Human Services, the Environmental Protection Agency, the National Science Foundation, the General Services Administration and many more.
NTEU said that the statute may only be used 'in a manner consistent with national security requirements and considerations.'
The suit, filed in Washington, D.C., comes as the Trump administration took the unusual move of filing its own legal action in Texas last week, making the first move in litigation by asking a judge to declare as legal its plans to terminate the contracts.
That suit was filed in a single-judge district in Texas, possibly setting the stage for a square-off in the Supreme Court.
The NTEU suit goes through each of the offices and agencies represented by the suit, which ranges from the IRS to the Bureau of Land Management, writing that they do 'not primarily perform security, investigative, or intelligence work.'
The suit argues that the order, a White House fact sheet, and an accompanying memo from the Office of Personnel Management all reference broader plans to fire federal employees.
'The OPM Guidance on the Executive Order shows that the President's primary motivation for the mass exclusion of agencies from the Statute's coverage is to make their employees easier to fire,' it states.
'The same White House Fact Sheet reveals the secondary motivation for the Executive Order: political retribution. In justifying the Executive Order, the Fact Sheet states that '[c]ertain Federal unions have declared war on President Trump's agenda.''
The fact sheet said that current law 'enables hostile Federal unions to obstruct agency management.'
NTEU wrote, 'Neither facilitating employee firings nor political retribution is an appropriate basis for invoking Section 7103(b)(1)'s national security exemption.'
'These are nonetheless the President's declared bases for excluding about two-thirds of the federal workforce from the Statute through this narrow exemption.'
Updated: 2:34 p.m.
Copyright 2025 Nexstar Media, Inc. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
3 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Holding cash in case a bear market hits? Here's where and when to invest if stocks plunge.
Deploying cash during a bear market can be difficult as fear sets in. It's smart to have a plan — don't enter the market all at once, and don't panic. Experts suggest buying quality dividend stocks and large-cap tech if a bear market comes around. If you've been building up a big cash reserve over the last few years, you're not alone. You're also probably not alone in wishing you'd had the money in stocks. Cash has generated meaningful yields since 2022 after the Federal Reserve went on a rate-hike spree, drawing record amounts into money market funds. The total value in money market funds — highly liquid, cash-equivalent assets that generate yield from short-term bonds — is at a record $7.3 trillion. About $2.1 trillion is held by retail investors. Even stock-investing icon Warren Buffett holds a record cash position worth nearly $350 billion as of March. But stocks have ripped higher in the meantime. The S&P 500 is up 80% since its October 2022 low. It's been difficult to know when to get into the market, though. With the stock market consistently hitting new highs and valuations historically elevated in recent years, you might have been waiting for a good opportunity to put that cash to work in equities, waiting for a dip to buy. If you missed the April plunge, you might still be doing so. It's not necessarily a bad approach. Goldman Sachs said this week that the chance of a stock-market pullback has jumped. In fact, stocks are so expensive that Vanguard said this mont that its ideal portfolio over the next 10 years is a very conservative allocation of 70% bonds and 30% stocks. The cheaper the entry point, the better the returns. But timing the market is tricky and something market pros usually advise against trying. No one knows how long a bull rally can go or how long an eventual pullback will last. That's why the best course of action is probably to dollar-cost-average, continuing to put money into the market at set intervals, whether the market is up or down. However, if you are resolved to waiting for a significant decline to enter the market, it's a good idea to have a plan set in place before that moment arrives. When and what to buy Though bear markets in recent years have been short-lived, the average bear market going back to 1932 has seen a 35.1% drawdown that lasts a year and a half, according to investment bank Stifel. So take it slow, says brokerage firm Charles Schwab. "Instead of going all in at once, one might consider buying small chunks at a time," Charles Schwab said in an August 6 post. But not too slow, said Hank Smith, the director and head of investment strategy at Haverford Trust. There's no way to tell when the bottom is in, so you want to start taking advantage of the pullback once it hits 10% correction territory, he said. It may hurt if the market ends up falling further than 10%, Smith said, but being indecisive about when to get in can result in missed opportunities. Remember the 19.9% decline in the S&P 500 from February to April? The pain was over in the blink of an eye, with the index back at all-time highs before the end of June — and the rally has been furious, with the market up 30% since April lows. So if the market does continue to drop, it's time to get even more aggressive, Smith said. "Let's say that correction morphs into a bear market of 20%, and now you're kicking yourself that you put any in at down 10%. You can't do that," Smith told Business Insider. "You have to say, 'Ok, this is another opportunity to tranche in again,' and probably with more than you did at down 10%." As for areas of the market to buy, it's difficult to know