AFGE Lawsuits Against Trump: Schedule F, DOGE, and Mass Firings

AFGE’s lawsuits against the Trump administration now span more than a dozen active federal cases across at least seven district courts and multiple circuits, challenging executive orders that strip collective bargaining rights, mass firings of probationary workers, terminated union contracts at TSA and the VA, the disclosure of federal employee records to DOGE, a political loyalty question on job applications, and more. Results so far are mixed: some preliminary injunctions are holding, one major one was reversed by the Ninth Circuit, one case has been dismissed and is on appeal, and much of the litigation remains unresolved as of mid-2026.

The Collective Bargaining Executive Order

The centerpiece of the litigation is a challenge to Executive Order 14251, which President Trump signed on March 27, 2025. The order removed roughly 40 agencies and subdivisions from the Federal Service Labor-Management Relations Statute, stripping collective bargaining protections from an estimated 800,000 to 950,000 federal employees on the grounds that the affected agencies perform intelligence, counterintelligence, investigative, or national security work.¹

Once the order took effect, OPM directed agencies to terminate or modify existing collective bargaining agreements, withdraw from ongoing negotiations and arbitrations, reclaim office space used by unions, end taxpayer-funded union time, and stop collecting union dues through payroll.² A second order, EO 14343, expanded these exclusions further on August 28, 2025.³

AFGE, joined by five other unions, sued in the Northern District of California on April 3, 2025. The complaint in AFGE v. Trump (No. 3:25-cv-03070) alleged First Amendment retaliation against unions for suing and publicly criticizing the administration, viewpoint discrimination, statutory overreach, and Fifth Amendment due process and equal protection violations.⁴

Judge James Donato granted a preliminary injunction on June 24, 2025, blocking Section 2 of the order. He found the unions likely to succeed on retaliation, pointing to a White House “Fact Sheet” he characterized as expressing hostility toward federal unions and their protected activities.⁴

That injunction did not survive appeal. On February 26, 2026, a three-judge Ninth Circuit panel vacated it. Writing for the panel, Circuit Judge Daniel Bress held that even assuming the unions had shown a preliminary case of retaliation, the government demonstrated the president would have issued the order for national security reasons regardless of any retaliatory motive. The court said the order “discloses no retaliatory animus on its face” and found the unions relied too heavily on the fact sheet.⁵⁶

Judge John Owens, concurring, noted the ruling was based on a limited preliminary record and “may provide little guidance as to the appropriate disposition on the merits” once the record is more fully developed.⁵ AFGE said it was considering rehearing before the full Ninth Circuit while preparing to litigate the remaining claims on the merits in the district court, including a statutory-authority argument the appellate panel expressly declined to reach.⁷

A parallel challenge by the National Treasury Employees Union in the D.C. District Court followed a similar path: Judge Paul Friedman issued a preliminary injunction in April 2025, the D.C. Circuit stayed it in May 2025, and the case remains pending on the merits.⁸

The TSA Contract

Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem rescinded a 2024 collective bargaining agreement covering roughly 47,000 Transportation Security Officers on February 27, 2025. The seven-year agreement had provided just-cause protections for discipline, union representation in disciplinary interviews, and a grievance arbitration process.⁹

AFGE sued in the Western District of Washington. In AFGE v. Noem (No. 2:25-cv-00451), Judge Marsha Pechman granted a preliminary injunction on June 2, 2025, finding the termination likely arbitrary and capricious, and denied the government’s motion to dismiss in August 2025, rejecting the argument that the dispute belonged before the Federal Labor Relations Authority.⁹ When the government tried again to terminate the agreement in late 2025, Judge Jamal Whitehead enforced the existing injunction on January 15, 2026, keeping the 2024 contract in force.¹⁰

The VA Master Agreement

AFGE’s National VA Council sued the Department of Veterans Affairs on November 4, 2025, in the District of Rhode Island after the VA terminated a master collective bargaining agreement covering roughly 300,000 employees. The complaint noted that the VA had exempted seven smaller unions from the same mandate while targeting AFGE, which the union argued showed the action was politically motivated rather than driven by national security.¹¹

Judge Meliss Dubose granted a preliminary injunction on March 13, 2026, ordering the VA to reinstate the master agreement.¹⁰

Mass Firings of Probationary Employees

One of the earliest lawsuits, AFGE v. OPM (No. 3:25-cv-01780, N.D. Cal.), challenged OPM’s directive to terminate probationary employees en masse. In less than a month in early 2025, federal agencies fired 25,406 probationary workers across multiple departments.¹²

On September 12, 2025, Judge William Alsup partially granted summary judgment for AFGE, ruling that OPM “exceeded its own powers” and “directed agencies to fire under false pretense.” Agencies had used a template letter citing performance grounds, though supervisors had not written or approved those assessments; OPM, the judge found, decided who to fire and when.¹²¹³

