Latest news with #governmentoverhaul
New York Times
2 days ago
- Politics
- New York Times
Another Top Aide to Hegseth Leaves the Pentagon
A top adviser to Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth has left his position, the Pentagon announced late Saturday, becoming the latest in a string of senior officials to leave the department's top ranks. The official, Justin Fulcher, joined the Trump administration as part of the Department of Government Efficiency, Elon Musk's government overhaul initiative, and later became an adviser to Mr. Hegseth. In a statement, Mr. Fulcher said he had planned to work for the federal government for only six months. Earlier this month, The Washington Post detailed a confrontation between Mr. Fulcher and other DOGE staff members assigned to the Pentagon. But officials downplayed that incident as a cause, insisting Mr. Fulcher's exit was friendly. Sean Parnell, the chief Pentagon spokesman, said in a statement that 'the Department of Defense is grateful to Justin Fulcher for his work on behalf of President Trump and Secretary Hegseth.' Under Mr. Hegseth, the office of the secretary of defense, the core group of advisers who help manage the Pentagon's sprawling bureaucracy, has undergone an unusual amount of turnover. In April, Dan Caldwell and Darin Selnick, aides to Mr. Hegseth, were placed on leave from the Pentagon amid a leak investigation. Colin Carroll, the chief of staff to Deputy Defense Secretary Stephen A. Feinberg, was also removed from the Pentagon. After those actions, Joe Kasper, Mr. Hegseth's first chief of staff, was moved to a different position. John Ullyot, a veteran spokesman, also left his position at the Pentagon in April, citing disarray and a sense of incompetence. The purges among Mr. Hegseth's major aides fed a sense of chaos, with appointees accusing one another of disloyalty and tense shouting matches breaking out inside the building. Mr. Fulcher tried to distance his departure from any sense of disorganization or dysfunction inside Mr. Hegseth's office. 'Working alongside the dedicated men and women of the Department of Defense has been incredibly inspiring,' he said in his statement. 'Revitalizing the warrior ethos, rebuilding the military, and re-establishing deterrence are just some of the historic accomplishments I'm proud to have witnessed.'
The Guardian
09-07-2025
- Business
- The Guardian
US supreme court clears way for Trump officials to resume mass government firings
The US supreme court has cleared the way for Donald Trump's administration to resume plans for mass firings of federal workers that critics warn could threaten critical government services. Extending a winning streak for the US president, the justices on Tuesday lifted a lower court order that had frozen sweeping federal layoffs known as 'reductions in force' while litigation in the case proceeds. The decision could result in hundreds of thousands of job losses at the departments of agriculture, commerce, health and human services, state, treasury, veterans affairs and other agencies. Democrats condemned the ruling. Antjuan Seawright, a party strategist, said: 'I'm disappointed but I'm not shocked or surprised. This rightwing activist court has proven ruling after ruling, time after time, that they are going to sing the songs and dance to the tune of Trumpism. A lot of this is just implementation of what we saw previewed in Project 2025.' Project 2025, a plan drawn up by the conservative Heritage Foundation thinktank, set out a blueprint for downsizing government. Trump has claimed that voters gave him a mandate for the effort and he tapped billionaire ally Elon Musk to lead the charge through the 'department of government efficiency', or Doge, though Musk has since departed. In February, Trump announced 'a critical transformation of the federal bureaucracy' in an executive order directing agencies to prepare for a government overhaul aimed at significantly reducing the workforce and gutting offices. In its brief unsigned order on Tuesday, the supreme court said Trump's administration was 'likely to succeed on its argument that the executive order' and a memorandum implementing his order were lawful. The court said it was not assessing the legality of any specific plans for layoffs at federal agencies. Ketanji Brown Jackson, the liberal justice, was the sole member of the nine-person court to publicly dissent from the decision, which overturns San Francisco-based district Judge Susan Illston's 22 May ruling. Jackson wrote that Illston's 'temporary, practical, harm-reducing preservation of the status quo was no match for this court's demonstrated enthusiasm for greenlighting this president's legally dubious actions in an emergency posture'. She also described her colleagues as making the 'wrong decision at the wrong moment, especially given what little this Court knows about what is actually happening on the ground'. Illston had argued in her ruling that Trump had exceeded his authority in ordering the downsizing, siding with a group of unions, non-profits and local governments that challenged the administration. 