Latest news with #USDOGEService
Boston Globe
09-07-2025
- Business
- Boston Globe
Federal workers fear Trump will fire them after court ruling: ‘We are toast'
The ruling may also usher in a new phase of more professionalized layoffs, as opposed to the rapid, error-filled slashing undertaken in the early months of the Trump administration by often very young members of the US DOGE Service, a cost-cutting team set up by billionaire Elon Musk. Get Starting Point A guide through the most important stories of the morning, delivered Monday through Friday. Enter Email Sign Up Tuesday's Supreme Court ruling, though, paves the way for agencies themselves to carry out Trump's executive order requiring the government to plan and execute mass dismissals and restructurings. A key force behind that order was Russell Vought, the White House budget director and an architect of the Project 2025 conservative policy blueprint. Vought's power has grown as Musk's dimmed; Vought told Congress last month that he intends for DOGE in its post-Musk phase to become 'far more institutionalized' within the government, helping carry out his and the Trump administration's vision of reduced staff and spending. Advertisement It is unclear exactly how many federal employees Trump officials are hoping to expel. The court's decision unfreezes at least 40 dismissal actions underway at 17 agencies, according to a May court filing from the administration. Officials have reversed course on some of those planned firings since then, though, most recently dropping a proposal to cut 15 percent of Veterans Affairs staff. Advertisement And the ruling does not answer the underlying question of whether the mass firings are legal, which a lower court will still need to address. So while the dismissals can go forward, the lawsuit will, too. Its plaintiffs — a mix of labor unions, 11 nonprofit organizations, and six local governments in California, Texas, and Illinois, among other places — are vowing to continue the court battle. Nearly all of the agencies affected either didn't respond or declined to respond to questions. The court's decision will imperil federal services nationwide, said Everett Kelley, president of the American Federation of Government Employees, the nation's largest federal union, which helped bring the suit. 'This isn't just some Washington, D.C., legal tussle — it's a life-altering decision for tens of thousands of American families,' Kelley said. Government employees across the nation and the globe went to bed Tuesday and woke Wednesday with one dominant thought: Will I be fired today? Tomorrow? This week? 'There's a sense of, 'It's finally coming,'' said a staffer at the Interior Department who, like more than two dozen other federal workers interviewed for this report, spoke on the condition of anonymity for fear of reprisal. In an odd way, the employee added, it was almost a relief: 'We don't want to play the waiting game, the limbo, anymore.'' Advertisement Many employees have been waiting to learn their fates since February, when Trump first ordered the firings in what he called a needed measure to eliminate 'waste, bloat, and insularity.' Mass dismissals soon began across government, but they were quickly paused by a flurry of lawsuits and court orders. Some workers who had been laid off were invited back to the office, while others were placed on paid leave, with an unclear end date. Late Tuesday, some learned they were still to be spared, for now, after the New York attorney general's office said the court's ruling would not affect a preliminary injunction in a separate lawsuit that halted mass terminations at some subagencies within the Department of Health and Human Services, including the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, a center within the Food and Drug Administration, and Head Start. But elsewhere, uncertainty and fear ruled. One employee at the Department of Housing and Urban Development arrived at the office Wednesday to find colleagues walking around with their heads down, speaking in hushed voices — looking and acting like someone had died, the employee said. All expect to lose their jobs at any moment, the employee added. A researcher at the US Geological Survey spent most of the hours following the court's decision wondering how workers would be laid off at his agency: By seniority? By region or research center? By focus? Maybe 'all the ecological and climate scientists get canned,' the researcher said, adding that the near-unanimous nature of the Supreme Court's ruling surprised him. 'So many of us think this is going to allow the administration to just lay off swaths of highly capable scientists.' Advertisement Anxiety was especially acute at the State Department, where employees traded dismal messages in group chats expressing worry for their families and the security of the nation. Many predicted that America's foreign policy objectives will crumble, according to chat records obtained by The Post. A State official told The Post that she was informed that conference rooms are booked for Friday with the expectation that the rooms will be used for RIF announcements. At the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, the target of especially sharp cuts, many workers began posting on LinkedIn seeking new employment almost immediately Tuesday night. One staffer there said she feels grateful that she may be in a slightly better position than some colleagues: She started applying for other jobs months ago, and a few options are about to materialize, she thinks, although every role would represent a pay cut. Still, she is mourning for her federal job, for her co-workers, for her agency. 'We are toast,' she said.
