firings

Oct. 15 (UPI) — A federal judge on Wednesday ordered the Trump administration to halt firings of workers amid the shutdown, according to two labor unions that brought the lawsuit against the federal government.

The Trump administration on Friday announced that it has begun laying off 4,100 federal workers as the federal purse has run dry with Congress since Oct. 1, failing to pass a stopgap funding bill to keep the government open.

On Sept. 30, ahead of the shutdown and amid Trump administration threats to institute mass firings if the government shuttered, the American Federation of Government Employees, with the American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees, filed a lawsuit challenging the legality of the layoffs.

Then on Oct. 4, the union filed a motion for a temporary restraining order.

On Wednesday, Judge Susan Illston of the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California sided with the unions, issuing the temporary restraining order they sought, stating that the reduction-in-force notices issued to the more than 4,000 federal employees were likely illegal, exceeded the Trump administration’s authority and were capricious.

In her order, the appointee of President Bill Clinton described Trump’s mass firings amid a government shutdown as “unprecedented.”

Illston outlined how some employees could not even find out if they had been fired because the notices were sent to government email accounts, which they may not have access to because of the shutdown.

Those who do receive the notices are then unable to prepare for their terminations because human resources staff have been furloughed, she said, adding that in one case at the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, human resources staff were brought back into the office to issue the layoff notices only to then be directed to lay themselves off.

She then said, citing a social media post from the president on the second day of the shutdown, saying he had a meeting with Russell Vought, the White House budget chief, to determine which of the many “Democrat Agencies” to cut that Trump intended to make the cut as retribution over the Democrats opposing the funding measure.

“It is also far from normal for an administration to fire line-level civilian employees during a a government shutdown as a way to punish the opposing political party,” Illston wrote. “But this is precisely what President Trump has announced he is doing.”

Illston gave the administration two days to provide the court with more information on the issued notices.

“This decision affirms that these threatened mass firings are likely illegal and blocks layoff notices from going out,” Lee Saunders, president of AFSCME, said in a statement.

“Federal workers have already faced enough uncertainty from the administration’s relentless attacks on the important jobs they do to keep us safe and healthy.”

As the order was issued, Vought said that he expects thousands of federal workers to be fired in the coming days.

“Much of the reporting has been based on kind of court snapshots, which they have articulated as in the 4,000 number of people,” he said on The Charlie Kirk Show podcast. “But that’s just a snapshot, and I think it’ll get much higher. And we’re going to keep those RIFs rolling throughout the shutdown.”

Democrats said they will only support a stopgap bill that extends and restores Affordable Care Act premium tax credits, arguing that failing to do so would raise healthcare costs for some 20 million Americans.

Republicans — who control the House, Senate and the presidency — are seeking a so-called clean funding bill that includes no changes. They argue that the Democrats are fighting to provide undocumented migrants with taxpayer-funded healthcare, even though federal law does not permit them to receive Medicaid or ACA premium tax credits.

The parties continue to trade blame for the shutdown as it extends for more than two weeks, with some 750,000 federal workers furloughed.

Oct. 15 (UPI) — A federal judge on Wednesday ordered the Trump administration to halt firings of workers amid the shutdown, according to two labor unions that brought the lawsuit against the federal government.

The Trump administration on Friday announced that it has begun laying off 4,100 federal workers as the federal purse has run dry with Congress since Oct. 1, failing to pass a stopgap funding bill to keep the government open.

On Sept. 30, ahead of the shutdown and amid Trump administration threats to institute mass firings if the government shuttered, the American Federation of Government Employees, with the American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees, filed a lawsuit challenging the legality of the layoffs.

Then on Oct. 4, the union filed a motion for a temporary restraining order.

On Wednesday, Judge Susan Illston of the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California sided with the unions, issuing the temporary restraining order they sought, stating that the reduction-in-force notices issued to the more than 4,000 federal employees were likely illegal, exceeded the Trump administration’s authority and were capricious.

In her scathing rebuke of the Trump administration, the appointee of President Bill Clinton described Trump’s mass firings amid a government shutdown as “unprecedented.”

In her order, she outlined how some employees could not even find out if they had been fired because the notices were sent to government email accounts, which they may not have access to because of the shutdown.

