Federal workers found themselves at the center of a constitutional and political firestorm this week after the American Federation of Government Employees (AFGE) filed suit against the U.S. Department of Education and Secretary Linda McMahon. The union, representing nearly 800,000 federal employees, alleges that the department violated workers’ First Amendment rights by unilaterally changing their out-of-office email responses to blame Senate Democrats for the ongoing government shutdown—messages that, for many, felt like a personal affront and a forced political statement.
According to AFGE’s complaint, filed on October 3, 2025, in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia, the Education Department replaced employees’ automatic replies with partisan language, without notice or consent. The new messages, written in the first person, made it appear as if individual federal workers were personally accusing one political party of causing the shutdown. One such message read: “Thank you for contacting me. On September 19, 2025, the House of Representatives passed H.R. 5371, a clean continuing resolution. Unfortunately, Democrat Senators are blocking passage of H.R. 5371 in the Senate which has led to a lapse in appropriations. Due to the lapse in appropriations, I am currently in furlough status. I will respond to emails once government functions resume.”
For employees, the situation was more than just an inconvenience. “Those were not my words,” one Education Department staffer told Federal News Network, after discovering the altered message on their account. Efforts to restore neutral, nonpartisan language were reportedly futile, as the partisan messages reappeared automatically. In its legal filing, AFGE argues that this amounts to “government-compelled speech,” a direct violation of federal workers’ First Amendment rights, and a dangerous precedent for all civil servants.
AFGE National President Everett Kelley did not mince words in his criticism: “Federal employees already are suffering financially by going without a salary due to this politically motivated government shutdown. Now the administration has directly and deliberately violated the First Amendment rights of furloughed workers at the Department of Education by replacing their out-of-office email messages with partisan political language without the employees’ consent.”
The complaint points to a broader pattern across the federal government. Screenshots from other agencies—the Departments of Justice, State, Treasury, and Agriculture—show shutdown notices on official websites using phrases like “Radical Left” and “Democrat-led,” a move AFGE describes as a “whole-of-government approach to partisan messaging.” The Department of Housing and Urban Development, for example, posted a banner declaring, “The Radical Left in Congress shut down the government. HUD will use available resources to help Americans in need.” The Centers for Disease Control blamed the “Democrat-led government shutdown,” while the Drug Enforcement Agency and Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms simply stated, “Democrats have shut down the government.”
Such overtly political messaging on official government channels has drawn fierce criticism and legal scrutiny. Skye Perryman, president and CEO of Democracy Forward, which is representing AFGE alongside the Public Citizen Litigation Group, called the administration’s actions “a blatant violation of First Amendment rights.” She added, “Posting messages without consent to broadcast messages on behalf of a partisan agenda is a blatant violation of First Amendment rights. Even for an administration that has repeatedly demonstrated a complete lack of respect for the Constitution and rule of law, this is beyond outrageous.”
Public Citizen’s Cormac Early echoed this sentiment: “It is profoundly offensive for the government to commandeer federal employees’ voices for partisan purposes. Government workers have a First Amendment right not to be conscripted as political mouthpieces against their will.”
The partisan messages were not limited to email. On October 1, 2025, many agencies sent an email to federal workers stating that “President Trump opposes a government shutdown” and “strongly supports” a House-passed continuing resolution that would keep agencies funded through November 21, 2025. The email blamed Democrats for blocking the measure in the Senate. The Agriculture Department’s website displayed a banner stating, “due to the Radical Left Democrat shutdown, this government website will not be updated during the funding lapse,” while the Treasury Department’s website accused “the radical left” of shutting down the government “in the name of reckless spending and obstructionism.”
In response to mounting legal and ethical concerns, AFGE sent a cease-and-desist letter to the Education Department before filing suit, demanding restoration of the original, nonpartisan out-of-office language and an end to the modifications. The union is now asking the court to immediately halt the practice and declare it unconstitutional. The complaint describes the situation as “flagrant unlawfulness” and a “mockery” of the Hatch Act, a 1939 law designed to ensure that federal programs are administered in a nonpartisan way and to protect federal employees from political coercion in the workplace.
The Hatch Act, as explained by the U.S. Office of Special Counsel, prohibits federal employees from using their official authority or government resources to engage in partisan political activity. The law’s reach is broad, covering nearly all federal civilian executive branch employees, including those on furlough. Violations can result in disciplinary action, including removal from federal service, suspension, or civil penalties.
Legal experts and lawmakers have taken notice. Rep. Robert Garcia, the ranking member of the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee, on October 2, 2025, formally requested that the Office of Special Counsel investigate the messages for potential Hatch Act violations. “I write regarding the Trump Administration’s apparent violations of the Hatch Act, and illegal use of government resources to promote a false, partisan Republican political agenda. We believe that violations of the Hatch Act fit a pattern of abuse and politicization of executive branch agencies, which we will investigate fully,” Garcia stated. Public Citizen, meanwhile, has filed multiple Hatch Act violation complaints, with government ethics expert Craig Holman asserting, “The Trump administration is violating the Hatch Act with reckless abandon—using taxpayer dollars to plaster partisan screeds on every government homepage that they can get their hands on.”
For its part, the Education Department has defended the language used in the email messages. Madi Biedermann, the agency’s deputy assistant secretary for communications, said in a statement to Federal News Network: “The email reminds those who reach out to Department of Education employees that we cannot respond because Senate Democrats are refusing to vote for a clean CR and fund the government. Where’s the lie?”
Housing Secretary Scott Turner, too, brushed off criticism, calling it an effort by “Democrats and the far left” to distract from their “irresponsible actions.”
The government shutdown itself was triggered by a legislative standoff. On September 19, 2025, the House passed H.R. 5371, a Republican-backed continuing resolution to fund the government through November 21, 2025, but the bill failed in the Senate, where Republicans needed 60 votes to advance the measure. A separate Senate bill to restore health care subsidies cut by the administration’s “Big, Beautiful Bill” also failed, deepening the partisan divide. As a result, the federal government partially shut down after midnight on October 1, 2025, furloughing thousands of workers—including about 87% of Education Department staff—and leaving only a skeleton crew in critical offices like Federal Student Aid.
As the legal and political battle rages on, the outcome of AFGE’s lawsuit could have far-reaching implications for the boundaries between government authority, employee rights, and political messaging in the federal workplace. For now, federal workers remain caught in the crossfire, their voices commandeered in a fight that is as much about principle as it is about politics.
