Can Federal Employees Challenge Politically-Motivated Hiring Rules?

Last updated 4 months ago. Our resources are updated regularly but please keep in mind that links, programs, policies, and contact information do change.

Trump’s White House has eliminated more than 300,000 federal positions in its first year through a combination of hiring freezes, mandatory return-to-office orders, and outright job cuts. The White House issued 225 executive orders—the most since FDR in 1933. Every Chief Diversity Officer position in the federal government has been eliminated. Federal employees are now fighting back in courtrooms across the country with a question: Can a president do this?

Unions, state attorneys general, and displaced workers are mounting legal challenges on multiple fronts. They argue Trump violated laws about hiring based on qualifications, skipped required steps, and went beyond what the Constitution allows a president to do. The White House claims broad authority as chief executive to reshape the federal workforce however it sees fit.

What emerges from these cases over the next year will likely define presidential power for a generation. The precedent set here will apply to every future president, regardless of party.

Congress vs. the President: Who Controls Federal Employment?

Congress controls the budget under the Constitution. When Congress appropriates money for federal positions, that allocation carries legal weight. The president runs the executive branch, but only within limits Congress sets.

When Congress funds 50,000 Social Security Administration employees and the president decides to leave 10,000 positions empty, who wins?

The Civil Service Reform Act of 1978 was designed to settle this. Congress created protections requiring hiring based on qualifications—skills and fitness for the job, not political loyalty. The Office of Personnel Management enforces these standards. The Merit Systems Protection Board hears appeals when employees believe they’ve been wronged.

These reforms replaced a patronage system where federal jobs went to political cronies regardless of competence. The goal was to build a professional civil service that could serve administrations of both parties with equal effectiveness.

Now courts must decide whether a president’s general authority trumps Congress’s specific statutory protections. The Supreme Court overturned a rule that courts used to automatically accept how agencies interpreted unclear laws in 2023. Courts now require Congress to clearly authorize major policy decisions. These changes might help federal employees by signaling a more skeptical view of expansive power claims, or they might not—the Court’s composition has changed, and predicting outcomes is increasingly difficult.

The “Merit Hiring Plan” That Requires Ideological Loyalty

In January 2025, the administration issued an executive order establishing a “Merit Hiring Plan.” The order requires that federal employees be “vetted for their commitment to implement the President’s ‘America First’ priorities with no questions asked.”

A merit hiring plan that explicitly requires ideological commitment to the president’s political agenda contradicts the definition of merit-based hiring. Hiring based on qualifications means selecting people based on their ability to do the job, not their willingness to pledge allegiance to a political platform. When you make ideological compatibility a criterion, you’ve replaced merit with loyalty testing.

Legal challenges to this order argue it violates the Civil Service Reform Act’s core prohibition on political hiring. Trump’s response is that the president’s constitutional authority as chief executive allows him to ensure federal employees will implement his policies.

But federal employees already have to implement presidential policies—that’s their job. What the law specifically protects them from is demonstrating political agreement with those policies as a condition of employment. A career civil servant at the EPA might personally oppose loosening environmental regulations but must implement them if that’s the policy. That’s professionalism. Requiring that same employee to affirmatively support loosening regulations as a condition of keeping their job is patronage.

Eliminating Diversity Programs and Potential Retaliation

Trump’s elimination of all Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion programs raises distinct legal questions. Every Chief Diversity Officer position was abolished government-wide. Training programs on implicit bias were eliminated. Recruitment initiatives for underrepresented groups were terminated.

The legal question isn’t whether DEI programs are required—they’re not. It’s whether eliminating them violates civil rights laws and whether targeting employees who worked in these roles constitutes retaliation.

Chief Diversity Officers were federal employees doing work their agencies assigned them. When the new White House eliminates those positions specifically because of the work they performed, that looks like retaliation for protected activity. Federal law prohibits retaliating against employees for engaging in protected activity or speaking on matters of public concern.

There’s also an argument that the policy harms certain groups more than others. If eliminating programs disproportionately harms employees of color or women—and Trump made no finding that these programs violated law or failed their objectives—that could constitute discrimination under federal civil rights law.

The Administrative Procedure Act: Procedural Requirements

The Administrative Procedure Act requires agencies to follow specific procedures when adopting rules with the force of law: announce the plan, let people weigh in, explain why you’re doing it anyway, then issue a final rule. It’s designed to ensure agency decisions are informed by relevant information and that agencies think through the consequences of their actions.

Did Trump follow these procedures when issuing the hiring freeze, the mandatory return-to-office order, and the DEI elimination orders? No.

Trump argues orders aren’t “rules” subject to the APA—they’re constitutional exercises of presidential authority. Advocates counter that when orders establish binding policies affecting hundreds of thousands of people, they function as rules and should require notice and comment.

