BOSTON, MASSACHUSETTS — A federal judge on Wednesday allowed President Donald Trump’s administration to carry out its federal worker deferred retirement program as the president moves to overhaul and downsize the U.S. government, handing a setback to unions trying to stop the plan. The decision could clear the way for the Republican president’s administration to swiftly try to wrap up the program, though the unions could ask another court to halt the program. U.S. District Judge George O’Toole in Boston dissolved an earlier order he issued that had paused the program at the urging of unions representing more than 800,000 federal employees. O’Toole concluded that the unions lacked legal standing to challenge the rule. The American Federation of Government Employees and other unions have called the administration’s deferred resignation offer to more than 2 million federal civilian employees unlawful. “The unions do not have the required direct stake in the Fork directive, but are challenging a policy that affects others, specifically executive branch employees,” wrote O’Toole, an appointee of Democratic former President Bill Clinton. “This is not sufficient.” The Office of Personnel Management, which announced the program in a January 28 email titled “Fork in the Road,” on Monday told employees it intends to close the program to new entrants as soon as legally permissible. As of Friday, about 65,000 federal employees had signed up for the buyouts, according to a White House official, as the Trump administration ramps up plans to engage in wide-ranging job cuts throughout the government. The White House did not immediately respond to a request for comment. American Federation of Government Employees (AFGE) National President Everett Kelley called the ruling a setback. “Importantly, this decision did not address the underlying lawfulness of the program,” he said in a statement. The unions that had filed the lawsuit argued that the plan announced in January was unlawful and that OPM lacked authority to implement the program. Trump, who began his second term as president on January 20, has appointed Elon Musk a “special government employee” to oversee a sweeping effort called the Department of Government Efficiency with the stated aim of reducing federal spending and reshaping the United States’ 2.2 million-strong federal workforce, potentially purging thousands of workers. He also signed an executive order on Tuesday to expand Musk’s influence and continue downsizing the federal workforce. Democrats and other critics have accused Musk, who heads electric carmaker Tesla and rocket company SpaceX, of improperly taking over the federal government. Some federal workers have held protests against Musk’s actions. In an email that was sent last month to nearly all federal employees, OPM said employees could choose to resign now and retain all pay and benefits until September 30. The email said employees could remain on the payroll without having to work in person and possibly having their duties reduced or eliminated in the meantime. Interested employees needed only to reply with the word “resign” to take part. The email’s title and contents mirrored a message that Musk, the world’s richest man, sent to Twitter employees after he acquired the social media platform, now called X, in 2022. As the deadline approached, the Trump administration had repeated its warning that most federal agencies are likely to be downsized, a message seen by workers as pressure to accept the buyout offer. The unions in their lawsuit argued that OPM’s buyout directive was “stunningly arbitrary” and violated the Antideficiency Act, a federal law that bars agencies from spending more money than Congress appropriated. By encouraging employees to broadly quit without regard to their agency, job duties or institutional memory, OPM is ignoring the adverse consequences resignations could have on the government’s ability to function, the unions said. At the request of the unions, O’Toole last week delayed an initial February 6 deadline for employees to resign to Monday. On that day, he put it on hold pending a further order of the court while he considered the case. The unions asked that the deadline be put fully on hold to give them time to seek further relief through the courts and ensure that their members can make informed decisions.
