Latest news with #AmericanFederationofGovernmentEmployees
Fox News
18-07-2025
- Politics
- Fox News
USDA fires foreign workers from adversarial countries, including China, in national security protection move
The U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) said Friday it had fired dozens of foreign contract workers from China, Russia, North Korea and Iran. The cuts of about 70 workers followed a national security review for U.S. food safety. A USDA spokesperson said the contract workers came from "countries of concern" and will "no longer be able to work on USDA projects." The workers had been with the Agricultural Research Service (ARS), the research arm of the USDA, Thomas Henderson, who represents the union for some of the research workers, told Reuters. ARS does research on areas of importance to American farmers, such as pests, food safety and climate change. Most of the contract workers were vetted Chinese post-doctoral researchers, with some even arriving to work this week to find out their badges no longer worked. Earlier this month, USDA Secretary Brooke Rollins announced in a new plan to keep U.S. farmland safe that contracts with any workers from China, North Korea, Iran and Russia should be canceled, and nationals from those countries wouldn't be allowed to buy farmland in the U.S. All ARS project publications are also expected to be reanalyzed and those co-authored with researchers from the four countries will be denied, Ethan Roberts, an ARS employee who is also the president of the American Federation of Government Employees Local 3247 union, told Reuters. The workers won't be able to be replaced until the Oct. 15 federal hiring freeze is lifted. That will force some research projects to be halted, Henderson said, citing a project to develop a vaccine for a deadly toxin that occurs in undercooked beef. "We don't have the talent now to progress on these research projects. It's setting us back by years, if not decades," he told Reuters. The agency is down about 1,200 workers through downsizing efforts this year. Fox News Digital has reached out to the USDA for comment.
South China Morning Post
18-07-2025
- Business
- South China Morning Post
US farm agency fires 70 foreign researchers after national security review
The US Department of Agriculture said it has fired 70 foreign contract researchers after a national security review intended to secure the US food supply from adversaries including China, Russia, North Korea and Iran. Advertisement 'USDA has completed a thorough review of individuals authorised to work on contracts with the department and identified around 70 individuals from countries of concern,' a spokesperson said. 'The individuals working on these contracts from countries of concern will no longer be able to work on USDA projects.' US Agriculture Secretary Brooke Rollins on July 8 had announced a farm security plan that included efforts to bar purchases of US farmland by nationals of the four countries, and to terminate any existing research agreements with them. Rollins said the moves were necessary to secure the US food supply. Agriculture Secretary Brooke Rollins on July 8 announced a farm security plan that included efforts to bar purchases of US farmland by nationals of China, Russia, North Korea and Iran. Photo: Reuters The contractors had worked at the Agricultural Research Service, the in-house research arm of the USDA, said Thomas Henderson, president of the American Federation of Government Employees Local 1657, which represents ARS workers in Albany, California. Advertisement Most of those dismissed were Chinese postdoctoral researchers on two-year contracts with the agency, and who were already subject to vetting before being hired, Henderson said.
The Herald Scotland
11-07-2025
- Business
- The Herald Scotland
Trump wins broad authority to lay off federal workers without Congress
Labor unions say the cuts fly in the face of established law and decades of tradition, but a senior White House official told USA the layoffs are legal, and the administration intends toimmediately reduce the size of government. While the court did not rule on the underlying question of Trump's ability to enact widespread job cuts, the justices said they were likely to affirm that power. A final decision in favor of the president will continue a trend in which the executive branch increases its power in relation to Congress and the courts - making Trump and future presidents more powerful than they've been in generations. The American Federation of Government Employees, a labor union that partnered with outside groups and local governments to sue the Trump administration, said the high court "has dealt a serious blow to our democracy and puts services that the American people rely on in grave jeopardy." Trump, Musk and a California judge Trump began the mass layoffs, called a reduction in force, when he signed an executive order Feb. 11 flanked by then-aide Elon Musk. The order called on agencies to begin a monthslong process to reduce the ranks of government "to the extent applicable by law." AFGE, the largest federal labor union, joined with other unions, nonprofit organizations and local governments on April 28 to sue the Trump administration, saying that it needed Congress' approval for mass layoffs. A federal judge in California sided with the union in May and blocked the layoff plan at more than two dozen federal agencies while the pollicy was being challenged. The Trump administration told the Supreme Court this was an