Image Attribution: This file is a work of an employee of the Executive Office of the President of the United States, taken or made as part of that person’s official duties. As a work of the U.S. federal government, it is in the public domain.
A federal judge in San Francisco has ordered the Office of Personnel Management (OPM) to suspend its directive calling for the mass termination of federal workers still within their probationary period.
The judge’s decision deals a setback to President Donald Trump’s effort to maximize efficiency in the government workforce.
U.S. District Judge William Alsup issued the ruling on Thursday, explaining that OPM has no statutory authority to instruct agencies to fire employees outside of its own department.
The directive—disseminated in mid-February—allegedly prompted several federal agencies, including the Department of Defense, to prepare firings of employees who were still on probation despite working for over a year.
“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 remarked, according to court documents.
The Trump administration has sought to reduce what it considers a bloated federal workforce, in line with the President’s campaign promise to cut down on government inefficiency.
As part of that goal, a newly formed Department of Government Efficiency—led by Elon Musk—has reportedly been pushing for stricter oversight of employee performance.
Roughly 200,000 federal employees are believed to be on probation, a trial period generally lasting up to one year. Termination during this period is easier than for full-status workers with civil service protections.
Agencies had received what government lawyers described as a “request”—rather than a strict order—from OPM to review each probationary employee’s fitness for continued employment.
Five labor unions and five nonprofit organizations joined forces to challenge the directive. They argued it represented an unlawful mass firing that bypassed proper channels and could negatively impact government services. They contended that thousands of employees had already lost their jobs and that many more were at risk.
Judge Alsup disagreed with OPM’s stance that its communication was merely advisory. He stressed that multiple agencies firing employees at once suggests they interpreted the memo as a binding order rather than optional guidance:
“Something aberrational happens … all across the government, in many agencies on the same day. Doesn’t that sound to you that somebody ordered it to happen?”
As a result, OPM must inform certain federal agencies—especially those involved in the lawsuit—that they are not required to dismiss probationary employees at OPM’s direction.
Agencies under the jurisdiction of the lawsuit include those dealing with veterans’ services, national parks, small businesses, and defense.
While the judge’s ruling halts further firings under the directive, it does not automatically reinstate employees who have already been dismissed. It also doesn’t prevent agencies from choosing to fire underperforming probationary workers on their own authority if proper procedures are followed.
The court has requested testimony from Charles Ezell, the acting head of OPM, to clarify the nature of the February 13 phone call in which agency leaders were instructed to terminate certain employees. An evidentiary hearing is set for March 13.
The Department of Justice and OPM have yet to offer substantial public comment on the judge’s order. In earlier arguments, lawyers for the government maintained that OPM had only asked agencies to assess employees’ performance and follow standard probation protocols.
cale workforce restructuring must go through clearer channels and statutory authority.
For now, federal agencies affected by the memo have been advised to hold off on any additional terminations tied to OPM’s directive. Employees on probation, meanwhile, remain in a state of limbo, awaiting further guidance from both the court and the administration as to what lies ahead for their careers in federal service.