Those who do receive the notices are then unable to prepare for their terminations because human resources staff have been furloughed, she said, adding that in one case at the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, human resources staff were brought back into the office to issue the layoff notices only to then be directed to lay themselves off.

She then chastised the Trump administration for carrying out the layoffs to punish the Democratic Party, which it blames for the shutdown.

“But this is precisely what President Trump has announced he is doing,” she said, pointing to a social media post from the president on the second day of the shutdown saying he had a meeting with Russell Vought, the White House budget chief, to determine which of the many “Democrat Agencies” to cut.

“I can’t believe the Radical Left Democrats gave me this unprecedented opportunity,” Trump wrote in the Oct. 2 post, which was quoted in full in Illston’s order.

Illston gave the administration two days to provide the court with more information on the issued notices.

“This decision affirms that these threatened mass firings are likely illegal and blocks layoff notices from going out,” Lee Saunders, president of AFSCME, said in a statement.

“Federal workers have already faced enough uncertainty from the administration’s relentless attacks on the important jobs they do to keep us safe and healthy.”

As the order was issued, Vought said that he expects thousands of federal workers to be fired in the coming days.

“Much of the reporting has been based on kind of court snapshots, which they have articulated as in the 4,000 number of people,” he said on The Charlie Kirk Show podcast. “But that’s just a snapshot, and I think it’ll get much higher. And we’re going to keep those RIFs rolling throughout the shutdown.”

Democrats said they will only support a stopgap bill that extends and restores Affordable Care Act premium tax credits, arguing that failing to do so would raise healthcare costs for some 20 million Americans.

Republicans — who control the House, Senate and the presidency — are seeking a so-called clean funding bill that includes no changes. They argue that the Democrats are fighting to provide undocumented migrants with taxpayer-funded healthcare, even though federal law does not permit them to receive Medicaid or ACA premium tax credits.

The parties continue to trade blame for the shutdown as it extends for more than two weeks, with some 750,000 federal workers furloughed.

WASHINGTON — The White House budget office said Friday that mass firings of federal workers have started in an attempt to exert more pressure on Democratic lawmakers in the ongoing government shutdown.

Russ Vought, the director of the Office of Management and Budget, said on the social media site X that the “RIFs have begun,” referring to reduction-in-force plans aimed at reducing the size of the federal government.

A spokesperson for the budget office said the reductions are “substantial” but did not offer more immediate details.

The Education Department is among the agencies hit by new layoffs, a department spokesperson said Friday without providing more details. The department had about 4,100 employees when Trump took office in January, but its workforce was nearly halved amid mass layoffs in the Republican administration’s first months. At the start of the shutdown, it had about 2,500 employees.

The White House previewed that it would pursue the aggressive layoff tactic shortly before the government shutdown began on Oct. 1, telling all federal agencies to submit their reduction-in-force plans to the budget office for its review. It said reduction-in-force plans could apply for federal programs whose funding would lapse in a government shutdown, are otherwise not funded and are “not consistent with the President’s priorities.”

This goes far beyond what usually happens in a government shutdown, which is that federal workers are furloughed but restored to their jobs once the shutdown ends.

Democrats have tried to call the administration’s bluff, arguing the firings could be illegal, and seemed bolstered by the fact the White House had yet to carry out the firings.

But President Trump had said earlier this week that he would soon have more information about how many federal jobs would be eliminated.

“I’ll be able to tell you that in four or five days if this keeps going on,” he said Tuesday in the Oval Office as he met with Canada’s prime minister, Mark Carney. “If this keeps going on, it’ll be substantial, and a lot of those jobs will never come back.”

Meanwhile, the halls of the Capitol were quiet on Friday, then 10th day of the shutdown, with both the House and the Senate out of Washington and both sides digging in for a protracted shutdown fight. Senate Republicans have tried repeatedly to cajole Democratic holdouts to vote for a stopgap bill to reopen the government, but Democrats have refused as they hold out for a firm commitment to extend health care benefits.

There was no sign that the top Democratic and Republican Senate leaders were even talking about a way to solve the impasse. Instead, Senate Majority Leader John Thune continued to try to peel away centrist Democrats who may be willing to cross party lines as the shutdown pain dragged on.

