A U.S. federal judge has temporarily halted the Trump administration’s plan to carry out mass layoffs of federal workers, ruling that the president likely overstepped his authority by attempting to restructure the federal workforce without Congressional approval.
On Friday, U.S. District Court Judge Susan Illston, based in California, issued a two-week temporary restraining order that pauses the implementation of large-scale layoffs across several federal agencies. The order comes in response to a lawsuit filed by a coalition of labor unions, advocacy organizations, and local governments, who argue that President Trump’s February executive order mandating workforce reductions violates constitutional checks and balances.
“The Court holds the President likely must request Congressional cooperation to order the changes he seeks, and thus issues a temporary restraining order to pause large-scale reductions in force in the meantime,” Judge Illston wrote in her ruling.
Judge Blocks Trump-Era Layoffs Amid Legal Challenge
The lawsuit, led by the American Federation of Government Employees (AFGE), claims that Trump’s executive action infringes on legislative authority by circumventing Congress to impose sweeping changes to the structure of the federal workforce. The plaintiffs include six city and county governments along with several nonprofit groups and unions that represent tens of thousands of public employees.
Their legal challenge follows a February 11 executive order signed by President Trump, which directed all federal agencies to eliminate positions deemed “non-essential.” The order is part of a broader push by the recently established Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE), led by billionaire entrepreneur Elon Musk, to downsize the federal government and streamline its operations.
Trump, who returned to the White House in January, has made federal workforce reduction a top priority of his second term. He argues that a leaner bureaucracy is necessary to reduce government spending, improve efficiency, and eliminate what he describes as political bias in federal agencies.
“Today’s federal government is bloated, inefficient, and overrun by individuals loyal to the bureaucratic status quo rather than the American people,” Trump said in February when unveiling the executive order. “We are undertaking a critical transformation of the federal bureaucracy.”
However, the judge’s ruling puts a temporary stop to the administration’s effort. The plaintiffs welcomed the decision, warning that the layoffs would cause widespread disruption to vital public services.
“The Trump administration’s unlawful attempt to reorganize the federal government has thrown agencies into chaos, disrupting critical services provided across our nation,” the AFGE and its coalition partners said in a joint statement. “Each of us represents communities deeply invested in the efficiency of the federal government — laying off federal employees and reorganizing government functions haphazardly does not achieve that.”
Among the programs reportedly targeted by the Trump administration’s cuts are the U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID), diversity and inclusion initiatives, and multiple regulatory offices across various departments. In addition to job losses, the changes would dramatically reshape the federal government’s mission and reach, according to critics.
While the administration maintains that it is acting within its executive authority, opponents argue that such significant changes to the structure and staffing of the federal government must be approved by Congress. The U.S. Constitution grants Congress the power to allocate funds and oversee federal employment, responsibilities that plaintiffs say have been undermined by the president’s unilateral action.
This is not the first time courts have stepped in to block key elements of Trump’s agenda. During both his first and second terms, federal judges have halted or delayed initiatives on issues such as immigration, government spending, and executive authority. The latest ruling continues that trend, highlighting the tension between the executive branch’s policy ambitions and the judiciary’s role in upholding constitutional limits.
Legal experts note that the temporary restraining order is just the beginning of what could be a lengthy legal battle. The court will likely hold additional hearings to determine whether the layoffs can proceed or if they must be permanently blocked. In the meantime, the administration has been ordered to suspend all layoff-related activity for at least two weeks.
The White House and the Department of Government Efficiency have not yet commented on the ruling.
As the case progresses, the outcome could have far-reaching implications for the balance of power between the executive and legislative branches, and for thousands of federal workers whose jobs remain uncertain.
