On a brisk October morning in Washington, D.C., the corridors of power buzzed with more anxiety than usual. The federal government had been shut down for over two weeks, leaving agencies in limbo and employees uncertain about their futures. The latest flashpoint: the Trump administration’s plans for sweeping layoffs at the Department of the Interior, a move that’s ignited a fierce legal and political battle.
According to NPR, unions representing federal workers sounded the alarm this week, claiming the White House was forging ahead with mass firings at the Interior Department—despite a court order putting layoffs on ice. The American Federation of Government Employees and the American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees, among the nation’s largest unions, have taken the Trump administration to court, alleging the so-called "politically driven RIFs" (reductions in force) violate both the law and the court’s explicit directives.
On October 16, 2025, U.S. District Judge Susan Illston stepped into the fray. She granted a temporary restraining order halting the October 10 layoff notices and preventing new firings until a hearing on a permanent injunction could be held on October 28. In her pointed remarks during the Wednesday hearing, Judge Illston criticized the administration’s approach, describing it as "ready, fire, aim." She accused officials of trying to exploit the government funding lapse, saying they seemed to believe "that all bets are off, that the laws don't apply to them anymore, and that they can impose the structures that they like on a government situation that they don't like."
The legal wrangling took a dramatic turn late Thursday, when plaintiffs’ attorney Danielle Leonard filed a declaration with the court. Leonard wrote that "multiple credible sources" had informed her that the Interior Department was actively preparing to lay off thousands of employees starting Monday, October 20. "This immediately raised concerns regarding compliance with this Court's order," Leonard stated, according to NPR. The unions’ attorneys pressed government lawyers for answers, and the Justice Department replied that "consistent with the Court's order, we will produce the required information tomorrow."
Judge Illston wasted no time. She moved up the government’s deadline to account for all RIFs—actual or imminent—that were covered by her temporary restraining order. By 2 p.m. Eastern Time on Friday, October 17, the government was ordered to provide details on the number of employees affected and a description of the programs and activities targeted for cuts.
Earlier in the week, the Trump administration had told the court that federal agencies had already begun the RIF process at eight different agencies, affecting just over 4,000 people. Yet, the numbers were in flux. The administration admitted that about 800 employees in the Department of Health and Human Services had been erroneously issued layoff notices—a sign, perhaps, of the chaos and confusion swirling around the shutdown’s human toll.
Stephen Billy, a senior advisor at the Office of Management and Budget, tried to capture the moment’s uncertainty. He emphasized in a declaration that "the situation… is fluid and rapidly evolving." That was putting it mildly. As of August 2025, the Office of Personnel Management had reported that roughly 300,000 federal workers would be gone from government by year’s end, with 80% of those departures voluntary. Still, that left about 60,000 workers facing involuntary separation even before the shutdown began. Another 154,000 employees had accepted the Trump administration’s "Fork in the Road" buyout offer, with many telling NPR they feared they’d be fired if they didn’t take the deal.
OMB Director Russ Vought added to the sense of impending upheaval, telling reporters on October 15 that "close to 10,000 people could receive layoff notices during the shutdown," just before Judge Illston blocked the firing plans from taking effect. The White House, meanwhile, has insisted its hands are tied. On Thursday, White House press secretary Karoline Leavitt lashed out at Judge Illston, calling her "another far left, partisan judge." Leavitt told reporters that the administration was confident its actions were legal and described the layoffs as "an unfortunate consequence" of the government shutdown.
The clash is more than just a bureaucratic tussle—it’s a high-stakes fight over the future of the federal workforce and the government’s obligations during a shutdown. The unions argue that the administration’s actions are not only illegal but also deeply destabilizing for workers and the public alike. They contend that the so-called RIFs are being used as a political weapon, targeting agencies and employees seen as obstacles to the administration’s agenda.
The Trump administration, for its part, has tried to frame the layoffs as a regrettable but necessary response to the budget impasse. Officials argue that with funding frozen, agencies have no choice but to pare back their operations and staff. Yet, critics point to the administration’s aggressive posture and the sheer scale of the planned cuts as evidence of a broader strategy to shrink the federal workforce—shutdown or not.
For the thousands of federal employees caught in the crossfire, the stakes couldn’t be higher. Many have already endured weeks without pay, and now face the prospect of losing their jobs altogether. The uncertainty is compounded by the shifting legal landscape, with the court’s temporary restraining order offering only a brief reprieve. As one union leader told NPR, "Our members are living in limbo. They don’t know if they’ll have a job tomorrow, next week, or next month."
The broader context is equally sobering. The government shutdown—now stretching into its third week—has disrupted everything from national parks to scientific research, food assistance programs to passport processing. The ripple effects are being felt across the country, with federal contractors, local businesses, and entire communities suffering collateral damage.
As the October 28 hearing on a permanent injunction approaches, all eyes are on Judge Illston’s courtroom. Will the court step in to halt the layoffs for good, or will the administration be allowed to proceed? The answer could shape not only the fate of thousands of workers, but also the balance of power between the executive branch, the courts, and the federal workforce itself.
For now, the only certainty is uncertainty. As Stephen Billy of the OMB put it, the situation is "fluid and rapidly evolving"—and for those living through it, that’s little comfort. The coming days will reveal whether the rule of law or the force of political will prevails in this latest chapter of America’s ongoing government shutdown saga.
