What the Trump Order Said About Federal Unions and National Security
The labor relations exclusions in the Executive Order signed by President Trump on March 27, 2025, modified Executive Order 12171 of November 19, 1979 signed by President Jimmy Carter. The Carter Executive Order was entitled Exclusions from the Federal Labor-Management Relations Program. The new Order from President Trump significantly expanded the labor relations exclusions of the Carter Order.
Predictably, federal employee unions quickly filed lawsuits to challenge the Order.
The Executive Order cited restrictions in these agencies for exclusion from coverage by the federal labor relations statute because they “are hereby determined to have as a primary function intelligence, counterintelligence, investigative, or national security work. It is also hereby determined that Chapter 71 of title 5, United States Code, cannot be applied to these agencies and agency subdivisions in a manner consistent with national security requirements and considerations.” This is not the full list but it does cover the majority of the new exclusions.
- Department of State
- Department of Defense, except for any subdivisions excluded pursuant to section 4 of the Executive Order of March 27, 2025, entitled ‘Exclusions from Federal Labor-Management Relations Programs’
- Department of the Treasury, except the Bureau of Engraving and Printing
- Department of Veterans Affairs
- Department of Justice
- International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce
- Environmental Protection Agency
- United States Agency for International Development
- Nuclear Regulatory Commission
- National Science Foundation
- United States International Trade Commission
- Federal Communications Commission
- General Services Administration
One of the unions that challenged the Order was the American Foreign Service Association (AFSA). This union challenged Section three of the Order 14251, signed by the President on March 27, 2025. This section excluded subdivisions of the Department of State and the Agency for International Development (USAID) from the protections of the Foreign Service Labor-Management Relations Statute (FSLMRS).
AFSA argued the Order was an overreach of presidential authority, lacked a valid national security justification, and was retaliatory because the union opposed administration policies.
On May 14, 2025, the court granted AFSA’s motion for a preliminary injunction. The administration appealed and requested a stay of the injunction pending appeal.
Legal Standards for Stay Pending Appeal
The court considered four factors in its decision on the motion to stay the injunction:
- Likelihood of success on the merits.
- Irreparable injury to the applicant absent a stay.
- Substantial injury to other parties if a stay is issued.
- Public interest
The first two factors were the most critical in decision.
Court’s Analysis
Likelihood of Success on the Merits
The court found the administration largely repeated arguments already rejected in the preliminary injunction decision, such as claims regarding jurisdiction, the presumption of regularity, and the scope of “national security” used in the statute. The court saw little likelihood that the appeals court would disagree with its prior reasoning and concluded that the administration failed to show a likelihood of success on the merits.
Irreparable Harm
While the defendants cited a related D.C. Circuit order (in National Treasury Employees Union v. Trump) that stayed a similar injunction, the court found that the government’s claim of irreparable harm was not very strong in this case. The injunction only maintained the status quo by preserving collective bargaining rights as established by Congress. The court acknowledged some risk of irreparable harm to the government but found it insufficient to justify a stay.
Substantial Injury to Other Parties
The court determined granting a stay would cause immense and irreparable injury to AFSA. The loss of bargaining power, severe economic harm (including a loss of about 86% of operating revenue), and obstacles to AFSA’s core mission were already materializing due to the government’s actions. The court noted that these harms were not speculative and were exacerbated by ongoing reorganization and reductions-in-force at the State Department and USAID.
Public Interest
Both the preservation of presidential autonomy in national security matters and the protection of collective bargaining rights are public interests. The court found the government’s claim that a stay was necessary to preserve presidential autonomy unpersuasive, as the government had not shown a likelihood of success on the merits or that the President’s actions were within statutory authority. The court emphasized that Congress explicitly recognized labor organizations and collective bargaining as being in the public interest.
Key Distinctions from Related Cases
The court distinguished this case from National Treasury Employees Union v. Trump, noting that the government’s reliance on a “Frequently Asked Questions” document (which had mitigated harm in the NTEU case) was not applicable here. The government had not referenced or relied on this directive in the AFSA case, and the harm to AFSA was direct and ongoing, not speculative.
Decision
The court concluded that while the government demonstrated a risk of irreparable harm absent a stay being imposed, it failed to meet the requirements for a stay on all other factors. Therefore, the defendants’ motion to stay the preliminary injunction pending appeal was denied.
This decision preserves the preliminary injunction against Section three of Executive Order 14251, maintaining collective bargaining rights for Foreign Service employees at the State Department and USAID while the appeal proceeds. The court’s ruling underscores the statutory protections for federal labor rights and the limits of executive authority in curtailing those rights without a valid and substantiated national security justification.