“It’s time for them to get a backbone,” Thune, a South Dakota Republican, said during a news conference.

Kim and Groves write for the Associated Press. AP writer Collin Binkley contributed to this report.

The White House has dialled back US President Donald Trump’s claim that federal workers were already being fired amid the ongoing United States government shutdown.

The backtrack on Monday came as the government shutdown stretched into its sixth day, with Republicans and Democrats failing to reach a breakthrough to pass a budget that would fund an array of government agencies and services.

Democrats have taken a hard line in the negotiations, seeking to undo healthcare cuts in tax legislation recently passed by Republicans.

Both parties have blamed the other for the impasse, while the Trump administration has taken the atypical step of threatening to fire, not just furlough, some of the estimated 750,000 federal workers affected by the shutdown.

On Sunday, Trump appeared to suggest that those layoffs were “taking place right now”. He blamed Democrats for the firings.

But on Monday, White House Press Secretary Karoline Leavitt said that Trump was referring to the “hundreds of thousands of federal workers who have been furloughed”, not yet fired, amid the shutdown.

Still, she added, “the Office of Management and Budget is continuing to work with agencies on who, unfortunately, is going to have to be laid off if this shutdown continues”.

House Speaker blames Democrats, halts negotiations on funding

As salaries for hundreds of thousands of public sector employees were set to be withheld starting Friday, lawmakers indicated there had been little progress.

In the US Senate, another set of long-shot votes to fund the government were scheduled for late Monday.

Meanwhile, Republican House Speaker Mike Johnson told members of his party not to come to Congress unless the Democrats give way. He told reporters on Monday they should stop asking him about negotiations, saying it was up to the opposing party to “stop the madness”.

“There’s nothing for us to negotiate. The House has done its job,” Johnson said, referring to a funding bill passed by the chamber that has proved a non-starter in the Senate.

Democratic House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries, meanwhile, continued to portray Republicans as derelict.

“House Republicans think protecting the healthcare of everyday Americans is less important than their vacation,” he said. “We strongly disagree.”

With Republicans controlling the White House and holding slight majorities in both the House and the Senate, the funding bill is one of Democrats’ few points of leverage. In the Senate, Republicans hold 53 seats, but need 60 votes to pass the legislation.

They are using the position to push for the reversal of a tax law passed earlier this year that strips 11 million Americans of healthcare coverage, mainly through cuts to the Medicaid programme for low-income families, according to estimates from the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office.

Democrats have said another four million US citizens will lose healthcare next year if Affordable Care Act health insurance subsidies are not extended, with another 24 million Americans seeing their premiums double.

Since the shutdown began on October 1, several services have been suspended as agency funding has run out. Others face a funding cliff. That includes the $8bn Special Supplemental Nutrition Programme for Women, Infants and Children (WIC), which could run out of funding to provide vouchers to buy infant formula and other essentials to low-income families within two weeks.

Federal workers deemed “essential” have remained on the job, but face working without pay until a resolution is reached. Military personnel could begin missing their paycheques after mid-October, advocacy groups have warned.

The agencies hit hardest by furloughs include the Environmental Protection Agency, the space agency NASA , and the Education, Commerce and Labor departments.

On Monday, US Transportation Secretary Sean Duffy said the government has seen “a slight tick up in sick calls” from air traffic controllers in certain areas since the shutdown began. That could lead to disruptions in air travel, he said.

“Then you’ll see delays that come from that,” he said. “If we have additional sick calls, we will reduce the flow consistent with a rate that’s safe for the American people.”

The US Transportation Department has also said that funds from a US government programme that subsidises commercial air service to rural airports were also set to expire as soon as Sunday.

WASHINGTON — President Trump has seized on the government shutdown as an opportunity to reshape the federal workforce and punish detractors, meeting with budget director Russ Vought on Thursday to talk through “temporary or permanent” spending cuts that could set up a lose-lose dynamic for Democratic lawmakers.

Trump announced the meeting on social media Thursday morning, saying he and Vought would determine “which of the many Democrat Agencies” would be cut — continuing their efforts to slash federal spending by threatening mass firings of workers and suggesting “irreversible” cuts to Democratic priorities.

