Federal judge blocks latest layoff effort

When Donald Trump took office, he promised to shrink the government, and he tried to do that by cutting thousands of federal employees from the payroll.

Now, however, yet another judge has blocked Trump from being able to lay off the workers, at least for the time being.

Layoffs announced

Trump had no sooner taken office when the ax hit the federal payroll, with Trump announcing that all probationary workers would be laid off.

I was quite open that I did not agree with that order, as I thought Trump should have let his secretaries and directors evaluate staffers and positions, then make the cuts.

The other aspect of that order that I did not like is that most people don’t realize that a probationary worker could be someone who just changed positions, including getting a promotion or moving over to a new department as a reward for good work. They could be rock star employees, but now they risk losing their jobs simply because of that designation.

Health Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. empathized with the cuts, but he stated, "Our hearts go out to those who have lost their jobs. But the reality is clear: what we've been doing isn't working.”

Pushback on the layoffs

It did not take long for Dems and organizations to challenge Trump on the layoffs, but it was for a different reason than I had suggested.

For example, the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities put out a piece outlining the legality of the layoffs.

In part, the organization wrote, “The Administration’s RIFs to date have been characterized by chaos[9] and miscommunication, and concerns have been raised as to whether they follow the legally required process.[10] But the risks they present to core government services and functions raise additional legal concerns.

“Under the Constitution, Congress determines how much money will be spent and on what activities. The Constitution further directs that the President ‘shall take care that the laws be faithfully executed.’ While the President has some discretion in how funding is used in implementing congressional directives, the massive RIFs the Administration is seeking to carry out would so degrade agency capacities that they would effectively end congressionally mandated activities and violate statutory requirements.”

Blocked

On Friday, a federal judge agreed, citing that while Trump can downsize agencies and conduct large-scale layoffs, but there are procedures in place that Trump did not follow.

U.S. District Judge Susan Illston paused the layoffs for two weeks, stating, “The President has the authority to seek changes to executive branch agencies, but he must do so in lawful ways and, in the case of large-scale reorganizations, with the cooperation of the legislative branch. Many presidents have sought this cooperation before; many iterations of Congress have provided it.

“Nothing prevents the President from requesting this cooperation, as he did in his prior term of office. Indeed, the Court holds the President likely must request Congressional cooperation to order the changes he seeks, and thus issues a temporary restraining order to pause large-scale reductions in force in the meantime.”

I have beat Trump’s orders into a pulp, stating that while I like his ideas, most of them are illegal because they either ignore current laws or circumvent the Constitution. And while people are upset with judges over these injunctions, they should really be upset with Trump for writing sloppy orders and Congress for not legislating this, which it should have been doing all along. Trump has the right idea, but he is going about it the wrong way. When you legislate by executive order, you are merely putting a band-aid on a gaping wound that will never hold.