Two major labor disputes erupted this week, one at the heart of the federal government and another within the media industry, both raising urgent questions about worker rights, political loyalty, and the future of American workplaces. On November 6, 2025, three of the largest unions representing federal employees filed a lawsuit against the Trump administration, challenging a controversial new essay question on thousands of federal job applications. That same day, media giant Condé Nast filed a complaint with the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) against the NewsGuild of New York, following a wave of firings after employees protested layoffs and restructuring at Teen Vogue.
At the center of the federal lawsuit are the American Federation of Government Employees, American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees, and National Association of Government Employees. According to Federal News Network, these unions allege that the administration’s new “loyalty question” undermines the nonpartisan foundation of civil service hiring. The question, which appears under the administration’s Merit Hiring Plan, asks candidates how they would “advance the president’s executive orders and policy priorities,” and to name “one or two executive orders or policy initiatives that are significant to you,” as well as how they would help implement them if hired.
The unions’ complaint, filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts, argues that this requirement forces job applicants to profess political support, or at least feign it, in order to secure federal employment. The lawsuit states, “Potential federal job applicants who want to serve the United States but do not personally support the president’s executive orders and policy initiatives — or simply prefer not to share their political beliefs and views when applying for a career federal job — will be compelled to speak in the form of a written essay praising the President’s orders and policies (in order to better their chances of employment), risk being punished for answering honestly, or be chilled from speaking at all.”
The unions are seeking a court order to prevent the Trump administration from using the so-called loyalty question in any federal hiring decisions, or from relying on applicants’ answers in any way. They contend that the question violates free speech rights by compelling applicants to voice certain viewpoints, self-censor, or simply not apply for jobs they might otherwise seek. The complaint further claims that the policy is “by design,” asserting, “The current administration has a stated goal of removing civil servants it deems to be disloyal and replacing them with loyalists.”
Another dimension of the lawsuit is its claim that the question violates the Privacy Act by collecting information about applicants’ political beliefs—information that is irrelevant to their ability to perform government work. The unions point out that the Education Department, after laying off about half its staff through layoffs and voluntary departures this year, reposted many of the same jobs, but with the new essay requirement. The complaint notes, “In order to even attempt to recover their old jobs, civil servants must subject themselves to the loyalty question, regardless of their political beliefs, or remain out of work.”
The Trump administration, for its part, defends the Merit Hiring Plan, which it unveiled in May 2025, as a way to ensure “only the most talented, capable and patriotic Americans are hired to the federal service.” The Office of Personnel Management (OPM) issued guidance stating that the essay is optional for candidates, and that applicants will not be disqualified for skipping it. However, OPM also instructed agencies that it is “mandatory” to include the question on job applications, and that answers “will be reviewed” by hiring managers and political appointees. The unions argue that, despite assurances, the question “will play some unknown and unspecified role in the hiring process,” asking pointedly, “Of course the loyalty question will play some role in hiring: otherwise, why include it at all?”
To date, the essay question has appeared on more than 5,800 federal job applications, with 1,700 posted since the start of the current government shutdown—the longest in U.S. history as of November 7, 2025. The question appears on postings for a wide range of jobs, from meatcutting workers at the Defense Department to research biologists at the Agriculture Department and laundry workers at the Department of Veterans Affairs. The unions emphasize that “an applicant’s ability to perform these and other career civil service roles competently is entirely unrelated to the applicant’s personal political views.”
Union leaders have been vocal in their condemnation. Everett Kelley, National President of the American Federation of Government Employees, stated, “Forcing job applicants to answer politically motivated questions comes straight from the Project 2025 playbook, which aims to replace dedicated, nonpartisan public servants with workers chosen for their political loyalty rather than their qualifications or their oath to uphold the Constitution.” Lee Saunders, President of AFSCME, accused the administration of wanting “to push them out and replace experienced public service workers with cronies who will blindly follow orders.” David J. Holway, President of NAGE, described the changes as “a direct assault on that legacy and on every public servant’s oath to uphold the Constitution.”
Meanwhile, a parallel battle is playing out in the media industry. Semafor first reported that Condé Nast, the publisher behind iconic magazines like Vogue and The New Yorker, filed a complaint with the NLRB against the NewsGuild of New York after firing four employees who confronted the company’s head of human resources, Stan Duncan, over layoffs and the folding of Teen Vogue into Vogue. The restructuring resulted in the dismissal of Teen Vogue’s editor in chief and six unionized staffers. The four fired employees—Jasper Lo, Jake Lahut, Alma Avalle, and Ben Dewey—were among about 20 who challenged company leadership over the changes.
Condé Nast accused the NewsGuild of “repeated and egregious disregard of our collective bargaining agreement,” and justified the firings by citing “aggressive, disruptive, and threatening behavior.” In a statement, the company said, “Extreme misconduct is unacceptable in any professional setting. This includes aggressive, disruptive, and threatening behavior of any kind. We have a responsibility to provide a workplace where every employee feels respected and able to do their job without harassment or intimidation. We also cannot ignore behavior that crosses the line into targeted harassment and disruption of business operations.”
The NewsGuild, which oversees the Condé United union, fired back, calling the dismissals a “flagrant” violation of the contract’s just-cause protections, which require formal disciplinary proceedings rather than at-will terminations. The union also claims the firings violate members’ rights to collective action. NewsGuild President Susan DeCarava was blunt in her condemnation: “The NewsGuild of New York has zero tolerance for bad bosses who harass, target and disrespect our fellow Guild members. We represent nearly 6,000 media workers across the tri-state area and we stand firmly in solidarity, ready to fight for the rights of our members illegally fired from their jobs at Conde.”
DeCarava further charged that Condé Nast’s actions amounted to “union-busting, using intimidation and grossly illegal tactics to try to suppress protected union activity.” The NewsGuild contends that Condé Nast’s management is attempting to “intimidate and silence our members’ advocacy for the courageous cultural and political journalism of Teen Vogue, as well as diverting attention away from the obvious lack of corporate leadership at the company.”
Both disputes—one in government, one in media—underscore the simmering tensions over worker rights, political loyalty, and the boundaries of employer power in 2025. As these cases wind their way through the courts and regulatory bodies, the outcomes could set precedents that shape the American workplace for years to come.