“I can’t believe the Radical Left Democrats gave me this unprecedented opportunity,” Trump wrote on his social media account. “They are not stupid people, so maybe this is their way of wanting to, quietly and quickly, MAKE AMERICA GREAT AGAIN!”

The post was notable in its explicit embrace of Project 2025, a controversial policy blueprint drafted by the Heritage Foundation that Trump distanced himself from during his reelection campaign. The effort aimed to reshape the federal government around right-wing policies, and Democrats repeatedly pointed to its goals to warn of the consequences of a second Trump administration.

Vought on Wednesday offered an opening salvo of the pressure he hoped to put on Democrats. He announced he was withholding $18 billion for the Hudson River rail tunnel and Second Avenue subway line in New York City that have been championed by both Democratic leaders, Senate Democratic leader Chuck Schumer and House Democratic leader Hakeem Jeffries, in their home state. Vought is also canceling $8 billion in green energy projects in states with Democratic senators.

Meanwhile, the White House is preparing for mass firings of federal workers, rather than simply furloughing as is the usual practice during a shutdown. White House press secretary Karoline Leavitt said earlier this week that layoffs were “imminent.”

“If they don’t want further harm on their constituents back home, then they need to reopen the government,” Leavitt said Thursday said of Democrats.

A starring role for Russ Vought

The bespectacled and bearded Vought has emerged as a central figure in the shutdown — promising possible layoffs of government workers that would be a show of strength by the Trump administration as well as a possible liability given the weakening job market and existing voter unhappiness over the economy.

The strategic goal is to increase the political pressure on Democratic lawmakers as agencies tasked with environmental protection, racial equity and addressing poverty, among other things, could be gutted over the course of the shutdown.

But Democratic lawmakers also see Vought as the architect of a strategy to refuse to spend congressionally approved funds, using a tool known as a “pocket rescission” in which the administration submits plans to return unspent money to Congress just before the end of the fiscal year, causing that money to lapse.

All of this means that Democratic spending priorities might be in jeopardy regardless of whether they want to keep the government open or partially closed.

Ahead of the end of the fiscal year in September, Vought used the pocket rescission to block the spending of $4.9 billion in foreign aid.

White House officials refused to speculate on the future use of pocket rescissions after rolling them out in late August. But one of Vought’s former colleagues, insisting on anonymity to discuss the budget director’s plans, said that future pocket rescissions could be 20 times higher.

Shutdown continues with no endgame in sight

Thursday was Day 2 of the shutdown, and already the dial is turned high. The aggressive approach coming from the Trump administration is what certain lawmakers and budget observers feared if Congress, which has the responsibility to pass legislation to fund government, failed to do its work and relinquished control to the White House.

Vought, in a private conference call with House GOP lawmakers Wednesday, told them of layoffs starting in the next day or two. It’s an extension of the Department of Government Efficiency work under Elon Musk that slashed through the federal government at the start of the year.

“These are all things that the Trump administration has been doing since January 20th,” said Jeffries, referring to the president’s first day in office. “The cruelty is the point.”

House Speaker Mike Johnson (R-La.) underscored Thursday that the shutdown gives Trump and Vought vast power over the federal government. He blamed Democrats and said “they have effectively turned off the legislative branch” and “handed it over to the president.”

Still, Johnson said that Trump and Vought take “no pleasure in this.”

Trump and the congressional leaders are not expected to meet again soon. Congress has no action scheduled Thursday in observance of the Jewish holy day, with senators due back Friday. The House is set to resume session next week.

The Democrats are holding fast to their demands to preserve health care funding and refusing to back a bill that fails to do so, warning of price spikes for millions of Americans nationwide.

The shutdown is likely to harm the economy

With no easy endgame at hand, the standoff risks dragging deeper into October, when federal workers who remain on the job will begin missing paychecks. The nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office has estimated roughly 750,000 federal workers would be furloughed on any given day during the shutdown, a loss of $400 million daily in wages.

The economic effects could spill over into the broader economy. Past shutdowns saw “reduced aggregate demand in the private sector for goods and services, pushing down GDP,” the CBO said.

