Federal court injunctions have agencies walking back some workforce policies — at least for now

Agencies are reversing course on some of the Trump administration’s policies targeting federal employees and the unions that represent them, after federal courts ordered them to do so — at least temporarily.

Judges, in these cases, have put temporary holds on the administration’s plans to fire probationary employees and eliminate collective bargaining rights for much of the federal workforce.

However, these cases remain ongoing, and preliminary injunctions blocking the administration’s actions may eventually be struck down by higher courts.

Federal News Network obtained memos from several agencies putting some of these recent actions on hold. But it’s not clear whether similar memos have gone out governmentwide. The White House did not immediately respond to a request for comment.

IRS changing direction on collective bargaining proceedings

The IRS, for one, has altered its instructions to federal managers on how to move forward with collective bargaining procedures.

In late April, the IRS had initially directed agency managers to stop working with the agency’s union, the National Treasury Employees Union. The directions came in response to a March 27 executive order from President Donald Trump, which sought to cancel collective bargaining at most agencies due to “national security” implications.

NTEU quickly sued the administration over the executive order on collective bargaining, alleging that Trump’s actions were an unlawful violation of the 1978 Civil Service Reform Act.

On the morning of April 25, in response to Trump’s executive order, the IRS clarified to managers that although it was not terminating its 2022 national agreement with NTEU, it would be suspending union dues, negotiations and arbitration proceedings. The same IRS guidance also barred employees from using official time and participating in labor-management relations committee, and outlined plans to reclaim office space and equipment that unions had been using, according to an internal IRS FAQ page, shared with Federal News Network.

“Managers should not continue to invite the union to formal discussions … or honor requests for [investigative interviews] representation,” IRS wrote in the FAQ post on the agency’s intranet.

But later on the same day the IRS circulated its guidance, a federal judge temporarily blocked agencies represented by NTEU from continuing to implement Trump’s order while the case continued.

Following the preliminary injunction, the IRS now appears to be reversing course on its prior guidance. In an email on Tuesday, IRS leadership told managers to begin working again with NTEU by continuing formal meetings, grievances, arbitrations and other federal labor activities.

“Managers must once again treat NTEU as the exclusive bargaining representative,” an IRS email sent Tuesday to all agency employees, obtained by Federal News Network, reads.

The May 6 IRS email also states that the new guidance is “effective immediately.”

But during a higher-level meeting on Tuesday, managers were still privately told to try to schedule grievance meetings “as far out as possible,” according to an IRS manager who provided details of the internal meeting to Federal News Network anonymously for fear of professional retribution. The IRS did not respond to Federal News Network’s request for comment.

In a statement, NTEU National President Doreen Greenwald said the union had expected the government to appeal the court decision, but that it “does not mean agencies can ignore the injunction in the meantime.”

“We expect federal agencies to honor the preliminary injunction issued by a federal judge on April 25 and restore the union rights of their frontline federal employees and the collective bargaining agreements that were already in place,” Greenwald said by email. “Where we find instances of agencies refusing to restore employees’ collective bargaining rights, NTEU will take the appropriate steps to see that their contracts are enforced and that employees continue to have a voice in their workplace, as expressly allowed by law.”

Probationary employees not fired for ‘performance’ reasons

Meanwhile, several agencies, including the Environmental Protection Agency and the Commerce Department, are walking back claims that mass firings of probationary employees were done because of poor performance.

Helena Wooden-Aguilar, EPA’s deputy assistant administrator for workplace strategy, told probationary employees in a memo sent last weekend that “the EPA hereby informs you, as required by the Court, that your earlier termination ‘was not ‘performance’ or fitness based, but was made as part of a government-wide mass termination.’”

Wooden-Aguilar wrote that the EPA issued its memo to comply with a ruling last month from a federal judge in San Francisco.

“The EPA is appealing the Court’s April 18, 2025, Order and will argue it to be both legally and factually erroneous. Nonetheless, the EPA must comply with the Order unless and until it is stayed or reversed by an appellate court,” the memo states.

An EPA employee who was fired during his probationary period, and is currently on paid administrative leave, called the agency’s email notice “stupid and insulting.”

Federal News Network also obtained a nearly identical notice sent to Commerce Department employees on Wednesday.

“In accordance with the Court’s April 18 Order, the Department of Commerce hereby informs you, as required by the court, that your earlier termination ‘was not ‘performance’ or fitness-based but was made as part of a government-wide termination,” the memo states.

Last month, U.S. District Court Judge William Alsup ruled agencies have broad discretion to fire employees, but gave chief human capital officers until May 8 to provide evaluations of individual employees to justify their firings.

Alsup said the pretense of agencies firing nearly 25,000 probationary employees for performance reasons was a “total sham.”

“Termination under the false pretense of performance is an injury that will persist for the working life of each civil servant. In pursuing future employment, each will have to concede that they have been terminated based on performance,” Alsup wrote in his April 18 order. “The stain created by OPM’s pretense will follow each employee through their careers and will limit their professional opportunities.”

According to court documents, former IRS Chief Human Capital Officer Traci DiMartini said the firing of 6,700 of the agency’s probationary employees had nothing to do with their job performance.

“My office did not review or consider the actual job performance or conduct of any IRS probationary employee when issuing the termination notices. I also know that Treasury did not review or consider the actual job performance or conduct of any IRS probationary employee when issuing the termination notices,” DiMartini said. “I know this because this fact was discussed openly in meetings. Practically speaking, it would take weeks or months to evaluate the job performance of 6,700 probationary employees.”

Alsup, however, said nothing in his most recent order prohibits any agency from terminating any employee, “so long as the agency makes that decision wholly on its own, does not use the OPM template termination notice, and is otherwise in compliance with applicable law.”

Alsup previously ruled that mass firings of probationary employees governmentwide were unlawfully coordinated by the Office of Personnel Management, and ordered agencies to reinstate them. But the Supreme Court blocked Alsup’s injunction, on the grounds that seven nonprofit groups leading the lawsuit lacked standing in the case. Alsup, however, allowed federal employee unions to continue with the case.

A federal appeals court heard oral arguments Tuesday in a similar lawsuit in Maryland brought by 19 states and the District of Columbia. The lawsuit also seeks to reinstate probationary employees.

During oral arguments, Judge J. Harvie Wilkinson expressed sympathy for probationary federal employees — who in some cases have been repeatedly fired and rehired as the legal challenges continue — but told lawyers “there are limits to what the courts can do.”

If you would like to contact these reporters about recent changes in the federal government, please email drew.friedman@federalnewsnetwork.com and jheckman@federalnewsnetwork.com. They can also be reached on Signal at drewfriedman.11 and jheckman.29

Copyright © 2026 Federal News Network. All rights reserved. This website is not intended for users located within the European Economic Area.