Latest news with #post-Watergate
Yomiuri Shimbun
10 hours ago
- Politics
- Yomiuri Shimbun
Trump Attacks Watergate Laws in Massive Shift of Ethics System
Then-Rep. Elizabeth Holtzman was 32 when, as a member of the House Judiciary Committee, she voted in 1974 for three articles of impeachment against President Richard M. Nixon. She spent the next few years as part of a Congress that passed wave after wave of laws to rein in future presidents. A half-century later, Holtzman, a New York Democrat, is watching as President Donald Trump takes aim at post-Watergate reforms on transparency, spending, conflicts of interest and more. By challenging and disregarding, in letter or in spirit, this slew of 1970s laws, Trump is essentially closing the 50-year post-Watergate chapter of American history – and ushering in a new era of shaky guardrails and blurred separation of powers. 'We didn't envision this,' Holtzman said. 'We saw Nixon doing it, but he hadn't done it on this vast a scale. Trump is saying, 'Congress cannot tell me what to do about anything.'' In 1976, for example, Congress created a 10-year term for FBI directors; Trump has forced out two FBI directors. The Impoundment Control Act of 1974 aimed to prevent presidents from dismantling agencies; Trump has essentially done just that. Lawmakers in 1978 installed independent inspectors general in government offices; Trump has fired many of them and is seeking to replace them with loyalists. Trump has also disregarded post-Watergate safeguards intended to prevent the unjustified firings of federal workers. His U.S. DOGE Service has skirted rules on government secrecy and personal data. He has declared numerous emergencies despite Congress's efforts to rein them in. This broad rejection of the post-Watergate laws underlines the country's shift from an era focused on clean government and strict ethics to the rise of a president whose appeal stems in part from his willingness to violate such rules and constraints. 'There has been a collapse, at least temporarily, of the kind of outrage and ethical standards that were prevalent during the days of Watergate,' said Richard Ben-Veniste, who headed the special counsel's Watergate Task Force. 'The excesses of Watergate now seem naive. They have been overtaken by a system that is based on quid pro quo.' Many of Trump's moves face legal challenges, and they may be reversed by the courts – or the Supreme Court could enshrine them. Some scholars welcome Trump's effort to claw back presidential power, saying the post-Watergate Congresses, caught up in an anti-Nixon fervor, improperly sought to rewrite the Constitution in the legislative branch's favor. 'Congress should not be able to fundamentally change the constitutional balance between the two branches,' said John Yoo, a senior Justice Department official under President George W. Bush, referring to the legislative and executive. 'Several of the Watergate reforms went too far. The presidency functioned better, and the separation of powers functioned better, before.' White House spokesman Harrison Fields said Trump is not dismantling ethics but reviving them in a system that had become corrupted. 'President Trump is restoring the integrity of the Executive Branch following four years of relentless abuse through weaponization, lawfare, and unelected bureaucrats running the nation via autopen,' Harrison said in a statement. 'The President and his administration are the most transparent in American history, seamlessly executing the will of the American people in accordance with their constitutional authority.' Nixon's resignation on Aug. 9, 1974, was a seismic political event, as Americans at the time were far less hardened to scandal and more willing to denounce wrongdoing by their party's leaders. In November of that year, Democrats swept to historic majorities in Congress, carried on a wave of pro-reform sentiment. They crafted restraints on presidential authority that had not occurred to anyone before Nixon's startling use of government power against his adversaries. Nixon's team had broken into Democratic headquarters, spied on domestic targets, secretly taped White House visitors, misused campaign funds and even developed an 'enemies list' with a plan to 'use the available federal machinery to screw our political enemies,' as White House counsel John Dean put it. Presidents of both parties have chafed at those restrictions but largely followed them. Until now. Some Democrats say Trump, by disregarding many of the statutes, is going further than Nixon, who at least paid lip service to his obligation to follow the law. 'Nixon was essentially a criminal, but an ordinary criminal who accepted the fact that the laws applied to him and that if he tried to violate them he would be subject to punishment,' said David Dorsen, an assistant chief counsel of the Senate Watergate Committee. 