In a story that has sparked fierce debate over free speech, labor rights, and the boundaries of federal employment, a Boston-based government worker is fighting to keep her job after publicly raising concerns about the impact of the recent government shutdown on food assistance programs. Ellen Mei, a 29-year-old support specialist at the Food and Nutrition Service (FNS) and president of the National Treasury Employees Union’s Chapter 255, now finds herself at the center of a clash between the Trump administration’s policies and the rights of public servants to speak out.
Mei’s ordeal began on October 2, 2025, just two days into what would become a record 43-day government shutdown. Appearing on MSNBC, Mei discussed the looming threat to the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP), which provides vital food benefits to millions of Americans. During the interview, she made it clear she was speaking as a private citizen and as the head of her union, not as an official spokesperson for the USDA. "I have a duty as a chapter president to represent the views of my coworkers, and I have a duty and a right to do so under the federal labor management statute," Mei said, according to MSNBC.
But her candor drew swift and severe consequences. The very next day, October 3, Mei received a Notice of Proposed Removal from the USDA, citing unauthorized disclosure of information and representing the agency without proper authorization. According to documentation obtained by The Washington Post, the agency’s letter stated she would be terminated 30 days after the shutdown ended, unless she successfully contested the dismissal.
Mei, who works out of the Tip O’Neill Federal Building in Boston and resides in Cambridge, has not taken the threat to her employment lightly. She is currently on paid administrative leave, but the clock is ticking: she has 20 days after the shutdown’s conclusion to launch a formal appeal. At a press conference held on November 14, Mei defended her actions, stating, "This press conference today isn’t just about getting me my job back. It isn’t just about defending federal workers. It’s about speaking up against the administration’s attempt to stifle all voices who they can’t fully control and to make sure that FNS, the agency that I work for, can continue its mission to increase food security and reduce hunger in a manner that inspires public confidence."
Her supporters have rallied to her side, framing the proposed firing as a clear violation of the First Amendment and federal labor laws that protect union representatives. U.S. Rep. Ayanna Pressley and Sen. Ed Markey, both Democrats representing Massachusetts, have been especially vocal. In a letter to USDA Secretary Brooke Rollins, they wrote, "Ms. Mei exercised her constitutionally guaranteed right to free speech to share her lived experience during a nationally televised interview." Their letter demanded that the Notice of Proposed Removal be rescinded and Mei’s job reinstated, calling the move "unlawful and retaliatory" and arguing that it came during a shutdown in which the administration "weaponized critical food security programs, refused to fund SNAP, and let families go hungry," as reported by MassLive.
Pressley did not mince words at the rally, stating, "I just wish we had a president and a cabinet as committed to the mission of their agencies as the workers they so fervently try to purge. They want a citizenry that is ignorant and uninformed, that is indifferent to the suffering of its neighbors, that is inactive. And every time we push back, we reject their dark vision for this country as an inevitability." Markey was equally forceful, describing the administration’s actions as "the greatest single act of union busting in modern American history" and warning, "Trump treats working people as political pawns, but a public servant trying to make their mortgage or pay for their kid’s medicine is not a game that should be played in our country."
The USDA has remained largely silent on the specifics of Mei’s case, issuing only a general statement to MassLive and other outlets: "During a lapse in appropriations, furloughed USDA employees are not authorized to perform any official duties, including speaking on behalf of the Department. The USDA does not comment on individual personnel matters." The agency’s position, echoed in communications with The Boston Globe, is that Mei’s comments breached policy by disclosing information about SNAP funding and November benefits before it was made public, and that she further blurred the line between her union role and her official duties by referencing back pay for furloughed workers.
Mei’s case is not an isolated incident. Lane To, a former Environmental Protection Agency employee, was one of 15 workers terminated in September for signing a letter of dissent against the administration’s environmental policies. To called Mei’s situation "illegal retaliation," telling reporters, "Federal workers are the first line of defense against an authoritarian government, and this administration knows that. That is why they’re trying to silence us. But we will not be silenced."
The broader implications of Mei’s situation have not gone unnoticed. Labor advocates argue that her firing could set a chilling precedent for federal workers nationwide, deterring them from speaking out about agency practices or advocating for their colleagues. The union representing Mei and her coworkers has pledged to contest the termination and pursue legal action if necessary, emphasizing that federal labor law protects the right of union leaders to communicate with the public on matters affecting their members.
Meanwhile, the practical effects of the shutdown continue to ripple outward. Although President Donald Trump signed a government funding bill on November 13, officially ending the historic 43-day shutdown, state leaders are scrambling to ensure that full SNAP benefits are restored to millions of Americans. According to the Associated Press, it could take up to a week for some recipients to receive their delayed aid, underscoring the real-world stakes of the debate that Mei brought to light.
As the deadline for Mei’s appeal approaches, her case has become a flashpoint in the ongoing struggle over the rights of federal employees, the limits of executive power, and the role of public service in a polarized political climate. Whether Mei is ultimately reinstated or dismissed, her willingness to speak out—and the groundswell of support she has received—has already left a mark on the conversation about transparency, accountability, and the value of dissent in American government.
