A federal appeals court just handed the Trump administration a win in its push to rein in union power among federal workers.
According to The Epoch Times, in a sharp turn of events, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, based in San Francisco, granted an emergency stay on Friday, pausing a lower court injunction that had blocked President Trump’s executive order targeting collective bargaining rights at 21 federal agencies.
This saga kicked off with Trump’s executive order on March 27, which aimed to strip bargaining rights from employees at agencies tied to national security missions, spanning departments like Defense, State, and Homeland Security’s border operations.
Fast forward to June, when District Judge James Donato issued a preliminary injunction in response to a lawsuit from the American Federation of Government Employees (AFGE) and five other unions, arguing they’d been unfairly stripped of protections on hours, sick leave, and disciplinary matters.
But the Ninth Circuit stepped in with a 15-page decision, suggesting the government’s likely to win on the merits, noting that Trump’s order doesn’t scream retaliation despite some spicy language in an accompanying fact sheet.
Speaking of that fact sheet, the panel admitted it shows a hint of frustration with union activities but stressed it’s ultimately about safeguarding national security by curbing bargaining that could hinder critical agency functions.
The Ninth Circuit panel wrote, “the fact sheet conveys an overarching objective of protecting national security.” Well, that’s a polite way to say unions might be a speed bump on the road to safety—hard to argue when intelligence and counterintelligence are on the line.
They also pointed out that the government could face irreparable harm if the injunction stayed in place during the appeal process. Sounds like a fancy way of saying bureaucracy can’t afford to hit pause on national defense.
Not to mention, the court argued that suspending the injunction serves the public interest. When the stakes involve agencies like Veterans Affairs and Energy, most Americans would likely nod in agreement.
Meanwhile, the unions aren’t taking this lying down, claiming Trump’s order has already cost workers key contractual safeguards across more than a dozen agencies. It’s a tough pill to swallow for federal employees who’ve relied on those protections.
AFGE National President Everett Kelley didn’t mince words, calling the ruling “a blow to First Amendment rights.” A dramatic take, sure, but when you’re losing ground on sick leave and discipline policies, it’s easy to see why tempers are flaring—though national security isn’t exactly a small counterargument.
The Ninth Circuit wasn’t entirely dismissive of the unions’ gripes, acknowledging a possible whiff of retaliation in the fact sheet’s tone. Yet, they doubled down, stating the president’s focus was clearly on security, not settling personal scores.
Here’s the rub: the panel noted that even if there’s a sliver of a retaliation claim, “the government has shown that the president would have taken the same action” regardless. That’s a legal way of saying intent matters less when the mission is this critical—sorry, union folks, but that’s a tough break.
As this legal tug-of-war continues, the pause on the injunction means Trump’s order can move forward for now, affecting thousands of federal workers. It’s a reminder that in the clash between labor rights and national priorities, one side often has sharper teeth—and it’s not always the one with the picket signs.
