Latest news with #massfirings
The Guardian
09-07-2025
- Politics
- The Guardian
First Thing: Supreme court clears way for Trump to mass fire federal workers
Good morning. The US supreme court has cleared the way for the Trump administration to resume plans for mass firings of federal workers, which critics warn could threaten critical government services. Extending a winning streak for the US president, the justices yesterday 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. It overturned a 22 May ruling by the San Francisco-based district judge Susan Illston who argued that 'the president may broadly restructure federal agencies only when authorized by Congress'. What have the Democrats said? They condemned the ruling. Antjuan Seawright, a party strategist, said: '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.' Medical officials, humanitarian workers and doctors in Gaza say they have been overwhelmed by almost daily 'mass casualty incidents' as they struggle to deal with those wounded by Israeli fire on Palestinians seeking aid. Many of the casualties describe being shot as they try to reach distribution sites run by the Gaza Humanitarian Foundation (GHF), a secretive US- and Israel-backed organisation that began handing out food in late May. Others have been injured as huge crowds form around convoys sent into Gaza by the UN, many of which are stopped and looted. How many have been killed seeking food? The casualties totalled 640 killed and more than 4,500 injured between 27 May and 2 July, according to the health ministry in Gaza. What has Israel said? The Israeli military has repeatedly said it does not target civilians, takes all feasible precautions to avoid harm to non-combatants and abides by international law. Donald Trump has voiced his frustration with Vladimir Putin and promised to send 10 Patriot missiles to Ukraine, after announcing on Monday that US weapons deliveries would resume days after they were halted by the Pentagon, according to an official familiar with the matter. Speaking at a cabinet meeting yesterday, the US president said he was getting increasingly frustrated with the Russian leader. 'We get a lot of bullshit thrown at us by Putin, if you want to know the truth. He's very nice all the time, but it turns out to be meaningless,' he said. Asked if he wanted to see further sanctions against Russia, Trump replied: 'I'm looking at it.' On Monday he said he was 'disappointed' with Russia's president and would send 'more weapons' to Ukraine. How did Trump react to the weapons deliveries being halted? He was reportedly caught 'flat footed' by the Pentagon's abrupt move, according to an Associated Press report. A federal rule designed to make canceling subscriptions as easy as signing up for them has been struck down just days before it was scheduled to take effect. Ten people have been charged with attempted murder after allegedly ambushing US Immigration and Customs Enforcement (Ice) agents in Texas on 4 July. The largest US honeybee die-off on record has finally been given a cause: a bee virus spread by parasitic mites that appear to have developed resistance to the main chemicals used to control them. Saudi Arabia has carried out a 'horrifying' number of executions for drug crimes over the past decade, mostly foreign nationals, according to Amnesty International. Rescue crews continue to comb through parts of the Texas Hill Country devastated by catastrophic flash flooding. As of yesterday afternoon, the death toll across the six affected counties surpassed 100. Most of the deaths were in Kerr County, where officials said 87 bodies had been recovered, including 56 adults and 30 children. If Adam Dorr is correct, robots and artificial intelligence will dominate the global economy within a generation and put practically the entire human race out of a job within 20 years. The futurist has a stark vision of the scale, speed and unstoppability of a technological transformation. Societies urgently need to prepare, he says. 'While he has successfully defeated plagiarism claims regarding his songs, Ed Sheeran would have no defence from the Jackson Pollock estate,' writes Jonathan Jones. 'His art is, let's be polite, one big homage to the abstract expressionist painter. Abstract art like Sheeran's gives all abstract art a bad name because it's based on the dumb idea that doing your own is a breeze.' Planet-heating pollution tripled the death toll from the 'quietly devastating' heatwave that seared Europe at the end of June, early analysis covering a dozen cities has found, as experts warned of a worsening health crisis that is being overlooked. A small pet dog is being hailed as a 'four-legged hero' for helping to save his owner's life after he fell down an icy crevasse in the Swiss Alps. The Air Zermatt helicopter company credited the pint-sized pooch with drawing their attention to the location of the hiker. First Thing is delivered to thousands of inboxes every weekday. If you're not already signed up, subscribe now. If you have any questions or comments about any of our newsletters please email newsletters@
Malay Mail
09-07-2025
- Politics
- Malay Mail
US Supreme Court clears way for Trump to begin mass federal layoffs
