A U.S. District Court judge in California has issued a temporary block on President Donald Trump’s controversial plan to implement mass layoffs across the federal government. Judge Susan Illston granted a two-week restraining order on Friday, stating that the Trump administration likely needs congressional approval before proceeding with such sweeping workforce reductions.
“The Court holds the President likely must request Congressional cooperation to order the changes he seeks,” Illston wrote. The order halts further implementation of an executive directive issued by Trump in February that aims to downsize the federal workforce under the guidance of the newly created Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE), headed by tech billionaire Elon Musk.
The executive order, dated February 11, calls for a “critical transformation of the Federal bureaucracy,” instructing agencies to terminate employees not deemed essential. The move has been met with intense backlash from labor unions, non-profits, and local governments who argue that the administration is exceeding its authority.
Last week, a coalition led by the American Federation of Government Employees (AFGE) filed a lawsuit against Trump, DOGE, and federal agencies including the Office of Management and Budget (OMB). They argue that the large-scale reductions were undertaken without the constitutionally required approval of Congress and have already caused widespread disruption in public services.
“The Trump administration’s unlawful attempt to reorganize the federal government has thrown agencies into chaos,” the coalition said in a joint statement, welcoming the judge’s decision. “Laying off federal employees and reorganizing government functions haphazardly does not improve efficiency.”
Since returning to the White House in January, Trump has swiftly pursued a radical reshaping of the federal government, targeting programs such as USAID, diversity initiatives, and regulatory offices. While his administration argues that these changes are necessary to streamline government functions, critics warn that the approach is reckless and politically motivated.
This legal setback follows a series of judicial challenges to Trump’s agenda, including rulings that have stalled his immigration policies and efforts to reshape federal spending. The case is likely to continue as courts determine whether the administration can proceed without legislative involvement.