'Trump considers himself above the law, so that the system is to be rejected by him when he feels like it should be.' It is far from clear that Trump is seeking to eviscerate the Watergate laws specifically. He has always taken an expansive view of his own power, and that has set up a natural collision with the rules written by lawmakers trying to rein in what they saw as rogue presidents. That collision is unfolding on numerous fronts. Watergate-era lawmakers, furious at Nixon for refusing to spend money they had authorized, passed a law forbidding 'impoundment.' Trump ignored that when he temporarily froze government grants, and he has all but dismantled an agency created by Congress, the U.S. Agency for International Development. In response to Nixon's push to replace civil servants with political loyalists, Congress created the Merit Systems Protection Board in 1978 to hear cases of federal employees claiming unjust termination. Trump, who wants to force out thousands of workers, has dismissed a key member of the board and sought to neutralize it. Among the most notable post-Watergate reforms was the creation in 1978 of inspector general offices to pursue wrongdoing throughout the government. The law has been bolstered repeatedly since then and number of IGs has expanded to more than 70, with some Republican lawmakers among their strongest supporters. Trump fired 16 inspectors general shortly after taking office, in apparent violation of the law that requires 30 days' notice and a detailed rationale for such dismissals. Previous presidents, including Ronald Reagan, have also sought to fire IGs, but not in such a sweeping, peremptory manner. For many of Trump's critics, his rejection of the post-Watergate worldview goes beyond individual laws to a broader disregard of the principle that a president should not use the federal government to advance his personal interests. When Trump dines with people who enriched his family by buying his meme coin, or rewards his top campaign donor with a powerful federal job, they say, he is obliterating the red line drawn after Watergate. 'The background was a president who, on every front that you looked, was engaged in an abuse of power,' Holtzman said of the Watergate reforms. But now, she added, 'You have Elon Musk, who can spend almost $300 million to elect a president – when we passed a law specifically to limit expenditures because of the abuses we saw in Watergate.' The courts are weighing almost all of Trump's moves; he has won some victories, and legal experts say it is likely the Supreme Court will approve at least some of what he is doing. The judiciary has become far more supportive of presidential power in the years since Watergate. Yoo said it is notable that Trump is insisting on his right to fire any executive branch employee, including those Congress sought to shield with specified terms. 'If he succeeds in that, it would end the Watergate experiment in creating these independent bureaucracies,' said Yoo, who teaches at the University of California at Berkeley. 'On issue after issue, he has either taken these Watergate laws and interpreted them way beyond what the Congress originally wanted or just directly challenged their constitutionality, and you're seeing them go up to the Supreme Court right now,' Yoo said. Still, it was clear long before Trump that some of the most far-reaching Watergate reforms were floundering. The courts struck down several campaign finance rules, for example, saying they violated the First Amendment. In 1999, Congress chose not to renew its independent counsel law, which was a response to Nixon's notorious 'Saturday Night Massacre.' After Nixon fired Watergate Special Prosecutor Archibald Cox – along with Attorney General Elliot Richardson and his deputy – Congress decreed that a three-judge panel would appoint such prosecutors in the future. But the system proved unwieldy. The Clinton administration alone faced seven independent counsel probes, many lasting for years or focused on minor allegations. By 1999, lawmakers of both parties were happy to let the statute expire and return to a system of special counsels appointed by the attorney general. The political culture has clearly shifted in dramatic ways since the late 1970s. Holtzman said her colleagues had hoped the threat of impeachment, which ultimately forced Nixon to resign, would deter future presidents if the new laws did not. Since then, President Bill Clinton was impeached once and Trump twice. But all three Senate trials resulted in acquittal largely along party lines. And Trump's impeachment did not prevent him from retaking the White House in decisive fashion last year. 'Naively, we thought the impeachment itself would stand as a warning to future presidents, and it hasn't,' Holtzman said. Rufus Edmisten, who was a deputy chief counsel for the Senate Watergate Committee, said Congress's willingness to assert itself in a bipartisan way has all but evaporated since the hot day in the summer of 1973 when he delivered a congressional subpoena to a sitting president. 'We're right back to another Watergate, except worse,' Edmisten said. 'Having been in the middle of all kinds of things for 10 years, especially Watergate, I cringe when I think how Congress has become a lapdog. It's taken a back seat in the separation of powers order of things. It's almost an afterthought.'