Judge Alsup did not order reinstatement. He cited a July 2025 Supreme Court ruling giving the administration broad authority to shrink the federal workforce, and noted that many fired workers had already moved on. Instead he ordered agencies to update personnel records to make clear the employees were not fired for performance or misconduct, and to send corrective letters. The government has appealed, with briefing ongoing as of mid-2026.¹²

Shutdown-Era Reductions in Force

During a prolonged government shutdown, AFGE and AFSCME sued to stop the administration from using the funding lapse as cover for permanent layoffs. In AFGE v. OMB (No. 3:25-cv-08302, N.D. Cal.), the unions alleged violations of the Antideficiency Act and argued that OMB Director Russell Vought was directing agencies to disregard statutes Congress had passed to authorize their programs.¹⁴¹⁵

Judge Susan Illston issued a temporary restraining order on October 15, 2025, pausing layoffs and blocking additional notices at more than 30 agencies. After further injunctions and congressional action ending the shutdown, the Ninth Circuit dismissed the government’s appeal on January 2, 2026.¹⁰

Schedule F and the Civil Service

On January 29, 2025, AFGE and AFSCME filed one of the earliest lawsuits of the second Trump administration. It challenged an executive order signed on Inauguration Day that reinstated and expanded the “Schedule F” policy, renamed “Schedule Policy/Career,” which sought to reclassify career civil servants in policy-influencing positions so they could be fired at will. The unions argued the administration violated the APA by unilaterally rescinding a 2024 OPM regulation without notice-and-comment rulemaking.¹⁶¹⁷

The case evolved into the broader PEER v. Trump challenge (No. 8:25-cv-00260, D. Md.). On March 4, 2026, the plaintiffs filed a Second Amended Complaint expanding the case to include OPM’s final rule implementing the reclassification framework.¹⁰

DOGE Access to Federal Employee Records

The Electronic Frontier Foundation, representing AFGE and individual federal employees, sued OPM in the Southern District of New York over the disclosure of sensitive personal records to the U.S. DOGE Service, led by Elon Musk. The complaint alleged OPM violated the Privacy Act of 1974 by sharing data on millions of federal employees, retirees, and job applicants without authorization.¹⁸

Judge Denise Cote denied the government’s motion to dismiss in April 2025 and granted a preliminary injunction on June 9, 2025, ordering OPM to halt disclosures to DOGE and remove DOGE agents’ access to OPM databases. In April 2026, the court ordered the names of 16 DOGE agents unsealed. Cross-motions for summary judgment are now pending.¹⁸¹⁹

Voice of America and Kari Lake

In Widakuswara v. Lake, VOA journalists and a federal employee union challenged Kari Lake’s appointment as acting CEO of the U.S. Agency for Global Media and the layoffs she ordered. On March 7, 2026, Judge Royce Lamberth granted summary judgment for the plaintiffs, ruling Lake was ineligible to serve because she was not employed by USAGM when the previous CEO resigned and had not been Senate-confirmed for any other federal post. That violated both the Federal Vacancies Reform Act and the Appointments Clause. Under the FVRA, actions taken by someone not lawfully holding a vacant office “shall have no force or effect,” so the court voided Lake’s actions, including a reduction in force that had targeted hundreds of VOA employees. Because the RIF had been suspended during the litigation, those workers remained on the job.²⁰²¹

Lake said she intended to appeal. A separate case challenging the exclusion of USAGM employees from collective bargaining, AFSCME & AFGE v. Trump (No. 1:25-cv-03306, D.D.C.), has a preliminary injunction that remained in effect as of mid-2026.¹⁰

The “Fork in the Road” Resignation Offer

On January 28, 2025, OPM emailed nearly all federal employees offering “deferred resignation,” meaning continued pay through September 2025 in exchange for quitting by February 6. AFGE, AFSCME, and NAGE sued in Massachusetts in AFGE v. Ezell (No. 1:25-cv-10276), arguing the program was arbitrary, that OPM could not guarantee the promised payments without a congressional appropriation, and that the compressed timeline reflected a lack of reasoned decision-making.²²

A district judge initially suspended the deadline but later dissolved the temporary restraining order and denied injunctive relief for lack of standing. The case was dismissed with prejudice on September 24, 2025, with the court ruling the Civil Service Reform Act foreclosed APA review. AFGE filed its First Circuit brief in February 2026; the appeal remains pending.²³

Other Active Cases

Bureau of Prisons Contract

The Bureau of Prisons terminated its agreement with AFGE’s National Council of Prison Locals on September 25, 2025, citing EO 14251. That order exempts police officers, security guards, and firefighters, but carves out the Bureau of Prisons, leaving roughly 30,000 correctional workers without union protections. The union sued in Connecticut in NCPL/AFGE v. Federal Bureau of Prisons (No. 3:25-cv-01907), alleging the termination was arbitrary and retaliatory. On April 28, 2026, the court denied the government’s motion to dismiss and, after an April 30 hearing, ordered production of the administrative record and set a schedule for discovery and summary judgment briefing.²⁴

