Unions Fight Back: Trump’s Order to Gut Worker Rights Hits Legal Roadblock

A federal judge in Washington, D.C., has expressed deep scepticism over President Donald Trump’s executive order aimed at stripping collective bargaining rights from a significant portion of the federal workforce. During a recent hearing, U.S. District Judge Paul Friedman questioned the administration’s justification for the order, which cites national security concerns as the basis for its sweeping changes.​

The executive order, signed in March, seeks to exempt agencies with national security missions from federal collective bargaining requirements, effectively removing union rights for employees in departments such as Agriculture, Treasury, Veterans Affairs, and Health and Human Services—agencies not traditionally associated with national defence.

Judge Friedman highlighted concerns that the order might be retaliatory, particularly targeting unions like the National Treasury Employees Union (NTEU), which has previously challenged the Trump administration’s policies. He noted that the administration’s language suggests a willingness to engage only with compliant unions, raising questions about the order’s intent. ​

The Justice Department defended the executive order, arguing that it is beyond court review and does not cause immediate harm to unions. However, unions contend that the order will lead to significant financial losses and hinder their ability to represent workers effectively. ​

The NTEU has filed a lawsuit seeking to block the order, with Judge Friedman indicating he may soon issue a preliminary injunction. A related case is also being heard by Judge Danny Reeves in Kentucky, which could impact the outcome of the NTEU’s lawsuit. ​

This legal challenge is part of a broader pushback against the Trump administration’s efforts to curtail union rights within the federal workforce. Labour unions argue that such actions undermine worker protections and are politically motivated.

As the court deliberates on the legality of the executive order, the outcome could have far-reaching implications for federal labour relations and the balance of power between the executive branch and public sector unions.