This argument has particular force for government-wide policies like the hiring freeze. Unlike an order addressing a specific issue, these orders establish across-the-board restrictions affecting every federal agency and nearly every federal employee. That looks like legislative rulemaking, which triggers APA requirements.

The APA also requires that agency decisions be grounded in logical reasons and supported by adequate consideration of relevant factors. Courts can reject decisions that seem random or poorly thought-out. Trump claims the hiring freeze and workforce reductions will save money and improve efficiency, but federal employees point out Trump hasn’t conducted the detailed impact analysis that would normally precede such massive changes. No cost-benefit analysis. No assessment of which functions might be compromised. Orders were issued on day one.

The Mandatory Return-to-Office Order

Trump’s order requiring all federal employees to work in-person five days per week eliminated most telework and remote-work arrangements overnight. For employees who had relocated based on approved remote work agreements, or who had caregiving responsibilities that made telework necessary, the order was devastating.

The Telework Enhancement Act of 2010 authorized federal agencies to establish telework programs and granted employees the right to request telework arrangements except where the job requires being in the office. The law requires agencies to justify why telework isn’t feasible for particular positions—not to impose blanket bans.

Trump argues operational efficiency requires in-person work. Studies of telework effectiveness during and after the pandemic showed many federal functions could be performed remotely without loss of productivity. Some functions improved with telework arrangements.

Trump hasn’t explained why every single federal position requires in-person work five days per week. He hasn’t followed the statutory procedures for limiting telework. Unions argue this violates the Telework Enhancement Act and constitutes a significant change to how employees work that should have been negotiated under the law requiring the government to negotiate with employee unions. If they’re right, courts could order Trump to negotiate with unions before implementing the policy—or could invalidate the blanket ban entirely.

Many federal agencies reduced office space during the pandemic. The physical infrastructure doesn’t exist to accommodate everyone in-person simultaneously. Federal employees have suggested the return-to-office order was designed to encourage resignations rather than improve operations.

Congressional Appropriations and Presidential Spending Authority

When Congress appropriates money for specific positions and programs, can the president simply refuse to spend it?

The Supreme Court has long recognized that the power of the purse is one of Congress’s most important constitutional authorities. A law enacted after Nixon tried refusing to spend money Congress appropriated for programs he opposed makes it generally unlawful for presidents to decline spending appropriated funds—a practice called impoundment.

Trump isn’t claiming agencies lack appropriated funds for the eliminated positions. He’s choosing not to fill them as a matter of policy preference. That looks like impoundment.

Unions argue this violates both the 1974 law and the constitutional system that divides power between branches. If Trump believes the federal government should be smaller, the proper remedy is seeking reduced appropriations from Congress—not refusing on his own to fill jobs Congress paid for.

This argument has particular force because Congress is currently controlled by Republicans who support reducing government size. Yet even Republican members of Congress might object to a president simply ignoring appropriations that fund agencies and programs in their districts. The hiring freeze affects Social Security offices, VA hospitals, and military base operations across the country.

If the president can shrink the federal workforce regardless of congressional appropriations, Congress’s control over spending becomes meaningless.

Who Can Sue and How Long Will This Take?

Those challenging Trump’s policies must go through all the government appeal processes first. For most civil service disputes, that means starting with the Merit Systems Protection Board—filing an appeal within 30 days of an adverse action, going through a hearing before an administrative law judge, potentially appealing to the full MSPB, then to the Federal Circuit Court of Appeals. This process can take years.

For constitutional claims—like First Amendment challenges to ideological testing—employees may be able to file directly in federal court without going through all the government appeal processes first. The Office of Special Counsel can also investigate illegal employment actions and impose corrective actions.

Unions have the legal right to bring lawsuits on behalf of their members and to protect collective bargaining rights. AFGE and NTEU have been litigating against the hiring freeze, return-to-office order, and DEI eliminations.

State attorneys general have also gotten involved. Virginia’s attorney general joined at least 11 multistate lawsuits against Trump policies. Nevada’s attorney general has signed onto more than 40 lawsuits. States assert standing based on injuries to their own interests—particularly threats to federal funding for state programs if they don’t comply with federal policies.

Cases filed in early 2025 are now moving through discovery and motion practice. Requests to pause the policies while courts decide are being ruled on. Appeals to the Federal Circuit will likely come within a year or two. Select cases involving major constitutional questions might reach the Supreme Court by 2027 or 2028. In the meantime, the policies may continue in effect—or courts may issue preliminary injunctions blocking implementation.

Historical Precedent on Presidential Power

In a 1926 case, the Supreme Court said presidents can fire officials at will. But nine years later, another case limited that power for officials making independent decisions about policy. When Congress creates an office and specifies removal only “for cause,” those statutory restrictions bind even the president.