'As history demonstrates, the president may broadly restructure federal agencies only when authorized by Congress,' she wrote. The judge blocked the agencies from carrying out mass layoffs and limited their ability to cut or overhaul federal programmes. Illston also ordered the reinstatement of workers who had lost their jobs, though she delayed implementing this portion of her ruling while the appeals process plays out. Illston's ruling was the broadest of its kind against the government overhaul pursued by Trump and Doge. Tens of thousands of federal workers have been fired, have left their jobs via deferred resignation programmes or have been placed on leave. The administration had previously challenged Illston's order at the San Francisco-based ninth US circuit court of appeals but lost in a 2-1 ruling on 30 May. That prompted the justice department to make an emergency request to the supreme court, contending that controlling the personnel of federal agencies 'lies at the heartland' of the president's executive branch authority. The plaintiffs had urged the supreme court to deny the justice department's request. Allowing the Trump administration to move forward with its 'breakneck reorganization', they wrote, would mean that 'programs, offices and functions across the federal government will be abolished, agencies will be radically downsized from what Congress authorized, critical government services will be lost and hundreds of thousands of federal employees will lose their jobs'. Sign up to This Week in Trumpland A deep dive into the policies, controversies and oddities surrounding the Trump administration after newsletter promotion The supreme court's rejection of that argument on Tuesday was welcomed by Trump allies. Pam Bondi, the attorney general, posted on the X social media platform: 'Today, the Supreme Court stopped lawless lower courts from restricting President Trump's authority over federal personnel – another Supreme Court victory thanks to @thejusticedept attorneys. Now, federal agencies can become more efficient than ever before. The state department wrote on X: 'Today's near unanimous decision from the Supreme Court further confirms that the law was on our side throughout this entire process. We will continue to move forward with our historic reorganization plan at the State Department, as announced earlier this year. This is yet another testament to President Trump's dedication to following through on an America First agenda.' In recent months the supreme court has sided with Trump in some major cases that were acted upon on an emergency basis since he returned to office in January. It cleared the way for Trump's administration to resume deporting migrants to countries other than their own without offering them a chance to show the harms they could face. In two cases, it let the administration end temporary legal status previously granted on humanitarian grounds to hundreds of thousands of migrants. It also allowed Trump to implement his ban on transgender people in the US military, blocked a judge's order for the administration to rehire thousands of fired employees and twice sided with Doge. In addition, the court curbed the power of federal judges to impose nationwide rulings impeding presidential policies. On Tuesday the Democracy Forward coalition condemned the supreme court for intervening in what it called Trump's unlawful reorganisation of the federal government. It said in a statement: 'Today's decision has dealt a serious blow to our democracy and puts services that the American people rely on in grave jeopardy. 'This decision does not change the simple and clear fact that reorganizing government functions and laying off federal workers en masse haphazardly without any congressional approval is not allowed by our Constitution.'
The Guardian
08-07-2025
- Business
- The Guardian
US supreme court clears way for Trump officials to resume mass government firings
The US supreme court has cleared the way for Donald Trump's administration to resume plans for mass firings of federal workers that critics warn could threaten critical government services. Extending a winning streak for the US president, the justices on Tuesday lifted a lower court order that had frozen sweeping federal layoffs known as 'reductions in force' while litigation in the case proceeds. The decision could result in hundreds of thousands of job losses at the departments of agriculture, commerce, health and human services, state, treasury, veterans affairs and other agencies. Democrats condemned the ruling. Antjuan Seawright, a party strategist, said: 'I'm disappointed but I'm not shocked or surprised. This rightwing activist court has proven ruling after ruling, time after time, that they are going to sing the songs and dance to the tune of Trumpism. A lot of this is just implementation of what we saw previewed in Project 2025.' Project 2025, a plan drawn up by the conservative Heritage Foundation thinktank, set out a blueprint for downsizing government. Trump has claimed that voters gave him a mandate for the effort and he tapped billionaire ally Elon Musk to lead the charge through the 'department of government efficiency', or Doge, though Musk has since