West Australian
28-06-2025
- Politics
- West Australian
THE WASHINGTON POST: Trump vows swift action to overturn nationwide court injunctions blocking his policies
An emboldened Trump Administration plans to aggressively challenge blocks on the US President's top priorities, a White House official said, following a major Supreme Court ruling that limits the power of federal judges to issue nationwide injunctions. Government attorneys will press judges to pare back the dozens of sweeping rulings thwarting the president's agenda 'as soon as possible,' said the official, who spoke on the condition of anonymity to describe internal deliberations. Priorities for the administration include injunctions related to the Education Department and the US DOGE Service, as well as an order halting the dismantling of the US Agency for International Development (USAID), the official said. 'Thanks to this decision, we can now promptly file to proceed with numerous policies that have been wrongly enjoined on a nationwide basis,' President Donald Trump said Friday at a news conference in which he thanked by name members of the conservative high court majority he helped build. Mr Trump on Friday cast the narrowing of judicial power as a consequential, needed correction in his battle with a court system that has restrained his authority. Scholars and plaintiffs in the lawsuits over Mr Trump's orders agreed that the high court ruling could profoundly reshape legal battles over executive power that have defined Mr Trump's second term - even as other legal experts said the effects would be more muted. Some predicted it would embolden Mr Trump to push his expansive view of presidential power. 'The Supreme Court has fundamentally reset the relationship between the federal courts and the executive branch,' Notre Dame Law School professor Samuel Bray, who has studied nationwide injunctions, said in a statement. 'Since the Obama administration, almost every major presidential initiative has been frozen by federal district courts issuing 'universal injunctions.'' Nationwide injunctions put a freeze on an action until a court can make a decision on its legality. They have became a go-to tool for critics of presidential actions in recent times, sometimes delaying for years the implementation of an executive order the court ultimately approves. Experts said the Supreme Court's ruling could make it more difficult and cumbersome to challenge executive actions. It could result in courts issuing a patchwork of rulings on presidential orders in different parts of the country. In the short term, the ruling is a setback for liberals who have gone to court to thwart Mr Trump. But the decision could also ultimately constrain conservatives seeking broad rulings to rein in a future Democratic president. Mr Trump undertook a flurry of executive actions in the opening month of his term that ranged from dismantling government agencies to seeking the end of birthright citizenship. There have been more than 300 lawsuits seeking to block his executive actions. Federal district judges have issued roughly 50 rulings to date, temporarily holding up the administration's moves to cut foreign aid, conduct mass layoffs and fire probationary employees, terminate legal representation for young migrants, ban birthright citizenship, and more nationwide. Some of those rulings have been stayed by higher courts. The Supreme Court found Friday that federal district courts must limit their injunctions to the parties bringing the case, which could be individuals, organisations or states. They had previously been able to issue injunctions that applied to people not directly involved in cases. The ruling came as part of a case challenging Mr Trump's ban on birthright citizenship. The court did not rule on the constitutionality of that executive order. The justices left it to lower courts to determine whether a nationwide injunction might be a proper form of relief for states in some cases, like the ban on birthright citizenship, where the harm could be widespread. The court also did not forestall plaintiffs from seeking nationwide relief through class-action lawsuits. Smita Ghosh, a senior appellate counsel with the Constitutional Accountability Center, a progressive public interest law firm, said the ruling could be a blow to plaintiffs seeking to stymie Mr Trump's executive orders. The CAC has filed a friend-of-the-court brief on behalf of plaintiffs challenging the birthright citizenship ban. 'This approach will make it more difficult and more time-consuming to challenge unconstitutional executive practices, limiting courts' abilities to constrain unlawful presidential action at a time when many believe that they need it most,' Ghosh said. Many groups will pivot to filing class-action lawsuits to sidestep the ruling, she predicted, as some plaintiffs in the birthright citizenship lawsuit sought to do Friday. Such lawsuits allow individuals or groups to sue on behalf of a larger class of individuals who have suffered a similar harm from a government policy. It's likely courts will see more and more class- or mass-action lawsuits from cities, counties and states that realise they can no longer rely on litigation brought by others to advocate for their interests, said Jonathan Miller, chief program officer for the Public Rights Project, which is challenging several Trump policies. 