Federal Workforce Hit: Administration Starts Layoffs During Shutdown

WASHINGTON — The Trump administration on Friday began carrying out long-threatened layoffs of federal employees, filing court papers and sending reduction-in-force notices to thousands of workers as the stalemated government shutdown entered its second week. The Office of Management and Budget told a federal court that roughly 4,200 positions across several Cabinet departments have been marked for elimination, a move that union lawyers and Democratic lawmakers say is unlawful and will shred public services at a fragile moment. Reuters+1

White House budget director Russell Vought confirmed the action in a public message and in filings that assert the administration has authority to proceed with RIFs during the funding lapse. The departments affected, according to the OMB court filing and agency notices, include Health and Human Services, Treasury, Education, Commerce and several others; Reuters and Axios reported that HHS and Treasury were among the hardest hit, with the court filing identifying roughly 1,100–1,200 HHS roles and about 1,446 Treasury positions slated for layoff. The administration has framed the cuts as a necessary enforcement of fiscal priorities while faulting Democrats for refusing a short-term funding measure.

The White House move immediately touched off legal challenges. Federal employee unions — led by the American Federation of Government Employees (AFGE) and the American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees (AFSCME) — filed lawsuits and emergency motions seeking temporary restraining orders to block the RIFs, arguing the administration’s direction violates civil-service rules and the legal safeguards that normally govern mass layoffs. Union filings and press statements contend agencies have no legal basis to carry out mass firings during a lapse in appropriations and said judges who have previously paused similar efforts will again be asked to intervene.

What the White House says — and the legal fight ahead

Administration lawyers contend that RIF notices are an administrable personnel tool that can be used even during a funding lapse, provided agencies follow statutory procedures such as advance notice periods. Officials argue the layoffs are limited and targeted and that prior personnel reforms and voluntary separation programs reduced the overall workforce earlier in the year. Still, the timing — with many workers already furloughed and without pay — has made the move politically combustible and legally contestable. A federal judge who previously blocked the administration’s mass-firing plan is scheduled to hear arguments next week in litigation that unions say could halt further RIFs while the court weighs their claims.

Legal experts say the cases turn on fine points of federal personnel law and the interplay between court injunctions and administrative authority. Unions argue that the Government Employee Fair Treatment Act of 2019 and longstanding practice create a reasonable expectation — if not a legal entitlement — of retroactive pay for furloughed staff once Congress appropriates funds, and that RIF actions taken during a shutdown are an unlawful end-run to permanently shrink the civil service. The administration counters that GEFTA did not itself appropriate funds and that agencies retain statutory personnel tools to manage workforces during funding gaps. The fast-moving litigation will test those interpretations in real time.

Operational and human impacts

The immediate human toll is stark. Workers who had already been placed on furlough are now confronting the prospect of losing jobs entirely, at a time when many are struggling financially because paychecks have been delayed. Local reports and human-resources notices described hastily delivered RIF emails late on Friday, leaving staff with questions about severance, health benefits and the timeline for appeals. At the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Reuters reported that dozens of employees — including senior scientists and disease investigators — were among those affected, a development that raised alarm among public-health experts who warn that cuts to technical staff could hamper disease surveillance and emergency response capacity.

Beyond the direct pain to employees, cascading operational risks are immediate and concrete. Layoffs in Treasury and IRS units risk slowing tax processing and financial oversight; reductions at HHS and agencies that inspect food and medical devices could interrupt regulatory work; and cuts in Commerce or energy offices could delay export licensing and grant administration. Agencies say they will prioritize "excepted" personnel whose roles are necessary to protect life and property, but management teams acknowledge that complex, technical programs rely on specialized staff whose sudden loss cannot be readily replaced. Municipalities, contractors and service providers that depend on federal spending and patronage are already reporting strain as employees curtail local spending.

Economists warn that the short-term macro impact could be non-trivial if layoffs and furloughs persist. Lost wages reduce consumer spending and hit local economies near federal hubs; greater uncertainty can push back private investment decisions; and mounting legal and administrative costs will add to fiscal turbulence. Some analysts also warned of reputational damage: prolonged personnel turmoil could impair recruiting into the civil service and erode institutional knowledge that takes years to rebuild.

What comes next — courts, Congress and continuity

Several immediate levers will determine how the story unfolds. Courts will move quickly: union lawyers have already asked for emergency relief, and judges who blocked earlier rounds of the administration’s workforce reductions are likely to consider whether to reinstate injunctions or to impose narrower remedies. Congressional action is still the clearest path to end the pain — a continuing resolution that funds agencies and explicitly appropriates back pay for furloughed employees would render the debate moot — but lawmakers remain deadlocked over spending levels and policy riders that the White House and House Republicans have insisted upon.

Policy choices in coming days could also include limited stopgap measures. Some Republican senators have publicly signalled discomfort with the idea of withholding back pay for rank-and-file workers, meaning pressure may build for a short-term funding deal that preserves retroactive pay. Meanwhile, administration officials may recalibrate the RIF roll-out if judges rule to restrict the moves or if political pressure from members of the president’s own party intensifies. For unions, the litigation route remains primary: emergency injunctions could pause layoffs and force the administration back to the bargaining table or to seek a political resolution.

The public relations stakes are also high. The spectacle of firing front-line public-health staff, tax processors and other civil servants during a funding lapse plays poorly across a broad swath of voters and could shape the politics of appropriations — lawmakers sensible to local job losses may push for quicker, cleaner stopgaps. For affected communities the calculus will be immediate: family budgets, local businesses and social services now confront heightened demand as furloughed or laid-off employees scale back spending and seek emergency relief.

For now, federal agencies are operating under triage: managers must decide which work is mission-critical, human-resources offices must process appeals and unemployment paperwork, and unions must marshal legal and grassroots pressure in parallel. The coming week — with court hearings and fresh political maneuvering — will likely decide whether the administration’s RIFs continue to expand or whether judicial or legislative remedies blunt the layoffs and restore payroll certainty for a workforce already stretched thin by months of uncertainty.

— Reporting by Nick Ravenshade. Original analysis by NENC Media Group. Sources: Reuters; Axios; The Washington Post; Government Executive; Federal News Network; Reuters reporting on CDC cuts; AFGE and AFSCME press releases and litigation filings.