“Stalled federal spending on goods and services led to a loss of private-sector income that further reduced demand for other goods and services in the economy,” it said. Overall CBO said there was a “dampening of economic output,” but that reversed once people returned to work.

How Trump and Vought can reshape the federal government

With Congress as a standstill, the Trump administration has taken advantage of new levers to determine how to shape the federal government.

The Trump administration can tap into funds to pay workers at the Defense Department and Homeland Security from what’s commonly called the “One Big Beautiful Bill” that was signed into law this summer, according to the CBO.

That would ensure Trump’s immigration enforcement and mass deportation agenda is uninterrupted. But employees who remain on the job at many other agencies will have to wait for government to reopen before they get a paycheck.

Mascaro, Boak and Kim write for the Associated Press. AP writers Chris Megerian, Stephen Groves, Joey Cappelletti, Matt Brown, Kevin Freking, and Mary Clare Jalonick contributed to this report.

Washington, DC – Journalists, academics, airline employees, doctors and restaurant workers across the United States have been fired or investigated by their employers over the past week for comments deemed insensitive on the killing of Charlie Kirk.

The firings at a moment of rising political tensions in the US have ignited debates over the limits of free speech, cancel culture, doxxing and labour protections, as well as the legacy of Kirk.

The 31-year-old right-wing commentator was fatally shot in Utah last week.

While parts of the country mourned Kirk as a martyr who championed patriotism and open debate, others recalled his divisive views, including his anti-immigrant and Islamophobic rhetoric. Some even celebrated his death.

Many Republicans responded with a campaign of naming and shaming to ostracise people who reacted to the assassination in ways that they considered objectionable.

Former MSNBC analyst Matthew Dowd was one of the earliest targets of that effort.

Shortly after Kirk was shot, Dowd said the conservative commentator pushed “hate speech” against some groups. “Hateful thoughts lead to hateful words, which then lead to hateful actions,” the analyst said on air.

The comment sparked outrage from Kirk’s supporters, leading MSNBC president Rebecca Kutler to apologise for what she called the “inappropriate, insensitive and unacceptable” remarks.

Dowd was later fired – a move that he rejected and blamed on a right-wing “media mob” that “misconstrued” his words.

This week, columnist Karen Attiah was also sacked from her position at the Washington Post over her response to the killing of Kirk.

Attiah had fired off a series of social media posts around race and gun violence after the assassination.

A letter of termination that she shared online on Tuesday cited a post in which she defended refusing to engage in “performative mourning for a white man that espoused violence” without explicitly mentioning Kirk as one of the reasons for her sacking.

A statement from Post Guild leadership:

The Washington Post Guild condemns the unjust firing of columnist Karen Attiah

The Washington Post wrongly fired Opinions columnist Karen Attiah over her social media posts.

— Washington Post Guild (@PostGuild) September 15, 2025

Officials back sacking campaign

Private citizens from all walks of life have also faced calls to be let go from their jobs over their takes on the killing of Kirk – social media posts that ranged from revelling in his death to linking the assassination to the commentator’s own views and support for gun rights.

For example, influential right-wing social media accounts have been demanding the firing of a Pennsylvania teacher for calling Kirk “racist”, although she also said that he “didn’t deserve to die”.

Kirk himself was no stranger to controversial opinions. He repeatedly attacked Islam and Muslims.

“Islam is the sword the left is using to slit the throat of America,” he wrote in a recent social media post.

He was also a promoter of the “Great Replacement” conspiracy theory – the notion that there is a plan (usually claimed to be carried out by Jewish elites) to replace white populations with immigrants, which has inspired white nationalist mass shooters across the world.

But on the right, the status of Kirk only rose after his death. With that apparent canonisation came the push to protect his legacy from detractors and those finding humour, joy or irony in his death.

Almost immediately after the shooting, right-wing groups started publishing the names and personal information – including place of employment – of social media users who allegedly celebrated the assassination.

Republican politicians, including lawmakers, joined calls for the firing of individuals over Kirk-related social media posts deemed by them to be offensive.

In Indiana, State Attorney General Todd Rokita encouraged submissions to a database on school employees who made “comments that celebrate or rationalise” the shooting of Kirk.