WASHINGTON, July 9 — The US Supreme Court cleared the way yesterday for President Donald Trump to begin carrying out mass firings of federal workers. The court, in an unsigned order, lifted a block imposed by a lower court on Trump's plans to potentially lay off tens of thousands of government employees. US District Court Judge Susan Illston had paused the planned sweeping layoffs in May on the grounds that the moves required a green light from Congress. A coalition of labor unions, non-profit groups and others had sued the Trump administration arguing that it had exceeded its authority by ordering mass firings and agency reforms without congressional approval. After returning to the White House in January, Trump directed federal agencies to prepare sweeping workforce reduction plans as part of wider efforts by the then-Elon Musk-headed Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE) to downsize the government. In a February 11 executive order, the Republican president called for a 'critical transformation of the Federal bureaucracy' and directed agencies to cull workers not designated essential. The Supreme Court said 'the Government is likely to succeed on its argument that the Executive Order and Memorandum are lawful.' But the justices said they were not taking a position at this point on the legality of specific agency reorganization plans, which will continue to be the subject of legal battles. '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,' said Justice Sonia Sotomayor, one of three liberals on the top court. 'I join the Court's stay because it leaves the District Court free to consider those questions,' Sotomayor said. Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson, an appointee of former Democratic president Joe Biden, lodged the sole dissent among the nine justices on the court. 'For some reason, this Court sees fit to step in now and release the President's wrecking ball at the outset of this litigation,' Jackson said. 'Under our Constitution, Congress has the power to establish administrative agencies and detail their functions. 'Thus, over the past century, Presidents who have attempted to reorganize the Federal Government have first obtained authorization from Congress to do so. 'While Presidents possess some discretion to reduce federal employment, they may not fundamentally restructure the Federal Government all on their own.' Trump has moved to fire tens of thousands of government employees and slash programs—targeting diversity initiatives and eliminating the US humanitarian aid agency USAID and various other departments. — AFP
France 24
09-07-2025
- Business
- France 24
Supreme Court ruling opens door for Trump mass firings of government employees
The US Supreme Court cleared the way on Tuesday for President Donald Trump to begin carrying out mass firings of federal workers. The court, in an unsigned order, lifted a block imposed by a lower court on Trump's plans to potentially lay off tens of thousands of government employees. US District Court Judge Susan Illston had paused the planned sweeping layoffs in May on the grounds that the moves required a green light from Congress. A coalition of labor unions, non-profit groups and others had sued the Trump administration arguing that it had exceeded its authority by ordering mass firings and agency reforms without congressional approval. After returning to the White House in January, Trump directed federal agencies to prepare sweeping workforce reduction plans as part of wider efforts by the then- Elon Musk -headed Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE) to downsize the government. In a February 11 executive order, the Republican president called for a "critical transformation of the Federal bureaucracy" and directed agencies to cull workers not designated essential. The Supreme Court said "the Government is likely to succeed on its argument that the Executive Order and Memorandum are lawful." But the justices said they were not taking a position at this point on the legality of specific agency reorganization plans, which will continue to be the subject of legal battles. "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," said Justice Sonia Sotomayor, one of three liberals on the top court. "I join the Court's stay because it leaves the District Court free to consider those questions," Sotomayor said. Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson, an appointee of former Democratic president Joe Biden, lodged the sole dissent among the nine justices on the court. "For some reason, this Court sees fit to step in now and release the President's wrecking ball at the outset of this litigation," Jackson said. "Under our Constitution, Congress has the power to establish administrative agencies and detail their functions. "Thus, over the past century, Presidents who have attempted to reorganize the Federal Government have first obtained authorization from Congress to do so. "While Presidents possess some discretion to reduce federal employment, they may not fundamentally restructure the Federal Government all on their own." Trump has moved to fire tens of thousands of government employees and slash programs -- targeting diversity initiatives and eliminating the US humanitarian aid agency USAID and various other departments.
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.'
