Federal judge blocks Trump's gutting of foreign service bargaining rights

WASHINGTON (CN) — A federal judge blocked the Trump administration from revoking the collective bargaining rights of foreign service members on Wednesday, ruling the effort was in clear retaliation for challenging the administration in court.

Senior U.S. District Judge Paul Friedman granted the American Foreign Service Association’s preliminary injunction request, finding the president, in an executive order, wrongfully invoked an exclusion meant for entities engaged in intelligence, investigative or national security work.

“Congress could not have been clearer in passing the statute that it intended for the protections of the statute to extend broadly to the covered departments and agencies in the foreign service,” Friedman wrote.

In a March 27 executive order, Trump exempted 18 federal agencies and 25 agency subdivisions from labor protections under the Civil Reform Act of 1978, sparking an identical challenge by the National Treasury Employees Union.

Friedman, a Bill Clinton appointee, blocked portions of the executive order that would have exempted three-quarters of all federal workers. Together with the section targeting foreign service members the order would impact approximately two-thirds of the federal workforce, Friedman noted.

The foreign service association — the union representing approximately 18,000 employees at the State Department, U.S. Agency for International Development and the U.S. Agency for Global Media, among others — challenged Trump’s executive order on April 7.

The union requested a preliminary injunction, arguing the order is clear retaliation for its lawsuits challenging Trump’s effort to dismantle USAID and U.S. Agency for Global Media entities like Voice for America and Radio Free Europe.

The White House said in a fact sheet that a key part of the executive order was meant to target federal unions who have “declared war on President Trump’s agenda,” and end “union obstruction.”

“President Trump supports constructive partnerships with unions who work with him; he will not tolerate mass obstruction that jeopardizes his ability to manage agencies with vital national security missions,” the administration said.

Friedman noted that the elimination of the foreign service members’ bargaining agreements would severely limit their protections as the Trump administration moves to shrink the federal government.

“AFSA argues that these significant obstructions to representing its members have come at a critical moment where both the State Department and USAID have signaled — and have begun — large-scale reorganization efforts and reductions-in-force,” he wrote. “As to USAID, the agency has already begun to implement reductions-in-force where employees will be terminated on July 1, 2025, and September 2, 2025.”

Secretary of State Marco Rubio announced last month that the department would decrease the number of bureaus or offices from 734 to 632 and cut domestic staff by 15%.

Friedman indicated that his ruling would prevent any illegal terminations and protect foreign service members’ employment rights.

Justice Department attorney Jeremy Simon argued in court that the nation’s foreign policy is set by the president and he has the authority to decide whether the makeup of the foreign service is consistent with his policy.

He added that, because entities like USAID and the State Department engaged in national security functions, Trump could legally exempt their workers from their collective bargaining agreements.

Friedman disagreed in his opinion and determined that Trump had exceeded his authority by applying an overly broad interpretation of two key definitions under the 1978 statute, “primary function” and “national security.”

The judge said the only evidence the government seemed to provide that any agency was “primarily” involved in national security were by pointing to the agencies’ own mission statements or by focusing on a single function related to national security.

Further, Trump’s interpretation of “national security” seemed to Friedman to refer to any work related to the “protection and preservation of the military, economic and productive strength of the United States” — a definition the judge said went well beyond Congress’ in the Federal Service-Labor Management Relations Statue.

Friedman cited the Supreme Court’s decision in Cole v. Young, where the high court defined national security as applying to activities tied directly “with the protection of the nation from internal subversion or foreign aggression.”

Tom Yazdgerdi, president of the foreign service association, lauded the decision in a statement Wednesday.

“This ruling is a significant victory — not just for our members, but for the integrity of the foreign service and for the accountability and transparency of our member agencies,” Yazdgerdi said. “AFSA stands as a firewall against attempts to undermine the nonpartisan, professional nature of the foreign service.”

The Justice Department is likely to appeal Friedman’s decision, as it did with his ruling in the National Treasury Employee Union’s case. The D.C. Circuit has yet to schedule oral arguments in that case.

Follow @Ryan_Knappy