Yahoo
16-05-2025
- Politics
- Yahoo
How Congress Became Hooked on Impeachment
It's impossible to know who the next president will be. But one thing can be said with certainty: regardless of their performance in office, there will be an attempt to impeach them. There's been a vast escalation of impeachment efforts in recent years, turning a once rare gesture into something routine. The latest, notable for how comparatively humdrum it was, came just this week. What little drama accompanied the resolution wasn't about forcing accountability for a president whom many Democrats think has repeatedly violated the law. Instead, it was whether a backbencher — who is facing a competitive primary and thus has a motive for ginning up the Democratic base — would step on his party's messaging on other pressing issues by introducing such a measure. In the end, Rep. Shri Thanedar (D-Mich.) blinked and decided not to force a vote on his resolution to impeach President Donald Trump, bringing an ignoble end to what was the 13th resolution introduced by House Democrats to remove Trump from office since 2016. (The 14th came on Friday, introduced by Rep. Al Green (D-Texas).) This is the second most impeachment resolutions offered against any president. The only president with more? Joe Biden, who faced 17 different resolutions introduced in the House to impeach him in his four years in office. It's a distinct break from common practice in the post-Watergate era. For all the rhetoric about impeaching Barack Obama, not a single resolution was filed to remove him from office. There were three against George W. Bush, one — albeit a memorable one — against Bill Clinton, two against George H.W. Bush, two against Ronald Reagan and no resolutions offered to impeach Jimmy Carter or Gerald Ford. Impeachment's newfound popularity isn't just limited to the 31 resolutions filed against Biden and Trump combined since 2016. Three different members of Biden's cabinet along with Vice President Kamala Harris were the subject of multiple impeachment resolutions by various Republican lawmakers. Homeland Security Secretary Alejandro Mayorkas was the target of six different proposals to impeach him, the last of which was successful and resulted inthe second Senate impeachment trial of a cabinet secretary in American history. Democratic Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez of New York also introduced two impeachment resolutions to oust Justices Clarence Thomas and Samuel Alito from the Supreme Court. Most of these resolutions went nowhere and few even received a vote. But their very introduction made clear that the threat of impeachment is in uncharted territory, having shifted from a rare constitutional remedy to an easy gimmick for fundraising and partisan gain. 'I do think some of it is driven by social media and some of it is real,' said Rep. Chip Roy (R-Texas), who notes 'there were impeachments filed against [President George W.] Bush.' In Roy's view, a real impeachment was the one that led tothe brief Senate trial for Mayorkas. 'He was literally ignoring his duty to defend the border of the United States and Texas was suffering.' Meanwhile, Roy snickered at Thanedar's effort. 'The impeachment language directed at President Trump is political, and there'll probably be 20 more filed before the end of this Congress,' he said. In fact, Roy's Democratic colleagues largely agreed with him about Thanedar's efforts, which came as the Michigan lawmaker faces a contested primary back home and while Democrats have tried to focus their entire party's messaging apparatus on combating the Republican tax bill. They confronted Thanedar on the House floor, booed him at a party caucus meeting and some members even went so far as to ask a colleague the name of Thanedar's primary opponent so that they could send campaign donations. It may have marked a new low in the ongoing diminution of the resolution of impeachment, another sign the tool had lost its solemnity and its sting. 'The shame of it is that impeachment has lost its ability to be a form of accountability and a check on the president. And it's been just completely politicized,' said Rep. Daniel Goldman (D-N.Y.), who was elected to Congress in 2022 after rising to national prominence as a lawyer for House Democrats during the first impeachment of Donald Trump. Republicans argue the Democratic efforts to oust Trump also removed taboos in Congress around the constitutional tool, and helped unleash a retaliatory spate of GOP resolutions once Joe Biden captured the White House. Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene (R-Ga.) didn't even wait for Biden's inauguration before fundraising off an effort to impeach him. In 2023, Trump infamously posted on Truth Social his own call for a Biden impeachment, arguing, 'They did it to us.'The desire for revenge among the MAGA base made impeachment resolutions lucrative for those politicians wooing small dollar donors. In one instance, it sparked an internal Republican feud between Greene and Rep. Lauren Boebert (R-Colo.) when they sparred over Boebert launching her own separate impeachment effort, rather than joining Greene's. 'It's purely for fundraising,' griped the Georgia Republican over her colleague's effort to oust Biden. Of the 17 impeachment resolutions introduced to remove Biden from office, Greene introduced six — including three different attempts to oust the then-president on one day in August 2021. Another factor driving the phenomenon is that, unlike simply introducing a bill, launching an effort to impeach an official still remains rare enough to be worthy of a cable news hit. (Thanedar hasn't gotten himself booked yet but he has held multiple 'impeachment town halls'already in his Michigan district and put up billboards touting his effort as well). The result is that, with the obliteration of cultural norms in Congress that once prevented a spree of impeachment resolutions, it's now seen as just another legislative — or promotional — tool, rather than a last resort against an official who has committed high crimes and misdemeanors. As Rep. Mike Collins (R-Ga.) said with a shrug, 'you gotta live by the rules,' noting that members were allowed to freely introduce impeachment resolutions by the rules of the House. Roy's prediction of 20 more impeachment resolutions against Trump by the end of this Congress seems a bit unlikely —- after all, there are only so many times members can introduce similar resolutions of impeachment. But at a moment when Democratic members of Congress are poised for an onslaught of primary challenges and demands from the base that they do something to stop Trump, impeachment resolutions will prove hard to resist — even if there is no chance of success.