🚨Hoosiers: If you have evidence of Indiana educators or school administrators making comments that celebrate or rationalize the assassination of Charlie Kirk, we need to hear from you.

These individuals must be held accountable—they have no place teaching our students.

➡️… pic.twitter.com/w6ohKUyLqP

— AG Todd Rokita (@AGToddRokita) September 12, 2025

US Vice President JD Vance backed the effort as well, saying that people who celebrated the assassination should be held to account. “Call them out, and hell, call their employer,” he said on Monday.

US Congressman Randy Fine, of Florida, threatened to revoke the professional state licences of offenders, including lawyers, teachers and doctors.

Fine himself cheered for the killing of US citizen Aysenur Ezgi Eygi by Israeli forces last year. “One less #MuslimTerrorist. #FireAway,” he wrote on social media after Eygi was fatally shot in the occupied West Bank.

Is it legal?

While the First Amendment of the US Constitution guarantees freedom of speech, it does not apply to private employers.

But some states have laws to protect speech and political activities of employees when they are not at work.

Jenin Younes, a prominent free speech lawyer who recently became the legal director at the American-Arab Anti-Discrimination Committee (ADC), said private companies have “a lot of latitude” to reprimand workers for their speech.

However, when it comes to public schools and universities, it’s more complicated.

“Public employers, broadly speaking, are bound by the First Amendment,” Younes said. “But there are circumstances in which they can consider someone’s speech to fire them.”

These “exceptions and qualifications” are on a case-by-case basis.

For example, Younes said a public school teacher could say that Kirk’s ideas were “loathsome”, but saying that he deserves to die would probably cross the line.

The law aside, Younes said the firing frenzy is “problematic philosophically”, especially given that some of the people were sacked for simply criticising Kirk, not glorifying violence.

“It’s very bad for a free society,” she told Al Jazeera. “People rely on their jobs. They need their jobs in order to live and support their families. So, if we want to live in a society where we have robust dialogue and debate, which is the purpose of the First Amendment, it’s bad from a practical standpoint.”

Younes said she understands why private employers may want to curb social media posts by employees that clash with the company’s brand and mission.

But a better approach than letting go of workers, she added, is to discuss the matter with them and warn them to refrain from posting similar messages in the future.

“We should always err towards more discussion and debate and not silencing people,” Younes said. “And we have to remember people have moments when they get emotional and say things they don’t mean.”

Beyond the firing campaign, several Republican politicians have pushed policy ideas to regulate speech, especially on social media, after Kirk was killed.

Republican US Congressman Clay Higgins vowed to “use Congressional authority and every influence with big tech platforms to mandate [an] immediate ban for life of every post or commenter that belittled the assassination” of Kirk.

US Congressman Chip Roy led a congressional letter requesting the formation of a committee to investigate the “radical left”.

For her part, Attorney General Pam Bondi suggested that federal authorities will push to penalise speech that they view as hateful.

“There’s free speech and then there’s hate speech,” she said on Monday. “We will absolutely target you, go after you, if you are targeting anyone with hate speech.”

Role reversal

For some observers, that right-wing push is increasingly appearing like a role reversal of the ideological blocs in the US.

For years, the right raged against the notion of “hate speech” and some left-wing activists’ push to fire and “cancel” those with views they find offensive – especially on issues of race and gender identity.

Right-wing politicians were also vocal opponents of any governmental efforts to regulate social media content.

Kirk himself had rejected penalising “hate speech”, although he backed US President Donald Trump’s clampdown on pro-Palestine student activists.

“Hate speech does not exist legally in America,” Kirk wrote in a social media post last year. “There’s ugly speech. There’s gross speech. There’s evil speech. And ALL of it is protected by the First Amendment. Keep America free.”

Younes, who led a lawsuit against the Democratic administration of former US President Joe Biden over alleged social media censorship efforts during the COVID-19 pandemic, noted what she called “the hypocrisy”.

“A lot of the people who were against ‘cancel culture’, when it was the left doing it, are now suddenly very eager to embrace cancel culture when they don’t like the speech in question, which I think shows the heart of the struggle on this issue,” she said.

