A federal judge in California has ordered six federal agencies to promptly reinstate thousands of probationary employees fired last month. U.S. District Judge William Alsup said on Thursday that these employees from the departments of Agriculture, Energy, Interior, Treasury, Defense, and Veterans Affairs should be given their positions back immediately, describing their terminations as “sham” proceedings that evaded legal requirements. The ruling directly affects those let go last month who had served less than one year in their positions—or less than two years for those categorized under “excepted service”—but exempts individuals considered “mission critical” at their respective agencies. These workers were informed of their dismissals through a performance-related email, according to the American Federation of Government Employees (AFGE), which filed the lawsuit on behalf of tens of thousands of affected staff. Although Judge Alsup limited his ruling to six agencies, he left open the possibility of broadening his order in the future to encompass more of the government. Judge Alsup said the administration labeled certain good employees as poor performers Alsup, who was nominated to the bench by former President Bill Clinton, declined to dispute the government’s general authority to lay off employees. Instead, he ruled that the process undertaken by the administration did not adhere to the law. During remarks delivered from the bench, Alsup singled out the administration for labeling certain employees as poor performers when official records showed that they had met or exceeded expectations. “It’s a sad day when the federal government would fire a good employee and say it’s based on performance when they know good and well that’s a lie,” he said. “That should not be done in our country. It was a sham to avoid statutory requirements.” Trump defends his decision to cut the Education Department workforce while in a meeting with the Prime Minister of Ireland on Wednesday. Source: Associated Press The mass firings drew on data from the Office of Personnel Management (OPM), which indicated that more than 200,000 federal employees, about 10 percent of the civilian workforce, had held their positions for one year or less at the time of the terminations. This figure can also encompass recently promoted workers, as promotion resets an employee’s probationary clock. AFGE and other challengers allege that rather than following established protocols such as thorough reviews or extended probationary periods, agencies executed an across-the-board termination directive. Justice Department attorneys contend that each agency’s leadership acted within its rights, saying the administration was authorized to remove employees for performance reasons. However, Alsup criticized the government’s behavior throughout the case. He said that he isn’t questioning the government’s authority. However, the firings must done via the proper legal process. White House spokeswoman Karoline Leavitt blasted the court’s decision, calling it “an absurd and unconstitutional order” and insisting that “a single judge is attempting to unconstitutionally seize the power of hiring and firing from the Executive Branch.” Leavitt added that “the President has the authority to exercise the power of the entire executive branch—singular district court judges cannot abuse the power of the entire judiciary to thwart the President’s agenda.” D.O.G.E’s aggressive staff reduction turned various agencies into legal battlegrounds This clash follows months of staff reduction measures led by the Trump administration, accompanied by cost-cutting plans championed by Elon Musk’s Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE). Analysts project that DOGE’s directives will either directly or indirectly eliminate around 500,000 federal positions in the coming years. In addition to dismissing probationary workers, the administration is offering a voluntary resignation program and has instructed agencies to craft “reduction in force” proposals, aiming to downsize departments even more. Supporters of these cuts argue that the federal government has grown too large and needs to be streamlined to manage tax dollars more responsibly. Critics assert that abrupt mass firings, coupled with the absence of orderly procedures, could cause chaos in departmental operations and violate workers’ rights. The cutbacks have also turned various agencies into battlegrounds, with legal disputes popping up across the country. One of the newest challenges came on Thursday from a coalition of 20 states, led by Democratic attorneys general, who have sued the administration over plans to slash the staff of the Education Department by nearly half. Attorneys general from Arizona, California, Colorado, New York, Wisconsin, and other states filed the lawsuit in Massachusetts, contending that the proposed downsizing is unconstitutional and would cripple key services for students nationwide. “Firing half of the Department of Education’s workforce will hurt students throughout New York and the nation, especially low-income students and those with disabilities who rely on federal funding,” said New York Attorney General Letitia James. “This outrageous effort to leave students behind and deprive them of a quality education is reckless and illegal.” Education Department spokeswoman Madi Biedermann countered that the Trump administration is acting according to the authority granted by voters. “President Trump was elected with a mandate from the American public to return education authority to the states,” she said. The workforce reduction plan, which includes around 1,950 staff reductions—1,315 of whom are federal workers—is, in the administration’s view, valid under the law and consistent with existing guidelines. Biedermann added that employees working on student-loan servicing, federal student aid, and discretionary grants remain on duty, and civil-rights investigations are continuing. The Education Department employs about 4,500 staff, making it the smallest cabinet-level agency. Nonetheless, the White House is expected to press forward with an executive order aimed at dismantling the department entirely. According to earlier reports by Cryptopolitan , Trump is urging Education Secretary Linda McMahon to coordinate the agency’s closure, despite the fact that no president can unilaterally eliminate a cabinet-level department that Congress has established. Congress must approve any measure to shut down the agency. Skeptics see this effort as part of a broader conservative agenda that has long questioned the federal government’s role in local education decisions. Under the Biden administration, conservatives criticized the Education Department for moves such as loan forgiveness programs and anti-discrimination measures for transgender students. Now, Trump appears eager to fulfill his campaign pledge of scrapping the department altogether. Polls indicate that most Americans oppose eliminating the Department of Education, citing concerns about weakening national education standards and sabotaging students who rely on federal programs. Critics warn that taking an ax to the Education workforce without proper planning could produce ripple effects in districts across the country, especially where local or state support systems are already overstretched. Cryptopolitan Academy: Coming Soon - A New Way to Earn Passive Income with DeFi in 2025. Learn More