Politico
16-05-2025
- Politics
- Politico
How Congress Became Hooked on Impeachment
It's impossible to know who the next president will be. But one thing can be said with certainty: regardless of their performance in office, there will be an attempt to impeach them. There's been a vast escalation of impeachment efforts in recent years, turning a once rare gesture into something routine. The latest, notable for how comparatively humdrum it was, came just this week. What little drama accompanied the resolution wasn't about forcing accountability for a president whom many Democrats think has repeatedly violated the law. Instead, it was whether a backbencher — who is facing a competitive primary and thus has a motive for ginning up the Democratic base — would step on his party's messaging on other pressing issues by introducing such a measure. In the end, Rep. Shri Thanedar (D-Mich.) blinked and decided not to force a vote on his resolution to impeach President Donald Trump, bringing an ignoble end to what was the 13th resolution introduced by House Democrats to remove Trump from office since 2016. (The 14th came on Friday, introduced by Rep. Al Green (D-Texas).) This is the second most impeachment resolutions offered against any president. The only president with more? Joe Biden, who faced 17 different resolutions introduced in the House to impeach him in his four years in office. It's a distinct break from common practice in the post-Watergate era. For all the rhetoric about impeaching Barack Obama, not a single resolution was filed to remove him from office. There were three against George W. Bush, one — albeit a memorable one — against Bill Clinton, two against George H.W. Bush, two against Ronald Reagan and no resolutions offered to impeach Jimmy Carter or Gerald Ford. Impeachment's newfound popularity isn't just limited to the 31 resolutions filed against Biden and Trump combined since 2016. Three different members of Biden's cabinet along with Vice President Kamala Harris were the subject of multiple impeachment resolutions by various Republican lawmakers. Homeland Security Secretary Alejandro Mayorkas was the target of six different proposals to impeach him, the last of which was successful and resulted in the second Senate impeachment trial of a cabinet secretary in American history. Democratic Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez of New York also introduced two impeachment resolutions to oust Justices Clarence Thomas and Samuel Alito from the Supreme Court. Most of these resolutions went nowhere and few even received a vote. But their very introduction made clear that the threat of impeachment is in uncharted territory, having shifted from a rare constitutional remedy to an easy gimmick for fundraising and partisan gain. 'I do think some of it is driven by social media and some of it is real,' said Rep. Chip Roy (R-Texas), who notes 'there were impeachments filed against [President George W.] Bush.' In Roy's view, a real impeachment was the one that led to the brief Senate trial for Mayorkas. 'He was literally ignoring his duty to defend the border of the United States and Texas was suffering.' Meanwhile, Roy snickered at Thanedar's effort. 'The impeachment language directed at President Trump is political, and there'll probably be 20 more filed before the end of this Congress,' he said. In fact, Roy's Democratic colleagues largely agreed with him about Thanedar's efforts, which came as the Michigan lawmaker faces a contested primary back home and while Democrats have tried to focus their entire party's messaging apparatus on combating the Republican tax bill. They confronted Thanedar on the House floor, booed him at a party caucus meeting and some members even went so far as to ask a colleague the name of Thanedar's primary opponent so that they could send campaign donations. It may have marked a new low in the ongoing diminution of the resolution of impeachment, another sign the tool had lost its solemnity and its sting. 'The shame of it is that impeachment has lost its ability to be a form of accountability and a check on the president. And it's been just completely politicized,' said Rep. Daniel Goldman (D-N.Y.), who was elected to Congress in 2022 after rising to national prominence as a lawyer for House Democrats during the first impeachment of Donald Trump. Republicans argue the Democratic efforts to oust Trump also removed taboos in Congress around the constitutional tool, and helped unleash a retaliatory spate of GOP resolutions once Joe Biden captured the White House. Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene (R-Ga.) didn't even wait for Biden's inauguration before fundraising off an effort to impeach him. In 2023, Trump infamously posted on Truth Social his own call for a Biden impeachment, arguing, 'They did it to us.'The desire for revenge among the MAGA base made impeachment resolutions lucrative for those politicians wooing small dollar donors. In one instance, it sparked an internal Republican feud between Greene and Rep. Lauren Boebert (R-Colo.) when they sparred over Boebert launching her own separate impeachment effort, rather than joining Greene's. 