US Politics
Federal employees ‘waiting on pins and needles’ for the ax to fall after Supreme Court allowed Trump’s job cuts
Your support helps us to tell the story
From reproductive rights to climate change to Big Tech, The Independent is on the ground when the story is developing. Whether it’s investigating the financials of Elon Musk’s pro-Trump PAC or producing our latest documentary, ‘The A Word’, which shines a light on the American women fighting for reproductive rights, we know how important it is to parse out the facts from the messaging.
At such a critical moment in US history, we need reporters on the ground. Your donation allows us to keep sending journalists to speak to both sides of the story.
The Independent is trusted by Americans across the entire political spectrum. And unlike many other quality news outlets, we choose not to lock Americans out of our reporting and analysis with paywalls. We believe quality journalism should be available to everyone, paid for by those who can afford it.
Your support makes all the difference.
Read more
Federal employees are anxious about losing their jobs after the Supreme Court ruled that the Trump administration could move forward with firing them, Politico reported Thursday.
The Supreme Court earlier this week lifted a lower court order that temporarily blocked President Donald Trump’s plan to fire thousands of federal workers.
Federal workers are hanging their dwindling hopes on the ruling’s suggestion that lower courts could still consider direct challenges to reorganization plans for agencies. But plaintiffs would have to bring more detailed cases quickly to stop layoffs before they happen.
The White House said it plans to begin terminations immediately.
“All of my friends are resigned to the worst,” one National Institutes of Health staffer told Politico.
“F**k it,” one NIH staffer told the outlet. “I’m ready to retire if I can.”
Other staffers at the Environmental Protection Agency waited for news in the Washington headquarters’ basement because of an administration directive to conserve energy meant the building had minimal air conditioning in the city’s summer.
One EPA staffer said the employees were “waiting on pins and needles.”
The the American Federation of Government Employees led the lawsuit alongside cities and counties in California, Illinois, Maryland, Texas and Washington state. They promised to continue fighting but offered no details in their plans.
Justice Sonia Sotomayor suggested that employees might receive a different response if they provide specific examples of unlawful actions.
“The plans themselves are not before this Court, at this stage, and we thus have no occasion to consider whether they can and will be carried out consistent with the constraints of law,” Sotomayor wrote.
The court’s rulling was 8-1 and was unsigned. The ruling said broad challenges were likely to fail. That would upend previously conceived notions of protections for federal employees.
“You are giving a large number of potential federal officers a very clear statement that they might as well go elsewhere,” Paul Light, a former Senate Governmental Affairs Committee staffer and professor emeritus of public service at New York University, told Politico. “The more people who exit, the less ability that you have to respond to significant threats.”
James-Christian Blockwood, president of the National Academy of Public Administration, told Politico that the administration is pursuing worthy goals without prior planning.
“There is broad agreement that reform is needed, but indiscriminately dismissing and disparaging public servants will surely impact government’s ability to retain and recruit the best workforce,” he said.
The White House said the downsizing of the federal workforce is overdue.
“We see the ruling as the Supreme Court reaffirming that the president has complete authority to direct the executive branch, and with that, we will be reducing and simplifying the size of the federal government,” one senior administration official said on Wednesday.
