Trump’s Mass Firing Plan Declared Illegal by Federal Court

The Office of Personnel Management (OPM) has come under fire for quietly modifying a key memo after it was used by federal agencies to justify the mass firing of probationary employees. The change, made after widespread backlash and legal challenges, raises concerns about the agency’s transparency and whether it is attempting to shift blame for the abrupt dismissals of thousands of workers.

OPM’s Memo and Its Immediate Impact

The controversy began on January 20, 2025, when OPM issued a memorandum instructing agencies to review their probationary employees—workers who had been in their positions for less than a year. The memo directed agencies to justify retaining these workers, a directive widely interpreted as an instruction to terminate large numbers of probationary employees.

The result was a wave of firings across multiple federal agencies. At least 20,000 probationary employees lost their jobs, including over 1,000 from the Department of Veterans Affairs, which was forced to scale back services such as the Veterans Crisis Line. Other agencies, including the National Nuclear Security Administration, were also affected, raising concerns about national security and public service disruptions.

Legal Challenges and Judicial Intervention

As reports of mass firings surfaced, legal challenges quickly followed. In response to a lawsuit filed against the administration, U.S. District Judge William Alsup issued a temporary restraining order halting further terminations. He criticized OPM’s directive as overreaching, arguing that the agency did not have the legal authority to mandate such widespread firings across multiple departments.

Judge Alsup further noted that the terminations had already caused significant disruptions to essential services. His ruling cast doubt on the legality of the directive and forced the administration to defend its actions in court.

“The Office of Personnel Management does not have any authority whatsoever under any statute in the history of the universe to hire and fire employees at another agency,” Alsup said.

OPM Quietly Modifies Memo

As legal pressure mounted, OPM retroactively edited the original memorandum to add a clarification: it had not explicitly ordered agencies to terminate probationary employees based on performance. This change, however, came after thousands had already been dismissed, leading critics to question whether the agency was attempting to rewrite history to avoid responsibility.

The modification was made without a formal announcement, further fueling accusations of a lack of transparency. Agencies that had already acted on the original guidance were left with little recourse, and thousands of federal workers remained unemployed.

Backlash from Federal Workers and Unions

The retroactive change has done little to calm the outrage among federal workers and employee unions. Many argue that OPM’s failure to clearly communicate its intentions led to unnecessary and damaging firings. The National Federation of Federal Employees and other labor groups have condemned the agency’s handling of the situation, calling for reinstatements and stronger protections for probationary employees.

“This is an unacceptable attempt to cover up a reckless decision,” said one union representative. “Thousands of people lost their jobs based on unclear guidance, and now OPM is trying to pretend it never meant for that to happen.”

A Pattern of Governance by Retraction?

Critics argue that this incident is part of a broader pattern within the administration—implementing controversial policies only to walk them back or revise them when faced with backlash. The retroactive alteration of the memo raises serious concerns about accountability and whether the administration is making major workforce decisions without fully considering their consequences.

Legal experts have also pointed out that retroactively editing an official memo does not erase the real-world impact of its initial wording. “Regardless of what the memo says now, the fact remains that agencies understood it as a directive to terminate employees,” said one employment law expert. “The damage has already been done.”

Calls for Oversight and Reform

The fallout from OPM’s handling of the firings has led to calls for greater oversight. Members of Congress have demanded hearings to investigate the agency’s role in the terminations and its subsequent attempt to modify the record. Some lawmakers are also pushing for legislation that would prevent agencies from retroactively altering policy documents without public notice.

“We cannot allow government agencies to rewrite history to avoid accountability,” said one congressional leader. “The American people deserve transparency, especially when thousands of livelihoods are at stake.”

What Comes Next?

With legal battles still ongoing and federal agencies struggling to manage the disruptions caused by the firings, the long-term impact of this controversy remains unclear. Judge Alsup’s temporary restraining order has stopped further terminations for now, but it does not automatically reinstate those already dismissed.

For the thousands of former federal employees caught in the middle, the administration’s backtracking offers little comfort. Whether OPM’s retroactive modification will be enough to shield it from further legal and political fallout remains to be seen.

In the meantime, the controversy serves as a stark reminder of the consequences of unclear, hastily executed workforce policies—and the dangers of governing by retraction.