'It's purely for fundraising,' griped the Georgia Republican over her colleague's effort to oust Biden. Of the 17 impeachment resolutions introduced to remove Biden from office, Greene introduced six — including three different attempts to oust the then-president on one day in August 2021. Another factor driving the phenomenon is that, unlike simply introducing a bill, launching an effort to impeach an official still remains rare enough to be worthy of a cable news hit. (Thanedar hasn't gotten himself booked yet but he has held multiple 'impeachment town halls' already in his Michigan district and put up billboards touting his effort as well). The result is that, with the obliteration of cultural norms in Congress that once prevented a spree of impeachment resolutions, it's now seen as just another legislative — or promotional — tool, rather than a last resort against an official who has committed high crimes and misdemeanors. As Rep. Mike Collins (R-Ga.) said with a shrug, 'you gotta live by the rules,' noting that members were allowed to freely introduce impeachment resolutions by the rules of the House. Roy's prediction of 20 more impeachment resolutions against Trump by the end of this Congress seems a bit unlikely —- after all, there are only so many times members can introduce similar resolutions of impeachment. But at a moment when Democratic members of Congress are poised for an onslaught of primary challenges and demands from the base that they do something to stop Trump, impeachment resolutions will prove hard to resist — even if there is no chance of success.
Yahoo
08-05-2025
- Politics
- Yahoo
Trump's hardball moves leave fired federal workers few paths to fight for their jobs back
After firing tens of thousands of federal workers this year, President Donald Trump has also made it much harder for them to get their jobs back as he imposes his will over the labor agencies that are supposed to protect their rights. He has hobbled independent labor boards, installed a loyalist at a key agency that protects civil servants, and signed an executive order to end collective bargaining for many federal workers. This has left government employees with dwindling options to contest their firings through channels normally available to civil servants, with many turning to the courts for relief or giving up altogether. 'It is significantly more difficult for a federal employee to have their case heard by an independent body,' said former Merit Systems Protection Board member Ray Limon. 'What we're seeing here is a complete elimination of traditional employee due process and investigation of complaints, which is unparalleled in the history of our government.' In an effort to ensure a stable, professional and merit-based workforce across administrations, Congress has long mandated certain due-process protections from arbitrary firings for the more than 2 million federal employees. But as federal employees – ranging from newer 'probationary' workers who were fired en masse, to career civil servants who believe they were dismissed for partisan purposes – seek to challenge their terminations in the second Trump administration, they are finding it harder than ever to push back. Amid sweeping layoffs and resignations, civic groups have stepped in to connect some of these disillusioned workers with new jobs in state and local government. Meanwhile, the Trump administration is fighting in court to defend his mass firings and executive orders. 'President Trump is the chief executive of the executive branch and reserves the right to fire anyone he wants,' White House press secretary Karoline Leavitt said in a statement. The reversal of fortunes for fired employees has been most glaring at the Office of Special Counsel (OSC), which was created by Congress in the post-Watergate era to safeguard merit systems in the federal government. The agency often advocates on behalf of employees at the Merit Systems Protection Board (MSPB), which reviews workers' complaints. Hampton Dellinger was one year into his five-year term at OSC when Trump was sworn in. It didn't take long for the Senate-confirmed Biden appointee to break ranks with Trump on a major priority for the new administration: shrinking the size of the federal workforce. Dellinger concluded that Trump's mass firings of probationary workers were unlawful, and successfully urged the MSPB to reinstate 6,000 employees. Advocacy groups hailed the outcome as a landmark moment that could pave the way for additional reinstatements. Then, Trump fired Dellinger. After Dellinger lost a brief court battle over his own termination, Trump turned to two loyalists to fill his role. He tapped Veterans Affairs Secretary Doug Collins in February to temporarily lead OSC, and by late March, US Trade Representative Jamieson Greer was slotted into the acting role. Under Greer's watch, OSC dropped its support for reinstating any probationary employees. OSC notified some federal employees in late April that it conducted a 'review' and determined that the firings were proper and were 'in accordance with the new administration's priorities,' according to legal filings and records reviewed by CNN. This was a 180-degree turn from OSC's position under Dellinger. 'We're now seeing OSC not actually do the kinds of things it's supposed to be doing,' said Skye Perryman, president of Democracy Forward, which represented the 6,000 reinstated workers. 'The administration… is seeking to undermine accountability structures that were put in place to ensure federal employees have redress and civil service protections.' An OSC spokesman declined to comment. The Trump administration has also defanged, at least for the time being, two federal labor boards – which serve as bulwarks against partisan abuses and workplace discrimination by independently reviewing complaints. MSPB and the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) are currently without a quorum after Trump fired several members, leaving them operational but unable to function at full strength. The people Trump fired were appointed by President Joe Biden and confirmed by the Senate. For instance, the MSPB can't issue final rulings on workers' complaints without a quorum. And the EEOC isn't able to initiate major litigation or vote on policy rulemaking. One MSPB member that Trump fired has filed a lawsuit to get her job back, which would restore a quorum. But she faces an uphill fight at the conservative-leaning Supreme Court, which has