which sectors and themes will get beaten up the most. But Schwab said it's good to take a diversified approach and start buying all corners of the market. "Interestingly enough, traders can diversify their portfolios with as few as 12 stocks, targeting stocks in all major sectors," the firm said. "Although diversification doesn't eliminate the risk of experiencing investment losses, it can help increase the chances of capturing better-performing assets and avoid the risk of losing overall portfolio value to any single business, industry, or sector." Quality dividend stocks can also provide a good buffer to market losses, Merrill and Bank of America Private Bank said in a 2024 report. Smith said that economically sensitive sectors usually make for some of the best opportunities coming out of a recessionary bear market, as they dip during downturns and rebound when the economy recovers. Funds like the Fidelity MSCI Consumer Discretionary Index ETF (FDIS) and the Invesco Dorsey Wright Consumer Cyclicals Momentum ETF (PEZ) offer exposure to cyclical stocks. But he also said large-cap tech stocks are likely to drop the most because of how high their valuations are. If that's the case, it will likely be a good chance to add exposure to them, he said. "That's very common in high-growth stocks to have big sell-offs in what is a longer-term bull trend," Smith said. "That is where an investor with a lot of cash waiting for a significant decline in the market should look to." Read the original article on Business Insider Error while retrieving data Sign in to access your portfolio Error while retrieving data Error while retrieving data Error while retrieving data Error while retrieving data
The Hill
5 minutes ago
- The Hill
Judge denies Trump administration request to end a policy protecting immigrant children in custody
McALLEN, Texas (AP) — A federal judge ruled Friday to deny the Trump administration's request to end a policy in place for nearly three decades that is meant to protect immigrant children in federal custody. U.S. District Judge Dolly Gee in Los Angeles issued her ruling a week after holding a hearing with the federal government and legal advocates representing immigrant children in custody. Gee called last week's hearing 'déjà vu' after reminding the court of the federal government's attempt to terminate the Flores Settlement Agreement in 2019 under the first Trump administration. She repeated the sentiment in Friday's order. 'There is nothing new under the sun regarding the facts or the law. The Court therefore could deny Defendants' motion on that basis alone,' Gee wrote, referring to the government's appeal to a law they believed kept the court from enforcing the agreement. In the most recent attempt, the government argued they made substantial changes since the agreement was formalized in 1997, creating standards and policies governing the custody of immigrant children that conform to legislation and the agreement. Gee acknowledged that the government made some improved conditions of confinement, but wrote, 'These improvements are direct evidence that the FSA is serving its intended purpose, but to suggest that the agreement should be abandoned because some progress has been made is nonsensical.' Attorneys representing the federal government told the court the agreement gets in the way of their efforts to expand detention space for families, even though President Trump's recently signed tax and spending bill provided billions to build new immigration facilities. Tiberius Davis, one of the government attorneys, said the bill gives the government authority to hold families in detention indefinitely. 'But currently under the Flores Settlement Agreement, that's essentially void,' he said last week. The Flores agreement, named for a teenage plaintiff, was the result of over a decade of litigation between attorneys representing the rights of migrant children and the U.S. government over widespread allegations of mistreatment in the 1980s. The agreement set standards for how licensed shelters must provide food, water, adult supervision, emergency medical services, toilets, sinks, temperature control and ventilation. It also limited how long U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) could detain child immigrants to 72 hours. The U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) then takes custody of the children. The Biden administration successfully pushed to partially end the agreement last year. Gee ruled that special court supervision may end when HHS takes custody, but she carved out exceptions for certain types of facilities for children with more acute needs. In arguing against the Trump administration's effort to completely end the agreement, advocates said the government was holding children beyond the time limits. In May, CBP held 46 children for over a week, including six children held for over two weeks and four children held 19 days, according to data revealed in a court filing. In March and April, CPB reported that it had 213 children in custody for more than 72 hours. That included 14 children, including toddlers, who were held for over 20 days in April. The federal government is looking to expand its immigration detention space, including by building more centers like one in Florida dubbed ' Alligator Alcatraz,' where a lawsuit alleges detainees' constitutional rights are being violated. Gee still has not ruled on the request by legal advocates for the immigrant children to expand independent monitoring of the treatment of children held in CBP facilities. Currently, the agreement allows for third-party inspections at facilities in the El Paso and Rio Grande Valley regions, but plaintiffs submitted evidence showing long detention times at border facilities that violate the agreement's terms.
