President Trump signs executive orders in the Oval Office at the White House 13 February 2025: 340,000 of the executive branch’s 2.3 million people falls into the scope of the order, the suit says. Image: FRANCIS CHUNG/POOL/EPA-EFE/Shutterstock

President Trump’s executive order telling agencies to prepare to conduct “large-scale” reductions in force would result in “the mass firing of hundreds of thousands of federal employees,” says a new union-sponsored lawsuit arguing that the order violates laws and rules governing when RIFs can be invoked and how they are to be conducted.

Regulations state that RIFs can be conducted only due to “lack of work; shortage of funds; insufficient personnel ceiling; reorganization; the exercise of reemployment rights or restoration rights; or reclassification of an employee’s position due to erosion of duties,” says the suit, filed in the federal district court in Washington, D.C.

In contrast, the order “directs agencies to promptly engage in RIFs for none of the specified, allowable reasons, but instead for the purpose of “eliminating waste, bloat, and insularity,” says the complaint by NTEU, NFFE and three other unions representing federal employees.

Further, RIF rules require that “competitive areas” be defined by organization units and geographical location, it says. However, the order in contrast tells agencies to focus on functions that might be suspended or closed, and those who are not typically designated as required to stay on the job during a government shutdown, it says.

About 340,000 of the executive branch’s 2.3 million people meet that definition, the suit says, adding that for some agencies such as the IRS the number varies by time of year.

“Neither can a competitive area be defined as all probationary employees regardless of organizational units or geographic locations across multiple different agencies,” which the order would do, potentially impacting some 200,000 employees hired within the last year, it says. Layoffs of probationary employees already are underway, it says, citing termination notices sent this week to those at the Consumer Finance Protection Bureau.

“It is unknown how many employees work in the Order’s vaguely defined category of ‘initiatives, components or operations’ that the Administration ‘suspends or closes,’” it adds.

The suit also asks the court to bar “extending, expanding, or replicating” the deferred resignation program. The enrollment window for that program is now closed, following a ruling in a separate suit, with reported acceptance by some 75,000 employees.

Start Planning for ‘Large-Scale’ RIFs, Trump Tells Agencies

Unions Sue to Block RIF Directive; Say Hundreds of Thousands of Jobs Are at Stake

Judge Allows Deferred Resignation to Proceed; OPM Says Program Now Closed

Agencies Asked for Lists of Employees Rated below ‘Fully Successful’

OPM Tells Agencies to Revert to Prior Trump Policies on Discipline, Bargaining

‘Deferred Resignation’ Is Legal, Binding on Government, OPM Says

OPM Tells Agencies to Broaden Considerations for Schedule F – Now “Policy/Career”

See also,

Primer: Early out, buyout, reduction in force (RIF)

Deferred and Postponed Annuities Under CSRS and FERS

Have My Federal Benefits Changed in 2025

Get Your Official Personnel Folder in Order to Max Out Benefits

Are you Ready for Your Federal Retirement Under FERS

2025 Federal Employees Handbook