already rebuffed her bid to get back on the job while her legal case plays out. MSPB spokesman Zachary Kurz said the agency 'remains open for business and its work continues,' adding that its 'ability to adjudicate cases is fully functional across its regional offices, and it will continue to process petitions for review.' EEOC spokesman James Ryan said the commission 'is still open for business and taking all charges.' In December, during the presidential transition, the EEOC voted on a bipartisan basis to delegate some of its powers to commission staff, which they could use if a quorum is lost. There are signs that the Trump administration may be slow-walking some MSPB cases. Typically, the agency facing a worker's complaint will defend itself at MSPB. But the lead HR agency overseeing federal civil servants, the Office of Personnel Management, is intervening in more than 40 pending cases involving Justice Department officials that were fired in March, according to filings reviewed by CNN. OPM has asked an administrative judge to pause all of the 40-plus cases, according to the filings. CNN has reached out to OPM for comment about its intervention in these MSPB cases. Limon, the former Democratic-appointed MSPB member, said it is 'very unusual' for OPM to intervene in pending cases like these. It never happened during his three years as vice chairman, he said, but it could be warranted if there is an apparent conflict of interest. One of the cases was filed by Liz Oyer, the former Justice Department pardon attorney who was part of a large group of firings approved by Todd Blanche, the former Trump lawyer who is now deputy attorney general. Oyer claims she was terminated because she refused to bow to pressure from Trump appointees who wanted her to restore the gun rights of actor Mel Gibson, which he lost after a 2011 state domestic violence conviction. 'It does not seem like the MSPB proceeding will be resolved anytime soon,' Oyer told CNN. 'The Justice Department is doing everything they can to delay and avoid providing any information about the reasons for my firing and others. This is frustrating and unfortunate for everyone who lost their jobs and who have no other recourse.' Blanche previously told CNN in a statement that Oyer's 'version of events is false' and 'erroneous.' CNN has reported that some fired workers are struggling to navigate overlapping agencies that handle complaints and to decipher the 'legalese' on government websites. Union stewards often help members through this process but those efforts have been undermined by Trump's recent executive order attempting to end collective bargaining rights for a large share of the federal workforce. Alex Berman, an Internal Revenue Service employee who is a union leader in Philadelphia, said some of his colleagues aren't sure if they are even allowed to talk to their union representatives after Trump's executive order. And in some IRS offices, he said union leaders have been banned from using official time to answer questions from union members, as was permitted under their existing contract when Trump took office. The IRS didn't respond to CNN's request for comment. 'Most employees know what they're supposed to do for their jobs, but don't know what recourse there may be in any given situation, up to and including a firing,' Berman said. 'Without the unions, people are in the dark as to what their rights and responsibilities are.' His group, the National Treasury Employees Union, has repeatedly sued the Trump administration and convinced a judge to block his collective-bargaining ban. It's one of more than a dozen labor unions, anti-Trump groups, and advocacy organizations that launched a legal defense fund to help people 'who have been fired illegally' under Trump. Some terminated employees – like the probationary hires, and the former top OSC and MSPB officials – saw initial success in court, where judges ruled that their firings were unlawful. But the Trump administration has prevailed in reversing some of those decisions, some on a temporary basis, as they are heard by more conservative federal appellate courts. 'The courts will be increasingly important as the administration seeks to close other avenues for redress,' said Perryman, whose group is involved in the legal defense fund. She said more than 1,000 lawyers signed up in the first week to volunteer their time. As morale falls with each round of mass firings, some groups see an opportunity. Caitlin Lewis, the executive director at Work For America, launched a service that is trying to match up thousands of federal employees with jobs in state or local government. 'Oversight authorities and regulatory authorities are being stripped of their powers,' Lewis said. 'The overwhelming sentiment is exhaustion and frustration. They don't feel equipped to take on the system as individuals. As they've been left in this state of purgatory and confusion, their faith is diminishing that the system is going to protect their legal rights.' Her CivicMatch platform has seen a 15-fold increase in activity since Trump took office, with more than 8,000 federal workers expressing interest in new public sector jobs. Many worked at hard-hit agencies like the IRS and the US Agency for International Development. While some workers are mobile, plenty of others are unable to uproot their families in search of new opportunities, especially in an uncertain economic climate. For those who are willing to make the move, however, some states and cities recently stepped up recruitment efforts, to fill their own ranks with veterans of the public service sector – and to stand up to Trump. 'More and more people are unwilling to wait it out,' Lewis said. 'It's a moment of loss for the federal government, but it's a moment of possibility for state and local governments.'