The Loyalty Question on Job Applications

In AFGE v. Kupor, filed November 6, 2025, in Massachusetts, AFGE and partner unions challenged a new federal job application question asking candidates to identify Trump executive orders or policy initiatives that are “personally significant” to them and explain how they would advance those initiatives. The unions allege First Amendment, Privacy Act, and APA violations, and say that although OPM called the question optional, many agencies’ online systems marked it as required. Judge George O’Toole had not yet ruled on the motion for a preliminary injunction as of late April 2026.²⁵²⁶

USAID Closure

AFGE challenged the absorption of USAID into the State Department. Judge Carl Nichols dismissed the case on July 25, 2025, for lack of jurisdiction. AFGE, the American Foreign Service Association, and Oxfam appealed to the D.C. Circuit (No. 25-5290). At oral argument on April 23, 2026, at least two D.C. Circuit judges expressed skepticism toward the lower court’s reasoning, with one panelist calling the standing ruling “unconventional.” No decision has been issued.²⁷²⁸

FLRA Rule on Union Elections

In April 2026, AFGE joined a coalition of eight unions filing suit in the District of Massachusetts (AFGE et al. v. FLRA, No. 1:26-cv-11747) over an interim rule from the Federal Labor Relations Authority. The rule, effective April 23, 2026, stripped career regional directors of longstanding authority over union representation matters, including elections, bargaining unit determinations, and certifications, and consolidated that power in the three-member FLRA board of political appointees. The unions argue the FLRA bypassed required notice-and-comment procedures, gave no meaningful justification for overturning four decades of practice, and will delay union elections. Chief Judge Denise Casper has the case.²⁹³⁰

Who AFGE Is

Founded in 1932, AFGE represents more than 820,000 federal and District of Columbia government workers, making it the largest federal employee union in the country. Members include nurses, correctional officers, doctors, TSA agents, law enforcement officers, and park rangers, with the largest concentrations at the Department of Veterans Affairs, the Social Security Administration, the Department of Defense, and the Department of Homeland Security. National President Everett Kelley was elected to his third term in August 2024.³¹ The scale of AFGE’s current legal campaign, spread across at least seven federal districts and multiple circuits, has no modern precedent for a federal employee union, and its outcomes will shape presidential authority over the civil service and the employment protections of hundreds of thousands of government workers.

1
Federal Register. Exclusions From Federal Labor-Management Relations Programs
2
OPM. Guidance on Executive Order Exclusions From Federal Labor-Management Programs
3
George Mason University School of Business. Further Exclusions From the Federal Labor-Management Relations Program
4
Civil Rights Litigation Clearinghouse. American Federation of Government Employees v. Trump
5
Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals. AFGE v. Trump, No. 25-4014
6
Federal News Network. Appeals Court Axes Injunction on Trump’s Collective Bargaining Rollback
7
AFGE. AFGE Responds to Ninth Circuit Ruling on Executive Order Targeting Federal Workers
8
Civil Rights Litigation Clearinghouse. National Treasury Employees Union v. Trump
9
Civil Rights Litigation Clearinghouse. AFGE v. Noem
10
AFGE. Summary of AFGE Lawsuits Against Trump
11
Government Executive. New Lawsuit Offers New Details on VA’s Anti-Union EO Implementation
12
Federal News Network. Court Finds OPM Unlawfully Directed Mass Firings, Tells Agencies to Update Personnel Files
13
Justia. AFGE v. OPM, No. C 25-01780 WHA
14
NPR. Government Shutdown Federal Employees Congress RIF
15
Government Executive. Unions Sue to Block Threatened Shutdown RIFs
16
Democracy Forward. AFGE v. Trump Complaint
17
AFGE. AFGE, AFSCME File Lawsuit Challenging Trump’s Schedule F Efforts to Politicize Civil Service
18
EFF. AFGE v. U.S. Office of Personnel Management
19
AFGE. Judge Orders OPM to Halt Sharing Americans’ Personal Data With DOGE
20
U.S. News & World Report. U.S. Judge Voids 2025 Actions Taken by Kari Lake as Voice of America CEO Including Job Cuts
21
Democracy Forward. Coalition Wins Major Victory as Judge Rules Kari Lake’s USAGM Appointment Illegal
22
Federal News Network. Union Lawsuit Seeks to Block Deferred Resignation Program
23
Civil Rights Litigation Clearinghouse. AFGE v. Ezell
24
Civil Rights Litigation Clearinghouse. NCPL/AFGE v. Federal Bureau of Prisons
25
Federal News Network. Federal Job Applicants Can’t Skip Loyalty Question That OPM Says Is Optional, Court Filings Claim
26
Democracy Forward. Challenging Unlawful Political Loyalty Test for Civil Service Jobs
27
Law360. Judges Call Ruling on USAID Shutdown Standing Unusual
28
CourtListener. AFGE v. Donald Trump, No. 25-5290
29
Government Executive. Labor Groups Sue to Block FLRA’s Political Seizure of Union Elections
30
AFGE. Federal Employee Unions File Lawsuit to Block Unlawful FLRA Rule
31
AFL-CIO. Get to Know the AFL-CIO’s Affiliates: AFGE