'I think this decision will be perceived by this administration as a green light to more aggressively pursue its agenda, be bolder when it comes to compliance with injunction and its willingness to test the limits of the judiciary,' Mr Miller said. Not everyone expected the ruling to have broad impacts. Skye Perryman, president and CEO of Democracy Forward, which has filed numerous challenges against Trump's agenda, called it a 'limited ruling' and said the court left open a number of routes for challenges against executive actions that could result in broad blocks on Trump's policies. Ed Whelan, a conservative attorney, was likewise sceptical. He wrote in a newsletter that 'the ruling is probably going to accomplish much less than many people celebrating it realise,' in part because plaintiffs would instead pursue more class-action lawsuits that would ultimately produce similar results as nationwide injunctions. The administration on Friday trumpeted the decision at the White House as a victory in its broader fight against the judiciary. Officials frequently deride judges who rule against the administration as activists and obstructionists. Dozens of judges appointed by presidents of both parties have temporarily paused many of Mr Trump's efforts, and data shows threats against the judiciary have risen since he took office. 'Americans are getting what they voted for, no longer will we have rogue judges striking down President Trump's policies across the entire nation,' Attorney General Pam Bondi said, standing beside Trump at the news conference. She added, 'These lawless injunctions … turned district courts into the imperial judiciary.' Both Democratic and Republican presidents have complained about the blocks, said Jesse Panuccio, a partner at the Boies Schiller Flexner law firm and a Justice Department official in the first Trump administration. 'I think the ruling is seismic for how the federal district courts have been doing business in the last 20 years or so because the universal injunction has become a fairly standard and - in my view - unlawful remedy in cases,' Panuccio said. © 2025 , The Washington Post
Perth Now
28-06-2025
- Politics
- Perth Now
Trump hails Supreme Court ruling as go-ahead for his agenda
An emboldened Trump Administration plans to aggressively challenge blocks on the US President's top priorities, a White House official said, following a major Supreme Court ruling that limits the power of federal judges to issue nationwide injunctions. Government attorneys will press judges to pare back the dozens of sweeping rulings thwarting the president's agenda 'as soon as possible,' said the official, who spoke on the condition of anonymity to describe internal deliberations. Priorities for the administration include injunctions related to the Education Department and the US DOGE Service, as well as an order halting the dismantling of the US Agency for International Development (USAID), the official said. 'Thanks to this decision, we can now promptly file to proceed with numerous policies that have been wrongly enjoined on a nationwide basis,' President Donald Trump said Friday at a news conference in which he thanked by name members of the conservative high court majority he helped build. Mr Trump on Friday cast the narrowing of judicial power as a consequential, needed correction in his battle with a court system that has restrained his authority. Scholars and plaintiffs in the lawsuits over Mr Trump's orders agreed that the high court ruling could profoundly reshape legal battles over executive power that have defined Mr Trump's second term - even as other legal experts said the effects would be more muted. Some predicted it would embolden Mr Trump to push his expansive view of presidential power. 'The Supreme Court has fundamentally reset the relationship between the federal courts and the executive branch,' Notre Dame Law School professor Samuel Bray, who has studied nationwide injunctions, said in a statement. 'Since the Obama administration, almost every major presidential initiative has been frozen by federal district courts issuing 'universal injunctions.'' Nationwide injunctions put a freeze on an action until a court can make a decision on its legality. They have became a go-to tool for critics of presidential actions in recent times, sometimes delaying for years the implementation of an executive order the court ultimately approves. Experts said the Supreme Court's ruling could make it more difficult and cumbersome to challenge executive actions. It could result in courts issuing a patchwork of rulings on presidential orders in different parts of the country. In the short term, the ruling is a setback for liberals who have gone to court to thwart Mr Trump. But the decision could also ultimately constrain conservatives seeking broad rulings to rein in a future Democratic president. Mr Trump undertook a flurry of executive actions in the opening month of his term that ranged from dismantling government agencies to seeking the end of birthright citizenship. There have been more than 300 lawsuits seeking to block his executive actions. Federal district judges have issued roughly 50 rulings to date, temporarily holding up the administration's moves to cut foreign aid, conduct mass layoffs and fire probationary employees, terminate legal representation for young migrants, ban birthright citizenship, and more nationwide. Some of those rulings have been stayed by higher courts. The Supreme Court found Friday that federal district courts must limit their injunctions to the parties bringing the case, which could be