CNN
08-05-2025
- Politics
- CNN
Trump's hardball moves leave fired federal workers few paths to fight for their jobs back
After firing tens of thousands of federal workers this year, President Donald Trump has also made it much harder for them to get their jobs back as he imposes his will over the labor agencies that are supposed to protect their rights. He has hobbled independent labor boards, installed a loyalist at a key agency that protects civil servants, and signed an executive order to end collective bargaining for many federal workers. This has left government employees with dwindling options to contest their firings through channels normally available to civil servants, with many turning to the courts for relief or giving up altogether. 'It is significantly more difficult for a federal employee to have their case heard by an independent body,' said former Merit Systems Protection Board member Ray Limon. 'What we're seeing here is a complete elimination of traditional employee due process and investigation of complaints, which is unparalleled in the history of our government.' In an effort to ensure a stable, professional and merit-based workforce across administrations, Congress has long mandated certain due-process protections from arbitrary firings for the more than 2 million federal employees. But as federal employees – ranging from newer 'probationary' workers who were fired en masse, to career civil servants who believe they were dismissed for partisan purposes – seek to challenge their terminations in the second Trump administration, they are finding it harder than ever to push back. Amid sweeping layoffs and resignations, civic groups have stepped in to connect some of these disillusioned workers with new jobs in state and local government. Meanwhile, the Trump administration is fighting in court to defend his mass firings and executive orders. 'President Trump is the chief executive of the executive branch and reserves the right to fire anyone he wants,' White House press secretary Karoline Leavitt said in a statement. The reversal of fortunes for fired employees has been most glaring at the Office of Special Counsel (OSC), which was created by Congress in the post-Watergate era to safeguard merit systems in the federal government. The agency often advocates on behalf of employees at the Merit Systems Protection Board (MSPB), which reviews workers' complaints. Hampton Dellinger was one year into his five-year term at OSC when Trump was sworn in. It didn't take long for the Senate-confirmed Biden appointee to break ranks with Trump on a major priority for the new administration: shrinking the size of the federal workforce. Dellinger concluded that Trump's mass firings of probationary workers were unlawful, and successfully urged the MSPB to reinstate 6,000 employees. Advocacy groups hailed the outcome as a landmark moment that could pave the way for additional reinstatements. Then, Trump fired Dellinger. After Dellinger lost a brief court battle over his own termination, Trump turned to two loyalists to fill his role. He tapped Veterans Affairs Secretary Doug Collins in February to temporarily lead OSC, and by late March, US Trade Representative Jamieson Greer was slotted into the acting role. Under Greer's watch, OSC dropped its support for reinstating any probationary employees. OSC notified some federal employees in late April that it conducted a 'review' and determined that the firings were proper and were 'in accordance with the new administration's priorities,' according to legal filings and records reviewed by CNN. This was a 180-degree turn from OSC's position under Dellinger. 'We're now seeing OSC not actually do the kinds of things it's supposed to be doing,' said Skye Perryman, president of Democracy Forward, which represented the 6,000 reinstated workers. 'The administration… is seeking to undermine accountability structures that were put in place to ensure federal employees have redress and civil service protections.' An OSC spokesman declined to comment. The Trump administration has also defanged, at least for the time being, two federal labor boards – which serve as bulwarks against partisan abuses and workplace discrimination by independently reviewing complaints. MSPB and the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) are currently without a quorum after Trump fired several members, leaving them operational but unable to function at full strength. The people Trump fired were appointed by President Joe Biden and confirmed by the Senate. For instance, the MSPB can't issue final rulings on workers' complaints without a quorum. And the EEOC isn't able to initiate major litigation or vote on policy rulemaking. One MSPB member that Trump fired has filed a lawsuit to get her job back, which would restore a quorum. But she faces an uphill fight at the conservative-leaning Supreme Court, which has already rebuffed her bid to get back on the job while her legal case plays out. MSPB spokesman Zachary Kurz said the agency 'remains open for business and its work continues,' adding that its 'ability to adjudicate cases is fully functional across its regional offices, and it will continue to process petitions for review.' EEOC spokesman James Ryan said the commission 'is still open for business and taking all charges.' In December, during the presidential transition, the