departed. In February, Trump announced 'a critical transformation of the federal bureaucracy' in an executive order directing agencies to prepare for a government overhaul aimed at significantly reducing the workforce and gutting offices. In its brief unsigned order on Tuesday, the supreme court said Trump's administration was 'likely to succeed on its argument that the executive order' and a memorandum implementing his order were lawful. The court said it was not assessing the legality of any specific plans for layoffs at federal agencies. Liberal justice Ketanji Brown Jackson was the sole member of the nine-person court to publicly dissent from the decision, which overturns San Francisco-based district judge Susan Illston's 22 May ruling. Jackson wrote that Illston's 'temporary, practical, harm-reducing preservation of the status quo was no match for this court's demonstrated enthusiasm for greenlighting this president's legally dubious actions in an emergency posture'. She also described her colleagues as making the 'wrong decision at the wrong moment, especially given what little this Court knows about what is actually happening on the ground'. Illston had argued in her ruling that Trump had exceeded his authority in ordering the downsizing, siding with a group of unions, non-profits and local governments that challenged the administration. 'As history demonstrates, the president may broadly restructure federal agencies only when authorized by Congress,' she wrote. The judge blocked the agencies from carrying out mass layoffs and limited their ability to cut or overhaul federal programmes. Illston also ordered the reinstatement of workers who had lost their jobs, though she delayed implementing this portion of her ruling while the appeals process plays out. Illston's ruling was the broadest of its kind against the government overhaul pursued by Trump and Doge. Tens of thousands of federal workers have been fired, have left their jobs via deferred resignation programmes or have been placed on leave. The administration had previously challenged Illston's order at the San Francisco-based ninth US circuit court of appeals but lost in a 2-1 ruling on 30 May. That prompted the justice department to make an emergency request to the supreme court, contending that controlling the personnel of federal agencies 'lies at the heartland' of the president's executive branch authority. The plaintiffs had urged the supreme court to deny the justice department's request. Allowing the Trump administration to move forward with its 'breakneck reorganization', they wrote, would mean that 'programs, offices and functions across the federal government will be abolished, agencies will be radically downsized from what Congress authorized, critical government services will be lost and hundreds of thousands of federal employees will lose their jobs'. Sign up to This Week in Trumpland A deep dive into the policies, controversies and oddities surrounding the Trump administration after newsletter promotion The supreme court's rejection of that argument on Tuesday was welcomed by Trump allies. Pam Bondi, the attorney general, posted on the X social media platform: 'Today, the Supreme Court stopped lawless lower courts from restricting President Trump's authority over federal personnel – another Supreme Court victory thanks to @thejusticedept attorneys. Now, federal agencies can become more efficient than ever before. The state department wrote on X: 'Today's near unanimous decision from the Supreme Court further confirms that the law was on our side throughout this entire process. We will continue to move forward with our historic reorganization plan at the State Department, as announced earlier this year. This is yet another testament to President Trump's dedication to following through on an America First agenda.' In recent months the supreme court has sided with Trump in some major cases that were acted upon on an emergency basis since he returned to office in January. It cleared the way for Trump's administration to resume deporting migrants to countries other than their own without offering them a chance to show the harms they could face. In two cases, it let the administration end temporary legal status previously granted on humanitarian grounds to hundreds of thousands of migrants. It also allowed Trump to implement his ban on transgender people in the US military, blocked a judge's order for the administration to rehire thousands of fired employees and twice sided with Doge. In addition, the court curbed the power of federal judges to impose nationwide rulings impeding presidential policies. On Tuesday the Democracy Forward coalition condemned the supreme court for intervening in what it called Trump's unlawful reorganisation of the federal government. It said in a statement: 'Today's decision has dealt a serious blow to our democracy and puts services that the American people rely on in grave jeopardy. 'This decision does not change the simple and clear fact that reorganizing government functions and laying off federal workers en masse haphazardly without any congressional approval is not allowed by our Constitution.'
