Government Employees Fight Trump’s Reforms From Within the Executive Branch

Who ultimately decides how the executive branch works? Is it the president, elected by the American people, or career federal employees and the unions that represent them?

The American Federation of Government Employees, the largest union representing federal employees, sued the White House’s Office of Personnel Management last month, aiming to block new rules governing how federal employees are evaluated, disciplined, and removed.

The lawsuit represents only the latest in a long series of legal challenges the union has brought against President Donald Trump’s administration since January 2025. According to a July roundup AFGE posted on its website, the union had filed 18 lawsuits against the administration before the latest case.

These lawsuits have targeted a wide range of administration initiatives, including government-wide reorganizations, workforce reductions, collective bargaining restrictions, employee classification reforms, and changes to federal personnel rules.

AFGE has been far from alone in these cases. Democracy Forward, a left-leaning legal advocacy organization that has represented plaintiffs in numerous lawsuits challenging Trump policies, has represented AFGE or other plaintiffs in these cases. Such challenges have involved broad coalitions, including advocacy groups and local governments, alongside labor unions.

Critics argue that these cases amount to more than traditional labor litigation, representing a form of institutional resistance from federal employees and their allies against an elected administration’s effort to reshape the executive branch.

AFGE rejects that characterization. A union spokesman told The Daily Signal that issues involving “politicization of government, corruption, and the refusal to recognize legally valid union contracts” are inseparable from “the everyday experience of federal workers.” The spokesman also accused the administration of engaging in “illegal and retaliatory union-busting” and broader efforts to “rig the system.”

Unions such as AFGE have every right to represent the interests of their members, but these cases concern questions extending beyond wages, benefits, or traditional workplace conditions. They challenge the administration’s attempts to reorganize agencies, alter personnel systems, and change how the bureaucracy operates.

Michael Watson, research director for the Capital Research Center, told the Daily Signal that “it should not be surprising that the professional Left and the AFGE are working hand-in-glove,” given the ideological bent of the labor movement.

He said AFGE’s moves amount to “the representative organ of the federal civil service attempting to enact its own policy preferences through litigation.” He also noted, however, that the Trump administration “is attempting to weaken the power of unions like AFGE to carry out their own policy preferences against the policies laid out by the people’s elected representatives and the executive officers who have been chosen to carry out the laws made by Congress.”

Four cases illustrate the nature of this litigation.

1. The DOGE Lawsuit

In April 2025, AFGE led a large coalition in suing to block Trump’s Executive Order 14210, which established the Department of Government Efficiency and aimed to reduce the federal workforce to increase efficiency in the executive branch. AFGE and its fellow plaintiffs state that the president does not possess the authority to reorganize, downsize, or transform federal agencies, because they are “creatures of statute,” created by Congress. A federal judge rejected the administration’s motion to dismiss the case, which remains ongoing.

A large coalition of labor unions—including the American Federation of State, County, and Municipal Employees and the Service Employees Industrial Union—joined AFGE in the suit. Plaintiffs also included the environmental group Natural Resources Defense Council, the Democrat-endorsing advocacy group Vote Vets, and the left-leaning small-business advocacy group Main Street Alliance. Democracy Forward and the law firm Altshuler Berzon represented AFGE.

While the DOGE effort has ramifications for federal employees, this case represents unions and non-union allies seeking to invalidate a massive policy decision.

2. A National Security Decision

In April 2025, AFGE sued to block Trump’s Executive Order 14251, which exempted certain agencies from collective bargaining rules due to their “primary function” of “intelligence, countertintelligence, investigative, or national security work.” The AFSCME and SEIU, along with other unions, joined the lawsuit.

Altshuler Berzon represents AFGE in the case, and Democracy Forward represents parties who signed amicus briefs supporting AFGE.

While collective bargaining rights directly involve union activity, this case represents federal employee unions challenging a president’s national security decision. AFGE says the case involves bargaining rights for more than 950,000 employees—a sizable policy impact.

3. Schedule Policy/Career

In January 2025, AFGE, AFSCME, AFL-CIO, and other unions led by Public Employees for Environmental Responsibility, sued to block Trump’s Executive Order 14171, which created a new category for federal workers called “Schedule Policy/Career.”

The order created a new classification for career civil servants in policy-making or policy-advocating positions and made it easier to remove employees who fail to carry out administration priorities. Trump said the reform was necessary because only 41% of civil service supervisors were confident they could fire insubordinate employees.

AFGE and other unions, represented by Democracy Forward, the left-leaning public interest group Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington, and others, sued to block this order.

Unlike a pay dispute, this order goes to the heart of who controls the administrative state.

4. Performance Standards

This summer, the Office of Personnel Management finalized two rules regarding how federal employees are evaluated and can be removed.

Last month, AFGE and other unions, including AFSCME, sued to block the rules, represented by Altshuler Berzon and Democracy Forward.

The unions claim the rules expand OPM’s authority over employee suitability determinations and performance ratings, making it easier to discipline or remove workers.

OPM Director Scott Kupor said they aim to fix a problem where “the federal government has had stronger tools to prevent someone with serious misconduct from entering public service than to address the same misconduct once that individual is already employed.”

While the rules will affect federal workers, this lawsuit arguably represents a larger policy dispute rather than traditional union representation.

OPM declined to comment on pending litigation. The Daily Signal also reached out to Altshuler Berzon, Democracy Forward, and the AFSCME for comment, but they did not respond by publication time.