Trump administration workforce cuts affected far more agencies than the six covered by a March 2025 court order concerning fired probationary employees. That California order called for reinstatements at six departments, but the Supreme Court paused it on April 8, 2025. A separate Maryland case had a different remedy and reach. Later litigation over broad agency reduction plans and a proposed FEMA staffing cut followed separate paths.
Which agencies were named in the March 2025 reinstatement order?
On March 13, 2025, U.S. District Judge William Alsup issued a preliminary injunction concerning the mass termination of probationary federal employees. Washington State’s attorney general said the judge found that the Office of Personnel Management lacked authority to order the terminations. The order identified six agencies for reinstatement:
- Department of Agriculture
- Department of Defense
- Department of Veterans Affairs
- Department of Energy
- Department of the Interior
- Department of the Treasury
These were the agencies covered by that specific California case, not a complete list of agencies affected by the administration’s broader workforce-reduction effort. Roll Call reported on April 8, 2025, that the order covered 16,000 fired probationary workers. That figure describes the workers covered by the California order as Roll Call reported it; it is not a total for all federal layoffs.
How did the separate Maryland case differ?
In a separate case, U.S. District Judge James Bredar narrowed his ruling to workers in the 19 states and Washington, D.C., that had sued. The Associated Press reported on April 2, 2025, that the ruling also required 20 agencies to follow the law in future reductions in force. Bredar wrote, “Only states have sued here, and only to vindicate their interests as states,” adding that the states “are not proxies for the workers.”
What’s actually slowing this PC down?
Pick the symptom - the matching free tool is one click away.
#1 Best Overall
The Maryland lawsuit alleged that at least 24,000 probationary employees had been terminated since Trump took office. That is an allegation reported by the AP, not an independently verified total. The figure is not interchangeable with Roll Call’s 16,000 figure for workers covered by the California order: the cases had different plaintiffs, remedies, and reported populations. The AP said the federal government was appealing the Maryland ruling. It reported that the ruling remained in effect when the Supreme Court paused the California order on April 8, 2025; that dated account does not establish the Maryland case’s later status.
Where did the broader reduction effort reach?
The administration’s wider workforce-reduction effort extended beyond the six departments in Alsup’s order. The Ninth Circuit’s September 19, 2025, opinion described Executive Order 14210, signed February 11, 2025, as directing agencies to commence large-scale reductions in force. Examples of agencies with cuts or reorganizations discussed in the opinion included:
Rank #2
- Social Security Administration
- Environmental Protection Agency
- Department of Labor
- General Services Administration
- Department of Housing and Urban Development
- Department of Health and Human Services
- AmeriCorps
- Small Business Administration
Those are examples named in the court opinion, not an exhaustive list of every agency targeted or affected. In litigation over the broader plans, the Supreme Court stayed an injunction that had blocked further implementation or approval of agency plans based on the district court’s view of the executive order and related memorandum. The Supreme Court expressly did not decide whether individual agency plans were lawful. The Ninth Circuit later vacated the preliminary injunction and sent the case back to the lower court. Neither step amounted to Supreme Court approval of every agency’s specific cuts.
What happened to the orders and plans?
| Development | Scope and action | Reported procedural status |
|---|---|---|
| California probationary-worker case | Six named departments; preliminary injunction concerning reinstatement of fired probationary employees. Roll Call reported 16,000 workers covered. | The Supreme Court paused the order on April 8, 2025, while the case proceeded on appeal. |
| Maryland probationary-worker case | Ruling narrowed to workers in 19 plaintiff states and Washington, D.C.; 20 agencies directed to follow the law in future reductions in force. | The AP reported the federal government was appealing and that the ruling remained in effect on April 8, 2025, when the California order was paused. |
| Broader agency reduction plans | Large-scale plans associated with Executive Order 14210, with examples spanning agencies beyond the six in the California order. | The Supreme Court stayed an injunction against further implementation or approval of plans but did not decide the legality of individual agency plans; the Ninth Circuit vacated the preliminary injunction and remanded in September 2025. |
| Proposed FEMA staffing cut | A separate Department of Homeland Security proposal to reduce FEMA staffing by 50%. | In September 2026, a judge ruled the plan unlawful but did not specify a remedy. The AP reported the proposed 50% cut had not been carried out. |
What did the 2026 FEMA ruling establish?
On September 13, 2026, U.S. District Judge Susan Illston ruled unlawful a proposed Department of Homeland Security plan to cut FEMA staffing by 50%. The Associated Press reported that the judge did not prescribe a specific remedy and that the proposed reduction had not been carried out. Illston wrote of the target, “Frankly, the FEMA staffing plan number appears as if pulled from thin air.” This was a separate agency-specific case, not an extension of the 2025 probationary-worker reinstatement orders.
Rank #3
The AP also reported that more than 4,300 FEMA employees—about 17% of the agency’s workforce—separated during the 2025 budget year. More than 1,500 of those departures were through voluntary reductions, and FEMA made about 2,900 new hires. These figures describe separations and hires reported for that budget year; they do not mean all those employees were fired or were part of the proposed 50% plan. The AP attributed to the Government Accountability Office an August 2026 finding that the 2025 departures led to a “loss of institutional knowledge and experienced personnel” and “exacerbated longstanding workforce challenges.” FEMA, in response, said: “DHS and FEMA are ready for the 2026 hurricane season.”
Independent reader supportYour contribution helps us test, update, and keep practical guides available for everyone.Is there a single total for federal workers affected?
The figures reported for these cases use different populations and describe different events: a court order’s covered workers, an allegation in a separate lawsuit, FEMA departures, voluntary reductions, and new hires. They cannot be added together to produce a reliable total of federal workers affected across agencies and types of separation. The cited reporting and court materials do not establish one comprehensive figure.
Quick Recap
Product prices and availability are accurate as of the date/time indicated and are subject to change. Any price and availability information displayed on Amazon at the time of purchase will apply.