The Guardian
10-05-2025
- Business
- The Guardian
Judge orders White House to temporarily halt sweeping government layoffs
Donald Trump's administration must temporarily halt its sweeping government overhaul because Congress did not authorize it to carry out large-scale staffing cuts and the restructuring of agencies, a federal judge in California said on Friday. US district judge Susan Illston in San Francisco sided with a group of unions, non-profits and local governments in blocking large-scale mass layoffs known as 'reductions in force' for 14 days. 'As history demonstrates, the president may broadly restructure federal agencies only when authorized by Congress,' Illston said. The White House did not immediately respond to a request for comment. The ruling is the broadest of its kind against the government overhaul that has been led by Elon Musk, the world's richest person who is also the chief executive officer of electric vehicle maker Tesla. Dozens of lawsuits have challenged the work of the so-called 'department of government efficiency' (Doge) on various grounds including violating privacy laws and exceeding its authority, with mixed results. Trump directed government agencies in February to work with Doge to identify targets for mass layoffs as part of the administration's restructuring plans. The president urged agencies to eliminate duplicative roles, unnecessary management layers and non-critical jobs while automating routine tasks, closing regional field offices and reducing the use of outside contractors. 'The Trump administration's unlawful attempt to reorganize the federal government has thrown agencies into chaos, disrupting critical services provided across our nation,' said a statement from the coalition of plaintiffs. '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.' Illston scheduled a hearing for 22 May to consider a longer-lasting preliminary injunction. She said that the plaintiffs are likely to succeed on merits of some of their claims in their lawsuit, which was filed on 28 April and alleged Trump exceeded his authority. It also alleged the office of management and budget, Doge and the office of personnel management exceeded their authority and violated administrative law. Illston said plaintiffs are likely to suffer irreparable harm without the temporary restraining order, which she said preserves the status quo. Illston said the plaintiffs submitted more than 1,000 pages of evidence and 62 sworn declarations, and she highlighted some of the material. For example, she said the National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health and its Pittsburgh office, which researches health hazards facing mineworkers, had 221 of the department's 222 workers terminated, citing the union. She gave similar examples at local offices of the Farm Service Agency, the Social Security Administration and Head Start, which supports early learning. 'The court here is not considering the potential loss of income of one individual employee, but the widespread termination of salaries and benefits for individuals, families and communities,' Illston wrote in her ruling.
CBC
10-05-2025
- Business
- CBC
Trump's drastic cuts to federal agencies temporarily halted by U.S. judge
Social Sharing U.S. President Donald Trump's administration must temporarily halt its sweeping government overhaul because Congress did not authorize it to carry out large-scale staffing cuts and the restructuring of agencies, a federal judge has ruled. U.S. District Judge Susan Illston in San Francisco sided Friday with a group of unions, non-profits and local governments, and blocked large-scale mass layoffs known as "reductions in force" for 14 days. "As history demonstrates, the president may broadly restructure federal agencies only when authorized by Congress," said Illston. The White House did not immediately respond to a request for comment. The ruling is the broadest of its kind against the government overhaul that has been led by Elon Musk, the world's richest person who is also CEO of electric-vehicle maker Tesla. Dozens of lawsuits have challenged the work of the Department of Government Efficiency, or DOGE, on various grounds including violating privacy laws and exceeding its authority, with mixed results. Agencies thrown 'into chaos,' plaintiffs say Trump directed government agencies in February to work with DOGE to identify targets for mass layoffs as part of the administration's restructuring plans. Trump urged agencies to eliminate duplicative roles, unnecessary management layers and non-critical jobs, while automating routine tasks, closing regional field offices and reducing the use of outside contractors. "The Trump administration's unlawful attempt to reorganize the federal government has thrown agencies into chaos, disrupting critical services provided across our nation," said a statement from the coalition of plaintiffs. "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." WATCH | Musk orders federal workers to justify their jobs: Elon Musk orders U.S. federal workers to justify their jobs 3 months ago Duration 2:03 U.S. federal workers were ordered to justify their jobs this weekend by submitting five bullet points on their accomplishments from the past week or face termination. The initiative, spearheaded by Elon Musk and his Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE) team, has Republican backing, Democratic opposition and warnings of legal challenges ahead. Illston scheduled a hearing for May 22 to consider a longer-lasting preliminary injunction. She said the plaintiffs are likely to succeed on merits of some of their claims in their lawsuit, which was filed on April 28 and alleged Trump exceeded his authority. It also alleged the Office of Management and Budget, DOGE and Office of Personnel Management exceeded their authority and violated administrative law. Illston said plaintiffs are likely to suffer irreparable harm without the temporary restraining order, which she said preserves the status quo. Illston said the plaintiffs submitted more than 1,000 pages of evidence and 62 sworn declarations, and she highlighted some of the material. For example, she said the National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health and its Pittsburgh office, which researches health hazards facing mineworkers, had 221 of the department's 222 workers terminated, citing the union. She gave similar examples at local offices of Head Start, which supports early learning, the Farm Service Agency and the Social Security Administration. "The court here is not considering the potential loss of income of one individual employee, but the widespread termination of salaries and benefits for individuals, families, and communities," Illston wrote in her ruling.