individuals, organisations or states. They had previously been able to issue injunctions that applied to people not directly involved in cases. The ruling came as part of a case challenging Mr Trump's ban on birthright citizenship. The court did not rule on the constitutionality of that executive order. The justices left it to lower courts to determine whether a nationwide injunction might be a proper form of relief for states in some cases, like the ban on birthright citizenship, where the harm could be widespread. The court also did not forestall plaintiffs from seeking nationwide relief through class-action lawsuits. Smita Ghosh, a senior appellate counsel with the Constitutional Accountability Center, a progressive public interest law firm, said the ruling could be a blow to plaintiffs seeking to stymie Mr Trump's executive orders. The CAC has filed a friend-of-the-court brief on behalf of plaintiffs challenging the birthright citizenship ban. 'This approach will make it more difficult and more time-consuming to challenge unconstitutional executive practices, limiting courts' abilities to constrain unlawful presidential action at a time when many believe that they need it most,' Ghosh said. Many groups will pivot to filing class-action lawsuits to sidestep the ruling, she predicted, as some plaintiffs in the birthright citizenship lawsuit sought to do Friday. Such lawsuits allow individuals or groups to sue on behalf of a larger class of individuals who have suffered a similar harm from a government policy. It's likely courts will see more and more class- or mass-action lawsuits from cities, counties and states that realise they can no longer rely on litigation brought by others to advocate for their interests, said Jonathan Miller, chief program officer for the Public Rights Project, which is challenging several Trump policies. 'I think this decision will be perceived by this administration as a green light to more aggressively pursue its agenda, be bolder when it comes to compliance with injunction and its willingness to test the limits of the judiciary,' Mr Miller said. Not everyone expected the ruling to have broad impacts. Skye Perryman, president and CEO of Democracy Forward, which has filed numerous challenges against Trump's agenda, called it a 'limited ruling' and said the court left open a number of routes for challenges against executive actions that could result in broad blocks on Trump's policies. Ed Whelan, a conservative attorney, was likewise sceptical. He wrote in a newsletter that 'the ruling is probably going to accomplish much less than many people celebrating it realise,' in part because plaintiffs would instead pursue more class-action lawsuits that would ultimately produce similar results as nationwide injunctions. The administration on Friday trumpeted the decision at the White House as a victory in its broader fight against the judiciary. Officials frequently deride judges who rule against the administration as activists and obstructionists. Dozens of judges appointed by presidents of both parties have temporarily paused many of Mr Trump's efforts, and data shows threats against the judiciary have risen since he took office. 'Americans are getting what they voted for, no longer will we have rogue judges striking down President Trump's policies across the entire nation,' Attorney General Pam Bondi said, standing beside Trump at the news conference. She added, 'These lawless injunctions … turned district courts into the imperial judiciary.' Both Democratic and Republican presidents have complained about the blocks, said Jesse Panuccio, a partner at the Boies Schiller Flexner law firm and a Justice Department official in the first Trump administration. 'I think the ruling is seismic for how the federal district courts have been doing business in the last 20 years or so because the universal injunction has become a fairly standard and - in my view - unlawful remedy in cases,' Panuccio said. © 2025 , The Washington Post
India Today
30-05-2025
- Business
- India Today
This is not end of DOGE, will continue to be friend and advisor to Trump: Musk
US President Donald Trump on Friday hosted a joint press conference in the Oval Office with Elon Musk, marking the tech billionaire's departure as a special government employee overseeing the Department of Government Musk as his 'first buddy,' Trump held a grand farewell as the world's richest man stepped down from his turbulent reign as the government's DOGE chief and stepping down from his official role overseeing the US DOGE Service, Musk made it clear his relationship with Trump is far from over. "This is not the end of DOGE; I will continue to be a friend and advisor to President Trump," Musk said during the event. He also confirmed that much of his cost-cutting team will remain in place, and expressed confidence that the department will eventually achieve the USD 1 trillion in savings he once promised. Tune InMust Watch
Washington Post
29-05-2025
- Business
- Washington Post
The chainsaw, the salute and other moments from Musk's time in government
Billionaire Elon Musk is formally leaving the Trump administration, after months overseeing contentious federal spending and staffing cuts through his brainchild, the U.S. DOGE Service. Musk and DOGE arrived in D.C. with a bang, vowing to eradicate what they called waste, fraud and abuse from the government — and acting with Silicon Valley-style speed to infiltrate and take control of department after department.
