In a turbulent summer for American workers, the landscape of federal employment and workplace rights has been dramatically reshaped by a series of aggressive actions from the Trump administration. As September looms, the effects of these policies—ranging from mass layoffs and union contract terminations to the looming specter of artificial intelligence in the workplace—are reverberating across the nation, leaving uncertainty, anxiety, and fierce debate in their wake.
At the heart of the upheaval is President Donald Trump’s sweeping effort to shrink the federal workforce, a campaign that has unfolded with both speed and secrecy. According to The New York Times, the administration is on track to shed about 300,000 federal employees by the end of September 2025, a staggering 12.5% reduction from the 4.4 million workers on the federal payroll at the start of Trump’s term. Office of Personnel Management (OPM) Director Scott Kupor told The Times that most of these reductions have come from voluntary buyouts rather than firings, a point he reiterated to Reuters earlier in the month. “There’s still some moving parts there,” Kupor said, adding, “My gut is — I don’t think there’s going to be meaningful changes, kind of through Sept. 30, relative to at least what’s been forecast to date.”
But the precise scope and nature of these workforce reductions remain shrouded in ambiguity. In a hearing before the US Circuit Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit on August 21, 2025, Justice Department attorneys sidestepped direct questions about how many people had been fired from specific agencies under a Trump executive order. As Bloomberg Tax reported, Judge William Fletcher pressed DOJ lawyers for clarity, remarking, “I don’t think the legal theory is very much in question. What’s in question is what is actually happening.” Despite the administration’s estimate of 40 layoff plans across 17 agencies as of July, the true tally of individual employees affected is still a moving target, complicated by agencies revising their plans and the blurry lines of authority between OPM and individual departments.
The consequences of these reductions are being felt on the ground. Sandia National Laboratories, a pillar of America’s nuclear research infrastructure, announced in June that 1% to 3% of its nearly 17,000 employees would be cut. On August 25, Director Laura McGill told lawmakers in Albuquerque that layoffs—about 400 in total—would be completed by October, with no further job losses anticipated. Most of those affected held support positions such as administrative and planning roles, rather than technical or contract work tied to the Department of Defense or the National Nuclear Security Administration (NNSA). “We continue to support all our employees. We just believe in belonging,” McGill told Source NM, emphasizing that Sandia expects stable or increased federal funding for its nuclear weapons work, despite broader cuts to science grants under the Trump administration. The NNSA, for its part, received a $6 billion budget increase, and contracts with the agency now account for more than 60% of Sandia’s activities.
Yet the Trump administration’s impact on the federal workforce extends well beyond layoffs. On August 22, the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) terminated union contracts at more than half a dozen agency subcomponents, implementing President Trump’s executive order to strip collective bargaining rights from two-thirds of the federal workforce. The move, reported by The Hill, contradicts OPM guidance that advised agencies not to terminate collective bargaining agreements while litigation is ongoing—except in the case of the National Treasury Employees Union (NTEU). The affected agencies include the Food and Drug Administration, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, and the National Institutes of Health, among others. HHS spokesman Andrew Nixon stated, “By implementing President Trump’s Executive Order 14251, HHS is removing unnecessary obstacles to mission-critical work and space previously used for union activities. This change strengthens our ability to respond rapidly to public health threats, advance national security and deliver results for the American taxpayer.”
Union leaders, however, see the administration’s actions as a direct attack on worker protections and the public health system. Yolanda Jacobs, president of AFGE Local 2883 representing CDC workers, condemned the move, especially in light of a recent armed attack on the CDC’s Atlanta headquarters. “After canceling union contracts less than two weeks after a targeted attack on CDC staff that resulted in the tragic loss of a brave police officer, HHS is moving forward with the illegal firings of hundreds of CDC employees—many of whom the very public health professionals the nation depends on in a crisis,” she said. Michael Niemeier-Walsh, vice president of AFGE Local 3840, was equally defiant: “Whether or not HHS recognizes us on paper, we will continue standing together, side-by-side as coworkers, to defend our rights and the nation’s health.”
The administration’s aggressive approach to labor relations has not gone unnoticed by the judiciary. In the Ninth Circuit, judges have repeatedly expressed frustration with the government’s reluctance to provide clear answers about the extent and mechanics of the layoffs. Judge Johnnie Rawlinson asked pointedly, “What are the agencies doing under the executive order?” DOJ attorney Maxwell Baldi responded vaguely, “Some agencies are, I believe, proceeding with plans to reduce their staffing levels, and others are not.”
Against this backdrop, state legislatures are grappling with the rapid rise of artificial intelligence in the workplace—another front in the battle over worker rights and job security. California’s Senate Bill 7 (SB 7), now awaiting review by the Assembly Appropriations Committee, would restrict employers from relying primarily on automated decision systems to fire or discipline workers. The bill would also require employers to notify workers about electronic surveillance and algorithmic management tools, and give them the right to appeal disciplinary decisions for human review. “Workers should have the right to know which systems their employer is using, and they have the right to expect that it’s a human, not an algorithm, that is making critical decisions impacting their economic future,” said Annette Bernhardt of the UC Berkeley Labor Center, as reported by Bloomberg Tax.
Yet the bill faces steep opposition from the tech industry, which argues that such regulations could increase costs and stifle innovation. Niloy Ray, an attorney advising companies on AI use, acknowledged, “SB 7 is getting us closer to common sense and feasible regulation. It’s not there yet though.” Meanwhile, other states—most notably Colorado—have passed sweeping AI workplace laws, though revisions or delays are now under consideration.
As the Trump administration’s workforce policies continue to sow uncertainty and legal wrangling, one thing is clear: the American workplace is undergoing a transformation whose consequences will be felt for years to come. Whether these changes will ultimately strengthen national security and efficiency, as the administration claims, or undermine the rights and stability of workers, as many critics warn, remains a question that only time—and perhaps the courts—will answer.
