Dr. Gleb Tsipursky – The Office Whisperer
Nirit Cohen – WorkFutures
Angela Howard – Culture Expert
Drew Jones – Design & Innovation
Jonathan Price – CRE & Flex Expert
A federal appeals court has ruled that the Trump administration must share internal workforce reduction plans with federal employee unions challenging large-scale government layoffs.
The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals held that the administration cannot withhold agency-level reduction-in-force and reorganization plans from unions that argue the cuts exceed executive authority, according to Human Resources Director.Â
Executive Order at the Center of the Dispute
The case traces back to Executive Order 14210, signed early in President Trump’s term, directing federal agencies to prepare for significant workforce reductions. Labor unions and advocacy groups quickly sued, asserting the order pushed agencies beyond legal limits governing staffing, reorganization, and statutory duties.
As the lawsuit moved forward, the dispute narrowed to a key issue: whether unions could access the internal documents outlining how agencies planned to carry out the reductions.
What the Plans Contain
The contested documents were submitted by agencies to the Office of Management and Budget and the Office of Personnel Management. They detail proposed job eliminations, office consolidations, automation initiatives, and potential closures of field locations.
They also include agency assessments of which functions are legally required and which could be eliminated, along with strategies to reduce management layers, remove duplicative roles, and limit reliance on contractors and consultants.
Government Argues for Confidentiality
Administration lawyers maintained the documents were protected deliberative materials, arguing disclosure would undermine candid internal discussions and weaken executive branch decision-making. They asked the appeals court to block a lower court order requiring the plans to be shared.
Court Finds Protections Don’t Apply
The appellate panel rejected that argument. While acknowledging such documents are often privileged, the majority noted that workforce reductions were already underway at roughly 40 locations across 17 agencies. If the plans were merely preliminary, the court reasoned, it was unclear what agencies were relying on as they implemented cuts.
Because the reorganization efforts were actively being carried out, the judges concluded the deliberative privilege did not shield the documents in this case.
Scope and Dissent
The ruling applies to 21 federal agencies, including the Departments of Defense, Health and Human Services, Homeland Security, and Veterans Affairs. It also covers the Department of Government Efficiency, the newly created agency tasked with streamlining operations and led by Elon Musk.
One judge dissented, warning the decision weakens constitutional protections for executive deliberation. Several others supported rehearing the case, arguing the ruling could allow challengers to demand internal planning records simply by disputing an administration’s legal authority.
Supreme Court’s Earlier Involvement
The Supreme Court previously intervened in an earlier stage of the case, blocking a preliminary injunction that would have halted workforce planning altogether. The Court signaled that the executive order itself was likely lawful but did not rule on whether specific agency reduction plans comply with the law.
More stories for you
What Happens Next
The case now returns to the district court, where the document production will proceed under a protective order limiting access to the unions, government lawyers, and the judge. The plans will not be made public for now.
While the broader legal challenge continues, the immediate outcome is clear: unions will be able to review the administration’s workforce reduction strategies as they prepare their case.
