Thousands of US Federal Employees expect mass layoff following President Trump plan

The US President had directed federal agencies in February to prepare for massive workforce reduction and had opined that cutting workforce and restructuring the executive arm would save over $100 billion of taxpayers’ money.

He had aimed to cut federal employees using his plan, Reduction in Force (RIF), with departments such as Commerce, Agriculture, Treasury, Health and Human Services, Veterans Affairs, State, and others.

Earlier during his Presidential election campaign, Trump had promised to remove "rogue bureaucracy" from Washington and reshape the US' workforce in a bid to create a supportive administration that is more aligned with his policies and agenda for his four year-tenure.

Why President Trump’s plan was initially stopped

The plan was temporarily blocked in May 22 after a US District Judge Susan Illston, appointed by former President Bill Clinton, ruled that President Trump had overstepped his executive authority without the consultation of Congress.

A preliminary court injunction was issued by the San Francisco judge to stop the plan after labour unions, lawmakers, local governments, and nonprofits groups disputed that President Trump's executive order was a violation of separation of powers.

Why the court injection was lifted

The lower court's injunction was lifted by the Supreme Court in an 8-1 decision, which saw Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson dissenting.

The Supreme Court order, though left unsigned, stated that the President Trump's actions to initiate the plan were lawful and within his executive power, and his administration was "likely to succeed."

The order from the high court has approved agencies to proceed with implementing the RIF plan but has left the litigation door open to enable plaintiffs to challenge specific layoff plan of any agency during the implementation.

“We express no view on the legality of any Agency RIF and Reorganization Plan produced or approved pursuant to the Executive Order and Memorandum,” the Supreme Court warned in its ruling.

Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson has called the Supreme Court's decision both “hubristic and senseless.”

She slammed her colleagues for putting aside the injunction by the lower Francisco judge from the Supreme Court’s “lofty perch far from the facts or the evidence.”

“In my view, this was the wrong decision at the wrong moment, especially given what little this Court knows about what is actually happening on the ground,” Jackson said.

Fellow Democratic-elected Justice Sonia Sotomayor, who often dissents with Justice Jackson, had said she sides the Trump administration on the matter at this stage although she agrees with concerns raised by her colleague.

“The plans themselves are not before this Court, at this stage, and we thus have no occasion to consider whether they can and will be carried out consistent with the constraints of law. I join the Court’s stay because it leaves the District Court free to consider those questions in the first instance,” Sotomayor wrote.

In April, in a decision dissented by Justices Sotomayor and Jackson, the Supreme Court approved the Trump administration to fire thousands of probationary federal employees.

Federal employees affected by the layoff plan

About 35% of agency staff have been estimated to be affected, with over 75,000 US federal employees set to announce job losses across government departments, following their acceptance of deferred resignation offers.

The Internal Revenue Service (IRS) has laid off 7,000 federal employees, while USAID 5,600 USAID employees have been issued short notice to vacate the office premises.

The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is estimated to be cut to 65% of staff, 7,000 staff are in view for layoff under the Social Security Administration, while over 800 employees have been laid off under the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA).

The Department of Veterans Affairs is expected to retrench over 80,000 employees, with The Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) to cut 13% of its workforce.

Criticism of the Supreme Court Ruling

The move by the Supreme Court has come under heavy criticism with the belief that heavy cuts to federal employees will leave too many sectors unchecked by the government.

Critics have argued that the ruling will disrupt critical services rendered by the government, weaken its infrastructure, risk irreversible harm to livelihoods due to massive unemployment, undermine democracy, and much more.

The cut of over 5,600 USAID staff, food safety inspections across the country and beyond could be potentially compromised. Cuts to the Veterans Health Care and FEMA could strain the already stressed healthcare system and weaken the US government's disaster response capacity.