This principle has been applied to numerous independent agencies. The president can’t fire the Federal Reserve chair because he dislikes monetary policy. Congress determined that independence from presidential control was necessary for proper functioning, and the president must respect that judgment.

More recent cases have continued recognizing limits on presidential personnel authority. The current Supreme Court is different from the Court that decided those cases, and recent developments cut both ways. The end of the rule that courts used to automatically accept how agencies interpreted unclear laws and the rise of requiring clear congressional authorization for major decisions might help federal employees by requiring clear congressional authorization for claims of vast power. Or these same doctrines might be used to strike down statutory protections as giving agencies power Congress shouldn’t have given them.

If Federal Employees Win

If courts rule broadly in favor of federal employees, Trump would be required to follow statutory procedures before implementing workforce changes. That might mean announcing plans, letting people comment, then finalizing them before imposing government-wide restrictions. Conducting impact analyses showing that workforce reductions won’t compromise agency functions. Negotiating with unions before making changes to working conditions. Demonstrating logical reasons for the decisions rather than implementing them by fiat.

Trump could still reduce the federal workforce—but he would have to do so through proper legal channels and with congressional involvement. Proper procedures create opportunities for input, require justification, and impose accountability.

Courts could also order reinstatement of eliminated positions and restoration of eliminated programs. Workers who lost their jobs could be entitled to back pay and restoration of benefits. Chief Diversity Officers could be reinstated to their positions.

A ruling in favor of federal employees would reaffirm that statutory protections mean something—that Congress’s civil service reforms aren’t suggestions the president can ignore when politically convenient.

If Trump Wins

If courts rule broadly in favor of Trump, presidential power to reshape the federal workforce would expand dramatically. Future presidents of both parties could impose hiring freezes without congressional involvement, eliminate positions Congress has funded, require ideological loyalty as a condition of federal employment, and abolish programs and offices through order without following administrative procedures.

This would affect everyone who relies on federal services. Social Security processing times, VA hospital staffing, National park operations, food safety inspections—all depend on adequate federal staffing and could be compromised if presidents can eliminate positions.

It would fundamentally alter the constitutional system that divides power between branches. If the president can effectively override congressional appropriations by declining to fill funded positions, Congress’s power of the purse becomes largely symbolic.

Federal employment would return to something closer to the patronage system that existed before civil service reform. If federal jobs depend on political loyalty rather than merit, competence becomes secondary to ideology. The professional civil service that has served administrations of both parties for more than a century would be replaced by a system where each new president installs political loyalists throughout the bureaucracy.

The Most Likely Outcome: Patchwork of Partial Victories

Courts rarely rule as broadly as either side hopes. The most likely outcome is a patchwork of partial victories and defeats.

Courts might find that some restrictions are permissible if properly implemented with rational justification. But blanket freezes implemented by fiat without following statutory procedures could be struck down.

The mandatory return-to-office order might be found to violate the Telework Enhancement Act’s procedural requirements. But a more narrowly tailored policy allowing agencies to require in-person work where operationally necessary might survive.

Eliminating some DEI programs might be upheld as within presidential discretion. But targeting Chief Diversity Officers for elimination based on their previous work assignments could constitute unlawful retaliation.

The ideological loyalty requirement in the “Merit Hiring Plan” seems particularly vulnerable to legal challenge. It’s difficult to square explicit political testing with statutory requirements based on qualifications. Courts might strike down that provision while allowing other aspects of the order to proceed.

The overall effect would be to constrain Trump’s most ambitious workforce restructuring plans while permitting some downsizing and policy shifts. Trump would be required to follow proper legal procedures—which is exactly what the Administrative Procedure Act and Civil Service Reform Act were designed to ensure.

Why This Matters Beyond Federal Employment

The federal government touches nearly every aspect of American life. Social Security benefits, Medicare and Medicaid, veterans’ healthcare, food safety inspection, air traffic control, national parks, border security, tax collection—all require adequate staffing by competent professionals.

When positions are eliminated for political reasons rather than operational necessity, services suffer. Social Security offices already face massive backlogs. VA hospitals struggle with staffing shortages. IRS customer service wait times stretch for hours. Reducing federal employment without regard to impact on services makes these problems worse.

The system based on qualifications was created because patronage systems produced incompetent government. When federal jobs go to political loyalists rather than qualified professionals, government effectiveness declines. That affects everyone who relies on government services.

If presidents can reshape the executive branch without congressional involvement, the system that protects against tyranny is weakened. The legal battles over federal workforce restrictions aren’t about protecting jobs. They’re about whether statutory protections mean anything, whether presidents must follow the law, and whether the professional civil service that has served this country for more than a century will continue to exist.

The answers courts provide over the next year will shape American government for decades to come.

Our articles make government information more accessible. Please consult a qualified professional for financial, legal, or health advice specific to your circumstances.