As security personnel lowered the flag outside the Office of Personnel Management (OPM) headquarters in Washington, D.C., it marked a day of upheaval. On February 13, 2025, probationary staff at the OPM were dismissed via a conference call and given barely an hour to vacate the premises. This scene captured by Tierney L. Cross of Reuters set a dramatic tone for the unfolding events.
In a significant judicial move, a federal judge ordered the OPM to revoke its prior directives to federal agencies to “promptly determine whether these employees should be retained.” The judge, William Alsup of the Northern District of California, ruled that the instructions, initially shared through a January 20 memo and a February 14 internal email, were “illegal” and needed to be “stopped and rescinded” immediately.
However, the judge’s ruling did not reinstate the terminated employees. He required that on Friday, the OPM must inform the Department of Defense—right before the slated layoffs of probationary employees—that such dismissals are invalid, following his decision. Additionally, Judge Alsup ordered a future hearing where Charles Ezell, the acting OPM Director, is to testify, although the exact timing remains uncertain.
In his ruling, Judge Alsup pointedly declared, “The Office of Personnel Management has no authority whatsoever under any statute to hire or fire employees within another agency. They can manage their own employees, yes, but they can’t dictate those decisions to other agencies.”
Alsup continued, “OPM cannot direct any agency within the United States government, aside from itself, regarding hiring or firing decisions. This is a foundational principle.”
Highlighting the vital role of probationary employees, Alsup referred to them as “the lifeblood of our government,” praising how they start at entry-level positions and progress upwards, revitalizing and reinventing government agencies.
Danielle Leonard, attorney for the plaintiffs, emphasized to the court, “This is the first time in U.S. history that the government claims these employees can be fired at will, which contradicts the law. Agencies have obligations towards probationary employees before considering their termination.”
Leonard further argued against government secrecy, stating the mass firing orders should not be shrouded in confidentiality. The debate intensified over whether OPM’s call to agencies was an “order” or simply a “request.” Judge Alsup questioned Assistant U.S. Attorney Kelsey Helland on the likelihood of numerous agencies coincidentally following guidance across the board, suggesting it seemed more like an “order” than a mere suggestion.
Helland countered, “The phrasing of an order differs from a request. Asking isn’t the same as ordering.”
She proposed that affected employees utilize the Office of Special Counsel or the Merit Systems Protection Board to challenge their employment status without needing a temporary restraining order.
In response, Leonard asked, “Is the government implying that all these federal employees are lying, Your Honor? That’s essentially what they’re claiming, which seems unbelievable.”
The potential impact of these directives from the Trump administration could have affected hundreds of thousands of employees, as per OPM data, though the exact number of terminations remains unclear.