The Hill
5 minutes ago
- The Hill
Trump unfroze education funding, but the damage is already done
Summer is when superintendents and principals finalize staffing and allocate resources for the year ahead. Instead, they've spent the past month scrambling to revise budgets and delay decisions after the Trump administration recklessly froze more than $6.8 billion in federal education funds approved by Congress four months ago — a move that unnecessarily threw school planning into chaos with the school year starting in just a few weeks. On June 30, the Education Department abruptly informed states it would not release key fiscal year 2025 education funds as scheduled, affecting programs like teacher training, English learner support and after-school services. After bipartisan backlash — including lawsuits from 24 states and pressure from Republican senators — the administration reversed course on July 25, announcing it would release the remaining funds. But the damage had already been done. The administration claimed the freeze was part of a 'programmatic review' to ensure spending aligned with White House priorities. Yet, the review was conducted without transparency while the funds were only released after intense political pressure. The Education Department stated 'guardrails' would be in place to prevent funds from being used in ways that violate executive orders, which is a vague statement that should raise concerns about future interference. Districts had built their budgets assuming these funds would arrive by July 1, as they do each year. Instead of preparing for the new school year, states and districts were forced to scramble to minimize the damage. In my home state of Texas, nearly 1,200 districts faced a freeze of $660 million, which represented about 16 percent of the state's total K-12 funding. I have spoken to superintendents, chief academic officers and chief financial officers who described how these unanticipated funding deficits undermined strategic investments into high-quality instruction and mental health services. In Tennessee, $106 million was frozen, representing 13.4 percent of the state's K-12 funding. Knox County Schools eliminated 28 central office positions, including staff supporting instruction for English learners. Florida had $400 million frozen. Pinellas County School District alone stood to lose $9 million. The superintendent reported that they would have to make cuts that directly affect student achievement while the school board chair said the freeze 'feels kind of like the straw that broke the camel's back.' Kansas saw $50 million frozen. Kansas City, Kan. Public Schools warned families that $4.9 million in lost funding would affect 'programs that directly support some of our most vulnerable students — including those from low-income families, English language learners and students with disabilities.' Even with the funds now being released, the uncertainty and disruption caused by the freeze will have lasting impacts. In some cases, district leaders were forced to make staffing and programming decisions without knowing whether critical federal support would be unfrozen. All who care about public education must make clear that this kind of reckless disruption is unacceptable and will carry political consequences. Governors from both parties should press their congressional delegations to pass legislation preventing future executive overreach. And Congress must require the Education Department to provide advance notice and justification for any future funding delays. The funding freeze was a reckless policy choice that disrespected educators, destabilized schools and put children at risk. Public education cannot function on the Trump administration's political whims and such unwarranted actions cannot go unchecked without the risk of normalizing executive overreach at the expense of students. Now is the time for all policymakers and educators to stand up for our schools and ensure that no child's education is ever again held hostage to such problematic politics.
