Maryland Federal Rules Trump Must Rehire Some Federal Workers Let Go By Administraiton

Well, here we go again—another showdown between the Trump administration and the courts, this time over mass firings in the federal workforce. And if you’ve been paying attention, you’ll notice a pattern: every time Trump tries to shake up Washington, the establishment throws up legal roadblocks faster than you can say “deep state.”

Late Thursday, a second federal judge stepped in to halt the administration’s efforts to remove probationary employees across multiple agencies.

This time, it was U.S. District Judge James Bredar in Baltimore, an Obama appointee, who ruled that the firings violated regulations on large-scale layoffs. He ordered the terminations paused for at least two weeks and told agencies to reinstate the workers in the meantime.

This ruling comes on the heels of another from U.S. District Judge William Alsup—appointed by President Clinton—who earlier in the day took issue with how the Trump administration handled the mass terminations.

Alsup found that the Office of Personnel Management (OPM), led by acting director Charles Ezell, lacked the authority to direct firings across six major federal departments, including Veterans Affairs, Agriculture, and Defense. His order? Reinstate the workers immediately and provide a detailed report within seven days explaining how agencies complied.

Now, if you listen to the administration, this isn’t a “mass layoff” at all. Justice Department attorneys argue that these employees were let go based on performance issues—plain and simple. Probationary workers, by definition, aren’t guaranteed long-term employment, and agencies have every right to determine who’s fit to stay. But that’s not how the courts are seeing it, and the administration has already appealed Alsup’s ruling, pushing back against what they see as judicial overreach.

And let’s talk about the numbers for a second. There are roughly 200,000 probationary workers across federal agencies. These aren’t just entry-level hires—they include people who recently earned promotions but still haven’t secured full civil service protections. That means they’re among the most vulnerable when an administration wants to streamline operations.

Unsurprisingly, the backlash has been swift. Unions and labor organizations are crying foul, and nearly two dozen states have sued, claiming the firings are illegal and hurting state governments as they try to assist the newly unemployed. But here’s the question: is this about protecting jobs, or is it just another example of the bureaucracy resisting reform?

Alsup, for his part, seems skeptical of the administration’s reasoning. He had planned to hold an evidentiary hearing on Thursday, but Ezell—the man supposedly at the center of all this—didn’t show up to testify. The government even retracted his written statement, which only added to the judge’s doubts.