EEOC voted on a bipartisan basis to delegate some of its powers to commission staff, which they could use if a quorum is lost. There are signs that the Trump administration may be slow-walking some MSPB cases. Typically, the agency facing a worker's complaint will defend itself at MSPB. But the lead HR agency overseeing federal civil servants, the Office of Personnel Management, is intervening in more than 40 pending cases involving Justice Department officials that were fired in March, according to filings reviewed by CNN. OPM has asked an administrative judge to pause all of the 40-plus cases, according to the filings. CNN has reached out to OPM for comment about its intervention in these MSPB cases. Limon, the former Democratic-appointed MSPB member, said it is 'very unusual' for OPM to intervene in pending cases like these. It never happened during his three years as vice chairman, he said, but it could be warranted if there is an apparent conflict of interest. One of the cases was filed by Liz Oyer, the former Justice Department pardon attorney who was part of a large group of firings approved by Todd Blanche, the former Trump lawyer who is now deputy attorney general. Oyer claims she was terminated because she refused to bow to pressure from Trump appointees who wanted her to restore the gun rights of actor Mel Gibson, which he lost after a 2011 state domestic violence conviction. 'It does not seem like the MSPB proceeding will be resolved anytime soon,' Oyer told CNN. 'The Justice Department is doing everything they can to delay and avoid providing any information about the reasons for my firing and others. This is frustrating and unfortunate for everyone who lost their jobs and who have no other recourse.' Blanche previously told CNN in a statement that Oyer's 'version of events is false' and 'erroneous.' CNN has reported that some fired workers are struggling to navigate overlapping agencies that handle complaints and to decipher the 'legalese' on government websites. Union stewards often help members through this process but those efforts have been undermined by Trump's recent executive order attempting to end collective bargaining rights for a large share of the federal workforce. Alex Berman, an Internal Revenue Service employee who is a union leader in Philadelphia, said some of his colleagues aren't sure if they are even allowed to talk to their union representatives after Trump's executive order. And in some IRS offices, he said union leaders have been banned from using official time to answer questions from union members, as was permitted under their existing contract when Trump took office. The IRS didn't respond to CNN's request for comment. 'Most employees know what they're supposed to do for their jobs, but don't know what recourse there may be in any given situation, up to and including a firing,' Berman said. 'Without the unions, people are in the dark as to what their rights and responsibilities are.' His group, the National Treasury Employees Union, has repeatedly sued the Trump administration and convinced a judge to block his collective-bargaining ban. It's one of more than a dozen labor unions, anti-Trump groups, and advocacy organizations that launched a legal defense fund to help people 'who have been fired illegally' under Trump. Some terminated employees – like the probationary hires, and the former top OSC and MSPB officials – saw initial success in court, where judges ruled that their firings were unlawful. But the Trump administration has prevailed in reversing some of those decisions, some on a temporary basis, as they are heard by more conservative federal appellate courts. 'The courts will be increasingly important as the administration seeks to close other avenues for redress,' said Perryman, whose group is involved in the legal defense fund. She said more than 1,000 lawyers signed up in the first week to volunteer their time. As morale falls with each round of mass firings, some groups see an opportunity. Caitlin Lewis, the executive director at Work For America, launched a service that is trying to match up thousands of federal employees with jobs in state or local government. 'Oversight authorities and regulatory authorities are being stripped of their powers,' Lewis said. 'The overwhelming sentiment is exhaustion and frustration. They don't feel equipped to take on the system as individuals. As they've been left in this state of purgatory and confusion, their faith is diminishing that the system is going to protect their legal rights.' Her CivicMatch platform has seen a 15-fold increase in activity since Trump took office, with more than 8,000 federal workers expressing interest in new public sector jobs. Many worked at hard-hit agencies like the IRS and the US Agency for International Development. While some workers are mobile, plenty of others are unable to uproot their families in search of new opportunities, especially in an uncertain economic climate. For those who are willing to make the move, however, some states and cities recently stepped up recruitment efforts, to fill their own ranks with veterans of the public service sector – and to stand up to Trump. 'More and more people are unwilling to wait it out,' Lewis said. 'It's a moment of loss for the federal government, but it's a moment of possibility for state and local governments.'
