More than 4,000 federal workers hit with shutdown-related layoffs, so far
Published in Political News
WASHINGTON — The Trump administration plans to lay off more than 4,100 federal workers from seven departments in response to the partial government shutdown, according to a court filing submitted Friday.
The administration filing, on behalf of the Office of Management and Budget, came in response to a court order stemming from a lawsuit filed Sept. 30 by the American Federation of Government Employees and other unions challenging the administration’s authority to conduct mass firings during a shutdown.
The document also made clear that additional layoffs, known as reductions-in-force or RIFs, are possible because some agencies have yet to decide whether to conduct layoffs or have made preliminary decisions that are not yet finalized.
“These RIF numbers from the court filing are just a snapshot in time and numbers when the document was filed with the court. More RIFs are coming,” a senior administration official said.
But the administration provided the U.S. District Court of Northern California with a list showing the number of firings announced Friday. The approximate number of layoffs for those affected departments are as follows:
—Commerce Department: 315 employees
—Education Department: 466 employees
—Energy Department: 187 employees
—Department of Health and Human Services: between 1,100 and 1,200 employees
—Department of Housing and Urban Development: 442 employees
—Department of Homeland Security: 176 employees
—Treasury Department: 1,446 employees
The EPA also issued a “general ‘intent to RIF’ notice” to about 20 to 30 employees, warning them of potential layoffs in the future, the filing said. But no final decision has been made for those workers, it said.
The decision to move ahead with layoffs marked an escalation in a White House pressure campaign against Senate Democrats, who have refused to back a House-passed continuing resolution to reopen the government. Democrats say they are determined to extend expiring health insurance subsidies that would force a doubling of insurance premiums next year if they lapse.
“It is disgraceful that the Trump administration has used the government shutdown as an excuse to illegally fire thousands of workers who provide critical services to communities across the country,” said Everett Kelley, president of the American Federation of Government Employees, which is seeking a temporary restraining order to block the layoffs. “Federal workers are tired of being used as pawns for the political and personal gains of the elected and unelected leaders.”
But the administration, in its filing, said it had legal authority to conduct mass firings for a variety of reasons, including “when the release is required because of lack of work; shortage of funds; insufficient personnel ceiling; reorganization; the exercise of reemployment rights or restoration rights; or reclassification of an employee’s position due to erosion of duties.”
The administration also argued the unions in the case have no legal standing to sue because they would suffer no “irreparable harm” from the layoffs. And it said the district court lacked jurisdiction for settling the labor disputes.
Democrats on the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee called on the Government Accountability Office to investigate whether the mass firings violate the Antideficiency Act, which prevents federal agencies from spending money not appropriated by Congress.
Democrats, led by ranking member Robert Garcia, D-Calif, wrote in a letter to Comptroller General Gene Dodaro that the White House “laughably attempts to claim, with no legal basis, that a lapse in appropriation somehow voids all previous law, creating a sort of holiday during which the president is able to play temporary monarch.”
House Budget Committee Democrats, meanwhile, said Friday that agencies would need to send 60-day notices to those workers facing layoffs.
©2025 CQ-Roll Call, Inc., All Rights Reserved. Visit cqrollcall.com. Distributed by Tribune Content Agency, LLC.
Comments