overreach, and the high court agreed in a July 8 decision. This gave a greenlight to layoffs until the high court decides to take up the underlying case. While the justices didn't issue a decision on the underlying case, they said the Trump administration was "likely to succeed," in arguing the executive order was "lawful." The senior White House official said agencies are now awaiting guidance on the next step in the layoff process, but the administration will be acting immediately. The official said some agencies had layoff plans before U.S. District Judge Susan Illston, in San Francisco, took action, and now those plans are unpaused. The agencies that are now free from Judge Illston's block include Agriculture, Commerce, Energy, Health and Human Services, Justice, Labor, Treasury, State, Veterans Affairs, the Environmental Protection Agency, and the Social Security Administration. (Some agencies may still be blocked from layoffs due to other cases.) The senior White House official said they expect to be sued over individual agency layoff plans, which the Supreme Court decision did not address, but the administration expects to win those lawsuits. If agencies proceed with previously announced layoff plans, thousands of federal workers across the country could soon lose their jobs. For example, the Department of Health and Human Services announced April 1 it would begin the process of laying off 10,000 employees. As part of the process, agencies offered employees buyouts and early retirement incentives. The Department of Veterans Affairs, the largest civilian agency in the federal government, saw 17,000 employees resign since January and expects another 12,000 to leave by the end of September, according to Secretary Doug Collins. As a result, Collins said the agency would not need to conduct widespread layoffs. A previously leaked memo said Veterans Affairs would lay off 76,000 people. Who has the power to fire? Peter Shane, an adjunct professor at New York University School of Law, told USA TODAY that over the years Congress has given the president authority to move parts of agencies around, but retained veto authority over the changes following the 1930s New Deal. The Supreme Court ruled that veto authority unconstitutional in the 1980s. In response, Congress took back its reorganization authority. Shane called Trump's February executive order a "workaround." "By forcing draconian cuts on agencies, you can accomplish exactly what your organizational plans were intended to accomplish, but without giving Congress any say," Shane said. "And that's why what the court is doing, or failing to do, has such dramatic implications for the balance of power." Hans von Spakovsky, a senior legal fellow for the conservative Heritage Foundation, said the union's case was "astonishing" because presidential administrations have long implemented reductions in force, including when he worked for the government decades ago. "It's not as if this is something new or unprecedented - and the idea that this is going to cause some kind of huge problem with the federal government being able to carry out its duties is also frankly ridiculous," von Spakovsky said.
The Independent
10-07-2025
- Politics
- The Independent
Federal employees ‘waiting on pins and needles' for the ax to fall after Supreme Court allowed Trump's job cuts
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.
03-07-2025
- Politics
Supreme Court could release more on high-profile cases from its 'cleanup conference'
There is the potential for more news out of the U.S. Supreme Court on Thursday when the justices release a list of orders and dispositions from the "cleanup conference," the last in-person gathering before summer recess. The timing of the release is somewhat unusual -- the conference was held last week, and typically the results of that session are released the day after the final opinion comes down, which would have been Monday. Veteran court watchers suspect that there could be a lot of writing from the justices, such as dissents or concurrences, on matters that they will address without oral argument. There are five outstanding emergency petitions involving President Donald Trump. Mass federal layoffs: Trump v. American Federation of Government Employees. Whether the Court should stay a nationwide injunction barring the executive branch from developing plans to initiate large-scale reductions of the federal workforce Dismantling the Department of Education: McMahon v. NY. Whether the court should stay a district court order requiring the government to reinstate Department of Education employees fired as part of a reduction in force. Florida immigration law: Uthmeier v Florida Immigrant Coalition. Whether the court should stay a preliminary injunction preventing Florida from enforcing SB4c, a law that criminalizes entry into and presence within Florida of those who have illegally entered the U.S. Jan. 6 police officers: Doe v Seattle Police Department. Whether to stay Washington state court mandates requiring four anonymous former and current Seattle police officers who attended the Jan. 6, 2021, rally at the Capitol to refile their lawsuit regarding public record requests under their true names. Deportation: Gomez v U.S. Whether the court should stay a lower court mandate certifying petitioner's extradition to Ecuador to stand trial for a charge of sexual abuse. The court also address other cases implicated by the ruling in the birthright citizenship case, the transgender health care case and others.