“Everybody claims to be against censorship when it’s ideas that they like that are being censored, but then when it’s their ideological opponents, they’re very happy to do the censoring.”

She warned that the push to curb freedom of expression around the killing of Kirk could extend to other issues, including intensifying the crackdown on Palestinian rights advocacy.

“Any kind of censorship that’s used for one type of speech can always be adjusted to apply to another type of speech,” she said.

Aug. 29 (UPI) — American nurses are expressing serious concerns over the changes at the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, said the American Nurses Association.

The White House on Thursday named Jim O’Neill, a close ally of top health official Robert F. Kennedy Jr., to serve as acting director of the CDC, according to sources in multiple media reports.

The move came one day after the President Donald Trump administration fired CDC Director Susan Monarez less than one month into the job. Kennedy, secretary of Health and Human Services, had pushed Monarez to resign after she disagreed with his anti-vaccine policies, but she refused.

Four other CDC leaders also resigned Wednesday over frustration about anti-vaccine policy pushed by Kennedy.

“The removal of the CDC director and resignation of key leaders raises serious questions about our country’s ability to respond to a public health crisis if it were to happen today” said ANA President Jennifer Mensik Kennedy in a press release. “There has been a lot of change but not a lot of change management. The amount of change without transparency and clear communication is whipsawing to healthcare professionals and the public at large. Americans deserve steady and consistent leadership at the helm of the CDC to safeguard their health, safety, the economy and national security.”

The press release said that public confidence in federal health guidance hinges on agencies that operate free from political interference and grounded solely in science and evidence-based practice.

“At a time when America faces constant public health threats, these abrupt changes do not further the public’s trust in our health care system and could potentially pose a direct risk to the safety and security of our nation. We are concerned that if a public health crisis were to occur today, our nation would not be positioned to respond effectively,” the release said.

The ANA was removed, along with others, from the Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices, which compounds concerns, the ANA said.

“A strong ACIP must be reconstituted to ensure robust and balanced debate. As the largest and most trusted segment of the health care workforce, nurses understand that public health and national security are interconnected as health crises can threaten a nation’s stability, economy and national security. We saw this during COVID. A strong CDC is essential to safeguarding public health,” the release said.

O’Neill, who served as deputy secretary of the HHS, was selected to fill the top CDC post temporarily, unnamed sources told The Washington Post, which first reported the news. Axios and The Hill independently confirmed the appointment.

O’Neill previously served as principal associate deputy secretary of the HHS during the administration of President George W. Bush. He is also the former CEO of the Thiel Foundation, founded by Peter Thiel, a Trump donor.

Monarez has refused to leave her job as head of the CDC and was contesting her ouster, saying only Trump has the authority to fire her. Monarez’s lawyers said Kennedy sought to remove her because she declined “to rubber-stamp unscientific, reckless directives” and she accused him of “weaponizing public health,” according to the BBC.

Court reverses lower court ruling that said large staff cuts would effectively hamstring the Education Department.

The United States Supreme Court has ruled that the administration of President Donald Trump can proceed with plans to slash funding and resources for the federal Department of Education.

The conservative-majority court ruled on Monday that the government could move forward with plans to lay off nearly 1,400 employees as part of Trump’s push to effectively dismantle the department.

“While today’s ruling is a significant win for students and families, it is a shame that the highest court in the land had to step in to allow President Trump to advance the reforms Americans elected him to deliver using the authorities granted to him by the US Constitution,” Secretary of Education Linda McMahon said in a statement celebrating the decision.

Monday’s ruling cancels a previous order on the administration’s efforts to fire about 1,400 workers at the Education Department, which US District Judge Myong Joun had ruled against in May, stating that it would “likely cripple the department”.

A US Court of Appeals agreed in a ruling on June 4 that the cuts would make it “effectively impossible for the Department to carry out its statutory functions”, which include overseeing student loans and enforcing civil rights law in US education, the site of previous political battles over issues such as federal efforts to combat racial segregation.

Critics have accused the Trump administration of working to effectively abolish federal agencies, established and funded by Congress, through a maximalist interpretation of executive power.

Trump and his Republican allies have depicted federal agencies as being at odds with their political agenda, and as hotbeds of leftist ideology and bureaucratic excess.

