The Trump administration’s push to eliminate government waste, fraud, and inefficiency is once again facing resistance from the judiciary. This time, it’s U.S. District Judge William Alsup—an appointee of President Bill Clinton—who has intervened, ruling that memos from the Office of Personnel Management (OPM) directing agencies to fire probationary employees must be rescinded.
Judge Alsup’s decision, issued Thursday, stops short of blocking agencies from continuing terminations but orders OPM to notify federal agencies that it lacks the authority to mandate such firings. This ruling is a direct challenge to the administration’s efforts to streamline government agencies by removing underperforming employees before they become entrenched in the bureaucracy.
The case stems from a coalition of government employee unions that sued over OPM’s directive. The unions took issue with the administration’s push to remove probationary employees—those still within their first one to two years of employment. While these employees still have certain workplace protections, they are far easier to dismiss than permanent federal workers, who are shielded by an extensive web of labor laws and bureaucratic hurdles.
The administration’s reasoning was simple: If an employee isn’t performing well during their probationary period, why allow them to stay? OPM’s directive aimed to prevent unqualified or ineffective employees from becoming permanent fixtures in the federal workforce, a system that often makes firing permanent employees nearly impossible.
Yet, Judge Alsup—who did not rule on the merit of firing poor performers—argued that OPM overstepped its legal authority by issuing the directive. “The Office of Personnel Management does not have any authority whatsoever, under any statute in the history of the universe, to hire and fire employees within another agency,” Alsup stated.
But the question remains: Why would any judge see a problem with firing probationary employees who are not meeting performance standards?
This ruling is just the latest example of judicial interference in the administration’s efforts to overhaul government agencies. It follows another recent decision by U.S. District Judge Christopher Cooper, an Obama appointee, who ruled against government employee unions attempting to bring lawsuits over layoffs.
In that case, Cooper determined that federal law required unions to take their complaints to the Federal Labor Relations Authority (FLRA) rather than the courts—effectively shutting down their legal challenge.
These cases highlight an ongoing battle between reform-minded officials and a deeply entrenched federal bureaucracy resistant to change. The Trump administration has been clear in its objective: cut down on inefficiency, remove wasteful spending, and hold government employees accountable. But each attempt to do so is met with fierce legal resistance from unions, activist judges, and political operatives invested in maintaining the status quo.