The Trump administration has also sought to impose greater control over US universities, seeking a larger role in shaping curricula and threatening to withdraw federal funds if universities do not comply with government demands concerning issues such as cracking down on pro-Palestine student activism.

In response to the court’s decision on Monday, a liberal legal group that helped bring the challenge to Trump’s efforts lamented that the ruling “dealt a devastating blow to this nation’s promise of public education for all children”.

May 31 (UPI) — An three-judge federal appeals panel has kept in place a lower court’s decision to pause the Trump administration’s plans to downsize the federal workforce through layoffs.

Late Friday, the U.S. 9th Circuit Court of Appeals in a 2-1 decision denied an emergency motion by the federal government to stay U.S. District Judge Susan Illston‘s order on May 9 that halted terminations at 21 agencies.

The layoffs are called reductions in force, or RIFs.

In a 45-page ruling, the appeals court in California wrote the challengers likely will win the case on the merits.

The appeal panel said the Trump executive order on Feb. 13 “far exceeds the President’s supervisory powers under the Constitution.”

The Trump administration has also asked the Supreme Court to decide and has not acted.

“A single judge is attempting to unconstitutionally seize the power of hiring and firing from the Executive Branch,” White House spokesman Harrison Fields told CNN in a statement. “The President has the authority to exercise the power of the entire executive branch – singular district court judges cannot abuse the power of the entire judiciary to thwart the President’s agenda.”

Ruling for the plaintiffs were Senior Circuit Judge William Fletcher, an appointee of President Bill Clinton and Lucy Koh, selected by President Joe. Consuelo Maria Callahan, an appointee of President George W. Bush, wrote in her dissent that “the President has the right to direct agencies, and OMB and OPM to guide them, to exercise their statutory authority to lawfully conduct RIFs.”

Fletcher wrote: “The kind of reorganization contemplated by the Order has long been subject to Congressional approval.”

Illston, who was nominated by President Bill Clinton and serves in San Francisco, had backed the lawsuit by labor unions and cities filed on April 28, including San Francisco, Chicago, Baltimore and Harris County in Houston. She questioned whether Trump’s administration was acting lawfully in reducing the federal workforce and felt Congress should have a role.

“The President has the authority to seek changes to executive branch agencies, but he must do so in lawful ways and, in the case of large-scale reorganizations, with the cooperation of the legislative branch,” Illston wrote after hearing arguments from both sides.

“Many presidents have sought this cooperation before; many iterations of Congress have provided it. Nothing prevents the President from requesting this cooperation — as he did in his prior term of office. Indeed, the Court holds the President likely must request Congressional cooperation to order the changes he seeks, and thus issues a temporary restraining order to pause large-scale reductions in force in the meantime.”

The coalition of organizations suing told CNN said after the appeals decision: “We are gratified by the court’s decision today to allow the pause of these harmful actions to endure while our case proceeds.”

After Trump’s executive order, the Department of Government Efficiency submitted a Workforce Optimization Initiative and the Office of Personnel Management also issued a memo.

During Trump’s first 100 days in office, at least 121,000 workers have been laid off or targeted for layoffs, according to a CNN analysis. There are more than 3 million workers among civilian and military personnel.

Some of them have taken buyouts, “including those motivated to do so by the threat of upcoming RIFs,” according to the Center for Budget and Policy Priorities.

That includes 10,000 at the Department of Health and Human Services through RIF as part of a plan to cut 20,000 employees. That includes 20% of the workforce of the Food and Drug Administration and the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.

The agencies, run by Cabinet-level personnel, sued were Agriculture, Commerce, Defense, Energy, Health and Human Services, Homeland Security, Justice, Housing and Urban Development, Interior, Justice, Labor, State and Treasury, Transportation, Veterans Affairs. The Education Department, which Trump wants to dismantle, was not listed, but 50% of the workforce has been let go.

Six additional agencies with statutory basis elsewhere in the United States Code were named: AmeriCorps, General Services Administration, National Labor Relations Board, National Science Foundation, Small Business Administration and Environmental Protection Agency.

Elon Musk, who officially left Friday as special White House adviser, was named in the suit.